Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[caz]

...occasionally, I type my posts into a word document, enabling me to save it should any hiccup occur and the post is lost. The software I use has an auto-correct function with words it doesn't recognise, and if for instance I write a word such as "toeing" in haste, and I end up with "toing" (or even "teoing" if I've been on the sauce!), auto-correct will kick in and assume I meant to write its nearest recognisable word, which in this case was "towing". I would then completely miss this auto-correction when posting my response until someone with far too much time on her hands decides to pick a fight about it.

Good grief, Ben. You could do a masterclass on digging oneself a bigger hole. You really should have stuck with the casual typo excuse, or at least tried the auto-correct one first. May I suggest more haste equals less speed, so it would save you time - not to say face and lengthy explanations - in future if you simply previewed your posts quickly before submitting them? Then you could check for typos and auto-corrections to make sure they were not all doing letter perfect impressions of common howlers and making you come across as a complete tool.

That still wouldn't explain why you would have used "toeing" the line in the context of following or going along with one or other position, when it means putting one's toe on the starting line and not over it, or playing by the rules.

The split infinitive is as clumsy and erroneous as it's always been...

Just as I suspected, you spend too much time posting on Hutch threads, and trying to explain away your howlers, to keep abreast of how the language is changing all the time. If splitting an infinitive looks clumsy it's best avoided, but there are occasions when it reads far better in a sentence than a strained alternative that tries to impress but fails. In any case the 'rule' was just a backward nod to the Latin, where infinitives are all one word and cannot therefore be split by an adverb. As that's not the case in English and we are no longer under Roman control, it was probably high time we made better use of our own infinitives and not be slaves to Latin restrictions.

Look, Anderson had the opportunity to assume, in his absence that either Bond was correct, or that Monro was. He chose Monro, ergo the argument that Anderson was a sponge to whatever Bond opined is utterly nullified by the evidence.

This has nothing to do with sponges, or toeing lines. Anderson was only assuming Monro's opinion was correct for the purpose of his stated conclusion. He was not agreeing or disagreeing - because he explained he was absent and could not venture an opinion of his own.

But I think that's just about you done with this off-topic nonsense, which you only brought up because you know how unfamiliar you are with the material we're discussing. It's back to Diary World for you, I'm afraid.

You wished.

When you stop peppering other people's posts with (sic) for every teeny tiny typo they make, I will stop drawing extra attention to your hilarious bloomers.

Seems fair to me.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Oh and your beloved Canter, who can do no wrong in your eyes, believes the psychology in the diary is spot on for the ripper. I don't, but then very few do.

[Ben]

Size 12, Scott, from heel to tow.

(Oh bugger, I did it again! )

[Scott Nelson]

Never mind that. What size shoes do you wear?

[Ben]

Oh no, I did it again! "You're" instead of "your"!

40 lashes please.

[Wickerman]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[Ben]

No need to, Ben, when you do all the hard work yourself.

I do love the maturity of this debating technique: "I know you are, but what am I?". Gave up on that one at primary school myself...

The need came over me when for about the twentieth time I found you compelled to add (sic) when quoting from one of Jon's posts - this time over on the Red Hanky thread. In the same post - #474 on page 48 - you wrote that the authorities "towed this line" after writing the same phrase in #463 on page 47.

If you consider these desperate nitpicking antics a productive expenditure of you're time - even numbering them so an imaginary captive audience can have ease of reference!- then I'm sorry for you. But for anyone else whose lives might be empty at the moment, I'll explain: occasionally, I type my posts into a word document, enabling me to save it should any hiccup occur and the post is lost. The software I use has an auto-correct function with words it doesn't recognise, and if for instance I write a word such as "toeing" in haste, and I end up with "toing" (or even "teoing" if I've been on the sauce!), auto-correct will kick in and assume I meant to write its nearest recognisable word, which in this case was "towing". I would then completely miss this auto-correction when posting my response until someone with far too much time on her hands decides to pick a fight about it.

Either that, or I make a casual typo, based on the fact that the two letters are next to each other on the keyboard.

Tragic to have to explain that which everyone else understands, and I'm afraid a very low care factor will be register in the event that one of my usual shadows rejects this explanation, but onwards we plod.

Allude away. I'm perfectly aware when I do it, and once again you show your inability to grasp that language use evolves over time, because split infinitives are no longer considered incorrect, or poor grammar, when used to make a sentence flow better and be simpler to understand.

