One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Ally]

If I could be persuaded there was significant interest from people who were not so entrenched in their belief as RJ Palmer and were capable of objectively assessing new information in context, then I might reconsider.[/I]

Oh well let's all beg him on our knees with caps properly doffed to reconsider....

there is nothing on them which proves the diary was a modern hoax. Do you not think if there was that Melvin Harris would have ignored it?

Depends, remember when he swore there was proof of who the forgers were and you and I and everyone else were hounding him to disclose what he knew, and he refused because he was a pompous, vindictive git, oh wait, no that wasn't the reason.... it was because he'd promised not to.

Which is a slightly better reason than just being a pompous, vindictive git.

[Abby Normal]

Oh well let's all beg him on our knees with caps properly doffed to reconsider....



Depends, remember when he swore there was proof of who the forgers were and you and I and everyone else were hounding him to disclose what he knew, and he refused because he was a pompous, vindictive git, oh wait, no that wasn't the reason.... it was because he'd promised not to.

Which is a slightly better reason than just being a pompous, vindictive git.

and blame a poster for not releasing. about as low as it gets.

[jmenges]

For the record I've now made it clear to Keith Skinner that should it ever come to pass that he offers only one Alan Gray tape for release, Rippercast will refuse. It's our position that we will only agree to the release of all of them.
Hopefully that should permanently end Rippercast's involvement in this sorry matter.

JM

[rjpalmer]

it is clear to me that Mr Palmer, having referred to Tom Mitchell as a "grotesquely partisan gatekeeper" would also find fault in the authors account and criticise us for being selective and deliberately omitting detail he considers we should have included.

Unfortunately, we've already crossed the Rubicon on that one, Keith.

Tom Mitchell has already indicated that he's been given access to the tapes, and he has already released selective excerpts as well as editorial commentary on their value (or lack thereof) to this forum. Further, he has made it painfully obvious that he plans to do more of the same in the revised edition of his defense of the diary. He's also released selective excerpts from other sources, such as Barrett's attempt to prove he had the talent to write the diary.

So, he's already acted as the 'gatekeeper' of certain documents. How is that not accurate?

Yes, it is true that I called him grotesquely partisan--because he is.

So am I.

I don't think anyone could seriously suggest otherwise. I think the Diary is a modern fake by Barrett and dates no earlier than 1992.

As such, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to be the only one allowed to listen to, and comment on, Barrett's confessional tapes or other materials, had I been given access.

That's a well-known and easily understood principle, is it not?

I'll tell you what. There's no reason why my presence on the scene, or my skepticism of Tom Mitchell, should in any way prohibit the release of appropriate materials to interested researchers.

Maybe we can come to an agreement?

If you release all 15 tapes for public airing, and you also make available the Barretts' typescript of the diary (which Peter Birchwood requested over two decades ago, and David Barrett requested 5 years ago) I will make no commentary whatsoever.

I'll stay completely out of it.

In fact, I'll quietly submit to having my account permanently and immediately removed from this website, and JTR Forums can also give me the heave-ho.

They are the only two forums I belong to; I have no Facebook account, etc. So, I'll be utterly ghosted as far as any public debate goes.

Fair enough?

RP

P.S.

And it is perfectly untrue that anyone is accusing you of knowingly or purposefully withholding evidence of a 'smoking gun.' That's never been the point, and no one has made that allegation.

What should be obvious to everyone is that nothing is more commonplace than two or more people strongly disagreeing on the implications or the interpretation of a document or a confession or what might loosely be called 'evidence.'

That's why we are here; that's why we debate.

It's not a matter of anyone lying.

[rjpalmer]

I probably should have edited the above to read "David Barrat" and not "Barrett"--there's no connection, that I know of!

[erobitha]

I would like to thank Keith for allowing me access to materials because I know how hard he has worked to build up the overall archive.

Any fool can criticise, and they usually do.

I have the utmost respect for Keith and for his abilities as a researcher. He has done more for ripperology research than over 95% of people on these boards. People seem to quickly forget that.

