More of the Same

We notice that the Hargoons have changed the name of their blog yet again. But behind their latest facade the desperate truth bending continues unabated.

Their response to yesterday's exposé of their pathetic grasp of both Freemasonry and basic researching skills was hilarious. Here are some highlights, with commentary:

Our observation vis a vis the Masonic webring and the Intendant of the building, or lodge, earlier outlined, is the correct one. There may be the odd discrepancy but it's irrelevant. We don't build on it, it's an interesting observation.

The odd discrepancy? They didn't get a single fact right! Their observation "vis a vis the Masonic webring" somehow managed to omit the fact that said webring is defunct and has been for years. They took the duties of a person called the Tyler and ascribed them instead to a Masonic degree entitled "Intendent of the Building". They are now trying to re-introduce the original howler of the "Intendent of the Lodge" despite having been previously forced to admit that they were wrong about it.

And it can be hardly be "irrelevant" that a group of alleged "researchers" with a particular interest in a Masonic Jack the Ripper Conspiracy have publicly demonstrated that not only do they know nothing about Freemasonry, but lack the slightest ability (or interest) to research the most basic facts about it.

We do not care whether this Bob Hinton who is desperate to align himself with Stephen Ryders Jack the Ripper Casebook members ( he has only been a member for six months) is a Modern Mason or a Modern Mormon.

Really? Then perhaps you can explain why you have posted twelve articles referring to Bob Hinton's supposed Masonic connections in the past seven days! That doesn't include the repost that prompted our article and which you have since removed from your blog, presumably out of embarassment.

Perhaps you could also explain why you have created an entirely new blog entirely devoted to Bob Hinton's alleged Masonic connections. It sounds like you care very much. Almost to the point of obsession.

And the funniest part is that Bob Hinton says that he is not a Freemason in the first place, meaning it is more than likely that your efforts are entirely in vain. This is not the 18th century. Freemasons are not required--and seldom do--conceal their membership. Websites, rings, T-shirts, even bumper-stickers proudly proclaim Mason affiliations. Only in the paranoid fantasy world of the Hargoons does the image of a shadowy world of arch-conspirators still hold sway.

They also trot out the oft repeated lie:

We have no leaning toward any particular theory.

Which we've already blown wide open in an earlier post. But for convenience sake, the Hargoons have exposed the falsehood in the very same paragraph, which says"

They daren't discuss the conspiracy theory, because it reveals their ignorance and incompetence. So, they lampoon any freemasonry based observation whatever, as soon as they can, and in so doing, reveal triumphalism, desperation, and ignorance..

Lest there be any doubt that they are lying through their teeth, the preceding paragraph also reveals their true feelings:

We suspect that the 'Ripperologist baboobs' are simply up to their usual stunts, denying any type of conspiracy/Freemason theory as they have neither intelligence, information nor means to approach it.

Doesn't sound like they have a bias at all, does it?

One of their "anonymous" commentators added their two cents' worth (we hope she got change):

Yes, why is Bob going to all these lengths to deny his Freemasonry connection, and hoe does he know so much about the lodge in Wales and the masonic webring? I smell a stinking rat Mr Hinton.

To which we will reply, using small words. Mr Hinton did not go to any lengths to deny his Masonic connections, he merely pointed out that he is not a Freemason (lots of people aren't, you know). He does not claim to know anything about the lodge in Wales and the (non-existent) webring. We (not Bob) spent 10 minutes doing what the Hargoons should have done before posting their drivel on the Net--doing some basic research and checking the accuracy of their claims.

We find it notable that the commentator did not ask herself why the Hargoons seem to know so much about the Lodge in Wales, hmm? Maybe the Hargoons are the Freemasons, employed to draw attention away from the Masonic Ripper theories by creating the perception that all those who are championing such theories are puerile thugs of limited intelligence and questionable sanity. If so, they are doing a fine job.

But seriously.

If their research for the attacks on Bob Hinton and others has been proven to be so dismally inadequate--and it's not like it was even challenging research--then is it reasonable to expect that their research on the Jack the Ripper case will not likely be any better? No, we don't think so either.

The Great Masonic Muddle

We find it most amusing that a group such as the Hargoons--who believe a Masonic conspiracy lurks behind the Ripper crimes--are so proudly yet woefully ignorant about Freemasonry in general.

