Whistling on Berner Street

[JeffHamm]

Hi Andrew,

I did have trouble refuting the points made by Jon with regard to use of language and the times involved, but times have been a constant problem. We have to remember that when people made statements to the press their use of language was unlikely to be perfect. If they knew that, 130 years later, their every word was to be hung upon and analysed for subtle nuances they would surely want a second chance to make their language more accurately reflect what they thought they saw. Jon made some good points regarding the event schedules which would seem to leave little time for Goldstein to effect a return trip to the coffee house. Never the less, the evidence is there, and if the option is to assume Mrs Artisan and FM are the same person then the evidence is against her seeing Goldstein only once.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I'm not sure one should go so far as to say the evidence is against her seeing Goldstein only once. Rather, one possible interpretation of the two news reports can been seen that way. However, as Wickerman pointed out, the directional information contained in "up" and "down" is not exactly unambiguous. Personally, I think I use them interchangeably, and if I were telling the same story twice I could very easily see me using up the street on one occasion and down the street on another.

To add to Wickerman's two usages (up meaning towards the major area, which would be Commerical, or up meaning as the house numbers go, which means towards Fairclough), the terms can also be used relative to the observer; a person is coming "up" the road if they walking towards them, but once they pass and are heading away, they are going down the road. Doesn't matter which end of the street, just whether they are coming towards or heading away. So, if FM is telling her story on two occasions, and she's seen Goldstein traverse the entire street, for part of his journey he is coming up the road then he passed her, and is going down the road. The previously also reads to me as others have suggested, rather than indicating a second time of sighting she's indicating her previous time on the step at that point.

So the interpretation of two sightings, while it can be made, is based upon having found an ambiguity between two different tellings, in neither of which does she actually explicitly say she saw him on two occasions, rather that's an alternative interpretation of how the reporter presented he story (which, of course, then makes us have to be cautious about whose words are we interpreting here?)

I have a vague memory of a police report indicating they did check on Goldstein's story and it checked out, but often those vague memories turn out to be false. If anyone knows of a report where the police do state they verified his whereabouts (at the teahouse, or whatever it was), that would be great to know.

As for the "he may have come from the club" (I forget the exact phrasing, but that one), it's a pretty unsure statement even as it is and can't be said to indicate she saw him come from there. Rather, given the context, it sounds much more like a response to a question from the reporter (along the lines of "Do you think he could have come out of the club?"...."Well, he looked foreign, so I suppose he could have", which the reporter paraphrases as "he may have come from the club". It's always difficult with news stories to separate out what is spontaneous and what is prompted to "get the story".

If we step back, though, and look at everything, we see the police cleared Goldstein and do indicate he's not of interest to them. While we don't have a description of what they did and how, those types of notes are long gone, we do have the result of their check. And if he had been spotted twice, then I would think we should see that in the police reports, where they clear him for both journeys. However, I'm pretty sure they too just indicate he was coming from the pub/teahouse/whatever it was and they never mention him going to, though clearly he must have at some point.

While it's an interesting spin on things, it's simply reinterpreting a news presentation to show it could be read differently. So we can't say it's evidence against the single journey, at most it's a viable alternative. The rest of the evidence we have, though, shows no evidence or mention of a 2nd journey, and tends to suggest a single one. Therefore, the weight of the evidence still favours the single journey.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Nice to see you back.

Hi George,

Thanks, but as I said it was/would be just a quick visit, seeing that the discussions haven't changed.

There was a marginal note in Swanson's report:- "Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions should be asked." I read this as questioning whether Goldstein was establishing an alibi.

I read it in a different way. I think he came forward because he was seen returning from Spectacle Alley, carrying a black bag and wanted to clear himself of any possible suspicion. To me, Swanson's report makes this also quite clear as he wrote "called at Leman Street and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour".

In this regard, the following snippets are also of interest.