I’ve heard a couple of the tapes and the sound quality (despite valiant efforts made by people on this team) are simply bordering on completely inaudible. More Restoration work is being attempted.

It would be entirely wrong and inappropriate for me to share any material that was not mine to share. Rightly, Keith decides what he wishes to release, when and why. I have only ever found Keith collaborative and helpful.

The accusations and insinuations Keith, Caroline and Ike have endured, have been at times been astounding. All three are committed to finding the truth, and believe it or not, invite as many open-minded people to the debate as possible.

But we don’t have that. What we get is Keith being accused of ruthlessly suppressing “top secret” files, as being something sinister and nefarious.

I personally would like to see as much material publicly available as possible, but I also understand why someone who is under constant suspicion may not feel obliged to. It’s a form of bullying in my eyes, and I respect his ability to not bow down to negative pressure from certain individuals.

Honestly, I hope all the tapes can get cleaned up and released because only then will people realise they are not missing much. I wonder if those same critics will be as quick to apologise for the language used against Keith when that happens?

I very much doubt it.

[Yabs]

Has anyone tried using Stemroller on the audio to clean it up?
Stemroller is used to split any song into separate tracks of Drums, Bass, Vocals, Other.
It does this very well and very cleanly, it’s the same technology used to clean up John Lennons vocal on the recently released Beatles track.

It doesn’t matter that the Barrett tapes aren’t musical tracks, as long as the Stemsplitter recognises the vocal as vocal and any hiss or noise as “other” it will seperate them.

The application uses your computers graphics card to achieve this so don’t attempt to do it unless you have an extremely capable modern graphics card in your computer, as it will either crash or take about two hours to separate roughly 10-15 seconds of audio.
But for anyone with access to the bad quality tapes and who has a decent graphics card it might be worth throwing a snippet of the audio in Stemroller.

It may not work if the problem with the tapes isn’t one of noise masking the vocal.
But it might be worth trying.

https://www.stemroller.com/

[erobitha]

Has anyone tried using Stemroller on the audio to clean it up?
Stemroller is used to split any song into separate tracks of Drums, Bass, Vocals, Other.
It does this very well and very cleanly, it’s the same technology used to clean up John Lennons vocal on the recently released Beatles track.

It doesn’t matter that the Barrett tapes aren’t musical tracks, as long as the Stemsplitter recognises the vocal as vocal and the noise as “other” it will seperate them.

The application uses your computers graphics card to achieve this so don’t attempt to do it unless you have an extremely capable modern graphics card in your computer, as it will either crash or take about two hours to separate roughly 10-15 seconds of audio.
But for anyone with access to the bad quality tapes and who has a decent graphics card it might be worth throwing a snippet of the audio in Stemroller.

It may not work if the problem with the tapes isn’t one of noise masking the vocal but a degradation of the tape itself.
But it might be worth trying.

https://www.stemroller.com/

Hi Yabs,

James Johnson would be the technical guru for audio and video on the research team, and I know he used a number of tools and services.

I myself have tried using CleanVoice AI. I have yet to share the results of that with Keith, but I can tell you now it still needs a lot of work.

I want you to know that attempts are ongoing to improve the audio, and I can assure you and others that the advice taken on these posts has been taken on board.

I understand the originals were on microcassettes. It may require something more industrial for the restoration.

Whether they will ever be released publicly or not is purely down to Keith.

regards,

Jay

[Iconoclast]

Such a drama has unfolded, dear readers, and - unusually for me - I feel the need to comment.

Let me be absolutely clear - nothing will be reproduced in SocPill25 unless it has been approved by those who either gave me the information or else whose comments I am repeating (assuming I can reach them by then, of course). I plan to have it properly printed out (I reckon it will be about 500 pages of discussion and around another 500 pages of transcripts) but - if it doesn't get approved by those who gave me the information - it will not be updated online, and instead will sit on my shelf along with everything else I've ever written that I've either done nothing with or else had rejected. I may amend the original SocPill to reflect some of the ideas which have been freely - often inadvertently offered - in various conversations over the years, frequently involving those who strongly dissent from my very trenchant views, but I won't be publishing other peoples' hard work without their permission. Who cares? I hear the less well-read amongst you asking, and - of course - that is your right. I just wanted to go on the record now so that my position is fully understood.

