The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Paul and Cross were at the body together.They were together when meeting Mizen.Fact.Paul may have moved off before Cross,but he would have had to be joined by Cross before reaching Mizen.Fact. No semantics,no twisting of information given.No lies.It w as a journey of about 250 paces taking roughly 125 seconds.Not much leeway there for Cross to have delayed before moving off,if he were to catch up to Paul.

No? Well then, HOW much leeway? Enough for Paul to dissapear into the darkness, giving Lechmere the opportunity to add two quick cuts to the neck? It would have taken all of five seconds or so.

If, Harry, Lechmere lingered at the murder site after having sent Paul off, then it can never be excluded that he had time enough to cut the neck at that stage.

Now, I dont think that you should worry all that much abut the proposition, since the much more credible thing is that both men walked off together, as quoted ad verbatim in the press.

I find it a bit amusing (and you must excuse me for that) that you now have manouvred yourself into a situation where you want Paul to have left first, and Lechmere afterwards - but absolutely NOT as long afterwards so as to have had the time to cut the neck.

Just how are you going to pull that off, Harry?

[harry]

Paul and Cross were at the body together.They were together when meeting Mizen.Fact.Paul may have moved off before Cross,but he would have had to be joined by Cross before reaching Mizen.Fact. No semantics,no twisting of information given.No lies.It w as a journey of about 250 paces taking roughly 125 seconds.Not much leeway there for Cross to have delayed before moving off,if he were to catch up to Paul.

[drstrange169]

Fish:
"Yawn. We even have the Swanson report accepting 3.45 as the time when the body was found."


As researchers it's important that we look at all the facts not just select what we like and pretend the rest doesn't exist. You know, because I've pointed it out to you before, that Swanson's reports contained errors.
Knowing that, an unbiased researcher looks for further evidence rather then eagarly jumping on something you like. Was Swanson's "3:45" simply another of his mistakes? There are other police files that mention the timings, by cross-checking those we can get an answer.

In a joint report dated 7th Sept. Helson and Keating also mentioned the body being found at 3:45. The authors noted that their report was a continuation of Spratling's original report,31st Aug. which had Neil discovering the body at 3:45. In a summation at the end they also put the body being found at 3:45. Unfortunately they do not say who by, so we don't know if they were referring to Cross and Paul or Neil.

Good research dictates we look further.

On 19th Sept. Abberline, the man actually in charge of the operation on the ground, wrote the most detailed report that has survived. In it he details who found the body and when,
" ...about 3:40. am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, ... noticed a woman lying on her back..."

Fact: Xmere said he left Doveton Street at 3:30
Fact: The journey to the body, depending on his speed, was about 7 to 8 mins.
Fact: The journey from the body to Hanbury Street is about 2 and a half to 3 and a half mins.
Fact: About 3 and half mins is not an unreasonable time for Xmere to wait for Paul and examine the body.
Fact: The journey from Hanbury Street to Broad Street was about 21 mins at a slow walk. Xmere could have done comfortably in 15 mins if he hurried.

(The walks were physically timed by fellow lister David Orsam)

Fact: Thain said he was in Brady Street at 3:45. If Paul was entering Buck's row at that time, Thain should have seen him.
Fact: Neil said he found the body at 3:45.
Fact: He categorically stated that there were NOT two men in the street at the time.
Fact: Mizen said he met Xmere and Paul at 3:45.

Of course Mizen could be either lying or an incompetent witness, but where would that leave your so called Mizen scam?

It ain't rocket science.



Fish again:
"Hereīs Wynne Baxter, from his summing up after the inquest, late in September:
"The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

Baxter summed up based on the evidence he heard.

Fact: He heard Thain say he was in Brady street at 3:45.
Fact: He heard Neil say he found the body at 3:45.
Fact: He heard Mizen say he met Xmere and Paul a few hundred yards away at 3:45.
Fact: 3:37 or 3:40 is not "far away from 3:45".
Fact: Xmere nor Paul gave times at the inquest.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that Thain, Neil, Mizen and Xmere were the "so many independent data" that Baxter was referring to, because there was NO OTHER COMBINATIONS OF TIMES mentioned at the inquest.



"Covering the wounds:"

I noticed you backed away from you claim about the Ulster, sensible.



