Descriptions.

[Lewis C]

Regarding Brown, he was as confident as could be reasonably expected that he saw Stride. And we can't forget the chandler at the shop Brown went to was spoken to, so if any doubt had been cast on Brown or his timings he would not have been offered to Baxter and Baxter would not have chosen him to given evidence. Schwartz doesn't appear to have offered a corroborating witness (although I would suggest that Brown himself corroborates Schwartz) Not only the police, but Baxter believed Brown saw Stride. He got a better look at Stride than Lawende did Eddowes. The doubt that clouds him comes from how his evidence was misrepresented in the centenary books up through Sugden. He was ignored or dismissed unfairly. As for times, I make any and all reasonable allowances, but here's the rub. Schwartz looks at a clock and says 12:45. Brown has a clock in his house and says 'about 12:45' he left his house and five minutes later he sees Stride with a man. To place Schwartz before Brown, as nearly every author aside from myself does, you have to actually ignore the sworn evidence of two witnesses. If a writer is doing that (this is not aimed at you, Lewis), they should really ask themselves why they're doing that. When I undertook my Berner Street research it was with an eye to clearing away the nonsense that had been piled on by sloppy researchers, folk lore, and (sorry to say) authors with an agenda. That is to say, authors who need BS Man in frame because he more closely resembles their suspect. Ripper Confidential (2018...think about that) is the only book to propose that Brown saw Stride several minutes after Schwartz and I intentionally published all my sources for the reader to consider the actual statement. My approach is simple: 'this is what the historical record actually says, and here's what it means'. Pure as the driven snow. Doesn't it strike you odd how this perspective is treated as radical or even untenable? My entire argument is made by simply sharing four or five published transcripts of Brown's inquest evidence. It's all right there.

Of course it's possible that Schwartz saw what he did just after Brown, but it's possible in the same way that the Ripper had 20 minutes to work in Mitre Square. We have to change the given timings to make it work. Why are we so keen to do that?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I would say that believing that the Brown sighting and the Schwartz incident could easily have happened in either order doesn't require one to ignore the historical record or to change given times, it only requires one to view given times as approximations. It seems like a very high percentage of times in this case are to an exact quarter hour, that people are much more likely to say something happened at 12:45 than to say it happened at 12:40 or 12:50. So when Brown and Schwartz say something happened at 12:45, I understand that to meant not "exactly 12:45", but "sometime between about 12:38 and about 12:52". Understood in that way, either order for the Brown sighting and the Schwartz incident works, at least with regard to given times. I'm not keen to argue that Schwartz must have happened after Brown or vice versa, but keen to keep the door open to all very reasonable possibilities.

This is the first that I have heard that Schwartz saw a clock. I had thought that Schwartz may have had a very poor idea of what time it was, so not only was it possible that it happened later than he thought, but also earlier was very possible, that the incident could have happened before PC Smith saw Parcelman. But if he saw a clock around the time of the incident, that would seem to be a fairly remote possibility.

[Darryl Kenyon]

James Brown passes the intersection of Fairclough and Berner st not once but twice, going to and from the shop, only a few metre's from Dutfield's yard. By his own testimony he saw Liz around 12:45 and he was in the shop 3 or 4 mins . So lets just say for arguments sake that the first time he crossed the intersection going to the shop was around 12:40. He doesn't see any assault nor Schwartz hurrying away or he would have said so. Nor does he on the way back. And the couple weren't seen by Schwartz on the corner of the board school or else he would have said so. If the woman in the couple seen by Brown wasn't Liz, one or the other would have probably have seen some form of altercation if it took place at 12:45 [ yet neither came forward, probably the same as pipeman ], and unless Morris Eagle didn't see Liz's body at around 12:40 it's safe to assume BS mans assault didn't take place at around 12 :40, and it would have been tight at 12:45. So where does that leave us ?

If BS man is Liz's killer, it is extremely close timewise [ after 12:45 ], for someone to pull Liz on to the pavement , throw her down and then persuade Liz to go into Dutfield's yard with him without her sensing danger . And I very much doubt she was forced there nor dragged there by her scarf .

Medical evidence - The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
Phillips - That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

So Liz must have put the cachous in her hand after the initial assault.