It frustrates the hell out of me that we have to invest so much time and debate into the red herring of Michael Barrett's infantile attempts to claim authorship of James Maybrick's scrapbook when what we should be striving to understand is whether the document is authentic or not. Barrett is an irritating distraction from what should be an honest endeavour to understand the truth and - as I see it - he has now been that distraction for almost thirty years. Where there is divisiveness on this (and other Maybrick threads), you can rest assured that Michael Barrett's name will be a part of it and I find that hugely irritating because the truth about Michael Barrett is out there even if the truth about the scrapbook may not be. Much of that truth - in my opinion - emerges from his comical attempts to fool the hapless Alan Gray and I'm sorry that you currently don't all have access to the recordings (at least half of which are totally inaudible) but I agree with Jonathan that it needs to be all or none and I agree with Keith that - if he doubts the likelihood of the tapes being interpreted evenly - they should not be released. By 2025 or 2026, I hope to have transcripts of all of the key recordings whether they involved Gray or Barrett or not, but - again - my shelf will be the most enlightened holder of that information if I do not get permission to publish. For the record, any material which has already been reproduced (in small amounts) has been approved by whoever provided it. Occasionally, very small snippets have been published without prior approval because the point they make seems helpful to a debate and this has been done full in the knowledge that such actions might be criticised (but never have been).

Finally, I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I consider myself to be a scrupulously honest, honourable, and fair person. You can absolutely rest assured that if I come across information which does not suit my argument and seems to be critical to the truth, I will publish it. You can rest assured that I will NOT be seeking permission to do so. If there's something out there that I come across that I have reason to think has been suppressed, I will publish it and be damned. The truth is far more important than my ego or my relationships with others. I'm actually a good-natured chap who really does enjoy the to-and-fro of this website and even enjoys the banter and the abuse that occasionally comes my way, but all of the exchanges of 700 pages of this thread are worthless if I suspect that I have told an untruth or if an untruth has been perpetuated that I have known about and not challenged. It's never going to happen. I have dealings with honest people whether we agree on stuff or not. If I thought they were dishonest in any way, I would cease to deal with them. I trust them all to be decent or else I would not give them the time of day but - at the risk of exalting him to a potentially excessive holy status - you will find no more honest, upright, and frustratingly correct (he misses nothing) person in this world than Keith Skinner.

My exchanges with those who feel the same way as I do about Michael Barrett have been the intellectual pleasure of my life to date, but so have my exchanges with those who do not feel the same way. I genuinely regret Lord Orsam not being able to post here so that he can call me 'Major Misunderstanding' to my face (as it were). I would even genuinely miss RJ Palmer's barbs (and only he knows how often I have privately encouraged him not to leave the site in the days before I realised it was just a tic he can't get rid of). My only regret is that the debate between us all cannot be conducted without reference to the genuinely childish behaviour of the man who brought the scrapbook to our attention all those years ago. Without that recurring muddying of the waters, I genuinely believe the ideas we discuss would be significantly less polarised and acerbic, and we might actually make some progress towards a final and agreed version of the truth.

Ike
The Voice of Reason in a Fractious Age

[rjpalmer]

Finally, I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I consider myself to be a scrupulously honest, honourable, and fair person. You can absolutely rest assured that if I come across information which does not suit my argument and seems to be critical to the truth, I will publish it.

There's no entirely polite way of saying this, Tom.

The plain fact is...it's not a matter of not trusting your honesty.

It's a matter of not trusting your judgment.

Pastor Earl, back in my hometown, was incredibly honest. Honest as the day is long. You could trust him with your wallet, and you could trust him with your 17-year-old daughter.

