The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

Sod it if I am right or wrong, such considerations come second to the more important matter that I displease you.

A person can be correct, and behave like a bumptious gibbon.

A person can be wrong, and behave like a bumptious gibbon.

Were I to encounter examples of both behavioural traits, my first advice would be stop behaving like a bumptious gibbon, irrespective of the topic under scrutiny or whether I feel they stand on firm theoretical ground.

Surely that isn't all that complicated?

People who follow me around message boards with the same unusually aggressive brand of dogma coupled with an aggressive, hectoring tone cause me tremendous irritation, and wherever belligerence is used in preference to the more level-headed "Let's agree to disagree" approach, the aggressors are in no position to express either surprise or indignation at being accused of bumptious gibbonry.

Well, Ben, get ready for more!

I'm ready already.

But for what?

More threats to bombard a Hutchinson/handwriting thread with hastily googled images of Victorian men's coats? Well, if that's what you consider to be a productive expenditure of both your time and the message board's bandwidth, fill your boots if you're hell bent on it. I'm sure you still have enough respect for your fellow posters to take it to the relevant thread next time.

A conventional nitwit knows that we are speaking of a SPECIFIC cutaway here - the one on Marshalls man. And if that was a "conventional cutaway" the way conventional cutaways looked back then (take another look at the photo I sent you

The link didn't work.

But no matter - it wasn't a convential cutaway.

A cutaway or morning coat is a type of TAILcoat.

Vic was right all them posts back

Those posts, Fish. Do try to preserve your reputation as wordsmith extraordinaire.

I love the way that my goldfishes' stools follow them around as they swim

There's a tempting analogy in there, Gareth, but I'll save it for a rainy day in the interests of preserving what little remains in the way of peace.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"People who follow me around message boards with the same unusually aggressive brand of dogma coupled with an aggressive, hectoring tone cause me tremendous irritation"

Do they now? A few posts back, I thought you asked me never to stop. Howīs it gonna be, Ben? Iīll help you with this itch of yours, Ben. Letīs take a look at the pathology. This is it:

You constantly avoid the subject, and instead turn to personal attacks, trying to discredit your opponents on grounds that have nothing to do with the real issues. Your favourite scheme is to make people who criticize you out as stalkers – there cannot be any other logical explanation to the fact that they will not allow you to pull a fast one, can there?

Hereīs what you managed in that department over the last five pages, in posts adressed to me and Caz:

”I want you to stop starting irrelevant squabbles that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread purely out of a burning desire for me”

”I'll leave it to my shadows to discuss me”

”I simply found your stalkerish vendettas against people decidedly off-putting, especially when you follow them around like a crazed mandrill”

”I’m just so relieved it’s comical not-to-taken-seriously Fisherman that’s doing the cyber-stalking”

”One infatuated follower was flattering enough, but commanding the undivided attention of both of them is a rare treat.”

”I don’t understand what it is about my twin poodles that prompt them to keep appealing to imaginary crowd whenever they engage in debate with me. ”

”a veritable mecca for the unoccupied, pathologically obsessed and past their prime.”

”You're my obedient lap-dog, and I'd worry if you ever stopped sniffing round my ankles”

”You've finally had the gonads to admit to your intention to follow me all over a serial killer message board like a crazed mutt on heat”

”You follow me all the time, everywhere. It’s what obsessed people do”

”What a dangerously obsessed pathological lunatic you continue to reveal yourself to be.”

This, of course, serves not to discuss the issue at hand, but instead to desperately try and change the subject.

You of course also mix it all up with insults like ”smug arse-pit”, ”bumptious gibbon”, ”you hateful subhuman sickening disgrace”, and such things – all of that of just as little use to the real discussion.

You do not mind making jokes about journalists, just as you try to infer that being a Swede is something that makes me unreliable. You try to make us believe that Leanders being a Swede means that Iremonger would be the better bet in this case - but I do not see you stating that I am to believed over you when it comes to what Leander said. I am a Swede, and so is Leander - small wonder, then, that you misinterpret him. All the nuances of the Swedish language would go lost in translation, would they not?

You are not even opposed to the idea of accusing me of being a bad father, stating that you found it distasteful that I presented a photo of my son lying on a bed, in order to prove to you that one cannot see though a body lying on a bed – something you stated that you could do. The only thing that picture depicted was a human body on a bed, but you said that you found it ”nauseating” that I could put a child of mine in Mary Kellys place. Stylish, Ben!