"Blood evidence:"

Just after the quote you pasted from Baxter he went on to comment on the blood,
"There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where the neck was lying."

The case against Lechmere relies, to a large extent on this kind of cherry-picking quotes where it suits and denying the same witnesses where to doesn't suit.

Not a good way to build a case.

[Fisherman]

Of course, in my last post,

"But not to worry, Harry - one of the other papers confirm this version."

should read:

"But not to worry, Harry - not one of the other papers confirms this version."

[Fisherman]

That statement does not say they walked together all the way.It allows that Paul started off alone,was followed and joined by Cross,and they met Mizen in each others company.

The papers make it clear that they walked together to bakers Row. It is even worded exactly like this in The Evening Standard;

"We left together and went up Baker's row, where we met a constable."

My main problem is this:

If Paul went off first, saying that he would find a PC and send him to Bucks Row, whereupon Lechmere let him walk off, before suddenly changing his mind and setting off in hot pursuit of Paul - why does neither man mention such a curious matter at the inquest?

In fact, if it had not been for the clear wordings in the papers, I suppose it could be argued that the reason that Paul did not see the inch-wide gap in the neck or any blood on the pavement could be that Lechmere told him to walk on ahead, only to use the opportunity to then cut the neck.

It would also explain how the blood could run for such a long time - it would take a minute or two off the bleeding time.

So you open up an interesting avenue of research. And we do have the Echo, where your suggestion finds a little corroboration. This is how things are described in there:

"He (Paul) then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him." When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left.

Did you touch the clothes? - No, Sir.

Did you notice any blood? - No, it was too dark. I did not notice that her throat was cut. I then left her, went up Baker's-row, turned to the right, and saw a constable. I said to a constable - the last witness - "There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead."

How about that, Harry? here - and nowhere else - it seems that we can fit your scenario in:
Lechmere tells the other man to go find a PC.
Lechmere says that HE left the woman, not THEY.
Lechmere implicates that as he reached the PC, the other man was there.

Now, Harry, given that Lechmere is the man who generates the most discussion as a suspect today, how do you think a thing like this looks?

Paul said he could not see that the neck was cut in the darkness. But he also says that nobody would iss the woman, as she was easy enough to see. SO could we have the explanation here why he dod not see the neck cuts - bacause Lechmere sent him on his way before cutting the neck?

And we have Jason Payne-James saying that a bleeding time of seven minutes seems not very credible. Maybe we are looking at five minutes only - which Payne-James said was more credible.

But not to worry, Harry - one of the other papers confirm this version. And Pauls wording at the inquest - the man walked with me to Montague street - seems to discard the sinister Echo article.

Of course, if we need even more confusion, we can always look at what Paul said at the inquest, according to the Morning Advertiser: "I sent the other man for a policeman."

At the end of the day, all we can do is to weigh the different sources against each other and opt for the more credible solution. And much as I would have loved for all the other papers to carry the Echo version, I do think that Lechmere would have been made the prime suspect long before today. It would be a behaviour that called for some serious attention, wouldnīt you say?

[Fisherman]

Paul says,"I w as obliged to be punctual at my work,so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.I saw one in Church Row". He does not say what Cross's reaction was.
Now Cross's reaction,and it is born out by evidence,was to follow and and arrive with Paul when they together met Mizen.
So where is the lie?
A t the Inquest."The man walked with me to Montague street and there we saw a policeman".
That statement does not say they walked together all the way.It allows that Paul started off alone,was followed and joined by Cross,and they met Mizen in each others company.
Wheres the lie?

Robert Paul says "I went on". He does not say "We went on". That VERY clearly implicates that he is talking of himself only.

You could perhaps argue that he for some reason did not feel up to mentioning that the other man walked with him. It would nevertheless be strange to leave the other man out, if he actually walked with you.

The key to understanding it all is how Paul also says that he "told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."

When did he say that? As they walked together? Was that when he told Lechmere that he aimed to send the first policeman he saw to Bucks Row? Or is he saying that he went off on his own after having told Lechmere that he would send a PC as quickly as he could?

Much of the criticism against the theory involves this sort of "clever" constructions. Semantic constructions are turned upside down and what is a very clear wording is given an "alternative interpretation" that demands extreme stretches.

