the diary

[Haskins]

I would only believe the loch ness monster and Elvis story if it was verified by Lord lucan.

Maybe, once it is discovered, Lucan's long lost diary will provide said verification!

[pinkmoon]

Maybe, once it is discovered, Lucan's long lost diary will provide said verification!

I think Lord Lucans diary is Mike barretts next project.

[Kaz]

"The whole thing about the diary is that it can never be proved but again it can never be disproved".

Its never been disproved (incredibly considering its been around for so long..), but what makes you say it can never be proved?

What if more evidence surfaces? Can you carry on saying its all some conspiracy or major fraud no matter what?

[Abraham Lincoln]

I would only believe the loch ness monster and Elvis story if it was verified by Lord lucan.

Are they still lucan for him ?

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Kaz;277478]Its never been disproved (incredibly considering its been around for so long..), but what makes you say it can never be proved?

What if more evidence surfaces? Can you carry on saying its all some conspiracy or major fraud no matter what?


I think when we find out the truth about the diary which will be soon hopefully because of this information discoverd by mr skinner in 2007 we will be quite disappointed .This diary was never a complex fraud it was given credibility by certain people who investigated it I personally think Shirley Harrison's book shouldn't have been published till the history of the diary could be proved.Like I said I've got a feeling the outcome of this will leave us all a bit deflated.If you get a pen and paper and do a time line of events regarding diary it sort of jumps out at you what has occured.

[Stephen Thomas]

Why would a drunkard Scouser want to buy an unused Victorian diary?

[Cogidubnus]

Why would a drunkard Scouser want to buy an unused Victorian diary?

In a semi-sober attempt to find out how easy this would be to do? I surmise it might've seemed like a good idea at the time...

All the best

Dave

[Stephen Thomas]

In a semi-sober attempt to find out how easy this would be to do? I surmise it might've seemed like a good idea at the time...

Yes, sure. As if.

[Cogidubnus]

You started it

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

All the best

Dave

[pinkmoon]

Yes, sure. As if.

Mike Barrett should have been sent packing with his diary and told to come back when he had proof where it had come from and where it had been for over a hundred years.Other people who attached themselves to the diary when a chance to make a lot of money appeared should have stayed away their involvement helped inflate a small scam into something bigger.I know people have spent a lot of their own money trying to prove diary genuine I'm sure the chance of making a lot of money persuaded them to do this.

[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..

[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.

[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

[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 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