Here's the latest howler from the Hargoons:

While one of SSR's personalities is on a short break, the others have regurgitated some previously posted waffle about Bob Hinton's involvement with Freemasonry. Since it's a slow weekend we thought we'd check into some of their claims. This was just for fun, since it has been revealed that the "information" about Mr Hinton's Masonic connections was planted by an acquaintance of his precisely to prove that the Hargoons will swallow any old tosh about those they are harassing.

The results were both astounding and amusing. It also raises an interesting question: are the Hargoons so blinded by spite that they will post anything, no matter how distorted and inaccurate, to harass one of their enemies? Or are they simply so stupid and self-deluded that they really believe their "research" and "investigating" fools anyone with IQs above the double digits?

Here are their "claims" about that sneaky Mason, Bob Hinton.

The Warm Up

Claim: Bob Hinton is a member of the Lodge of Enterprise

Actually: Well, possibly, although Mr Hinton says that he is not a Mason at all. But what is the Hargoon's proof for this? Well, they went on the web and looked for a Lodge that had a website and was located in Wales. Get it? Bob is in Wales, Lodge of Enterprise is in Wales--obviously Bob must belong to the Lodge of Enterprise.

No wait, it gets worse.....

Claim: The Lodge of Enterprise is "very prominently affiliated to the Freemason Web Ring."

Actually: The Lodge of Enterprise does have a link to the E-mason webring on their homepage. A requirement of virtually every webring is that you put their webcode on your homepage. However had the Hargoons taken the extraordinary investigative step of clicking on any of the buttons in the webring, they would have received the following secret Masonic message

We haven't hosted the WebRing in years.
Sorry!

Only the centre, or hub, button leads to anything (we'll get to that next). So 20 seconds of further research shows a more likely scenario--the webmaster never got around to removing the code to a defunct webring.

Claim: "SSR2 believes they are affiliated to the Freemason webring to the extent they control it."

Again, quite possibly, although considering that the webring doesn't have a single active site anymore, we'd guess their duties as controller are not overly strenuous. Remember, this is the second time that the Hargoons have posted this piffle without even taking the 20 seconds of "research" it would have required to prevent themselves from looking like abject morons.

The Good Stuff

Here's where it goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. Remember that the Hargoons subscribe to a Masonic Conspiracy theory for the Whitechapel Murders--that is important. So how does their knowledge of Masonry add up? Read and despair.

Claim: Robert Hinton is an 8th degree Freemason. The title of the 8th degree is "Intendent of the Building". Robert Hinton's title and status: Intendent of the building.

The 'Intendent of the Building' is charged with admissions and Masonic code recognition, in other words, he evaluates the position of any member of the Masonic community seeking to gain admission to any one particular lodge, either from a Masonic group or elsewhere, by implementing code routines and evaluating their knowledge and status. This proceedure is known as 'G'. It usually involves a specific lodge related variation on the 'G' routine.The masonic handshakes and all that.

Actually: In this entire mish-mash of information, the Hargoons managed to get exactly one fact correct--that the title of the 8th degree is the "Intendent of the Building" (and that took a couple of tries and a hint from Bob, as they initially insisted it was "Intendent of the Lodge").

The Intendent of the Building is the name of the degree, not a job title. If a Lodge had six 8th degree members, they would all be "Intendents of the Building" (meaning you'd have to run an entire gamut of people checking your worthiness to enter--would make for a long meeting, no?). Likewise if a Lodge had no 8th degree members, there would be no-one to perform the duties describe above, would there?

The duties as described in the above paragraph are actually performed by the Tyler. The Tyler can be of any degree, from 1-33 (some lodges require that he be 3rd or higher, some require a particular standard of skill or knowledge), and does not even have to be a practising Mason. Another curious thing is that a Mason cannot act as Tyler for the Lodge to which he belongs. So much for Bob being the guardian and gatekeeper for the Lodge of Enterprise.

We'll say it again slowly in case the Hargoons drop by: If Bob is a member of the Lodge the Hargoons claim he is, then he can't perform the duties the claim he does. Inversely if Bob performs the duties that they claim he does, then he can't be a member of the Lodge they claim he is. And of course if Bob is not a Mason at all, theyve been taken for the suckers they are!

And how did we--lifelong non-Masons who are not even eligible to join a Masonic group--find this information? It took approximate 10 minutes of online research, including verification with independent sources.

The seven Hargoons who presumably have spent years developing a theory of a Masonic/Ripper Conspiracy didn't manage to correctly state a single readily available and verifiable fact --we can only hope the rest of their "research" does not meet the same dismal calibre as displayed here.