Discrediting. Belying. Maliciousness. And NONE of it connected to the subject at hand.

Now, Ben, it may have gone unnoticed by you, but I do not do things like these.

I do not call you a sickening heap of pigshit and such things.

I do not state that your participation in this discussion – where you have posted just as many times as I have – has been led on by a mental deficiency.

I do not speak about the rumour that most male actors are either fags or narcissists.

I do not hint at any growing up on your behalf in a dysfunctional family.

Why do you think this is? Iīll tell you why. There are two main reasons:

1.It would have nothing to do whatsoever with the question discussed on the thread, and it would thus be improductive.

2.It would be very immature, and all possible drawbacks aside when it comes to growing older, one thing age does do for you is that it matures you. Iīm fifty-two, by the way. How old are you? Eleven?

You see, Ben, I COULD lower myself to the same level that you thrive at – but I avoid it. There is a Chinese proverb that states that the one who loses his arguments first is the one who first turns to insults, and I try to keep that in the back of my mind at all times.

This is why I recommend you to back off from the line of business you are conducting, and start respecting my right to post without being called a mad stalker. If you truly believed that I was deluded, you could easily refrain from answering every time I post, but no – you are all over me like a rash. And thatīs fine and dandy – as long as you discuss the issues only.

I will comment on the one thing in your post that is connected to the ongoing discussion itself: The cutaway. There are no other connections to the true issue in your post, for some reason.

You write:

”The link didn't work.

But no matter - it wasn't a convential cutaway.

A cutaway or morning coat is a type of TAILcoat.”

I notice that the link no longer funtions – the material is not on the net. But I trust you may remember the picture anyway. It was a picture of two gentlemen in the 1880:s. depicted from a 45 degree angle to their fronts. You cannot see the backs of them. The two men are wearing shortish black jackets, and the text to the picture goes:
”A cutaway jacket was introduced during the 80s that allowed the bottom of the vest and the watch chain to be seen. The jacket had three or four buttons that were buttoned to the top. Notice how the men's jackets in the image below are cut up from the bottom.”

The last time you commented on this picture, you wrote that it was useless to show it, since we could not see whether there were tails on the jackets or not. I protested at that time, and said that I believed that we could see enough of the back of the jackets to realize that they were tailless. This you did not buy – since we could not see their backs, they could well have tails. In a sense you were right – we could only see a small part of the back on one side, and although it would have looked ridiculous, the jackets MAY of course have had small tails.

Since then, one thing has struck me: That was a picture of two short jackets. The picture was taken more than a hundred years ago on some street somewhere.
Today, the picture is used to portray a common cutaway jacket of the 1880:s, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT SEE IF THEY HAVE TAILS OR NOT...?

Now, why would they be described as obvious cutaways, when there is no telling whether they had tails? How on earth did that come about?

Fisherman

[caz]

It's a "cling-on" actually, Ben. I love the way that my goldfishes' stools follow them around as they swim, wafting gently like strands of mermaid hair.

Hi Sammypoo,

We knew that, but we can't expect Benny Boy to know the difference between a come-on and a cling-on, given that his two-woman fan club turned out to be one mentally ill person of unclear gender posting as two babes in order to cling on to his every word for a bit longer.

While I'm here, perhaps I ought to state for the record that when I call my daughter 'Carlypoo', or Suzi 'Suzipoo', I am not coming on to either of them. Ben would be better off washing his mouth out and learning not to pepper his posts with his wholly inappropriate and sick-making sexual hang-ups, so he can concentrate on his manly role as Hutch's hangman.

Love,

Cazzipoo
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"his two-woman fan club turned out to be one mentally ill person of unclear gender posting as two babes in order to cling on to his every word for a bit longer."

It was a three-woman fan club, to be exact, Caz - with the same address, nevertheless....

The best, ehrm...Cazzipoo...?
Fisherman

[caz]

Even scarier then, Fishpaste. They say three's a crowd, so Ben was literally surrounded by his fan.

I've caught up with the 'Many' thread now, and I don't know whether to call Ben Mr Malaprop or Major Misunderstanding in future. I'm surprised he can follow someone else's script when he treads the boards, because he can only ever follow his own script on these boards. Mind you, I love comedy so it's all good.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"I've caught up with the 'Many' thread now, and I don't know whether to call Ben Mr Malaprop or Major Misunderstanding in future."

That, Caz, has to be the single weirdest thread around the boards! I still canīt believe that I needed to create it - and much less what it was turned into...

