On The Trail Of The Forgers

[caz]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but as you have repeatedly
mentioned this 'secret squirrel evidence' that Keith Skinner has,
I find it very hard to believe that you do not have any idea what
it is. This is supposed to be 'definative' evidence, to put the diary to
rest ..

You are missing something, Victoria. I do know what the evidence is (as I have also repeatedly mentioned), but who told you it is supposed to be 'definitive' evidence that would put the diary to rest?

Not Keith.

Not me.

Omlor may have given you that impression (see my post to him above), but if so he is making things that are not facts sound like facts (it's a common problem on the boards so don't be too harsh on him) and he has taken you for a mug I'm afraid.

There is no definitive evidence I know about, concerning how the diary came into existence, that would put the diary to rest. God knows, Melvin Harris tried; Feldy and Shirley tried; and Omlor tries, bless him.

All to no avail whatsoever. Nobody can be found whose handwriting is a definitive match with what's in the diary. And nobody has been able to date stamp either the diary or watch effectively, despite any claims you hear that might suggest otherwise.

But, if there is a reason as to why it cannot be told at this point,
it would be reasonable, I would think, for you to offer some sort of
explanation .. to subdue the masses.

You have got to be joking.

Masses of what? Words from Omlor and Powell on the subject?

Nothing I could say or do would 'subdue' them.

And once again, why do you think I have any obligation - or power - to subdue these 'masses' who are demanding to know why Keith is not expanding on his previous statements at this point? I am not Keith.

.. As Steve did a few posts back in regard to his information, his explanation
being that he was under contract to his publisher, but as soon as the book
is released, he will post the information here. That sounds fair to me.

Keith's professional business is his own and I would not be responsible for keeping the 'masses' informed about it even if I were in a position to do so, which I'm not. It was never my investigation, nor my money paying for it, nor my material resulting from it.

Yes this is very true, we both know that Steven Park started this diary...

If you truly believe this, then you and both Steves are the people who can put the diary saga out of its misery, not Keith. That's what I have been trying to tell you. What is your interest in knowing more about Keith's evidence, if you already know who started the diary and when, which is more than he has claimed to know?

I agree that Maria is delightful, and what she says in regard to Feldman
coming to Australia, I believe, was told to her and Peter in good faith and
probably true.

I was being sarcastic. If you think it's 'delightful' to have no sympathy with females in the armed services who get raped (which is Maria's view) then the pair of you can be delightful in a corner on your own together.

Maria claimed that Stewart Evans told her and Peter about Feldy going to Australia and Stewart himself came to the boards to deny saying anything of the sort. The fact that you are so ready to believe everything that Maria utters - even when it is the most transparent twaddle - is all the explanation I need concerning how Powell keeps you dangling.

Mentioning Australia here, surely you are not thinking .. it could just be
possible?

A rare moment of perception there - you're right, I'm not thinking 'it could just be possible'. Something to do with the laws of physics I expect, and people and things being on both sides of the earth at once. I feel like I'm stepping in and out of a very long and tedious Dr Who episode whenever I pop in here. Makes me want to ask Auntie Beeb for a refund on my tv licence.

...is there any book
so far on the diary, that has all the answers?

Nope.

And from what you say about Steve's book you don't seem at all confident that it will prove anything at all about the origins of the diary or watch. He'll have a job joining 'any missing links' if he can't prove a single link to begin with.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Speaking of "beyond bizarre..."

Whose name is missing from the above list of people who "claim to know something" about where this diary came from but remain "unwilling or unable to provide" the goods?

Hint: Its not Sam's, although the quote still applies.

--John

You misread - Victoria and I were discussing people who claim to know something that could 'put this diary saga to rest'.

Or do you actually believe that documentary evidence of the diary coming out of Battlecrease House (before or after its trip to Australia presumably) can put the saga to rest?

Love,

Caz
X

[Victoria]

beyond bizarre ..

Hi Caz,

What a hillarious post you write .. your humour is getting
almost as good as Johns.
Seriously, it was funny, but just a tad evasive also.

Caz writes, "Have I ever given you the impression that anything
that I could say or do could 'put this diary saga to rest'?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but as you have repeatedly
mentioned this 'secret squirrel evidence' that Keith Skinner has,
I find it very hard to believe that you do not have any idea what
it is. This is supposed to be 'definative' evidence, to put the diary to
rest .. fair enough that you maybe cannot talk about it, or may not
know it.
But, if there is a reason as to why it cannot be told at this point,
it would be reasonable, I would think, for you to offer some sort of
explanation .. to subdue the masses.
.. As Steve did a few posts back in regard to his information, his explanation
being that he was under contract to his publisher, but as soon as the book
is released, he will post the information here. That sounds fair to me.

You also say,
"You claim to know something that could."
"Steve Powell claims to know something that could."

Yes this is very true, we both know that Steven Park started this diary,
Steve knows more, as he was still in contact with Steven Park up until
about 1980. And also because he has been doing research.
I agree that Maria is delightful, and what she says in regard to Feldman
coming to Australia, I believe, was told to her and Peter in good faith and
probably true.