We'd strongly suggest, dear reader, that you keep this in mind when evaluating any claims made by SSR and their cronies.

Another Lie Exposed

Part two of our series of the recurring lies told by the "Exposing" blog.

Lie #2: We Do Not Endorse or Condemn Any Particular Ripper Theory

We admit that the Hargoon's did a pretty good job of covering this one up for some time, but as their snug little universe continues to unravel it is obvious that this is totally untrue.

It is now transparently clear that the Hargoons favor a "Masonic/Aristocratic Conspiracy" approach to Jack the Ripper. If it were as simple as that, it would be no big deal--we recognize everyone's right to endorse, pursue and defend the theory of their choice. However what makes it dishonest is that they publicly proclaim impartiality while privately their commitment to this theory underpins their various campaigns of harassment and slander.

Karen and FJL are allowed to access the resources and audience of the Hargoon blog to launch exactly the kind of vicious and deceitful bullying and lies that the Hargoons claim to oppose. Why? Because both Karen and FJL are proponents of Masonic Conspiracy theories.

And because Karen and FJL are (or have been) fellow travellers, anyone who gets on their bad side (we are generous in assuming that they have a good side) are immediately elevated to the rank of "Rippergoon" without the slightest effort to confirm whether the allegations are true.

Of course even though the Hargoons have disowned Karen and acknowledge that she manipulates facts to portray herself as victim, they continue to harass and defame those for whom Karen's ire is the sole reason for them being attacked on the "Exposing" blog at all. All because they will do anything rather than admit an error in judgement.

And that's why such a small, seemingly insignificant lie needs to be exposed--because it has led to even more, slightly larger lies, which in turn have resulted in great injustices.

Will They Ever Learn?

The irony is just too much.

Yesterday we published an entire article demonstrating how not only do the Hargoon's spend an awful lot of time trying to guess who posts comments to their blog, but also how incredibly bad at it they are...

And today they prove our point in spades by posting a long, typically childish article about how Stan Russo and Bob Hinton have created this blog. As always, the article is heavy on smear tactics (including the oft-repeated but still not funny "joke" of labelling people as apes of one sort or another) and utterly devoid of supporting evidence: we just had to shake our heads.

Like a confused pigeon that flies headfirst into a window just seconds after bouncing off the very same window, the Hargoon's show an amazing inablility to learn from their mistakes. It would be depressing were it not so damn funny.

For the record, Stan Russo has no involvement with this blog. Not so much as a comment that we are aware of. Bob Hinton's participation has been open from the start: Comments in the comment's section, and the kind permission to publish the details of "Operation Fortitude 2".

We realize that the Hargoon's are too stupid to believe this, but we hope that you, gentle reader, are higher up the evolutionary scale and remember this display of investigative ineptitude when the Hargoon's tell you they "know" who Jack the Ripper is.

On a related topic, we thought we'd take this opportunity to point out the Hargoon's latest cynical attempt to distort the truth--this time using our own blog as the vehicle.

If you check under the comments for "A Plethora of Blogs" you will see a comment from "SSR" (the authors of the "Exposing" blog) that says: "Just seen this. What an incredible loser of a blog." This is an outright lie, that is easily disproven.

Despite a pathetic and transparent attempt to make it look like an old comment, it was submitted today (Aug. 25) . Since it appeared several days after they first talked about our blog on their site, including back-handed compliments and their hilarious "demands", it is an obvious lie that they had "Just seen this".

What really underscores their hopeless stupidity is that they planted this comment in response to an article that clearly and obviously responds to one of their articles about us. Surely they cannot be so clueless as to think that people will believe that they wrote an entire article about Flawed-Epiphany without ever having read our.....oh wait....that's exactly the kind of thing they would do.

Never mind....

Stop the Presses!

The Hargoon's posted this on their blog this morning:

"The SSR team are taking a short break: since it's very quiet this week compared to the last few, this seems like the time to take a well earned break."

Now what would prompt this "break", we ask ourselves?

Could it be that they have finally been embarassed at being exposed for the hopeless morons that they are? Read this contribution from Hargoon victim Bob Hinton and decide for yourself:

Hello everyone,

There can be few amongst us who has not heard of the rather pathetic attempt by a couple of unbalanced people to abuse and threaten certain people by means of a blog.