Blackwell - The bonnet of the deceased was lying on the ground a few inches from the head.

If she had been thrown to the ground just before, isn't it possible her bonnet would have fallen off then ? And if it did , picking it up and putting her bonnet back on is more time taken in a tight time frame.

Baxter summing up - There were no signs of any struggle; the clothes were neither torn nor disturbed.

I think that puts to bed that she was forced/dragged back into the yard by her silk scarf or otherwise.

I don't know the truth behind Schwartz, but I very much doubt he saw what he reported he saw where he saw it or when . Either one , two or all three could be wrong.
As for BS man being Liz's killer, not for me the whole dynamics of him murdering her are wrong.

Drawing attention to himself, one definite witness, probably two. No signs of any struggle whatsoever in Liz's murder. Again Baxter - There were no signs of any struggle, no bruises on the face.

Liz was killed swiftly and silently and it wasn't by BS man . All the medical evidence points in that direction.

Regards Darryl

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Rookie. Let's not bring the Castle Alley pipe into this. It's convoluted enough. But you may be correct!

I don't know who Parcel Man was, but he doesn't appear to resemble either BS Man or Pipe Man. I don't know who Overcoat Man was but he wasn't BS Man, may have been Pipe Man, and was the last man seen with Stride ten or fewer minutes before her body was discovered.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I think Tom meant to write the word AFTER, rather than BEFORE.

Yes, that's correct. I shouldn't write long posts two hours after I should have gone to bed!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

I think we have some communication and interpretation differences here. I look at the reports in the Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Evening News and The Irish Times that say Brown saw Stride at 12:45 to mean exactly that.

As I've pointed out, Brown states he saw Stride 'about 12:45' because he left his house at 12:45 and saw her five or more minutes later. The Times, who you've mentioned twice, writes: "saw the deceased about a quarter to 1 on Sunday morning. At that time I was going from my house to get some supper.' This isn't the least bit ambiguous. It's not a question of interpretation or debate. It means Brown was the last to see Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Rookie Detective]

Why would you think that to be the case?

Because otherwise he is directly contradicting himself.

tom has made it clear that he believes the man seen by Brown talking to Stride, was the last person seen with Stride before her murder; ergo, the assault on her by Bs man occurred BEFORE Brown saw her with Overcoat Man.

That would then mean that after BS man had left the scene, Stride ends up talking with Overcoat man, who she then dismisses by telling him "no, not tonight, some other night."

Based on Overcoat man and Pipeman both having been seen wearing long coats, it stands to reason that Pipeman was also Overcoat Man.

If that's the case, then Pipeman would be the last man seen with Stride.


The argument against this, is that Stride would need to walk BACK to the same location to which she was assaulted only 5 minutes or so beforehand.


I am not sure if that fits the pattern.


But...


There's also a chance that Stride is seen talking with Overcoat man by Brown BEFORE she's assaulted.

In this scenario, she walks from opposite the yard after having spoken with Parcelman, and as she walks around the corner, is then accosted by Overcoat man, whom she quickly dismisses; as witnessed by Brown. Stride then walks towards the yard (i.e. back into Berner Street) and gestures to go into the club in a bid to convince Overcoat man she is going inside. However, Overcoat man doesn't fall for it and doesn't go away, but instead hangs around concealed under the doorway of the Nelson. Stride then peaks out and is seen by BS man who is a random drunk who has no connection to anything. The assault then happens and BS man walks away after Schwartz scarpers.
Stride then looks up and sees Overcoat man has seen her. He calmly walks over to her and gestures to help her up, offering her a puff on his pipe. She does so almost reluctantly and it makes her gag. He quickly offers her some Cachou, which she takes. He then offers to lift her up and moves behind her in a motion to lift her up from under her armpits...but instead he chokes her tightly from behind with her own scarf and then quickly cuts her throat with one clean cut. Stride is already on the floor. He rolls her over and then calmly walks off smoking his pipe.

His pipe is then found by McKenzie's head, as an obscure clue to the police that the murders are linked.

Just an idea

[GBinOz]

I think Tom meant to write the word AFTER, rather than BEFORE.

Why would you think that to be the case?

