On The Trail Of The Forgers

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I don't like Omlor's immature attitude, endless mind-numbing mantra and incredible twisting of other peoples' statements any more than you do, and as you know I've been on the receiving end of his tongue more than once. He'll never change, rest assured. But I do think, seriously, that if Keith has made public reference to information he has regarding the provenance of the Diary, then it could have been just a teensy-weensy bit premature on his part if, now, he refuses to enlarge upon it. Anyway, that's my opinion and mine only. And to judge by the dwindling number of posters to this thread, I doubt if too many people care any more.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

I think you hit the nail pretty much on the head here.

The question: ‘Why did you say anything, if you were not prepared to say it all?’, is rendered rather pointless and petulant in my view by Keith's explanation that what he said was a spontaneous (and straight) response to a spontaneous question put to him by Jeremy Beadle in May 2007. That's why he said it - he was asked on the spot and he answered on the spot.

Yes, of course Keith could have said to Jeremy: “I am not yet at liberty to reveal full details of my investigations and you will not thank me for any premature progress reports”. And Omlor would have said: “Bravo - good man!” - or words to that effect. Wouldn’t he?

But Keith didn’t say that, and as a result, Jeremy got to hear what everyone else heard that day. Sadly he will not be there when others get to judge if Keith’s claim was supportable when he made it. But I imagine that being a teensy-weensy bit premature tends to fade into relative insignificance for the people still around whenever something that began its public life as a claim is finally confirmed.

I know. I wasn't suggesting that Gerard Kane penned the diary.
I don't suppose you know why he apologises for his handwriting in the handwriting sample he gave do you?

Hi Cally,

I wasn’t there to ask when he gave the sample so I would naturally be speculating along with everyone else. Judging by what else he wrote, and taking all the circumstances into consideration, being pestered about it by someone who wanted evidence that he was a forger, and maybe not feeling too well on the day, could have combined to make his handwriting shakier than normal and therefore not a representative example. Or maybe he was apologising for his handwriting not providing his tormentors with the desired match for the diary. I don’t suppose it matters much, since you are not suggesting he penned the diary anyway, and to my knowledge nobody qualified to judge has ever suggested it either.

You can hardly expect me to give you details of any of Keith’s investigations, and Omlor would be down on me like a ton of bricks if I did, but then failed to reveal the findings. So I’m sure you will understand why yes and no are not the only two options when you ask me about Keith looking into possible Kane family connections. If you don't like my answer (and I'm certain Omlor will kick up a stink about it), think of it as Jeremy asking Keith if he has evidence of where the diary came from and expecting a simple yes or no answer to that one. Here is my answer: I am not at liberty to reveal any unpublished details of Keith's investigations and nobody will thank me for any premature progress reports.

The comical thing is that while you are rightly considering all avenues in the absence of information that would allow you to come to any firm conclusions (hence this K(e)ane idea of yours), Omlor is always keen to pour cold water on ideas that involve taking off an e here or adding an e there to see where it may take us. The idea that someone who puts an e on the post in ‘post haste’ would in all probability do the same with ‘Post House’ is laughed to scorn. It’s good to see your mind appears to be a wee bit more open to different possibilities than that.

I’m afraid I can’t instantly recall Alan Gray suggesting that the writing in the diary resembles Anne’s. Do you know anything about the man that would make him in any way, shape or form qualified to judge, in the absence of anyone else claiming to see any similarity?

According to Keith (for what that’s now worth here in Daft Land) Sue Iremonger was provided quite early on with various handwriting samples that included Anne’s. If she noticed any resemblance at the time she evidently didn’t think it was significant enough to mention or to request further samples.

It beggars belief in my view that we’d still be discussing any of this if we were dealing with a 63-page document penned by one of the usual suspects. Someone somewhere would have been able to smell that particular rat and bring it out into the open well before now, surely?