But would I trust the Good Mr. Earl to give a fair paraphrase of Darwin's Origin of the Species?

Absolutely not.

Although I would trust Earl with my life, I certainly wouldn't trust that his 'entrenched views' (to use your phrase) would allow him the judgment, the objectivity, or the clarity to give the text a fair & competent reading. Nor the ability to sniff out the bad arguments from the good.

That, my dear Boy, is why people ask to see all the documentation. It's not a matter of 'honesty.'

By way of example, it wasn't long ago that you totally misread Alex Voller's statement about sun lamps, and went on a nice long lecture about it, sprinkled with waves of incredulity, until I pointed out that you had totally altered the meaning of his words--which you quite fairly admitted afterwards.

And what would you have done if I was not here to give you a guiding hand?

Do you see what I'm driving at?

How could I ever be confident that you wouldn't be doing the same thing as you give 'snippets' of the Barrett/Gray tapes?

The fear, therefore, is not that you would knowingly lie about the documentation that you've been give exclusive or near exclusive access to, or would lie about the transcripts of the interviews with Eddie Lyons, or mischaracterize the still off-limits typescript of the Diary that was prepared by the Barretts, etc etc., but that your own eccentric and 'entrenched' views, coupled with an eagerness to prove that the diary is authentic, might, despite all good intentions, prevent you from seeing them with eyes unclouded by your own prejudices, and despite the enormous faith you place in your own honesty and discernment.

I agree with Keith that - if he doubts the likelihood of the tapes being interpreted evenly - they should not be released.

What does this strange sentence even mean?

It sounds like an accusation.

From your point of view, you feel that you (or Keith) are being accused of something. Of withholding evidence.

Can you not appreciate that from, say David Barrat's point-of-view, that he feels that you are accusing HIM of something? That he should not be given the documents because he cannot be trusted to give them a fair and impartial hearing?

That he "will not interpreted them evenly"??

In fact, wasn't that Keith's rationale for withdrawing his offer to give Barrat access to the typescript? That, he would "only use it to damage the diary further"?

In other words, Barrat's entrenched views (the phrase Keith applied to me) would prevent him from seeing the typescript the way that you and Keith see the typescript.


Barrat would only use his access for nefarious purposes.

That's the unstated accusation.

You see, Ike, the accusations run in both directions. Orsam thinks the documentation is being suppressed. Keith doesn't trust Orsam to use the documentation fairly.

[Ally]

I would like to thank Keith for allowing me access to materials because I know how hard he has worked to build up the overall archive.

Well of course. The people who are allowed into the inner sanctum are always quick to genuflect at being allowed the privilege. It's why when people get access to something others don't have, the criticisms arise.

Any fool can criticise, and they usually do.

I have the utmost respect for Keith and for his abilities as a researcher. He has done more for ripperology research than over 95% of people on these boards. People seem to quickly forget that.

You want to know what's funny? This was LITERALLY what RJ was saying 20 years ago when people including Keith, were dogpiling on Melvin Harris for doing the exact same thing he's dogpiling on Keith for doing, right now. How am I the ONLY one with an appreciation of this irony? The wheel spins and goes around and the only thing that changes is where your seat is.

I’ve heard a couple of the tapes and the sound quality (despite valiant efforts made by people on this team) are simply bordering on completely inaudible. More Restoration work is being attempted.

Sure... I am sure loads of hours of time are being spent on tapes that no one has any intention of releasing to the public, after all the privileged have already listened to it and decided there's nothing there.

It would be entirely wrong and inappropriate for me to share any material that was not mine to share. Rightly, Keith decides what he wishes to release, when and why.

Agreed.

The accusations and insinuations Keith, Caroline and Ike have endured, have been at times been astounding.

LOL, again I refer you back to 20 years ago when two of these three had no problems doing the exact same thing to Melvin Harris over a very similar issue. Only then it was Paul Begg, myself and everyone else instead of Tom Mitchell piling on.

