On The Trail Of The Forgers

[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

[Scott Nelson]

Caroline,

You left Michael Maybrick off the list.

[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

[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

[plang]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

Hi Caz,

I don't like Omlor's immature attitude, endless mind-numbing mantra and incredible twisting of other peoples' statements any more than you do, and as you know I've been on the receiving end of his tongue more than once. He'll never change, rest assured. But I do think, seriously, that if Keith has made public reference to information he has regarding the provenance of the Diary, then it could have been just a teensy-weensy bit premature on his part if, now, he refuses to enlarge upon it. Anyway, that's my opinion and mine only. And to judge by the dwindling number of posters to this thread, I doubt if too many people care any more.

Cheers,

Graham

[Omlor]

Caroline,

Why would I write to Keith's publisher and all that when I have (we are constantly reminded) one of his good friends and collaborators and admirers right here regularly and actively participating in this very discussion? Why not take advantage of this wonderfully instant form of communication and simply ask that self-professed close friend and colleague to pass on a simple and direct question written, I'm sure you will agree, by a very smart and sensible person?

That question, again, was...

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

Hoping for the best ,

--John

PS: What does the phrase "like Omlor talks to me" mean? I'm just curious.

[Callyphygian]

Hi Caz,

"You could read what we wrote about the unfortunate Mr Kane in Ripper [I]Diary."

Yess - done that.

"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."

I know. I wasn't suggesting that Gerard Kane penned the diary.
I don't suppose you know why he apologises for his handwriting in the handwriting sample he gave do you?

"Keith will know what connections between the various players needed to be investigated or ruled out during the course of his enquiries."

I don't doubt it. But has Keith looked at any possible connection between the former residents of 7a Batltecrease House Arthur J K(e)ane, Jane B K(e)ane and Gerard Kane?
There are only two real options here, and they are:
(1) Yes.
(2) No.



"I don’t recall anyone ever suggesting that the writing looks like it could be Anne’s."

Apart from private detective Alan Gray?

Love,

Callyphygian

[Graham]

Hi Cally,

From what I can make out (correct me if I'm wrong, Caz) it was Melvin Harris who first brought Gerard Kane's name to public attention, and that Feldman advised Harris that he knew about the Kane connection anyway. I can only suggest that it was someone connected with Devereux who first suggested the name Kane as being connected with the Diary (again, Caz, etc). Kane always denied it, and an investigation by Scotland Yard detectives effectively exonnerated him of any complicity.

Re: 'Keane' and 'Kane'. As far as I'm aware, in the UK and Ireland the surname 'Keane' is pronounced 'Keen', cf: the former Manchester United footballer of that name.

If the samples of Anne Graham's handwriting in The Ripper Diary are anything to go by, then for her to hand-write the Diary places her in the First Division of All-Time Great Forgers. Or.....on the other hand.....

Alan Gray - are you kidding?

Cheers,

Graham

[Victoria]

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.

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

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.


Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

"So why you would expect me to give 'an explanation of some kind' is
beyond me."

I think .. why not, because you are here. And as John so eloquently wrote ..

"Why would I write to Keith's publisher and all that when I have (we are
constantly reminded) one of his good friends and collaborators and admirers
right here regularly and activately participating in this very discussion?
Why not take advantage of this wonderfully instant form of communication
and simply ask that self-professed close friend and collegue to pass on a simple
and direct question written, I'm sure you will agree, by a very smart and sensible person?"

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

Probably not well worded on my part 'actual views' .. I think I really only
was refering to this current 'issue', where John has asked a simple, straight
forward, non offensive question .. that could simply ... just be answered.
I have to agree that ... "instead we get endless deferrals and excuses and the sort of semantic
dancing we see above."

love,
Victoria

[Callyphygian]

Hi Graham,

" Kane always denied it, and an investigation by Scotland Yard detectives effectively exonnerated him of any complicity"

Tell me more about this Scotland Yard investigation...

"Re: 'Keane' and 'Kane'. As far as I'm aware, in the UK and Ireland the surname 'Keane' is pronounced 'Keen', cf: the former Manchester United footballer of that name."

Sorry Graham:

KEANE: Middle English for "sharp-witted." Can be pronounced "Kane" or "Kene."


"If the samples of Anne Graham's handwriting in The Ripper Diary are anything to go by, then for her to hand-write the Diary places her in the First Division of All-Time Great Forgers. Or.....on the other hand..."

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here Graham. The "samples" of Anne Graham's handwriting taken by Shirley Harrison and reproduced in "Ripper Diary" are risible. They don't fulfill any of the requirements needed to obtain a forensically viable handwriting sample. Unfortunately, the "samples" of Anne Graham's hand shown in Caz and Keith's book are thus not really anything to go by at all....
I'm sure screeds of Anne's handwriting exists. Those who have access to it, however, don't seem overly enthusiastic about posting it in the public domain for saps like you and I to decide one way or the other do they? Why could that be?

"Alan Gray - are you kidding?"

Nope. I'm relying on memory here, but he noticed that a particular letter on one of Barrett's casettes - a "Y", I think - looked like a diary "Y". I think the notion/assumption/conclusion was that the writing on the cassette was Anne's.

Love,
Callyphygian