On The Trail Of The Forgers

[Steve Powell]

Shutup? Nah...

Omlor said:

"...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."

Gee's John, do you mean guilty before proven innocent?
I know what you are saying here, but
evidence isn't always around for someone like myself.
What should I do? Simply shut-up and not say a word?
Don't think so mate.
How much should one say then?
Everything they know and nothing less is the only answer.
I'm not irresponsible or untrustworthy and believe I should be heard.
If I have to shout loud and repeat myself, I will.

By the way John,
thank you for all of your posts to me on the casebook.
I do respect your opinions, even enough to feel I can
throw it back at you sometimes.
regards,
Steve Powell

[Omlor]

Steve,

It's pretty simple. Unless and until you are willing to present the evidence that supports your claims, you should not go around making the claims in public. The casualty of such a practice will always be your own credibility. This holds true whether your name is Powell or Butler, Harris or Skinner.

Hope that helps,

--John

[Maria]

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

Hi Steve:

I thought I already told you about Stanley Danger and his involvement with the watch, I even posted a photo of Jenni Danger taken by me on our meeting in Gerona and how Peter was asked to dig coincidental information which would support the diary and to ignore ALL evidence which pointed against the diary.

Incorrectly... Stanley Danger has been mentioned in the last diary book written by Keith Skinner & Morrris as an anti-diarist when in fact... Stanley was quite the opposite !

-Maria

[Maria]

Hi John:

Steve is right in that some things cannot be presented as evidence. For instance, I do vividly remember very well when Grey Hunter told us at the JTR Conference that Feldman had gone to Australia many years ago.

Now that is something Grey Hunter told to Peter and myself.

Peter has already told that to Steven Powell in writing. I do respect Grey Hunter but. even Grey Hunter can have a lapse of memory, no one is perfect. I do mantain what I said before and I even have Peter to back me up on this memory.

People like C. Morris will no doubt try to discredit me. But there it is... I stand by what I said.

-Maria

[Victoria]

Steve,

It's pretty simple. Unless and until you are willing to present the evidence that supports your claims, you should not go around making the claims in public. The casualty of such a practice will always be your own credibility. This holds true whether your name is Powell or Butler, Harris or Skinner.

Hope that helps,

--John

John,
You make some valid points in your posts but I can't
see that someone "should be considered irresponsible
and untrustworthy unless and until they can be bothered
to support their claims with actual evidence."
If you know something and/or were witness to an event, you
have every right to express your views on what took place,
it is up to the reader, or the public to judge if the claims have any
validity .. to see if it 'sounds true' or is at least a possibility.
I am sure there will be some type of circumstantial evidence
and leads also, to support the story.

Maybe for some .. the truth is more important than ..
"The casualty of such a practice will always be your own
credibility."

Victoria

[Omlor]

Victoria,

Sorry, but what makes people appear untrustworthy is making public claims without being able or willing to provide the evidence to support them.

I would have thought that was simple common sense.

If you appear in a public forum and make bold claims and then refuse or are unable to present the evidence to support those claims, your credibility is naturally going to suffer.

That's as it should be, no matter who you are.

--John

[Steve Powell]

Credibility

Omlor said:

"The casualty of such a practice will always be your own credibility."

Yes John, you are totally correct on this point.
But sometimes there is not much choice in the matter.

The risk of credibility being a casualty to someone
who discloses something that is known to be true by that person,
is a small price to be paid for being honest, brave or stupid enough
to say it out loud in the open to those that deserve to hear it.

regards,
Steve Powell

[Steve Powell]

Hello Maria,
I thought you were away on holidays.
Yes, you did tell me of Stanley Danger(dangar?)
But I don't have the full picture on him,
like how he came to be involved,
or who he was involved with,
or what happened to him?
What was his relationship with Feldman, etc.

