How Are The Mighty Fallen

[caz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz unwanted ripper suspects


Don't put words into my mouth!

I wasn’t, Colin.

If you had understood what I wrote and quoted me in context, you'd have seen that for yourself:

All I would say is that unwanted ripper suspects cannot be got rid of this way. If that's not the purpose, fine.

I was addressing this to anyone who thinks that by ripping into the work of any ripper authority, ancient or modern, they can undermine the (already pitiful) case against a particular suspect.

If that’s not your purpose, fine. It wasn’t intended for you was it?

I never understand why people are so quick to assume they are being blamed for something they have not actually been accused of.

Hi Caz,

Just a point of grammar in regard to "Nichols's". On a possesive noun that ends in an "s" the apostrophe is all that's necessary- Nichols'

Hi Cris,

I took the rule from Lynne Truss’s invaluable little book from 2003: Eats, Shoots & Leaves.

Page 55:

Current guides to punctuation (including that ultimate authority, Fowler’s Modern English Usage) state that with modern names ending in “s” (including biblical names, and any foreign name with an unpronounced final “s”), the “s” is required after the apostrophe:

Keats’s poems
Philippa Jones’s book
St James’s Square
Alexander Dumas’s The Three Musketeers

With names from the ancient world, it is not:

Archimedes’ screw
Achilles’ heel

If the name ends in an “iz” sound, an exception is made:

Bridges’ score
Moses’ tablets

And an exception is always made for Jesus:

Jesus’ disciples

However, these are matters of style and preference that are definitely not set in stone, and it’s a good idea not to get fixated about them.

So on that note Stewart has every right to spank me now.

I do so agree with you about primary sources. I’m always very cautious when modern day opinions enter the mix. I’m also all too well aware how easily the written word can be misinterpreted, imperfectly transcribed, omitted, taken out of context or generally buggered about with and mangled - accidentally or otherwise - and therefore I try to take very little for granted.

If any of the contributors to this site are still capable of being significantly misled, in 2010, by authors who quite obviously favour certain suspects, I'm afraid I'd have to say more fool them.

Love,

The Scoundrel (cheers, Nats - while I'm being kicked, at least the usual suspects are being spared their traditional roasting )
X

[Hunter]

Yeah, and we can't even agree on its proper application. LOL

[Natalie Severn]

Chasing misplaced apostrophes is the last refuge of the scoundrel !

Sorry, I sincerely apologise to those I may have offended, ...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

--- Click to View the Original Post in JTRForums.com ---

If I were you ...

...

I would …, publicly submit to the infinite "scholarly" wisdom of those who tout the 'Polish Jew' theory.

I might even offer to lick their boots!

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry

But it was accompanied by one of those sickening 'winks'; which are intended, presumably, to give the poster carte blanche to be as offensive as they wish, while leaving the person being addressed with no justification for feeling as if they have been insulted.
Essentially, you were told that you were nit-picking over the countless errors found in Paul Begg's "The Facts"; and that you had incorrectly applied the possessive apostrophe / 's', in reference to one such set of mistakes. But, the assertion was 'qualified' with the caveat "no offence"; which makes everything hunky-dory!
So, lighten up!

Sorry, I sincerely apologise to those I may have offended, other than those who have conducted a sustained campaign against me over the years because I don't happen to agree with their tenets. Now I'm being paranoid (they'll tell me).

I have typed Nichols' murder (or Nichols's murder) correctly 6,000 times in the past, one typing slip and I'm jumped on. But, I guess, that is the nature of this thread.

But it was accompanied by one of those sickening 'winks'; which are intended, presumably, to give the poster carte blanche to be as offensive as they wish, while leaving the person being addressed with no justification for feeling as if they have been insulted.

Essentially, you were told that you were nit-picking over the countless errors found in Paul Begg's "The Facts"; and that you had incorrectly applied the possessive apostrophe / 's', in reference to one such set of mistakes. But, the assertion was 'qualified' with the caveat "no offence"; which makes everything hunky-dory!

So, lighten up!

[Natalie Severn]

This is still incorrect. The book passed to Jim Swanson after his aunt died c.1980 but he didn't find the marginalia until much later. The News of the World was approached in 1987, not 1981, as a result of the increasing Ripper coverage as the centenary drew near.

Thankyou Stewart.

So lets get this straight:

a] Jim Swanson had the book in his possession from 1980 when his aunt died.

b]Jim Swanson did not notice the marginalia,or the name Kosminski for seven years----ie not until 1987, which was the year before the centenary of the murders.

c] After the passage of seven years, Jim Swanson"s attention was drawn to the fact that his grandfather had actually named "Jack the Ripper" in some pencilled notes he had made,in both the margins and the endpaper, of Anderson"s "memoirs",TLYOMOL -Anderson being his grandfather"s boss in Scotland Yard.
The letter you posted , written by Jim Swanson,makes it very clear he thought they had hit the jackpot---and bang on the centenary!

Jim Swanson went to the offices of "The News of The World " in 1987 ,who bought the story----but never used it?
Why?---Especially when it was so close to the centenary?

