Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

**J.S. Walsh The Invincible**

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Jonathan.

    So I shouldn't expect answers to my questions then?

    And suddenly Guy Logan appears out of nowhere.

    You assumed I would use that didn't you, so you had to quash it in advance? That tells me that you may understand it's significance, by dismissing it as a work of fiction. It's actually a mixture, and says so, and sure enough gets certain details about Druitt absolutely correct. Yet he is hidden too, as I had argued for years and then Bondeson found it in 2013 and it confirmed my theory--and how that must stick in your throat.
    The subject is the reliability of sources. We are discussing the reliability of Douglas Browne and Lindsay Clutterbuck who both, using official materials (a fact that you continually fail to comprehend), have left us with an intriguing look into Melville Macnaghten's early theorizing. A theory that, debatably, points to Irish extremist John Walsh as a Scotland Yard Ripper suspect.

    You, the self-described Macnaghten expert, won't stand for that. Why? Who knows, but apparently it conflicts with your own personally held views on what Macnaghten knew, or didn't know, and when he knew it. In other words, because you can't grasp the probability that Macnaghten held different views at different times in his career (Walsh, or someone just like him, early on, Druitt a little later) you believe he didn't, in fact, given your hysteria on the subject, he couldn't have possibly done so. This is risible.

    Guy Logan "appears out of nowhere" because your use of his fictional work as some sort of Rosetta Stone, which somehow proves your personal theories, must be viewed alongside your dismissal of Browne and Clutterbuck. If you really believe that Logan's fiction should be considered more reliable than Browne and Clutterbuck's historical research then you can't be taken seriously in anything you say.

    What remains is that Browne, Clutterbuck and Divall all seem to point to one man as being, at one time, a Scotland Yard (read Macnaghten) Ripper suspect: John Walsh.

    Wolf.

    Comment


    • #32
      To Wolf

      You never admit that this has nothing to do with this bit of history but with your inability to be disagreed with and your well-known antipathy towards Roger Palmer and anybody who has the temerity to take his side in an argument.

      No, I didn't think you would deal with Browne in context, that you would just repeat yourself as if that's a counter-argument.

      And predictably you throw in more abuse--now I'm an hysteric.

      One thing you reveal, unintentionally, is that you haven't read Guy Logan, have you? Ironically, you are relying on my account of that primary source--you know, the hysteric who cannot be taken seriously.

      Then why pray do you keep clinging to me, and have such a need to denounce me? Are you scared of something? You have introduced a concept that you don't really mean:

      "debatably".

      If this was debatable you would not be abusive. The first thing I wrote was that I subscribe to a theory, and yet I'm hysterical and your a paragon of judicious reason.

      I have never said that Logan is a Rosetta Stone. I wrote that I had argued for years certain things about the Druitt tale that were confirmed in a 1905 source by a writer who was arguably coached by George Sims.

      But I understand why a bully like you must deny me even that little victory (a victory that in no way claims that it proves Druitt was the Ripper, and have never said it does).

      In his book Browne knows nothing about Macnaghten's actual solution, Clutterbuck is not saying what you claim and Divall shows that Mac was mixing and matching Druitt and Tumblety (as he likely did for Littlechild).

      That's an interpretation of limited data. Could it be wrong? Of course. I wasn't there. Yet you become apoplectic with fury.

      Guy Logan has data about Druitt that is accurate in the midst of his poorly written fiction, some of which would not be known for decade upon decade about this posthumous suspect: an athlete, an Oxonian, who was seen with Eddowes, who does not kill himself immediately after the Kelly murder, connected to a local Tory member of Parliament who has a vicious tongue, a suicidal killer who falsely tells his landlady he is going abroad, who says he would rather die than go into a madhouse and who has a relative who also took their own life. And of course the name, Mortemer, is obviously a variation on Montague.

      Well, maybe not obvious to the likes of you.

      This is also the second time you have used that bitchy salvo: self-appointed now self-described expert.

      I have never described myself as such, and have never claimed to be an expert.

      Of course if I am self-appointed that begs the question--who the Hell appointed you, Wolf?

