Tweet
My apologies for the lengthy post and for taking up most of it to tell you what you already know but a thought that I’d refresh a few memories (including my own) I once promised myself to give the Packer story again wide berth because it’s so frustrating but here I am again. Was Packer simply a fantasist? Did he begin honestly and then get carried away? Was he under the malign influence of Grand and Batchelor? Who knows?
A recap of the Packer story (cribbed largely from Sugden)
Matthew Packer sold fruit and veg from his shop at number 44 and also from a barrow which he’d take to wherever he felt that he could sell his goods. He and his wife were described as elderly, respectable, hard-working people. He was also described as quiet and intelligent. Sergeant White was one of two officers tasked by Abberline to question the locals. White’s notebook has long gone so all that we have is his report from October 4th:
“About 9 a.m. [30 September] I called at 44 Berner Street, and saw Matthew Packer, fruiterer in a small way of business. I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied ‘Half past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open’. I asked him if he saw anything of a man or woman going into Dutfield’s Yard, or saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop. He replied ‘No I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise. And knew nothing about the murder until I heard of it this morning.
I also saw Mrs. Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas residing in the same house but none of them could give the slightest information respecting the matter.”
However, on October 2nd he told private detectives Grand and Batchelor (hired by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee) that at about 11.45 on the night of the murder he’d sold half a pound of black grapes to a man who was with a woman (I won’t bother with descriptions). Following this the two detectives spoke to two sisters called Harstein and Rosenfield who lived at number 14 and they told him that on the morning after the murder they’d seen a bloodied grape stalk in Dutfield’s Yard. Suspecting that the police would have washed this away the two detectives sprung into action and searched the sink where, amongst the rubbish, they found a grape stalk.
When the Evening News heard about this they went and spoke to Packer on the 3rd who related the story about selling the grapes at some point between 11.30 and 12.00. For a minute or two the couple stood near the gateway before moving across the road where they stood for more than 30 minutes. He recalled mentioning to his wife about them standing out their eating grapes in the rain when they could have found shelter. The couple were still there after the Packer’s had gone to bed but he couldn’t state the time but it was after the pubs were ‘shut up.’ Packer then shocked the reporter by telling him, in response to being asked, that no police officer had been to speak to him. He added that a plain clothes officer had been to speak to him the day after the murder and had asked to see his backyard.
When the story came out on the 4th Inspect Moore sent Sergeant White out to talk to Packer again and take him to see the corpse at the mortuary. When White arrived at Packer’s house his wife told him that two detectives had already taken him to the mortuary. When White was part way to the mortuary he met Packer returning with one of the detectives. Packer told White that he’d identified the woman as Stride and that he’d sold her grapes at around 12.00. The second detective then joined them. White asked them for ID and was shown a card but they would let White touch it. They then persuaded Packer to go with them.
Later that same day whilst White was with Packer at his shop the two detectives returned and said that they were taking him (Packer) to see Sir Charles Warren. Although this sounds unlikely these two private detectives did take him to Scotland Yard because we have his statement, dated October 4th, written by Alexander Carmichael Bruce, the Assistant Commissioner (in his own hand):
“On Sat. night [29 September] about 11 p.m., a young man from 25–30, about 5 [feet] 7 [inches], with long black coat buttoned up, soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat, rather broad shoulders, rather quick in speaking, rough voice. I sold him ½ pound black grapes, 3d. A woman came up with him from Back Church end (the lower end of street). She was dressed in black frock & jacket, fur round bottom of jacket, a black crape bonnet, she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside & red inside. I identify the woman at the St. George’s Mortuary as the one I saw that night. They passed by as though they were going up [to] Commercial Road, but instead of going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, & were there for about ½ an hour till I should say 11.30, talking to one another. I then shut up my shutters. Before they passed over opposite to my shop, they went near to the club for a few minutes apparently listening to the music. I saw no more of them after I shut up my shutters. I put the man down as a young clerk. He had a frock coat on – no gloves. He was about 1½ inches or 2 or 3 inches – a little bit higher than she was.”
