Timmy Spills the Crosby Garrett beans, or does he?

A few posts ago I mentioned the individual calling himself "Timogen" who appeared last week on the Roman Army Talk forum and tried to give the impression he was 'in the know" about the finding of the Crosby Garrett helmet. Let us suspend judgement on how true that is for the moment, but it is worth recording what he or she said this afternoon. Let us recall a strange statement made earlier:

It is important to me that the authenticity of the find is defended and of course, the integrity of the finder whose discretion is much appreciated.

. We also note that in an earlier post today he said: "In which case my drawer full of finds will stay exactly where they are - I'm really fed up of the cynicism displayed. Sour grapes?" suggesting he is a metal detectorist or artefact collector. Then a bit later on he drops what he seems to intend as a bombshell:

We're always warned not to believe all we read in the papers etc. how true........ the finder was NOT an unemployed graduate in his twenties and channel 4 news film footage starting 'this is where it all began' is a load of toffee - they just picked a field they liked the look of, albeit nearby the find site, their quote 'the local community are very proud of their Roman heritage"!!!! What??????

then in a later post, recalling that he earlier claimed to know who had bought the helmet:

I was sharing information, on here only, which I thought would enlighten you and dispel some of the suspicion and misgivings some people have spoken of. C4 should have got their facts right - the landowner, whose name you will no doubt you now know, only has sheep - those Limousin bullocks shown on news were his neighbours. The truth will out, and soon I hope, for I am weary of labouring to assuage the misconceptions. I concede defeat.

Now he is trying to suggest that he at least knows the Crosby Garrett area. On the other hand, "assuage" spelt correctly is not a word you see often on metal detectorist forums, particularly from detectorists from north of the Wash (that actually is not intended to be sarcasm) so I am currently a bit dubious that this person really is what he appears to be trying to make himself out to be. Neither is it true that the landowner is just a sheep farmer, at least according to the information I have. So what truth is there in the bald statement "the finder was NOT an unemployed graduate in his twenties". Georgiana Aitken the Christie's employee talked to the young man who brought the bits in and Roger Bland, whose employees were taken by this same (?) young man to where he said he found the helmet "face down and folded up" - even though we now know there is information suggesting that was more than one person involved. They have both said in public statements that there was one finder involved and that he was this (same?) young man. Now "Timogen" makes a public claim that the young man was NOT the finder. Complete bull, or a fogscreen (to help the finder hide his identity) or a kernel of fact? Who found the helmet, how and where? Another puzzling feature, "Timogen" suddenly announced on Saturday 11 Sep 2010: "However, I voiced my doubts about the griffin months ago although it does appear to fit the curve on the cap perfectly". Which is an odd thing to say as the find was not made public until a little before that post - where had "Timogen" seen the fragments of that helmet "months" before that? Also the 'curve' of the helmet is at least in part post-excavation, due to the hammers and swage blocks of a restorer under some railway arches.