Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[harry]

Fisherman,
I did not question whether there was a coat over the window when Bower looked in.Only when it was put there.

As to who made the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis's sighting,it may have been me.Do not forget that Hutchinson was first mooted as a suspect on these boards.No books suggesting him had then been written.This was many years ago.

[Wickerman]

But Hutchinson - who you purport to believe - allegedly scrutinized him precisely because he appeared "out of place". Nobody suggested he was "middle class", however.

The only reference we know of along those lines was this.

"Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."

That Kelly did not normally associate with those above her own class? That say's nothing about him being out of place in the area, just not normally seen by Hutch in her company.

[Ben]

“If so, would you please - and as usual - mind YOUR business, and let me mind mine the way I see fit to?”

Sounds like a deal, Fisherman, but it just means you lose your entitlement to moan at me the next time I feel like commenting on what you’ve posted to others. For instance, I might have to voice my distain the next time you dredge up the “date confusion” hypothesis, irrespective the intended recipient of your post.

“I can help out with the Swedish. But why are you trying to use it ...?”

Maybe in the hope that the message would sink in rather better that way. Where did I go wrong, by the way? I know that the extra “e” of “nonsens” was superfluous, but I couldn’t do much about that, as Microsoft Word kept auto-correcting it! What have I said, precisely?

I don’t know why you’ve suddenly become obsessed with Swanson, but I can assure you that he never expressed any criticism of Sarah Lewis’ evidence. You can “laugh” at Lewis’ testimony all you want, but you’re dreaming if you imagine that Swanson ever took a dim view of Lewis’ evidence, and that goes for every other contemporary police or press official who assessed her evidence. Lewis is bashed by you alone.

“There are two testimonies speaking of a man outside - roughly - Millerīs Court at 2.30. That connects the witnesses in this respect.”

Well then…don’t waste your own presumably precious time trying to create some mythical schism between Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson, especially if you acknowledge the “connection”.

“Not at all. But I seem to notice that we interpret thing differently, i e you opt for the incredible and I for the credible. Thatīs why youīve got a serial killer sitting in you lap, whereas I have a benevolent, everyday witness.”

I’m not particularly bothered as to which particular brand of delusion you choose to embrace, but to depict me as the bad guy in the equation for having a “serial killer sitting in (my) lap” makes very little sense as a criticism considering that this entire message board is dedicated to the discussion of a serial killer. “Benevolent everyday witnesses” don’t tend to fanny up the date of a particularly memorable date and a particularly memorable encounter by a full 24 hours, incidentally.

“You see, Ben, Abberline would have had double reasons for asking - he would A/ be able to exactly pinpoint where Hutch was.”

But within reason, Fisherman. Surely you’re able to appreciate this. No sane individual would ever waste his time distinguishing between the "eastern" and "western" corner of the Miller’s Court entrance, as though the distinction counted for anything, especially when the two were separated by a gap of four feet. Nor would any sane police officer expect anyone to be as specific as that – to what possible end, anyway? “Mr. Hutchinson, please specify which corner you were stationed at. We wouldn’t want to make the grave mistake of confusing you with another potential loiterer who was stationed four feet to your left/right.”

It is “spy-framkallande smuts” (is that right?) to suggest that Abberline expected such specificity of any of his witnesses, as you would no doubt appreciate from your vast knowledge of East End geography. It is obvious that Abberline settled for Hutchinson’s description as somewhere in front of the Miller’s Court entrance that night. Anywhere more specific than that takes us out of rational discussion and into fantasy land, since no policeman worth his skin would accept that a witness rooted his feet to one particular spot without moving about a bit.

“And you can bet your rosy behind that Abberline DID ask about it!”

I’ll see your “rosy behind” and raise you all my worldly possessions that Abberline did not quiz Hutchinson on the circumstances of his first ever meeting with Kelly. The only thing that is “futile and childish” is pronouncing with no evidence, as you are doing. Never before has the expression “Piss or get off the pot” assumed so much of a resonance. Any detail of significance that was not included in the body of the statement was later included in Abberline’s report, and details of Hutchinson’s first ever meeting with Kelly is absent for some not-so-amazing reason.

“Unlike Packer, Lewis had not contradicted herself BEFORE the inquest. See the difference? No? Didnīt think you would ...”