This is absolutely priceless.

So it's okay to be crap at the things you're crap at - in terms of the written word - because "language use has evolved" to facilitate your crapness, but woe betide anyone who makes a casual typo? How jolly convenient for you. It's just too bad it's utter nonsense. The split infinitive is as clumsy and erroneous as it's always been, and if you can't help using one to avoid making a sentence look incomprehensible and tortured, then I'm afraid a re-education might be in order.

Not really, since as he said himself, he was not there to form a qualified opinion of his own.

Oh for feck's sake.

Look, Anderson had the opportunity to assume, in his absence that either Bond was correct, or that Monro was. He chose Monro, ergo the argument that Anderson was a sponge to whatever Bond opined is utterly nullified by the evidence.

But I think that's just about you done with this off-topic nonsense, which you only brought up because you know how unfamiliar you are with the material we're discussing. It's back to Diary World for you, I'm afraid.

[caz]

...you're not deflating my ego, or bringing me down a peg or two, or making me feel small, or anything like that.

No need to, Ben, when you do all the hard work yourself.

Those winter nights in Croydon must just fly by...

Since I only post during the day, haven't lived in Croydon for two and a half years and it's more like Spring here, I wouldn't know.

But I do know four identical howlers from the odd typo.

Look, I've explained already that that I made a typo. Sometimes - shock horror! - I make the same typo twice as a natural and understandable consequence of writing in haste.

Who do you think you're fooling, apart from yourself?

It's only the intellectually insecure who feel compelled to point these things out.

The need came over me when for about the twentieth time I found you compelled to add (sic) when quoting from one of Jon's posts - this time over on the Red Hanky thread. In the same post - #474 on page 48 - you wrote that the authorities "towed this line" after writing the same phrase in #463 on page 47. So according to you, your typos have included "towing" for "toeing" (with the w instead of the e) and "towed" for "toed" (inserting a rogue w through haste), and on each occasion you wanted to say that the authorities were "toeing" some line or other? What did you even mean by that?

I could allude to the fact that you split infinitives all the time, but you probably don't even know what that means.

Allude away. I'm perfectly aware when I do it, and once again you show your inability to grasp that language use evolves over time, because split infinitives are no longer considered incorrect, or poor grammar, when used to make a sentence flow better and be simpler to understand.

Anderson had the opportunity to agree either with Bond's conclusion or Monro's.

Not really, since as he said himself, he was not there to form a qualified opinion of his own.

He was not duty-bound to agree with either...

...which is another reason why he didn't.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

How humble of you to admit it. I take it you refer to all those instances where you gleefully add (sic) when quoting from Jon's posts - as if you had any room to talk.

Oh dear.

It's essential not to keep wallowing in your embarrassing ignorance day after day. If you're all out of arguments and have nothing further to contribute to the Hutchinson discussions, just absent yourself from them. It's really not that difficult. Just disappear, or else offer something of better value than your laughable and perpetually unsuccessful attempts to pull me up on my writing. You're tried this tactic for years, and it's never worked - you're not deflating my ego, or bringing me down a peg or two, or making me feel small, or anything like that. I've also got more stamina for petty quarrels than you, so you even lose a point there. Ouch!

Once is a typo, Ben. Twice may be a coincidental typo. But this is a recent phrase you seem to have picked up, and I've seen you use "towing the/this line" at least three if not four times in at least two Hutchinson threads,

Just how sad, bored, and obsessed are you?

Seriously.

Those winter nights in Croydon must just fly by...

Look, I've explained already that that I made a typo. Sometimes - shock horror! - I make the same typo twice as a natural and understandable consequence of writing in haste. Sometimes, I write "you're" instead of "your", but these are the sorts of casual mistakes reasonable and intelligent people make from time to time. It's only the intellectually insecure who feel compelled to point these things out. I could allude to the fact that you split infinitives all the time, but you probably don't even know what that means. I knew about the origin of the phrase "toe the line" before you ever picked up a thesaurus, so be a big girl, and admit that you waded foolishly into a discussion you knew nothing about, and when you realised how hilariously out of your depth and clueless you were, you resorted to the playground taunts you know best...or worst on your case.

I agree with Jon that the language used by Anderson, in conjunction with the reality of the situation, merely indicates that since he wasn't there at the time to form his own opinion, the correctness of his stated conclusion relies on the correctness of Monro's opinion

No, it doesn't.

