If you eliminate the impossible

[caz]

I'll waste my time on you any time, Chris.

The point is that any poster who has chosen to hide their real identity is in no position to point the finger at anyone who takes a guess, whether they get it right or 'completely' wrong (although I can't help wondering how one could get it just a little bit wrong).

What criteria are you using to judge that I have got the identities of more than one such poster 'completely' wrong?

You know as well as I do that there is a long history on these boards of posters who don't use their real names because they don't want their motives for being here exposed or called into question. You are usually one of the first to complain if you sense that someone is wasting everyone's time. And yet you have no curiosity about a pseudonymous poster who is doing their best to make Peter Wood look like a genius? Were you pulling our legs when you put it to him that this was just a leg-pull? You seem awfully quick to defend him now I'm suggesting the same thing.

Do you know who he is?

If not, why contribute to his idea of fun? I thought you'd got sick and tired of the whole thing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Soothsayer]

Were you pulling our legs when you put it to him that this was just a leg-pull? You seem awfully quick to defend him now I'm suggesting the same thing.

Caz,

Given that you appear to have accepted that you guessed wrongly, you seem strangely hell-bent on justifying your original position, but now on a parallel tack. I held you in high regard through your book and through your posts and I find this most unpleasant. Lots of people post using 'Great Names'. Those who post using a familiar name like 'Chris' or 'Ben' or 'Graham' or even the fully-addressed 'Sam Flynn' are only providing the reader with a little familiarity, and certainly not a passport. You know no less of me than you possibly can of Chris from this Casebook alone.

Save your hostility for the guy who caused you the original distress. It wasn't me. I didn't deserve your comments, and I don't deserve your comments.

If you don't welcome my tongue-in-cheek defence of the journal, you could easily avoid the one thread on the Casebook where you will find it. When everyone else does too, it'll just be me posting to me and replying to me. I guess at that point even I will tire of me and I will stop. There, Christmas come early for you.

I'll still believe that the journal could very well be authentic until the day the categorical proof is provided that it is not. And I'll still defend it if a defence can be made - not least because there are more than enough detractors if criticisms can be made. It seems almost indecent that the single piece of hard evidence against any candidate in 120 years is so castigated and disregarded (something, I have to say, you would never expect from you given the generally agnostic nature of your book).

I have an overwhelming suspicion that you have read a few of my less serious posts and felt suitably armed with your sharp assumptions to go on the offensive.

Despite what you think, I don't deserve it.

[caz]

Caz,

Given that you appear to have accepted that you guessed wrongly...

Guessed wrongly about whom? About Whitechapel Student (formerly and hereafter known as Chris Phillips) for about four seconds you mean?

Actually, I thought I had been avoiding the thread where you have been posting your 'tongue-in-cheek defence'. You came bounding over here specifically to engage me, which is very sweet of you, tongue-in-cheek or otherwise. And as long as everyone else is now clear that it is tongue-in-cheek (just like Chris and I both suggested), everyone is happy. If others wish to continue arguing on that basis, with a position that nobody posting here holds for real, why would my reluctance bother anyone?

It's only you and Chris Phillips who appear to have a problem with the fact that on balance I prefer to know who I'm arguing with before I get stuck in, and am not really into tongue-in-cheek debates outside of the Pub.

I have an overwhelming suspicion that you have read a few of my less serious posts and felt suitably armed with your sharp assumptions to go on the offensive.

Despite what you think, I don't deserve it.

I actually agree - you don't deserve to have this overwhelming suspicion.

May all your suspicions be little ones in future.

Love,

Caz
X

[Soothsayer]

Guessed wrongly about whom? About Whitechapel Student (formerly and hereafter known as Chris Phillips) for about four seconds you mean?

I think you must be on Soothsayer's Old Original Ale tonight and have acquired some leg-pulling skills of your own. Clearly (for the benefit of those who have no idea what this is all about) I am referring to your recent post when you attempted to 'out' me as some perv from your Casebook past. Under the circumstances, I think you'd have done the same.

Actually, I thought I had been avoiding the thread where you have been posting your 'tongue-in-cheek defence'. You came bounding over here specifically to engage me, which is very sweet of you, tongue-in-cheek or otherwise.

On the contrary, madam, I bounded over thoroughly affronted by your accusations - and was then and am now extremely displeased by them. It would be too much to hope you'd just say 'Sorry - got it wrong'.

It's only you and Chris Phillips who appear to have a problem with the fact that on balance I prefer to know who I'm arguing with before I get stuck in, and am not really into tongue-in-cheek debates outside of the Pub.

I'm afraid your explanation was somewhat redundant. It was patently obvious from your supercillious tone that you consider yourself the owner of the debate, in all its forms.

[Scott Nelson]

Well Soothsayer, you could post using your real name.

[Soothsayer]

Well Soothsayer, you could post using your real name.

And what bearing would that have?

What reassurance do I have that you are actually called Scott Nelson rather than someone else posting in the name 'Scott Nelson' because you prefer to keep the candle snuffed out and play hide and seek?

I'm not meaning to sound confrontational about this - it just ruins the sport if you unmask the baddie!

[caz]

Well Soothsayer, you could post using your real name.