From what I can make out (correct me if I'm wrong, Caz) it was Melvin Harris who first brought Gerard Kane's name to public attention, and that Feldman advised Harris that he knew about the Kane connection anyway. I can only suggest that it was someone connected with Devereux who first suggested the name Kane as being connected with the Diary (again, Caz, etc)…

Hi Graham (again),

I think Feldy was the first to bring the man to public attention when he believed he was ‘outing’ Melvin’s prime suspect. But he referred to him as ‘Mr Cain’ (I’ll give you three guesses why that was) and Melvin was always quick to deny that he had fingered Citizen Kane as the ‘obvious’ penman. (I’ll give you another three guesses why that was. )

I don’t believe it was anyone connected with Devereux who first suggested that Kane may have had a diary connection. It appears to have been the natural result of investigators looking into Devereux’s life (and death) because of the claim that he had passed the diary onto Mike shortly before shuffling off prematurely. It soon emerged that his will had been witnessed by Kane, whose handwriting gave rise to some assumptions from people no more qualified than Alan Gray that led to two and two becoming five. Never mind that no evidence was ever found that Kane and the Barretts had heard of each other when the diary surfaced; never mind that if the tale told by Mike in 1992 (and later by Anne) involving Devereux sucked and couldn’t be trusted, the same caution should have been exercised when speculating about Devereux, and by extension Kane, being involved in any other capacity.

While I'm sure you are right that Omlor will never change, he did show a very different face back in 2001 that would make him unrecognisable to you today. Back then his mantras involved mocking Melvin and his fan club for their wishful thinking and speculation with regard to the roles allegedly played by Citizen Kane, Devereux et al, and he was always very complimentary about my own writing and thinking on the subject. Does that sound anything like the Omlor you have come to know?

Love,

Caz
X

[Steve Powell]

The devil made him do it?

Howdy Callyphygian,
Steven Park didn't have a 'full-time' obsession with the occult at all
and had no books that I can remember on the subject.
There was only that one time when he outfitted his bedroom
with black curtains and painted pentangles and such,
in a flat we were living in in Bondi, Sydney.
He had more fun just thinking that he was different than
everyone else and liked to shock a bit too.
But as for him 'going the hog' with the occult? Na, he didn't bother.
He liked to oppose the norm, that's basically it.
He never read books until he began working on the diary.
The name you mention rings empty.
You know Cally, I stood in the room that held his small writing desk
with about a dozen books that he was using in his hoax,
and tried very hard at that time to remember what they were.
He had left me alone in there for a couple of minutes
and I knew I should remember them but I can't.
That's strange to me, as I can remember a heck of a lot of trivial
things but can't the things I wanted too at the time.
To sum up: Steven wasn't serious about anything enough
to make it a full-time thing - except the diary.

Regards, Cally,
Steve Powell

[Graham]

Graham:

Last time I spoke to Alan on the phone he said everything about the diary and the watch is a fake. To forget about it since its nothing but a waste of time.

He is right.

-Maria

So next time you're on the blower to Mr Gray, can you please ask him who, in his expert opinion, wrote the Diary and faked the Watch?

I'd be ever so interested in what he has to say...

Graham

[Maria]

Graham:

Last time I spoke to Alan on the phone he said everything about the diary and the watch is a fake. To forget about it since its nothing but a waste of time.

He is right.

-Maria

[Graham]

Graham:

No. Even though Alan Gray was asked to do an investigation on the watch
in the end, he did not work for Stanley Dangar. This, I know because Dangar was refusing to pay Alan´s travelling expenses to visit him in Spain, for a trip which was agreed by him and Dangar before hand, to have a preliminary discussion about the possibility of working on the watch origins once Peter had rejected that offer.

So Alan Gray had to resort to his solicitor in the end, to get Dangar to pay up the promised expenses from that trip as agreed. I think it did not go any further than that, since Alan Gray wrote to us to see whether we could serve as witnesses which could back him up, that he had indeed travelled over there, but as it turned out, Dangar payed up his expenses after all without any litigation whatsoever.. So I doubt very much he would have taken up Dangar any further than that, once it proved so difficult to get his inicial expenses paid.

-Maria

It seems that poor old Alan Gray didn't do very well at all - he had problems getting Barrett to pay him too. If indeed Barrett ever did cough up.

Graham

[Maria]

Graham:

No. Even though Alan Gray was asked to do an investigation on the watch
in the end, he did not work for Stanley Dangar. This, I know because Dangar was refusing to pay Alan´s travelling expenses to visit him in Spain, for a trip which was agreed by him and Dangar before hand, to have a preliminary discussion about the possibility of working on the watch origins once Peter had rejected that offer.

