A Bird on the Blog

Well, after an eventful weekend on the "Exposing" blog, replete with acrimonious infighting, the authors have settled back into their normal routine.

Their latest subject/victim is called "Magpie", who appears for some reason to have earned a spot on Karen's "enemies list". Since we don't know much this person, and unlike the "Exposing" team we lack luxury of simply inventing things, we decided to take them up on their suggestion to check out Magpie's posting history. We also took a brief look back on the "Exposing" blog to see what the scoop is.

Supposedly Magpie is an aficionado of the "aristocratic conspiracy" angle of the Ripper killings--or is he? Here's what the bloggers claimed:

Here's the link to all his posts. Turn a couple of pages merely and you'll see he's very preoccupied with everything that surrounds Cleveland Street and the aristocracy theme, with a particular enthusiasm for a Montague Druitt analysis. He and Bob Hinton (particularly) have bothered the life out of Karen ever since she claimed to be writing on Cleveland Street, for some odd reason best known to themselves.

The first thing we notice is that Magpie has over 800 posts--since the bloggers did not specify just where the above evidence is located, we think the intent is pretty obvious. If you give your readers a list of 800-odd posts and say "it's in there somewhere", chances are they won't bother to read them all and just accept your word for it. We went through several pages, both in order and with random samples, and were unable to find a single post about Cleveland Street, Prince Eddy, or any Masonic conspiracies.

The same with the threads that Magpie has started. There were few enought that we could check them all. The only remotely Masonic-related post was an amusing comparison between the Ripper case and The Da Vinci Code, which appeared in the Pub Talk section: a section devoted to general chit-chat and off topic banter.

The second thing we noticed was that in order to "prove" the accusation that "he's very preoccupied with everything that surrounds Cleveland Street and the aristocracy theme", the bloggers are reduced to including every post that Magpie contributed to the M.J. Druitt section. This would be considered a blatant and cynical misrepresentation by most, for the "Exposing" blog it's just business as usual.

The article about Eddie that arch-conspirator Magpie posted on jtrforums.com was a transcript of a letter to a well-known history magazine. It was immediately followed by another post from Magpie about another magazine's recent article about Ripper suspect Neil Cream. The subject of the thread? Recent magazine articles about Jack the Ripper. Can anyone say "distorting the facts"? Yes, we thought so too.

Claims that Magpie constantly promotes Jame's Tully's Secret of Prison 1167 are completely without foundation-we have to wonder how he can simultaneously be constantly promoting the Masonic Theory, the Druitt theory and the Kelly Theory. Granted there are 800 posts, and we didn't read all of them, but if he was as vocal about Tully's book as the blogger's claim, we should have encountered it at least a few times--we didn't find a single one.

Obviously the source for the article was one of Karen's tirades, which said in part:

On Howard's website, Magpie keeps talking about Karen and her book and waxing poetic about Cleveland Street like he actually knows what he's talking about....Yet he still carries on about Lord Arthur Somerset, squawking like the birdbrain that he is.

So we looked up those messages on jtrforums.com and we found some interesting results. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the "Exposing" bloggers have displayed their usual degree of fairness, accuracy and truthfulness--in other words, almost none.

The most interesting part of the exchange is that it starts on August 18--less than a week ago.

So much for a long-standing obsession. But aside from that, let's look at what he actually said:

Is there any evidence that Somerset was a pedophile? When asked about previous criminal activity, we're told that he was a pedophile, but is there evidence of that? I thought the Cleveland Street scandal was about homosexuality, pure and simple. Is there more to it than that?

Far from "waxing poetic" or claiming any profound knowledge about the Cleveland Street scandal, Magpie is obviously requesting clarification about one of Karen's claims: that the rentboys at the notorious brothel were 8 years old. (n.b. We find it interesting that no-one provided evidence to back up Karen's claim, including Karen. Several people refuted it. We aren't here to judge anyone's theory, so we'll leave it at that).

Magpie contributed four posts about the Cleveland St scandal, all of them polite, sincere and containing no personal comment's directed at Karen. In summary, it appeared a legitimate attempt to learn something: certainly nothing calling for Karen to declare "Well, it would seem that we now have another obsessive personality on our hands." This coming from a woman who posts four times that many posts a day about the Baphomet. If the irony were any heavier you could build a second Eiffel Tower with it.

