Ep. #39- A Diseased and Vile Creature: Thomas Cutbush

[Natalie Severn]

But surely the question is whether what A. P. Wolf wrote in his book was true, or whether he invented it.

If he invented it, what part of Ally's language do you consider is inappropriate?

What I am objecting to is the hostile language Ally employs about AP which serves solely to defame his character.
She accuses him of telling "lies" of "outright fraud" of "deceiving the public for financial gain" of "gross hypocrisy" of being prone to "outright lies and blatantly false accusations",
She says she DESPISEs LIARS-therefore we understand she DESPISES AP.
Strong language to say the very least.

Moreover all her accusations so far appear to be without the firm foundation of factual certainty.We are actually still awaiting information on the accusations she is making on the case under discussion so that at present what we have is the defamation of the character of AP taking place on what is not "impartial territory" ie it is a forum which this woman OWNS and which Ap has been "BANNED" from and is therefore "GAGGED" !




You dont find that objectionable, Chris?

[Ally]

Hostile language? How do you say someone is a liar sweetly? He does tell lies and make blatantly false accusations. As in "Phil misplaced the background in the Dutfield's yard photo when he photoshopped it."

There's no way to pretty it up. What AP does is make accusations and when asked to provide evidence to support those accusations, he runs away.

So he knows when he is making those accusations he can't provide evidence which makes him a liar. When I make accusations, I back them up.

AP is a liar: Evidence above, Dutfield's. AP makes false accusations. Evidence above. AP lies for financial gain: Essen story, in his book, which he published for money.

Now there is the remotest of possibilities that the clouds will part, the sun will shine and there will be proof that the Essen case was not completely fabricated. And if that occurs, I will absolutely withdraw the statement and the part about him lying for financial gain. At which point, he'll just be a liar because he likes it. But after two weeks of Germans looking, in their native language for the mere mention of the case and not finding it, at this point, I am comfortable in saying that AP made it up entirely. AP's response? Oh it exists and he knows it but can't be arsed to prove it. Typical.

And while I realize Nats might be of the age and mentality where a woman is the property of her husband, etc. but I do not own the Casebook, and I have absolutely NO say in who is allowed to stay and who is banned and Nats knows it. And attempting to put the blame on ANYONE else besides AP for his being banned is CHEAP. I didn't force him to slander Phil. I didn't force him to tell the mod to piss off instead of retracting the statement.

And she knows damn good and well that Stephen would let AP back on if he apologized and retracted the statement, so the power to come back on here and "defend" his character is ENTIRELY in AP's hands, just like the decision to slander Phil and get himself banned was entirely in his hands.

How about making AP responsible for his own behavior for just once Nats?

[Natalie Severn]

This is so much nonsense Ally-no need for you to be making reactionary remarks about my age or mind set,which has nothing whatever to do with the matter we discuss.
This is Stephen"s site ,yes, but you are being disingenuous if you are claiming that despite being Stephen"s partner, you have no vested interest in this site whatsoever.

What I am talking about anyway is an expectation by users of the site for fair treatment and the use of reasonably courteous language , in order to avoid hurting other people"s feelings needlessly.
If you therefore,as someone in an unequal and very privileged position on here ,ie as the partner of the owner of these boards, start employing extremely judgemental and derisory language, calling AP a liar,fraud and cheat, when you know he is at a disadvantage to respond to your accusations ,then you are taking advantage of your position.You know that he can only return here on the terms set by Stephen-- because they are not not my terms or AP"s are they?
And in the process you are taunting Ap with the humiliating proviso that in order for him to be able to return to these boards and satisfy your demands he would need to abase himself in public-----all over this ridiculous nonsense about an image of Dutfield"s Yard that few of us-yourself included, were able to see clearly, or for long enough to treat as anything but a bit of a joke and a bit of light hearted fun for goodness sake.

Kind Regards

Norma

[Ally]

Humiliate and debase himself by admitting he had no grounds whatsoever to accuse Philip of creating a deliberate hoax(as you said, no could clearly see it, so on what GROUNDS is he making the claim that the background was "misplaced") ?

You see it as humiliating and debasing someone to force them to retract slander before they are allowed back on to probably do it again?? You have a very interesting definition of what constitutes humiliation and debasement. Of course, there was a very easy way for AP not to have gotten himself banned in the first place:

He could have not slandered Philip to start with or made baseless accusations that he knew he couldn't provide the evidence for.

And no, I have no vested interest in this site, whatsoever. It's not mine, I have no stake in it, I have no financial interest in it, and my only personal interest in it, is via the message boards, which I was on long before I had any other personal investment.

AP chose to go on teh podcast, and make accusations, and he knew full well that he wasn't going to be able to respond to them here.

