Vote the Diary

[Bridewell]

Come on everyone vote!If you don't vote you can't moan about the diary.

You can, you know!

[Paddy]

Florence

"Florence Elizabeth Maybrick widow of James Maybrick deceased" was born in Mabill? Alabama in 1861 her father was a native of USA.
according to her request to leave USA in 1906. It also states she is a literary writer and that she would be away for two months.
Anybody can see this on Ancestry USA (including her writing)
I suppose it could be possible that Florence was forced to aid her husbands addiction until his death and wanted to show her anger at being accused of murder?
It could also be possible that Mr Barratt did not know the diary was a fake?
If Mr or Mrs Barrett were descended from her I am sure it would have been discovered, wouldn't it?

Pat..............................

[MayBea]

Ancestry.com has a DNA project you can participate in for 99 dollars. I believe the test can determine familial matches up to fifth cousin. So you can find your relatives already on the site's database.

http://dna.ancestry.com/

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Florence Maybrick could trace her ancestry to Jamestown like Winston Churchill. His mother was American.

Any indigenous genes in someone in the UK would also be a tell-tale sign of colonial descent.

[RivkahChaya]

However, I, for one, still believe that Mrs. Barrett's is a descendant of Florence Maybrick. Feldman discovered the trail of the Diary through the step-mother.

Have you seen pictures of Anne? I think her picture was consistent with those of Florence and her mother.

A simple DNA test would prove if she is related to Florence's family, and even if she is of Colonial American extraction.

We have a databank of colonial American DNA? really? that's such a vague designation-- I mean, we might have a databank of Mayflower descendants, or Jamestown colonists, but the colonial era was a long stretch, and the term "colonial American" included both people born here, and people who arrived here from other places during that time, not all of whom were originally from what is now the UK. It also included people who worked here, but traveled back and forth a lot. There were people who were born in England, and died there, but still considered themselves "colonists," because they worked here during the greater part of their adult lives.

Cripes, one branch of my father's family can lay claim to the title "colonist," and belonged to the oldest synagogue in the Americas, the one that received a letter from George Washington, promising them a place in a free nation. Heck, I could probably join the DAR. "Colonist" does not equal "Puritan," albeit, that's what most of the very earliest colonists were, but by the decades just prior to the revolution, the proto-US was a very secular place.

[Kaz]

The fact that anne won't allow any DNA testing speaks volumes to me my dear

You can read into it what you please but it doesn't 'prove' anything.

Its frustrating as hell, a few small acts could tie up all these loose ends.

[pinkmoon]

It tells me she's a puritan pilgrim like her grandmother...

Mystery solved.

[MayBea]

The fact that anne won't allow any DNA testing speaks volumes to me my dear

It tells me she's a puritan pilgrim like her grandmother...

[pinkmoon]

However, I, for one, still believe that Mrs. Barrett's is a descendant of Florence Maybrick. Feldman discovered the trail of the Diary through the step-mother.

Have you seen pictures of Anne? I think her picture was consistent with those of Florence and her mother.

A simple DNA test would prove if she is related to Florence's family, and even if she is of Colonial American extraction.

The fact that anne won't allow any DNA testing speaks volumes to me my dear

[MayBea]

...I think we can all agree on one thing the connection or maybe the catalyst for the diary was the workmen from battlecrease drinking in Mr Barretts second home the saddlers pub.

However, I, for one, still believe that Mrs. Barrett's is a descendant of Florence Maybrick. Feldman discovered the trail of the Diary through the step-mother.

Have you seen pictures of Anne? I think her picture was consistent with those of Florence and her mother.

A simple DNA test would prove if she is related to Florence's family, and even if she is of Colonial American extraction.

[pinkmoon]

Please forgive my ignorance of this case I know nothing of it. Today I found a DVD about the Diary and decided to watch it.
I am sure it has been discussed before but is there any chance that Florence his wife could have written the diary after she was released from prison in 1904?
I have a copy of a document she wrote stating she was going abroad from America for two months in 1906. On this she states she is a literary writer and it struck me that she probably would know details also.
It could have been some kind of justification to any who doubted that she was innocent?
I have tried comparing her handwriting to the diary but would have to enlarge the print and compare.
Just wondered if this has been discussed before?

Thanks
Pat.....................................

Hi pat,I think it was written at the time of her trial or very shortly after when she wasn't hung it was never released on the general public.I would like to point out I have absolutely no evidence to support this also I would like to point out that nobody in their right mind would involve mike Barrett in any form of scam or attempt at forgery.

[Paddy]

Florence Maybrick

Please forgive my ignorance of this case I know nothing of it. Today I found a DVD about the Diary and decided to watch it.
I am sure it has been discussed before but is there any chance that Florence his wife could have written the diary after she was released from prison in 1904?
I have a copy of a document she wrote stating she was going abroad from America for two months in 1906. On this she states she is a literary writer and it struck me that she probably would know details also.
It could have been some kind of justification to any who doubted that she was innocent?
I have tried comparing her handwriting to the diary but would have to enlarge the print and compare.
Just wondered if this has been discussed before?

Thanks
Pat.....................................

[caz]

And to me, when I look at the text of the diary, it seems obvious that it was written in the 1980's or 1990's. It has a wholly modern view of the killings.

Not wholly modern, surely? If the hoaxer(s) had used the late 1980s ripper books they'd have needed for some of the information in the diary, they could have learned that MJK's breasts were not left on the table, for instance, and would not have had 'Sir Jim' reading the papers and repeating this error, then later recalling that he had thought of putting them by her feet. Why get it wrong and then put it half right? They would have read that one breast was indeed found by her foot, while the other was under her head. If they failed to absorb this 'new' information, how did they arrive at the foot afterthought? If they read it but were not sure what was correct, why mention the position of the breasts at all?

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Hi Damaso,

And you are perfectly entitled to hold your wholly 1994 view of the diary.

If you were as satisfied it came out of Battlecrease as I am, as Keith Skinner is, and as the people who know are, but won't freely admit, would you reconsider your view of the text, or could you reconcile it with modern hoaxers engineering the Battlecrease "discovery", to provide the perfect provenance, then doing everything they possibly could to play it down, deny it, or otherwise undermine it?

I have had to ask myself questions like this and hundreds more, and with the best will in the world I still cannot reconcile the emergence of the thing, the people allegedly involved, the scientific findings, you name it, with a text as recent as the late 80s. I wish I could, but none of it adds up when you delve beneath the comfort blanket of Mike Barrett's facile claims.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz,I think we can all agree on one thing the connection or maybe the catalyst for the diary was the workmen from battlecrease drinking in Mr Barretts second home the saddlers pub.

[caz]

Hi Damaso,

And you are perfectly entitled to hold your wholly 1994 view of the diary.

If you were as satisfied it came out of Battlecrease as I am, as Keith Skinner is, and as the people who know are, but won't freely admit, would you reconsider your view of the text? Or could you easily reconcile it with modern hoaxers engineering the Battlecrease "discovery", to provide the perfect provenance, then doing everything they possibly could to play it down, deny it, or otherwise undermine it?

I have had to ask myself questions like this and hundreds more, and with the best will in the world I still cannot reconcile the emergence of the thing, the people allegedly involved, the scientific findings, you name it, with a text as recent as the late 80s. I wish I could, but none of it adds up when you delve beneath the comfort blanket of Mike Barrett's facile claims.

Love,

Caz
X

[Damaso Marte]

I know nothing about ink testing, manuscript dating, or any of that stuff. I know only about the Whitechapel murders. And to me, when I look at the text of the diary, it seems obvious that it was written in the 1980's or 1990's. It has a wholly modern view of the killings.