Although we considered it too trivial to mention, by chance we uncovered the real story behind another assertion made by the "Exposing" team. It proved very interesting and paid us back in full for the time we spent trawling through old posts:

One informant asked him a question about Albion Street, London, and he was immediately able to state that there were two, which raised alarm bells sky high.

We fail to see why having any knowledge about the streets of London is cause for alarm, which is why we initially dismissed it we ran across the following exchange which paints an entirely different story, and effectively undermines many of Karen's claims:

The" informant" was actually Karen Trenouth, erstwhile author of "Epiphany" and the exchange is a far cry from the "Exposing" claim that Magpie has "bothered the life out of Karen ever since she claimed to be writing on Cleveland Street, for some odd reason ..."

Karen: There is a Margaret Giffin on Albion Street. Can someone out there let me know where Albion Street is in relation to the murder sites?

Magpie: There are currently 2 Albion St in London. One in Westminister, near Hyde Park, and one in Southwark, South of the river.

Karen: Thanks Magpie. Hmmm............ Lord Arthur Somerset had his home and stables near Hyde Park. I will double check that though.

Karen: Magpie, would the Hyde Park Barracks be close to Albion Street. How close? I feel that we're onto something here. It's really niggling away at me.

Magpie: Well, not particularly. Albion Street is north of Hyde Park in Westminster, and the Barracks in is Knightsbridge, to the south of the Park.

Magpie: I'm a little confused, Karen.I thought you had dropped Dr Alfred Pearson in favour of Albert Pearson the moulder? Are you now back to the good Doctor?

Karen: Please don't be confused. I have not dropped the doctor at all. The doctor is very important indeed. The moulder, Albert Henry Pearson, was probably the trowel-swinging hoaxer. The police were probably getting very close to the location of the good doctor so a hoax was contrived to draw attention away from the good doctor. You see, the moulder used Alfred's name, to deflect attention away from Mr. Cousin Doctor. Get it? The moulder, Albert, used the name Alfred at Brierley Hill Police Station so that Alfred Pearson would be a name associated with a hoaxer. I
simply, just exposed the REAL Alfred Pearson, the Surgeon. If you have any other
questions, please just ask Magpie. Thanks

(n.b.: compare this friendly encouragement for Magpie to ask questions to Karen's later responses when Magpie did just that. Although hindsight has shown us all that the fastest way to end up on the "Epiphany" hit list is to question anything about the theory, perhaps Magpie was naive to take this offer at face value. We hope he has learned his lesson).

Later in the thread Karen acknowledges Magpie's contribution and makes a light-hearted offer:

Magpie:You're hilarious!!! I was thinking that since you helped with some of my research vis a vis a street name, that I could possibly give you a role in the movie. Do you act? You could portray Catherine Eddowes, complete with fire engine impersonations.

To which Magpie offered an equally humorous reply:

I'm very flattered by the offer Karen, but alas I must decline.While my religion encourages crossdressing in order to embrace the cosmic duality found in all sentient things (Eructions 21:12) it strictly forbids the mimesis of any form of emergency response vehicle (Amphibians 3:22).

Although we only know him through the very posts that "Exposing" and Karen claim paint him as a monster, Magpie comes across as a patient, friendly person who took the time and effort to help Karen with some information. We admit it was not ground breaking research by any means, but he didn't have to do it at all, especially when we see how Karen has returned the favour.

We haven't even touched on the "copyright" fiasco, since we assumed it was simply a legal issue between two people and of interest to nobody. Even the "Exposing" authors have told Karen pointedly to shut up about the issue because no-one cares. In light of Karen's vehemence, and "Exposing's" tendency to parrot back whatever Karen feeds them with no critical evaluation whatsoever, we are rethinking our stance and investigating further.

We've already uncovered some interesting posts concerning copyrights from Karen, Magpie, Lars Poster, Dan Norder and others that call into question Karen's hysterical claims on the "Exposing" blog. It appears that Karen has a history of claiming copyright infringement and threatening legal action on the flimsiest of pretexts. We believe there may be enough for an article, and we are working on that. For now we will give Karen the last word, from a post on casebook.org following the completion of her book:

The nice people I mention in my book are Spryder(of course), GaryW, Christoper J. Morley, Diana and Magpie. Thank you friends!!