No. Packer had contradicted himself before the inquest, in actual fact, and his evidence was discredited, unlike Lewis’.

“Yawn. Have you not yet grasped that it is the coloration of the man that matters, not what his passport said...?”

But the colouration didn’t suggest a “southern foreigner”. Simple as.

[Ben]

Very possibly because he did not look so out of place as some choose to think

But Hutchinson - who you purport to believe - allegedly scrutinized him precisely because he appeared "out of place". Nobody suggested he was "middle class", however.

[Garry Wroe]

Who was the first person to make the connection between Sara Lewis's loitering man and Hutch being one and the same?

I honestly have no idea, Abby. Despite years of trawling the various archives, I never found anything to suggest that the connection was made either by the press or police at the time of the murders. I even wondered (and sometimes still do) if the man seen by Sarah Lewis might have been the individual for whom Elizabeth Prater waited shortly before she retired to bed. This would certainly explain the man's preoccupation with the court. Unfortunately, such was the nebulous nature of Mrs Prater's account that it is impossible to determine whether she had arranged to meet a specific individual at a specific time and place, or was merely touting for business in the hope of pulling in any old punter. All things considered, however, I think it infinitely more plausible that the man sighted by Sarah Lewis was George Hutchinson - especially since the contemporaneous sketch of Hutchinson bears an uncanny resemblance to the description of Sarah's loiterer.

[Wickerman]

And yet none of these people who enlivened the backstreets noticed the extremely conspicuous Astrakhan man, Jon? Fascinating...

Very possibly because he did not look so out of place as some choose to think.
Just another middle-class tosser looking for a cheap thrill.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Just address the posts that are directed to you in the future, if you'd be so kind."

Did you not say earlier that you have never started a Hutchinson thread?

Would that not mean that all the times you enter a discussion on the topic, you do so by not addressing a post put to you?

If so, would you please - and as usual - mind YOUR business, and let me mind mine the way I see fit to?

"I regard that as motbjudande irriterande nonsense. "

I can help out with the Swedish. But why are you trying to use it ...?

"I wouldn’t say that. It’s very implausible, however, to argue that two individuals stood at the same location at the same ungodly hour on two consecutive nights, both “watching and waiting for some to come out” of Miller’s Court. "

Take Swansons professional advice, and you may forget about the "problem".

"To describe Lewis’ evidence as “laughable” is heartless"

Donīt blame me - blame Swanson and everybody else in his line of profession who are taught at the academy not to pay much attention to testimony like this.

"There is no evidence that the “legal authorities” placed ANY doubt on Lewis’ testimony at ANY stage."

And there is no evidence that Hutchinson was asked if he was a client of Kellys.

Like I said, donīt play this game, Ben.

"So you acknowledge that there is a “connection”, now?"

Connection, correlation - call it what you want. There are two testimonies speaking of a man outside - roughly - Millerīs Court at 2.30. That connects the witnesses in this respect. Nuffin more, though, Iīm afraid ...

"You are accusing me of lying, therefore, when I opine that the Dew theory does NOT stand up. Report me to the administrators if you want, but I’ll do precisely the same to you."

You are welcome. But keep in mind that these guys can read!

"Are you seriously suggesting that in the absence of proof, we cannot establish from the evidence that which is probable and that which is improbable?"

Not at all. But I seem to notice that we interpret thing differently, i e you opt for the incredible and I for the credible. Thatīs why youīve got a serial killer sitting in you lap, whereas I have a benevolent, everyday witness.

"Not to the catastrophically silly extremes that you’re envisaging."

No? Then go find out - the world is full of investigating policemen. There are policemen and former policemen around on the threads, even, and they may be able to tell you whether they disregard questions of positioning or if they pay full attention to them.
You see, Ben, Abberline would have had double reasons for asking - he would A/ be able to exactly pinpoint where Hutch was. This would enable him to tell Hutch apart from other people who may have been around, perhaps witnessed about in other testimonies. And Abberline would not have settled for any justaboutish stuff if he could avoid it. Plus B/ He would not ask just once. He would come back, time and time again, to Hutchinsons story, in order to see if it panned out IN ALL DETAILS every time. The devil is in the detail, as you will appreciate.
This is exactly how police work is carried out today, and it would not have differed back then.

