On The Trail Of The Forgers

[Steve Powell]

A bag of Loco...

quasar said:

I have a pertinant question to ask about one Michael Barrett, that makes your theory confusing.You say you know who forged the diary. You are saying corrupt people have enlisted the help of authors to use James Maybrick as a patsy to deflect the blame from the real culprit -' the Royal Family'.They were coercered into writing this diary.

In less than a year after it's publication, Barrett comes out saying that he forged it.This must have pissed alot of people off. This has dramatically affected the diary's profit. But more importantly, the Royals have lost thier patsy now.Why did they not come out to denounce Barrett(like Feldman did) to save thier work. Surely they would have whacked Barrett for his high treason?

First off quasar, yes , I do know who forged the diary.
Secondly, I have never said that "corrupt people have enlisted the help of authors to use James Maybrick as a patsy to deflect the blame from the real culprit -' the Royal Family'.They were coercered into writing this diary."
Where did you get the idea that I had said this or even thought this? It is totally ridiculous and wrong.
High treason for Barrett?
Only to himself, nobody else gives a bugger about him now.
If there are any profits from the book quaser, I think I might buy a bag of locoweed and try and forget about this casebook completely.

Steve Powell

[Ben]

Morning Caz,

But this is really quite tiresome because you also claimed only recently to have a vastly superior command of the English language, and yet you are asking me to dumb down just for your benefit

It's not a question of "dumbing down". It's a question of you making yourself a little clearer first time around. Clarity is an essential trait for anyone interested in good written communication, whereas speaking in strange riddles that leave you vulnerable to misinterpretation is not.

What's there to trust?

Don't trust me, then.

What I am supposed to do - care?

[The Good Michael]

Do you think you could have put "lick me" by mistake?

If I did, I would.

Mike

[caz]

Caz,

I have to admit that I was giggling behind your back, but it's because I hung a "kick me" sign there. I know it was childish, but I want to incorporate things like that into the Hutchinson film.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi GM,

When did you hang this sign? I ask because I've had rather a good week so far. Do you think you could have put "lick me" by mistake?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi quasar,

Help me out here.

Is Stevie Baby's theory that Ricky Tomlinson was the real culprit?

Or have I got the wrong Royal Family?

"Finger buffet? Finger my arse! Ha ha"

Yep, it might just make more sense than anything I've heard to date.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the royals were dragged in kicking and screaming to the Powell fantasy machine.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

I have to admit that I was giggling behind your back, but it's because I hung a "kick me" sign there. I know it was childish, but I want to incorporate things like that into the Hutchinson film.

Cheers,

Mike

[caz]

Or for an even better suggestion, how about you post a little more clearly in the first place in order that misunderstandings such as these can be avoided in the future?

Morning Ben,

My advice would be not to read so much more into what I write than the actual words on the page. It's little wonder if your own interpretations seem 'preposterous' even to you.

But this is really quite tiresome because you also claimed only recently to have a vastly superior command of the English language, and yet you are asking me to dumb down just for your benefit. I wish you'd make your mind up.

Right then, I'll attempt to keep this as simple as possible:

I have lost count of the number of times I have described the diary author as a total git for creating it in the first place and foisting it upon us, and pointed out that James Maybrick should not have been given suspect status.

I cannot help it if you missed all the posts concerned, even though I'm pretty sure some were addressed to you and you responded. Perhaps you totally misunderstood again and thought I was actually saying the opposite.

I thought I had also made my feelings pretty damned clear on the subject of setting anyone up as a murderer without anything like sufficient evidence.

Trust you? In your previous post you had 'pretty much everyone' giggling behind my back and now it's some anonymous 'individuals in question' who apparently can't be arsed to speak up on your behalf to make me look foolish instead of you. What's there to trust? Their silence is solid gold.

Love,

Caz
X

[quasar]

Steve Powell,

I have a pertinant question to ask about one Michael Barrett, that makes your theory confusing.You say you know who forged the diary. You are saying corrupt people have enlisted the help of authors to use James Maybrick as a patsy to deflect the blame from the real culprit -' the Royal Family'.They were coercered into writing this diary.