Right from the start it was obvious that the truth meant nothing to them and the continued to tell the most ridiculous lies and use the most lavatorial comments in an attempt to ‘get back’ at those they believe had slighted them in some way.

Personally speaking it didn’t matter to me at all but I was annoyed to see them spread their venom around in a totally indiscriminate way. I decided to do something about it. Thus was born Operation Fortitude 2.

It consisted of feeding them information, which although totally false would be just the sort of thing that they would lap up by the bucket load. I am now going to demonstrate exactly what was fed to them so everyone can see just how gullible they have been.

Exposers say: Bob Hinton is a corrupt magistrate who abuses his position in the court to obtain information about people from sources unavailable to everyone else.

Reality Check: I retired from the bench a few years ago. I no longer have any connection with the courts. So where did I get this secret information about various people from? Well this is a bit difficult to answer; as I’m not sure what information they are talking about. Possibly Karen is thinking of my knowledge of her address. She actually states that I hired a Private Investigator to do this; she names the firm and says she has proof! Well I confess I did use underhand methods to obtain that – I looked her up in the telephone book. This is of course a special secret telephone book that is only available to Magistrates and anyone else who wants to use it. As for information about anyone else – it’s all available on the net!

Looks like you boobed there buffoons!

Exposers say: Bob Hinton uses his Freemason links to bully other people.

Reality Check: Bob Hinton is not and has never has been a member of the Freemasons. The only connection with Freemasonry is the fact that his driving instructor in 1972 wore a Masonic ring, and his long deceased uncle may have been a mason. This information greedily lapped up by the Blog Buffoons was repeated time and time again, with acres of print interspersed with graphics et all. It came from one of my plants who sent in some bogus information. They loved it! Now you might think that’s being a bit underhand, however I did include a very obvious clue that this information was false. If the ‘Exposers’ had any respect for accuracy they would have spotted it immediately and not printed it. The clue was the information related to a Robert T Hinton. Bob does have middle initial – but it’s not T! If they had any intelligence at all you would have at least expected them to know who they were libelling!

Looks like you boobed there buffoons!

Exposers say: Bob Hinton has connections with the CIA and British Security and is using these contacts to harass and bully people.

Reality check: This information has again come from one of my plants and still refers to Robert T Hinton. For the record. My father was not called Frank George Hinton, he was not a member of SOE or MI6 (although like all the Hintons he did serve his country well and faithfully in uniform at the sharp end), he did not marry Flora Aidie and he did not have a cousin named Deane Roesch Hinton. Needless to say he did not have a son born in Ceylon named Robert T Hinton.

His sister in law did not marry a CIA agent named Miles Copeland, and they didn’t live in the same village.

Again any of these details could have easily been checked by doing just a few minutes research; however as we have seen research and accuracy are not the buffoons strong point.

Looks like you boobed there buffoons

Now that these ‘exposers’ have been thoroughly exposed as nasty minded, cowardly, foul-mouthed gullible buffoons, let us assign them the place they so richly deserve - in the dustbin!

Bin those Buffoons!

We doubt that the Hargoon's will stay embarassed for long--their tenuous grip on reality will not let even this monumental exposure of ineptitude for long. But may--just maybe--they will actually make even a token effort to check some of their "facts" before continuing to show themselves up as the complete and utter cretins that we know them to be.

We at Flawed Epiphany salute Mr Bob Hinton for a subtle and elegant operation that played out beautifully!

The Blog Remains the Same

We've noticed that the "Exposing" blog has renamed themselves "Jack Rip's Harpoon" for some reason. Possibly because it has finally sunk in that they are no longer the exposers of bullying, but the bullies themselves. Whatever the reason, it's clear that the change doesn't extend much past the name--the tactics are still the same.

Since most of their recent diatribes have either been incredibly complex flights of fancy against "Boob" Hinton, or playground-level whining about Maria Birchwood--equally laughable and unsubstantiated--we thought we'd use today's entry to expose some of the minor yet consistent cheap tricks that the Hargoons use. They share too things in common: they are deceitful, and they are so easily uncovered that it's amazing that they believe that anyone falls for them.

Grab some lemon for your tea, sit back, and read along.

Lie #1:The Hargoons Respect Anonymity

This is repeated on a semi-regular basis when encouraging readers to submit information through emails or in the comments section. Yet whenever a reader posts a comment that the Hargoons don't appreciate, they spend a ridiculously large amount of time trying to identify the author of the comment. It is some consolation that they almost invariably identify the wrong person, although possibly not for the person they are falsely accusing. This scattershot approach to identifying commentators does not reflect well on the Hargoon's ability to identify Jack the Ripper, now does it?