On October 6th The Daily Telegraph produced a new account written by J. Hall Richardson. This was more detailed than previous reports but it also added a drawing, approved by Packer from a batch of drawings as the one most like the man that he’d sold the grapes too. By this time the police had their doubts about Packer and, fearing that the sketches might mislead, issued a disclaimer in the Police Gazette. At the same time they mentioned the descriptions by Smith, Schwartz and Lawende (without mentioning those witnesses names)
Although there are some discrepancies in all of the descriptions given the witnesses seeing a man with a woman taken to have been Stride Packer’s descriptions don’t stand out as impossible if we assume that the Parcelman wasn’t the same man as BSMan and the man seen by Marshall in Berner Street.
One possible problem though are the various times given by Packer as to what time he saw the couple:
He sold the grapes at 11.45 according to Grand and Batchelor
Between 11.30 and 12.00 by the Evening News
About 12.00 from Sergeant White
About 11.30 by Richardson in the Telegraph
About 11.00 by Bruce
Packer then said that the couple were still there when he closed up and went to bed:
12.30 according to White
12.10 to 12.15 according to Grand and Batchelor
A little past midnight to the Evening News (estimated by the pubs being closed)
Sugden then questions the age of the man as given by Packer:
Grand and Batchelor - middle aged, perhaps 35
Evening News - 30-35
To the police - a young man 25 to 30
Richardson/Telegraph - not more than 30
Sugden quotes the following, from the Evening News, to illustrate Packer being willing to adapt his story:
“Did you observe anything peculiar about his voice or manner, as he spoke to you?’ ‘He spoke like an educated man, but he had a loud, sharp sort of voice, and a quick commanding way with him.’ ‘But did he speak like an Englishman or more in this style?’ I asked, imitating as well as I could the Yankee twang. ‘Yes, now that you mention it, there was a sound of that sort about it,’ was the instantaneous reply.”
Sugden also quotes two other instances which he sees as Packer incorporating details from the newspaper which turned out to have been untrue.
First, Packer said that the flower that was worn by Stride was red and white. This was what Spooner said at the inquest whereas two days later PC. Smith said that it was just red. Reid, who prepared an inventory of her possessions said that it was a red rose with a Maidenhair fir.
Second, we have of course the question of the grapes. The October 1st edition of the Daily News all contain statements with Diemschitz, Kozebrodski and Mortimer claiming that the victim was found with a packet of sweetmeats in one hand and a bunch of grapes in the other. The doctors were emphatic that no grapes were found and that Stride hadn’t swallowed the skin or seed of a grape within hours of her death. Diemschitz, in the DN, said that Stride’s hands were clenched and that when the Doctor opened them he saw that she had been holding sweetmeats in the one hand and grapes in the other. However, when asked at the inquest Diemschitz said that he hadn’t noticed the position of her hands.
On October 27th Packer claimed to have seen the man again on the corner of Greenfield Street and Commercial Road where he gave Packer “a most vicious look” before leaping on a tram. He followed this with the tale of a man who came to his shop to buy rabbits and who told him that he suspected that his cousin was the murderer.
Sugden’s conclusion is that Packer either lied in pursuit of his fifteen minutes of fame or that he had the scent of reward money.
Tom Wescott sums up his section of Ripper Confidential called The Grapes Of Myth by saying:
“In any case, I would submit, based on the foregoing, that: a) no grapes or grape stalks were found on Stride’s person; b) Diemshitz did not lie about seeing grapes but was merely mistaken; c) The blood on Stride’s hands was a result of transference during Edward Johnston’s examination, and c) the police in this instance at least should be absolved of any attempted cover-up.”
So that’s the Packer story. Is it a pack of lies or might there be at least some truth there?
In his Casebook dissertation ‘Matthew Packer - Final Thoughts’ Dave Yost looks to the weather reports to show that Packer was mistaken about what time he got back and what time he shut up shop for the night.
“The unofficial weather records for Whitechapel tell us there was approximately a quarter inch of rain for 29 September. The official weather records for the London area corroborate this amount, but more importantly they add, 'Sudden heavy R.[rain] at 9.5p.m.[sic] lasting till after midnight'. This is an hour and a half before Elizabeth and her man left Settles Street. Since Packer headed for home 'as the night came on wet', we can readily accept that he would have been home by no later than eleven o'clock.”
