Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Fisherman]

Versa:

"Can anyone supply the address of Lechmere's mother which is supposedly near to Berner Street? "

147 Cable Street - exactly positioned at the railway arch where the Pinchin Street torso was found in -89, if I´m correctly informed. Which is not uninteresting, I´d say – in spite of how other posters find the links to the murder places "tentative", I find that since Lechmere was found at Nichols´ murder spot, it is not uninteresting to notice that Chapman, Kelly and Tabram were all killed along his route to work, whereas Stride was killed on a street leading to his mother´s and daughter´s house. Equally interesting is that Stride was killed comparatively early on a night when he was reasonably not working, whereas the others were killed at the approximate time he went to work.
There is no other suspect that comes even close to this sequence of correspondance. Nowhere even near it, in fact.
Some of the suspects can be tied to ONE murder spot, and that´s it. Lechmere can be tied to four of the canonical spots, he can be tied to George Yard (off Old Montague Street), he can be tied to the railway arch at Pinchin Street, and he can be tied to Castle Alley which was along his approximate way to work too. Anybody who wishes to call that tentative is free to do so, but I would advice a look at what other suspects have to offer in this context before doing so.

I also very much agree with Lechmere when he says that there is still much of a rut thinking about when it comes to who and what the Ripper was. It has been thrown forward on this thread that we need to find a police record and instances of psychosises and such before we can speak of useful evidence, and that says just about everything!
Likewise, when Ben states that Lechmere does not seem "suspicious" enough, one can only say that it represents thinking along the same rough guidelines - if it does not howl at the moon, it is not the Ripper.

Here he is, for all to see - the inconspicious man who had a reason for being in the streets at the relevant hours, the nobody, the family man, the carman with two decades of dreary and uninteresting work behind him. A man who a cruel fate had placed in the East End, crammed with whores, thieves and low-lifes, a man descended from an ancestry that boasted wealthy landowners and an archbishop, landed among the lowest and poorest, two generations away from societys´pinnacle.

If he felt he did not belong there, would anybody be surprised? If he was disgusted by the prostitutes, would that be strange? If he felt entitled to some sort of revenge, who would be baffled by it?

There´s a strong, strong case to build around this man, make no mistake about it. He is extremely suspicious, contrary to what has been said here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Likewise, when Ben states that Lechmere does not seem "suspicious" enough

Ben stated that Cross isn't suspicious at all, and that is irrefutably the case, unless people have some seriously funky ideas as to what "suspicious" actually means. It might be worthwhile to explore the premise that Cross might have been the killer in spite of not being suspicious, but to describe the existing material on Cross as suspicious is simply erroneous.

I didn't describe the alleged crime scene connections as "tentative". I called them "tenuous" because that's what they are. When we have other suspects living a stone's throw away from some of the murder locations, a familial connection to the western end of Cable Street is decidedly unremarkable. I'm very perplexed by the suggestion that "Chapman, Kelly and Tabram were all killed along his route to work". It depends what route he took. Obviously, there is no way that a walk from Doveton Street to Broad Street took him past all three. He went either via Hanbury Street or via Old Montague Street. If the former, he would have passed #29 Hanbury Street (considerably earlier than Chapman's likely time of death), and would not have been far from Dorset Street. If he was more commonly in the habit of taking Old Montague Street, he would have passed Tabram only. That does not "tie" him to any of the murder sites, and is far less compelling than those suspects who actually lived in the epicentre of the murder zone.

A suspect whose work route took him close to some of the murder sites is mildly interesting, whereas a suspect who lives bang in the middle of them is considerably more so, especially for those well-versed in criminology and familiar with other serial cases. For instance, you talk about George Yard and Castle Alley, both of which were literally a stone's throw away from the Victoria Home.

If he was disgusted by the prostitutes, would that be strange? If he felt entitled to some sort of revenge, who would be baffled by it?

Ah, but that's such an improbable "if" already. If my auntie had bollocks...

There´s a strong, strong case to build around this man, make no mistake about it. He is extremely suspicious, contrary to what has been said here.