The best,
Fisherman

[scarletpimpernel]

Hi Mr. Fisherman

I have been reading and I feel a bit like dipping my toes in a piragna lake, not knowing whether I will be able to withdraw my toes back safely from these murky waters. All my congratulations go to you and Sam who are at least picking up the evidence and submitting it to experts, there is a lot of work in doing so and only for that, you deserve my respect. As always, Jack the Ripper is an elusive character and all the leads.. tantalising as they are, always lead to probabilities which are worth investigating, although we will for certain never know who really JTR was, with this in mind, we must try our best, which you are doing and even if we were one day to reach a definite, certain answer to the mystery and not just strong contenders to the infamous murders, I may add, even if anyone came with the true JTR it would be too late now to convict him as he is dead now. Thanks for trying and Sam also but we must bear that in mind too.

[Fisherman]

Scarletpimpernel writes:

"I have been reading and I feel a bit like dipping my toes in a piragna lake"

Guess what submerging your whole body in it feels like?

"All my congratulations go to you and Sam who are at least picking up the evidence and submitting it to experts"

You are ever so welcome, Scarlet!

"Jack the Ripper is an elusive character and all the leads.. tantalising as they are, always lead to probabilities which are worth investigating, although we will for certain never know who really JTR was"

Iīm a naive character in that respect, Scarlet - I hold some hope, although I realize that most people will agree with your pessimism. And on that score:

"Donīt think it can get any worse now", said the pessimist.
"Oh yes, it can! said the optimist.

So why give up...?

The best,
Fisherman

[scarletpimpernel]

Mr. Fisherman,

I'm not asking you to give up on your endevours and you are right in that you are indeed an optimist, since you are one of those persons who.. confronted with a glass of water half way... you will say that the glass is half full, whereas the pessimist will tell you that the glass is half empty. Even though the glass remains exactly where it was... in the middle. Your attitude is a good attitude to have. I prefer to talk to optimists than with negative personalities.

I must say, that I'm also rather impressed by the similarity of the census hand-writing confronted with the ripper letter. You will find that the excesive downward stab motion of the letters, like - G, J - which are done in such violence and well marked without leaving too many gaps in between letters it is always considered by graphologists as that of a violent person, without any generosity. There are many telling points in the way a person writes, the timid ones will always make faint impressions on the paper, whilst a bold person will make its imprint harder, violent personalities hurt the paper to the point of practically making a hole on it. This type of observation by an experienced graphologist is much more clear when he/she sees the original paper than just a mere photocopy. Although, he/she can always also tell in a photo-copy if the letter doesn't register too well in certain traces, that is also telling too, but you will find that the graphologist will find it harder to commit with a photocopy than if he was inspecting the real item.

[scarletpimpernel]

Scar

"Donīt think it can get any worse now", said the pessimist.
"Oh yes, it can! said the optimist.


The best,
Fisherman

That is so funny, funny. I sincerely hope that things do not get any worse for you then.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

“This is why I recommend you to back off from the line of business you are conducting, and start respecting my right to post without being called a mad stalker.”

Let’s try something completely different. I’m more than willing to embrace your sensible advice to “discuss the issues only”, but I wonder if you’d extend me a reciprocal courtesy. Next time we express disagreement with one another, let’s not use it as an excuse for another marathon fight-to-the-death stamina war. Even I’m starting to find those boring, and with social and professional obligations being what they are at present, I just don’t have the time I once did for “battle” mode. I am not trying to “pull a fast one”. I am expressing my honest opinion, and there are only so many times that we can go on repeating our previous objections and counter-objections. If I really wanted to “get away” with dishonest and nefarious tactics, then blitz-posting on the part of the opposition only serves to ensure that I do so. Scarletpimpernel is right to applaud you on your proactive efforts, but you musn't think that my disagreement is somehow an attempt to invalidate those efforts.

Thanks for the recap on the cutaway front. Yes, I well recall the sketch, and yes, I still believe the artist was depicting men in tailcoats – a category which encompasses the conventional cutaway. If we’re circumspect about this, though, we are dealing with a drawing, and any speculation as to what might be concealed behind what is immediately visible is about as productive as guessing what colour underwear the Mona Lisa had on. If you feel differently, fine, but for pity’s sake let’s leave it at that rather than going round in endless circles on an unrelated thread. Reasonable adult human beings have proved capable of resigning themselves to differing viewpoints throughout the ages, and unless we’re willing to follow that example here, I can make no promises of compliance to your request. Otherwise, I look forward to antagonism-free exchanges in future.

