Seaside Home?

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Oh, I'm not quoting evidence Paul... clever answer that you had... I'm just going to show what some commentators suggest, as I did.

The words in your book.

The Jack the Ripper A-Z, by Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner, published by John Blake, 2010, page 99, 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence..

" Anderson's continued vigorous investigation of further Ripper alarms after Cohen's incarceration and death has suggested to some commentators that he continued to believe the Ripper was at large."

Note the words "continued vigorous investigation of further RIPPER crimes"
(my emphasis in bold and capitals)

This clearly suggests the man was looking still for the Ripper..i.e. Jack the Ripper.

Yes, indeed it does. Absolutely. No question about it. After Cohen was dead... Nothing to do Anderson still looking for the Ripper after Aaron Kosminski had been committed though. That's what you said Anderson did and is what I asked to know the evidence for.

What evidence from official sources have you got that shows any use of the Seaside Home in Brighton for identification purposes from this era?

None at all, except the explicit statement of a senior and informed policeman that the identification was held there. What evidence do you have that it was never used or couldn't have been or wouldn't have been used for identifications?

What official evidence have you to support the claims of some commentators that Swanson's scribble outweighs the views of all the other policemen? Especially as two of those policemen, clearly knew of the Polish Jew story and openly pooh-poohed it?

Which commentators have said that Swanson's annotations - "scribble" is an intentionally diminishing word - outweigh the opinions of other contemporary policemen? Personally, I say that Swanson wrote what he did in the face of opinion that the Ripper had never been caught and never been identified and that he therefore had reasons for accepting and believing what he wrote. To date, no good evidence has been advanced to demonstrate otherwise beyond efforts to suggest that the marginalia is a fake or to otherwise denigrate Swanson. Nor, incidentally, has it be shown that those other policemen were aware of the full facts.

What evidence have you to show what official or unofficial reason other policemen investigating the case such as Reid and Abberline and Littlechild (for example) were kept unaware of the "real" story if proposed as such by Swanson? If Swanson's story be true, then you have evidence to cast doubt on the direct and detailed words shown in the Littlechild letter, for example? (Far more detailed than the marginalia annotations, I might add)

What evidence do you have to the contrary? As far as the evidence we possess is concerned, the marginalia is an authentic document written by a senior, intelligent and informed source who was actively involved in - indeed, he was in charge of - the Ripper investigation. If you want to challenge what he wrote then you must provide the evidence for doing so. You haven't. Therefore, we can do little more than look at the evidence that we do have and try within the parameters set by that evidence to reasonably explain why Reid, Abberline, ect were not totally informed. As for the Littlechild letter, you might care to explain just how it is more details than the marginalia.

If no evidence can be shown either way for any suspect, then the weight of comment from officials at the time must be considered of great import. Many policemen disagree through their comments and actions with the identification of any Polish Jew, locked up. Swanson himself chased the Ripper after Kosminski was locked up. Now please tell this uneducated, illogical man with no common sense...

WHY would the Cheif Inspector of Police STILL be chasing Jack the Ripper if he knew that Jack the Ripper was locked up?

As already asked but as yet unanswered, on what do you base your assertion that Swanson and Anderson were pusuing Jack the Ripper after Kosminski had been committed?

That is why I think the marginalia is worthless. There is far too much outweighing contradiction, INCLUDING from the actions of Swanson, himself, far nearer the time of the murders and during the ensuing murders.

The marginalia is not "worthless". The only way it would be worthless is if it was not written by Swanson and was written with the intention of deceiving modern commentators. But it wasn't. It is authentic.

If it was written by Swanson then it has value. Even if he wrote it knowing it to be untrue and with the intention of deceiving somebody - which in itself seems doubtful given that there is no reason to suppose that he thought his annotations would be read by anyone - it would raise all sorts of questions and would have considerable value.

If Swanson wrote the marginalia in good faith then it presumably reflects what he accepted and believed, either because he implicitly trusted his source, possibly verified, and perhaps was personally involved in organising and actually present. Even if what he wrote was wildly wrong, if he believed it then it makes the marginalia valuable.

You think the marginalia story is outweighed by other sources and that the marginalia is worthless as a consequence, but that is what makes the marginalia such a fascinating and important and valuable document - not correct, you will please note. It is because Anderson and Swanson are so two senior and informed sources flying in the face of received opinion that makes the marginalia valuable and important.

