One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Fisherman]

these recent attacks on Melvin Harris and Stewart Evans show an utter lack of any insight into their personalities. We are told that Evans only dismissed the diary because it was unwanted competition to his own book! Not because he honestly concluded it was a fake. This is madness...

No, itīs ripperology. Anything goes.

Stewart Evans once claimed that the Lechmere theory is "strange". That too is ripperology.

[The Baron]

No, itīs ripperology. Anything goes.

Stewart Evans once claimed that the Lechmere theory is "strange". That too is ripperology.

You wouldn't expect Stewart Evans to praise your funny theory would you?



The Baron

[Fisherman]

Thats more ripperology: ”funny theory”. Thanks for the clarification! And no, I expect very little from very many. And a whole lot from the uninfected.

[The Baron]

You can keep the word "little' if you want, it will not make it any worse.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

It would have made me misquote you. So I took it away together with your credibility (well...).

[The Baron]

Thats more ripperology: ”funny theory”. Thanks for the clarification! And no, I expect very little from very many. And a whole lot from the uninfected.

Do you mean Stewart Evans belongs to the infected group Fish?!


The Baron

[Fisherman]

Do you mean Stewart Evans belongs to the infected group Fish?!


The Baron

What is it to you? I thought you didnīt think much of my judgment anyway? But now you are suddenly very interested in who I think are at risk to have their judgments clouded by their own convictions?

If you are looking for such a person, you may perhaps have a mirror close by?

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by The Baron View Post
So you are accusing Stewart P Evans of being dishonest in his refusal of the scrapbook because it prevented him of getting the publicity and the extra cash he was willing to?!
And a couple of days earlier you were complaining :
I cannot lie, however. The accusations of being a troll and a wind-up merchant are infuriating.
Duality of standards.
We all know who Stewart is, and who you are.
The Baron

Yes he is basically calling Stewart P Evans a liar.

Yes it's double standards.

For those who are unclear about this issue, I recently reported more or less verbatim the thoughts of Keith Skinner (eminent researcher of many years standing and author of significant texts on the Whitechapel murders) on the subject of Stewart Evans' (also eminent researcher of many years standing and author of significant texts on the Whitechapel murders) role in the early days of the Maybrick scrapbook. Subsequent to my post, I received two posts accusing me of accusing Stewart of being dishonest and a liar.

I asked for clarity a number of times from John Wheat especially, but also from The Baron. I was fairly relaxed about it as I took it as read that they would realise their mistakes and do the correct thing in apologising to me and withdrawing their accusations.

This has not happened so I want to be quite clear on this point.

I want The Baron and John Wheat to articulate without obfuscation or ambiguity where in my post I accused Stewart Evans of "being dishonest" (The Baron) and "basically calling Stewart P Evans a liar" (John Wheat).

If they do not provide answers to my question, I shall do what I have never done before in that I will have to report them to Jonathan Menges (Admin) to adjudicate. If only one responds, I'll feel compelled to report the other.

• If he adjudicates that they were wrong, I want an unreserved apology from The Baron and from John Wheat. Sadly, I think it highly unlikely that I will receive one (but we will see).
• If he adjudicates that they were right, I will apologise unreservedly to Stewart, all Casebook readers, and Admin and will ask that my post is immediately removed.

Given how quick they are to respond to posts, I'll give them a day or so to answer the question or to apologise.

[The Baron]

Yet, these recent attacks on Melvin Harris and Stewart Evans show an utter lack of any insight into their personalities. We are told that Evans only dismissed the diary because it was unwanted competition to his own book! Not because he honestly concluded it was a fake. This is madness, and even has an ugly trace of paranoia hidden within it.

This above is my respond to you


I wrote:

"So you are accusing Stewart P Evans of being dishonest in his refusal of the scrapbook because it prevented him of getting the publicity and the extra cash he was willing to?!


You notice the question mark here don't you, you had the chance to defend yourself don't you?!


And what was your respond?


"I've done my time. I've served my penalty. I'm a free man now. Wisconsin can't hold me. Arkansas, that was a breeze. Those bikers deserved to die. They say I took out 40 of them before they downed me. Even then they couldn't finish me off. I did twenty years for that. Talk about miscarriage of justice."