In less than a year after it's publication, Barrett comes out saying that he forged it.This must have pissed alot of people off. This has dramatically affected the diary's profit. But more importantly, the Royals have lost thier patsy now.Why did they not come out to denounce Barrett(like Feldman did) to save thier work. Surely they would have whacked Barrett for his high treason?

[Archaic]

The Mystery Is Solved

Unless you think I did it

Love,Caz X

OMG!! That's IT! Of course it was CAZ who wrote the Diary!

How could I have been so blind??
It's the best solution yet.

Now I know the truth, and no one will ever budge me from my position.

Bye, everybody, I'm goin' fishin'! Best regards, Archaic

[Ben]

Just think a bit more when you read and you won't end up with the wrong end of the stick on quite such a regular basis

Or for an even better suggestion, how about you post a little more clearly in the first place in order that misunderstandings such as these can be avoided in the future?

It can also mean that if a person is not as bad as they are painted, they will - or should - have their good name restored.

Absolutely, and assuming you wish to embrace that very philosophy yourself, this may be a good opportunity for you to "restore the good name" of James Maybrick. Clearly, if someone felt aggrieved at Florrie being unjustly accused of murder, there are better ways of defending her honour than accusing her naughty husband of being a serial killer via a crappily contrived "diary" - a point which you appear to recognise the merit in. But I certainly appreciate your clarifying your stance that there was nothing about James Maybrick's actions that would legitimize the accusation that he may have been a serial killer, and that it was the diarist, not you, who may have subscribed to the decidedly wayward "what goes around comes around mentality" before blowing it all out of proportion.

As for 'pretty much everyone' giggling behind my back, why should I worry if they are not as sure of their ground as you are and don't do it to my face in case they make fools of themselves?

Trust me, if the individuals in question had voiced their concerns and criticisms in that regard, it wouldn't have been them who ended up looking foolish.

[caz]

Well don't make preposterous insinuations to the effect that it was somehow inevitable that Maybrick would end up as the target of a hoax diary, in which he is accused of being a serial killer...

You what???

By arguing that the "what goes around comes around" axiom holds true for Maybrick... Incidentally, what exactly went around that came around in Maybrick's case?

But I wasn't 'arguing' any such thing. It's the diary author who seems to me like they may have had 'what goes around comes around' on the brain when writing the sodding diary. Unless you think I did it, you really have lost the plot. Just think a bit more when you read and you won't end up with the wrong end of the stick on quite such a regular basis.

What goes around comes around doesn't only mean that if a person does bad things, bad things will - or should - happen to them as a consequence. It can also mean that if a person is not as bad as they are painted, they will - or should - have their good name restored.

In this case, if the diary author thought of Florie as far more sinned against than sinning, for example, they may have designed their funny little project to turn a flawed (but equally innocent) Jim into Jack the Ripper, in a kind of "what's sauce for the goose" way - or in this case poison. In short, if the world and his wife, including Queen Victoria, insisted on accusing Florie of being a "horrible" woman, who poisoned her husband to death so she could be free for her lover, then by the same token the diarist may have thought Jim might as well be accused of being Jack the bloody Ripper.

You see what I'm saying now? It's not me doing the accusing, or condoning the fact or manner of the accusation. But someone wrote the blessed thing, seeking to portray James as Jack, even in sick jest, possibly to ram home a point about the cruel nature of injustice. It's no more of a 'preposterous insinuation' to speculate about what their reasons could have been than if you imagine they only set up the poor man to make a fast buck. I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist and start accusing you of thinking he deserved to have a fast buck made out of him like that, would I?

As for 'pretty much everyone' giggling behind my back, why should I worry if they are not as sure of their ground as you are and don't do it to my face in case they make fools of themselves?

I think you make my point all over again about the psychology of being attracted to what you profess to hate, with your candid confession about getting far too much 'gnat-flicking enjoyment' to want to cut and paste this gnat off your screen for good. As I thought, you admit to getting a perverse kick out of being very annoyed by me, just so you can take another futile swipe.

Very interesting...

Hi Graham,

Who is Stevie, what is she?

Love,

Caz
X

[Victoria]

Graham,

none here have read my book as yet .. perfection takes time!