Anyway, you don't dismiss a source as "worthless" just because you find the story it tells awkward. It ain't the done thing.

Have a lovely afternoon.
kindest regards
Phil

You too, though it's pretty much over now.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Erm, why would we assume the suspect would have been handcuffed?

Is there evidence of arrest? Is there evidence suggesting he did not travel to an identity parade on his own suggestion, confident of his own innocence?

Im not stating he wasnt cuffed, Im stating theres a lot of assuming.

Monty

Anderson himself states: "if we had the powers of the French police". Or something along those lines. My view is that the suspect simply said no - then what? And that was what was meant by "great difficulty".

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Monty,
Swanson makes no reference to family help. There is no reason to assume it based soley on comparison. As we have no written indication of it, we have no reason to assume family help. Just like your 'cuffs' question. The difference being that Jack the Ripper suspect is considered the biggest catch of them all. They wouldnt risk him bolting off. Because to go to such lengths, thex would have had to be more tham pretty confident of a positive ID.

Phil

Ah but there is.

"And the suspect was sent to the workhouse with his hands tied behind his back". Or something like this.

The inference being that the suspect was someone who was senc places by means of coercion.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hence one of the reasons that Martin Fido rejected Aaron Kosminski as literally Anderson's suspect was that the timing of his being 'safely caged' made no sense. It had to be a mad Jewish man whose fate was decided in late 1888/1889.

Just so, Jonathan. The whole world thought that MacKenzie was a JTR victim but your man MM obviously knew otherwise. Now tell me something....

How can an uncaught serial killer have a finite number of victims?

[Cogidubnus]

Ah but how much is caught/uncaught related to hindsight?

Dave

[Jonathan H]

David Cohen
Excerpted from the Casebook Message Boards
Originally posted by Martin Fido on Saturday, May 27, 2000 - 03:30 pm

On to the confusion ... I was consequently astonished when I casually looked up a further Colney Hatch record book which ran to 1894 and discovered that there really was a Kosminsky ... I thought his incarceration was too late for him to be the Ripper, and even rather too late for him to be Anderson's suspect. When I found his medical records I was quite sure he wasn't Jack: he was harmless and suffered from aural hallucinations and a touch of persecution mania. No sadism. No violence. And apart from the typical silly Victorian belief that his illness was caused by masturbation, no sexual disorder.

Understandably, Martin Fido stuck with his ingenious David Cohen theory because Aaron Kosminski is a figure who is too late and too harmless.


I do not think that Anderson's fading memory has 'confused' the events of 1888, regarding Kelly, and those of 1891 and Coles, but rather substituted one for the other.

I think that Evans and Rumbelow in 'Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006) are very persuasive arguing this theory.

Anderson in his 1892 interview, to me, is revealing that he has never heard of 'Kosminski' let alone the notion that the Ripper was identified and 'safely caged'. Quite the opposite.

Dr. Anderson at New Scotland Yard: An 1892 Interview Rediscovered

"I sometimes think myself an unfortunate man," observes the C.I.D. chief, "for between twelve and one on the morning of the day I took up my position here the first Whitechapel murder occurred."

The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes leads to the production of certain ghastly photographs.

"There," says the Assistant Commissioner, "there is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man * they were those of a maniac revelling in blood."



His memoirs give the false impression -- though not for deceitful reasons beyond a sincere fading memory and a burning ego -- that it was taken care of by mid 1889.

This is about the time, March 1889, that Macnaghten whether by accident or design redacted the sectioning of 'Kosminski'.

To Stephen Thomas

I'm not sure I quite follow? Does the above answer the first part of your question?

In terms of what Macnaghten knew, his 1914 memoirs make it clear that he and the police were in the dark that the Ripper had taken his own life 'soon after' the Kelly murder.

He himself, he writes, rushed down to the East End for the Pinchin St. murder, and felt very sorry for a harlot going out into the night to try and procure another 'bloke'. What he could not do was reassure her that the fiend was deceased, that she was safe, as he did not know. Nobody did, beyond Druitt's immediate circle.

