the diary

[MayBea]

Correction: According to the 'revolutionary' science of mtDNA, Harry and Cressida Bonas are related to Georgiana Spencer-Churchill, sister of Randolph, so she's related on Winston's father's side, so not the American side.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-05/1178380453

[MayBea]

How hard is it to get a DNA test for Mrs. Barrett/Graham or her daughter to find out if she is part American Revolutionary like Winston Churchill, not to mention Prince Harry and his girlfriend?

http://www.easternbiotech.com/tracin...na-testing.php

For 200 dollars, you can do it yourself. If either's part American, then who else but Florence Maybrick would the ancestor be?

[pinkmoon]

Interesting stuff, hopefully someone will pick up your lead, this avenue of investigation has never been fully followed up (as far as I can see). Odd how they didn't let your brother in on their little secret? Was he new the company or something?

Maybe Pinkmoon knows more than he lets on?

You have to take my word for it that I don't know the true story of the diary what I will say meeting Mr Barrett face to face has led me to form my own theories however I have no proof and I don't think we will ever know the truth.

[Kaz]

I stumbled upon this forum last week and skipped through a few posts and thought I could add something.
My brother was one of three electricians working for Portus and Rhodes on Battlecrease Mansion. Whilst working there at the time he was not aware of a diary being found but he did witness some odd behaviour of the other two.
He would see them talking and they would go quiet when he approached.
He saw them talking in the van and they quickly put something under the seat when he went over. He got a lift into town but had to wait in the van when they stopped at the university and one of them took a package in. He told him it was something to do with his mothers dog had died and he was getting something tested.
A couple of years I later worked with with one of them and asked if he remembered working with my brother on that house, which he did, but then when I mentioned about the stories of a book being found he said he knew nothing of it and what I was telling him was all news to him, which I found a bit strange.
I never met the third electrcian.

Interesting stuff, hopefully someone will pick up your lead, this avenue of investigation has never been fully followed up (as far as I can see). Odd how they didn't let your brother in on their little secret? Was he new the company or something?

Maybe Pinkmoon knows more than he lets on?

[Sparky]

I stumbled upon this forum last week and skipped through a few posts and thought I could add something.
My brother was one of three electricians working for Portus and Rhodes on Battlecrease Mansion. Whilst working there at the time he was not aware of a diary being found but he did witness some odd behaviour of the other two.
He would see them talking and they would go quiet when he approached.
He saw them talking in the van and they quickly put something under the seat when he went over. He got a lift into town but had to wait in the van when they stopped at the university and one of them took a package in. He told him it was something to do with his mothers dog had died and he was getting something tested.
A couple of years I later worked with with one of them and asked if he remembered working with my brother on that house, which he did, but then when I mentioned about the stories of a book being found he said he knew nothing of it and what I was telling him was all news to him, which I found a bit strange.
I never met the third electrcian.

[pinkmoon]

Kaz,

I don't know if you've read Paul Feldman's book, but in it he specifically states that an electrician, possibly two electricians, told him they found something of interest in a skip and took it to Liverpool University for examination. Feldman contacted the University who confirmed this story, but according to him they did not identify what the object actually was, and he says he never followed it up with his usual energy.

Feldman had nailed his professional colours to the mast of the 'Diary' coming down via the Graham family, as he had convinced himself that Billy Graham was a descendant of Florence Maybrick. This was all grist to the mill for the film he was already planning. Feldman never satisfactorily proved that the Diary came to Anne via her father, and neither did he satisfactorily prove that Billy Graham was descended from Florence Maybrick. His book is a very enjoyable read, all the same.

Graham

Hi Graham,,I think Mr Feldman decided that Mrs Barrett was a maybrick desendent and that clouded his judgement things a lot closer to home were not investigated properly .like I said before I don't think we will ever know the truth because of the amount of lies that have been told.I personelly think that the publishers of the diary book shouldn't have entertained it untill the truth about where it came from was established they were to botherd about making a fast buck.

[Graham]

Kaz,

I don't know if you've read Paul Feldman's book, but in it he specifically states that an electrician, possibly two electricians, told him they found something of interest in a skip and took it to Liverpool University for examination. Feldman contacted the University who confirmed this story, but according to him they did not identify what the object actually was, and he says he never followed it up with his usual energy.

Feldman had nailed his professional colours to the mast of the 'Diary' coming down via the Graham family, as he had convinced himself that Billy Graham was a descendant of Florence Maybrick. This was all grist to the mill for the film he was already planning. Feldman never satisfactorily proved that the Diary came to Anne via her father, and neither did he satisfactorily prove that Billy Graham was descended from Florence Maybrick. His book is a very enjoyable read, all the same.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Why are you so sure it came out of the house via some electricians but so sure it didn't go through anne and her father?

Seems to me you're taring lots of people with the same brush you tar mike with?

Hi kaz,If it had come via Mrs barret and her father there wouldn't have been any real excuse for any lies.If Mr Barrett had come to own the diary by dubious means then to profit from this he has to have ownership hence the story saying he got it from his mate Tony.The workmen drinking in the saddlers pub is the only direct link to Mr Barrett and battlecrease house that is where I think the diary came into his possession or the idea of a diary came from.Due to the amount of lies told regarding the diary if we are told a true story about its origins we will never believe it .