(The underlining is mine)
I have to say that I disagree with this because again we find ourselves prisoner to a turn of phrase. Did Packer head for home at almost the first sign of rain or did he give it time? We can surely understand someone in his position being somewhat reluctant to give up and go home when he might have been missing out on possible sales. Times were tough. England is known for its changeable weather so why wouldn’t Packer have been prepared to wait to see if the rain stopped? I don’t think that we know where he was working that day or how long it would have taken him to reach home so I don’t think that we should be too certain as to what time he actually arrived home.
Despite the official weather report saying that there was some rain occurring until after midnight Dave Yost believes that because of the witnesses’s accounts, which mention no rain during this period, that there couldn’t have been rain in that vicinity at that time? But do they? Is he ignoring (unintentionally) the issue of showers. Stop/start showers familiar to any Brit.
Dr. Blackwell said that Stride’s clothes weren’t wet with rain at 1.16 (if Stride had, at least in part, avoided the rain by finding shelter she may have only spent a short time, in a light shower which allowed her clothes to gave dried by 1.16)
William Marshall said that while he was on his doorstep from 11.30-12.00 there was no rain. (But there could have been a shower after he’d gone indoors)
James Brown said that it wasn’t raining at around 12.45 when he went to get and returned from getting his supper. (Maybe it stopped raining just before he went out?)
PC. Smith said that it rained very little after 11.00. (But it did rain. Showers might have occurred until after 12.00)
Packer supposedly told Sergeant White at 9am that:
“Half past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean that Packer meant that it was raining at 12.30 though. Sporadic showers, lessening perhaps as the night went on could have been seen by Packer as the reason for trade being quiet as he’d said. Seeing little prospect of improvement, and being so late, his decision to shut up shop can’t gave been surprising but again it wouldn’t actually have had to have been raining when he made the decision.
Dave Yost makes the point that Packer didn’t see any of the members leave the club at around 11.30 but he suggests that he might have heard them and assumed that they were punters from a local pub going home at closing time which is why he was under the impression that he’d closed up at around 12.30) It’s a good suggestion which could be the case but it could also have been true that Packer arrived home after the club member had gone home.
So, to sum up Dave Yost’s position, he believes that Packer was mistaken about when he closed up his shop because he believes that the evidence shows that there was no rain at that time of night. I don’t believe that the evidence proves this. Whatever our opinion of Packer’s evidence in general, I don’t think that we can say that he couldn’t have closed up his shop at around 12.30. It would certainly fit with PC. Smith’s sighting of Parcelman (possibly carry a package of grapes) standing across from the club talking to a woman (possibly/probably Stride)
…
So the question remains. Was Packer lying from start to finish? Or was there at least some truth in his claims?
Over the years I’ve tended to doubt Packer (and I still have major reservations) but it has to be at least a possibility that he did indeed sell grapes to a man who was with a woman (possibly Stride) Human beings can get carried away when they enter the spotlight from a position of obscurity. Suggestions made to them can become incorporated into an overall story whether knowingly or not. So many questions can be asked. I’ll post a few….
Why would Packer have lied about White not questioning him? Could this be explained in terms of a mix up or not? White said that he’d also seen Mrs Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas during his call which appears to add weight to his claim.
Did Packer invent the man buying grapes for his fifteen minutes of fame? Surely he couldn’t have anticipated receiving a reward, or part of one, on the strength of a fictional character who could never be arrested?
How did Diemschitz, Kozebrodski and Mortimer come by the story of the grapes as the evidence is so strong that they never existed?
As the Doctor said that Strides hadn’t eaten the seed or skin of a grape might she have simply spat out the skin and seeds (people have far stranger eating habits)?
Tom Wescott suggests that the blood on Stride’s right hand might have been mistaken for grapes but could there actually have been a grape stalk there and the three witnesses put two and two together?
Why, after speaking to Packer for supposedly the second time, was there no mention from the police as to the reason for Packer saying that there was no 1st interview? Wouldn’t the police have wanted to stress that White had interviewed him when he claimed to have done?