A few new leads, tidying up the loose ends .. interviewing
certain people who seemingly lie .. or just have blocked out memories.
Almost there though, I am sure you will enjoy it and be astounded
by what is revealed behind the cover.
The trail is almost there, I shall keep you posted.

regards,
Stevie Baby

[Graham]

LAYDEEZ AND GENNULMENZ

Has anyone reading this'n here thread actually had the pleasure (or otherwise) of reading Meinherr Powell's book? If so, any comments?

Ai thenk yew.

Graham

[Ben]

I said I didn't condone what the diary author did and I meant: I don't condone what the diary author did.

Well don't make preposterous insinuations to the effect that it was somehow inevitable that Maybrick would end up as the target of a hoax diary, in which he is accused of being a serial killer, because of what you believe to be bad behaviour on his part leading up to his death. By all means resort to your usual tactic of protesting; "I said that, I know, but how dare you not realise that I obviously meant the following", but there's little escaping the obvious implication of your comment "What goes around comes around".

There is nothing about Maybrick's behaviour in the days and weeks leading up to his death that would remotely entitle anyone to accuse him of being a serial killer. Hutchinson may be equally innocent, for all we know, but unlike Maybrick, his actions and movements render him a legitimately suspicious character and one who would certainly merit close scrutiny from a modern investigator. It doesn't matter if you condemn or condone those suspicions. They are rational, given what we know of his behaviour, his statement, and other serial cases.

None of that requires any "pushing" on my behalf. All it requires is the swift bulldozing of some of the more spurious objections, which is not the same thing as lobbying for a particular candidate. By arguing that the "what goes around comes around" axiom holds true for Maybrick as much as it does for Hutchinson, you're essentially arguing that neither one is more worthy of suspicion that the other, which is just nonsense. Incidentally, what exactly went around that came around in Maybrick's case?

Makes a pleasant change from just hating it and hurling personal insults when I have pointed and laughed at your little peccadilos elsewhere.

Oh, I love that too. In fact, pretty much everyone giggles at you behind your back for your unsuccessful attempts at proofreading other people's posts when you find yourself wholly out of arguments, irrespective of their Hutch-allegiance or lack thereof. The amount of times it gets burped back in your face is truly a delight to behold.

A kind of "Bring it on - because I'm just loving the excuse it will give me to try and cut (and paste) you into oblivion".

Why would I want that?

What gnat-flicking enjoyment could I possibly derive from having one of the most vocal members of my fan club disappear into "oblivion"?

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

So, in other words, anyone who lies about their addiction to drugs deserves to be the subject of a hoax journal accusing them of being a serial killer?

Hi Ben,

Well anyone can use 'other words' to write something completely different. I said I didn't condone what the diary author did and I meant: I don't condone what the diary author did. I merely have a few ideas going round in my head as to why it may have been done. I'm sure you have too.

So, in other words, you don't know what 'condone' means, and think it means the same as 'condemn'? It's the only reason I can readily see for asking me such an oddly worded and wholly inappropriate question.

I don't condone what the diary author did, any more than I would condone anyone for thinking Hutch deserves to be accused of being a serial killer on the basis of his known behaviour over the period of not much more than 24 hours.

And I didn't 'pluck' anything from anywhere. I merely meant that if Hutch wanted to sleep with Mary that night, or slaughter her in her sleep, he would still have had to wait outside until the coast was clear, wouldn't he? Either activity would explain his claim to have been watching the room for nearly an hour, whether he was waiting for a man to emerge or not. But it's very much your 'anti-Hutchinson' campaign to push for the most guilty explanation of all for this very vigil. And it's very much up to you to come up with the evidence needed to strip him of his presumed innocence.

I'm so glad you are 'just loving' my terminology by the way. Makes a pleasant change from just hating it and hurling personal insults when I have pointed and laughed at your little peccadillos elsewhere.

Funnily enough, there was some discussion elsewhere recently about the diary sounding a false note on account of Sir Jim claiming to be just loving the thought of watching Florie pleasure her lover, while at the same time just hating her wanton ways and wanting to destroy her and every unfortunate in Whitechapel for them. You may have just demonstrated that there is nothing wrong with the psychology implied by our funny little hoaxer, ie that one can desire the very thing that gives one the chance to do battle against it. A kind of "Bring it on - because I'm just loving the excuse it will give me to try and cut (and paste) you into oblivion".

Thanks for the valuable life lesson.

Love,

Caz
X