      According to your own criteria your status as the leading Andrews-hunting-Tumblety debunker must be credentialed by somebody; by some institution or organization.

      Please provide the list of said institutions and/or publishers so that I can make an assessment of them.

      Thank-you in advance.

      Comment


      • #33
        Jonathan.

        Perhaps if you spent a bit more of your time working out reasoned and cogent answers to the questions asked of you, rather than using up bandwidth attacking me for asking the questions, you might be taken a bit more seriously.

        In his book Browne knows nothing about Macnaghten's actual solution...
        Browne tells us something of what Macnaghten apparently believed at one time. This information likely comes from the the Home Office files which Browne saw in 1956 when writing The Rise of Scotland Yard. We know Browne saw the Home Office files relating to the Ripper investigation because he quotes from them in the book.

        Browne ends his small section on the Whitechapel Murders, the book itself is a history of Scotland Yard with the Ripper Murders only one small part of it, by stating:

        "His identity is unknown to this hour, though definite claims to the contrary have been made, and numberless theories propounded. Sir Robert Anderson...says that the murderer was a low-class Polish Jew. According to Sir Basil Thomson, 'in the belief of the police he was a man who committed suicide in the Thames at the end of 1888,'...Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr. Balfour at the Irish Office. Where experts disagree, there is a fine opening for fancy..."
        Browne, The Rise of Scotland Yard, page 208.

        It is obvious, I would have thought, that Browne, wasn't trying to name Jack the Ripper. After stating that the Ripper was never identified, he points to the fact that this didn't stop many from attempting to do just that. He then offers three different answers to the mystery given by three men of high rank within Scotland Yard to show that even these men couldn't agree, and where "experts disagree" fancy - or fantasy if you prefer - fills the void.

        Whether Browne knew "nothing about Macnaghten's actual solution," or not misses the point Browne was making. Your inability to understand this is not evidence, therefore, that there was no letter or memo by Macnaghten in the Home Office files in 1956 when Browne looked through them.

        ...Clutterbuck is not saying what you claim...
        Browne, using Home Office files, says there appears that there was a Ripper suspect who was the leader of a plot to assassinate Balfour when he was at the Irish Office. Clutterbuck, using the Special Branch Ledgers, says an intriguing story could be put together based on an extreme Irish nationalist who was suspected of being Jack the Ripper, and a plot to assassinate Balfour when he was at the Irish Office.

        This all seems fairly straightforward to the objective observer: that the two men were writing about the same man and that whatever information Browne saw in the Home Office files was likely the same information that Clutterbuck saw in the Special Branch ledgers. Two researchers using two different sources appears to have come up with the same information. Fantastical if, as you say, Browne saw nothing of the kind.

        Divall shows that Mac was mixing and matching Druitt and Tumblety (as he likely did for Littlechild).
        I'll ask this once again: Would you be so kind as to provide actual proof, rather than wild conjecture or irrational speculation, that Macnaghten "was mixing and matching Druitt and Tumblety" Especially since Divall's comment fits exactly with Walsh's life and not Tumblty's. A list of your sources would also help here.

        Wolf.

        Comment


        • #34
          Wow! Not a word, not a single bloody word about the Logan source, which you brought up and which you now have just as hastily made disappear into the ether.

          How large yet fragile must be your ego to fold as blatantly like that. And in public.

          Just more of the usual abuse, but falling very flat. You are very sheepish now, Wolf. The air quite gone out of your balloon.

          So, you are 'self-appointed' too. At least have the grace to admit it, instead of simply pretending you never wrote such a catty comment that would inevitably blowback on you.

          Nobody has commissioned or credentialed you to study this subject except yourself.

          Like me.

          You provide almost the entire Browne source but cannot understand it.

          Browne writes that the three ex-chiefs disagreed. But Macnaghten and Thompson did not disagree (though the latter is simply misrecalling what he had read in Griffiths, at least until the second volume of his memoirs where he cleared this up and plumped for the drowned English doctor).

          If Browne had mentioned this, e.g. that Macnaghten had changed his mind this interptretation of this anomalous source as kosher would be stronger.