When Packer approved one of the drawings in the Telegraph why did the police only issue a disclaimer in the Police Gazette?
…
I suspect that my initial post might end up being longer than the thread. This one really is a mystery imo.
A recap of the Packer story (cribbed largely from Sugden)
Matthew Packer sold fruit and veg from his shop at number 44 and also from a barrow which he’d take to wherever he felt that he could sell his goods. He and his wife were described as elderly, respectable, hard-working people. He was also described as quiet and intelligent. Sergeant White was one of two officers tasked by Abberline to question the locals. White’s notebook has long gone so all that we have is his report from October 4th:
“About 9 a.m. [30 September] I called at 44 Berner Street, and saw Matthew Packer, fruiterer in a small way of business. I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied ‘Half past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open’. I asked him if he saw anything of a man or woman going into Dutfield’s Yard, or saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop. He replied ‘No I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise. And knew nothing about the murder until I heard of it this morning.
I also saw Mrs. Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas residing in the same house but none of them could give the slightest information respecting the matter.”
However, on October 2nd he told private detectives Grand and Batchelor (hired by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee) that at about 11.45 on the night of the murder he’d sold half a pound of black grapes to a man who was with a woman (I won’t bother with descriptions). Following this the two detectives spoke to two sisters called Harstein and Rosenfield who lived at number 14 and they told him that on the morning after the murder they’d seen a bloodied grape stalk in Dutfield’s Yard. Suspecting that the police would have washed this away the two detectives sprung into action and searched the sink where, amongst the rubbish, they found a grape stalk.
When the Evening News heard about this they went and spoke to Packer on the 3rd who related the story about selling the grapes at some point between 11.30 and 12.00. For a minute or two the couple stood near the gateway before moving across the road where they stood for more than 30 minutes. He recalled mentioning to his wife about them standing out their eating grapes in the rain when they could have found shelter. The couple were still there after the Packer’s had gone to bed but he couldn’t state the time but it was after the pubs were ‘shut up.’ Packer then shocked the reporter by telling him, in response to being asked, that no police officer had been to speak to him. He added that a plain clothes officer had been to speak to him the day after the murder and had asked to see his backyard.
When the story came out on the 4th Inspect Moore sent Sergeant White out to talk to Packer again and take him to see the corpse at the mortuary. When White arrived at Packer’s house his wife told him that two detectives had already taken him to the mortuary. When White was part way to the mortuary he met Packer returning with one of the detectives. Packer told White that he’d identified the woman as Stride and that he’d sold her grapes at around 12.00. The second detective then joined them. White asked them for ID and was shown a card but they would let White touch it. They then persuaded Packer to go with them.
Later that same day whilst White was with Packer at his shop the two detectives returned and said that they were taking him (Packer) to see Sir Charles Warren. Although this sounds unlikely these two private detectives did take him to Scotland Yard because we have his statement, dated October 4th, written by Alexander Carmichael Bruce, the Assistant Commissioner (in his own hand):
“On Sat. night [29 September] about 11 p.m., a young man from 25–30, about 5 [feet] 7 [inches], with long black coat buttoned up, soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat, rather broad shoulders, rather quick in speaking, rough voice. I sold him ½ pound black grapes, 3d. A woman came up with him from Back Church end (the lower end of street). She was dressed in black frock & jacket, fur round bottom of jacket, a black crape bonnet, she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside & red inside. I identify the woman at the St. George’s Mortuary as the one I saw that night. They passed by as though they were going up [to] Commercial Road, but instead of going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, & were there for about ½ an hour till I should say 11.30, talking to one another. I then shut up my shutters. Before they passed over opposite to my shop, they went near to the club for a few minutes apparently listening to the music. I saw no more of them after I shut up my shutters. I put the man down as a young clerk. He had a frock coat on – no gloves. He was about 1½ inches or 2 or 3 inches – a little bit higher than she was.”