Amazing how my position seems to be the only one not changed, which is -- if you don't plan to share with the class, don't talk about the goodies in your bag.

What we get is Keith being accused of ruthlessly suppressing “top secret” files, as being something sinister and nefarious.

See above.

I personally would like to see as much material publicly available as possible, but I also understand why someone who is under constant suspicion may not feel obliged to. It’s a form of bullying in my eyes, and I respect his ability to not bow down to negative pressure from certain individuals.

I'm literally going to have to go pull quotes from 2001 and do a comparative. The Narrative is delicious. Just line it up, Same thing, flipped side of the coin, most of the players being the same.

Honestly, I hope all the tapes can get cleaned up and released because only then will people realise they are not missing much.

I agree. The tapes are going to be a nothing burger.

I wonder if those same critics will be as quick to apologise for the language used against Keith when that happens?

I very much doubt it.

I very much doubt anyone ever apologized to Melvin Harris when he was withholding information that I am sure turned out to be nothing and he was being badgered to put it out there. I know I didn't and I won't.

Because my position remains the same as it was 20 years ago: If you're not going to share knowledge, don't use it as a weapon and bludgeon people with it, in an attempt to prove your supremacy.

It's just tacky.

[erobitha]

Well of course. The people who are allowed into the inner sanctum are always quick to genuflect at being allowed the privilege. It's why when people get access to something others don't have, the criticisms arise.



You want to know what's funny? This was LITERALLY what RJ was saying 20 years ago when people including Keith, were dogpiling on Melvin Harris for doing the exact same thing he's dogpiling on Keith for doing, right now. How am I the ONLY one with an appreciation of this irony? The wheel spins and goes around and the only thing that changes is where your seat is.



Sure... I am sure loads of hours of time are being spent on tapes that no one has any intention of releasing to the public, after all the privileged have already listened to it and decided there's nothing there.



Agreed.



LOL, again I refer you back to 20 years ago when two of these three had no problems doing the exact same thing to Melvin Harris over a very similar issue. Only then it was Paul Begg, myself and everyone else instead of Tom Mitchell piling on.

Amazing how my position seems to be the only one not changed, which is -- if you don't plan to share with the class, don't talk about the goodies in your bag.





See above.



I'm literally going to have to go pull quotes from 2001 and do a comparative. The Narrative is delicious. Just line it up, Same thing, flipped side of the coin, most of the players being the same.



I agree. The tapes are going to be a nothing burger.



I very much doubt anyone ever apologized to Melvin Harris when he was withholding information that I am sure turned out to be nothing and he was being badgered to put it out there. I know I didn't and I won't.

Because my position remains the same as it was 20 years ago: If you're not going to share knowledge, don't use it as a weapon and bludgeon people with it, in an attempt to prove your supremacy.

It's just tacky.

Well, I am a relatively latecomer to this party, Ally, so what was and wasn't said about Melvin Harris 20 years ago is somewhat before my time. I would very much doubt Keith ever posted anything negative in relation to Melvin Harris. I know in recent years, I most definitely have, but not in relation to "withholding information". I have had lots of concerns over his objectivity and bias. As I'm sure you have of mine and others.

At the risk of inviting the wrath of admin, I would also suggest that Keith and Melvin are very different profiles. Keith (to my knowledge) has never taken a stance on the scrapbook other than it is most likely a fake. However, Keith is sensible enough to try to establish that as fact before taking a position. Melvin took his rather vocal position quite early and never looked back. Followers of his arguments have carried on in that same vein after his passing.

Herein is the problem. Ike touched on it, and he is right. There should be a collective effort to establish exactly where, why, and how this thing came to be. We do not have sufficient evidence to pin it on a Maybrick composition, and the same applies to a Barrett/Graham modern hoax. So, how do we rationally and objectively get there? I don't know the answer to that. I will naturally look at everything through the lens of the watch as I believe that to be 100% genuine. Ike will naturally look at data through the lens of a Maybrick-written diary, and RJ/Barat will always look at data through the lens of a modern Barret hoax.