[Stewart P Evans]

Typed

I have typed Nichols' murder (or Nichols's murder) correctly 6,000 times in the past, one typing slip and I'm jumped on. But, I guess, that is the nature of this thread.

[The Grave Maurice]

I, too, have struggled with this point. Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me, Rob. But what about words like St. James's?

[Supe]

Rob,

I could be wrong...

No, you would be in line with the teachings of the late, great William Safire who wrote a delightful column on words and grammar for many years for the New York Times Sunday magazine.

Don.

[robhouse]

My understanding of the "apostrophe s" issue, is that with words ending in "s" you use just an apostrophe if the word ends with a "z" sounding s (Frances Coles' murder) but you use apostrophe-s if the word ends with an "sss" sounding s (Jesus's teachings).

"Jesus' teachings" sounds wrong, but so does "Coles's murder"

I could be wrong...

[Chris Scott]

[QUOTE=Hunter;131283]
Just a point of grammar in regard to "Nichols's". On a possesive noun that ends in an "s" the apostrophe is all that's necessary- Nichols'

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A790175
Correct Use of the Apostrophe In English

•Singular possessive: The apostrophe is used to indicate possession with all nouns, both proper and common. The rules here are straightforward: add an apostrophe and an s. The ball belonging to Jack is Jack's Ball. The ball belonging to the man is the man's ball. The apostrophe comes between the word and the s. What could be easier?

However, words ending with an s present a problem. There are two valid options in this case. It is either Jesus' teaching or Jesus's teaching. Elegance would seem to preclude the latter.

Apologies for being off topic but misuse of the apostrophe is a pet hate of mine!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Stewart, I got my information about 1981 from another thread and I believe from posts by Chris, who appears to have received the information from Martin Fido. As for the accusation of Anderson lying or having concocted the theory out of air, of course those are not your suggestions, but suggestions that have been made by others, and virtually the entirety of this thread has been in debate over Anderson's veracity, and my question had to do with Swanson's as he is the man who put the name to the suspect. I just think if minute details are to be argued over so heatedly, that perhaps we should be more selective of the details we argue over so at least something constructive can come out of it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

What of the suffering caused to James Monro when Anderson "went public"

point of Information:

Anderson apparently didnt mind upsetting and causing suffering to James Monro,who had been the
head of his "Old Department " .In fact Anderson managed to have no hesitation apparently in dropping him straight into a huge row that had blown up over Anderson"s "confession".
In answer to a journalist from the Morning Post, who had been granted an interview following Anderson"s public disclosure /confession that that he had "authored [certain of ]"The Times articles of 1887, on Parnell and Crime , Anderson claimed he had been "acting quite correctly in going to James Monro".

. But Monro followed Anderson"s assertion by making a statement for the House of Commons ,in which he stated :

"The alleged statement of Anderson to an interviewer that it was arranged between him and me that he should write the letters and that they should be offered to The Times as the best medium for their publication is absolutely incorrect.....

[Phil Carter]

Hello caz,

Thanks for the comment, very appreciated.

It is about weeding out the rubbish after years and years of disinformation.

So much reliance on one man's words, without PROOF, has led to hoards of people believing that Jack the Ripper was a Polish Jew named Kosminski.
Kosminski has been unfairly branded on the base of this man's opinion. And it continues on and on and on.

Anderson himself has admitted to breaking the law to suit the situation, been found to be a liar on important occasions, then has the audacity to proclaim from a mountain high alter top his perception of mankind as he looks down upon them.... I am sorry, but if one preaches the word, then one is expected to live by the word.

Anderson didn't do as he preached, far from it, and the worst, most singular comment, in my opinion, is that frankly obnoxious "not in the interests of my old department"...as if that matters a tinkers cuss.

If Kosminski was the Ripper, and Anderson had named him and proved it, what possible effect of negative consequences would his "old department" suffer? None whatsoever.
If he had named him and had NO PROOF, the onus would have been on Anderson, not his old department.

That is why it is hogwash and egoistic poppycock. Deliberate disinformation.
The man is, in my view, not trustworthy as a social commentator, nor as a policeman. And one of high rank at that. He puts his "old department" and his self inflated ego before open honesty, and not the best interests of justice.

That is why caz, in my honest opinion, without nastiness or acrimony, this rubbish that Anderson really KNEW, and that could do no wrong stems more from Anderson's words about himself than how history actually sees him, and must stop once and for all, because it isn't about how suspicions on other suspects will benefit or not, it is about stating a def ascertained fact...Anderson's comment about a Polish Jew is totally without one iota of proof. Therefore, an opinion, which is worthless when attaching the branded name of Jack the Ripper or The Whitechapel murderer to it.

A healthy clear the air disussion is needed, and Simon's thread here points out clearly that some will back this hypocritical man's words come what may. That has nothing whatsoever to do with historical fact. It has other agendæ behind it. As has been so clearly demonstrated.

I welcomed your comment caz, it was thoughtful. Thank you for posting it.

best wishes

Phil