On The Trail Of The Forgers

[Limehouse]

Maria,

If you think this thread is loony, you obviously haven't tuned into to the 'Dr Barnardo-was-JtR-and-there-is-a-connection-to-the-death-of- Diana-and- Dodi' thread.

[Maria]

Maria is right. He wouldn't post it here himself, but someone would have by now if he'd released the results of testing.

Thank you Steje, it is refreshing to see someone at last, who has common sense and intelligence on this loony diary threads for a change, from the usual ones who seem to have a very tenuous grip on reality.

-Maria

[Maria]

John:

" Keith cannot expect people simply to take his word for what he claimed " ( Caroline´s words )

So... what does this mean ? We cannot take his word for what he claimed ? That´s interesting.

I don´t think you did, neither did I. Maybe other more gullible souls have taken his word for what he claimed, or for that matter, taken Caroline´s word for what she claims.

And because we cannot take his word for what he claimed, we are asking him where is the evidence ?

-Maria

[Graham]

Caz,

Does Keith say precisely when he came by the information he claims links the Diary to Battlecrease? Maybe this has been stated on these boards in the past, but if so I missed it.

Cheers,

Graham

[steje73]

Maria is right. He wouldn't post it here himself, but someone would have by now if he'd released the results of testing.

[Maria]

Limehouse and Caroline:

If Keith had published it elsewhere like in a newspaper or on T.V., someone somewhere would have eventually reported it here, even by Caroline herself.

The same way the Liverpool Trial was reported in Casebook by those who attended it and this way, we heard the Jeremy Beadle question verbatim, that is word by word. So the fact that I did not attend does not mean that I did not get an exact report of what happened by those who taped the event. It is only now that Caroline is saying that. At one point, she even claimed to know what Keith was referring to with his evidence but when cornered by John and Chris Phillips who has the sense of not bothering to write here anymore... she got angry.

-Maria

[Omlor]

Caroline writes,

"Keith cannot expect people simply to take his word for what he claimed."

Then why did he claim it in public without being willing to support his claim with evidence and without even being willing to explain why he won't support his claim?

And why shouldn't he then be guilty of exactly what you and so many others (including me) criticized Mr. Harris for and therefore subject to the same treatment Mr. Harris received?

You're the one who came here not long after the goofy trial and reminded people in post after post about the "Battlecrease evidence" and who wrote elsewhere that it would let all potential modern forgers "off the hook." And you're the one who has for years invoked the sacred name of your friend St. Skinner repeatedly in discussions about the diary. So you can hardly be surprised when people ask you about the man and his as of yet unsupported public claims (and your use of them).

Dance away from it all you like Caroline. This is just another in along series of hinting and hiding games in the history of the hoaxed diary. Keith joins a long line of characters here, and most of them are not people who have garnered your approval.

That's just the way it is,

--John

[Limehouse]

Limehouse:

Keith said in public that he possesed the evidence and if it was brought forward to a court of law, it would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the diary came from Battlecrease.

John Omlor asked him a resonable question which is to produce his evidence. It has been a full year since John asked that question and no evidence nor an explanation has been produced, so I for one, think the reason must be that the " evidence " never existed in the first place. It was just an idle boast Keith made in public for effect. If anyone claims to have such a weighty evidence, then it shouldn´t be a problem to produce it, unless of course, it doesn´t exist.

Of course, people would believe anything if a so called " expert " says it. A challenge like this for a real expert shouldn´t be a problem.

-Maria

Maria,

Keith may well have said that he had this evidence and he may well have said it publically, but what makes you think he will reveal that evidence on this Forum when he does not post on this Forum? More to the point, how do you KNOW he has not produced this evidence elsewhere and you (and John) are just unaware of the fact? And in any case, just because he states publically that he has the evidence, why SHOULD he reveal it?

[caz]

And yes, at one time I was indeed lambasting Melvin for his pronouncements about knowing something concerning the origins of the diary but not being able to reveal the super secret information about which he spoke in public forums.

