On The Trail Of The Forgers

[Victoria]

sorry

Limehouse,

I am sorry for the use of the 'judgemental' word ..
I realised later after my hasty reply, that it was not
the best terminology .. and you were not being
judgemental.

There are a lot of people interested in who faked
the diary .. even if you are not one of them.

Feel free to stick your nose in here anytime,
everyone is entitled to their opinions.

regards,
Victoria

[Steve Powell]

Step up to the bar Limehouse.

I personally do not think the diary is the work of the killer, but I am prepared to listen to claims that it may be a Victorian fake or even the work of a fantasist who would like to have been Jack or who would like people to think he was Jack. - Limehouse.

Don't try and escape that easily Limehouse.
Your opinion is welcome here at any time.
That 'fantasist' you mention above? That's Steven Park all over.
Its ok as well if you don't want to read my book, that's up to you.
As for the Diana affair? Its just a very sad case, foul or otherwise.
Since you possibly possess a good belief in the Royal family,
please forgive my colonial attitude.

Steve Powell.

[Limehouse]

Hi Steve,

I don't wish to get involved in arguments over whether you have uncovered the real diary author. However, I would willingly engage in debate on this forum about whether the diary is a modern fake or much older, but I would not read another book about Maybrick and the diary. That is no disrespect to you as a researcher or writer, but simply a decision on my part to stop buying Ripper books because the last few have disappointed me so in the weaknesses of their argument.

If this Steve Park did fake the diary, are you sure that it was because he was a fantasist, or was he just trying to make money?

As you say, the Diana affair is very sad. I could almost feel sorry for Al Fyed, as he is obviously beside himself with grief. I am not a particular royal fan. I almost feel sorry for them also because they are compelled to live a phony life, always on show, like soap opera characters. They can't even retire at a decent age. Why, only last week the Queen was visiting an old peoples' home. The irony made me chuckle. However, Al Fyed's claims are ludicrous and offensive.

[Graham]

You can bet your bippie that more money's been made out of the Diana Case than the Maybrick Diary ever did or ever will...and if the Diary is a modern production, then why was it created for any reason other than to make money?

The thing about Maybrick as a modern forger's choice Ripper is, the debated anachronisms within the Diary aside, it's a damn good choice, because so far no-one has been able to show definitively that it couldn't have been Maybrick because on the night of such-and-such a murder Maybrick was at the Wife-Beating Cotton Merchants' Association Ball & Booze-Up in Liverpool, for example. That's the first thing doubters look for when a historical person is put up as the Ripper - could he have been in the East End on every murder night. Mind you, on the other hand, I have absolute knowledge that my own grandfather was nowhere near the East End on any of the murder nights either....can't say the same about Grandma, though....

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

It's true that, if you are looking for evidence to pinpoint a Ripper suspect to the East End at the time of the murders, it is easier to pick a person whose movements can be tracked a traced. For example, Cornwall thinks she has found evidence that Sickert had studios all over London, including the East End and she uses this to support her assertion that he can be placed in the vicinity of the murders. Even when critics point out that Sickert was probably in France at the time, because the dates cannot be verfied, she can fall back on the 'he could have been in Whitechapel' argument.

As for your grandma Graham, my grandfather's surname was De Ritter and he had an uncle Jack who lived in Mile End at the time of the murders. Yes, my great uncle really was Jack De Ritter. No word of a lie.

[Graham]

It's true that, if you are looking for evidence to pinpoint a Ripper suspect to the East End at the time of the murders, it is easier to pick a person whose movements can be tracked a traced. For example, Cornwall thinks she has found evidence that Sickert had studios all over London, including the East End and she uses this to support her assertion that he can be placed in the vicinity of the murders. Even when critics point out that Sickert was probably in France at the time, because the dates cannot be verfied, she can fall back on the 'he could have been in Whitechapel' argument.

As for your grandma Graham, my grandfather's surname was De Ritter and he had an uncle Jack who lived in Mile End at the time of the murders. Yes, my great uncle really was Jack De Ritter. No word of a lie.

That's it - Case Closed!! It wasn't Druipp after all!

Graham.

PS: God help anyone who caught hold of my Grandma in the dark....

[Steve Powell]

Fed up with the diary.

Howdy Limehouse,
I don't want to get into another argument over the diary either.
And any debate over the diary being 'modern' or pre that,
doesn't interest me at all, as I know its a fake
and those debates bore the hell out of me.
As for not wanting to read another book about Maybrick and the diary,
I don't blame you and I never want to see one again.
However, the book that I am writing, is about a young man, Steven Park,
and how he came to write the diary with the intervention of Feldman.
It is not about the Ripper or his victims, Maybrick nor his wife.