[The Rookie Detective]

Wouldn't that be Schwartz BEFORE Brown, which Tom appears to deny?

"To place Schwartz before Brown, as nearly every author aside from myself does, you have to actually ignore the sworn evidence of two witnesses."

I think Tom meant to write the word AFTER, rather than BEFORE.

[GBinOz]

Respectfully, I think Tom meant it the other way around.

He believes that the assault occurred BEFORE Brown saw her with Overcoat man.

Wouldn't that be Schwartz BEFORE Brown, which Tom appears to deny?

"To place Schwartz before Brown, as nearly every author aside from myself does, you have to actually ignore the sworn evidence of two witnesses."

[The Rookie Detective]

Tom says "To place Schwartz before Brown, as nearly every author aside from myself does, you have to actually ignore the sworn evidence of two witnesses."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Tom is saying but it appears to me that Scenario 1 is Brown before Schwartz, and Scenario 2 is Schwartz before Brown, the latter being the scenario with which Tom disagrees.

Respectfully, I think Tom meant it the other way around.

He believes that the assault occurred BEFORE Brown saw her with Overcoat man.

This is because most believe that Stride was assaulted AFTER she was seen by Brown on the corner.

In other words, Tom is suggesting that Overcoat man ("No, not tonight") was with Stride on the corner AFTER she had been assaulted in the gateway; ergo, Schwartz and BS man must have left while Brown was in the shop.

Tom believes that Overcoat man was the last person seen with Stride and NOT Bs Man, who had assaulted her BEFORE she is accosted on the corner by Overcoat man.


The only issue with this is that Stride would have needed to have walked form the gateway after having been assaulted, to stand in Fairclough Street by the board school, to then walk BACK to the gateway, where she is then murdered sometime between 12.50am -1am.




I believe there's a 3rd option; Schwartz's account never happened and Brown witnesses Stride with her killer in Fairclough Street.

She tries to walk away because she had previously been speaking with a club member in Parcelman, who IMO may have been Lave.

This scenario means that the ONLY TIME she is in the yard, is when she's murdered.



So a possible sequence is...




Stride is standing talking with Parcelman on the opposite side of the road to the yard, and is seen by PC Smith circa 12.35am.

Around 12.40am Parcleman (Lave) goes into the club via the side door, just as Eagle turns into the street.

As Eagle is trying the front door, Brown walks into the shop. Stride walks around the corner to Fairclough Street and is met by Overcoat man.

Eagle goes into the club via the side door at 12.41am

Brown leaves the shop and sees Overcoat Man at 12.44am

At 12.45am Stride attempts to go into the yard, but is followed by Overcoat man, who quickly cuts her throat.



What's interesting about the entire Schwartz incident is that when it was originally reported in the press, it was described as a witness seeing what he believed was a domestic in the street, and so the witness then tried to give it a wide berth.


This story then explodes into the Schwartz account, including a full on assault and an antisemitic slur.


To me it seems as though the police took the original witness statement from someone who had seen a domestic assault taking place on the street, and then deliberately enhanced, altered and embellished the truth to create an entire scenario that didn't even happen.


A ruse by the police to catch the killer?

Or an attempt to quash the idea that the killer was a Jew; by having a story about a Jew being racially slurred in public?



I find it quite remarkable how nobody saw or heard Bs man or the alleged assault on Stride.


Perhaps Overcoat man was a plain clothed officer with a penchant for cutting women, and Schwartz's story was created to put the blame on a drunken thug who never existed... and by proxy, to cover for the real killer in Overcoat Man.



So many possibilities.

[GBinOz]

It seems fairly clear to me that Brown and Schwartz cannot coexist in the same space at the same time.


Brown either...


1) - Leaves his house just after 12.40am, stays in the shop for 4 mins and then sees Stride before the assault around 12.45am, as he makes his way home. Stride then leaves Overcoat man to make her way to the yard before then being assaulted by BS man. Overcoat man is then Pipeman who is seen by Schwartz. This then perhaps supports the 2 men having been accomplices.

or...

2) - He leaves his house around 12.45am, stays in the shop for 4 mins, and then sees Stride after the assault just before 12.50am, as he makes his way home. Stride had come from the yard after having been assaulted and is then accosted on the corner as she tries to leave. This scenario means she then has to go back to the place she is then murdered.

