On The Trail Of The Forgers

[caz]

Omlor,

If you didn't have Keith's email address a year ago (and I could have sworn you had it at one time, but if I've got that wrong I must be thinking of someone else), you still had a whole year to ask him any questions you liked via any of his publishers in the normal way when an author does not post to the boards. Is it the case that you have tried this route and got no response? Or do you seriously expect someone you have repeatedly treated like dirt for the last seven years to run around after you when you have given every indication that whatever answers were forthcoming they could never satisfy you in a million years?

I suggest you go and read RJ Palmer's sensible post on the subject of other people's unpublished material over at the forums (I think it's on the necklace thread but I can't be arsed to check). It would have been written in the wake of Keith's statement when you began your incessant huffing and puffing.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Graham, I can't believe you would give the drippings from your nose to anyone who had talked to you like Omlor talks to me.

[Graham]

"Perhaps someone here who claims to know Keith might pass that direct, simple, and common sense question on to him and we'll see if a reasonable response might be forthcoming."

Have to say so, but a fair point.

Graham

[Omlor]

Interesting.

I've just re-read Caroline's response to Cally's question concerning the Kane/Keane coincidence and I can't seem to find where the original simple question was answered. I see lots of words, but the only thing I can see that remotely looks like an attempt at an answer is the phrase "Keith will know..."

I suppose that's intended to be reassuring, this sort of genuflection at the altar of St. Skinner. Of course, it tells us nothing.

Nor does her response to me, needless to say.

But that was predictable.

As far as my addressing Mr. Nobody here on these boards, all I can say is if that's the case, then I might as well ask the absent Mr. Nobody the question that was first written elsewhere by a very wise and eminently sensible person.

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

Perhaps someone here who claims to know Keith might pass that direct, simple, and common sense question on to him and we'll see if a reasonable response might be forthcoming.

I know what I'm betting...

--John

[caz]

Hi Scotty,

Good to see you here. I left Michael Maybrick off my list because I don’t think I have seen anyone trying to fill the gaps in the evidence by making him part of an ongoing modern hoax conspiracy. But stranger things happen when people get the grand conspiracy bug so he may yet find himself in our bulging nest of modern forgers.

Hi Cally,

You could read what we wrote about the unfortunate Mr Kane in Ripper Diary. 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. That situation has not changed since and is not expected to change in the future. Keith will know what connections between the various players needed to be investigated or ruled out during the course of his enquiries.

Martin Fido’s assertion about Anne’s ability to write the diary with one hand tied behind her back would have to apply to anyone and everyone he would consider her equal when it comes to composing Jack the Ripper confessions. The fact that he thinks she could have done it is not evidence that she did. It’s not even great evidence that she had the potential. Where is the written work from Anne herself (preferably from before 1992) that shows she had an obvious aptitude for such a project? Did she even have time to dabble much with writing before 1992 with a young child and husband to keep?

I don’t recall anyone ever suggesting that the writing looks like it could be Anne’s, unless Martin was imagining that she disguised it by having her writing hand tied behind her back and using the other one. Failing that, she could presumably have dictated it to our mystery penman with both her hands tied behind her back, so I’m not sure what Martin was on about.

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.

If I were watching a debate here .. in Dr Who Land .. say your views against John's,
not taking into account any clever use of words, just on actual
views on the matter .. I would have vote on John's side, even if you
were my relative or best friend.

I would not have it any other way. John deserves your vote, and Maria’s, so much more than I do.

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

As 'cute' or crazy as it may seem .. I do think that 'inanimate' objects
can be insulted. However, in this case I thought it obvious that I was refering
to the author, being ridiculed and not being treated as an equal, before
seeing all he has to offer, in the form of the book .. with whatever evidence,
it may contain.

You can try insulting an inanimate object but it won’t be insulted. That’s all I meant. It would be like calling a block of wood thick. And that would be pointless - not the wood, the insult.

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.

If I have ridiculed your friend it’s because he has been unable to keep his stories straight since he began telling them, and if he had even the faintest grasp of what was going down in the 1990s he would not now be imagining in his wildest fantasies that Feldy was behind the diary, let alone be expecting his readers to swallow it.

Incidentally, have you asked Steve if he ever contacted Melvin Harris, when he had the chance, to offer his help with exposing the nest of forgers? If he didn’t, why not?

Present the evidence...

...getting a straight answer as to why the secret evidence is being withheld...

...Instead we get endless deferrals and excuses and the sort of semantic dancing we see above...

John, you are addressing Mr Nobody again.

The person with the information you seek is not here. Asking for it here will result in disappointment because nobody else can answer for that person. It’s like expecting a bank statement from a ‘speak your weight’ machine and when all you get out of it is “one at a time please” you thump it and try it again and again, blaming it for giving you endless deferrals and excuses and semantic dancing instead of telling you what’s in your account.

It’s odd. That’s what it is.

In the year you have been thumping the ‘speak your weight’ machine here, how many attempts have you made to contact the bank for your statement?

Just wondering if you need to contact an optician while you are at it. We may both be small and perfectly formed, but Keith doesn't have to shave as often as I do.

