On The Trail Of The Forgers

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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:

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:

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[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