| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1146
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 6:26 pm: |       |
Hi all!
Have been looking at the wonderful High res pic again ...as you do and then again at the small one and just noticed 'something'!
WHAT is that sort of parcel thing by Mary's leg by the partition? looks as if it 'something' tied up! (Joe?)
Thoughts?!
Cheers
Suzi
|
steve tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:09 pm: | |
I always assumed it was a comforter or cover of some kind- it we are talking about the same item..? |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Hi steve
No as you look past that AWFUL leg stripped to the bone etc etc its just past the right (garter???!!!!) calf against the wall
errrrrrrrrgh!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
Having thought and thought and
thought about this and then....
Just had another look I feel it may have been a coverlet of some kind tied and bundled by the police or whoever ..but WHY was it left in the photograph in such a conspicuous position!?
Thoughts...am I
alone here?
Cheers
Suzi
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 274
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 6:34 pm: | |
Suzi,
You mean the blanket thing that looks like it's rolled up kind of like a sleeping bag, right? Odds are good it wasn't bundled by the police but that that's just where it was normally put.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1165
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
Hi Dan
Yes thats the one!
Hmm odd though isnt it!
Sure ..it wasn't a sleeping bag God what a luxury that would have been!..
but know what you mean!!
Odd that it...........(oddly!)
.. wasn't mentioned at all in any descriptions of the room and it's contents though even in the Press as far as I know..like the hatchet! HEY! like the idea of the hatchet...... praps it was in THE ROLL!
(maybe not!)
BUT WHAT IS IT!?
Maybe it was left there by the photographer!?
Well??
Cheers
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 1:25 pm: | |
Hi
Having looked carefully at that rolled up bundle, which i always took for bedding, it actually could be a pile of clothing with what could be a calf length stocking over the top, the other one could be still on her right leg, if so it would imply that she only had time to remove one.
Scenerio.
Mary sits on the bed undresses down to a chemise, places the clothes on the far side of the bed , or if the bed was not right up against the partition on a chair, then sits back down on the bed takes off her left stocking, leans back across the bed, and dangles it over the bundle, as she turns back to the front , she is attacked.
the more i look at that right leg the more it looks like she is wearing a calf length stocking with that cut like item on her leg being a support garter on the stocking.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1170
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
Hi Richard!
Am speechless!! I cannot believe the garter 'thing'.. Poor Mary..(or whoever) surely didn't have much in the way of hosiery maybe just a pair of boots was a luxury!
Stockings(!) if they were worn were I feel of the lisle variety and held up by a garter just below the knee as you say but am..still am not convinced that Mary would have had them tho!
Also I think the CHEMISE thing is wrong !!!! THATS a SHEET rucked up around the body! Sorry but cant be swayed on that!
Cheers
Suzi
This 'bundle' is still a worry.... |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 3:44 am: | |
Hi Suzi,
I do not find it hard to accept that Kelly had some hosery, the other women all wore stockings albeit the thicker ribbed variety,we should remember that until august that year Barnett was fully employed, and i would have imagined that although not in poccession of a full wardrobe, had more than some of the other women, just look at Barnetts attire at her funeral[ very smart] also the inquest.
I would therefore say she possible owned at least one pair of below the knee hosery.
my concern is if that is a stocking held up by a fixture on her right leg, where is the left one, unless she was in the habit of wearing one to bed.
That could be the clue that she was suddenly attacked whilst undressing, and her other one was that white wrap like strap on the bundle.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1185
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 4:57 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Ok I conceed that Mary probably owned maybe one or two pairs of probably lisle stockings.Love the idea of Mary wearing just one one to bed though! how tantalising!
'The other one was the white wrap like strap'??...ok at a stretch(!) but ok what was in the bundle then?
....MORE stockings?
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1210
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Just a test here as am trying post here and it wont let me!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
AAAgh!
wouldn't you know it!
Right! Hi all..
Sorry about the break in transmission there...
Following a conversation with Bob Hinton re the ubiquitous bundle, a new angle has come to light, all credit for this must go to Bob I admit!
Quoting vaguely..
If you look at the other mkj bed photo and look at the angle it is taken from,it has to be taken from the left hand side of the bed,yet you can see that the bed hasn't been moved very far away from the wall.In other words there is not enough room for the photographer to get between the bead and the wall to take his photo,Maybe what the photographer did was bundle up some old clothes and place his camera on top,leant over the bed to focus and then clicked the shutter,using the 'bundle' as a sort of makeshift tripod.
this would seem to be very plausible as if you look at the second photo this is almost exactly where the photo would have been taken from.