Morning Advertiser,
3 October 1888
W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

Lloyds Weekly
7 October 1888
Reports have been ciculated this week of a man having been seen in the streets with a black bag about the time of the murders; but suspicion was removed by a young traveller named Goldstein coming forward and stating that he was in Berner Street.

As to his trip to Spectacle Alley, I find it a bit hard to understand why he would come forward but then not tell the whole truth. If he'd decided to come forward, why then not tell about his trip to Spectacle Alley as well - be it from the club or from his home - if he did take it at an hour relevant to the murder? After all, so what if he had come from the club? Proofwise for the police, it would mean nothing and he wouldn't be more interesting than Eagle or Lave or Wess.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

There is no proof he was coming from the club, just from that direction. It depends where Mrs Artisan is standing at the time. If she is north of the yard then he is headed towards Commercial St and might have come from the club. If she is south of the yard then he is headed home and it is the same sighting as FM's. That would restrict her to living between Packer and the Nelson.

The police might have checked that he was at the Spectacle coffee house, but would they have checked where he was before he got there, to establish an alibi? I don't see how you can label this as a conspiracy. It is simply a sighting of a man near a murder scene, the same as BS, Pipeman and Parcelman.

Commiserations on the cricket. The team didn't last long after the anchor was removed, but a commendable effort by Malan. I hope your selectors aren't stupid enough to repeat their mistake in the next test. I'm not quite enough of a purist to believe that a draw is the best theoretical outcome. I like a battle, not a walkover, regardless of whichever side is doing the walking over.

Cheers, George

It seems clear to me that Mrs Artisan and FM were one and the same.

" I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"

"No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."

"Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?"

"No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially."

She doesn’t say that he was coming from the direction of the club. All that she says is that he might have been coming from the club which doesn’t tell us anything apart from the fact that she definitely didn’t see him exiting the yard. As I’ve suggested it might well have been the case that when Fanny first stood on her doorstep she looked right and saw Goldstein who was, at that time, just passing the club. Leaving the possibility that he’d just left the yard.

The only reason I mentioned conspiracy is a response to Andrew’s claim that I’m a ‘hobbyist’ whilst he’s somehow a more ‘serious’ student of the case. When we look at the Berner Street aspects of the case he’s seen suspicion in Schwartz, Diemschutz, Letchford, Goldstein and others. So unless we accept that Berner Street was hosting the annual conference of The Society For People Who Act Deviously then we surel have to conclude that there’s an element of intention here. I call this conspiracist thinking. I don’t mean that we shouldn’t look into things and explore every idea but we have to bear foremost in our minds that humans make errors, that humans don’t all speak textbook English (even English ones) that the Press can make errors or even exaggerate to sell papers. And so, although Andrew appears to find this approach ‘boring,’ we have to apply caution and put the brakes on our imagination’s. It’s certainly not that I don’t want the case solved or that I’m somehow sentimentally attached to an official ‘version’ of events. The ‘up’ ‘down’ thing is a case in point. Especially when we add ‘passed along’ into the mix. It’s fairly obvious to me that the transcription by different reporters is the source of this. It’s the danger of reading between the lines.

…..

Another spineless performance from England but that’s taking nothing away from an excellent performance by the Aussies. In talent there’s probably not a huge difference between the teams. In fight, backbone and discipline there’s a cavern. Time and time again we buckle when a bit of fight is required. I honestly can’t see us winning a test and god help us when the time comes for Root to have a spell of poor form. Geoffrey Boycott is only 80 and Ian Botham is only 66, I wonder if they’re up for a comeback?

[FrankO]

As for the "he may have come from the club" (I forget the exact phrasing, but that one), it's a pretty unsure statement even as it is and can't be said to indicate she saw him come from there. Rather, given the context, it sounds much more like a response to a question from the reporter (along the lines of "Do you think he could have come out of the club?"...."Well, he looked foreign, so I suppose he could have", which the reporter paraphrases as "he may have come from the club". It's always difficult with news stories to separate out what is spontaneous and what is prompted to "get the story".

