Jack the Ripper A-Z

[Stewart P Evans]

Amalgamated

...
In relation to Stewart's comments about the Sussex constabularies, the 5 forces merged temporarily from 1943 to 1947, but then reverted back to their autonomous units until 1 January 1968, when they became the Sussex Police. (I remember it well - I was a police constable in the West Sussex Constabulary at the time and we got a much better quality uniform on the merger.)

Yes, many forces amalgamated in 1967. In Suffolk, East Suffolk, Ipswich Borough and West Suffolk became Suffolk Constabulary. As you note, on 1 January 1968 Brighton, East Sussex, Eastbourne, Hastings and West Sussex merged to form Sussex Police.

I didn't join Suffolk Constabulary until 1969 but, even then, some of the old Ipswich Borough 'sweats' still couldn't come to terms with the amalgamation. They even had to exchange their 'rose'-topped helmets for the comb-topped helmets denoting an amalgamated force. It didn't suit them at all.

[Into The Abyss]

Rob Clack said:

I don't know enough about the history of the Sussex Police to make comment, but there is a document in P.C Harvey's file stating (as I read it):

The Superintendent
Sussex Constab'
Hailsham

Thanks for that, Rob, now I understand why the understandable factual error occurred in the A - Z. Whoever wrote the police document in 1876 made a mistake - it of course should have been "East Sussex Constabulary".

In relation to Stewart's comments about the Sussex constabularies, the 5 forces merged temporarily from 1943 to 1947, but then reverted back to their autonomous units until 1 January 1968, when they became the Sussex Police. (I remember it well - I was a police constable in the West Sussex Constabulary at the time and we got a much better quality uniform on the merger.)

[The Grave Maurice]

I honestly can't understand what johnr is saying. I've read his post three times, and I think he's paying tribute to the stellar work of Begg, Fido and Skinner, in which case, I concur.

I also note that John has changed the spelling of his last name, no doubt to be part of the Diemschutz-Diemshitz vowel movement.

[mariab]

John Riffuls,
your post is priceless!
Does anybody know if there will be a corrected paperback edition of the new A-Z in about a year or so? I'd rather buy that.

[Chris]

Sam!!! I was beginning to think that you had lost your fingers in some sort of freak industrial chutney accident.

Or even accidentally padlocked yourself inside a sports bag ...

[Johnr]

The A to Z of (Published material about) JTR

Firstly, my single copy of the current A to Z is on order, ( it will not be released by Macmillan in Australia till October).

Secondly, in advance, and based entirely on the thoughtful and constructive criticisms on this thread, I'd like to congratulate Poul Biggs, Martyn Feedo, and Keef Skyner for taking on the heroic and thankless task of bringing their valuable volume up to date.

"Everyone wants to whip the horse, yet no-one wants to handle the reins".

Lastly, I wonder if I might make a suggestion:

If the Illustrious Troika should be brave enough to do a further volume, down the track, why not get the publisher to set up a closed web site - or advanced purchase website - on which the entire book is placed,
and subscribers can point out the errors -or perceived errors- before the book is launched onto the marketplace?
This is a raw idea: others might use their expertise to refine it, but basically,
I see all these experts helping now, when their input earlier could have obviated the bloopers.

I am sincere in my praise of the authors.And can offer one consolation.When journalists steal their hard-won discoveries for their own, at least the cleverly and deliberately planted mistakes will mean we can identify where they stole their material from!

Well Done those Three!

JOHN RIFFULS.

[mariab]

To Sam Flynn:
Absolutely, it's not a German name. I was simply making a point that “Schütz“ in Germanic languages either comes alone, or becomes “something-schutz“ when combined. I assume it's a question of commodity, as it's harder to pronounce “schütz“ in combined syllables (even for the Germans!), so the “ü“ becomes “u“. I'm very aware that language is a continuously and naturally shifting, changing entity, and names in families change from generation to generation, for all kinds of different, almost always practical reasons.
Is the original name really Russian, or Jewish? Because it certainly doesn't sound Russian...
To Tom Wescott:
But did you notice, Tom, that the anglicized version, “Diemshitz“, immediately dropped the “sch“ (apart from in one single newspaper, The Times)? Documented fact usually coincides with linguistic commodity, because no one in England would spare the time to spell “sch“ as “sh“ – and why should they?
(As long as they didn't call him “Dumbsh*t“...)
I thought your real name was Waistcoat – or Red Demon?
I hear that my real name in Ripperology should have been Maria Birkwood. It seems like I've disappointed many people for not having been the reincarnation of her.

[The Grave Maurice]

Sam!!! I was beginning to think that you had lost your fingers in some sort of freak industrial chutney accident. It's so nice to have you back. I imagine that the collective IQ of these boards has just gone up by several points.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam. Good to see you after your prolonged absence.

Thanks, Tom - good to talk to you again

It's not about unlauts, or Germanic, or Russian, it's about documented fact.

It's all about spelling, umlauts, German, Russian... and the singular inadequacy of our noble English alphabet to render these pesky Johnny-foreigner names correctly.

At least the "Diemschutz" version, with or without umlaut, spares poor old LD from the dubious posterity (posteriority?) of having the "$hitz" for all time.

I think I'll take a leaf out of your book, however, and stick with the pet-name of "Diemster" from now on

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Sam. Good to see you after your prolonged absence. Regarding the Diemster, accepted variations are to be found in almost every name...there are numerous variations of my own surname, in fact. However, my family spells it 'Wescott', so because a single journal (Ripperologist) screwed up and spelled it 'Westcott', does not mean that they are correct. That's what we find in the case of Diemshitz...ONE newspaper spells it Diemschutz...one, that being the Times. Nowhere else. All the legit sources spell it Diemshitz...plain and simple.

Begg and co. also spell William Wess' name as 'West, William'. Why? Because the Times did, although he NEVER gave his name as West. It's not about unlauts, or Germanic, or Russian, it's about documented fact.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

In German in would be spelled correctly “Diemschutz“, as “Schütz“ combined with another name before it traditionally looses its Umlaut, and becomes “bla-schutz“.

If it were a German name, I'd fully agree with you, Maria - but it's not. To be clear, my point was more about transliteration than "proper spelling". Bottom line is, the English alphabet can't render "ДЫМШЫЦ" correctly, as there are subtleties in the pronunciation that English doesn't adequately cater for.

[mariab]

In German in would be spelled correctly “Diemschutz“, as “Schütz“ combined with another name before it traditionally looses its Umlaut, and becomes “bla-schutz“. Obviously the anglicized version would loose the German “c“ in “sch“ and become “sh“, as in “Diemshitz“.

[Sam Flynn]

Here's a few minor errors I picked up on.

Diemschutz - correct spelling is Diemshitz, which I demonstrated to the satisfaction of all a year or two ago.

Not quite to the satisfaction of all, Tom

The name originates in Russia, and the Cyrillic "ДЫМШЫЦ" can be transliterated in a number of ways. The closest, I suppose, would be "Dymschyts", but Dimshitz, Dim$hits, Dymschytz, even Diemschütz (in Germanic orthography) would be legimate approximations.

PS: Hello, Tom

[Rob Clack]

Thank you Stewart.

Regards

Rob

[Stewart P Evans]

Constabulary

Any organised force of police may be referred to as a 'Constabulary' whereas the official title is another matter. The Suffolk Constabulary is an official force name but that does not bar them from being called Suffolk Police. The scan shown here clearly says Sussex Constab'y even though that was not the official force title. East Sussex as a force existed until April 1943 when it became part of Sussex Combined.