Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

[Fisherman]

I do not claim, that is what was posted.



That is not what the post said, YOU were very clean, point 2 was:

"2. Mizen sees that there is blood flowing, appearing fresh."

Very sorry to tell you this, but it is not apparent that is what you meant; your post was very clear indeed. Not at all lacking in an sense.

Attempting to move the goal posts after the game is over, always fails as it does here.



The fact that you gave quotes does not negate the basic issue that the post contained two statements that were untrue.

Your attempt to explain that you have been misunderstood, and that when you posted Your point 2, You actually meant something completely different is unconvincing.




No I called the post and the comments it contained untruthful. And there can be no doubt that is the case.



I see an attempt to divert from the issue, obvious to all.

It is not that Lechmere cannot be "cleared", rather it is there is Nothing which stands up to scrutiny which truly implicates him in any but the most minor and superficial manner.

There is no invention of a fact that he was not out of earshot, the simply truth is that the sources we have give no indication at all that Paul was ever out of earshot,and strongly suggest the opposite to be the case. I t is you who as singularly failed to prove otherwise.

There is no smearing of you or anyone for that matter, I question, rightly, information posted that is inaccurate or untruthful. That to me is the message.
If to question the message is now to in some odd way be seen as attacking the messenger, where does debate go?
There is no need to smear the messenger when the message is clearly faulty as portrayed.



Pot, Kettle, black



If the body is moved, clotts may move and blood may run again, particularly if being manhandled into an ambulance. The difference may not be apparent to an untrained 19th Century Beat Bobby.



Where do we start:

1. The bleeding described by Mizen, may well be caused by secondary movement of the body(see above); it is in no way contradictory to a pool of partially congealed blood.

2. Blood has started to congeal, that can occurr fairly quickly, there are no hard and fast rules. Your comments about fully congealed and partially congealed are meaningless, given the total inadequet descriptions avalible.

3. He said it appeared fresh because he knew no better, given is likely arrival at the scene and extent of Nichols wounds it is highly improbable he would witness any flowing blood; however if we follow the route you have suggested that the abdomen wounds were fatal, that goes from higly improbably to just about unachievable.



Please explain and expand on what you think is going on?
I for one would love to know.


Steve

I´ll be very short.

What I perceive as smearing is when you write that I am untruthful.

I am not. I am, and have always been, honest. That will not change.

I published the whole texts from the papers, germane to understanding what I meant. I very clearly state that I am of the meaning that Mizens words about the blood were related to the instance when he met Neil. Therefore my point two represented this stage.

However, I should A/ have written this more clearly and B/ I should have understood what you were on about at an earlier stage - but since I knew that I had not been in any way untruthful, I didn´t.

You used these matters to shape an accusation of untruthfullness on my behalf, and since I was too lazy, very much aware that I am never untruthful, and absolutely certain that I had never written "The Daily News and The Daily Telegraph agree with me!", I left the door open for the accusations of untruthfullness.

Thereby I left you with the choice of reasoning that I

A/ referred back to the instance when Mizen met Neil for the first time, the latter being alone (which is the wording in the articles)

or

B/ was trying to pull off a scam of my own, designed to fool everybody out here.

You ask me what I mean when I write about "what is going on here", and your choice is to a large degree descriptive of that matter: a far-reaching effort to make me out as a liar, a deceiver, a con artist and someone who is not fit to plead at all in the matter on account of reoccuring self-deceptions. An effort to shoot down the messenger instead of the message. I think it is deplorable.

As fot the blood issues and your answers, I don´t think you have much going for you in that department. The body was put on the ambulance and taken away from the scene as Mizen arrived with the stretcher. At that stage, the blood was already clotted. It was described by Thain, who assisted in lifting the body:

There was a large quantity of congealed blood on the pavement, near the woman's neck. (The Echo)

There was a large clot near the wall(Morning Advertiser)

This was not something Thain noticed long after the body was taken away, since the blood wass immediately removed thereafter, apparent from Emma Greens testimony:

The Coroner: Do you know that your son went out to wash the blood away. -- Witness: Yes; I thought it had better be done directly the body was moved. A constable went into my yard with my son, and they returned with a broom and washed the stains away.(Morning Advertiser)

So there was no pool of only partially congealed blood at that stage, it was fully congealed, a clot of blood as it was described. Therefore, the words of a partially congealed blood pool refer back to the first stage, and that makes it logical because the blood was described as fresh at that stage. And that stage is the only stage when the blood CAN have been fresh.