A Plethora of Blogs

The "Exposing" bloggers have kindly posted a list of conditions under which they will allow this blog to continue (they seem to be confused about whether to be thugs or anti-thugs, it seems). It is a long post, so we will refer the reader to the other blog to read it in it's entirety, but we will briefly respond to the salient parts of it.

The parts from "Exposing" are in italics.

1. This new blog will remain 'above' board' like this one. It can employ humour, but it is not permitted to resort to violent style or abuse.

So calling us "Jokers", Germans and Scandinavians "Nazis", French people "frogs", innocent bystanders "probable perverts", and posting the addresses, employers and other personal information about people is not "violent style or abuse"?. Give us a...oh wait, we just realized your first condition is an example of your "humour". Never mind. Good one!

2. Our informants K and FJL are to be completely left alone. They are not to be harassed or bothered in any shape or form. They are innocent women. You may criticise information only, if it is in dispute.

We're happy to concede to that; not because you asked us to, but because we have no desire to adopt your methods. This does not mean that we will allow their claims and comments on your blog pass without examination and, where warranted, challenge and/or rebuttal.

3.. Unidentified informants are not be stalked out, identified and harassed.

You mean, like you do on a regular basis? We have no interest in stalking or harassing your informants. It is precisely the kind of behaviour that you have displayed and that led to the creation of this blog. We have better things to do with our time than trying to ferret out the names and other personal information about your grasses.

We'd ask you to agree to your own demand, but we realize it would deprive you of two-thirds of your material. Besides, from what we've witnessed, most attempts at identifying those who post to your blog are so inaccurate that we are compiling an entire article based around some of the funniest of your howlers.

4. All blogs you have erected about the revealed two of our informants are cleaned out and come down.

(list of blogs follows)

These blogs must all be destroyed and deleted.In response, we undertake to delete all blogs regarding Ripperologists outside of the 'Exposing Ryder and Wescott' Blog. We give our word publicly that as soon as the other blogs all come down, it will be done.

We would like to see those blogs disappear also, since this blog was founded as much to oppose them as to oppose you. We have had no hand in their creation, we have not contributed to them nor do we endorse them. We even left a comment to that effect on your blog when the original FLJ blog appeared. We give you our word that this is our only blog on the subject, and will remain so.

You are also to cease circulating abusive and slanderous emails about FJL and K to people in communication them. You have been doing this for months, ever since FJL appeared on the web. Yes, shame on the creeps who dialogued with you. But it's irrelevant. This pathetic cowardice stops today.

We cannot "cease" what we have not been doing to begin with. We have not, nor would we, circulate any email such as you described--about anyone. Read our very first post--we will not post anything from an anonymous email source, and are not interested in spreading malicious gossip about anyone.

Lawyers are already working on the blogs you erected to attack and humiliate K and FJL and they are unlikely to remain standing in any event.

See above. We would fervently hope that those responsible for those blogs would remove them of their own accord, likewise we would like to see you do the same. Unfortunately we cannot force them, or you, to comply.

Police are working on Daniel Hart, a loner and known nuisance, who is hardly of any assistance to you.

We do not know Daniel Hart, we have had no contact with him, and we know nothing about his history with FLJ apart from that which appears on your blog (which we are forced to conclude is not an entirely unbiased source. Nonetheless the whole thing seems rather tawdry to us and holds little interest).

The name of your blog must change. It must not imply Karen's book. There are better names. Also, FJL has insisted that your username 'nemo' must change. Walter Sickert would himself be more than disgusted at the sight of you apparently. Call it a fad, but we enjoy being on the right side of her.

As far as must, get over yourselves.

As it happens we are considering a new name for the blog, since it is not, nor has it ever been, our intention to judge Karen's theory or book on this blog. We don't happen to agree with Ms Trenouth's theory (then again, neither do you), but we think that her achievement should be acknowledged. We do like the way "Flawed Epiphany" sounds, on the other hand, and we are wary of giving you the impression that you can arbitrarily tell us what to do. So we'll continue to work on it, but it's not our top priority.

As for FJL's "insistence" about our username, we will certainly consider it when and if Mr Sickert contacts us personally to make his feelings known. Given available accounts of his life, we disagree with FLJ's assertions about what he would or wouldn't find amusing.

