Dear Sherlock Holmes,

May I point out one vital piece of evidence that you seem to have overlooked in your rush to convict our friend Little Hawk of impersonating one or more Twillingsgate residents.

If you will compare the posting records of Little Hawk and Ms Rutledge you will find that on any date that Ms Rutledge made one or more posts to this forum, Little Hawk also made one or more posts. At first glance, this would seem to be incriminating circumstantial evidence. In reality, exactly the opposite is true. A devious mind like that of our Little Hawk would be absolutely certain to guard against the possibility of being caught in the act by seeding the forum with posts made in Ms Rutledge's name at times when it would have been patently impossible for him to do the posting himself. If Little Hawk can say, "It is absolutely impossible for me to have made that post at that time on that date because I was on an airplane over the Atlantic Ocean" his ass is covered. The fact that he has left his ass uncovered is prime evidence of his innocence. People like Little Hawk always cover their asses.

Convoluted? You bet your sweet ass it is. Johnny Cochran's probably in awe.

Sincerely,

Bee-dubya-ell