Your take? It is "meaningless" to listen to what Mizen said about a partially congealed blood pool where blood was still running into it.

We should discard that evidence.

And Mizen only said that the blood appeared fresh because he "knew no better".

So we should discard that evidence too.

And when we have discarded that evidence, your version of the events stands a better chance to be true.

You know what? It will not wash in a million years.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excuse me for not joining the medical stuff but can I ask...

If the blood appeared fresh....I’m not saying it did or didn’t.... why would this be surprising if CL had come upon Polly’s body a minute or two after the killer had fled the scene?

And pleeeeeeeese don’t mention Phantom killers as it’s misleading and tiresome.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. That is the main problem of the debate by now. You have realized that Lechmere cannot be cleared

As we already know that 99% of ‘suspects’ cannot be categorically cleared I think that the main problem is actually the fact that some appear to think that this is a major point in their suspects favour.

[Elamarna]

Now I see what you are on about - I wrote that point 2 was the one with the blood involved.

And you therefore now say that I have claimed that the Daily Telegraph and the Daily News both agreed with me about the blood.

I do not claim, that is what was posted.

Point 2 is for me where it in both papers is said that "At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."
That should be apparent since that phrase is in both papers and since that is the sequence in which I think the blood was noticed by Mizen.

That is not what the post said, YOU were very clean, point 2 was:

"2. Mizen sees that there is blood flowing, appearing fresh."

Very sorry to tell you this, but it is not apparent that is what you meant; your post was very clear indeed. Not at all lacking in an sense.

Attempting to move the goal posts after the game is over, always fails as it does here.

The real problem with you calling me "untruthful" is tht I quoted both papers in extenso, and so anybody could easily see that no blood was mentioned. I withhold nothing, and I point to the exact passages where the papers handle the issue, quoting their efforts in full the subject. It should be quite enough.

The fact that you gave quotes does not negate the basic issue that the post contained two statements that were untrue.

Your attempt to explain that you have been misunderstood, and that when you posted Your point 2, You actually meant something completely different is unconvincing.

But you choose to call me untruthful.

No I called the post and the comments it contained untruthful. And there can be no doubt that is the case.

That is the main problem of the debate by now. You have realized that Lechmere cannot be cleared (not even by inventing the "fact" that Paul could not have been out of earshot from three articles formulating the single word "yes" into longish texts, based on something we do not know how it was worded), and so you opt for the classic political method: If you canno smear the message, then smear the messenger. If it becomes accepted that I am so biased that I am inable to think clearly, that any effort on my behalf to be honest is "self deception, that what I say is twisted and untruthful, then by extension, the theory is very likely to be wrong too.

I see an attempt to divert from the issue, obvious to all.

It is not that Lechmere cannot be "cleared", rather it is there is Nothing which stands up to scrutiny which truly implicates him in any but the most minor and superficial manner.

There is no invention of a fact that he was not out of earshot, the simply truth is that the sources we have give no indication at all that Paul was ever out of earshot,and strongly suggest the opposite to be the case. I t is you who as singularly failed to prove otherwise.

There is no smearing of you or anyone for that matter, I question, rightly, information posted that is inaccurate or untruthful. That to me is the message.
If to question the message is now to in some odd way be seen as attacking the messenger, where does debate go?
There is no need to smear the messenger when the message is clearly faulty as portrayed.

That is the underbelly of Ripperology, and not something that is very flattering for those who resort to it.

Pot, Kettle, black

The real litmus paper when it comes to when Mizen saw the blood lies not in your interpretation of which paper was the more reliable or how many papers agree with us. It lies in the two statments from the Echo and the Star, respectively. The Echo says that Mizen claimed that the blood was "still running" (as in an unbroken sequence) and appearing "fresh". No police of sound mind would say that about blood that was more than half an hour old.