There is absolutely no way in Hades' kingdom that Cross can realistically be described as "extremely suspicious", or that a "strong, strong case" can be built around him. If we're going to examine him as a person of interest, let's adopt a more reserved and moderate approach.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Ben stated that Cross isn't suspicious at all, and that is irrefutably the case, unless people have some seriously funky ideas as to what "suspicious" actually means. It might be worthwhile to explore the premise that Cross might have been the killer in spite of not being suspicious, but to describe the existing material on Cross as suspicious is simply erroneous."

It is no such thing - although this may be lost on you. Sometimes others disagree, you know; it happens.

"I'm very perplexed by the suggestion that "Chapman, Kelly and Tabram were all killed along his route to work". It depends what route he took."

That´s not rocket science - it does. And the apparent alternatives were Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street, adjacent to or directly where the murders took place.

"That does not "tie" him to any of the murder sites ..."

Oh, yes it does, although somewhat loosely. And I challenge you to come up with any other suspect of whom we KNOW that he would have had a reason to pass exactly or very near by all these sites at the approximate time when the murders took place. No matter how long and hard you think, you will come up empty-handed on that one.

" ... and is far less compelling than those suspects who actually lived in the epicentre of the murder zone."

That is a bit silly, if you forgive me, Ben. You don´t have to live in the "epicentre" to be a useful bid. Since Cross´only window of opportunity may well have been his route to work, it would be a lot stranger if the murders took place concentrically around Doveton Street, wouldn´t you say..? The timings are all-important here. When Tabram, Chapman and Kelly died, we know that Lechmere was probably NOT in Doveton Street, but instead in the "epicenter", as you eloquently put it, of the murders.

"A suspect whose work route took him close to some of the murder sites is mildly interesting"

Aha. Like William Bonin, for example?

"that's such an improbable "if" already"

Is it? Why? Explain to me!

"There is absolutely no way in Hades' kingdom that Cross can realistically be described as "extremely suspicious", or that a "strong, strong case" can be built around him."

Coming up, Ben. But not just yet. Anyway, I can assure you that I´ve apparently seen more of Hades than you have ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“And I challenge you to come up with any other suspect of whom we KNOW that he would have had a reason to pass exactly or very near by all these sites at the approximate time when the murders took place.”

But Cross doesn’t even meet this criterion, Fisherman. The fact that he had the option of different routes to get to work doesn’t mean he used them all, or even more than one. On the morning of Nichols’ murder, we know he took the Hanbury Street route, and there is no evidence (to my knowledge, though I’m as open as ever to correction) that he ever used Old Montague Street to get to work. Given the bad reputation the street had, I don’t find this at all surprising. Already this renders baseless the suggestion that Cross had any “tie” to George Yard, or that Goulston Street was on his route home. We’re left then with Hanbury Street and Dorset Street*, but here too we encounter problems. Cross would have been at work at the likely time of Chapman’s murder, and if the “murder” scream is anything to go on, he would not have had time to complete the extensive Kelly mutilations without being seriously late for work. In fact, both those murders point very strongly against a carman as the killer.

“You don´t have to live in the "epicentre" to be a useful bid.”

No, but it certainly helps if you do. We learn from research conducted by David Canter that it is “very rare” for an offender not to have base within the area circumscribed by the crimes, and Cross didn’t. From a criminological perspective, having a somewhat centrally located base to the crimes is more persuasive than a putative “commuter” who claims victims en route to work.

William Bonin used his white van and some low-life accomplices to go in search of male victims, and thus not obviously comparable with Cross.

Regards,
Ben

*I don't know precisely where Cross went after Hanbury Street. He could have taken Brushfield Street, or just as feasibly, crossed from Hanbury Street straight into Lamb Street and Fort Street. In the latter case, he wouldn't have gone anywhere near Miller's Court.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But Cross doesn’t even meet this criterion, Fisherman."

Excuse me? I wrote "we KNOW that he would have had a reason to pass exactly or very near by all these sites at the approximate time when the murders took place", and he meets that criterion 100 per cent - for he WOULD have a reason to pass exactly or close by the sites. So you are wrong, I´m afraid.

"On the morning of Nichols’ murder, we know he took the Hanbury Street route, and there is no evidence (to my knowledge, though I’m as open as ever to correction) that he ever used Old Montague Street to get to work."