Only with the Farquharson revelation did Macnaghten learn of Druitt, and he seems to have been the only policeman to 'believe' along with the man's family. Like Anderson, and Swanson he turned up at the scene of the sensational Coles murder believing that this could be the work of the fiend too, until, I argue, he investigated the 'West of England' MP claims.

So, I agree that an uncaught serial killer cannot have a finite number of victims -- and Macnaghten did act that way for years until 1891.

What complicates all this is that to his cronies, Macnaghten cheekily redacted knowledge of Druitt back into late 1888 to enhance the Yard's rep.

To Lynn

If the 'North Country Vicar' of 1899 tale is about Druitt, and it may not be, then this is the last piece of the jigsaw regarding this suspect.

Druitt confessed to a priest, who may have been a member of his own family. The judgement of the family, or some family members,was that he was not delusional but really the killer. Before they could section him he took his own life. Three years later the secret leaked along the Tory constituent grapevine in Dorset.

This leak being second, or third-hand altered a key element of the tale; a mistake which Macnaghten opportunistically retained -- at least until his memoirs.

A confession in word became telescoped into a confession in deed: eg. murder and self-murder the same night.

George Sims ruthlessly (and inaccurately) quashed the 1899 Vicar's tale on the grounds that the real killer had no time to confess anything to anybody, which is not at all true of Montie Druitt but is, of course, 'true' of his fictional counterpart, 'Dr. Druitt'.

Despite what another poster claimed, there is nothing to suggest that the 'West of England' MP source was leaked by the authorities, albeit Farquharson was an officer of the state. Why would they? It was a total embarrassment. When the tale returned in 1898, the element of police-being-too-late-and-too-ignorant was well and truly removed.

[lynn cates]

Vicar

Hello Jonathan. I agree that, if the Vicar's story is about Druitt, it's probably all over and he's "Jack." But at this point, I may need a bit more convincing.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

convincing

I agree that, if the Vicar's story is about Druitt, it's probably all over and he's "Jack." But at this point, I may need a bit more convincing.

You and me both Lynn...I've always felt Druitt was just about the most unlikely suspect ever...just plucked from obscurity...poor sod...

Dave

[Jonathan H]

It's arguably been over since 1898

To Lynn

That's why I think it's over.

I quite understand why you think that's not enough, especially as the Vicar may be non-existent, or might be quite dotty, or talking about somebody else.

To me it is too much of a coincidence that Griffiths-Sims, who are writing about the Ripper as a 'drowned doctor', and the Vicar, who is talking about a 'Somtime Surgeon', that the first [officially sanctioned] profile, despite the fictionalized bits, we know is about Druitt and yet the second is more like the real Druitt, to not be the same suspect.

Here is the Vicar being crucified for candidly mixing 'substantial truth in fictious form' and thus compared unfavourably with Griffiths, when he is, knowingly or not, also mixing fact and fiction (and he did know it, at least partly, as he changed the Druitt 'family' in 'Aberconway' into the anomic 'friends').

The Vicar's Ripper had plenty of time to confess to a priest; he functioned and was not a 'shrieking, raving fiend' heading right away for the fateful plunge (Sims, 1907), all like the real Druitt -- but of course the Griffiths-Sims tale puts the police in a much better light.

It's source is an high-ranking policeman: Macnaghten -- who had misled his cronies into believing that 'Aberconway' was a definitive document of state.

In his own 1914 memoirs Macnaghten tiptoed away from this melodramatic timing of murder and self-murder, on the same night, heading back towards the Vicar's Ripper of having enough time to confess something to somebody.

From 1902, Sims has the 'drowned doctor' not working as a physician for years, heading towards the Vicar's Ripper who was 'at one time a surgeon'.

[lynn cates]

parish

Hello Jonathan. Well, if true, I should be delighted.

Has anyone ascertained the vicar's parish?

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

[B]Only with the Farquharson revelation did Macnaghten learn of Druitt, and he seems to have been the only policeman to 'believe' along with the man's family.

If the 'North Country Vicar' of 1899 tale is about Druitt, and it may not be, then this is the last piece of the jigsaw regarding this suspect.

Druitt confessed to a priest, who may have been a member of his own family. The judgement of the family, or some family members,was that he was not delusional but really the killer.