So Alan Gray had to resort to his solicitor in the end, to get Dangar to pay up the promised expenses from that trip as agreed. I think it did not go any further than that, since Alan Gray wrote to us to see whether we could serve as witnesses which could back him up, that he had indeed travelled over there, but as it turned out, Dangar payed up his expenses after all without any litigation whatsoever.. So I doubt very much he would have taken up Dangar any further than that, once it proved so difficult to get his inicial expenses paid.

-Maria

[Graham]

Hi Cally.

Quick response to your post:

1] Re: Gerard Kane and the Scotland Yard investigation, read Caz's book!

2] Keane, Keen, Kane, O'Kane, etc: all derivatives of the Erse O'Cathain, which originally meant 'short'. Keane (pronounced 'Keen) can also mean sharp-witted from the Gaelic for spear.

3] I don't believe for one moment that, even if she had anything to do with the production of the Diary, Anne Graham actually hand-wrote it. I agree that the sample of her handwriting in Caz's book appears to be just a crazy scrawl, but until I set eyes on another authentic sample of her writing I'm prepared to accept it as hers.

4] Alan Gray was employed by Barratt to search for Anne after she left him (Barratt). Eventually Gray conceded that Barratt was too dim to have had anything to do with producing the Diary. Gray also apparently changed his mind about the Watch, after he'd been employed by Stanley Dangar to investigate its origins; I believe after much fun and games he ended up saying that it could be genuine.

5] A close examination of the letter 'K' in Kane's and Maybrick's handwriting, which is what all the fuss was about, shows a slight similarity; but they are not the same.

We're still no nearer as to identifying whose finger and thumb got all inky when he or she wrote the damn thing.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victoria]

Hi Callyphygian,

I heard no bells ringing re Arthur Machen, but was curious and
googled his name.
He sounds an interesting character ..
bought up the son of a Church of England clergyman, always held
christian beliefs, accompanied by a fascination with sensual mysticism,
paganism, the occult etc.
He espoused the mystical belief that the humdrum ordinary world, hid
a more mysterious and strange world ... beyond.

I can see Steven Park reading his works, but I have no memory of any
books he may have read, apart from the one that I have of his .. 'Reincarnation, fact or fallacy?'

Good chance that Steve will probably remember some of his books.
Any particular reason for asking re Arthur Machen, Cally?

love,
Victoria

[Callyphygian]

Hi Victoria,

Quick one for you, or Steve. Steve mentioned that Park had an obsession with the occult and had quite a few books on the subject. I believe you still have one in your possesion. Dredging long and deep through your memory, do you remember any of the titles of the books owned or read by Park? Does the name Arthur Machen ring any bells for either of you?

Love,
Callyphygian

[Callyphygian]

Hi Graham,

" Kane always denied it, and an investigation by Scotland Yard detectives effectively exonnerated him of any complicity"

Tell me more about this Scotland Yard investigation...

"Re: 'Keane' and 'Kane'. As far as I'm aware, in the UK and Ireland the surname 'Keane' is pronounced 'Keen', cf: the former Manchester United footballer of that name."

Sorry Graham:

KEANE: Middle English for "sharp-witted." Can be pronounced "Kane" or "Kene."


"If the samples of Anne Graham's handwriting in The Ripper Diary are anything to go by, then for her to hand-write the Diary places her in the First Division of All-Time Great Forgers. Or.....on the other hand..."

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here Graham. The "samples" of Anne Graham's handwriting taken by Shirley Harrison and reproduced in "Ripper Diary" are risible. They don't fulfill any of the requirements needed to obtain a forensically viable handwriting sample. Unfortunately, the "samples" of Anne Graham's hand shown in Caz and Keith's book are thus not really anything to go by at all....
I'm sure screeds of Anne's handwriting exists. Those who have access to it, however, don't seem overly enthusiastic about posting it in the public domain for saps like you and I to decide one way or the other do they? Why could that be?

"Alan Gray - are you kidding?"