Perhaps Keith was too trusting to allow the likes of myself and Ike access to materials without necessarily giving too much thought to how others may perceive such a "privilege". I can see why people would have an issue with that. Both Ike and I have entrenched positions, but so do RJ and Barat. Perhaps my "access rights" should be withdrawn in the interests of fairness, but I will leave that totally in Keith's hands.

[jmenges]

It’s pretty simple. We cannot “collectively” establish the where, why and how as long as information is only made available to a select few.

JM

[Ally]

Well, I am a relatively latecomer to this party, Ally, so what was and wasn't said about Melvin Harris 20 years ago is somewhat before my time. I would very much doubt Keith ever posted anything negative in relation to Melvin Harris. I know in recent years, I most definitely have, but not in relation to "withholding information". I have had lots of concerns over his objectivity and bias. As I'm sure you have of mine and others.

Oh, you would be wrong. In conjunction with Shirley Harrison (on the diary issue), Paul Begg and Martin Fido, they all had QUITE the beef with Melvin, stemming in part over the entry on Melvin Harris in the revised A-Z which Melvin took QUITE the issue with and then proceeded to harangue them on their bias and incompetence for years. And which I suspect led to him in part enjoying the gloat over being in a privileged position and having information they didn't have, and dangling it over their heads. It was quite a time. I am of course ASSUMING Melvin's partial motivation in being a pompous git, on the matter relating to him having Diary info they wanted, but I remember at the time, Keith was quite willing to call Melvin's professional reputation into question. Subtly of course, as is the British way, but definitely leaving it there that Melvin's motives were suspect. I do not have time at this juncture to do the complete line by line analysis I promised, so I just opened a random page from where I remember this occurring and found this:

Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 09 February 2001 - 10:18 am

From Keith Skinner to RJ Palmer Dear RJ One piece of ‘evidence’ that the Diary pre-dates 1988 is Anne Graham’s testimony that she examined it circa 1968/1969. There is no evidential support for her testimony and because she is a self-confessed liar, having admitted to deceiving her husband, she is hauled over the coals and discredited. Interestingly, she rejects the unsubstantiated corroboration, emanating from Steve Powell in Australia, as to the Diary’s existence over 30 years ago. Presumably because she knows it wasn’t created until after 1988? Melvin Harris, by scholarly analysis, has demonstrated how the Diary might have been put together after 1988. Not everybody agrees with his conclusions, yet Melvin possesses the conclusive proof to end this controversy, but chooses not to reveal it, claiming it is privileged information. If you are content with that situation – fine. But I want the truth. And if the truth ultimately reveals that I have been ‘duped’ and am naïve and gullible in my beliefs; if whatever reputation I have built crashes as a result of Melvin’s evidence, then that is a risk I am prepared to take. The bottom line, RJ, is that I firmly believe that Melvin Harris is misleading you and this board. Whether or not this is intentional, I don’t know. Similarly I was never sure whether Paul Feldman knowingly manipulated information to support his arguments. Chris George feels it may be self deception on Melvin’s part, but the end result is to blur the investigation by obfuscation, in much the same way as Feldman did by his over zealous crusade. Best Wishes Keith

I draw your attention to Keith's words: The end result is to blur the investigation by obfuscation.

That's not a compliment. And while it's relatively mild, at this juncture, Keith and Shirley Harrison were attempting to convince Melvin to sit down and meet with them to divulge the information he had. So he wouldn't even be too outrageous but still basically said Mevin was "misleading" people and "blurring the investigation" by refusing to put what he knew on the record.

And I point you to the current situation.

At the risk of inviting the wrath of admin, I would also suggest that Keith and Melvin are very different profiles. Keith (to my knowledge) has never taken a stance on the scrapbook other than it is most likely a fake. However, Keith is sensible enough to try to establish that as fact before taking a position. Melvin took his rather vocal position quite early and never looked back. Followers of his arguments have carried on in that same vein after his passing.