In a sense, I find it sad. Then again, if it is all that can be thrown at the theory, who am I to complaint...

[harry]

Paul says,"I w as obliged to be punctual at my work,so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.I saw one in Church Row". He does not say what Cross's reaction was.
Now Cross's reaction,and it is born out by evidence,was to follow and and arrive with Paul when they together met Mizen.
So where is the lie?
A t the Inquest."The man walked with me to Montague street and there we saw a policeman".
That statement does not say they walked together all the way.It allows that Paul started off alone,was followed and joined by Cross,and they met Mizen in each others company.
Wheres the lie?

[Hercule Poirot]

With all due respect and not that I don't enjoy what Fish and Patrick are bringing up, but I wonder what they will be saying to each other in a year from now in terms of arguments pro/con. LOL

They're the Lechmere/JTR 'Odd couple' of the year. It really helps us get a better understanding of the case with an awesome ambiance.

[Patrick S]

You do that. Have a beautiful life, Patrick.

Is this a fake hang-up? It feels like a fake hang-up. Hello?

[Fisherman]

I took my time. I think my brain and fingers probably work a little faster than yours, though. So......I'll go take a nap.

You do that. Have a beautiful life, Patrick.

[Patrick S]

It is a bit like standing in a waterfall, this...

Patrick, you are now asking honesty from me, but saying that you donīt expect it. That is a bit rich.

You are given to making points like "That does not make Paul a pathological liar".

I have of course never said that Paul was a "pathological liar" at all. I have pointed to how the two stories he told are mutually gainsaying each other.

One - at least - therefore has to be wrong.

My take on things is that the Llloyds article was where Paul was economical with the truth. This is because Paul himself, Lechmere and Mizen all say that the carmen arrived in Bakers Row together.

So I make the call that Llloyds present a story that deviated from the truth, and I accept that Paul could have lied. There is also the possibility that the reporter spiced it up. We cannot know for sure which version applies.

What I do is to apply a critical and logical perspective, and I arrive at the same conclusion that I know almost every other soundly reasoning person will arrive at.

And what happens? I get you breathing down my neck, somehow leading on that I would have called Paul a pathological liar.

Ah! Again the red herring, the strawman! Look over here! Don't look over there! Once more, this is totall irrelevant and beside the point. Fine. Poor choice of words. Awful use of hyperbole. I abused both editorial and poetic license and you NEVER said Paul was a pathological liar.

I rarely see things like these. Not even out here - and that is saying a lot.

I'm ashamed. But, I see you're struggling......

After having suffered a complete breakdown in logic and courtesy, you now suddenly suggest that we return to a civil debate.

I'm fine if we don't. I can do either.

Actually, I never left it.

Hilarious. You are incapable of common courtesy...oh...unless you're complimenting someone who you perecieve - usually incorrectly - as agreeing with you.

I have criticised you heavily, but I have had extremely good reasons to do so. You have even threatened to provide a "barrage" when I want to discuss the Mizen scam. It borders on things that have eerie and unpleasant names.


Oh, dear. That sounds bad.

I will provide you with honest and clear anwers to the questions you ask. I do that not primarily to serve you - I donīt think you have earned the right to any such thing - but instead to serve the overall purpose of a sane discussion. If you take notice of what I say and chime into the debate on a less hostile note, you are very welcome. You can be extremely critical and quite courteous at the same time. You did make some initial efforts in the discipline at the outset of your return to the boards, so intermittently, it seems you have it in you.


I have it in me, without fail, at all times. Unless someone demonstrates that they don't deserve it. Alas, I even attempt to start fresh with the likes of you, Christer. I think you are oblivous to how you behave, let alone how you are perceived. I'm going to be charitable and conclude that the tone of what you say is lost as it's being written. Otherwise, I'd have to conclude that you're something else.....something that may be an eerie or unpleasant name.

Going forward, now that you should - in good conscience - include the 'Paul is lying' components in your "Mizen Scam" analyses, do you think that it becomes more believable, or less believeable?


It has always belonged to my thinking that Paul did not give an honest picture of what had happened in the press interview. I have commented on it before, on JTR Forums as well as here, and I have always said the same: The paper interview seems to point to a less than honest Paul.

