Evidence has been withheld

[harry]

There is no evidence the diary came out of Battlecrease,only claims that it did so.

[caz]

Hi Harry,

Interesting. You haven't seen the evidence, so as far as you are concerned there is none.

By the same logic you must have seen these 'claims' you refer to, or they would not exist either. So where have you seen them?

In recent years, the only public claim I am aware of is the one made initially by Keith Skinner, and it wasn't that the diary came out of Battlecrease. He claimed to have in his possession documentary evidence pointing to that conclusion.

A subtle difference maybe, but if you are claiming that Keith made it all up and that no such evidence exists, where is your evidence that he would do such a thing?

The curious thing is that Steve Powell can make you believe in fifty impossible things before breakfast, and you have never once doubted the existence of his evidence, even when one unsupportable claim would follow another and directly contradict it.

Love,

Caz
X

[harry]

Caz,
Quite true I haven't seen any evidence,therefor I am correct in stating it is only a claim, by yourself in a previous post,and you only claim the evidence indicates,not proves the diary came from Battlecrease.
What may I ask you is the evidence you claim exists.
I cannot refute what Skinner says,because it appears he wont say,and others have written much about this in the past.
I have said I believe Steve Powell.BELIEVE.Still do.I have never said ,and nor did he that it could be proven at that time,what he claimed.
I have no evidence that Skinner has documentary proof of anything,but if there is a belief on my part that he hasn't,it is because of his unwillingness to impart such,and we are talking of proof not indications.

[caz]

What may I ask you is the evidence you claim exists.

Hi Harry,

The evidence that Keith has in his possession.

I know it exists because I have seen it, but it's not mine. I only suggested an avenue to explore. I didn't do the exploring and I didn't pay for the exploring and I didn't personally acquire the evidence.

You are free to believe who you like and what you like, Harry. If you believe Steve Powell, but not Keith Skinner, that tells me you are one plucky gambling man if nothing else.

Love,

Caz
X

[Hannibal Hayes]

What Flo’s Mother knew, if anything, will probably never be known because whatever it was wasn’t powerful enough to prevent her daughter being locked up – assuming Vic was told about it & didn’t just ignore it.

I can’t understand people who indicate they have evidence but do not produce it, especially someone like Keith Skinner. The desired result of all those interested in the subject is to find out who he was.

Obviously it is the best interests for some people to keep interest going & imply they have some additional evidence. Anyone, anywhere can hint at something, especially online, but unless they can back up their claim they can’t complain when people are sceptical. Steve Powell take note ….….

The bottom line is that the diary has been around for nearly 20 years & no-one has come with up any conclusive proof that it is genuine or otherwise. The chances of forensic examinations on the paper/ink etc confirming the date it was written, is now probably impossible due to the amount of people who have handled it and opinions about the actual content/text of the diary are just that – opinions.

Fascinating as it is, the investigation hasn’t really moved forward publicly in the past few years but obviously experts with spare cash to prove/disprove anything will continue behind the scenes.

[caz]

I can’t understand people who indicate they have evidence but do not produce it, especially someone like Keith Skinner. The desired result of all those interested in the subject is to find out who he was.

Who who was, HH?

Keith's evidence concerns the diary's whereabouts, not who wrote it (or who the ripper was, if that's what you meant). He made that quite clear and has never suggested otherwise. Not quite sure how that is meant to 'keep interest going', but it would clearly have been in Keith's best interests not to invite criticism but to wait until he is prepared to 'reveal all'.

Few people these days care about the diary, and even fewer think it has anything to do with the ripper case. Most of those who do care would just like to know who wrote it and why. But as far as I know Keith is not holding onto any evidence that could answer either of those questions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

Who who was, HH?

Keith's evidence concerns the diary's whereabouts, not who wrote it (or who the ripper was, if that's what you meant). He made that quite clear and has never suggested otherwise. Not quite sure how that is meant to 'keep interest going', but it would clearly have been in Keith's best interests not to invite criticism but to wait until he is prepared to 'reveal all'.