Love,

Caz
X

[plang]

Victoria, Victoria, I'm still fairly interested in subduing you.
The question is, who are you?

[Victoria]

Hi Caz,

Thanks for the reply and explanations.
I understand what you keep saying, that the
'evidence' .. if it be a Battlecrease providence,
cannot by itself, put the diary saga to rest.
However .. it is a start, and it may just place other
pieces of the puzzle into clearer light.

I understand that you are obviously a loyal and trusted friend
of Keith's and that is why you cannot say anything .. I respect that,
and that is how it should be.
However, I still cannot understand why there cannot be an explanation
of some kind.
If I were watching a debate here .. in Dr Who Land .. say your views against John's,
not taking into account any clever use of words, just on actual
views on the matter .. I would have vote on John's side, even if you
were my relative or best friend.

"Did you see that, John? Victoria thinks unpublished material should not be
ridiculed before it has even been seen. Aw, bless. I always find it quiet cute
when people think inanimate objects like documents can be insulted, or need protection from insults."

As 'cute' or crazy as it may seem .. I do think that 'inanimate' objects
can be insulted. However, in this case I thought it obvious that I was refering
to the author, being ridiculed and not being treated as an equal, before
seeing all he has to offer, in the form of the book .. with whatever evidence,
it may contain.

love,
Victoria

[Callyphygian]

Hi Caz,

" A researcher like Keith will simply go where the evidence takes him. The diary came from somewhere, and all avenues needed to be explored."

Just wondering if Keith ever looked into whether there was a family connection between the Keanes who lived at Battlecrease and Gerard Kane?
It's phonetically the same surname. Maybe someone dropped an e.

Also wondered what you made of Martin Fido's assertion that Anne could have written the diary with one hand tied behind her back?

Love,

Callyphygian

[Scott Nelson]

Caroline,

You left Michael Maybrick off the list.

[Omlor]

Caroline tries very hard to reassure us that the secret squirrel evidence blabbed about in public by Keith but still hidden from view would not put the diary saga in any way to rest.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps it will put part of the saga to rest. Perhaps it won't. We do know that just Keith's mentioning it in a public forum was enough to convince some of the "trial"-goers to vote James Maybrick guilty of being the Ripper, according to the event's organizer. Perhaps that was just the unfortunate but predictable consequence of Keith's telling people he had something when he knew he couldn't specify what he had for some mysterious reason and when he knew he couldn't actually support his public claim by showing them any evidence.

The point is, we don't know what the secret squirrel evidence will do for the case, since we don't know what the secret squirrel evidence says or how it says it or where it comes from or even why none of us are allowed to see it despite it's alleged conclusions having been boasted about in public by at least one supposedly cautious and careful man who discussed it at a mock "trial" even though he knew he couldn't produce the goods for the jury (or anyone else in public) to see.

Putting aside the fact that such a public performance seems neither careful nor cautious given his unwillingness to support his claims with real evidence, the problems demonstrated right here by this discussion will necessarily remain with us, no mater what Caroline tells us, until we see the goods.

The solution to such problems is, of course, not a difficult one to figure out. Present the evidence.

But as in so many things diary-world related, from thoroughly testing the artifacts to getting a straight answer as to why the secret evidence is being withheld, the simplest solution -- supporting one's public claim with the actual evidence -- isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

Instead we get endless deferrals and excuses and the sort of semantic dancing we see above.

That's the way it goes around here. That's the way it's gone with these hoaxes for years and years and years.

No one should be surprised.

And yet another July is approaching.

Looking forward to seeing an old friend,

--John

[caz]

In my ignorance of all the goings on in this subject, I had thought that if the
diary was proved to have come out of 'Battlecrease House' .. that it would
have been an attempt to prove it's provenance and therefore, 'put it to
rest'…

…John has just written and I think that this is a very valid point ...
"We don't know what effect the evidence might or might not have, since
we haven't been allowed to see it."

Hi Victoria,

A researcher like Keith will simply go where the evidence takes him. The diary came from somewhere, and all avenues needed to be explored. Proving a Battlecrease provenance clearly cannot, by itself, put anything ‘to rest’ unless you believe that equates to James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper and leaving his diary in the house to be found by someone at some point after he made the final entry. Anything short of that simply opens up another can of worms and endless debate about who wrote it, when and why, and how it came to be in the house.

As John is constantly telling us, we can only go on what we, as individuals or collectively, have been allowed to see at any point in time. So of course he doesn’t know what the effect any unpublished material might or might not have, whether he is informed of its existence or not, and whether he believes it exists or not. He is therefore free to ignore or disbelieve my claim that no evidence I have seen could put the diary to rest, just as he is free to ignore or disbelieve what Keith said about the evidence. It just seems a trifle silly if you or John are going to use this principle to imagine that Keith or I have seen evidence that would put the thing to rest. On that basis, you may as well imagine that when John last claimed he had spent the afternoon playing golf, without allowing us to see the evidence, he was keeping quiet about his two holes-in-one, or about the flower arranging class he went to before, after or instead of practising his swing.