Asking for definite proof are you? I´m quite happy about knowing that Old Montague Street was the closest route to Pickford´s. Good enough for me!

"Already this renders baseless the suggestion that Cross had any “tie” to George Yard".

Your ASSUMPTION would render it baseless, provided that you are correct. But I´m afraid we ought not work from such an assumption.

" Cross would have been at work at the likely time of Chapman’s murder"

So you know when she was murdered then? I don´t. And I don´t know what time he went to work that day. Nor do I know whether Chapman was killed en route to work, or if he first collected his van and horse. Lots of options here, Ben!

"No"

Good.

"William Bonin used his white van and some low-life accomplices to go in search of male victims, and thus not obviously comparable with Cross."

Bonin also lived in the 20:th century and had a surname beginning with a B. That too makes him a lousy comparison, right?

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

And I think the little weed knew something about it too...

Shall we leave the Flower Pot Men to it children?



Dave

[curious]

And I think the little weed knew something about it too...

Shall we leave the Flower Pot Men to it children?



Dave

Makes my eyes glaze over

[Fisherman]

Ben!

One important point needs to be made relating to this claim of yours:

"We learn from research conducted by David Canter that it is “very rare” for an offender not to have base within the area circumscribed by the crimes, and Cross didn’t."

To begin with, It seems that Canter´s research revolves around disposal site locations of serial killers, and not around the killings themselves - which means that we are dealing with apples and pears here.

Be that as it may, I would like to quote Canter from his work "Spatial Patterns of Serial Murder: An Analysis of Disposal Site Location Choice
(Samantha Lundrigan, Ph.D.,B and David Canter, Ph.D):

"Summary and Conclusions
This study has explored the disposal site location choices of serial murderers from a routine activities and rational choice perspective. It was found that the majority of the murderers operated within an area that bore a strong relationship to their home. However, it is worth emphasizing that it appears that there are a small proportion of offenders that do not live within such a "disposal domain''. It has been suggested that these are offenders who are more likely to be selecting their disposal sites in an attempt to minimize the risk and maximize the benefits to themselves. In contrast, the majority of serial killers appear to be leaving the bodies of their victims in an area that provides ready opportunities for them, possibly familiar to them because of the routine activities in which they are engaged. The relatively small size of the area over which serial killers move from home to leave the bodies of their victims also accords well with routine activity models of behavior."

So, Ben, where does this leave us? Well, to begin with, Canter identifies TWO groups of killers, one of them tied closely to their homes, and the other one disconnected from that home base in their actions. He argues that the latter, smaller, category are killers that weigh in the risk of a centered home base giving them away, thus finding themselves dumping sites that do not put the police on their home trails.

More importantly, though, the larger group of offenders, who dump the bodies around their homes, seem to choose "an area that provides ready opportunities for them, possibly familiar to them because of the routine activities in which they are engaged."

Aha. Let´s try that suit on Lechmere!

Did the working route area provide him with "ready opportunities"? It did, taking him along some of the more proliferate prostitution streets of London. So he answers up to Canter in this respect.

Now, was the area "familiar to him because of the routine activities in which he was engaged"? Oh yes - what could be more of a routine area than a man´s eternally reoccurring walk to his job?

I´d submit that this is how you should read Canter. There is absolutely no need to demand that every killers area of actions should form a perfect circle, centered around his living quarters.

It should also be weighed in here that Canter speaks of dumping sites. And these you can of course choose yourself!
What you cannot choose is, for example, which streets prostitutes will frequent. If you want to kill prostitutes, you need to walk their streets!

We also need to take a look at what windows of opportunity were there for Lechmere. And here, the walk to job seems a very reasonable such window - it was dark, few people were about and he traversed prostitution-dense streets day out and day in at the relevant hours. To Lechmere, that was a "routine activity" - as Canter puts it.

Let´s also weigh in that coming from a long period of staying in the Berner Street vicinity, an area with which Lechmere would have been extremely well aquainted, having done his job trek to Broad Street thousands of times, would be the exact area in which Tabram, Chapman, Stride and Kelly fell prey.

