On The Trail Of The Forgers

[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.

[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

[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

[Steve Powell]

The Principles Nightmare.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[plang]

Still here!

[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?

[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.

[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