If the body is moved, clotts may move and blood may run again, particularly if being manhandled into an ambulance. The difference may not be apparent to an untrained 19th Century Beat Bobby.

Likewise, in the Star we learn that Mizen aid that the blood was flowing into the pool underneath Nichols and partially congealed. Now, if you say that the blood was partially congealed, you are not talking about the blood that is running from the neck - that blood is NOT congealed - but instead of the blood in the pool. THAT blood was partially congelaed, and THAT is in line with the process of congealing. Half an hour after the bleeding has stopped, a shallow pool of blood is not partially congealed, it is FULLY congealed. If there was blood running from the neck as Nichols was lifted, how likely is it that this blood would run into the pool only, and that Mizen would speak about that? How much more likley is it not that he would say that "As we lifted the deceased, blood flowed from the wound in the neck onto the street"? And why, oh why, would a PC say that this blood (that as far as I´m concerened never flowed from the neck at that stage at all) looked FRESH?

Where do we start:

1. The bleeding described by Mizen, may well be caused by secondary movement of the body(see above); it is in no way contradictory to a pool of partially congealed blood.

2. Blood has started to congeal, that can occurr fairly quickly, there are no hard and fast rules. Your comments about fully congealed and partially congealed are meaningless, given the total inadequet descriptions avalible.

3. He said it appeared fresh because he knew no better, given is likely arrival at the scene and extent of Nichols wounds it is highly improbable he would witness any flowing blood; however if we follow the route you have suggested that the abdomen wounds were fatal, that goes from higly improbably to just about unachievable.

If you can manage to change tracks, and instead of trying to make me out as a liar and a charlatan, try to debate the real issues, it would be nice. If you CAN, I promise not to tell people What it is that is going on - but only as long as a fair debate rules the day.

Please explain and expand on what you think is going on?
I for one would love to know.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Before commenting, i see you are once again not able to accept responsibility for the items you post




The problem of course is that you posted the statement, which is untruthful and i agree you are not stupid.

What is sad is that you are not able to admit that you posted that the two papers included bleeding in the accounts, when in Black and white and by your own hand you clearly did.
Even sadder is the inability to accept responsibility for the mistake, claim that you have not posted the comment, and are being somehow misrepresented.


Steve

Now I see what you are on about - I wrote that point 2 was the one with the blood involved.

And you therefore now say that I have claimed that the Daily Telegraph and the Daily News both agreed with me about the blood.

Point 2 is for me where it in both papers is said that "At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

That should be apparent since that phrase is in both papers and since that is the sequence in which I think the blood was noticed by Mizen.

The real problem with you calling me "untruthful" is tht I quoted both papers in extenso, and so anybody could easily see that no blood was mentioned. I withhold nothing, and I point to the exact passages where the papers handle the issue, quoting their efforts in full the subject. It should be quite enough.

But you choose to call me untruthful.

That is the main problem of the debate by now. You have realized that Lechmere cannot be cleared (not even by inventing the "fact" that Paul could not have been out of earshot from three articles formulating the single word "yes" into longish texts, based on something we do not know how it was worded), and so you opt for the classic political method: If you canno smear the message, then smear the messenger. If it becomes accepted that I am so biased that I am inable to think clearly, that any effort on my behalf to be honest is "self deception, that what I say is twisted and untruthful, then by extension, the theory is very likely to be wrong too.

That is the underbelly of Ripperology, and not something that is very flattering for those who resort to it.