He had only lived in Doveton Street for a few months when the murders started, remember. The areas to the north, south and east of his new lodgings would not be remotely as well-known to him as the hunting grounds in which the Ripper murders occurred. If we could ask David Canter about what significance that would have had, I think we can both guess the answer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I wrote "we KNOW that he would have had a reason to pass exactly or very near by all these sites at the approximate time when the murders took place", and he meets that criterion 100 per cent - for he WOULD have a reason to pass exactly or close by the sites

But what "reason" did he have for being anywhere near Hanbury Street at the likely time of Chapman's death, for instance? He had every reason to be at work near Liverpool Street at that time. I think we should expect a bit of uniformity to Cross' working hours, and as such, it is more likely than not that he was due at work at the same time on 7th September as he was on the morning of Nichols' murder. Carmen were noted, after all, for their extremely early work hours.

What "reason" did he have to be anywhere near George Yard or Mitre Square? In the total absence of any evidence that he ever took Old Montague Street to work (to my knowledge, at least), there is no good "reason" to think that his work route ever took him in close proximity to those murder sites.

You quote Canter:

"It was found that the majority of the murderers operated within an area that bore a strong relationship to their home. However, it is worth emphasizing that it appears that there are a small proportion of offenders that do not live within such a "disposal domain''.

We have a "majority" versus a "small proportion", and I'm naturally inclined to embrace the former with regard to this particular killer. I think you misunderstand Canter's point. In reference to those serial offenders who don't live within the area circumscribed by the crimes (or "disposal domain"), he observed: "these are offenders who are more likely to be selecting their disposal sites in an attempt to minimize the risk and maximize the benefits to themselves." Obviously, this does not describe Cross-as-ripper in the slightest. A killer who claims victims en route to work is obviously opportunistic, and not the sort to be terribly choosy about disposal locations. Nor does it describe Jack the Ripper, whoever he was, since he disposed of his victims where he found them. Canter is obviously referring to those killers, such as Bonin, whose murder and disposal locations were different.

Having outlined this possible reason for a "small proportion" of serial killers not living within the disposal zone, he then says:

"In contrast, the majority of serial killers appear to be leaving the bodies of their victims in an area that provides ready opportunities for them, possibly familiar to them because of the routine activities in which they are engaged. ."

In other words, these people are "in contrast" to those who don't live within the circumscribed region. He underscores just how small a minority "commuter" serialists are in his book, Criminal Shadows:

"In studies we have carried out, the "commuters" have been very rare"

He wasn't referring to disposal sites on that occasion, but the locations fo actual "crimes".

More importantly, though, the larger group of offenders, who dump the bodies around their homes, seem to choose "an area that provides ready opportunities for them, possibly familiar to them because of the routine activities in which they are engaged."

Absolutely, but that larger group of offenders doesn't include Cross, because, if we was the killer, he clearly did not "dump the bodies around (his) home".

There is absolutely no need to demand that every killers area of actions should form a perfect circle, centered around his living quarters.

Quite so, but unless the killer belongs to a "very rare" minority, one would at least expect to find his base somewhere within the area circumscribed by the crime scene/disposal locations.

Let´s also weigh in that coming from a long period of staying in the Berner Street vicinity

Which is probably irrelevant as far as you're concerned, since you believe Stride was probably not a ripper victim.

Regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben
There is clear evidence that Paul felt intimidated when Cross approached him
Also you say Old Montague Street was notoriously rough and so Cross may have avoided it on his way to work. Well didn't Bucks Row have a similar reputation?
I have stated on several occasions that Hutchinson is an interesting suspect which is why I have found it ingteresting to discuss him. However the length and number of threads devoted to him is not much of an indication of his popularity as a suspect - more of the dogged enthusiasm (some mught use a word like mania) displayed by (ahem) a small number posters. Many suspect lists exclude him altogether - such as the recent suspects book published by the Whitechapel Society.
I have stated why I find Hutchinson an unlikely candidate - to re-iterate very quickly he was firmly in the police's vision and any unravelling of his story would by that stage of the investigation have excited police interest where there any grounds for suspicion at the time. Also (although Ben denies the primary sources here) he could not easily have gained entry to the Victoria Home late at night, and there is no contemporary connection with him to the wide -awake hat man which tells me there was something about the two people which menat they were not one and the same.