I think we've pretty much answered everthing. Let us know if we missed anything significant. In return, we have a couple of demands--requests, rather--of our own.

1. That you remove certain persons and entities from the "enemies" list, as they are there based on nothing more than Karen's latest fit of pique. These include, but are not limited to:

1. jacktheripper.de and its owner
2. Maria Birchwood
3. Jana, the author of Sojourn.

If further evidence convinces you that their addition was in fact justified, fair enough--our respective blogs can engage in debate about these people based on their actions, rather than unsubstantiated gossip.

2. That in future you cease adding names to said list (and therefore your blog) based on nothing more substantial than Ms Trenouth's say-so. In short, we are asking you serve the very ethic you claim to champion--that of discouraging bullies--rather than becoming a tool for the bullying of others. Surely in a field based almost entirely on research and the weighing of evidence, finding out if an accusation is even remotely justified cannot be that hard, can it?

You will note that there are only two conditions, and that accepting them will actually increase your credibility. Of course a polite apology (nothing fancy) for calling us cowards for doing the same thing you are doing would be nice, but we are resigned to the fact that it's unlikely.

The Big Picture?

Bob Hinton has been accused several times of stalking the author of "Epiphany" with alleged "evidence" being posted on the "Exposing" blog.

A recurring story about Bob is that he obtained a photograph of Karen's husband by some nefarious method. Supposedly Bob's derogatory comments about Mr Trenouth are a thinly veiled threat designed to intimidate Karen by proving how easily he can obtain personal and confidential information about her.

Like much of Mr Hinton's "stalking", the facts are somewhat less alarming.

During an exchange with Bob, after confirming that she lived in Sudbury, Karen posted a long, rather humorous and apparently good-natured message that said, in part:

So, when can I expect your arrival, Bob? Just remember though - I have a wood-block knife set by the door. Plus, my husband is 6 foot 2 and 250 pounds! Everyone says he looks like Tom Selleck. Have you ever been to Ontario, Bob? It's beautiful - lots of lakes!!

To which Bob later responded:

Dear Karen,

"Plus, my husband is 6 foot 2 and 250 pounds! Everyone says he looks like Tom Selleck"

So he doesn't look like his photograph then?

And that's it. A smart ass reply to an equally smart ass post. Never did (or has) Bob ever claim to have a photograph of Karen's husband, much less used such a photo to threaten Karen. If anything, Karen should be relieved that Bob chose not to take the explicit threat in Karen's post seriously, but instead accepted that it was a joke and responded in kind.

This one of the reasons why there is a common view that Karen is somewhat impredictable. When in a mellow mood, she is prepared to joke or chat with people: however when her mood (inevitably) turns sour and she feels persecuted, everything that anyone has said to her becomes evidence of stalking, harassment, or intimidation. The smallest remark is inflated and distorted in a way calculated to make her look like the victim and the other person like the aggressor.

There are many examples of this type of distortion. This one was chosen because it demonstrates how a simple comment can become something totally different in Karen's retelling. It was also chosen because despite Karen repeating the new and improved version of the story many times, the truth can be readily seen by simply reading the original posts.

This is not to say that Karen has never been abused, or that she has deserved the treatment that she has received by many in the Ripper world-- and likely outside it too. We believe that Karen has had a very difficult time of things and we sympathize with her. However, just because a person has been a victim in some cases does not mean that they have been the victim in all cases. Nor does it entitle that person to in turn victimize others at will, including those who have defended or supported her in the past--a tendency of Karen's that even her allies at the "Exposing" blog have noticed and commented on several times.

(re)Making History

Karen Trenouth, author of "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders", has shown a recurring tendency to rewrite events to suit her own agenda--and we aren't talking about her book here.

Here's an example of a comment Karen left on the "Exposing" blog:

Actually, now that I think of it. Boob Hinton also said something ominous to me a ways back. I was on Casebook and I mentioned, just in passing, that I had paid alot for some photos from The National Archives and Bob Hinton then retorted, "What photos are you looking for - maybe I can help you"HAHHA Yeah, right. I just ignored him and he got pissed off. heh heh heh

Now perhaps, like us, you fail to see what is so ominous about Mr Hinton's reply--it would seem to a casual observer to be a simple offer of assistance. But for now we'll accept that "ominous" can mean different things to different people. The real purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate how Karen adopts a certain "flexibility" to reporting events.