          Instead you deal with the suggestive coincidence that all three are about memoirs -- there is even an op. cit. from Mac's memoirs on the same page-- by not dealing with it.

          A coincidence compounded by the last lines of Mac's Ripper chapter claiming that a minister was almost destroyed by the fiend.

          A coincidence or a misinterpretation?

          You again quote Clutterbuck as if he were gospel. He might be right or he might be wrong. I don't know.

          I am not disputing that there may have been an Irish villian who was perceived to, maybe, be the Ripper by a desperate constabulary. What I am arguing is that there is no source I can see that Macnaghten ever held that view. He might have, sure but where is the evidence?

          And if he did?

          It strengthens my theory.

          Mac went from an Irish terrorist, the perfect bad guy, to a fellow English, Anglican, tragic gent in no poistion to defend his good name. This strengthens the argument that the evidence--against Druitt--even posthumously must have been irresistible.

          But I just see no evidence in the surviving sources that is likely to be true.

          All of the sources by Macnaghten, about him and on his behalf show that he was involved in reshaping the data about Druitt, depending on the audience.

          To try and actually understand this subject you might want to start with the two evrsiosn of his Report. Why are they similar and why are they different?

          Divall implies that the murders stopped with the fleeing of the suspect to the States. That's Druitt-centric because the murders did not stop with Kelly in 1888 but with Coles in 1891. Therefore, by the time Macnaghten likely told this to Divall he had already found Druitt and backdated the ending of the police investigation for propagadnist purposes.

          How do I know this? Because of the writings of George R. Sims, Macnaghten's close friend, who relentlessly propagated a tale that enhanced the Yard's image over this case (and who changed the frantic briother into frantic friends).

          You've chosen the wrong subject Wolf. You need one that is straight-foward; free of ambiguity and multiple interpretations. I do not know of such an historical topic, but you could start looking.

          Thank-you in advance.

          .

          Comment


          • #35
            Jonathan.

            Wow! Not a word, not a single bloody word about the Logan source, which you brought up and which you now have just as hastily made disappear into the ether.
            How large yet fragile must be your ego to fold as blatantly like that. And in public.
            Just more of the usual abuse, but falling very flat. You are very sheepish now, Wolf. The air quite gone out of your balloon.
            I'm sorry if I unhinged you by bringing up Logan. You seem absolutely livid about the whole thing though, you must admit, the above is pretty over the top as far as rational and reasoned debate goes.

            Personally I would say that the majority of people who know anything about Guy Logan's fictional work The True History of Jack the Ripper regard it as merely that: a work of fiction. A Sherlock Holmes rip off complete with arch villain nemesis (Moriarty/Mortemer, get it? Slade) and a desperate struggle on a narrow footing above raging water in which both men perish; Holmes and Moriarty over the falls and Blake and Slade struck by lightning and electrocuted. You, however, appear to believe that it has some great value as a research source. Well, I suppose you are entitled to your own delusions but I don't really see the value of debating Logan and what words you think he is whispering in your ear. Words which only you can hear.

            You provide almost the entire Browne source but cannot understand it.
            Actually, I understand it fairly well since it really isn't that hard to understand what Browne is saying. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote, if that helps you.

            Browne's point is that no one was able to identify the Ripper. Even though "all means were in time exhausted, and dozens of detectives, working on an average fourteen hours a day, found themselves at the end of the year no nearer discovering the identity of Jack the Ripper than they had been in August." Browne underlines his point, that no one was able to identify the Ripper, with: "his identity is unknown to this hour..."). He then strengthens the point by continuing with "though definite claims to the contrary have been made, and numberless theories propounded." Browne then offers the differing opinions of three men (Anderson, Thomson and Macnaghten) who held high positions at Scotland Yard yet told different stories thus emphasizing that NO ONE was able to identify the Ripper.

            Saying that Thomson and Macnaghten didn't actually disagree and that Browne should have pointed this out, or, at least pointed out that Macnaghten had another suspect, completely misses the (fairly obvious) point that Browne was trying to make: there were many theories but the Ripper was never identified. Why, exactly, would he muddy his own waters and weaken the point of his argument?