If you chose to be funny, don't expect us to respond to you every time you want.


I encourage you to report this to the Admin, because we will not accept any attack on the honesty of researcher like Stewart Evans.



The Baron

[Fisherman]

we will not accept any attack on the honesty of researcher like Stewart Evans.


The Baron

Just out of curiosity, which researchers respective honesties will you accept attacks on...? Any chance we may have a list?

[Iconoclast]

I encourage you to report this to the Admin, because we will not accept any attack on the honesty of researcher like Stewart Evans.
The Baron

Duly noted and actioned.

[John Wheat]

My Dear The Baron,

Although he (Stewart) posted this many years ago, I actually remember it well. I remember thinking at the time that he came across like someone who had stumbled across an incident and was happy to stand around and tell all-comers all about something he hadn't actually seen. “You haven’t heard the best of it yet!”, et cetera. So he was in the cast but never quite made it into the credits. Hardly makes him the voice of eternal truth on this matter.

It is clear that you are plucking convenient gems from the plethora here in this, The Greatest Thread of All, and I suspect you aren’t going to stop with Mr Evans so I’m sure there will be more to come. Anyway, last time Keith Skinner emailed me he made the rather enormous mistake of putting his ‘phone number on his email (send me a tenner and I’ll let you have it) so I decided to ring him up (seriously – no wind up) because he and Stewart have co-authored at least a couple of books to my recollection since the diary was published (I have The Ultimate Jack the Spratt McVitie Sourcebook in front of me on my Ripper shelf as I type, and Jack the Spratt McVitie: Letters from Hell too, I note) and so I figured Keith would know the truth of Stewart’s unique insight into the Maybrick scrapbook which he strongly implied in the post you quoted him from and therefore what involvement Stewart had actually had with the scrapbook. Figured he’d be pruning the hydrangeas (goodness, I appear to have spelled that correctly) if I’m honest (or watching the snooker) so thought I’d have to leave a message on his answerphone. But he picked the ‘phone up! We had a long chat, and although he said he’d get the police on me if I rang again, I made a load of notes, from which I more or less copy verbatim, below.

From my notes:

• Keith laughed when I mentioned the books he had co-authored with Stewart – said it was a huge privilege to have his name on a book with Stewart especially as Stewart did about 80% of the work!
• Keith just added a few bits of research here and there. Keith describes himself as the “Tart of Ripperology” who will climb between anyone’s covers to get his name on the cover!
• Has known Stewart for about 40 years.
• Stewart quite understandably felt very bitter towards the diary because it eclipsed his tremendous find of the Littlechild Letter.
• Keith was first person Stewart told about the letter and Keith was disappointed he could not work on it with Stewart, as he was already commissioned to help out with the research on the diary.
• Stewart’s venom was not really towards the diary but towards Paul Feldman because, had Feldman not got involved with the diary, Stewart’s book on Tumblety would probably have become a best seller and attracted much publicity.
• The film rights might even have been sold.
• Keith knows about Stewart’s visits to Feldman’s office – he was there on a couple of those occasions.
• Keith has often read that Stewart heard Feldman changing the provenance of the diary over the telephone whilst Stewart was in the office or within hearing.
• Keith witnessed hundreds of those Feldman type conversations which usually reduced down to Feldman trying to persuade somebody of his latest theory by running it past them as if it was fact.
• Feldman’s office was a breeding ground for the unwary unused to Feldman’s dogmatic type of discussion, which generally meant the other person never got a word in.
• (Paul Begg and Martin Fido were the recipients of quite a few of these monologues.)
• If Feldman conclusively knew the diary was a fake he would not be so indiscreet as to blurt this out over the telephone with Stewart (a retired police officer) standing there.
• Neither would Feldman have been pouring money into research trying to prove JM was JtR.
• But the greater point is this, Stewart would have told Keith (as a close friend) that Feldman was conning people – and Keith would have challenged Feldman and finished with him if Stewart was correct.
• The even greater point is what would Stewart have thought of Keith if he (Keith) knew the diary was a modern creation and continued working for Feldman?
• Is that the sort of person he would want to continue his friendship with and invite to be his co-author?
• But perhaps the greatest point of all was what would Keith think of himself?
• That is why he (Keith) does not believe Stewart is holding back any material evidence to protect Keith. (If, that is, he is the close friend Stewart has intimated he is protecting.)
• Rather like Groucho Marx refusing to be a member of any club that would have him [LOL!], Keith said he would not want himself as a friend if he treated Stewart with such contempt.
• Keith respects Stewart’s opinion and would not seek to try and change it, knowing its genesis.
• He only regrets that Stewart has never examined the diary for himself. [Ike: You wouldn’t think so!]
• Somewhat inexplicably [from my perspective], Keith understands from Stewart that he has burned all of the unpublished material which pointed towards the diary being a modern hoax.
• [Ike: Why on earth would someone burn material which proved such a point?]