Let's replay the actual exchange between Karen and Bob and see how it measures up.

It started when Bob posted a comment expressing doubt about the validity of self-publishing (an opinion he is entitled to but that has little bearing on the topic at hand). Karen posted a lengthy reply to a comment by someone else, adding this postscript:

Oh, and Bob:

My publisher is actually taking on the National Archives. He said that he doesn't like what they're trying to do to me!! They are charging me 30 pounds for a colour photo
of Lord Arthur! I could steal Mr. Poster' s for free!MUAHAHAHAHAHA!! It's already in my database HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! It's my turn!!

Two things immediate spring to mind. The first is that, far from being something "mentioned, just in passing", this comment is directly addressed to Bob. The second is that contrary to Karen's later claim, she had not yet paid a lot of money for the photos. Rather she was describing her efforts to avoid paying a lot of money for the photos. This is not a minor difference, as it changes the entire context of Bob's reply.

It's also interesting to note that given Karen's later claims of over 300 pounds for a single picture, 30 pounds doesn't seem like a lot after all. But onwards...

Here was Bob's reply. Compare it very carefully to Karen's later version.

Dear Karen,

What National Archives are you talking about? If you want pictures for your book I suggest you contact a picture library - they usually charge about £100 - £250 per picture.

If you get hold of a copy of the Writers and Artists Year book I believe they have contact details in there.

Ominous? It's extremely difficult to find the slightest hint of anything ominous about Bob's reply. A courteous, helpful suggestion offered without anything that could be construed as malice or ill-intent.

Karen was partially accurate about one thing: She didn't acknowledge Bob's post about the photographs. She did not ignore him totally, as she continued to direct posts at him (concerning his "investigation" of her, which we will save for another time). After a series of unbelievably vitriolic posts from Karen aimed at everyone on the thread, Bob posted the message that Karen characterized as "pissed off"

Here's an example of only one of the posts by Karen (this is neither the longest nor the most extreme):

I am not posting anymore!
I'm going back to my peaceful life!
I am not a masochist at all!
But why should I run off with my tail beneath my
legs!
Everyone on here has enjoyed me being abused.Good for you.
It is sad - but that's what my life is, Rapunzel !!

Bob, you are very disturbed to be stalking people by investigating them! I am not Jack the Ripper.

But if you want to know - then read the book.
I also come from an abusive home so I know what I'm talking about!
Goodbye, I tried being nice, but I think you are all jealous of my intelligence, looks, personality and that I have solved this case.
So, I will bow out and you can talk about me behind my back
Have fun!!

Compare this to Bob's allegedly "pissed off" post (a direct reply to the above):

Karen

What the hell are you talking about?

You accuse people of being nasty to you. Really? I have a friend who lives in Regent St who thinks he knows you. I mention this in passing - the next thing you accuse me of trying to murder you!

You mention in your post something about a smoke stack - in an attempt to lighten the mood I post a picture of it on the pages - you then accuse me of stalking you!

I chip in with a bit of friendly advice about where to get some pictures for your book - you completely ignore it!

Is it any wonder you are getting so much flack from people who apparently cannot do or say anything on these pages without you accusing them of being a stalker or a
murderer!

I sincerely hope that this time you keep your word and do not appear on these pages again!

Karen's description of the climax strives to give the impression that she stayed calm and in control while Bob lost his cool. It's clear from the actual record of the exchange that the exact opposite happened. Bob maintained a calm, polite demeanor through much of the exchange while Karen threw several tantrums.

Karen doubtless prefers the revisionist version of events, and of course the folks at "Exposing" will publish anything that makes their enemies look bad, regardless of facts. A marriage made in heaven, I'm sure you will agree.

Stayed tuned for more installments of (re)Making History, coming soon...

How They Respond

One of the saddest aspects of the "Exposing" blog is it's tendency to lapse into racist, sexist or just plain ignorant comments, all the while claiming to have the moral high ground in the debate about "thugs". New examples appear almost every day, but we'll just show one for now.