Here you say, "So I'm afraid you are looking to the wrong person for help
to put this diary saga to rest" ......... "how are you expecting 'I who have
nothing' to do it? For starters, I have never been to Australia in my life".

So very modest .. but you must surely be able to offer an explanation,
as to the delay (or cancellation) of Keith's evidence.
Mentioning Australia here, surely you are not thinking .. it could just be
possible?

And here, "Why not be patient like the rest of us and wait for Steve's definative
book to come out and reveal all?"

Thank you, for the reminder, I do need to practice patience at times.
"Definative" and "reveal all" .. this is not sarcasm, is it, is there any book
so far on the diary, that has all the answers?
Maybe the book will be, maybe there will be evidence for everything.
But Steve has never claimed that will be the case.
I feel sure the book will be very revealing in many ways, and where there
is no firm evidence, there will be circumstantial evidence, that will join
any missing links.

Lastly, "Or do you not have faith in his ability 'to put this diary saga to rest'
and think I could do a better job of it here and now?"

Now you are being silly .. and what happened to that modesty?
How could you, Caz, possibly put it all to rest .. after all .. you have never met Steven Park ..
nor ever travelled to Australia.
It just seems to me that 'here and now' you wrote a very amusing post,
which really just avoided the question .. which only required a simple
answer.
I wonder why .. I agree with you Caz .. beyond bizarre.

love,
Victoria

[Omlor]

Dougie,

The answer to your first question is yes.

There are many reasons for this, but the simplest one is that we now have more than a few excellent samples of the real James Maybrick's handwriting and the diary isn't even an approximation, it's not remotely close. It's completely and totally different. And the idea that he might have been somehow deliberately disguising his writing to protect his identity is nonsense, since he makes it very clear in the fake diary exactly who it is he's supposed to be.

There are a number of other obvious textual reasons why the thing is clearly a bad fake, but that one is really all that's needed, of course.

We needn't discuss all the others.

All the best,

--John

[dougie]

It might seem a rash question...cough..but has it definitely been established that the Diary is a hoax?The reason I ask is because I remember some years ago a few of the "ripper heirarchy" saying that were "things" in the Diary that werent public knowledge and couldnt be easily explained away.Has that view changed?I freely admit I know very little about the Diary ,and although I bought a copy and began reading it,I lost all interest after hearing of "the watch" appearing....that was one step too far for me ,and i rapidly lost interest.
regards

[Steve Powell]

The Principles Nightmare.

The smell of cigars take him back to a place he'd rather not go.

[Omlor]

Speaking of "beyond bizarre..."

Whose name is missing from the above list of people who "claim to know something" about where this diary came from but remain "unwilling or unable to provide" the goods?

Hint: Its not Sam's, although the quote still applies.

--John

[caz]

Hi Victoria,

That's the problem. Have I ever given you the impression that anything I could say or do would 'put this diary saga to rest'?

You claim to know something that could.

Steve Powell claims to know something that could.

Hell, even the delightful Maria claims to know something that could (ie that Feldy went to Australia at a time she thinks would fit with him masterminding the diary's creation).

So I'm afraid you are looking to the wrong person for help to 'put this diary saga to rest'. If the people with the goods on who created the diary and when are unwilling or unable to provide them, how are you expecting 'I who have nothing' to do it? For starters, I have never been to Australia in my life.

Why not be patient like the rest of us and wait for Steve's definitive book to come out and reveal all?

Or do you not have faith in his ability to 'put this diary saga to rest' and think I could do a better job of it here and now?

This is getting beyond bizarre.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victoria]

Sorry, Victoria, but could you remind me what information you were expecting from me? I don't really understand your request. I have no idea who could have created the diary or why, so I can't help you there. And as I have said on numerous occasions, I am not responsible for what Keith says or doesn’t say about the investigation, and am under no obligation to anyone to expand on what he said.

Thanks

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, of course I can remind you, it is the original question from
'Omlor Enterprises' ...
"So why say anything, Sam, if you are not prepared to say it at all?"

And of course on John's post, just change the name Sam to Keith.
My question is also why is this 'evidence' being witheld and when or will
it ever be made public?
Now I can see that you have covered yourself by your statement, that you are not
responsible for what Keith says, and under no obligation, etc... ok.
But in all fairness, you, we, are all here posting on a site dedicated to this subject,
so should we not all .... be as truthful as we can, say what we know, what we can,
to help solve and put this diary saga to rest?
Seems reasonable and logical to me.

Caz, you also say ..
"I have no idea who could have created the diary or why, so I can't help you there".
Thank you, but I didn't need help on that one ... I have no doubt who
started the diary, never been more sure .. Steven Park.
It's what happened after the first creation, that I'm not sure on.

love,
Victoria
ps. I can read the fine print.

[Omlor]

Caroline, who apparently can't help mentioning me in this discussion even when she's not addressing me or anything I have written to her, writes,

"That's presumably why John is now making it his mission in life..."