Good evening Jonathan,

Concerning the veiled rumor which we link to Montague John Druitt, I just want to clarify one thing with certainty. The "family suspected him" as far as we know comes from one source and one source only - the pen of Melville Macnaghten. Its not in the Farquharson quote, and not in the "brother clergyman" quote either.

Would you agree?

Roy

[Jonathan H]

'The Whitechurch Murders'

To Lynn

Not to my knowledge?

Here is what Chris Scott posted a few years ago, which for me provided the missing jigsaw piece:


Western Mail
19 January 1899

WHITECHAPEL MURDERS
DID "JACK THE RIPPER" MAKE A CONFESSION?

We have received (says the Daily Mail) from a clergyman of the Church of England, now a North Country vicar, an interesting communication with reference to the great criminal mystery of our times - that enshrouding the perpetration of the series of crimes which have come to be known as the "Jack the Ripper" murders. The identity of the murderer is as unsolved as it was while the blood of the victims was yet wet upon the pavements. Certainly Major Arthur Griffiths, in his new work on "Mysteries of Police and Crime," suggests that the police believe the assassin to have been a doctor, bordering on insanity, whose body was found floating in the Thames soon after the last crime of the series; but as the major also mentions that this man was one of three known homidical lunatics against whom the police "held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion," that conjectural explanation does not appear to count for much by itself.
Our correspondent the vicar now writes:-
"I received information in professional confidence, with directions to publish the facts after ten years, and then with such alterations as might defeat identification.
The murderer was a man of good position and otherwise unblemished character, who suffered from epileptic mania, and is long since deceased.
I must ask you not to give my name, as it might lead to identification"
meaning the identification of the perpetrator of the crimes. We thought at first the vicar was at fault in believing that ten years had passed yet since the last murder of the series, for there were other somewhat similar crimes in 1889. But, on referring again to major Griffiths's book, we find he states that the last "Jack the Ripper" murder was that in Miller's Court on November 9, 1888 - a confirmation of the vicar's sources of information. The vicar enclosed a narrative, which he called "The Whitechapel Murders - Solution of a London Mystery." This he described as "substantial truth under fictitious form." "Proof for obvious reasons impossible - under seal of confession," he added in reply to an inquiry from us.
Failing to see how any good purpose could be served by publishing substantial truth in fictitious form, we sent a representative North to see the vicar, to endeavour to ascertain which parts of the narrative were actual facts. But the vicar was not to be persuaded, and all that our reporter could learn was that the rev. gentleman appears to know with certainty the identity of the most terrible figure in the criminal annals of our times, and that the vicar does not intend to let anyone else into the secret.
The murderer died, the vicar states, very shortly after committing the last murder. The vicar obtained his information from a brother clergyman, to whom a confession was made - by whom the vicar would not give even the most guarded hint. The only other item which a lengthy chat with the vicar could elicit was that the murderer was a man who at one time was engaged in rescue work among the depraved woman of the East End - eventually his victims; and that the assassin was at one time a surgeon.

Emphases mine

Actually in the original the title of the Vicar's piece was 'The Whitechurch Murders'.

Tantalizingly, Druitt's cousin was eventually Vicar of Whitchurch-Canicorium in Dorset, and therefore this second clergyman's 'substantial truth under fictitious form' may refer not to the content but just to the awkward title: Whitechurch replacing Whitechapel.

A murderer, by implication an Anglican, who was of 'good position (eg. barrister-teacher) and who died soon after the final murder, with enough time to confess -- and to function normally -- matches Druitt hand-in-glove.

As does 'epileptic mania' in the colourful writings of Sims as the disease (as misunderstood by Victorians) included symptoms the writer ascribes to the 'drowned doctor': homicide, suicide, shrieking, raving, and so on.

A middle-class man who went to the East End to help harlots, and instead carved them up, matches Druitt as a man who neither lives nor works in the East End (and Oxonians were 'going east' to help the poor).

True, the Vicar claiming that the dead fiend had at one time been a surgeon does not match Druitt, but may have been a deliberate fabrication, or an honest mistake as he knew Major Griffiths was writing about the same person: eg. Druitt must have been a doctor before he became a barrister?

This unheralded, extraordinary source also explains Macnaghten's machinations about the Druitt tale, and his risky need to disseminate a semi-fictional version of it to the public: for it had appeared briefly, obliquely, and menacingly in 1891 and was scheduled to do so again on the tenth anniversary of the killer's demise!

