Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Scott Nelson]

...from heel to tow.

Hey, isn't "heel" spelled heal?

[Hunter]

Are you to boldly question such an interpretation?

[Bridewell]

Do we know who would be the earliest documented killer that we know has injected themselves into an investigation as a witness?

Now that's a good question, deserving of its own thread - I'll start one.

[Bridewell]

Now that's a good question, deserving of its own thread - I'll start one.

It's in the "Shades of Whitechapel" section of "Social Chat"

[Sally]

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

You can lead a man to reason, but you can't make him think

[caz]

You've already mentioned your "arse" (shudder), and now you're calling me a "tool", which besides being a personal insult of the type prohibited by the boards takes us pretty much into the gutter as far as thread content goes.

Hi Ben,

You need to take more time reading than posting. I didn't call you a tool; I said that your own haste had seemingly caused you to miss typos and auto-corrections that conspired to make you look like one, with their uncanny imitations of the two common howlers: "towing the line" and "towed the line". What you post is nobody's responsibility but your own, so don't try to shift the blame onto me and invoke rules I have not broken.

You don't understand what a split infinitive is, and you attempt to explain the gaff on the grounds that language has suddenly evolved to suit your own unique style, or lack thereof.

Well you have not yet quoted a single example where I have used one, although I am well aware when I do so and why I do so. I am also aware that they are now acceptable when the alternative would actually look clumsier. Years ago I would have studiously avoided them, but not since I read that the stuffy outdated rule had been relaxed somewhat. You need to get with it, grandad.

I used "toeing the line" in the context I outlined very carefully. My point was that Anderson was not the sort of individual to conform to any rules or to "toe the line". We may take the rule, in this case, to mean the authority represented by the police commissioner.

Yes of course you did. Pity you didn't come up with that explanation in the first place, before I gave you the correct meaning of the expression, knowing you would then rework what you wrote originally. I can read you like a book.

Yep, well Googled, that girl!

Er no, bad luck. I got A grades in O level Latin and English language back in 1970, many years before you were even in short trousers. If you need Google to work out stuff like this I'm sorry for you.

Fun indeed. Glad you agree. Neither of us will be running to teacher anytime soon then. Have a great weekend Ben. And don't forget to wipe your nose, wash behind your ears and preview your posts.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yeah, that's right. Let's just change ancient and well established rules concerning grammar and style in order to suit Caz's shortcomings in that area. Language is indeed changing - hooray - but not according to your fascinating rule-book.

Ooh I'm so naughty, I just found this online:

http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/splitinfinitive.htm

So not my personal rule book then. Seems you're stuck in the 19th century, Ben, which ought to be helping you hang Hutch.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“I didn't call you a tool; I said that your own haste had seemingly caused you to miss typos and auto-corrections that conspired to make you look like one”

Ah, so that’s how you’ve managed to remain insulting whilst adhering to the forum rules? So it’s not okay to call a fellow poster a “tool” directly, but totally fine and dandy to say that the same person’s posts make him look like one? So if I ever wanted to say, for instance, that another member’s posts made him (or HER) look like a semi-literate cyber-stalker, that’s okay and perfectly within the rules? That’s worth knowing. Unfortunately, you don’t explain why casual typos and accidental auto-corrects make the person responsible for them a “tool”, unless of course it was important to you to sneak round the rules in order to insult me, and with such originality too.

“with their uncanny imitations of the two common howlers: "towing the line" and "towed the line"

Again, it’s called an accidental auto-correct. Either that or a typo based on the fact that, “uncannily”, the “e” is next to the “w” on the keyboard. Can I be arsed to remember which one it was? No, not really. It could have been either or both. I didn’t expect for one moment that anyone would be tragic enough to start a dialogue with me about it. One thing I know for certain is that it wasn’t me deliberately writing “tow”. Incidentally, for your much-needed elucidation, people don’t generally “tow” lines – they tow things using a line (you’re welcome, in advance).

“Years ago I would have studiously avoided them, but not since I read that the stuffy outdated rule had been relaxed somewhat.”

Yeah, suuure you did.

I bet you did just that. I bet you woke up one day and thought to yourself: I’d better just read the English Language Rule Book and check to see if there are some things I’m doing, which, thanks to the general dumbing down of standards, I don’t need to do anymore. Nothing’s changed. If you’ve googled your way onto a website that says split infinitives are suddenly ok, it was probably written by someone like you, who can’t get to grips with them, and appeals to some mythical modern influence that says “Ah sod it, why bother?”. I think I might do that with underwear. Haven’t you heard, Caz? Undies are out - they’re considered poncy and indulgent these days.

“Pity you didn't come up with that explanation in the first place, before I gave you the correct meaning of the expression, knowing you would then rework what you wrote originally. I can read you like a book.”

(My emphasis.)

These are the sorts of admissions that can really creep a fellow out. I’ll admit it’s not unflattering to feel studied and scrutinised and generally dwelt-on, but you still know virtually nothing about me. You have never met me, and nor – so far as I’m aware – have you ever met anyone who has ever met me.