But, like I said, donīt take my word for it! Go find out! Who knows, maybe you can call me things afterwards.

Or not.

"I think Abberline asked him how long he had known Kelly, because we have the answer on record."

But that was not what I said, was it - What I said was that we DONīT have on record any question about when and in what context the two met the first time. And you can bet your rosy behind that Abberline DID ask about it! Just as he asked about whether Hutch was a customer of hers. And just as he asked about EXACTLY where Hutchinson stood during his vigil. Claiming that the nonexisting evidence of this in some manner would point to Abberline missing out on all of this is futile and childish.

"Unlike Packer, Lewis wasn’t discredited in advance of the inquest."

And unlike Packer, Lewis had not contradicted herself BEFORE the inquest. See the difference? No? Didnīt think you would ...

"Hutchinson never specified a “southern foreigner”, nor does the description depict anyone as such. If anything, the description is suggestive of a polish or Russian Dew, which doesn’t qualify as “southern” on my map."

Yawn. Have you not yet grasped that it is the coloration of the man that matters, not what his passport said...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Just address the posts that are directed to you in the future, if you'd be so kind. Life’s too short – no really, think about it, it is – for writing fussy indignant posts to every single comment anyone ever makes that interferes with your world view. People just skim through them. Sounds a lot like you’re “interfering with my posts to others”, which is something you cautioned me “never!” to do.

“No, I think that George Hutchinson was an innocent man, very willing to help the police”

And I regard that as motbjudande irriterande nonsense. "Innocent man" I simply disagree with, but "very willing"? Nah. People who are “very willing to help the police” don’t sit on their evidence for three days, allowing the trail of a potential murderer to grow cold, and only come forward when they realise that they had been seen at a crime scene, which is almost certainly what happened in Hutchinson’s case, short of outlandish coincidence. There is no evidence whatsoever for any “shame” on Hutchinson’s part that he did not “take any actions” as far as the Astrakhan man was concerned. As Garry has already noted, Hutchinson spoke of no suspicions that the man was the murderer, or that he would harm anyone. The idea that he harboured such suspicions is a creation of your own, completely contradicting Hutchinson’s own claims (which you purport to believe); spurred on, no doubt, by a misguided intention of making the account appear more plausible.

“Some other man was outside Crossinghams the following night. Utterly inconceivable. Would never happen, not in a million years.”

I wouldn’t say that. It’s very implausible, however, to argue that two individuals stood at the same location at the same ungodly hour on two consecutive nights, both “watching and waiting for some to come out” of Miller’s Court. Not unless it was some weird tradition unique to Dorset Street.

As for Lewis, it seems as though you're determined to engage in yet more endless repetition, so naturally I'll take your lead and play along with that pointless exercise. Please don’t suppose for one moment that I don’t see your problem. You wish to play down the obvious and inescapable reality Hutchinson was Lewis' man because it pinpoints him at that location on the night of Kelly’s murder, and thus militates very against your very recently conceived and highly controversial opinion that Hutchinson confused the day. As it stands, though, I’m not in the least bit surprised that you’re struggling so hard to find any support for your attempt to demolish Lewis whilst depicting Hutchinson as a “pillar of society”. It just looks ridiculous to argue that the addition of three extremely mundane non-specific details in Lewis’ account are somehow problematic, whereas the embellishments, contradictions and unutterably implausible details in Hutchinson’s thoroughly discredited three-day late story are fine and dandy.

Try and find another way “in”, I would, if your intention is to convince your intended audience of the imagined validity of Walter’s different day, because the Lewis angle just isn’t working. Clearly nobody has any problem with the minor discrepancies between her police statement and inquest evidence. Clearly nobody has any problem with her impression of the man’s interest in the court. Clearly, nobody considers a black hat a “detailed description”, and so on. If anything, an earlier witness statement is likely to be less reliable, especially if s/he was an unwitting or unwilling participant in an extremely traumatic affair such as Lewis would have been in the morning of 9th November, after a harrowing discovery and a sleepless night. Again, nobody rejected Lewis’ testimony, then or now, nor has anyone asserted – until you showed up – that her police statement invalidates her inquest testimony.

To describe Lewis’ evidence as “laughable” is heartless, defiling shabby nonsense. She did not provide an “estimation of height and body structure”. She stated “not tall, but stout”. Hardly very detailed. She did not mention hat "fashions" either, but rather a common type of headgear and the most common colour for hats and coats around: black.