I entirely agree with you, Jeff. The reporter asked her "Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?", to which she answered "No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me." It seems very much like a reporter to then have asked something like what you suggest with the result as you suggest it.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

This is evidence that the duty inspector who took Goldstein's statement, was unaware of the Evening News interview.

Possibly, but certainly not necessarily, Andrew.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

I did have trouble refuting the points made by Jon with regard to use of language and the times involved, but times have been a constant problem. We have to remember that when people made statements to the press their use of language was unlikely to be perfect. If they knew that, 130 years later, their every word was to be hung upon and analysed for subtle nuances they would surely want a second chance to make their language more accurately reflect what they thought they saw. Jon made some good points regarding the event schedules which would seem to leave little time for Goldstein to effect a return trip to the coffee house. Never the less, the evidence is there, and if the option is to assume Mrs Artisan and FM are the same person then the evidence is against her seeing Goldstein only once.

Cheers, George

Thanks George.

I agree that a return trip would be difficult to fit in. If FM made a double sighting, it's much more likely that the journey north was the most recent, and the journey south occurred ... umm ... previously.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I read it in a different way. I think he came forward because he was seen returning from Spectacle Alley, carrying a black bag and wanted to clear himself of any possible suspicion. To me, Swanson's report makes this also quite clear as he wrote "called at Leman Street and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour".

Frank,
I don't understand how Goldstein putting his name to the man with the black bag, clears that man/him of any suspicion. Was the man with a black bag under suspicion before Goldstein went to the police, but not after his name was known? How does that work?

According to Swanson's report, Goldstein's bag carried empty cigarette boxes. To me, this is evidence that Goldstein was never properly investigated. The police had no way of verifying the contents of the bag on the night, so Swanson is essentially saying that Goldstein was taken on trust. Also, what was the relationship between the Spectacle Alley coffee house, and the cigarette boxes? The report does not say.

In this regard, the following snippets are also of interest.

Morning Advertiser,
3 October 1888
W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

Lloyds Weekly
7 October 1888
Reports have been ciculated this week of a man having been seen in the streets with a black bag about the time of the murders; but suspicion was removed by a young traveller named Goldstein coming forward and stating that he was in Berner Street.

Wess's reference to the statement being regarded as entirely satisfactory, is more evidence that Goldstein was taken on trust. Did it not occur to the duty inspector to ask Goldstein why he hadn't managed to come forward until late Tuesday evening? What do you suppose caused the delay? Why did Goldstein apparently need 'persuading', to go to the police? Surely he would have been keen to clear himself of any suspicion.

The Lloyds Weekly report also follows the strange logic; the man with a black bag was suspicious because he was anonymous, more so than his actual behavior. Once the man had a name, that suspicion was removed. If Lave had been seen on the street, eating from a bag of grapes, would he have been regarded as suspicious, until he told the police it was him?

As to his trip to Spectacle Alley, I find it a bit hard to understand why he would come forward but then not tell the whole truth. If he'd decided to come forward, why then not tell about his trip to Spectacle Alley as well - be it from the club or from his home - if he did take it at an hour relevant to the murder? After all, so what if he had come from the club? Proofwise for the police, it would mean nothing and he wouldn't be more interesting than Eagle or Lave or Wess.

About 100 people attended the meeting that night. Leon Goldstein was a club member. Do you suppose he attended the meeting? It would seem a little strange if he hadn't, unless he'd been at a market like Diemschitz, or had gone out for the day, like Schwartz. The meeting didn't finish until nearly midnight, so if Goldstein did attend, he must have walked up Berner street at some point after midnight.

[FrankO]

I don't understand how Goldstein putting his name to the man with the black bag, clears that man/him of any suspicion.

I don’t either, Andrew, and that is why I didn’t suggest it would.

Was the man with a black bag under suspicion before Goldstein went to the police, but not after his name was known? How does that work?