            You again quote Clutterbuck as if he were gospel. He might be right or he might be wrong. I don't know.
            This is quite the step down from your earlier - Clutterbuck was a secondary source and his facts can't be checked so he should be ignored - way of thinking. Good for you.

            I am not disputing that there may have been an Irish villian who was perceived to, maybe, be the Ripper by a desperate constabulary. What I am arguing is that there is no source I can see that Macnaghten ever held that view. He might have, sure but where is the evidence?
            Actually, you have disputed this from the start. The source is, of course, Douglas Browne who is supported by Lindsey Clutterbuck and Tom Divall. However, I see that you have decided to back down even further and now admit that Macnaghten "might have, sure" once believed that there was an Irish extremist Ripper suspect. There may be hope for you after all. But, then, you go and add crazy on top of crazy with this:

            All of the sources by Macnaghten, about him and on his behalf show that he was involved in reshaping the data about Druitt, depending on the audience.
            To try and actually understand this subject you might want to start with the two evrsiosn of his Report. Why are they similar and why are they different?
            Divall implies that the murders stopped with the fleeing of the suspect to the States. That's Druitt-centric because the murders did not stop with Kelly in 1888 but with Coles in 1891. Therefore, by the time Macnaghten likely told this to Divall he had already found Druitt and backdated the ending of the police investigation for propagadnist purposes.
            How do I know this? Because of the writings of George R. Sims, Macnaghten's close friend, who relentlessly propagated a tale that enhanced the Yard's image over this case (and who changed the frantic briother into frantic friends).
            All of the above is only your fevered theorizing. There is no actual evidence to support any of it. It is your own "unique" interpretation unsupported by any actual hard facts. It is theoretical paradolia, where the mind makes connections that aren't actually there.

            All of the sources show that Macnaghten was involved in reshaping the data about Druitt, depending on the audience? Or, he was writing about Druitt over many years and was going by his faulty memory so there were errors over time or he fixed errors from earlier versions of his writings. There, my theory, my interpretation taken just off the top of my head, holds just as much water as yours.

            Divall implies that the murders stopped with the fleeing of the suspect to the States. That's Druitt-centric because the murders did not stop with Kelly in 1888 but with Coles in 1891. Therefore, by the time Macnaghten likely told this to Divall he had already found Druitt and backdated the ending of the police investigation for propagadnist purposes. How do I know this? Because of the writings of George R. Sims, Macnaghten's close friend, who relentlessly propagated a tale that enhanced the Yard's image over this case (and who changed the frantic briother into frantic friends).
            With the above you nicely prove my point. Divall states that P.C. Thompson "was believed to be the only constable who ever saw 'Jack the Ripper'" when he discovered the body of Francis Coles (that would be the Francis Coles who was murdered in 1891). Divall also writes that he believed the murderers' rampage "resulted in the death of seven of these unfortunates within the space of about three years" i.e. 1888 - 1891. He also says, much like Browne, that "We have never found any trace of this man, or of any connection of his, nor have we been able to ascertain definitely the end of him."

            As you can see, your theorizing that Divall wrote what he did, because he was manipulated by Macnaghten, is completely baseless. Divall "implied" nothing about the murders ending in 1888; he, in fact, stated that they ended in 1891, or, three years after Druitt's death. There was no "backdating the ending of the police investigation for propagadnist (sic) purposes" by Macnaghten. There was no mention, or even hint, by Divall of Druitt's supposed guilt since Divall quite clearly says that the identity of the Ripper was never discovered.

            So, "how do [you] know this?" You don't. You're wrong. Your theory about Divall and how Macnaghten influenced him for propaganda purposes by manipulating the facts is utter nonsense. It never happened, as a simple reading of Divall would have shown, yet here you are making groundless claims about an unsupported conspiracy begun by Macnaghten and supported by Sims to fool Divall into playing the puppet.

            You've chosen the wrong subject Wolf. You need one that is straight-foward; free of ambiguity and multiple interpretations. I do not know of such an historical topic, but you could start looking.
            Straight from the horses ass...

            Wolf.

            Comment


            • #36
              Wolf

              Oh I am not fussed at all, let alone angry, but I understand why you must think that. How offensive it is you to if somebody defends themselves rather than folds.