“Albeit we know that changed testimony like this was and is regarded by the legal authorities as something that serves better as a reason for a hearty laugh than as evidence”

There is no evidence that the “legal authorities” placed ANY doubt on Lewis’ testimony at ANY stage.

“They had fewer people related to by the inquest witnesses and Hutch in Dorset Street at that time, than they had fingers on their hands. And they would easily have made the connection.”

So you acknowledge that there is a “connection”, now?

Gosh, your reasoning really is disturbingly inconsistent and toppy-turvy here. One minute you declare that there is no coincidence at all, and the next minute you assert that the coincidence is so obvious that the police must have registered it!

As for accusations of lying, you did precisely that in a post to me of yesterday:

“Dewīs statement has been there for everybody to see over the years. What I did was to couple it with a number of other parameters, and test how it held up. And it held up admirably, although YOU wonīt admit that. But that was to be expected - in both cases”

You are accusing me of lying, therefore, when I opine that the Dew theory does NOT stand up. Report me to the administrators if you want, but I’ll do precisely the same to you. Put me on “ignore” if you’ve got that much of a problem. I wasn’t even aware that anyone seriously believed the “mystery PC” alleged by Hutchinson. I thought this was yet another example of people playing Devil’s Advocate, i.e. the “it isn’t proven that he lied about it” school of thought. Hence, I felt quite “safe” in saying what I did about that particular aspect of Hutchinson’s press testimony, as I felt reasonably secure in the assumption that nobody actually believed it to be true and accurate.

“You just "feel" that the whole suggestion of a trivially mistaken day is utterly ridiculous?”

Not this irritating fallacy again.

Are you seriously suggesting that in the absence of proof, we cannot establish from the evidence that which is probable and that which is improbable? I cannot prove that Sir William Gull was not the ripper, but I feel immensely secure in my dismissal of the theory as ridiculous and outlandish. Just so with the suggestion that the Lewis-Hutchinson connection amounts to extraordinary random coincidence, or that Hutchinson "mistook" the day.

“Iīm afraid that your suggestion that they would not give a damn is a lot sillier. The police are always interested in detailing”

Not to the catastrophically silly extremes that you’re envisaging. I’m still not sure if you were really serious last night about attempting to differentiate the “eastern” and “western” corners (separated by about five feet), and then expecting the sane to invest it with any significance at all.

“There is no evidence that he asked him about how he first met Kelly.

Do you think that he did?”

I think Abberline asked him how long he had known Kelly, because we have the answer on record.

“... and Lewis provided a whole alleged description of the man she saw, which was wholly absent from her initial account”

Which was trivial in the extreme because it consisted of an extreme vague description. Unlike Packer, Lewis wasn’t discredited in advance of the inquest.

“I said that once you have established the type, you only need a fraction of a second to confirm that the eyelashes looked the way they invariably do on southern foreigners of this coloration.”

But Hutchinson never specified a “southern foreigner”, nor does the description depict anyone as such. If anything, the description is suggestive of a polish or Russian Dew, which doesn’t qualify as “southern” on my map.

Again, it might be an idea if you adhered to your previous suggestion and conducted some further research into your "date confusion" idea. Repeating it again and again on unrelated threads isn't the way to go.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"testimony is to be believed as far as it is what the witness saw/experienced."

I would just like to add one thing here, and that relates to Dewīs suggestion of a mistaken day. You speak of what the witness saw/ experienced, and I donīt know how to fit a date in here. You can of course "see" that it is a certain date (for instance, if a place is only open on tuesdays, and if that place was witnessed to be open, then the witness has "seen" that it WAS Tuesday). Likewise, you may experience such a thing - if you are repeatedly told by different people that it is Tuesday, then you experience that this is true.

We can of course not tell how this all relates to Hutchinson. We donīt know if he "saw" or "experienced" that it was Friday morning - he may just as well have counted backwards - and counted wrong. There is plenty of evidence that this happens - I earlier qouted a highranking legal officer that mentioned that this was a very common mistake, made by many, many witnesses.