Why do you think Goldstein only gave his name and said he was seen carrying a black bag when he made his statement to the police? And at the time not only Mortimer stated about seeing a man with a black bag in the neighbourhood of a crime scene, but there was also Albert Baskert, who had made a statement about seeing a suspiciously acting man carrying a black bag. And in September the police arrested William Pigott, who was also seen with a black bag.

According to Swanson's report, Goldstein's bag carried empty cigarette boxes. To me, this is evidence that Goldstein was never properly investigated. The police had no way of verifying the contents of the bag on the night, so Swanson is essentially saying that Goldstein was taken on trust. Also, what was the relationship between the Spectacle Alley coffee house, and the cigarette boxes? The report does not say. Wess's reference to the statement being regarded as entirely satisfactory, is more evidence that Goldstein was taken on trust.

Why should that be evidence of that? Because Swanson’s summary report didn’t include any information about what the police did or didn’t do to check Goldstein’s statement?

About 100 people attended the meeting that night. Leon Goldstein was a club member. Do you suppose he attended the meeting? It would seem a little strange if he hadn't, unless he'd been at a market like Diemschitz, or had gone out for the day, like Schwartz. The meeting didn't finish until nearly midnight, so if Goldstein did attend, he must have walked up Berner street at some point after midnight.

He may well have attended and may have left for Spectacle Alley shortly after the discussion ended between 11.30 and 11.45. Or he may have left for Sp. Alley earlier still and directly from his home. There, unfortunately, is no way for us to know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

About 100 people attended the meeting that night. Leon Goldstein was a club member. Do you suppose he attended the meeting? It would seem a little strange if he hadn't, unless he'd been at a market like Diemschitz, or had gone out for the day, like Schwartz. The meeting didn't finish until nearly midnight, so if Goldstein did attend, he must have walked up Berner street at some point after midnight.

It wouldn’t have been in the slightest bit strange. Many people are members of many clubs but they don’t always attend every meeting for a whole variety of reasons. I was a member of The Cloak & Dagger Club but only attended one meeting. It’s called normal life and not even of the remotest significance or interest.

Goldstein didn’t attend the meeting because he was in Spectacle Alley at the time. We know this because he said so. We know that he walked past the club sometime before 12.00 again because he said so. We don’t know why he didn’t go to the police until the Tuesday but maybe he just didn’t want to get involved? Maybe he was one of the thousands who were mistrustful of the police? Maybe he had to leave town for some reason? Maybe he just wasn’t vey public spirited and couldn’t have cared less about the investigation? Filling the gaps with suspicion is pointless.

We don’t know that the police followed up his story but we don’t know that he didn’t either. If you want to believe that they just took what he said on trust that’s fine but there’s no evidence that this was the case. It’s possible that they did follow this up but either way, the police who were there didn’t find anything suspicious about him. Because there wasn’t anything.

There’s nothing suspicious about Goldstein. He wasn’t involved in events that evening except that he walked past the club. Attempting to build up suspicion around him (like with Schwartz, like with Diemschutz, like with Letchford, like with Spooner) serves no purpose.

[JeffHamm]

Hi NBFN,

I know this was directed at Frank, but thought I would throw in a few ideas as well.

Frank,
I don't understand how Goldstein putting his name to the man with the black bag, clears that man/him of any suspicion. Was the man with a black bag under suspicion before Goldstein went to the police, but not after his name was known? How does that work?

I don't think just putting a name to him clears him of suspicion, as you say, that doesn't make sense. That lack of sensibility suggests, therefore, it's not the obtainment of his name per se that has removed suspicion but something else. That something else is the fact he went to the police, affording them the opportunity to follow up on one of the leads they had (the spotting of a suspicious acting person who was seen in the area). We no longer have the detailed notes of what the police did when they followed up on individual's like this. There are a few times in summary reports, or letters to HO, etc when someone gets mentioned as having been brought to the police attention and that the police looked into things and the person was cleared and allowed to go on their way. But we don't know what they did because we just have a summary of their conclusion, not how they came to it.