Hi Scotty,

Apparently he can't. But we don't know why so we are left to guess. Maybe Mrs Soothsayer is threatening to chuck a bucket of cold water over him if he exposes himself - or maybe she would disappear in a puff of smoke.

Love,

Caz
X

[halomanuk]

Why should he post with his real name ?
Come on people it's not compulsory - look at my user name for example.

[caz]

He can post as whoever he likes, Barry.

The point is that if a poster openly admits to taking a 'tongue-in-cheek' debating position that nobody here holds for real (and says he will go away when his last opponent gets tired of the game) it's a bit rich for him to get all offended by anyone who wonders who he is and why he has bugger all else to contribute to the site as a whole.

It's actually no different from the occasional twits we have seen here in the past who were only here to wind people up into arguing endlessly with them against any royal or masonic connection to the crimes.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Caroline Morris

Judging by your last post, I owe you an apology.

Somehow I got the impression that you thought you knew the identity of Soothsayer, when evidently you were only "wondering who he was".

[gary]

Maria,

I'm not in any way promoting this hoax, for hoax the Diary is. It's just that you've missed the point of my last post, especially the last paragraph.

But never mind.

Graham

Hi,
One other possibility.
The diary could have been written by Maybrick, but still be a load of old tosh,
because it may have been contrived as a literary exercise.
You know, "I wonder what a diary by jtr might read like?"
Just a thought.
Bye,
Gary.

[John Hacker]

And what bearing would that have?

What reassurance do I have that you are actually called Scott Nelson rather than someone else posting in the name 'Scott Nelson' because you prefer to keep the candle snuffed out and play hide and seek?

I'm not meaning to sound confrontational about this - it just ruins the sport if you unmask the baddie!

The thing is Sooth, that to many of us this isn't a sport. The Casebook is full of people who take this subject very seriously. We're serious folk looking for honest, factual answers. We do research and try to learn more about the case.

Of couse there's a certain pleasure in making a well reasoned post to dimiss a load of hooey, but at the end of the day it's about getting to the bottom of a point or at least looking at it from all angles.

In my experience posters who appear under their own names are the ones that take the case more seriously. If you want to use a psuedonym, that's all good. I'll respond to your points, but it does help with your overall credibility to use your own name.

Besides, if you do make some fabulous discovery or point, don't you want the credit?

Shine on Sooth

[caz]

Caroline Morris

Judging by your last post, I owe you an apology.

Somehow I got the impression that you thought you knew the identity of Soothsayer, when evidently you were only "wondering who he was".

Hi Chris,

Apology accepted.

Anyone who, like me, doesn't know who Soothsayer is (and nobody here seems willing or able to fill us in anytime soon), is rather stuck in guesswork land.

I started out wondering how many contributors to the debate on t'other thread knew, or guessed, that Soothy had adopted his 'pro-diary' persona for a tongue-in-cheek exercise, and whether anyone thought he was for real and was, in effect, being hoaxed by him.

As Soothy has openly admitted to it, I must fall into the 'guessed right' category. If along the way I have also taken a private stab at this hoaxer's identity, you won't know that I haven't scored a direct hit unless you know who he is yourself and that I couldn't possibly have guessed it.

Soothy would know if I could have done or not. If not, all he has to do is say so. But then I'd have to guess if he was still being a silly faker. That's the trouble with hoaxers - and little children who cry wolf. They make it hard for people to know when they are being serious, so it's easier just to assume they are not. Fine if they never want to be taken seriously again and are confident their real identity can't be discovered.

I am curious to know whether you condemn all silly fakers, across the board, or would make an exception and condone one if you had a particularly soft spot for him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi John (if that's really your real name),

The Casebook is full of people who take this subject very seriously. We're serious folk looking for honest, factual answers. We do research and try to learn more about the case.

With respect, I'd say the precise opposite: the Casebook is full of people who just kind of hop in for a few posts, make a nuisance of themselves, and then hop out never to be heard from again. Also (again with respect) may I ask what is the nature of your research into the Whitechapel Murders? You say you take the case very seriously - how seriously? Even some of the most respected posters to these boards are just armchair enthusiasts (I include myself in this) but nevertheless so long as our views aren't totally crackers I do believe we deserve to be heard. My own great interest is the A6Case, which so far as I know is debated solely and exclusively on this forum, yet apart from a few visits to certain places associated with that case, and reading the few available books on the subject, unlike a (very) few others I haven't put any energy into what I'd call 'research'. Yet I hope (being slightly egotistical here) that my views on the A6 Case are taken at least halfway seriously.

In my experience posters who appear under their own names are the ones that take the case more seriously.

Do you include (amongst others, perhaps) Grey Hunter in that assessment? Or, from the opposing viewpoint, Steve Powell?

Speaking purely personally, I think Soothsayer (whoever he is, and frankly I don't care) is always worth reading - I like his style, I like his humour, and I like his doggedness. This forum would miss him if he decided to disappear.
I can also say the same (and have said it) for Steve Powell, and I don't give a bugger what others might think - he's stuck to his guns for longer than I can remember, and I believe that that counts for a lot. (That doesn't mean that I accept everything he says, 'cos I don't, far from it, but I'll always lend an ear to what he has to say).

Live and let live, John.

Cheers,

Graham

[Chris]

Caroline Morris

You seem to have a lot of time to waste on your "guesswork". I'm sorry, but I don't.