Nope. I'm relying on memory here, but he noticed that a particular letter on one of Barrett's casettes - a "Y", I think - looked like a diary "Y". I think the notion/assumption/conclusion was that the writing on the cassette was Anne's.

Love,
Callyphygian

[Victoria]

Hi Victoria,

I’m afraid you still understand very little and assume too much. The reason I am not saying anything more concerning the Battlecrease evidence has less to do with personal loyalties and friendships and more to do with the fact that I didn’t say anything about it in the first place. So why you would expect me to give you ‘an explanation of some kind’ is beyond me. Keith is the only one who could explain to you his thought processes when he decided to say what he said; the only one who could explain to you how and when the material is likely to be made available.

But just out of curiosity, when you refer to ‘actual views on the matter’, what views of mine are you comparing with John’

I think you’ll find only one person here (a clue: the one who gets your vote) who is into ridiculing people for talking about stuff before they are ready to publish all they have to offer.


Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

"So why you would expect me to give 'an explanation of some kind' is
beyond me."

I think .. why not, because you are here. And as John so eloquently wrote ..

"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 activately 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 collegue to pass on a simple
and direct question written, I'm sure you will agree, by a very smart and sensible person?"

"But just out of curiosity, when you refer to 'actual views on the matter',
what views of mine are you comparing to John's?"

Probably not well worded on my part 'actual views' .. I think I really only
was refering to this current 'issue', where John has asked a simple, straight
forward, non offensive question .. that could simply ... just be answered.
I have to agree that ... "instead we get endless deferrals and excuses and the sort of semantic
dancing we see above."

love,
Victoria

[Graham]

Hi Cally,

From what I can make out (correct me if I'm wrong, Caz) it was Melvin Harris who first brought Gerard Kane's name to public attention, and that Feldman advised Harris that he knew about the Kane connection anyway. I can only suggest that it was someone connected with Devereux who first suggested the name Kane as being connected with the Diary (again, Caz, etc). Kane always denied it, and an investigation by Scotland Yard detectives effectively exonnerated him of any complicity.

Re: 'Keane' and 'Kane'. As far as I'm aware, in the UK and Ireland the surname 'Keane' is pronounced 'Keen', cf: the former Manchester United footballer of that name.

If the samples of Anne Graham's handwriting in The Ripper Diary are anything to go by, then for her to hand-write the Diary places her in the First Division of All-Time Great Forgers. Or.....on the other hand.....

Alan Gray - are you kidding?

Cheers,

Graham

[Callyphygian]

Hi Caz,

"You could read what we wrote about the unfortunate Mr Kane in Ripper [I]Diary."

Yess - done that.

"Like DS Thomas of Scotland Yard, the authors found no evidence whatsoever to support the theory that citizen Kane was responsible for penning the diary."

I know. I wasn't suggesting that Gerard Kane penned the diary.
I don't suppose you know why he apologises for his handwriting in the handwriting sample he gave do you?

"Keith will know what connections between the various players needed to be investigated or ruled out during the course of his enquiries."

I don't doubt it. But has Keith looked at any possible connection between the former residents of 7a Batltecrease House Arthur J K(e)ane, Jane B K(e)ane and Gerard Kane?
There are only two real options here, and they are:
(1) Yes.
(2) No.



"I don’t recall anyone ever suggesting that the writing looks like it could be Anne’s."

Apart from private detective Alan Gray?

Love,

Callyphygian

[Omlor]

Caroline,

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 written, I'm sure you will agree, by a very smart and sensible person?

That question, again, was...

"So why say anything, if you are not prepared to say it at all?"

Hoping for the best ,

--John

PS: What does the phrase "like Omlor talks to me" mean? I'm just curious.

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

I don't like Omlor's immature attitude, endless mind-numbing mantra and incredible twisting of other peoples' statements any more than you do, and as you know I've been on the receiving end of his tongue more than once. He'll never change, rest assured. But I do think, seriously, that if Keith has made public reference to information he has regarding the provenance of the Diary, then it could have been just a teensy-weensy bit premature on his part if, now, he refuses to enlarge upon it. Anyway, that's my opinion and mine only. And to judge by the dwindling number of posters to this thread, I doubt if too many people care any more.

Cheers,

Graham