[Kaz]

Hi caz,I think the diary was written by someone close to the Maybrick household with a view to make some money after Florence was hung.Like I said before when you do a basic time line of event's you can see how Mr Barrett came to have the diary in his possession.

Why are you so sure it came out of the house via some electricians but so sure it didn't go through anne and her father?

Seems to me you're taring lots of people with the same brush you tar mike with?

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pinky,

I wouldn't argue with that.

Oddly, some people seem terrified by the thought that the diary was written a long time ago - even though it wouldn't make the content any more likely to reflect the truth.

I can see some amateur author way back when having a little dark fun with the idea of James Maybrick (who was basically a nobody before his death made the name infamous) having been England's most wanted.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz,I think the diary was written by someone close to the Maybrick household with a view to make some money after Florence was hung.Like I said before when you do a basic time line of event's you can see how Mr Barrett came to have the diary in his possession.

[caz]

Hi Pinky,

I wouldn't argue with that.

Oddly, some people seem terrified by the thought that the diary was written a long time ago - even though it wouldn't make the content any more likely to reflect the truth.

I can see some amateur author way back when having a little dark fun with the idea of James Maybrick (who was basically a nobody before his death made the name infamous) having been England's most wanted.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Hi Cally,

Long time no see.

You must have watched a different part of the Cowell Manuscript Symposium from the one I just did. The chap doing the talking (I won't name him to spare his blushes) mentioned the glue stains which show where photographs, or cartes-de-visite, had once been attached, but they only appear on the flyleaf of the Victorian guardbook, where there is no writing. I didn't hear him say anything about any writing OVER these traces. The pages which were torn out could have had photos etc attached to them, but that's another matter entirely and we just don't know. The traces are described in Shirley Harrison's original hardback edition and more recently by us in Ripper Diary, so they were not 'covered up'.

Moreover, on the only occasion when this same chap examined the book, he gave Shirley Harrison his professional opinion that it could date from the 1870s, so the photos etc could have been in situ for many years before they were removed and the writing still be many decades old by 1992. He asked Shirley not to mention his name or opinion in her book, and she respected this as a 'gentleman's agreement', although she was naturally disappointed. Later, at some point after he began working for Pat Cornwell, he changed his original opinion for reasons which remain unclear, telling me at a Sickert symposium at the Tate Britain that he now believed the book was manufactured around the turn of the century. This was without seeing the diary a second time. I invited him to take another look, and he initially agreed to do so, but for 'personal' reasons it never happened.

Incidentally, I notice Nick Eastaugh also took part in the Cowell Manuscript Symposium, and he found nothing in the diary that was inconsistent with pen meeting paper in the LVP.

Love,

Caz
X

I have no doubt that the diary was written a very long time ago and it has resided in battlecrease for a very long time but it wasn't written by James Maybrick and it certainly wasn't forged by Mr and Mrs Barrett of this I am sure.

[caz]

Hi Cally,

Long time no see.

You must have watched a different part of the Cowell Manuscript Symposium from the one I just did. The chap doing the talking (I won't name him to spare his blushes) mentioned the glue stains which show where photographs, or cartes-de-visite, had once been attached, but they only appear on the flyleaf of the Victorian guardbook, where there is no writing. I didn't hear him say anything about any writing OVER these traces. The pages which were torn out could have had photos etc attached to them, but that's another matter entirely and we just don't know. The traces are described in Shirley Harrison's original hardback edition and more recently by us in Ripper Diary, so they were not 'covered up'.

Moreover, on the only occasion when this same chap examined the book, he gave Shirley Harrison his professional opinion that it could date from the 1870s, so the photos etc could have been in situ for many years before they were removed and the writing still be many decades old by 1992. He asked Shirley not to mention his name or opinion in her book, and she respected this as a 'gentleman's agreement', although she was naturally disappointed. Later, at some point after he began working for Pat Cornwell, he changed his original opinion for reasons which remain unclear, telling me at a Sickert symposium at the Tate Britain that he now believed the book was manufactured around the turn of the century. This was without seeing the diary a second time. I invited him to take another look, and he initially agreed to do so, but for 'personal' reasons it never happened.

Incidentally, I notice Nick Eastaugh also took part in the Cowell Manuscript Symposium, and he found nothing in the diary that was inconsistent with pen meeting paper in the LVP.

Love,

Caz
X

[Callyphygian]

Age of the Document

Hi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rLKLBPGG5g[/QUOTE]

Hi Jason,
It even tells us more than that. It tells us that whoever put pen to paper did it OVER traces left by old photos that had once been on the pages. For these traces of photos to have left an imprint on that paper they would have had to have been there for a long time. So how old is the actual French Guardbook? If it's around 1888-1889 then pen could not have been put to paper until a long time after. Odd that for publication these photographic traces were covered up.

[Kaz]

Well you asked a frigging silly question so I gave you a frigging silly answer...

All the best

Dave

Didn't seem silly to me..