              You have not dealt with the 'self-appointed' crack, as expected.

              Nor have I altered my stance from post to post. I have a theory. I can entertain its opposite. Even adopt its opposite, if the evidence points that way (which is how I got to Druitt). I realise that you do not know what I am talking about. I concede I could be msitaken--I often am--but you will never make such a concession.

              You get everything wrong, Wolf, which is not a crime. In fact you are a perfect barometer of getting everything wrong about this subject; about Macnaghten, Druitt, Tumblety, Andrews, Divall and Browne.

              And you get Clutteruck wrong too, poor man.

              It is your abusive attitude that is indefensible.

              Again you have ignored what I wrote about Mac's memoirs coinicidentally including the allusion to a minister being nearly destroyed by the Ripper, on a page where the other two chiefs' memoirs are being discussed, and you completely ignored what I wrote about Logan.

              Logan's serial is not a work of fiction. It is a work of fact and fiction. It gets insider details about Druitt correct. You deal with this by ... ignoring it. Mortemer is like Moriarty. But the latter is sa surname. Montague is the killer's first name and Mortemer is smiliar to it, and the character's first name--but even this tiny detail must be resisted at all costs.

              Again, your sweating Wolf.

              The Edwardian readership would not be able to tell what was true and what was false. Whereas we can can. Well, not we, because that would include you who knows less about this source than somebody in 1905, who at least grasped that this was the solution of somebody in authority, but one that was also discreetly disguised.

              Your whole approach to analyses is that you see sources in an entirely one-dimensional way.

              If a Canadian newspaper says that Inspector Andrews admitted he was there to investigate Patrnell, then that's that.

              Funny how you don't have the same flat, rigid and sterile view of the Littrlechild Letter, which proclaims that Tumblety was a major polcie suspect and remained so for this ex-chief?

              You do the same with Divall, because his work inlcudes contradictory bits of data. He recalls accurately, as did Reid, that the case was protracted, that it took place over many years and that nobody inside Scotland Yard was identified as the killer (at least in some kind of instutitonal consensus). But then he records Macnaghten as saying that it involved a man who fled to the States and died in an asylum, and there were no more murders after that moment.

              In the latter's memoir Macnaghten, however, pointedly denies the asylum element and also agrees with Divall that it was protracted (as they did not know the killer was deceased). Yet the element of the murders halting abruptly--which both Divall and Macnaghten can be shown to know is not how it was perceived by the cops between 1888 and 1891--is Druitt-centric. This means that by the time that Macnaghten spoke to Divall he already knew the fiend's true identity and was experimenting with the idea of the police knowing it had ended in 1888, by the killer dying--and that the police knew this at the time.

              But Druitt did not flee abroad (though apparently the barrister did leave word he was going abroad, which got him sacked, and Logan repeats this detail) whereas Tumblety, a major police suspect, did. By the time Littlechild writes his letter the fusion of Druitt and Tumblety is complete: the mad doctor who took his own life and it was all over in late 1888.

              As an aside, we see this same motif (asylum; dying; autumn of terror) in the way Aaron Kosminski was reshaped (and the way Mac fused the two major suspects re: the Camp murder of 1897.) Ostrog was similarly sexed-up, after he had been cleared in 1894.

              And this is all by the same police chief.

              That's my interpretation.

              If you don't like it that's your prerogative, but I'm done debating with you as you will not address anything I write, not a thing, just repeat your [unpersuaive] argument that I have the temerity to dissent from.

              It is you who displays anger management issues, and not for the first time.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                Wolf...

                ...It is you who displays anger management issues, and not for the first time.
                Tone in writing must be in the eye of the beholder, Jonathan. You used to imagine all sorts going on in my head when reading my posts - and I know you were completely wrong.

                I see Wolf smiling sagely while he calmly writes to you, while you appear to be the one spitting blood when responding to him.

                Of course, I too could be completely wrong. Only you and Wolf would know that.

                Carry on chaps, this is more entertaining than Cross talk.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                Comment


                • #38
                  Caz,

                  You always misread me, but that's ok. Because I am going to thank you. This is straight and sincere and belated, and for that I somewhat shamefacedly apologize.