As a follow up to the phony "Nazi" accusations, someone posted a very reasonable comment on the "Exposing" blog:

Was not the Red Baron a WW1 German fighter pilot who died in 1918, one year before even the pre-curser to the nazi party was formed?Is the poster using that profile pic German by any chance? Very racist of you to label all Germans as Nazis!!! I am sure German fathers and grandfathers fought and died in WW1 too.

Seems fairly straighforward to us: accurate, mildy chiding but in no way belligerent. An excellent opportunity for the "Exposing" crew to display some class and admit that they made an unfortunate mistake of both fact and expression.

So how did they respond? You be the judge:

shamingstephenryder said...

German Baron fan:

Shut up, you Nazi fuck. Stick your head into the toilet, and flush hard.
Send us your shoes to prove you've done it.

11:10 AM

Which I think you'll agree does little to contribute to an open and rational dialogue. Remember, this is a blog that has the gall to call others bullies and thugs.

Whither Helen?

Karen Trenouth, author of the Ripper classic "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders" posted this today on the "Exposing" blog:

Look what Dan Norder wrote on Amazon. Why does he keep insisting that I am Helen Pilon? I think that he has become delusional in his bearded age. Congratulations to Ms. Pilon for giving the most accurate review of Ripper Notes that I have seen to date.

She may well wonder why Dan Norder keeps insisting that Karen is Helen Pilon--everyone else is wondering why Karen keeps insisting she's not.

Let's take a look at the history of the enigmatic Ms Pilon, shall we?

Shortly after Karen's book was published (suspiciously so) a glowing review of the book appeared on Amazon.ca, claiming to be from a Helen Pilon of Saskatchewan. It read:

Epiphany Of The Whitechapel Murders was a great read. I especially enjoyed the photographs and information on the murder victims. Trenouth's Jack the Ripper are a team of aristocrats who kill these prostitutes using ritual murder. I have told all of my friends and co-workers about this book and everyone can't wait to get their hands on a copy. This book is a must have!!

Fair enough. A boffo review for a first time author, no one can complain about that. Things start to look a little fishy when one looks at Helen Pilon's Amazon profile. Prior to her rapturous review of "Epiphany", Helen Pilon had never posted a single review on Amazon.ca. It appears that Ms Pilon joined Amazon.ca specifically to praise Karen's book. What's more, since to this date Amazon.ca has not sold a single copy of "Epiphany", it follows that Ms Pilon must have purchased it elsewhere. On July 19, 2006 Helen Pilon was moved to offer a similarly impressive review of the book on the Amazon.co.uk site.

And so matters rested until the (in)famous review by Bob (Boob) Hinton, which he posted on Amazon.com, amazon.ca, and Amazon.co.uk, among other places. Granted Bob's review is harsh, and we acknowledge that he and Karen have a rather turbulent history. Nonetheless Mr Hinton's is an honest and forthright review.

Unfortunately Karen hasn't seen it that way, and has decided that the review is evidence of a highly orchestrated campaign against her book, most likely instigated by Dan Norder and Stephen Ryder. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) Ms Pilon appears to have read the review and felt the same way.

One month after having reviewed "Epiphany" and within a couple of days after Karen making her allegations of sabotage, Helen Pilon's glowing tributes to "Epiphany" appeared on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk--both on the same day.

Lest there be any doubt that the real author of this reviews is most likely the author of the book herself, I point out four curious "coincidences" :

• The reviews appeared shortly after Karen posted several tirades about "sabotage" of her book at Amazon's sites
• At the same time as the positive reviews of Karen's book were posted, "Helen Pilon" posted highly negative reviews of publications by Stephen Ryder and Dan Order--the very people Karen believed to be orchestrating the "sabotage". (more about that another time)
• The spelling, grammer, and syntax of Helen's reviews are suspiciously similar to Karen's--especially when Karen is upset or angry about something.
• One of the reviews leaves no doubt as to the cause of this burst of activity, since "Helen" writes: "I don't understand what Robert Hinton from the UK is talking about, however, maybe he has not read the same book as I have. Some people can be vindictive when they have not wrote a book. Trust me, you will want to read this book."

It is interesting to note that in her negative review of Dan Order's Ripper Notes, Karen...I mean Helen....says that Stephen Ryder's book is much better than Ripper Notes and she enjoyed it, but in the two reviews of Ryder's book elsewhere she says that she hated it. Make up your mind(s) please.