The real litmus paper when it comes to when Mizen saw the blood lies not in your interpretation of which paper was the more reliable or how many papers agree with us. It lies in the two statments from the Echo and the Star, respectively. The Echo says that Mizen claimed that the blood was "still running" (as in an unbroken sequence) and appearing "fresh". No police of sound mind would say that about blood that was more than half an hour old.
Likewise, in the Star we learn that Mizen aid that the blood was flowing into the pool underneath Nichols and partially congealed. Now, if you say that the blood was partially congealed, you are not talking about the blood that is running from the neck - that blood is NOT congealed - but instead of the blood in the pool. THAT blood was partially congelaed, and THAT is in line with the process of congealing. Half an hour after the bleeding has stopped, a shallow pool of blood is not partially congealed, it is FULLY congealed. If there was blood running from the neck as Nichols was lifted, how likely is it that this blood would run into the pool only, and that Mizen would speak about that? How much more likley is it not that he would say that "As we lifted the deceased, blood flowed from the wound in the neck onto the street"? And why, oh why, would a PC say that this blood (that as far as I´m concerened never flowed from the neck at that stage at all) looked FRESH?

If you can manage to change tracks, and instead of trying to make me out as a liar and a charlatan, try to debate the real issues, it would be nice. If you CAN, I promise not to tell people what it is that is going on - but only as long as a fair debate rules the day.

[Elamarna]

Steve,

Wouldn't the word 'incorrect' have been more appropriate than 'untruthful'?

Gary

Dear Gary,

In my initial response to post #6, i did indeed use the term incorrect, assuming a simple mistake.
In the next post #8 when realising that the Telegraph was also wrong i again used incorrect.

It was only on reflection that i used the word "untruthful".

Is it appropriate?
Yes i think it is, when a post provides information to be used to back up a propsal, in this case that the Echo is correct in its report, but that information is clearly incorrect , and known to be, (quotes were provided in post 6, so it cannot be down to a faulty memory) that information passes into the realm of untruthful.

It is not a term used lightly, however as posted and since defended the comments remain untruthful.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Before commenting, i see you are once again not able to accept responsibility for the items you post




The problem of course is that you posted the statement, which is untruthful and i agree you are not stupid.

What is sad is that you are not able to admit that you posted that the two papers included bleeding in the accounts, when in Black and white and by your own hand you clearly did.
Even sadder is the inability to accept responsibility for the mistake, claim that you have not posted the comment, and are being somehow misrepresented.


Steve

Steve,

Wouldn't the word 'incorrect' have been more appropriate than 'untruthful'?

Gary

[Elamarna]

Before commenting, i see you are once again not able to accept responsibility for the items you post

First of all, you can say that a text is linguistically lacking without attacking the one who produced the text. It really should not be too hard a concept to grasp. If I have to deal with language that is hard to understand at times, I will be at a disadvantage to formulate my own answers, and I may give the wrong answer as a result of that.
Therefore, pointing out that the language gos wrong every now and then is something I actually need to do, to clarify what it is you ask about.
Please do not take that as a criticism of yourself, because it is not. If anything, I want to give you the fairest treatment possible by trying to get things right before I answer.


The post you claim was "lacking" was concise and clear.
Maybe it is your failure to understand rather than mine to convey that should be questioned.
However it is clear from the content of the subsequent posts that it was an attack, minor and immature, but an attack none the less.


Moving on, of course three layers of information can be more informative than four. It all hinges on the information involved in the different layers. Try this, focusing on football:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was played in Russia.
3. It was played in sunny weather.
4. It was a tough match.

Compare with this:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was a World Cup match.
3. England beat Marocko by 9-0.

Let´s not oversimplify, Steve. None of the other papers included the sequence of events in the way The Echo did, and that makes a humongous difference. For example. And certainly, the "majority" you lean on may have used the same source. Or?


As a comparision to the Layers in post#6, that is intellectually dishonest.
We have in the about example 2 different sets of data, in the press reports we have only 1.
The ONLY difference is the order in the Echo is different.
To claim it contains additional data is untrue, its the same data
That is very clear.



Plus, of course, why in the whole world would Mizen say that the blood seemed fresh - if he KNEW it was not?

Why would he know?
Why would you expect him to be able to differentiate between fresh bleeding and secondary bleeding started by moving the body?

You then say that I use the Daily News to "imply" things...? That, I´m afraid, is a rot. I pointed out that they did the kind of backtracking that the Echbo also did, meaning that there is support for that particular issue.

There is no evidence of backtracking, its purely imaginary

And then you start saying that there is no mentioning of any bleeding - as if I had said there was...? I have said no such thing at all. It seems you want to support my number listing as evidence of this, but that is just wrong.


