the diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Haskins
    Constable
    • Feb 2009
    • 52

    #136
    Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
    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!

    Comment

    • pinkmoon
      Chief Inspector
      • Jul 2013
      • 1813

      #137
      Originally posted by Haskins View Post
      Maybe, once it is discovered, Lucan's long lost diary will provide said verification!
      I think Lord Lucans diary is Mike barretts next project.
      Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

      Comment

      • Kaz
        Detective
        • Mar 2010
        • 401

        #138
        Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
        "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?

        Comment

        • Abraham Lincoln
          Cadet
          • Aug 2012
          • 3

          #139
          Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
          I would only believe the loch ness monster and Elvis story if it was verified by Lord lucan.
          Are they still lucan for him ?

          Comment

          • pinkmoon
            Chief Inspector
            • Jul 2013
            • 1813

            #140
            [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.
            Last edited by pinkmoon; 10-08-2013, 11:49 AM.
            Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

            Comment

            • Stephen Thomas
              Chief Inspector
              • Feb 2008
              • 1728

              #141
              Why would a drunkard Scouser want to buy an unused Victorian diary?
              allisvanityandvexationofspirit

              Comment

              • Cogidubnus
                Assistant Commissioner
                • Feb 2012
                • 3266

                #142
                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

                Comment

                • Stephen Thomas
                  Chief Inspector
                  • Feb 2008
                  • 1728

                  #143
                  Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                  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.
                  allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                  Comment

                  • Cogidubnus
                    Assistant Commissioner
                    • Feb 2012
                    • 3266

                    #144
                    You started it

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

                    All the best

                    Dave

                    Comment

                    • pinkmoon
                      Chief Inspector
                      • Jul 2013
                      • 1813

                      #145
                      Originally posted by Stephen Thomas View Post
                      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.
                      Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                      Comment

                      • Kaz
                        Detective
                        • Mar 2010
                        • 401

                        #146
                        Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                        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..

                        Comment

                        • Callyphygian
                          Cadet
                          • Apr 2008
                          • 4

                          #147
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • caz
                            Premium Member
                            • Feb 2008
                            • 10569

                            #148
                            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
                            Last edited by caz; 11-06-2013, 04:22 AM.
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment

                            • pinkmoon
                              Chief Inspector
                              • Jul 2013
                              • 1813

                              #149
                              Originally posted by caz View Post
                              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.
                              Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                              Comment

                              • caz
                                Premium Member
                                • Feb 2008
                                • 10569

                                #150
                                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
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X