Anyone here counted the number of recent posts by me?

Living a life elsewhere,

--John

[caz]

Hello Caz,

Maybe you missed my post from yesterday .. that only required some
small answer or explanation .. I felt ignored, or at least left out.

I thought possibly that you had given an explanation maybe before,
say on the crashed thread and I may have missed it, and you were sick of repeating yourself.
But probably not, as I see from John's persistant questioning and Maria's
above words.

There should be no problem answering, the best way you can, it should show that you have nothing to hide ..
and it is a chance to prove Maria's words
wrong .. that should be tempting.

~Victoria

Sorry, Victoria, but could you remind me what information you were expecting from me? I don't really understand your request. I have no idea who could have created the diary or why, so I can't help you there. And as I have said on numerous occasions, I am not responsible for what Keith says or doesn’t say about the investigation, and am under no obligation to anyone to expand on what he said.

Thanks.

Skinner is not stupid, we all know that.
Yet he seems determined to hold faith with Feldman.
When I asked Caroline by PM to ask Skinner if he would
contact me about some interesting information
that I had regarding the matter of the diary,
she came back to me and said that he didn't mind if I
told all of the 'troopers' whatever I knew.
In other words 'bugger off'.
Don't you think Keith Skinner would like to hear
a little bit more of what I know that hasn't been said here?
You bet he does, but he can't take that path,
as the tactic of the protectors of the diary
is to try and discredit me whenever they can.
After all, my story is so fantastic it just couldn't be true.
Could it?
What has Skinner got to lose if the truth about Feldman
and the hoaxing of the diary ever comes out from the mud?
Maybe a lot.

Yes, Steve. We do know that Keith is not stupid. That's presumably why John is now making it his mission in life to sell a new policy from Omlor Enterprises, which endows Keith's words on the subject with the same value as the fantasies concerning Feldy. It's in the small print that he is paying no compliments to either of you here, so buyer beware (especially if your name is Victoria or Maria).

You interpret Keith's willingness for you to spill whatever beans you have in public as an attempt to discredit you. I call it giving you his blessing to do the job all by yourself.

What Keith said was not: 'bugger off, I have a lot to lose if you spill the beans about Feldy hoaxing the diary'; more like: 'whatever you have to say to me on the subject can be said in front of everyone'.

If this is an example of the way you interpret what people say, then I'm beginning to see how you got from your encounter with Anne, when you thought she was merely telling you about a diary belonging to her father, to a belief that it was actually Steve Park, telling you every last detail about a criminal conspiracy he was engaged in with Paul Feldman to hoax the same diary. There was certainly nothing for the hoaxers to fear from 'careless talk' while you were around to act as interpreter.

Caz:

You don´t know who made the hoax either.

So for you to say that Feldman did not do it... its rather strange to say the least.

Unless of course, you know who faked it. So far... only a few people including yourself have profited financially from the hoax.

I have never made a dime on it, not even when Peter and I were offered money on the table if we could find " coincidences " to tie the watch to the diary.

-Maria

Maria,

It is not up to me to prove Feldy didn't go to Australia and didn't have a hand in creating the diary. Maybe you actually believe that someone somewhere knows he did both, and that he managed to pull the wool over all the eyes (on both sides of the fence) that were there to witness his attempts to make sense of this document. But it's rather strange to say the least to see how willing you are to believe the impossible, when that's what you usually accuse others of doing.

This financial bee you have in your bonnet: would you now be wagging your much-exercised finger of disapproval at Peter if he had accepted a publisher's advance to write a diary-related book which could have stimulated even more interest instead of putting an end to it? Will you wag the finger at Steve Powell if he does the same?

Did you wag the finger at Melvin for making money from the diary by writing about it in the appendices of The True Face, while claiming that a hospital patient was one of the most cold-bloodied killers in recent history? And don't start bleating about Melvin giving his royalties to charity, because you don't have the first clue about what I would or would not do with all the lovely lolly you assume I have made from Ripper Diary, which, in case you didn’t know, made no claims to have closed any cases or identified any murderers - or any hoaxers for that matter.

Love,

Caz
X

[detective abberline]

Plang,

Not really sure why La Cornwell should be seen as an authority on the Diary, but never mind.

Nope, never read her book due to the impossibility of Sickert being JtR. And if her Sickert book is anything like her fictional works, then I never do want to read it. You did well to make a quarter when you sold your copy.

Graham

Good post I agree 100%

[Graham]

Just a wild guess, Graham and caps., for starters.

Wrong. I've never supported Maybrick as JtR on these boards, because he wasn't, and neither have I ever suggested that he wrote the Diary. I still think that there is very, very faint chance that the Diary is old, however. My real interest, and I suspect that of the dwindling number of posters to this thread, is in who wrote the friggin' thing and when and why. I'd love to know.

Graham

[detective abberline]

The Diary

Hi all. I'm rapt reading these posts. I'm glad there are others out there like me who think the diary is ****.

[Steve Powell]

More Diary Supporters

You forgot to mention these two Plang.