In this case, however, it appears your Ben-reading abilities have let you down. You have just acknowledged that the correct meaning of the expression “toeing the line” applies perfectly to my observation regarding Anderson and Bond, and yet, fascinatingly, you still claim I didn’t know what it meant when I used it in that context. Are you seriously, seriously suggesting that I used the most suitable expression possible to illustrate my point (i.e. that Anderson did not conform to the accepted wisdom of his police superiors, which has nothing to do with “towing” anything) without knowing what it meant? Think it through, please, and then I want you dazzle us all with a brand new convoluted explanation for how I somehow managed to illustrate my point successfully using the appropriate idiom….accidentally!

“I got A grades in O level Latin and English language back in 1970, many years before you were even in short trousers.”

Hearty congratulations on the O level, but I suspect that might be a problem. That’s a long time ago, and you seem to have forgotten quite a bit. Don’t feel bad about that – I’m the same with my old biology classes, and that was only in 2000. I remember xylem, phloem, something to do with a potato…and that’s about it!

I’ve been reflecting further on your David Canter observation, and I’m struggling to see where he’s supposed to have erred on the subject of the diary hoax. The “psychology” in the diary is communicated by the words the writer used, and if the gist of those words were “I want to kill prostitutes…horribly…lots of them…because I’m mad, um, and I don’t like prostitutes”, that would be consistent with the actions of a real person who really did kill several prostitutes horribly, wouldn’t it? How could even the stupidest hoaxer go wrong there? If I were to wrote: “give me celery now!!!”, that would be “spot on” for the psychology of a celery addict, but that doesn’t make it true.

Amid all this nonsense, the person I feel most sorry for is Jon, whose debating abilities you obviously have such little regard for that you feel the need to wade in and fight his battles. The flipside to that, of course, is that I’m made to feel very big and important, which I’m really not. Thanks, though, and keep at it.

[Ben]

But meanwhile, back on topic...

Hi Beebs,

It’s a damn good question, and the earliest case (or notoriety) I can find is that of Richard Loeb, who with Nathan Leopold murdered Bobby Franks in 1924. Since Leopold and Loeb were caught before they could kill again, they can’t be described as serial killers. However, there is no difference in pathology here, as this was still a murder for pleasure. Loeb injected himself into the police investigation, and outlined various “theories” to the press.

More on this rather horrible case here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

and if the gist of those words were

WAS! Not "were".

If I were to wrote

WRITE! Not "wrote".

Could someone please administer a light smacking of my bottom for the above "howlers"?

[caz]

Hello Ben,

Many thanks for so clearly demonstrating your ignorance concerning a) what a howler actually is, and where you have or haven't made one, and b) David Canter's opinions on the Maybrick diary.

Your naive description of how you fondly imagine Canter studied the text, and what he concluded from it, only serves to insult the man's expertise. You clearly imply that any fool could have done the same. Odd, considering you use his expertise at every opportunity on the Hutch threads to support your own lost cause.

Even odder, considering Canter believes the diary is legit (or at least he did in 2003 when I met him in Liverpool). So what is he now in your eyes? Expert or blithering idiot?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Many thanks for so clearly demonstrating your ignorance concerning a) what a howler actually is, and where you have or haven't made one

A "howler" is a fruit-eating South American monkey, and no, I haven't made one yet.

But you're right on one level; I should extend an apology to David Canter. It was quite wrong of me to accept uncritically your unsourced paraphrasing of his alleged views on the diary without properly acquainting myself with his actual views, as set down in print. Having now done so, I note that at no stage has he been recorded as saying that the diary is "legit" or that the psychology is "spot on" for the ripper. Accepting that he is neither an historian nor a document examiner, we are interested only in his observations as a psychologist, and one of his conclusions was that "it certainly was written by somebody who knows what it feels like to be angry and vicious".

I have no problem with that. I'm quite sure that whatever weirdo hoaxed the diary was a troubled soul, and probably no stranger to violence (and perhaps drugs and alcohol too). Nor do I have any objection to the notion that the hoaxer had more in common, psychologically, with Jack the Ripper than he did James Maybrick.

So try as you might to get me to say something bad about David Canter (and so undermine my references to his expertise on Hutchinson threads), you're going to struggle, I'm afraid.

[babybird67]

thank you for the link Benz...

I will have a look.

I saw a documentary recently on BTK - they had footage of him speaking about his crimes during his trial - I cannot believe the cold bloodedness of the man. But he was a more modern example of someone who interfered with the investigation in that he continually wrote letters and left clues etc. I doubt he would have been caught if he hadn't done those things.

Beebs x

[Ben]

Absolutely, Beebs.

Rader is indeed a good example of some who interfered with the investigation. He also loitered opposite the scene of the Otero murder for some time before entering the building.

Hope all's well x

[babybird67]

yes

by his own admission he stalked many of his victims. Thank goodness he did interfere though otherwise there may have been more victims.

Hope all is well with you too Benz I've been better but also been worse! So can't complain (much)

x