What does the wrath of the admin have to do with this? Admin has not issued a ruling on anything here, and no rules have I see you break to draw the wrath of the admin. These are both authors and public figures. If you think disagreeing with me, will incur any wrath, please. This is a morning intellectual exercise while I drink my pot of coffee and there are zero emotions on the table. I don't even give a ****, if you call me an obnoxious, interfering, ******* (don't do it to other posters, that will incur Administrative wrath). You can argue with me all the live long day and Admin isn't going to even get out of bed.

It's interesting that you think that Keith and Melvin's MOTIVES matter and not their actions. The actions are the same. They have information, they're waving it around claiming it "proves" something, and then refusing to show that information when asked. Once again, don't tell if you aren't going to show and just say, "Accept my word for it, I'm right." I didn't subscribe to that when it was Mel doing it, and I don't subscribe now.

There is literally NO ONE on the planet who I would trust their word, over the evidence of my own eyes. I would not expect YOU to believe Melvin Harris, don't expect ME to believe Keith Skinner. Or Paul Begg or Jonathan Menges or Taylor Swift or anyone. It has nothing to do with whether I think Keith is a more "likeable" person than Melvin Harris and there are probably serial killers I would find to be more "likeable" than Melvin Harris.

It's about the facts, and the actions, that be all. If my best friend of 40 years were to be pulling this, I'd say the same thing. I don't care who you are, when you're wrong, you're wrong.

Perhaps Keith was too trusting to allow the likes of myself and Ike access to materials without necessarily giving too much thought to how others may perceive such a "privilege". I can see why people would have an issue with that. Both Ike and I have entrenched positions, but so do RJ and Barat. Perhaps my "access rights" should be withdrawn in the interests of fairness, but I will leave that totally in Keith's hands.

It's interesting to me. It seems that by only allowing the "select" few to view it, isn't that creating the EXACT paranoid scenario that has occurred here? When you hide something from the general public, THEY WILL assume nefarious deeds are going on when in fact, the reasons are usually so banal as to be boring.

What ACTUAL reason is there to NOT release the tapes, fully. Sure, they suck. The audio quality is abysmal. So what? Putting aside the fact for a moment that it is entirely Keith's decision whether or not to publish them (just as it was Melvin's decision 20 years ago when Shirley and Keith were hounding him)....

WHAT actual purpose does withholding the tapes serve? If there's nothing there, then there's no point in treating them as precious that I can see? If there's nothing there, then why not just show everyone there's nothing there?

Keith didn't give Melvin Harris the benefit of the doubt, decades ago, so don't ask me to give Keith the benefit of the doubt now. He understands the point that is being made, because he made it 20 years ago, when HE wanted to see what another researcher was holding; he's just upset he's on the other side of it now. I find it interesting how people who are so quick to demand other researchers give up the goods when THEY have something "I" Want, suddenly become precious when they're the researchers who have privileged information that they don't want to share. Nobody EVER acts to the standard that they demand of others, do they?


Except me. I'm flawless.

[Fleetwood Mac]

There should be a collective effort to establish exactly where, why, and how this thing came to be.

A neutral's point of view:

'How this thing came to be' is barely relevant to the OP's question: an undeniable fact that refutes the diary.

The meat of the matter is this:

1) The handwriting in the diary does not match James Maybrick's handwriting.

2) The historical inaccuracies in the diary.

3) There is no information (relating to the murders) in the diary that wasn't already in the public domain.

With that in mind, you don't need to put somebody in front of a court of law and find them guilty of forging the diary, or unearth some other 'undeniable fact'; in order to conclude that a belief in the diary's authenticity is suspending all reason.

As for the tapes, whatever the argument put forward, it is worthless until the information that underpins it has been put forth for wider scrutiny. It is expected in the world of historical rigour/analysis/discipline, and the study of the Whitechapel Murders, as well as assessing the authenticity of a supposed 130 years old diary; is historical analysis.