Belonged to your thinking and found a few of your more than 10,000 posts and at JTR Forums. But, not part of your documentary?

If you feel it's now less believable, is that why you've excluded Paul up to now?

What would be less believeable? I donīt understand what you are asking here. And I have - as I just said - not changed my view on Paul!

You don't understand? Honestly...... You don't understand that when you continue to heap preconditions upon anything, much less the already fragile and unfortunately named 'Mizen Scam' the less credible it becomes. Just off the top of my head we must believe:

1. Cross approached Paul, touched him, and asked him to view the body because

1a. He knew Paul wasn't a cop
1b. He knew Paul would not detect the fatal injuries or any blood on his person
1c. He knew Paul wasn't someone he knew who might say, "Charlie! What the devil are you doing here?"
1d. He knew that Paul didn't know the deceased and would have a freakout right there on the spot calling the cops and all the neighbors to see him...and the woman he just sliced up
1f. He knew Paul would not pull and out whistle because he was a watchman on his way home from work and begin blowing it, calling the cops to the body.
1g. He knew Paul didn't have a match that he'd light and see the injuries Cross had just inflicted.....or any blood on Cross

I'll stop here...

2. He walked with Paul, seaching for a cop because he knew that

2a. Paul didn't secretly suspect him and would turn him in as soon soon as they found a cop
2b. When they found said cop he would not search him
2c. When they found said cop he would not ask him to return to the murder scene

Now we are required to believe

3. Cross knew this brilliant Mizen Scam would work because Paul would lie - for his own (police hating) reasons - corroborating the Mizen Scam -allowing Cross to get away with it all, as he planned, unsuspected, even as he testifies in front of Abberline, et al.


Because, in the end, what you're doing here is indicting Robert Paul, as well. Not as a killer, but as a liar, and an unwitting accomplice in allowing Cross to get away with murder. In all my exposure to your Lechmere conclusion and the "The Mizen Scam", up until yesterday, I'd not heard anything questionable with respect to Paul's comments or involvement. I'd never have heard them - I suspect - had I not posted Paul's quote.


You need to wade through four years of posted material, Patrick, and you will see what I think of Paul. Are you up to it?

Nope. I'm not. Because - again - what you THINK of Paul is irrelevant. What I think of Paul is irrelevant. What Paul WAS - in reality - is irrelevant. What's relevant is that you've erected another barrier to your own theory, another precondition to the already fantastical Mizen Scam, included another bad actor unconsciously conspiring to allow Cross the get away with murder.

You mentioned sooner or later all the coincidences add up, thus they can no longer be coincidences. Sooner or later all these variables and "if statements' cause this Mizen Scam to collapse completely (provided anyone bought it in the first place).

I think Lechmere himself used Paul in the role of unwitting accomplice so the role was not a new one to him. However, the lie Paul seemingly made himself guilty of was in a sense more of a vice than a lie: Pride.

He did? Because he could tell what Paul would to the police in the three mintues they spent together before they met Mizen? Wow. He had one of those really high-tech crystal balls. I wonder....did Lechmere practice mind control? I think he must have. I take it all back. You cracked it.


I think that Paul wanted to steal some limelight, and I donīt see it as very damning.

Exactly. I said this myself. That's the point. Oh. I forgot your established MO...look over here. This is a straw man. Here is a red herring. Let's discuss this....and forget all about something as silly as Robert Paul having to lie in order for the Mizen Scam to pass muster.

I think he had a lot oc accomplices in that context - My own take is that a number of the Ripper witnesses were anything but honest, wanting to get their fifteen minutes of fame.

All accept Mizen. 100% honest him. That's odd, nay?

By the way, having avoided to hear anything questionable about Paul does not rhyme with claiming any true knowledge of the Lechmere theory. It always worked from the notion that Paul was economic with the truth, disliked the police and would perhaps favour scorning them over telling things truthfully, and also being something of a wimp and wanting fame.

It has? So that's in your film then? Because I had to find the relevant Paul interview myself in order to hear anything from you regarding Paul and his unwilling role in the Mizen Scam. I don't claim to have uncovered anything new, here. I'm sure others have brought it up. I just find it odd that I've read your regurgitation of the Mizen Scam again and again.......never hearing about Prideful Paul before yesterday.