The six rave reviews of "Epiphany" and harsh criticisms of Dan Norder and Stephen Ryder represent "Helen Pilon's" entire Amazon posting career to date. She appears to have said her piece and retired from the hectic world of literary review. Helen, we hardly know ye.

Dan Norder claims in a rebuttal on Amazon that Karen has admitted that her married name is Pilon, however we have learned that this is not the case.

Dan has confirmed that "Helen Pilon's" claim to be a former Ripper Notes subscriber is patently and provably false. Given Karen's constant tirades about "author sabotage and boycotting", and a demonstrated history of justifying childish behaviour by claiming she has the right to do to others what she believes they are doing to her, we would have to say that say Karen has a much stronger motive for the Amazon reviews than the enigmatic Ms Pilon.

Expect a future story on the the Karen Trenouth/Bob Hinton feud, including Karen's rewriting of history regarding Bob's alleged "stalking" of her.

Argumentum ad Nazium

When in doubt, accuse your target of being a Nazi, a Nazi supporter, or a Nazi admirer, and the bunch over at "Exposing Ryder" made an impressive yet sloppy attempt of this on July 23, 2006.

The post started out claiming to be inspired by complaints from Jewish visitors to Stephen Ryder's website:

Jewish readers have e-mailed us in a state of distress, asking us to demonstrate our indignance and disgust at the way photographs of infamous Nazi soldiers are being displayed on Stephen Ryder's 'Jack the Ripper' casebook with their autographs emblazened. .

The offending photo, from the profile of a casebook member, is duly displayed.

Yet there are no Nazi symbols visible, and for good reason--the photo is of World War One flying ace the Baron von Richtofen, better known as "The Red Baron"

Not only was he not a Nazi, he was killed 2 years before the Nazi party was formed. The Exposers can't even claim ignorance of the photograph's subject, since it is clearly visible at the bottom of the photo.

Having firmly jammed their collective foot in their mouth, a further accusation is made:

"We have been investigating this. A number of Casebook members are using Nazi identities as pseudonyms."

Not a single example is provided, for the simple reason that the accusation is a complete and utter lie. Of the 1116 registered members of the Casebook message boards, there is not a single instance of a remotely Nazi-inspired pseudonym. If this is a sign of their investigative skills, Jack the Ripper must be laughing in his grave.

To compound the defamation, the initial false claim is repeated, along with a healthy dose of inspired jingoism:

"Displaying autographed Nazi photographs? Did our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers die for nothing? We are of course disgusted about this affront to human decency."

Later, on the comment board, a commentator politely pointed out the error regarding the photo. Did Shamingstephenryder graciously concede the point and offer an apology? See for yourself:

"shamingstephenryder said...

Thankyou reader yes we have established that.
It makes his war like tendency no less significant, given the era, and flaunting his face is clearly a side kick macho gesture on the part of the ripperthugs. If you fail to understand that you could always go and castrate yourself, as we are getting a little tired of comments of this Nazi nature."

Talk about moving the goalposts. The entire premise of the article was to make the casebook members look like Nazi sympathizers, yet when the falsehood is pointed out, Shamingstephenryder tells his informant to castrate himself and calls him a Nazi (if you get the feeling that they like calling people Nazi's you are correct--there will be more examples at a later date). This is from a group that supposedly opposes thuggery.

To close this off, let's post a comment that was sent to the "Exposing" blog but was never posted by the owners--a tactic they use frequently.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006:

Here's your article:

"Jewish readers have e-mailed us in a state of distress, asking us to demonstrate our indignance and disgust at the way photographs of infamous Nazi soldiers are being displayed on Stephen Ryder's 'Jack the Ripper' casebook"

When someone with a couple of active brain cells points out to you that the photo is NOT of a nazi soldier at all, you respond with:

"flaunting his face is clearly a side kick macho gesture on the part of the ripperthugs. If you fail to understand that you could always go and castrate yourself, as we are getting a little tired of comments of this Nazi nature."

Instead of admitting you were wrong, you viciously launch a personal attack the person who had the nerve to provide the correct information--in other words, you behaved in EXACTLY the way you accuse the ripperthugs of behaving.

I wonder why they didn't let this one through. I guess the truth hurts.