[Bridewell]

Assumption

"Already this renders baseless the suggestion that Cross had any “tie” to George Yard".

Your ASSUMPTION would render it baseless, provided that you are correct. But I´m afraid we ought not work from such an assumption.

Fisherman,

In your argument you tie Cross's route to work to various murder sites, with an assumption that he varied his route to take in these locations. It is a little 'inconsistent', is it not, to take a swipe at Ben for what you call an assumption that he may well not have varied his route at all? You are the one making an assumption here, not Ben.

The actions taken by Cross, after discovering a body, (as confirmed by Paul) are exactly those I would have taken in the same circumstances. They are the actions that a reasonable and responsible person might have taken in those circumstances. Yes, they might also be the actions that an audacious killer would take, but that is a matter of pure speculation. There is nothing inherently suspicious in what Cross did, much as you may wish it were otherwise.


Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

" Cross would have been at work at the likely time of Chapman’s murder"

So you know when she was murdered then?

How do you read "the likely time of Chapman's murder" as a claim of knowledge? Ben is making an honest statement which, in the heat of an argument, you are seeking to twist into a dishonest one.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Ben
There is clear evidence that Paul felt intimidated when Cross approached him

"...as he was passing up Bucks Row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped onto the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, 'Come and look at this woman here' Witness went with him and saw a woman lying right across the gateway."

I can see evidence that Paul didn't want to be delayed on his way to work. Where is the clear evidence that Paul felt intimidated?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"what "reason" did he have for being anywhere near Hanbury Street at the likely time of Chapman's death, for instance?"

That would depend, would it not? He could have started work later that day - more than twenty years of working for Pickford´s may have meant that he had some advantages. He could have killed her on a delivery tour. Hanbury Street would have been a very well-known beat to him, we know that much.
Also, don´t forget that if Lechmere was the killer, then Robert Paul came close to give him away on the 31:st. Lechmere may well have been annoyed with Paul, and that may lay behind why Chapman was killed a mere hundred yards from Paul´s working place at Corbett´s court.
Have you given that any thought?

"What "reason" did he have to be anywhere near George Yard or Mitre Square? In the total absence of any evidence that he ever took Old Montague Street to work (to my knowledge, at least), there is no good "reason" to think that his work route ever took him in close proximity to those murder sites."

Old Montague Street was the closest way to work for him. And I fail to see why he would avoid it. He was a carman, and carmen went where they were ordered to, thus being well aquainted with and used to rough areas as well as nicer ones. Twenty years of being a carman would have shown all that there was to be seen to him.There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to speculate that he would never have used the fastest route to work.

"I think you misunderstand Canter's point."

Then you are plain wrong. What Canter says is the exact same thing as most people say: most serialists will work in a chosen comfort zone. And Lechmere´s comfort zone would be the one in which the murders occurred. That´s all very easy.
If he had lived in 22 Doveton Street for many a year, it would be a better suggestion to say that one would expect a concentric spreading of the killings with the home in the epicenter. As it stands, that would be a stupid suggestion, though, since we can easily understand in which grounds Lechmere´s comfort zone was to be found.

Canter works from a presumption that the two murders furthest apart will, if forming a circle involving them as the outermost points, surround the environment in which the killer will probably live. But THAT, my friend, is due to the fact that most people have a comfort zone that lies around their homes. When they move a mile away, their comfort zone will not move with them immediately.

"Absolutely, but that larger group of offenders doesn't include Cross, because, if we was the killer, he clearly did not "dump the bodies around (his) home"."

You cannot facilitate it in that manner, I´m afraid. To begin with, the murders were all within short walking distances from his Doveton Street home, and to carry on, they were all very close to the home he had recently left. Once again, Canter´s research works from the assumption that the killers he describes have comfort zones around their homes. Once again, when they move, the comfort zone does not move with them until later in the process, and only gradually.

Therefore, Ben, Lechmere had the double advantage of committing his crimes in his accustomed comfort zone, while NOT being searchable using the home base criterion! Good for him! And that will have contributed very much to the fact that he stayed undetected, for the police certainly concentrated on the same epicenter that you yourself speak so warmly for - but to no avail in either case, I believe.