That is contrary to what you have posted in post #6:


"1. Mizen goes to Bucks Row.
2. Mizen sees that there is blood flowing, appearing fresh.
3. Mizen is sent for an ambulance.
4. Mizen returns with the ambulance and helps placing the corpse on it."



You then posted :

"The Daily News has it 1-3-2-4.

The Daily Telegraph has it 1-3-2."


BOTH include point 2, that mizen sees there is blood flowing, appearing fresh.

There are no such comments in either the News or the Telegraph.
It follows that your inclusion of such comments for the News and Telegraph are untrue


I know full well that the Echo is the paper that speaks of Mizen and the bleeding, and I know ewually well that everybody else out here is aware of this too. I am not stupid enough not to be aware of this and I am certainly not one who would dishonestly try to fool people into thinking something. Moreover, I completely loathe the mere idea.

Discuss away, debate away - that is what the boards are for. But if you want to bring me along to some sort of dishonesty bog, sorry, but I am not up for that trip.

The problem of course is that you posted the statement, which is untruthful and i agree you are not stupid.

What is sad is that you are not able to admit that you posted that the two papers included bleeding in the accounts, when in Black and white and by your own hand you clearly did.
Even sadder is the inability to accept responsibility for the mistake, claim that you have not posted the comment, and are being somehow misrepresented.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Given that you quote the two papers to support the idea, before later in the post listing both as containing information on the bleeding, it seems that "such" is not nonsense in any logical use of the word


Steve

First of all, you can say that a text is linguistically lacking without attacking the one who produced the text. It really should not be too hard a concept to grasp. If I have to deal with language that is hard to understand at times, I will be at a disadvantage to formulate my own answers, and I may give the wrong answer as a result of that.
Therefore, pointing out that the language gos wrong every now and then is something I actually need to do, to clarify what it is you ask about.
Please do not take that as a criticism of yourself, because it is not. If anything, I want to give you the fairest treatment possible by trying to get things right before I answer.

Moving on, of course three layers of information can be more informative than four. It all hinges on the information involved in the different layers. Try this, focusing on football:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was played in Russia.
3. It was played in sunny weather.
4. It was a tough match.

Compare with this:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was a World Cup match.
3. England beat Marocko by 9-0.

Let´s not oversimplify, Steve. None of the other papers included the sequence of events in the way The Echo did, and that makes a humongous difference. For example. And certainly, the "majority" you lean on may have used the same source. Or?

Plus, of course, why in the whole world would Mizen say that the blood seemed fresh - if he KNEW it was not?

You then say that I use the Daily News to "imply" things...? That, I´m afraid, is a rot. I pointed out that they did the kind of backtracking that the Echbo also did, meaning that there is support for that particular issue.

And then you start saying that there is no mentioning of any bleeding - as if I had said there was...? I have said no such thing at all. It seems you want to support my number listing as evidence of this, but that is just wrong.

I know full well that the Echo is the paper that speaks of Mizen and the bleeding, and I know ewually well that everybody else out here is aware of this too. I am not stupid enough not to be aware of this and I am certainly not one who would dishonestly try to fool people into thinking something. Moreover, I completely loathe the mere idea.

Discuss away, debate away - that is what the boards are for. But if you want to bring me along to some sort of dishonesty bog, sorry, but I am not up for that trip.

[Elamarna]

First: I am not attacking your language. I sometimes have problems understanding what you write, and I need help to have it clarified. You seem to have difficulties with it at times, and I recognize that it is a common thing. To hold it against somebody is low and despicable.

There, that should settle the issue.

It is you who continually raises the issue of language,

I posted :

"I notice there has been no attempt to explain the factually untruths in post #6."

That is extremely clear, yet you respond with :

"Still linguistically lacking, "

How you can say that is not attacking is somewhat disingenuous.


Now, as for the Echo, they certainy add things that other papers do not. If anything, the Echo is more full, not less.