Tom says "To place Schwartz before Brown, as nearly every author aside from myself does, you have to actually ignore the sworn evidence of two witnesses."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Tom is saying but it appears to me that Scenario 1 is Brown before Schwartz, and Scenario 2 is Schwartz before Brown, the latter being the scenario with which Tom disagrees.

[GBinOz]

Hi GB. Which unique sources have Brown saying 'I saw her about a quarter to one' and, most importantly, what is the sentence right after that? If you're referring to the Times, I've included that below.

Brown states in reply to the coroner that upon returning home to eat his supper he did not look at a clock.
I haven't seen that reply, only:
[Coroner] Did you hear anything more? - When I had nearly finished my supper I heard screams of "Murder" and "Police." This was a quarter of an hour after I had got home. I did not look at any clock at the chandler's shop.

Earlier he stated that he returned home at 12:10 p.m. That specific timing suggests to me that upon returning home, he looked at a clock.
That was the inference to which I was referring in my post, but that was at 12:10, not after his trip to the chandler's shop. Did not most of his other time references include the word "about"?

Also, he lived in a boarding house and I would expect a clock to be on the wall.
Even if there was, it doesn't mean it was in sync with the the clock Schwartz used (see below).

As for Schwartz, he walked past more than one clock coming into Berner Street. He was able to fix the time to both Abberline's and Swanson's satisfaction as Swanson did not supply a time range, but the specific '12:45'. I'm sure you would agree that Abberline would have asked how he fixed his time and apparently received an answer that satisfied him.
I stand corrected on this point. Consulting the A-Z, Swanson's time is stated as a definitive 12:45.

But GB writes: "While we are unable to determine the time sync and estimating errors involved, it would appear on the face of it and short of evidence to the contrary, that Brown was looking at a woman he thought was Stride at the time that Schwartz was turning into Berner St from Commercial Road." Who is this 'we' you're referring to?
No! The "we" refers to our collective inability to know the extent of differences in clock time synchronisation and time interval estimations.

Theorists whose argument hinges (in part or whole) on Stride's killer being BS Man?
I am pursuing no such argument.

I appreciate that all the old books got it wrong, but the databases are richer now and allow for more resource material with which we can correct (and not perpetuate) the old errors. Here are four papers with unique reporting of James Brown. All a little different, but look at what they say in regards to when he left his house verses when he saw the couple. Bold/Italics are mine.

The Times: I saw the deceased about a quarter to 1 on Sunday morning. At that time I was going from my house to get some supper from a chandler’s shop at the corner of Berner-street and Fairclough-street. As I was going across the road I saw a man and woman standing by the Board School in Fairclough-street.

Daily Telegraph: (Brown) I have seen the body in the mortuary. I did not know the deceased, but I saw her about a quarter to one on Sunday morning last. (Coroner) Where were you? (Brown) I was going from my house to the chandler’s shop at the corner of Berner-street and Fairclough-street, to get some supper. I stayed there three or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School.

Morning Advertiser: On Sunday morning last, about 12.45, I went from my own home to get something for supper at the corner of Berner-street, and was in the shop three or four minutes and then went back home. As I was going home I saw a man and woman standing against the wall by the board school in Fairclough-street.

The Star: [Brown] said that at about a quarter to one on Sunday morning he went out to get some supper at the corner of Berner-street, where there is a chandler's shop. He was gone three or four minutes, and as he returned he saw a man and woman standing by the Board School (which is just opposite the scene of the murder).