You can find examples of your own, just by trawling through the comments section, but we'd like to highlight an incident where the Hargoon's abysmal identification of a commentator lead to an entire article--and incidentally to the creation of this blog.

The original article was a crude and childish attack on Mario Aleppo's daughter on the occasion of her wedding (yes, they really are that tacky). Since we have never encountered Mr Aleppo, we asked a simple question:

Anonymous said...
What is your issue with Mario Aleppo?

Is he a member of the Casebook?

To which we received this reply:

annoyed said...
I once called the National Archives asking to see the Ripper letters and I got put through to him and he asked me some very rude questions, I put the phone down. And he is opening the door to thugs?What's the game?

This sounded ominous to anyone researching the Ripper case, so we asked for more information:

Anonymous said...
What kind of questions did he ask?
Where the questions themselves rude, or just the way he asked them?
Does he often give people a difficult time, or just over the Ripper items?

Which elicited the following response:

annoyed said...
When I called him it was the questions. You have to have a pedigree degree
just to get in the door and I also got the impression he was a snob type. Very
rude and unpleasant.

Well, at this point it sounded like Mr Aleppo was merely doing his job, although there was still a chance that the accusation against him had some merit, so we asked an obvious question:

Anonymous said...
From curiosity, has anyone contacted Mr Aleppo's superior to complain about his
conduct? What was the response?

At which point what had been a perfectly civil and reasonable exchange entered into typical Hargoon territory, starting with an anonymous comment that can only be described as "paranoid":

tellthedumbass said...

Is it perhaps possible those questions were from Mario Aleppo wondering if he is going to get the sack.

Most normal people would rightfully have laughed this off, but then SSR is not exactly a poster-child for "normal", hence the following response:

Interesting point caller, it's true he doesn't look out for anyone except his fat ass.

However since he's retiring he probably doesn't give a damn anyhow. They are odd questions though.

Odd? They didn't seem odd to us. Someone had made a vague accusation against an individual and we were trying to learn more, both about the specifics of the accusation and the evidence supporting it. We suppose in the topsy-turvy world of the Hargoons--where accusations are there to be made, not proven-- such a thing may be considered "odd". We attempt to explain ourselves, in a simple, non-confrontational way:

Anonymous said...

Why are the questions odd?

Mr Aleppo has earned a spot on your blog, but doesn't seem to be a member of the casebook--when I asked why, the response was that he asked rude questions.

Since one day I may need to visit the Archives it makes sense to try and find out what those rude questions might be, no?

However I never did get any detail. Luckily if I contact the Archives after April it likely won't matter, although if those questions are standard procedure I may still encounter them from his successor, so I'd like a preview if possible.

Seem fair? Rational so far? We certainly thought so. However the folks on the blog, readers and authors alike, did not seem to think so Despite giving them yet another opportunity to explain their issue with Mr Aleppo, the next three comments showed up in rapid succession:

shamingstephenryder said...

Dear me what nurds turn up sometimes!

12:28 AM

Anonymous said...

IT IS CODE1888.
12:28 AM

shamingstephenryder said...

Thanks, yes it does seem to be the case.Philippe R Welté ( the man who is asking questions) is a crook and a revolting fraud, and we will be doing a big exposé on him soon.We think he is as likely to get into the National Archives as the backside of an
Elephant.
12:32 AM

Not only were they completely off the mark, but so much for their much vaunted promise of anonymity.

Shortly after, the Hargoon's published this article about Philippe Welté, a man that we have never communicated with. In it, the bloggers accuse Mr Welté of "lurking on our post exposing Mario Aleppo of the National Archives for liasing recently with ripperthugs to find out what questions he should ask to get inside the door at the National Archives." Now, ignoring for a moment that they got the wrong person entirely, look back at the exchange and marvel at the distortion of events.

This is only one of many examples of these recurring and blatant attempts by Hargoons to guess the identity of anonymous commentators, and further to use that (usually incorrect) identification as the basis for future harassment of that person. This from a group that claims to respect and guard the anonymity of all contributors--really they mean all contributors who shamelessly kiss their röv and don't rock the boat with awkward questions or comments.

Stayed tuned for Lie #2...

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.

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.