The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Lombro2]

Ashtrakan Man kills your profile, not ours. You know the guy who blends into the background and doesn't stick out like Eric Heuermann...

Hutch is, of course, a corroborated witness.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hutch is, of course, a corroborated witness.

Show me anywhere where Sarah Lewis specifically says she saw Hutchinson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ashtrakan Man kills your profile, not ours. You know the guy who blends into the background and doesn't stick out like Eric Heuermann...

Hutch is, of course, a corroborated witness.

He blends in by appearing 15 years younger than he actually was, he trims his substantial moustache just for the occasion and then he somehow makes himself look Jewish which, considering he looks absolutely nothing like Jewish must have required some serious disguise work. Maybe he was singing 'hava nagila' to Mary?

Be serious for once.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ashtrakan Man kills your profile, not ours. You know the guy who blends into the background and doesn't stick out like Eric Heuermann...

And of course, I’ve never made that claim. You invented it. But who cares about accuracy?

[Lombro2]

So now you finally give in to Toff Theory? Hidden in plain sight, eh?

Hutch is, of course, a corroborated witness.

Show me anywhere where Sarah Lewis specifically says she saw Hutchinson.

Show me where anyone saw anyone remotely like Schwartz.

I don't really trust any witness, even if he or she helps my theory right down to the horseshoe tie pin.

Looks like Cesare Lombroso, actually. I never saw that until now.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So now you finally give in to Toff Theory? Hidden in plain sight, eh?


Show me where anyone saw anyone remotely like Schwartz.

.

What does this sentence mean?

[Iconoclast]

Thanks, Ike. Although it was inevitable, perhaps, that my post would be seen as 'patronizing,' I can only assure you that it was not written in a spirit of hostility or ridicule.

Well, here's the strange rub of the typical human mind - because there is a huge amount of 'time served' in our relationship, we see the peaks and troughs and recognise when a comment is in one or other without ever thinking the fabric of that relationship is about to significantly change. It's just pure psychology (one of my favouritist subjects) but it works - 'time served' allows us to make use of context so that the highs and lows look more like occasional blips in a more regimented, averaged-out lifespan and they often go largely unnoticed as a result.

Conversely, when someone suddenly engages with you and it's apparently friendly and then apparently hostile, and the peaks and troughs exceed the 'time served' boundaries of the relationship, even the most innocent comment can appear as obtuse as the most threatening. It's hard to work out what to expect next because the relationship has so little meaningful history to reflect back upon.

I thought your post about my 'dark night of the soul' was very entertaining and I gave it a thumbs-up. I've given many of your posts thumbs-up, and I've laughed at many of the insults and psychological dismantling that have come my way. Does that mean that I agree with your position on the Maybrick scrapbook? Of course it doesn't - we could hardly be further apart on this particular point, but when you do that disparaging trick you do (and that, of course, I do), it isn't quite as sharp as from someone whose motives you are less familiar with.

The Casebook gives us a place to discuss Jack the Ripper. Personally, with almost no exceptions, I stick to the Maybrick threads, and indeed largely stuck to the one Maybrick thread until it was closed down. No poster 'owns' any part of the Casebook, and the more the merrier and more interesting the discussions can be.

But that doesn't mean there won't be conflict when someone decides to appear out of left field and presents their tired arguments as fact. That's what's happened here.

Mrs I has just announced the arrival of a lovely pot of filter coffee (Brodie's) so I must go ...