It absolutely does not.

Familiarise yourself properly with the debate or else don't post. Anderson had the opportunity to agree either with Bond's conclusion or Monro's. He was not duty-bound to agree with either, and he was definitely not the sort to follow the views of his superiors without a thought. Anderson wasn't there at the time - yes, we know, well done - but for the "slavishly Bond argument" to work (y'know, the argument you haven't really followed, which is why you don't venture an opinion on it), he would have assumed in his absence that Bond, and not Monro, was correct.

Now, if you can stick to the actual topic, that would be a start.

[caz]

You’ll very quickly discover that meekly towing the party line was not exactly his bag...

...Thus, bearing in mind that we’ve already done a poopoo on the idea that Anderson towed the official line of his police superiors...

Here we are, just two examples where you misspelled "toeing the line", thinking it meant following or being pulled along, as in towing. You do the same on another Hutchinson thread. Typos my arse, Mr. Malaprop.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Gut,

Apologies for the late reply. I only just spotted your message.

Nothing to worry about here - my comment was just a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that certain posters (well, just one, actually) resort to immature nit-picking of other people's use of English, usually in lieu of actual arguments. You've got to be in a sorry state generally to resort to that sort of childish behaviour. It's a distraction, an obfuscation, and a sign of the intellectually empty.

Indeed, Ben. How humble of you to admit it. I take it you refer to all those instances where you gleefully add (sic) when quoting from Jon's posts - as if you had any room to talk.

But what's most annoying about the above tragic attempts to find fault with my posts is that the criticisms are invariably wrong. Either that or a simple typo is mischaracterised as an error that reflects genuine ignorance. I'm fully aware, for instance, of the origin of the phrase "toeing the line", but given that the "e" is bang next to the "w" on the keyboard, it shouldn't be too taxing to comprehend that I made a basic typo of the sort that we all make occasionally.

Once is a typo, Ben. Twice may be a coincidental typo. But this is a recent phrase you seem to have picked up, and I've seen you use "towing the/this line" at least three if not four times in at least two Hutchinson threads, without making any other typos, and in the context of taking or following a certain position - not putting one's toes on a starting line, as the correct expression means. So be a big boy and admit you are protesting too much.

Back on topic, then, and I think we've pretty much established by now that Robert Anderson chose to "assume" that Monro was correct, despite having the opportunity to "assume" that Bond's contrary opinion was correct.

'We've' established no such thing, Ben. I agree with Jon that the language used by Anderson, in conjunction with the reality of the situation, merely indicates that since he wasn't there at the time to form his own opinion, the correctness of his stated conclusion relies on the correctness of Monro's opinion - which he is self-evidently not judging either way, hence the qualifying footnote to that effect.

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

And Ben

Sorry about all this silliness, Gut.

Silliness is good/

[GUT]

G'day Bem

Naughty boy, Ive nver made a tipo in my life, and the bloody "I" key on my keybord sticks.

[Debra A]

I think Phillips was only dragged into things theoretically too? By Brownfield, to support his strangulation theory and possible link to the Ripper with Mylett?

[Debra A]

We have his own words in writing to that effect.
Anderson did suspect that Mylett was not a case of murder, initially.
However, after hearing that Dr Brownfield claimed it was murder Anderson called in Mackellar & Bond, including Hibbert.
Anderson was persuaded by Brownfield, Mackellar, Bond & Hibbert that indeed it was a case of murder.
Later, Dr Bond viewed the body a second time and changed his mind leading to Anderson following suit, but still in deference to Brownfield, Mackellar & by this time Dr Phillips.

So you see, Anderson was persuaded away from the consensus, by Bond.

Jon- The standard line is that it was Anderson who put pressure on Bond to alter his opinion to accidental death in the Mylett case after he [Bond] initially agreed with the other doctors on murder by strangulation.

[Ben]

I also noticed that in a moment of - gosh! - utter thoughtless, criminal madness, I made the cardinal sin of adding an extra "w" in "toed", and then later on - unmitigated plonker that I am - I wrote:

"...isn’t particularly helpful, and nor does justifying it..."

When I actually meant:

"nor IS justifying it...".

Shockingly...truly shockingly, I've even written "your", on occasion, when I meant to write "you're", and vice versa.