Let me say that I am absolutely fine if BS Man was the last man seen with Stride. I don't care. But it simply won't do any more to cherry pick sentences from the Times and pretend they say something they don't. You may not be aware how many times I've seen that pulled, but it's a lot. I'd respect an author (and I appreciate you're just posting on a forum and not writing a book and I do know that's not the same thing) who is willing to take ALL this on board - including the proof I published demolishing the 'young couple on the corner' red herring so favored by certain theorists in order to discredit Brown. Take ALL this on board, acknowledge its reality, and then craft a reasonable argument for BS Man as killer. You'll get a five star review from me. #freejamesbrown

I think you have misread my comments. I don't think that BSMan was her killer (nor Parcelman). If you read my post carefully you will see that I am actually agreeing with your "Brown before Schwartz" theory but questioning whether this could be the case if, as you argue, Brown left home at 12:45, when Schwartz was turning into Berner St, and was seeing Stride 4-5 minutes later.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

I think we have some communication and interpretation differences here. I look at the reports in the Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Evening News and The Irish Times that say Brown saw Stride at 12:45 to mean exactly that. If this is then qualified by what he was doing at the time it doesn't alter that fact. However you have provided more examples, and promote his saying that he testified that he left his home at 12:45. The Star and the the Morning Advertiser suggest that he was seeing the woman he thought was Stride about five minutes later, on his return trip, around 12:50. If Schwartz turned into Berner St at 12:45, he was gone by 12:50. Doesn't that have the Schwartz incident occurring before Brown's sighting? But you say "To place Schwartz before Brown, as nearly every author aside from myself does, you have to actually ignore the sworn evidence of two witnesses."

[The Rookie Detective]

It seems fairly clear to me that Brown and Schwartz cannot coexist in the same space at the same time.


Brown either...


1) - Leaves his house just after 12.40am, stays in the shop for 4 mins and then sees Stride before the assault around 12.45am, as he makes his way home. Stride then leaves Overcoat man to make her way to the yard before then being assaulted by BS man. Overcoat man is then Pipeman who is seen by Schwartz. This then perhaps supports the 2 men having been accomplices.

or...

2) - He leaves his house around 12.45am, stays in the shop for 4 mins, and then sees Stride after the assault just before 12.50am, as he makes his way home. Stride had come from the yard after having been assaulted and is then accosted on the corner as she tries to leave. This scenario means she then has to go back to the place she is then murdered.

Either way, it seems likely that Pipeman and Overcoat man are the same individual.


In terms of behaviour, Overcoat man seems more likely a suspect for having been the Ripper if option 2 is correct.


I agree with Tom that Schwartz's best advocate for his account having been true, lies in the idea that Pipeman was also Overcoat man; which is somewhat ironic considering that Schwartz and Brown's observations couldn't have happened at the exact same time.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, I have not seen any reference to Schwartz having looked at a clock at 12:45. When he said he turned into Berner St at about 12:45, I assume he was estimating a time interval from when he had last seen a clock of indeterminate synchronisation with GMT. Likewise I have seen no reference to Brown having a clock in his house unless that possibility is to be inferred from his testimony "I arrived home first at ten minutes past twelve o'clock".

Looking at the reports of Brown's testimony, most that I have found say that he testified "I saw her about a quarter to one", with only (that I have found), the Daily News reporting that he left his home at "about 12:45".

While we are unable to determine the time sync and estimating errors involved, it would appear on the face of it and short of evidence to the contrary, that Brown was looking at a woman he thought was Stride at the time that Schwartz was turning into Berner St from Commercial Road.
Ergo, it appears that the only way Schwartz could be placed before Brown (contrary to your theory) is if the Daily News report of Brown seeing the woman five minutes after he left his house at 12:45 is adopted over the majority of reports, as you appear to have done above. Alternatively, perhaps I am having a "senior moment".

Cheers, George

Hi GB. Which unique sources have Brown saying 'I saw her about a quarter to one' and, most importantly, what is the sentence right after that? If you're referring to the Times, I've included that below.

Brown states in reply to the coroner that upon returning home to eat his supper he did not look at a clock. Earlier he stated that he returned home at 12:10 p.m. That specific timing suggests to me that upon returning home, he looked at a clock. Also, he lived in a boarding house and I would expect a clock to be on the wall. As for Schwartz, he walked past more than one clock coming into Berner Street. He was able to fix the time to both Abberline's and Swanson's satisfaction as Swanson did not supply a time range, but the specific '12:45'. I'm sure you would agree that Abberline would have asked how he fixed his time and apparently received an answer that satisfied him.