I have also pointed to a number of instances that may easily be interpreted as a useful pointer to Hutch having made this exact mistake - the omitted sighting of Lewis being a very obvious such. We also have a detective who worked the case suggesting that this was what happened. Instead of embracing the "obvious" thing that Hutch and Lewisīloiterer were one and the same, he instead chooses a solution that denies this connection. On what grounds, we donīt know, but we DO know that Dew must be regarded as a very valuable witness, coming from the police force as he did.


Considering these parameters, I think it is perfectly legal - and wise - to pursue this line. It does not mean, however, that I think that it is enough to dismiss Hutchinsonīs proposal of having been in place in Dorset Street on Friday morning. There is no clear and unambiguous evidence to support such a thing. But there is a dire need to further research the missed day theory, and so far, I have not found one single thing - but for Hutchinsonīs testimony - that contradicts it factually. On the contrary.

I hope this will do as an indication of the course I am presently following in this issue, Monty. And I hope you donīt find it in any way illegal or unwise to do so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"I am far from wise, Im just merely an arrogant man who looks down on you all."

You canīt. Iīm taller than you are

... but I still hear you from up here. AND I listen!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Lechmere, Fisherman,

It is rare that all witness statements verify exactly with the true course of events witnessed by another. There will be discrepancies and, in fact, it’s the matching pieces which draw the attention.

The PC didn’t notice him, as far as we know. Is that a discrepancy? No. As we do not know if the PC was there at that crucial 45 min slot and confirmed Hutchinson was not there on what would have been at least 2 sweeps down Dorset Street, many more. However, I digress.

I am stating that all testimony is to believed unless reasonable contradicting expert evidence (like the medical report in Maxwells case) is provided. Unless that evidence is forthcoming then testimony is to be believed as far as it is what the witness saw/experienced.

And I am far from wise, Im just merely an arrogant man who looks down on you all.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I cannot "prove" you wrong, and have always acknowledged as much. "

Well then! Is that to say that all we are left with here is your distaste for my suggestion? And that this distaste is not grounded in any proof, whatsoever, that I cannot be correct? Yes? You just "feel" that the whole suggestion of a trivially mistaken day is utterly ridiculous? Whereas you feel that the allegations - unproven in every instance, not acknowledged by the contemporary police and heavily criticized by most researchers of the case - that Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper, are realistic and called for?

Okay.

"Surely – surely - you didn’t just suggest that it would be “credible” for the police would quibble over the eastern and western corners of the Miller’s Court entrance?"

Iīm afraid that your suggestion that they would not give a damn is a lot sillier. The police are always interested in detailing, as much as they can, the movements of people relating to murder cases. If you have something - anything - to disprove this, instead showing us that they could not care less about such things, then please be as good as to show something for it.

"there is no evidence that Abberline or any one else grilled Hutchinson on his specific location"

There is no evidence that he asked him about how he first met Kelly.

Do you think that he did?

Donīt flaunt things like these, Ben. It points only to grave ignorance on your behalf.

"I wouldn’t compare Packer to Lewis, by the way, if that’s the latest plan. Packer provided a whole alleged encounter at his stall with the victim and a suspect, which was wholly absent from his initial account."

... and Lewis provided a whole alleged description of the man she saw, which was wholly absent from her initial account.

Yeah, different thing.

Not.

" I don’t accept your point that the colour of his eyelashes would only have been assumed on the basis of other features. "

But that was not what I said, was it? I said that once you have established the type, you only need a fraction of a second to confirm that the eyelashes looked the way they invariably do on southern foreigners of this coloration.

And you know, even people from those countries can go pale. That does not alter the coloration of their skin, though.

"Your point, however, is lost on me. "

Good. Then I will be spot on again.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"How do you know when the coat was put over the window?"

Because Bowyer had to shove it to the side the morning after before he could peak into the room.

Anything more I can help you out with, Harry?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The moment anyone starts claiming that Hutchinson harboured suspicions that the man might have been the murderer, they are changing Hutchinson’s actual words in a clearly misguided attempt to make the account appear more plausible."

Iīve seen worse offenses in that department, I have to say And I donīt remember promising to accept that Hutchinsonīs words must be regarded as gospel in every instance. Have I done so?