"unless the killer belongs to a "very rare" minority, one would at least expect to find his base somewhere within the area circumscribed by the crime scene/disposal locations."

Absolutely not. That only applies - as I hope I have showed you by now - when the base equals the epicenter of the comfort zone. And please - PLEASE! - don´t forget that he needed to move to find the epicenter of prostitution. That MUST be weighed in!
In fact, when Lechmere left Doveton Street in the mornings, he effectively moved away from alien country, closing in on his comfort zone with every step he took. Therefore, we should expect ALL killing sites to be situated to the west of his home - which is exactly what we find. If we were to listen to your proposal, we would need a murder out in Victoria Park to put Lechmere firmly in the frame, for in such a case, Doveton Street would have been "hot", right?.
Now, you have to explain to me, Ben: Why on earth would we look for a Victoria Park killing in Lechmere´s case? He would have been a total stranger there, a long distance away from his comfort zone! Moreover, there would arguably not have ben any prostitutes about ...

See, this is what happens when we argue academic efforts over reality. We end up with grave misconceptions. If he was the killer, then Lechmere killed in his comfort zone, well known to him since many, many years back. End of that particular story.

"Which is probably irrelevant as far as you're concerned, since you believe Stride was probably not a ripper victim."

Oh! You are THAT desperate now? That´s just a laugh, Ben. The things you are ready to lower yourself to ...!
It is not what I believe or used to believe that governs things. Lechmere lived in the Berner Street vicinity for ages, and therefore it represented a comfort zone to him.

Listen, Ben, I have never expressed any bet on the Pinchin Street torso, but in confidence I will tell you that I never used to believe it was the Ripper´s work.
But now that I am aware that the torso was found in the very arch facing 147 Cable Street, I am very wary that it needs to have us looking into the possibility that Lechmere killed her too. And think about how well it would tally with Canter!

Will you try and forbid me to do reason like this, since I used to believe there could not be a connection? Is that how you work yourself? Will you always believe in Hutchinson being Fleming and the Ripper, no matter what evidence surfaces?

Surely not, Ben! Nobody in their right minds would be that stubborn and locked onto a useless idea, would they?

So why is it that you have such difficulties with me allowing for the possibility that Stride was Lechmere´s?

Just asking. Don´t make a big thing of it - the boards deserve something better.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

However the length and number of threads devoted to him is not much of an indication of his popularity as a suspect - more of the dogged enthusiasm (some mught use a word like mania) displayed by (ahem) a small number posters.

No, Lechmere. Relative to the number of active posters on the message board, the number of people enthusiastic about Hutchinson as a person of interest, whether "doggedly" "manically" or otherwise, is certainly not small. There are more books written about him than any other suspect, and the writers of the recent Whitechapel series both favour him as a suspect (see the DVD extras) and used him as a the suspect of choice for the detective lead. This was as a result of researching the case for the drama and reading the message boards. You can dismiss him as a suspect all you want (and in so doing, make a nonsense of your attempt to champion a local witness-type suspect), but his "popularity" is something you'll just have to put up with.

"to re-iterate very quickly he was firmly in the police's vision and any unravelling of his story would by that stage of the investigation have excited police interest where there any grounds for suspicion at the time."

He was no more of less in the police's "vision" than Cross was, and the above applies to Cross entirely. There is no evidence that Hutchinson was ever investigated as a suspect, and even if they did, the police would have been powerless to shore up any suspicions they may have had. He most emphatically could have entered the Victoria Home late at night provided he had a daily or weekly pass (it is you who misinterprets primary sources), and the identification as Hutchinson as the wideawake man may not be set in stone, but any alternative would have to rely on astonishingly unlikely "coincidence".

But please, if you wish to make the "case" against Cross appear even weaker, keep having a go at Hutchinson.

Meanwhile, back on topic:

The actions taken by Cross, after discovering a body, (as confirmed by Paul) are exactly those I would have taken in the same circumstances. They are the actions that a reasonable and responsible person might have taken in those circumstances. Yes, they might also be the actions that an audacious killer would take, but that is a matter of pure speculation.

Absolutely, Bridewell. The fact that he could have done it counts for very little in the total absence of any reason to think that he did.

Regards,
Ben