(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...