On October 6th The Daily Telegraph produced a new account written by J. Hall Richardson. This was more detailed than previous reports but it also added a drawing, approved by Packer from a batch of drawings as the one most like the man that he’d sold the grapes too. By this time the police had their doubts about Packer and, fearing that the sketches might mislead, issued a disclaimer in the Police Gazette. At the same time they mentioned the descriptions by Smith, Schwartz and Lawende (without mentioning those witnesses names)
Although there are some discrepancies in all of the descriptions given the witnesses seeing a man with a woman taken to have been Stride Packer’s descriptions don’t stand out as impossible if we assume that the Parcelman wasn’t the same man as BSMan and the man seen by Marshall in Berner Street.
One possible problem though are the various times given by Packer as to what time he saw the couple:
He sold the grapes at 11.45 according to Grand and Batchelor
Between 11.30 and 12.00 by the Evening News
About 12.00 from Sergeant White
About 11.30 by Richardson in the Telegraph
About 11.00 by Bruce
Packer then said that the couple were still there when he closed up and went to bed:
12.30 according to White
12.10 to 12.15 according to Grand and Batchelor
A little past midnight to the Evening News (estimated by the pubs being closed)
Sugden then questions the age of the man as given by Packer:
Grand and Batchelor - middle aged, perhaps 35
Evening News - 30-35
To the police - a young man 25 to 30
Richardson/Telegraph - not more than 30
Sugden quotes the following, from the Evening News, to illustrate Packer being willing to adapt his story:
“Did you observe anything peculiar about his voice or manner, as he spoke to you?’ ‘He spoke like an educated man, but he had a loud, sharp sort of voice, and a quick commanding way with him.’ ‘But did he speak like an Englishman or more in this style?’ I asked, imitating as well as I could the Yankee twang. ‘Yes, now that you mention it, there was a sound of that sort about it,’ was the instantaneous reply.”
Sugden also quotes two other instances which he sees as Packer incorporating details from the newspaper which turned out to have been untrue.
First, Packer said that the flower that was worn by Stride was red and white. This was what Spooner said at the inquest whereas two days later PC. Smith said that it was just red. Reid, who prepared an inventory of her possessions said that it was a red rose with a Maidenhair fir.
Second, we have of course the question of the grapes. The October 1st edition of the Daily News all contain statements with Diemschitz, Kozebrodski and Mortimer claiming that the victim was found with a packet of sweetmeats in one hand and a bunch of grapes in the other. The doctors were emphatic that no grapes were found and that Stride hadn’t swallowed the skin or seed of a grape within hours of her death. Diemschitz, in the DN, said that Stride’s hands were clenched and that when the Doctor opened them he saw that she had been holding sweetmeats in the one hand and grapes in the other. However, when asked at the inquest Diemschitz said that he hadn’t noticed the position of her hands.
On October 27th Packer claimed to have seen the man again on the corner of Greenfield Street and Commercial Road where he gave Packer “a most vicious look” before leaping on a tram. He followed this with the tale of a man who came to his shop to buy rabbits and who told him that he suspected that his cousin was the murderer.
Sugden’s conclusion is that Packer either lied in pursuit of his fifteen minutes of fame or that he had the scent of reward money.
Tom Wescott sums up his section of Ripper Confidential called The Grapes Of Myth by saying:
“In any case, I would submit, based on the foregoing, that: a) no grapes or grape stalks were found on Stride’s person; b) Diemshitz did not lie about seeing grapes but was merely mistaken; c) The blood on Stride’s hands was a result of transference during Edward Johnston’s examination, and c) the police in this instance at least should be absolved of any attempted cover-up.”
So that’s the Packer story. Is it a pack of lies or might there be at least some truth there?
In his Casebook dissertation ‘Matthew Packer - Final Thoughts’ Dave Yost looks to the weather reports to show that Packer was mistaken about what time he got back and what time he shut up shop for the night.
“The unofficial weather records for Whitechapel tell us there was approximately a quarter inch of rain for 29 September. The official weather records for the London area corroborate this amount, but more importantly they add, 'Sudden heavy R.[rain] at 9.5p.m.[sic] lasting till after midnight'. This is an hour and a half before Elizabeth and her man left Settles Street. Since Packer headed for home 'as the night came on wet', we can readily accept that he would have been home by no later than eleven o'clock.”