You in post #6 used what you called "layers" to present your case:


There are a number of layers involved:

1. Mizen goes to Bucks Row.
2. Mizen sees that there is blood flowing, appearing fresh.
3. Mizen is sent for an ambulance.
4. Mizen returns with the ambulance and helps placing the corpse on it.



The Echo clearly does not include 4.
The Morning Advertiser, Star, Daily Post and the Evening Standard do.

Those 4 include all 4 elements or "layers".

The Echo with only 3 "layers" can therefore in no reasonable way be said to contain more information than the others.


I don´t know where you think I am saying that two papers mention Mizen speaking of Nichols bleeding, and you are welcoime to point it out.


What a shame you have not bothered to reread what you posted in post #6.

Firstly comments on the Daily News:


"If we look at the Daily News, they have the same backtracking as the Echo, but with no explanation:

"The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it."""


You are implying this agrees with the Echo about when a question is asked or a comment is made.
The quote you provide however does not provide that information.


"The Daily Telegraph reports like this:

"When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body., thus making things a bit easier to understand, but leaving out the passage of lifting Nichols onto the stretcher, and omitting to clarify the coroners role"".


However again there is no comment here about the bleeding.

Post #6 then goes on to say

"The Daily News has it 1-3-2-4.

The Daily Telegraph has it 1-3-2."

There are the two examples.

However lets us look at the full quotes to see if anything has been missed:

Daily News.



Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it.
A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted? Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.

Clearly no mention of any bleeding or any question about such from Baxter.


DailyTelegraph


Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.

Again no mention of bleeding, contrary to fhe now reposted claims in post #6.


I do not include "such" in my posts several times at all. That is nonsense.

Given that you quote the two papers to support the idea, before later in the post listing both as containing information on the bleeding, it seems that "such" is not nonsense in any logical use of the word


Steve

[Fisherman]

Avoiding addressing the issue. And a pathetic attempt to divert by attacking my use of language.

The Echo did not include the full account, and it did not, no mention of the assisting put the body onto the ambulance. Not interpretation just facts.

Please read post's 7, 8 and 9.

You claim two papers mention the bleeding description from Mizen, they do not.

You include such in your post several times.


Steve

First: I am not attacking your language. I sometimes have problems understanding what you write, and I need help to have it clarified. You seem to have difficulties with it at times, and I recognize that it is a common thing. To hold it against somebody is low and despicable.

There, that should settle the issue.

Now, as for the Echo, they certainy add things that other papers do not. If anything, the Echo is more full, not less.

I don´t know where you think I am saying that two papers mention Mizen speaking of Nichols bleeding, and you are welcoime to point it out.

I do not include "such" in my posts several times at all. That is nonsense.

[Elamarna]

Still linguistically lacking, but the essence of matters is that I think that the Echo did not leave things out - I think the other papers did. And are they not very much alike - as if a singe source was quoted in all cases?

Regardless of that, I don´t think we will soleve the case on numerical grounds. As in "more papers have it A than B, so A is more likely to be true".

Such things do not depend on numbers only, at least not in my world.

Avoiding addressing the issue. And a pathetic attempt to divert by attacking my use of language.

The Echo did not include the full account, and it did not, no mention of the assisting put the body onto the ambulance. Not interpretation just facts.

Please read post's 7, 8 and 9.

You claim two papers mention the bleeding description from Mizen, they do not.

You include such in your post several times.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I notice there has been no attempt to explain the factually untruths in post #6.


Steve

Still linguistically lacking, but the essence of matters is that I think that the Echo did not leave things out - I think the other papers did. And are they not very much alike - as if a singe source was quoted in all cases?

Regardless of that, I don´t think we will soleve the case on numerical grounds. As in "more papers have it A than B, so A is more likely to be true".

Such things do not depend on numbers only, at least not in my world.

[Elamarna]

I notice there has been no attempt to explain the factually untruths in post #6.


Steve

[Elamarna]

A follow up to the last report is that the Times report mentioned by Joshua is very detailed and is probably correct, what can confuse however is the graphic from the Lechmere TV documentary which has Thain walking a very short beat, in a counter clockwise direction.

Agsin Thanks for quoting the Times Joshua


Steve