On The Trail Of The Forgers

[caz]

Caz,

That was especially poignant. Would you mind writing Hutchinson's eulogy? I don't think he has been treated fairly.

Cheers,

Mike

I'm already on the case, GM.

When a certain Hutch fingerer who shall remain nameless sees extracts from the anonymous 63 page Diary of a Hutch Ripper that I'm currently creat - ahem - about to "discover" in his dressing room, I wonder if he will recognise it as a personal hell of his own making - ie something akin to what Stevie Baby is doing all by himself, to himself.

Not to mention something that someone once did to James Maybrick.

I love parody*, me. I'm getting a real feel for the Punch that can be delivered with it.

Catch me when you can.

Sorry, Victoria, I'm bored now. You just went off the boil - like Boyle.

Love,

Caz
X

[*parody: a burlesque or satirical imitation; an imitation so poor as to seem a deliberate mockery of the original.

burlesque: a ludicrous imitation; a piece of literature, of acting, or other performance that mocks its original by grotesque exaggeration or by combining the dignified with the low or the familiar.

Only just saw the second definition and it couldn't have expressed any better what I have had on my mind for quite a while now, probably thanks to the actor and the Welshman. ]

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

You know you bring up a good point. It's one thing to fashion as story about a known murderer as Jack the Ripper, but a completely different one when people who have done nothing wrong as far as we know, are condemned as "likely" suspects. The condemnation doesn't end with a few words. In the Cases of Hutchinson and Maybrick, they have been immortalized in book and other print as killers, though there is no case against them. That's why I'm on a mission from God now.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

The condemnation doesn't end with a few words. In the Cases of Hutchinson and Maybrick, they have been immortalized in book and other print as killers, though there is no case against them.

Well....

There are indications that Hutchinson, who was directly involved in the investigation into the Whitechapel murders, lied about his behaviour near a crime scene after he realised he'd been seen, and Maybrick was an arsenic-addicted cotton merchant from Liverpool who was the subject of a relatively recently hoaxed diary.

Lump them into the same category, by all means, but it will be at the expense of your own credibility, I'm afraid.

[caz]

Ooh look who's just walked into the spider's web - the fly ready to be undone.

There are no indications that Maybrick killed anyone but himself. There are indications that he was directly involved in his own alleged murder, and lied about his own behaviour which led up to his death, and had the immediate effect of plunging his widow and children into a personal living hell that was not of their own making. Although I don't condone what the diary author did, I can hear the whisper: "What goes around comes around".

There are no indications that Hutchinson ever killed anyone, or did not live on long after the Whitechapel Murderer was history. There are indications that Hutch did nothing much more than find himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, hoping to doss down in Mary's room, and having to wait outside because another man - possibly the WM himself - was in residence.

What goes around comes around.

Can you hear it, Ben?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Ooh look who's just walked into the spider's web - the fly ready to be undone.

And who'd be the "spider" in this equation - you?

I'm just loving the belligerent terminology, as though it were designed to intimidate. I think you know full well that this isn't going to work too successfully against me as a debating strategy.

Although I don't condone what the diary author did, I can hear the whisper: "What goes around comes around".

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?

There are indications that Hutch did nothing much more than find himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, hoping to doss down in Mary's room, and having to wait outside because another man - possibly the WM himself - was in residence.

What do you mean "having" to wait outside?

Where did you pluck this one from?

He didn't "have" to wait outside at all. He was free as a bird to gain entry into the lodging house that he was apparenty leaning against. He was free to gain entry into the lodging house kitchen of the Victoria Home. There was ample opportunity to secure a roof over his head from the cold and rain if he so desired. I wonder, if Dennis Rader was caught discreetly monitering the Otero household from a vantage point, how many people would give him the green light if he defended his behaviour on the grounds that "Duh, I'm just watching and waiting for the scary man who's in there". Or if Robert Napper used the same transparent excuse when he was seen outside the home of Samantha Bisset?

Don't make anti-Hutchinson antagonistic remarks in the middle of an unrelated thread.

It really isn't in your best interests. Trust me.

[Steve Powell]

Pluck off...

Ben said to Caroline:

Where did you pluck this one from?

Same place she plucks everything else Ben.

Caroline said:

Sorry Victoria, I'm bored now..

I can tell you Caz/Caroline,
You are the only boring thing on my thread,
Pluck off, your fired.
And don't come back until you learn some manners.

[halomanuk]

Steve,your post count has gone up to 49.
Looks like your post counter is working finally !

[Graham]

Ben,

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?

Why do you suggest that Maybrick lied about his drug-addiction? It seems that he was completely open about it, which you would see if you took time read something about the Maybrick Case.

Cheers,

Graham

[Ben]

I meant to say the following, Graham:

So, in other words, anyone who lies about their behaviour (as per Caz's observation) and is addicted drugs deserves to be the subject of a hoax journal accusing them of being a serial killer?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.