(The underlining is mine)
I have to say that I disagree with this because again we find ourselves prisoner to a turn of phrase. Did Packer head for home at almost the first sign of rain or did he give it time? We can surely understand someone in his position being somewhat reluctant to give up and go home when he might have been missing out on possible sales. Times were tough. England is known for its changeable weather so why wouldn’t Packer have been prepared to wait to see if the rain stopped? I don’t think that we know where he was working that day or how long it would have taken him to reach home so I don’t think that we should be too certain as to what time he actually arrived home.
Despite the official weather report saying that there was some rain occurring until after midnight Dave Yost believes that because of the witnesses’s accounts, which mention no rain during this period, that there couldn’t have been rain in that vicinity at that time? But do they? Is he ignoring (unintentionally) the issue of showers. Stop/start showers familiar to any Brit.
Dr. Blackwell said that Stride’s clothes weren’t wet with rain at 1.16 (if Stride had, at least in part, avoided the rain by finding shelter she may have only spent a short time, in a light shower which allowed her clothes to gave dried by 1.16)
William Marshall said that while he was on his doorstep from 11.30-12.00 there was no rain. (But there could have been a shower after he’d gone indoors)
James Brown said that it wasn’t raining at around 12.45 when he went to get and returned from getting his supper. (Maybe it stopped raining just before he went out?)
PC. Smith said that it rained very little after 11.00. (But it did rain. Showers might have occurred until after 12.00)
Packer supposedly told Sergeant White at 9am that:
“Half past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean that Packer meant that it was raining at 12.30 though. Sporadic showers, lessening perhaps as the night went on could have been seen by Packer as the reason for trade being quiet as he’d said. Seeing little prospect of improvement, and being so late, his decision to shut up shop can’t gave been surprising but again it wouldn’t actually have had to have been raining when he made the decision.
Dave Yost makes the point that Packer didn’t see any of the members leave the club at around 11.30 but he suggests that he might have heard them and assumed that they were punters from a local pub going home at closing time which is why he was under the impression that he’d closed up at around 12.30) It’s a good suggestion which could be the case but it could also have been true that Packer arrived home after the club member had gone home.
So, to sum up Dave Yost’s position, he believes that Packer was mistaken about when he closed up his shop because he believes that the evidence shows that there was no rain at that time of night. I don’t believe that the evidence proves this. Whatever our opinion of Packer’s evidence in general, I don’t think that we can say that he couldn’t have closed up his shop at around 12.30. It would certainly fit with PC. Smith’s sighting of Parcelman (possibly carry a package of grapes) standing across from the club talking to a woman (possibly/probably Stride)
…
So the question remains. Was Packer lying from start to finish? Or was there at least some truth in his claims?
Over the years I’ve tended to doubt Packer (and I still have major reservations) but it has to be at least a possibility that he did indeed sell grapes to a man who was with a woman (possibly Stride) Human beings can get carried away when they enter the spotlight from a position of obscurity. Suggestions made to them can become incorporated into an overall story whether knowingly or not. So many questions can be asked. I’ll post a few….
Why would Packer have lied about White not questioning him? Could this be explained in terms of a mix up or not? White said that he’d also seen Mrs Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas during his call which appears to add weight to his claim.
Did Packer invent the man buying grapes for his fifteen minutes of fame? Surely he couldn’t have anticipated receiving a reward, or part of one, on the strength of a fictional character who could never be arrested?
How did Diemschitz, Kozebrodski and Mortimer come by the story of the grapes as the evidence is so strong that they never existed?
As the Doctor said that Strides hadn’t eaten the seed or skin of a grape might she have simply spat out the skin and seeds (people have far stranger eating habits)?
Tom Wescott suggests that the blood on Stride’s right hand might have been mistaken for grapes but could there actually have been a grape stalk there and the three witnesses put two and two together?
Why, after speaking to Packer for supposedly the second time, was there no mention from the police as to the reason for Packer saying that there was no 1st interview? Wouldn’t the police have wanted to stress that White had interviewed him when he claimed to have done?
When Packer approved one of the drawings in the Telegraph why did the police only issue a disclaimer in the Police Gazette?
…
I suspect that my initial post might end up being longer than the thread. This one really is a mystery imo.
Comment