Read the many Lechmere threads and you will see.

Irrelevant. As I said. Beyond that. NO. THANK. YOU.

One further question: Will the "Paul lied, too" element now be presented in all future iterations of the "Mizen Scam", on Youtube or otherwise?

As you will have gathered by now, it is not a new element. The theory has always worked from the presumption that Paul either lied in the Lloyds weekly article, or was made out by the reporter to be the whole and sole hero of the piece.

Not new. Just one you don't like to talk about.

There you are, a hundred per cent honest answers to your questions. What are you going to do with them? Call me a phantasist? Claim that I am peddling a new "stinker"? Or anything else along those lines? Or will you be part of a sensible discussion?

No. You're peddling the same stinker. It just smells worse now.

Take your time. Use it well.

I took my time. I think my brain and fingers probably work a little faster than yours, though. So......I'll go take a nap.

[Fisherman]

It is a bit like standing in a waterfall, this...

Patrick, you are now asking honesty from me, but saying that you donīt expect it. That is a bit rich.

You are given to making points like "That does not make Paul a pathological liar".

I have of course never said that Paul was a "pathological liar" at all. I have pointed to how the two stories he told are mutually gainsaying each other.

One - at least - therefore has to be wrong.

My take on things is that the Llloyds article was where Paul was economical with the truth. This is because Paul himself, Lechmere and Mizen all say that the carmen arrived in Bakers Row together.

So I make the call that Llloyds present a story that deviated from the truth, and I accept that Paul could have lied. There is also the possibility that the reporter spiced it up. We cannot know for sure which version applies.

What I do is to apply a critical and logical perspective, and I arrive at the same conclusion that I know almost every other soundly reasoning person will arrive at.

And what happens? I get you breathing down my neck, somehow leading on that I would have called Paul a pathological liar.

I rarely see things like these. Not even out here - and that is saying a lot.

After having suffered a complete breakdown in logic and courtesy, you now suddenly suggest that we return to a civil debate. Actually, I never left it. I have criticised you heavily, but I have had extremely good reasons to do so. You have even threatened to provide a "barrage" when I want to discuss the Mizen scam. It borders on things that have eerie and unpleasant names.

I will provide you with honest and clear anwers to the questions you ask. I do that not primarily to serve you - I donīt think you have earned the right to any such thing - but instead to serve the overall purpose of a sane discussion. If you take notice of what I say and chime into the debate on a less hostile note, you are very welcome. You can be extremely critical and quite courteous at the same time. You did make some initial efforts in the discipline at the outset of your return to the boards, so intermittently, it seems you have it in you.

Going forward, now that you should - in good conscience - include the 'Paul is lying' components in your "Mizen Scam" analyses, do you think that it becomes more believable, or less believeable?


It has always belonged to my thinking that Paul did not give an honest picture of what had happened in the press interview. I have commented on it before, on JTR Forums as well as here, and I have always said the same: The paper interview seems to point to a less than honest Paul.

If you feel it's now less believable, is that why you've excluded Paul up to now?

What would be less believeable? I donīt understand what you are asking here. And I have - as I just said - not changed my view on Paul!

Because, in the end, what you're doing here is indicting Robert Paul, as well. Not as a killer, but as a liar, and an unwitting accomplice in allowing Cross to get away with murder. In all my exposure to your Lechmere conclusion and the "The Mizen Scam", up until yesterday, I'd not heard anything questionable with respect to Paul's comments or involvement. I'd never have heard them - I suspect - had I not posted Paul's quote.


You need to wade through four years of posted material, Patrick, and you will see what I think of Paul. Are you up to it?
I think Lechmere himself used Paul in the role of unwitting accomplice so the role was not a new one to him. However, the lie Paul seemingly made himself guilty of was in a sense more of a vice than a lie: Pride.
I think that Paul wanted to steal some limelight, and I donīt see it as very damning. I think he had a lot oc accomplices in that context - My own take is that a number of the Ripper witnesses were anything but honest, wanting to get their fifteen minutes of fame.
By the way, having avoided to hear anything questionable about Paul does not rhyme with claiming any true knowledge of the Lechmere theory. It always worked from the notion that Paul was economic with the truth, disliked the police and would perhaps favour scorning them over telling things truthfully, and also being something of a wimp and wanting fame.
Read the many Lechmere threads and you will see.