Yes, I know that you were being 'sarcastic' in your 'delightful' reference to
Maria. I was just using 'delightful' in the usual sense toward Maria, as a
play on your use of the word.
Not that I have read all those posts on the other thread, but I have seen her
views (same with others) been misconstrued .. not been taken how they
were mean't.

Not by me though. I have not posted to that thread, but anyone can check and see that I have represented her view accurately and in accordance with her own explanation of what she meant.

As there are no books on the subject of the diary with all the answers,
then Steve's book, with it's truth on the diary's beginnings .. should be a welcome
addition to anything else regarding the diary, that is known to be
true .. not ridiculed before it has even been seen.

Did you see that, John? Victoria thinks unpublished material should not be ridiculed before it has even been seen. Aw, bless. I always find it quite cute when people think inanimate objects like documents can be insulted, or need protection from insults.

The truth is no earthly good, Victoria, if it doesn't have a shred of evidence to back it up. Powell may as well put in his book that Omlor wrote the diary and engraved his own initials on the back of the watch, so he could spend the rest of his days telling himself in public that they are clear and obvious fakes without fear of contradiction.

Will there ever come a day when the debate will move completely away from 'who was JtR?' and become wholly 'who faked the diary?' Will there be a list as long as trhe ripper suspects, with conspiracies involving people in high places?

Hi Limehouse,

Good to see you here.

Well the list is certainly getting longer, but I don’t see the places creeping any higher - just creeping from one hemisphere to another and back.

The difference is that most people believe the ripper was just one sick individual acting alone, or a team of two at the outside. Anyone who comes up with a conspiracy theory involving more than two (and usually some plot to get rid of Mary Kelly) is mocked to buggery and beyond and told in no uncertain terms that it would have unraveled in less time than it takes to dream another one up.

The only person to have confessed to being the sick individual who wrote the diary first claimed, in June 1994, that it was all his own work. Very few commentators of sound mind have ever said (or at least admitted) that they believed this claim for a second.

So as we have seen, the names of people suspected of involvement in an ongoing modern hoax conspiracy, or claiming to be innocent parties who were ‘in the know’ before the diary emerged, just keep being added, not as potential sole sickos, but to join a growing band of merry mischief makers and their mates:

Mike Barrett
Tony Devereux
Anne Graham
Billy Graham
Gerard Kane
Stephen Powell
Steve Park
Victoria
Paul Feldman

And that’s without even considering the watch, either as a double event or a separate sickness.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victoria]

My opinion only ...
I think the time has past for the real JTR to be ever revealed,
so it is doomed to carry on forever ...
however ...
hopefully not so with the hoax diary Limehouse, while people
involved are still alive, chances are good .. where there is greed,
lies and cover ups .. a slip up is always on the cards.
And there is always the chance of evidence being found .. if it
hasn't been found already.
The diary itself is unimportant .. it is the intent of the perpetraters,
that is the only crime.

Plang,
one, of the masses .. glad you are still here,
interested, and fairly subdued.

[Limehouse]

Will there ever come a day when the debate will move completely away from 'who was JtR?' and become wholly 'who faked the diary?' Will there be a list as long as trhe ripper suspects, with conspiracies involving people in high places?

[plang]

Still here!

[Victoria]

Good morning Caz,

In my ignorance of all the goings on in this subject, I had thought that if the
diary was proved to have come out of 'Battlecrease House' .. that it would
have been an attempt to prove it's provenance and therefore, 'put it to
rest'.
In my own mind though, it is obvious that the diary is a fake (most everyone
else thinks so also) .. and also because I know Steven Park started it, I
thought this 'evidence' may be some link in the chain, as to what happened to the diary
in the intervening years, since it's conception.

On that same point, John has just written and I think that this is a very valid point ...
"We don't know what effect the evidence might or might not have, since
we haven't been allowed to see it."

'Subdue the masses' .. meaning the interested posters here.
Just my strange humour Caz, just popped out as I was writing .. I knew it
was an exaggerated term and overly dramatic, but I liked it .. so left it there.

Yes, I know that you were being 'sarcastic' in your 'delightful' reference to
Maria. I was just using 'delightful' in the usual sense toward Maria, as a
play on your use of the word.
Not that I have read all those posts on the other thread, but I have seen her
views (same with others) been misconstrued .. not been taken how they
were mean't.

As there are no books on the subject of the diary with all the answers,
then Steve's book, with it's truth on the diary's beginnings .. should be a welcome
addition to anything else regarding the diary, that is known to be
true .. not ridiculed before it has even been seen.

love,
Victoria

[Omlor]

Caroline asks me,

...do you actually believe that documentary evidence of the diary coming out of Battlecrease House (...) can put the saga to rest?"

Well, I don't know, since I haven't seen the "documentary evidence."

That's sort of the point, isn't it? We don't know what effect the evidence might or might not have, since we haven't been allowed to see it.

As long as the evidence remains hidden, such problems will remain.

Of course, there's an easy way to solve all of this. The person who blabbed about the secret squirrel evidence in public could support his claims by actually producing the goods.

Or not.

--John