No, I think that George Hutchinson was an innocent man, very willing to help the police, but perhaps a bit ashamed that he did not take any actions on the night he saw astrakhan man. Even if he did not spell that out to Abberline, he would have had scores of predecessors in this respect. So Iīm afraid I canīt let you dictate my course in this respect either, Ben. A shame, I know, but there you are.

" There can be very little doubt that Lewis was the man seen by Hutchinson – the coincidence is too striking for it to be credibly argued otherwise."

And this is how the incredible parameters would look:

1. Hutchinson mistook that day - totally incredible. People never do, especially not Hutchinson.
2. Some other man was outside Crossinghams the following night. Utterly inconceivable. Would never happen, not in a million years. There are never men standing outside dosshouses, and opposite places where prostitutes are to be found. These are places that men generally avoid.
3. A person that first says to the police that she cannot say anything about a man she has noticed, only to later, at an inquest, suddenly claim that she could easily tell what kind of hat fashion that man preferred, together with an estimation of height and body structure, throwing in the color of his clothing, and adding his exact behaviour, is naturally such a good witness (in the second instance, not the first) that her testimony must be accepted as being correct. Albeit we know that changed testimony like this was and is regarded by the legal authorities as something that serves better as a reason for a hearty laugh than as evidence, whenever fate offers us a chance to cling onto such a laughable piece of testimony since it seemingly bolsters our preferred view, then letīs do so. On top of that, letīs claim that there is a correlation between the policeīs calling that witness to the inquest and her testimony being endorsed as truthful by that same police - in spite of the very obvious fact that she was judged by the police and called to the inquest on basis of ANOTHER testimony - meaning, of course - that the testimony she offered at the inquest is a testimony about which we do not know what the police felt. We can only draw conclusions from what people working the case, like Swanson, generally thought about such behaviour and the ensuing value of such "evidence".

These are the three pillars that keep the argument that the two men almost certainly must have been one and the same erect. Or floating. Or keeping itīs nose over the surface.

Or drowning, more likely.

"It is, of course, bogus nonsense for anyone to argue that the similarity was registered by both press and police, investigated, and then magically dismissed for some lost-to-history reason and still failed to become public knowledge."

When it comes to talking bogus you ARE the authority out here, Ben. I admit that. But you need to get a grip if you think that the police was totally incompetent. They had fewer people related to by the inquest witnesses and Hutch in Dorset Street at that time, than they had fingers on their hands. And they would easily have made the connection.

"What often emerges from a determination to cast Hutchinson in the role of an honest witness is that one implausible suggestion is piled upon another to make the thing work. "

... wheras the ones who casts Hutch in the killerīs role need not go to any such lenghts at all ...

Jesus, I will have to dry my eyes after that one - it canīt be healthy to laugh that hard!

"the “lying” option appears simple and logical by comparison."

HAHAHAHAAA!! Please, Ben, no more ...Iīm figthing for some air here ...

"an irritating minority are so terrified that an acknowledgement that he lied just might fuel suspicions that he was the murderer, that all these nonsensical “maybes” are trotted out as substitutes."

WHAT??? I would be extremely HAPPY if anybody can prove the identity of the killer, no matter if it was Hutchinson, Disraeli, Michael Schumacher, Winnie the Pooh or a distant relative of Adolf Hitler. I have no connections to or obligations towards anybody involved in the case, and so I donīt care who was the killer. But I would like to see him revealed, for justiceīs sake, and for the sake of the ones who fell prey to him. If it was George Hutchinson, then may he burn in hell.

No, Ben, you are mistaken once more. The reason I defend Hutchinson is because I am equally convinced that nobody should be subjected to such allegations as the ones you present on such meagre grounds. It is not Hutchinson that is the villain here - it is you.

" I frankly distrust the sincerity of the people who purport to believe this obvious nonsense"

That is not something you should tell only to Abby. You should go straight to the administrators and tell them that you are of the meaning that some of the seasoned posters out here, including myself, Wickerman, Lechmere, the Good Michael and Stewart Evans, are lying.
It is a serious allegation, and needs to be reported, so if you are not ready to do it yourself, you may wish for me to help you out?

If you should change your mind, though, I think you need to tell us about it. I very much dislike when people claim I am not being honest. Canīt tell about the rest I listed, though. You are going to have sort this out with them.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
How do you know when the coat was put over the window?Naughty you,making assumptions,after lecturing everyone else not to do so,without evidence.