Omlor,

You were also in the habit of lambasting everyone else who went further than the evidence allowed, and telling others to exercise due caution when speculating. These days you let some of the wildest unsupported claims ever made waft right over you, concerning the roles various individuals are meant to have played.

You also revealed on the old boards that your reasons for still coming here were personal. Since you appear to have moved on from exercising one personal grudge against someone who doesn't post here, to exercising another personal grudge against someone who doesn't post here, all in all you are the very last person who has any business accusing others of treating people inconsistently.

I have always maintained that if anyone makes a claim that is not supportable, on their head be it. As I explained to Ally recently, Melvin and co could hardly whine about the field being polluted by a nest of forgers when they were claiming to have the means of exposing them but refused to do so, even in private to Keith. Similarly Keith cannot expect people simply to take his word for what he claimed.

Hi Maria,

Setting aside the fact that you were not at the trial and are not reporting what Keith said, but your own version of what he said, the other little problem here is that Omlor has not asked Keith anything at all. Keith is not here to be asked. Omlor keeps asking me instead. This is what he said here recently:

Why would I write to Keith's publisher and all that when I have (we are constantly reminded) one of his good friends and collaborators and admirers right here regularly and actively participating in this very discussion? Why not take advantage of this wonderfully instant form of communication and simply ask that self-professed close friend and colleague to pass on a simple and direct question...

Why indeed would Omlor bother to write to Keith’s publisher ‘and all that’ (whatever ‘all that’ is supposed to mean)?

More to the point, why would he bother to keep asking me, for over a year now, in a place I often only visit once or twice a month (so less ‘wonderfully instant’ than snail mail), if he could have taken advantage of the wonderfully instant form of communication called email and asked Keith direct?

If he genuinely wants to know anything about what Keith actually said, or meant, or why he couldn’t say more, the way to obtain the answers is to approach the source direct.

So why did Omlor ask me anything at all, if he could have asked Keith direct?

Of course, asking you that question, Maria, when Omlor is always ready at a moment’s notice to address anything and everything I post, would be even sillier than him still asking me the same old questions for over a year that he could have asked Keith direct last May, last Christmas or last week.

So Omlor:

Why did you ask me anything at all, if you could have asked Keith direct, via email?

Love,

Caz
X

PS I won’t be back here for a while because I’m off on my holidays tomorrow. But you could contact Keith in my absence and leave a message saying why you asked me instead of him. I’ll pick it up on my return.

[Maria]

Limehouse:

Keith said in public that he possesed the evidence and if it was brought forward to a court of law, it would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the diary came from Battlecrease.

John Omlor asked him a resonable question which is to produce his evidence. It has been a full year since John asked that question and no evidence nor an explanation has been produced, so I for one, think the reason must be that the " evidence " never existed in the first place. It was just an idle boast Keith made in public for effect. If anyone claims to have such a weighty evidence, then it shouldn´t be a problem to produce it, unless of course, it doesn´t exist.

Of course, people would believe anything if a so called " expert " says it. A challenge like this for a real expert shouldn´t be a problem.

-Maria

[Omlor]

Hi Limehouse,

The concert was fantastic.

And what you say about Keith is perfectly correct. Of course, the problem is that Keith DID reveal what he claims to know. In public. And then not only was unable or unwilling to produce the evidence to support his public claim but also refused even to say why he wouldn't put up the goods.

A simple and honest and straightforward explanation (like the one you offer at the end of your post) would be easy enough, and given that he felt it necessary to say that he had such secret evidence and he felt it necessary to claim exactly what he believes that evidence allows him to conclude, it seems like, if he's not going to support that public claim with the alleged evidence, he should at least say why.

Otherwise, this all sounds like hinting and evasion and making unsupported claims in public -- not exactly the most responsible behavior for an allegedly careful scholar. And the consequence of this is we get posts from people like Caroline talking about Keith's "Battlecrease evidence" and how it lets all potential modern forgers "off the hook" despite the fact that the evidence has never been produced and the claims made based upon it remain completely unsupported.