Thank you Maria for being so helpful to me as you have.
I also applaud you standing up and speaking out for the truth.

regards,
Steve Powell

[Victoria]

Victoria,

Sorry, but what makes people appear untrustworthy is making public claims without being able or willing to provide the evidence to support them.

I would have thought that was simple common sense.

If you appear in a public forum and make bold claims and then refuse or are unable to present the evidence to support those claims, your credibility is naturally going to suffer.

That's as it should be, no matter who you are.

--John

John, I still feel ... regardless of "simple common sense" that depending on how the claims are presented, and with some limited/circumstantial evidence .. that one would not necessarily "appear untrustworthy".

And if so, so be it ..
as I said in my last post,
Maybe for some .. the TRUTH is more important than ...
"the casualty of such a practice will always be your own credibility".

This seems to be confirmed by Steve's subsequent post.
A choice he has obviously thought about and is willing to take,
for the sake of the truth.

~Victoria~

[Omlor]

Again, the answer to this problem is very simple.

Wait until you are able to present supporting evidence before making your claims in public.

Whether you claim that you know some guy named Steve Park wrote the diary (Powell) or whether you claim that another author fitted up his specific suspect "as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from the diary" (Butler) or whether you claim that you know Maybrick was the Ripper and could prove it if you wanted to (IKJ) or whether you claim that the diary could only have come from the real James Maybrick's house (Skinner) -- if you make the claim in a public space without offering any supporting evidence for it, and your unwilingness or inability to offer any evidence to support your case continues for month after month, then the natural consequences are likely to follow.

As they should.

You might believe that you are telling the truth to those who need to hear it, but without presenting solid evidence to back up your claims, all you are really doing is telling tales.

--John

[Maria]

Hello Maria,
I thought you were away on holidays.
Yes, you did tell me of Stanley Danger(dangar?)
But I don't have the full picture on him,
like how he came to be involved,
or who he was involved with,
or what happened to him?
What was his relationship with Feldman, etc.

Thank you Maria for being so helpful to me as you have.
I also applaud you standing up and speaking out for the truth.

regards,
Steve Powell

How he became involved ? He had a friendly relationship with Shirley Harris and he used to write in Casebook this is how he got in touch with Peter when Peter was ill and used to spend a lot of time writing here.

Dangar wanted to write a book to support Shirley´s claim about the fake diary, he told Peter there was more money to be made in making people believe the hoax was real since the public are not interested in reading about fakes just the same way they are only interested in the discovery of a genuine Picasso. He was unable to convince Peter about using his professional credentials to deceive the public.

Dangar died some years ago but his wife Jenni is as far as I know, is still alive.
Jenni Dangar used to have connections with a publisher and it was through her contacts that Dangar wanted to publish his book with the watch " finds "

We were away for a long weekend in Tuscany Steve with a friend who owns property there, just a few days away from home.

-Maria

[Callyphygian]

Hi Maria,
I have sent you a P.M. which might support Melvin's case.

Love,
Callyphygian

[Maria]

Hi Cally:

You wrote to me and I quote:

" Sometime back I posted a list of the residents of Battlecrease House from 1949 - on wards. Among them were a pair who´s surname was Keane.

Speaking to an Irish friend recently I was tild that Keane is the Irish spelling of the name Kane ! I have no experience in geneaology, so I was wondering if either of you would be interested in ascertaining whether there is any family connection between these Keanes and Melvin´s pen-man Gerard Kane ? Do let me know what you think. "

I´m the translator in my company and business undertakings must first be consulted with my husband and my son. Please contact them there, will P.M details.

- Maria

[Steve Powell]

Kane/Park

Gerard Kane, current age: 54.
New Chester Road,
Birkenhead.
Can someone go around there
and take a photo of him?
I shall gladly pay for it.
He may be Steven Park.

[Maria]

Stephen:

Gerard Kane and Stephen Park are two different people with a difference of 40 years of age between them.

The Gerard Kane you have there is not the right one.

-Maria