I argue that Macnaghten, via Griffiths and then Sims -- who specifically denoucnes the Vicar -- got in first, with his Yard-friendly version.

[Jonathan H]

To Roy

Yes.

In the official version, Macnaghten wrote that the family 'believed' which is arguably stronger than 'suspected'.

[Phil Carter]

The marginalia is not "worthless". The only way it would be worthless is if it was not written by Swanson and was written with the intention of deceiving modern commentators. But it wasn't. It is authentic.

If it was written by Swanson then it has value. Even if he wrote it knowing it to be untrue and with the intention of deceiving somebody - which in itself seems doubtful given that there is no reason to suppose that he thought his annotations would be read by anyone - it would raise all sorts of questions and would have considerable value.

If Swanson wrote the marginalia in good faith then it presumably reflects what he accepted and believed, either because he implicitly trusted his source, possibly verified, and perhaps was personally involved in organising and actually present. Even if what he wrote was wildly wrong, if he believed it then it makes the marginalia valuable.

You think the marginalia story is outweighed by other sources and that the marginalia is worthless as a consequence, but that is what makes the marginalia such a fascinating and important and valuable document - not correct, you will please note. It is because Anderson and Swanson are so two senior and informed sources flying in the face of received opinion that makes the marginalia valuable and important.

Anyway, you don't dismiss a source as "worthless" just because you find the story it tells awkward. It ain't the done thing.

Hello Paul,

Without engaging in endless verbal jousting over the Seaside Home comment, for which neither of us will move from our interpretations it seems, and for some would only lead to a never ending tiresome debate, I would like to politely comment on the following...and leave it at that. I hope that is acceptable.

My position is not to prove nor disprove anything, but to try to show doubt and reasonable doubt of the matter. This I believe I have done in many ways, you have the right to believe otherwise, as have you in answering. I am not expecting, nor I am trying, to solve anything. It is for others to weigh up what they see, read and think, and for them to decide.

In stating my posiition, you will note that at no time have I used personal comment directed at your style of reasoning, have not offered my opinion of your manner of debate, and have not questioned at any time what I term your degree of common sense is nor logic, nor have I questioned your experience, in any way. For some, in debate, that "just ain't done" either. That is my view. Other individuals decide for themselves on the matter, and not for me to tell them what is "done" and isn't.

Neither have I engaged on the Swanson personality, family beliefs nor actions. I have not entered into questioning any failing memory or suchlike.

If I deem the term "worthless" to be appropriate, so be it. If you do not like it, or are offended by it, the offence is noted and the dislike noted, and of course, the reply is that any unintentional offence is not personal. If you deem the term inappropriate, then so be it. On that basis I accept your thoughts on the matter as of a contrary opinion to my own. If you have a problem with my terminology, I cannot force you to approve of it, and would not even suggest it either.

However, telling me that I cannot use the term "worthless" is not, I view, your call. You can offer your opinion about the terminology, but I will continue to use whatever words I deem appropriate. What I judge to be of little or no value, is MY concern. Fernando Torres cost Chelsea £50million. Many many football lovers would say he is "useless". You hear that in everyday speech often. Clearly, the man is not "useless", in the general sense, as he is, in fact, a highly gifted football player having reached the pinnacle of his art through winning the greatest prize for any footballer o this planet. He is a World Cup winner. But he is still deemd "useless" in context of what people think of him. That is their right. As is mine. You have the right to disagree with the terminology, but cannot tell me I cannot use it, based on your interpretation of how a person uses the English Language. We live with what people deem to be worthless, useless and any other term they wish to use about something every day, and as long as it doesn't affect me personally, so what? The world isn't going to fall apart. Let them say it if they wish to. I might not agree, but...it doesn't matter whether I do or I don't. I have no need to force my opinion, but reserve the right to give it. There is a difference.

I deem the marginalia worthless on the basis that after careful thought, and weighing up all the pro's and cons, the problems it leads to are too many to accept it as correct in relation to other comments of supposedly equal footing. If Swanson wrote this out of his own beliefs, (and that bas also been questioned, for it CAN be that he is expanding upon Anderson's own writings and detailing Anderson's thoughts on the matter) we do not know- then he has been plainly contradictory to earlier comment. He is contradicting many others and their comments. Including himself. I have no need to list them again.