Now, of course, there are always examples where mistakes are made, where someone could have been "looked into" but not thoroughly enough, and so on. But we have no way of knowing if that is the case here. There are, I think, some reasonable and easy to think of actions the police could have taken though. The most obvious being to go to Spectacle Alley and verify he was there and the times he was there. If he was selling his cigarette cases, they could have verified that as well. Did they? Sadly that's not recorded, but what we do know is their conclusion, which is he was not considered involved.

So today, the clearing of his suspicions is not because we have a name for him, nor would that be the reason the police at the time cleared him. They're loss of interest in him would be due to their investigation of the lead connected to him. Getting his name would have been seen as obtaining important information connected to that lead, information which is neither suspicious nor non-suspicious. If their investigation made him of more interest having his name would be highly useful, but not necessary, as they could still be increasing their interest even if he remained nameless (which would, of course, increase the importance of identifying who this character was).

According to Swanson's report, Goldstein's bag carried empty cigarette boxes. To me, this is evidence that Goldstein was never properly investigated. The police had no way of verifying the contents of the bag on the night, so Swanson is essentially saying that Goldstein was taken on trust. Also, what was the relationship between the Spectacle Alley coffee house, and the cigarette boxes? The report does not say.

Well again, we don't know he wasn't properly investigated, that's an assumption which is unfounded. We know nothing about what they did. As per above, though, if I simply make a different, equally unfounded assumption, I could say that the police must have verified that Goldstein was at the coffee house, selling cigarette cases, over the time the murder occurred, eliminating him from their investigation. Summary reports, which is all we have, do not include the details of how conclusions were reached, but simply tell us what those conclusions were. Comments on whether or not those conclusions were based upon a proper investigation are speculations, and one speculation is as good as another. We are left not knowing the answers with regards to details, but we do know the conclusions. And, we must be weary of thinking we know more than the police of the time. Even if we believe their investigation might not have been as complete as we would like, it still means they had more information than we do - we have none, they had something.

Wess's reference to the statement being regarded as entirely satisfactory, is more evidence that Goldstein was taken on trust. Did it not occur to the duty inspector to ask Goldstein why he hadn't managed to come forward until late Tuesday evening? What do you suppose caused the delay? Why did Goldstein apparently need 'persuading', to go to the police? Surely he would have been keen to clear himself of any suspicion.

No, I don't think that means he was taken entirely on trust. Rather, it implies his statement was considered verified somehow.

As for not coming forward, that's common even today. I'm sure you've watched programs on cold cases, and the current team talks to some witness who ends up saying "I've been waiting to tell my story for x years, but the police never came to talk to me!" These are people who know they have important information, but they never go to the police, they just wait for the police to show up, and will wait for years. People are generally reluctant to get involved, and that was no different in 1888 than it is today. It is not a grounds for suspicion, it is human nature.

The Lloyds Weekly report also follows the strange logic; the man with a black bag was suspicious because he was anonymous, more so than his actual behavior. Once the man had a name, that suspicion was removed. If Lave had been seen on the street, eating from a bag of grapes, would he have been regarded as suspicious, until he told the police it was him?

Again, as you initially point out, putting a name to someone doesn't make sense as the reason for removal of suspicion, so no, in your hypothetical example, telling the police it was him eating grapes would not change his level of suspicion.

About 100 people attended the meeting that night. Leon Goldstein was a club member. Do you suppose he attended the meeting? It would seem a little strange if he hadn't, unless he'd been at a market like Diemschitz, or had gone out for the day, like Schwartz. The meeting didn't finish until nearly midnight, so if Goldstein did attend, he must have walked up Berner street at some point after midnight.