It's a silly way to make arguments. And it's long been standard practice around here. The irony is that Caroline and Keith and others had no problem attacking people in the past for doing exactly this (and taking great joy out of seeing me say the same thing then about others as I am saying now about Keith -- I still have the congratulatory e-mails from them).

I hope that explains at least somewhat why I find the "revelations" Keith offered over a year ago now in a public forum to be just another in a long string of strange and deliberately mysterious claims, hints, and deferrals in this case.

It's just a bit sad to see Keith join the list of those who have gone this way before.

Meanwhile, the hoaxes are still hoaxes and there is still nothing new,

--John

[Limehouse]

I hope everyone read the post from Caroline above.

Don't you just love all the dancing and evasion and "yes and no" nonsense and hints at never ending "ongoing investigations" and all the rest of the secret squirrel stupidity?

Sometimes the lack of simple, honest, straightforward, fully explained prose is just staggering.

You'd think we were talking about the most sensitive of State secrets or something.

Honestly, it's just a couple of cheap hoaxes and some of these people talk as if the fate of a world war depended on their alleged super secret intelligence (or lack thereof).

The lack of perspective is at least good for a laugh.

And I do love the fact that Caroline writes:

"The question: ‘Why did you say anything, if you were not prepared to say it all?’, is rendered rather pointless and petulant..."

That's especially delightful considering who first framed this excellently worded question.

And yes, at one time I was indeed lambasting Melvin for his pronouncements about knowing something concerning the origins of the diary but not being able to reveal the super secret information about which he spoke in public forums.

Now I am lambasting Keith Skinner for doing exactly the same thing.

At one time my doing this delighted Caroline Morris. Now it bothers her.

Anyone want to guess why?

Happily off to a Tom Waits concert tomorrow in Jacksonville,

--John

John,

I hope you didn't leave the Tom Waits concert 'wasted and wounded'.


I have dipped into this thread now and then and have read most of it and I am wondering why Keith should reveal what he knows? I mean, if he is sure in his own mind that what he knows is worth knowing, why should he share it on this Forum, when, as far as I know, he is not a member?

Maybe he is saving what he knows for a book launch?

[Maria]

Graham:

Sadly, I don´t think anyone here will be alive and kicking when finally Keith is ready to disclose his " claims " A year on, of waiting is considered " premature " or a teeny-weeny amount of time to wait for this miracle to happen.

In the meantime, Jeremy has already gone to heaven without listening to Keith´s " evidence " We are being asked to wait some more. Wait, wait, wait and die waiting...

-Maria

[Omlor]

I hope everyone read the post from Caroline above.

Don't you just love all the dancing and evasion and "yes and no" nonsense and hints at never ending "ongoing investigations" and all the rest of the secret squirrel stupidity?

Sometimes the lack of simple, honest, straightforward, fully explained prose is just staggering.

You'd think we were talking about the most sensitive of State secrets or something.

Honestly, it's just a couple of cheap hoaxes and some of these people talk as if the fate of a world war depended on their alleged super secret intelligence (or lack thereof).

The lack of perspective is at least good for a laugh.

And I do love the fact that Caroline writes:

"The question: ‘Why did you say anything, if you were not prepared to say it all?’, is rendered rather pointless and petulant..."

That's especially delightful considering who first framed this excellently worded question.

And yes, at one time I was indeed lambasting Melvin for his pronouncements about knowing something concerning the origins of the diary but not being able to reveal the super secret information about which he spoke in public forums.

Now I am lambasting Keith Skinner for doing exactly the same thing.

At one time my doing this delighted Caroline Morris. Now it bothers her.

Anyone want to guess why?

Happily off to a Tom Waits concert tomorrow in Jacksonville,

--John

[Graham]

Hi Caz.

I wasn't at the Trial, so don't know for sure what KS actually said. I just felt that he was giving us the veg with no meat, something which you have to agree is not unknown in Ripperland...

Regarding Mr Kane, it's occurred to me that if he was in the plot, then as time wore on Mike Barrett would almost certainly have blabbed his name out.

As for dear Omlor - the one you describe is hardly recognisable to a newcomer like me! It sounds as though you actually quite liked him...

Cheers,

Graham