I do not "dimiss" this marginalia because it is "awkward". Those are your words and a wrong interpretation of my thoughts on the matter. I "dismiss", (your terminology), because I find it to be far too contradictory and with far too much weight put on to Swanson's annotations. The comments from other policemen, equally involved in the case, do, in my, and clearly other people's opinions, outweigh Swanson's. Perhaps for differing reasons, like Jonathan's for example.

I will not list and go through all of these counter comments from all the other policemen. We all know them. Or they can be looked up elsewhere. I cannot see the point in debating just to win the debate, and have had no intention of "winning" any debate either. I take part and offer things up for perusal. Nothing more. That includes my personal final opinion on the matter, whether you or others deem the terminology appropriate or not. That is all I am doing.

This thread is about the Seaside Home. I asked if you can provide any additional indication that this place was used for any further identifications from this era. For me, and perhaps others, this legitimate question is important. For if there be indications that this place was used on other occasions for such purposes, then the weight of belief in the position Swanson presents would be infinitely stronger. However you could not, and only countered that I need to prove that it wasn't used for such police work.
You have the right to ask, yet the fact that neither can prove or disprove adds no weight to Swanson's pencilled annotation being correct.
It was the Swanson family that originally presented this book to the world claiming it to be as the answer to the "Who was Jack the Ripper problem". The family claimed that Cheif Inspector Donald Swanson knew the name, and wrote it down in Anderson's book. Lady Aberconway made a similar type of presentation albeit through Dan Farson and Tom Cullen, that her father knew the name as well. And how strange, he came to other conclusions. He dismissed "Kosminski" outright.

Now, as Macnaghten did this seemingly in an official capacity, do we take HIS words to be of greater value than Swanson's pencilled notes made in a margin and on the end paper of another person's life biography? That is for others to judge.

Therefore when assessing Swanson's pencilled annotations , one has to see if they contain known fact. In the case of the Seaside Home, 60 odd miles from London, it has no known use for interrogation purposes, and is, as far as I am aware, only ever been used for rest, recuperation and holidaying for serving, sick, retired and ex-policemen. Until evidence is produced to the contrary, then this is what I quite reasonably take to be the sole use of the Seaside Home. As this is the only known use for the Seaside Home, it is now up to researchers/others to show that this is logical interpretation of the Seaside Home is incorrect, and that it was indeed used for interrogation purposes.
This has not been done to date as far as I am aware. I stand corrected if this has been done.

Swanson's one example, is not enough, as Macnaghten's example of who was more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, Druitt, is, for me, not enough either.
Swanson COULD have written the old pier at Brighton, he COULD have written The Olde Cream Tea shop in Tintagel. He COULD have written the police station in Kingston Upon Thames. Without us knowing that ANY place was used for interrogation purposes as well as the KNOWN purposes, the place named by Swanson, which is infact, not certain as to being the one presumed to be the Policeman's Home anyway, must be considered for what it is. A retirement, rest and holiday home for policemen of the Metroploitan Police Force. If indeed this place is the place he meant. We cannot assume it to be so, beecause it may or may not be more likely than any other Seaside Home else.

On another thread, Stewart Evans stated that upon visiting Mr.Swanson to see and photograph the marginalia, he was told upon arrival "my grandfather knew who it was".. or words to that effect. Lady Aberconway may well have said the same thing to Dan Farson about Melville Macnaghten (we are not told). If so, thenone of them must be wrong. Littlechild said Tumblety. Reid said no known person was known to have been the Ripper and denounced all Polish Jew theories, as did Abberline who added an idea of his own. Other policemen have made comments too in their books. Far too much contrary opinion against Swanson's "Kosminski", no certainty of which particular Seaside Home was meant when mentioned, no known use for identification of any said Seaside Home, and all the additional problems connected with the rest of the annotations with much else are enough for me to "dismiss" this particular offering.


I will now retire from the debate happy with my conclusions and views pertaining to this subject. Others can believe what they wish to..your good self included.


kind wishes

Phil

[Monty]

*head bows, spotlight fades, curtains drop, waits for audience applause....not a sausage......exit stage left.

Monty