There's no mention of him having attended, I had forgot that it was established he was a club member though, but that could explain his looking at the club. He may have been checking to see if things were still going on, and deciding if he wanted to "pop in". If so, he seems to have decided not to. That could suggest he wasn't there earlier and was checking to see if the meeting was still going on, heard the "after hours singing", and concluded he missed it and went home. But yes, if that's wrong, and he had attended earlier and had to leave to go to S.A., he would have walked up Berner Street to get there. But as that would have been a long time before the murder, it wouldn't correspond to F.M. time on her door step, and it would be an undefendable stretch to suggest that time frame is what she's referring to as "previously", leading us again to the conclusion she only saw him the one time.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for butting in with your post above. Yours is exactly the kind of reply I would have given, if I would have felt like doing so. But I don't, since the answers seem so obvious to me, the little that we do have is called into question for no good reason and, therefore, the speculation is so useless.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the issue of why Goldstein didn’t come forward sooner I forgot to mention the very obvious point, when did he first read in a newspaper that he’d been seen walking along Berner Street? He might not have come forward until later because he didn’t think that he’d been seen and could therefore get away with not becoming involved. So if he didn’t know he’d been seen, until reading a later newspaper or when someone mentioned to him the story of the man with the bag, then he couldn’t have walked passed Fanny on her doorstep (or he’d have known that he’d been seen). Pointing to what I’d previously suggested - that she’d gone onto her doorstep just after he’d passed and by the time that she saw him he was passing the club (leading her to suggest that he might have been coming from the club.)

And so if she had only that second gone onto her doorstep when Goldstein passed then what time did Goldstein actually pass? It looks like there are 3 possibles?

a) some time between 12.30 and 12.35 - if we go with FM going onto her door just after Smith passed (using Smith’s estimated times)

b) around 12.45 - if we go on FM’s estimated time that she first went onto her doorstep.

c) sometime after 12.45 if she came onto her doorstep twice between Smith’s passing and the commotion at the yard.

Of course it’s possible that Goldstein knew that he’d been seen and just didn’t bother coming forward until being persuaded to after telling someone that black bag man in the newspaper was him. But…..as a member of the club he’d have been regularly in Berner Street making the chance of the woman that had seen him (FM) seeing him again and perhaps telling the police that she’d seen him entering the club.

Therefore I’d suggest the possibility that Goldstein had already passed FM when she went onto her doorstep and was adjacent to the club when she saw him and this is why she suggested that he ‘might’ have come from the club.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d also suggest that the fact that Fanny saw him look up at the club proves that he hadn’t come from the club. As the front doors were locked at 12.30 he’d have had to have left via the gates and so pretty much as soon as he’d stepped onto the pavement to turn right he’d have been past the club. She didn’t say that he looked back over his shoulder to look at the club but that he looked up in the process of passing it.

Combine this with the fact that Goldstein gave an easily checkable alibi we can safely dismiss the suggestion that he might have come from the club.

[FrankO]

On the issue of why Goldstein didn’t come forward sooner I forgot to mention the very obvious point, when did he first read in a newspaper that he’d been seen walking along Berner Street? He might not have come forward until later because he didn’t think that he’d been seen and could therefore get away with not becoming involved. So if he didn’t know he’d been seen, until reading a later newspaper or when someone mentioned to him the story of the man with the bag, then he couldn’t have walked passed Fanny on her doorstep (or he’d have known that he’d been seen).

Hi Michael,

I wouldn't be surprised if he came forward as a result of the possible connection made by various newspapers between the suspiciously acting man with the black bag allegedly seen by Albert Baskert (Bachert) and the man with the black bag seen by Mrs. Mortimer. And that didn't happen until the 2nd of October.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Michael,

I wouldn't be surprised if he came forward as a result of the possible connection made by various newspapers between the suspiciously acting man with the black bag allegedly seen by Albert Baskert (Bachert) and the man with the black bag seen by Mrs. Mortimer. And that didn't happen until the 2nd of October.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Thanks for that. I think that any ‘mystery’ as to why he didn’t come forward straight away comes to an end then.