He made his choice. Whining that he's at a disadvantage is crap. And you and I both know, he's been insulting me left and right on other boards, freely and without restriction and long before I said a single word over here about him being a liar, which he is, and making false accusations, which he does.

So your attempt to portray AP as some sort of victim is BS. The only thing he is a victim of is his own outrageous ego, that makes him think he should be allowed to slander people and not be called into account for it or to provide evidence.

So yes, if requiring someone provide evidence or retract slander is "humiliating and debasing" them, then I am quite happy to be on a board that has that basic stipulation.

[Ally]

In addition, if it comes out that the Essen case is accurate, even though currently, it doesn't appear to be real, then I will absolutely also be retracting my statements, and I don't at all consider it to be humiliating or debasing. I consider it correcting my error.

But the point is moot. According to the member list, AP is now back. So whatever stipulations Stephen made, AP apparently found them palatable.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Natalie and Robert for your support and kind words; and I've been wanting to thank RJP for a long while now for such a honest and readable review of the Cutbush podcast. The audience impact on the Cutbush show appears to have justified JM chancing his arm, and trusting me to behave.
Stephen has extended the same courtesy, and I thank him for it.

[Stephen Thomas]

Welcome back AP.

Casebook has been dull without you.

And Philip's photo is the real deal, believe me.

Why alienate people unnecessarily? Serious question.

You were spot on about that Drake geezer though, some time ago.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Stephen
and we have the 17th September 1888 letter to go yet.
The answer to your serious question?
'tis now't but the urgent imp of the autustic child, but I have spells and potions to control and cure it.

[Ally]

Well if anyone actually thought I had any say over who posted here, boy don't you feel stupid now.

So AP,

Hundreds, maybe dozens, okay probably about ten people are waiting with breathless anticipation for you to be the one to smack me down, and make me "humiliate and debase" myself in public, which you can do with one simple answer.

What was the name of the suspect in the alleged 1991 Essen rape case?

[Cap'n Jack]

Let them hold their breath then, Ally, I'm in no particular rush.
Do you think it not a little naive of you to imagine that a police department found guilty of wholesale corruption in a very serious criminal matter would be handing out leaflets publicising that fact?
Is that not the issue here?
It is the best interest of the police force concerned to make sure that this information is not widely circulated, just as in the case of Thomas and Charles Henry Cutbush.
But there's always the Sun.

[Ally]

That's your excuse? That the police wouldn't "publicize it"?? Are you joking?

You said you found it in "the archives". What archives? Newspaper? So what difference does it make whether the police are handing out leaflets, it would have been a matter of public record.

[Cap'n Jack]

As were the Sun reports, Ally, but they are still being rubbished today.
Chill out, listen to the Stranglers:

'How many times have you woken up and prayed for the rain?
How many times have you seen the papers apportion the blame?
Who gets to say, who gets the work and gets to play?
I was always told at school, everybody should get the same
How many times have you been told, if you don't ask you don't get?
How many liars have taken your money,
your mother said you shouldn't
bet?
Who has the fun, is it always the man with the gun?
Someone must have told him, if you work too hard you can sweat
[ Find more Lyrics on www.mp3lyrics.org/bLH ]
There's always the sun
There's always the sun
Always, always, always the sun
How many times have the weathermen told you
stories that made you laugh?
Y'know it's not unlike the politician and the leaders when they do
things by half
Who gets the job, of pushing the knob
That sort of responsibility you draw
straws for, if you're mad enough
There's always the sun
There's always the sun
Always, always, always the sun'

[Ally]

So according to you, you found it in newspaper reports. Meaning that it was publicized. But now, when no one can find a single trace of it, it's because the police are somehow keeping it under wraps 18 years after the fact, even though they didn't manage to keep it out of the papers when it happened, and when they'd have benefited from doing so.

[Cap'n Jack]

You can't demand history, Ally, you have to go out and find history, search for it in dusty dirty places where no soul has gone before; and then you have the pigeon in the basket, and can go home and fry the little squab.
You girl, you got a basket, but you ain't got a pigeon.
I got the squab, as you will eventually see.
But I slow cooked the little geezer.
I wouldn't go on a podcast without you, I like your spit and jive, girl.

[Ally]

When someone presents "history" in a book and publishes it for money, they have a basic obligation, when whoring themselves for the "yankee dollar" not to invent "history" to sell books.

You chose to present this story. You chose to sell it. And now you are avoiding answering the simplest most basic question about it.

There's something dirty here all right, but it's not the corners of history. It's the stink of a lie.

If the Bochum police department did not do this, then you have slandered an entire group of people who did not deserve it. IF they did do this, it would seem a simple matter, seeing as how it was supposedly published in the papers to present something as simple as a name of the suspect.