How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Septic Blue]

My point evidently went straight over your head.

Well, you know me!

I'm stupid enough to believe that "maths" can lead us directly to the front door, of the 1888 domicile of 'Jack the Ripper'!

unwanted ripper suspects

Don't put words into my mouth!

[Hunter]

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'

On Colin's point about the books. I learned the hard way that reference to second hand sources on historical subjects can be tenuous. Colin pointed that out to me on the subject of prostitutes some time back, and was correct in doing so.

If one wants to get the "facts" as best as they can, primary sources are the way to go. This whole debate is a good example as it is someone's opinion that is being discussed and that opinion is being whittled down by exposing factual errors of the author/ authors in question.

[Stewart P Evans]

1987

I think in an earlier discussion there was a reference to Martin Fido having given the date 1981 in a tape recording. That would have been the year after the death of Jim Swanson's aunt, Alice Julia.

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.

[Septic Blue]

On Colin's point about the books. I learned the hard way that reference to second hand sources on historical subjects can be tenuous. Colin pointed that out to me on the subject of prostitutes some time back, and was correct in doing so.

If one wants to get the "facts" as best as they can, primary sources are the way to go. This whole debate is a good example as it is someone's opinion that is being discussed and that opinion is being whittled down by exposing factual errors of the author/ authors in question.

Many Thanks, Cris!

[Chris]

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.

Perhaps Martin Fido was wrong about the date, but there do seem to be two conflicting versions of the story.

The only thing I know for certain is that the death of Alice Julia Swanson was registered at Aylesbury in the final quarter of 1980.

[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

[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.....

[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

[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!

[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...

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[Septic Blue]

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!