But GB writes: "While we are unable to determine the time sync and estimating errors involved, it would appear on the face of it and short of evidence to the contrary, that Brown was looking at a woman he thought was Stride at the time that Schwartz was turning into Berner St from Commercial Road." Who is this 'we' you're referring to? Theorists whose argument hinges (in part or whole) on Stride's killer being BS Man? I appreciate that all the old books got it wrong, but the databases are richer now and allow for more resource material with which we can correct (and not perpetuate) the old errors. Here are four papers with unique reporting of James Brown. All a little different, but look at what they say in regards to when he left his house verses when he saw the couple. Bold/Italics are mine.

The Times: I saw the deceased about a quarter to 1 on Sunday morning. At that time I was going from my house to get some supper from a chandler’s shop at the corner of Berner-street and Fairclough-street. As I was going across the road I saw a man and woman standing by the Board School in Fairclough-street.

Daily Telegraph: (Brown) I have seen the body in the mortuary. I did not know the deceased, but I saw her about a quarter to one on Sunday morning last. (Coroner) Where were you? (Brown) I was going from my house to the chandler’s shop at the corner of Berner-street and Fairclough-street, to get some supper. I stayed there three or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School.

Morning Advertiser: On Sunday morning last, about 12.45, I went from my own home to get something for supper at the corner of Berner-street, and was in the shop three or four minutes and then went back home. As I was going home I saw a man and woman standing against the wall by the board school in Fairclough-street.

The Star: [Brown] said that at about a quarter to one on Sunday morning he went out to get some supper at the corner of Berner-street, where there is a chandler's shop. He was gone three or four minutes, and as he returned he saw a man and woman standing by the Board School (which is just opposite the scene of the murder).

Let me say that I am absolutely fine if BS Man was the last man seen with Stride. I don't care. But it simply won't do any more to cherry pick sentences from the Times and pretend they say something they don't. You may not be aware how many times I've seen that pulled, but it's a lot. I'd respect an author (and I appreciate you're just posting on a forum and not writing a book and I do know that's not the same thing) who is willing to take ALL this on board - including the proof I published demolishing the 'young couple on the corner' red herring so favored by certain theorists in order to discredit Brown. Take ALL this on board, acknowledge its reality, and then craft a reasonable argument for BS Man as killer. You'll get a five star review from me. #freejamesbrown

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GBinOz]

Regarding Brown, he was as confident as could be reasonably expected that he saw Stride. And we can't forget the chandler at the shop Brown went to was spoken to, so if any doubt had been cast on Brown or his timings he would not have been offered to Baxter and Baxter would not have chosen him to given evidence. Schwartz doesn't appear to have offered a corroborating witness (although I would suggest that Brown himself corroborates Schwartz) Not only the police, but Baxter believed Brown saw Stride. He got a better look at Stride than Lawende did Eddowes. The doubt that clouds him comes from how his evidence was misrepresented in the centenary books up through Sugden. He was ignored or dismissed unfairly. As for times, I make any and all reasonable allowances, but here's the rub. Schwartz looks at a clock and says 12:45. Brown has a clock in his house and says 'about 12:45' he left his house and five minutes later he sees Stride with a man. To place Schwartz before Brown, as nearly every author aside from myself does, you have to actually ignore the sworn evidence of two witnesses.

Tom, I have not seen any reference to Schwartz having looked at a clock at 12:45. When he said he turned into Berner St at about 12:45, I assume he was estimating a time interval from when he had last seen a clock of indeterminate synchronisation with GMT. Likewise I have seen no reference to Brown having a clock in his house unless that possibility is to be inferred from his testimony "I arrived home first at ten minutes past twelve o'clock".

Looking at the reports of Brown's testimony, most that I have found say that he testified "I saw her about a quarter to one", with only (that I have found), the Daily News reporting that he left his home at "about 12:45".

While we are unable to determine the time sync and estimating errors involved, it would appear on the face of it and short of evidence to the contrary, that Brown was looking at a woman he thought was Stride at the time that Schwartz was turning into Berner St from Commercial Road.
Ergo, it appears that the only way Schwartz could be placed before Brown (contrary to your theory) is if the Daily News report of Brown seeing the woman five minutes after he left his house at 12:45 is adopted over the majority of reports, as you appear to have done above. Alternatively, perhaps I am having a "senior moment".

Cheers, George