Bird on the Blog-Summary

We realize the previous article quite long--and therefore will likely tax the attention span of the average "Exposing" blog reader. That's why we've summarized the specific allegations we investigated and our conclusions based on the evidence.

Claim:

Magpie has a many posts about the "Aristocratic Conspiracy" dating back a long time.

Fact:

Not true. Four posts about the Cleveland St scandal over the last week is evidence of neither of the above claims. Dishonestly lumping Druit in with this "aristocratic conspiracy" theory is the only way it vaguely approaches validating that claim--and as we pointed out that is dishonest.

Claim:

Magpie posts a lot of material about Prince Eddy.

Fact:

"Exposing" is referring to a single post, taken completely out of context.

Claim:

Magpie "constantly" promotes James Tulley's book "The Secret of Prisoner 1167"

Fact:

While we haven't check all 800 posts by Magpie, we sampled enough that if this were true we would have found at least some evidence. We didn't. Our guarded verdict on this is that it is false.

Claim:

Magpie's knowledge that there are 2 Albion Streets in London is suspicious.

Fact:

Completely laughable. We hope the author of that statement does not have access to a motor vehicle.

Claim:

That Magpie has "bothered the life out of Karen ever since she claimed to be writing on Cleveland Street, for some odd reason"

Fact:

Based on our investigation of the previous claim, we found that Magpie, far from bothering the life out of Karen, in fact helped her find information for her book. Not only does original exchange still exist, but so too does Karen's acknowledgment of that assistance. Karen also thanked Magpie (among others) for this help on the casebook forum and in her book.

Since we have no access to the subject of the "Exposing" blog's latest defamation attempt, we cannot confirm the accuracy of their claims of Mason affiliations, Magistrate position, or publishing business. Based on their woeful treatment of information readily available, we'd hazard to guess that the blogger's conclusions/speculations are the usual combination of error, wishful thinking, slander, and complete bullshit. More information would be welcome, particularly from the subject in question.