"If this Steve Park did fake the diary, are you sure that it was because he was a fantasist,
or was he just trying to make money?"

Both. He was a fantasist who wanted to make money as well.
Everyone is fed up to hell with the diary, just like me,
and its part of the reason that I am writing the book.
Then. hopefully, I won't have to think about it again,
and neither will you.

regards,
Steve Powell

[Steve Powell]

Stanley Danger?

Could someone here give me any information on Stanley Danger?
Where does he fit into the story of the diary or watch?

regards,
Steve Powell

[Steve Powell]

The Silence of the Troopers

[Howard Brown]

We still have the absurd claim that Melvin Harris "fitted up" his own suspect "as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from the diary." That's nonsense.--The Nutty Professor

Well, maybe its coincidence...and maybe its not....but.....

1. The Ripper File was written in 1988 or 1989 by Mr. Harris.
The speculation regarding Stephenson being the Ripper in this book culminated with the author pronouncing Stephenson too ill to continue and then going into the London Hospital after the Mary Kelly massacre. This is obviously incorrect.

2. The Diary of Jack The Ripper first appeared in 1993.

3. The True Face of Jack The Ripper appeared in 1994 with an entirely new perspective of Stephenson's relationship to the London Hospital, this time baseless and without one iota of proof.

The fact is, Professor Plum, is that no one knows if its "absurd"..."false"...."true"....or "dumb"...or anything other than very coincidental.

And you came outta Pennsylvania ?

[plang]

Steve. So publish the damn book already. Jezus!

[Omlor]

Howard,

Nothing in your curious little post suggests in any way that Melvin Harris published his work on his suspect "as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from the diary." Nothing.

And as of yet you have presented no evidence at all that this absurd claim, made by Paul Butler on another site, is anything but an irresponsible and unsupportable bit of nasty speculation without base or merit.

Of course, I realize that this is not likely to make any difference to you, but I thought it should be pointed out in any case, for those that do care.

Meanwhile, I believe there's a first anniversary coming next month, and another big one in July.

Looking forward to the celebrations,

--John

[Howard Brown]

Nothing in your curious little post suggests in any way that Melvin Harris published his work on his suspect "as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from the diary." Nothing.

And as of yet you have presented no evidence at all that this absurd claim, made by Paul Butler on another site, is anything but an irresponsible and unsupportable bit of nasty speculation without base or merit.

For a college professor, you sure don't read too good. Must be all that sand down in Florida or something.

I said : "The fact is, Professor Plum, is that no one knows if its "absurd"..."false"...."true"....or "dumb"...or anything other than very coincidental." in regard to the switcheroo that Harris pulled on Stephenson & the LH and this whole Maybrick business. I wasn't speaking for Mr. Butler. He doesn't need me to speak for him.

[Omlor]

Still no evidence to support the fanciful and groundless speculation that Melvin Harris produced his work on his suspect "as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from the diary."

I wonder why?

Perhaps because this is all about nothing.

Of course, no one should be surprised by that around here, should they?

--John

[Omlor]

Upon further thought, I think this a perfect illustration of how so much $hit happens in Diary World and why it is all so completely ridiculous.

Someone goes on an internet website and without a shred of supporting evidence or any case at all, simply makes the claim that an author "fitted up" his subject of choice "as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from the diary."

There is no earthly reason to think this is true, of course. There's nothing anywhere that in any way supports such a claim. It's completely baseless.

But that doesn't matter. Because once the accusation is out there, and since the author in question is dead, all those who are involved need to do is say "well, no one can prove he didn't do that, can they, since he's dead and no one can say for sure what secret thoughts might have been in his head at any given moment" -- as if that is somehow an argument in favor of the groundless claim, a claim which remains completely unsupported and purely fanciful.

This is, of course, not how responsible logic works. If you are going to make a claim, then you'd better be able to support it with some actual evidence or people are going to be perfectly justified in considering your claim to be worthless and then it becomes your own credibility that is appropriately put into question.

Steve Powell came here and made all sorts of unsupported claims about people, just like Paul's public claim on another site about Melvin publishing his book "as some sort of attempt to deflect attention away from the diary." And like that completely groundless bit of nonsense, Steve's claims have not been supported in any way by any real evidence. That's why I have long said here that no one should take any of them seriously.

For the same reasons, no one should take the claim made by Mr. Butler concerning Mr. Harris seriously. And Mr. Butler, like Mr. Powell, and like anyone who supports the making of such completely unevidenced public allegations, should be considered irresponsible and untrustworthy unless and until they can be bothered to support their claims with actual evidence.

I know that's asking a lot here in Diary World. But it's what simple rational thought requires.

--John