End of my notes

For the record, prior to stumbling across Feldman’s video in about 1998 on TV, I had Tumblety down as the strongest candidate for Jack and I really thought Stewart had cracked it. Feldman’s video was a revelation, and the rest is … well, you know.

I think that we can see that Stewart is probably unable to add any concrete evidence now to back up his views on the scrapbook and I wonder – with this in mind – whether we should desist in using such hearsay as some sort of measure of authenticity or hoax?

PS Do I get a Researcher of Merit badge for this, my latest brilliant post?

Ike

In your notes Ike you to my mind accuse Stewart of, as The Baron say's of being dishonest for financial gain. I'll admit that my accusing you of accusing Stewart of lying is possibly too strong a term and for that I will apologise however as The Baron has alluded to you are wether intentionally or not questioning Stewart's integrity. This is of course just mine and The Baron's opinion's. Others including Admin may have a different opinion on the matter. All things considered including for my own part in possibly inflaming the situation and the fact that the notes are from a number of years ago I would prefer it if a line was drawn under the relevant posts and thus the whole affair.

Cheers John

[Iconoclast]

In your notes Ike you to my mind accuse Stewart of, as The Baron say's of being dishonest for financial gain. I'll admit that my accusing you of accusing Stewart of lying is possibly too strong a term and for that I will apologise however as The Baron has alluded to you are wether intentionally or not questioning Stewart's integrity. This is of course just mine and The Baron's opinion's. Others including Admin may have a different opinion on the matter. All things considered including for my own part in possibly inflaming the situation and the fact that the notes are from a number of years ago I would prefer it if a line was drawn under the relevant posts and thus the whole affair.

Cheers John

It wasn't my comment though, John. I was reporting what Keith Skinner had said. I gave you ample opportunity to re-read the post and work that out.

I'd like you to acknowledge that I did not accuse Stewart of anything, certainly not lying (nor, for that matter, do I believe Keith was either).

[John Wheat]

It wasn't my comment though, John. I was reporting what Keith Skinner had said. I gave you ample opportunity to re-read the post and work that out.

I'd like you to acknowledge that I did not accuse Stewart of anything, certainly not lying (nor, for that matter, do I believe Keith was either).

Ike having reread your notes a number of times I think it is unclear from them exactly what Keith has and hasn't said and what exactly is your opinion. However I acknowledge that you weren't knowingly accusing Stewart of anything.

Cheers John

[The Baron]

So he was in the cast but never quite made it into the credits. Hardly makes him the voice of eternal truth on this matter.



And to prove your point you write:



I figured Keith would know the truth of Stewart’s unique insight into the Maybrick scrapbook which he strongly implied in the post you quoted him from

Stewart’s venom was not really towards the diary but towards Paul Feldman because, had Feldman not got involved with the diary, Stewart’s book on Tumblety would probably have become a best seller and attracted much publicity.

The film rights might even have been sold.

Why on earth would someone burn material which proved such a point?

I think that we can see that Stewart is probably unable to add any concrete evidence now to back up his views on the scrapbook and I wonder – with this in mind – whether we should desist in using such hearsay as some sort of measure of authenticity or hoax?


Ike

You have to apologise for this, and don't use other's opinions to prove your point if you are going to run away at the end.




The Baron