We knew that, but we can't expect Benny Boy to know the difference between a come-on and a cling-on, given that his two-woman fan club turned out to be one mentally ill person of unclear gender posting as two babes in order to cling on to his every word for a bit longer.

And I know you get all flustered and upset whenever you see me talking to other girls, but all kock-blockery aside, that particular individual no longer posts here, so bringing that subject up on more than one serial killer message board at every opportunity only makes you look desperate and obsessed (whoever would have guessed?), but of course, you bring ME up at every opportunity whenever you can, so it's little wonder that you're fanning the flames here. It’s also the height of hypocrisy to accuse anyone else of “clinging to (my) every word”.

when I call my daughter 'Carlypoo', or Suzi 'Suzipoo', I am not coming on to either of them. Ben would be better off washing his mouth out and learning not to pepper his posts with his wholly inappropriate and sick-making sexual hang-ups

Oh, bee'ave, will you?

I called him Fishypoo first.

If you don’t like what I say, you have the option of ignoring and avoiding me. But don’t, for pity’s sake, keep peppering every post you direct my way with your usual brand of inflammatory goading and then start bursting into tears when you get the reaction you were anticipating.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

I have not seen this post until now, Ben. This is my answer:

"Apologies for the delay in getting back to you."

There are other apologies that are much more due. But thanks for this one.

"I’m more than willing to embrace your sensible advice to “discuss the issues only”, but I wonder if you’d extend me a reciprocal courtesy."

Then I advice you to take a look at my communications with other Casebook members. The lack of courtesy you may have experienced on my behalf would have been something quite different had the exchange on your own behalf been of another quality. That is not to say that I wish to establish the respective amounts of guilt involved, just to point out that I was bitterly disappointed by what went down.

"I just don’t have the time I once did for “battle” mode."

I never had that time. I reluctantly took the time, though, from other obligations because I was (and am!) convinced it had to be seen through.

"Thanks for the recap on the cutaway front. Yes, I well recall the sketch, and yes, I still believe the artist was depicting men in tailcoats"

It was not a sketch - it was a photo. You must have mistaken it for something else. No matter what - letīs drop it.

"Reasonable adult human beings have proved capable of resigning themselves to differing viewpoints throughout the ages, and unless we’re willing to follow that example here, I can make no promises of compliance to your request. Otherwise, I look forward to antagonism-free exchanges in future."

It is my belief that you failed to live up to the expectations one may have on reasonable adults during the discussion we had, Ben. It is a wiew that has not changed the slightest over time.
Nor am I proud of my own part in the affair, suffice to say.

My wiew still stands that antagonism-free exchanges are to be preferred over what passed on the Leander threads, and in that respect I will surely do my best to keep it that way.

That is all I have to say.

The best,
Fisherman

[scarletpimpernel]

Ben

I'm new here and I wanted to learn about this suspect and all I'm confronted with is your kindergarten taunts to anyone who is actually trying to find something about this suspect. Your antics are disruptive and have nothing to do with this suspect, its only to do with your personal quarrels that you may have with others. If you cannot stick to the subject, I suggest you should go out and find yourself another play-room. I would like to learn more without having to read 200 posts of fights.

[Ben]

Seems you're being awfully selective in your chiding there, Pimps.

If I'm not antagonised, I'm generally very peaceful and would prefer to avoid confrontation. In fact, if you take a look my post #521, you'll notice that it was offered with the intention of salvaging whatever semblance of good feeling remained, at least with Fish. It's posts like yours that are of more questionable value. What are you hoping to acheive? I mean, let's assume I am the sort of person who really loves animosity and looks for any excuse for a scrap. Am I really likely to take your advice to find myself "another play-room"? Or will I just thank my lucky stars that someone else wants to take me on?

[scarletpimpernel]

Ben

This is the way I see it. I come here to learn about an interesting suspect and what do I get ? Endless unrelated quarrels, yards upon yards of punch and Judy and hardly anything about the main subject which is Hutchinson is it not ?

I'm a very busy person and I find it completely inconsiderate and selfish from you, to continually be harping to someone who at least has taken the trouble to bring something for analysis which can or not stand on its own merits. It is difficult to build and research a suspect. All too easy to be a lazy laughing hyena giving unwarranted insults to those who have interesting things to say. You know the saying is hard to build, easy to destroy.