One further question: Will the "Paul lied, too" element now be presented in all future iterations of the "Mizen Scam", on Youtube or otherwise?

As you will have gathered by now, it is not a new element. The theory has always worked from the presumption that Paul either lied in the Lloyds weekly article, or was made out by the reporter to be the whole and sole hero of the piece.

There you are, a hundred per cent honest answers to your questions. What are you going to do with them? Call me a phantasist? Claim that I am peddling a new "stinker"? Or anything else along those lines? Or will you be part of a sensible discussion?

Take your time. Use it well.

[Patrick S]

Christer,

Let's return to civil debate and put the acrimony to bed, at least for now. First, though....I would like to ask you a few honeset questions. I don't expect honesty, but I'm hopeful. Here goes:

Going forward, now that you should - in good conscience - include the 'Paul is lying' components in your "Mizen Scam" analyses, do you think that it becomes more believable, or less believeable?

If you feel it's now less believable, is that why you've excluded Paul up to now?

Because, in the end, what you're doing here is indicting Robert Paul, as well. Not as a killer, but as a liar, and an unwitting accomplice in allowing Cross to get away with murder. In all my exposure to your Lechmere conclusion and the "The Mizen Scam", up until yesterday, I'd not heard anything questionable with respect to Paul's comments or involvement. I'd never have heard them - I suspect - had I not posted Paul's quote.

One further question: Will the "Paul lied, too" element now be presented in all future iterations of the "Mizen Scam", on Youtube or otherwise?

[Patrick S]

Again. Rather than argue, it's easier to concede things, true or not, because they are irrelevant.

You say I'm a bitter poster, lacking insight. Okay. Good. I'm bitter. I'm stuid. I lack ANY knowledge of Jack the Ripper, Charles Cross, or that fact that you and your sidekick are peddling a stinker as so many before you have .

And that does, what, exactly? That give you facts? That makes your "Mizen Scam" something other than hilarious?

None of this changes that the Mizen Scam now depends on Paul being up to no good......lying...holding a grudge against the cops! It's new info! Is that in your little Youtube thing? I saw this video on Youtube of a woman falling into a fountain because she was looking at her phone. Is your video as good as that one?

[Patrick S]

Patrick!

I have found a way to save time: I will just take the first point you make in each post, and since it is inevitably wrong, that will go to implicate the quality of the rest.

Deal?

Here goes:

You dismiss the fact that Cross lived a rather good life, taken as whole, as either proof of nothing or proof of guilt (citing examples of other serial killers (members of distinct minority) who did similarly). You discount his stable employment. You discount his marriage and family. You discount his lack of criminal record. You discount the inheritance he was able to pass on to the next generation. All irrelevant, you say. Immaterial.

Wrong. I do not discount it and I say nothing of the sort. I have no proof either way; thatīs why.

And over to the next post:

First off, Paul lying does not make Cross Jack the Ripper. But, let's play your game. I understand you're playing catch-up. You're behind on points and you're looking for a haymaker.

Wrong. I am not behind on points. I am the guy who has a worldwide sent documentary and who has achieved press coverage in India and Pakistan, for example.

THAT is a haymaker, Patrick.

You are the bitter poster with lacking insights into the Ripper case and a habit of getting it wrong. I donīt think that counts as a haymaker. Maybe as a whopper, though?

But you DO make the odd funny point; "stable employment", for instance. Thats a good pun.


Seriously, Patrick, you cannot keep on misrepresenting me, and leve yourself open to being exposed. Ask me before you claim things on my behalf. I know the answers, you donīt.

I'm pretty sure that Cornwell has had a worldwide sent documentary (or two) and who has achieved press coverage in India and Pakistan (and probably Peru, too), for example.

I guess Sickert and Cross did it togther, if that's the metric we're using.

I'm worried now, though. Do I sound bitter? I'm rather enjoying this. Remember the part where you refused to engage because you had to take your leave, regroup, and come up with new material. That was delightful! But, you do it from time to time. Alas, you are correct about one thing....there is a scam afoot.