Few people these days care about the diary, and even fewer think it has anything to do with the ripper case. Most of those who do care would just like to know who wrote it and why. But as far as I know Keith is not holding onto any evidence that could answer either of those questions.

Love,

Caz
X

I care. Having just three thick books on the subject I now feel duped. How much more is fabrication?

How soon before keith 'reveals all'?

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

how the devil are you?

I have read zip about the Diary for absolute yonks, but I do recall Paul Feldman writing about how he heard about, chased and found some electricians who claimed to have found 'something' at Battlecrease during work on the house. I rather got the impression that he didn't believe them because he didn't want to believe them; that he preferred to believe that the Diary had come to Mike via Anne and her father who had kept it in a trunk, etc. What's your take these days on this?

As it goes, I do still care about who wrote the Diary and for what reason, and I am one of those silly persons who still believe that it is not a modern forgery. A forgery it most certainly is, but I don't believe it's modern.

Cheers,

Graham

[harry]

"the evidence that Keith Has in his possession'seems to indicate Kaz,that you have viewed what he has,have tested its authenticity,and is convinced of the truth of it's contents. Well good for you,wish we were all in that position.
Now if I say I have documentation,that is a claim.If I make public that documentation,I have proven my claim.I haven't proven the documents to be genuine,just that I have them.Keith has done nothing of that nature,and I am sorry,but your statement counts for nothing,it is now just two persons making similar unproven claims.

[caz]

I care. Having just three thick books on the subject I now feel duped. How much more is fabrication?

How soon before keith 'reveals all'?

Hi Kaz,

Any author claiming to have solved either the diary or ripper mystery can leave you feeling duped if you're not the sceptical sort.

I'm afraid only Keith could answer your second question, but he may not know himself yet.

Don't forget that 'revealing all' can have consequences for the dead and the living, so it often has to be handled with great care and thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

how the devil are you?

I have read zip about the Diary for absolute yonks, but I do recall Paul Feldman writing about how he heard about, chased and found some electricians who claimed to have found 'something' at Battlecrease during work on the house. I rather got the impression that he didn't believe them because he didn't want to believe them; that he preferred to believe that the Diary had come to Mike via Anne and her father who had kept it in a trunk, etc. What's your take these days on this?

As it goes, I do still care about who wrote the Diary and for what reason, and I am one of those silly persons who still believe that it is not a modern forgery. A forgery it most certainly is, but I don't believe it's modern.

Cheers,

Graham

I'm fine thanks Graham. Hope you are well too.

My take is that once Feldman thought he had found a piece or two of the diary jigsaw puzzle, he held onto them for grim death and completed the puzzle by chucking out any pieces that didn't appear to fit and imagining the missing ones.

One of those silly persons, Graham? Then I'm in exceedingly good company. Make that three silly persons including Keith Skinner.

Love,

Mrs Silly
X

[harry]

In my last post I used the name Kaz.It should have been Caz.

[Kaz]

Hi Kaz,

Any author claiming to have solved either the diary or ripper mystery can leave you feeling duped if you're not the sceptical sort.

I'm afraid only Keith could answer your second question, but he may not know himself yet.

Don't forget that 'revealing all' can have consequences for the dead and the living, so it often has to be handled with great care and thought.

Love,

Caz
X

I'm sceptical about whatever my Ex tells me. I'm sceptical about what I read in the tabloids. But no, I didn't question Shirley Harrisons or Paul Feldmans books. Where do I draw the line now? Should I be 'sceptical' of everything I read on here aswell?

[Addy]

Hi Kaz,

No you don't have to be sceptical about everything. When you read more and more (and Casebook is addictive!) you'll find you agree with some theories and disagree with others. Try to keep an open mind and keep thinking for yourself. You will get a more or less clear picture for yourself.

Caz, can't you even give a small hint about the evidence? I'm getting very curious here!

Greetings,

Addy

[caz]

No Addy, I can't I'm afraid. Last time I looked I didn't have the equipment required to impersonate Keith Skinner.

Love,

Caz
X