                  Did you notice that in your last Druitt post on this site, shafting me as usual, I didn't reply. Usually I defend myself against your nasty posts, or anybody's, but that time I let it go.

                  Because I owed you. Big time.

                  A couple of years ago I asked you a simple and straight-forward question--where and when did the so-called Maybrick watch first surface.

                  Your explosive over-reaction, to use your own colorful words spitting blood, caught me quite by surprise. I knew that this must be like drilling into a raw nerve.

                  And then, right in the middle of that, some twerp annoyed me and I defended myself against him/her--and ended up being banned from Casebook (temporarily).

                  In other words, my question about the watch was halted in its tracks. You certainly did not have to answer a poster who was now blackballed.

                  But you did answer me!

                  You said you had decided to be generous. That was quite the understatement. Because you answered the question and thus provided the circumstantial evidence that the so-called Diary is a modern forgery, going against your own cherished opinion that it is not (not modern that is).

                  Again, thanks.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    equivocally speaking

                    Hello Caroline. Wolf? Tone? Ah! Wolf Tone! Yes, Irish politician. So, he was an Invincible too? (heh-heh)

                    (Sorry, couldn't resist. Dearth of humour in my life. Carry on.)

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
                      Hello Caroline. Wolf? Tone? Ah! Wolf Tone! Yes, Irish politician. So, he was an Invincible too? (heh-heh)

                      (Sorry, couldn't resist. Dearth of humour in my life. Carry on.)

                      Cheers.
                      LC
                      Hi Lynn

                      Of course, Theobald Wolfe Tone aka Wolf Tone died in the Provost's Prison, Dublin, on 19 November, 1798, so he wasn't one of the Invincibles, who didn't operate until some 80 years later, in the 1880's -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Invincibles -- but I think you know that!

                      Best regards

                      Chris
                      Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                      https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                      Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                      Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Tynan

                        Hello Chris. Thanks.

                        Yes, indeed. As close as one can get is Tynan, who had a spot of affection for him.

                        Cheers.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Thanks, Lynn. Certainly the troubles in Ireland are endlessly interesting. Here's a panel showing a series of images of a riot on a farm in Galway in 1886.



                          http://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/art...farm-in-galway
                          Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                          https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                          Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                          Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                            Caz,

                            You always misread me, but that's ok. Because I am going to thank you. This is straight and sincere and belated, and for that I somewhat shamefacedly apologize.

                            Did you notice that in your last Druitt post on this site, shafting me as usual, I didn't reply. Usually I defend myself against your nasty posts, or anybody's, but that time I let it go.

                            Because I owed you. Big time.

                            A couple of years ago I asked you a simple and straight-forward question--where and when did the so-called Maybrick watch first surface.

                            Your explosive over-reaction, to use your own colorful words spitting blood, caught me quite by surprise. I knew that this must be like drilling into a raw nerve.

                            And then, right in the middle of that, some twerp annoyed me and I defended myself against him/her--and ended up being banned from Casebook (temporarily).

                            In other words, my question about the watch was halted in its tracks. You certainly did not have to answer a poster who was now blackballed.

                            But you did answer me!

                            You said you had decided to be generous. That was quite the understatement. Because you answered the question and thus provided the circumstantial evidence that the so-called Diary is a modern forgery, going against your own cherished opinion that it is not (not modern that is).

                            Again, thanks.
                            Blimey, what a state you get yourself in over trifles, Jonathan. If I had an 'explosive over-reaction' in your opinion to something you posted, it was you who got yourself banned for your own reaction to another poster, not me.

                            That should tell you something about our respective 'tones' - as seen by others.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              You are so off-track that you cannot even see that I agree with you.

                              I got banned because of a conflict with another poster.

                              Our dialogue was interrupted, yet I salute the fact that you did not use that sideshow as an excuse to drop the answer to the question.

                              An answer that proves the diary is a modern forgery.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                R I C

                                Hello Chris. Thanks for the lovely drawings.

                                Are those local police or perhaps R I C?

                                Cheers.
                                LC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X