Wish I'd thought of that...but this is the result of the joint investigation so far....any thoughts?
Cheers
Suzi
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
Hi Suzy.
Did you ever ask yourself, "why?".
Doesn't it seem just a little labor intensive just to get a shot that could have been taken from the foot of the bed?.
I've heard that suggestion before (camera on bedding) but I was unable to verify if such a camera existed in 1888. Also, I could not think why such a view was so important, a view which could have been taken from the foot of the bed by a camera on tripod.
It just seem's a bit of an ellaborate suggestion to me, personally I couldn't justify it.
Whadayathink?
regards, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
Jon
The question 'WHY' occurs often in the old grey cells but.. At the risk of being a bit
'picky!' here .The second photograph I think (hope!) that's taken from an angle a bit further to the left'Hence the light through the door etc etc ..A touch of elaboration maybe.....but... shows a spark of 'what if' I'm thinking! and this must NEVER be without consideration!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1216
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Come on!!!
Am sure that 'the camera' existed!!!! Fox Talbot and all that!!! all it required was an 'operator' and a tripod! Sure Bob will help out here.. but that notwithstanding ..THAT 2nd photo was most definately taken from that position...look at the glimpse of the boned leg etc etc in the photograph and you'll see there is an angle there that seems to prove the 'angle 'point Of course we only have that dark little drawing of the photographer at work we can only IMAGINE what actually went on in that room!
Suzi |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 988
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 4:12 pm: | |
What type of camera was used.
i thought they came on a tripod looking down ?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1218
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Bob! help!
Shooting from the hip her I think(!)
The camera used at the time was a box type as used by Fox Talbot etc..dont know the details but guess someone will...
BUT they took 'plates' bromide jobs that had to be put in and out of the camera..pretty laborious work and at the end of the day they needed a support usually a tripod but failing that.......
Cheers Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope not but hope you get the image ( so to speak!)
x s |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1221
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
Jon
It seems to me very evident that the bed was at some point pulled away from the wall (partition) maybe just maybe for a photograph to be taken.I cannot help but think though that there were rather more than two taken at the scene of that particular crime....ok sherlock....where are they (now??? in someones attic maybe????
Suzi (xxxx) |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1222
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
Hi
iTS all gone quiet here chaps...
Wassup?
rIGHT HERE WE GO.........
X SUZI
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
Suzi.
I seem to recall that the state of photography as it existed in those early days the operator had to stand behind the camera, looking down into the viewfinder, which had to be mounted on a firm stand (tripod) and was not suitably equipped to be operated remotely.
If you (or Bob) know different, then I would be obliged.
Thanks, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1224
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Jon!
Exactly!!!! I have to say that..
He did have to stand behind the camera and had to have said camera soundly mounted! In the absence of a tripod I feel that 'our' idea is a very probable solution! How else would you get that camera up to that angle to get THAT photo!!! ( Look at the light through the door etc etc ..the angle is perfect!!)
Sorry Jon but look again!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
Photography wasn't as ill advanced as may be thought. Don't forget 1888 was when the first roll film camera came out, although I am fairly certain that wasn't the type of camera used here.
A tripod wasn't a neccessity, all that was needed was that the camera be placed in such a position that the photographer could operate the shutter release which was on the lens mounting.
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1225
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Bob
Right you're right!!! have checked all that!
Come on Jon!!! the camera plates used at the time were of the glass type..very heavy and had to be stored very safely
These plates would have been about 18" by 9" (ish!) about and had to be very carefully looked after otherwise the 'evidence' may have disappeared!
Still think that thre may be the odd plate or two in someones attic tho! hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
xx Suzi
|
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 74
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
It looks to me like the blankets on the bed were sort of rolled up and pushed aside so she could conduct business without them getting in the way.
What this says about the nature of the attack is probably the subject for another thread.
Mags |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
Suzi / Bob.
Yes Suzi I am very familiar with that photo, I don't avidly disagree with the suggestion, I'm just thinking outloud, just to be sure you both know it was feasible.
Take a look at the blow-up of that photo, what is that 'wheel' looking thing directly at bottom centre in front of the right shin.
It's either a design or a hard object, or summat?.
Regards, Jon
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi.
I still maintain that Kelly was wearing a below the knee stocking which was held by a narrow elastic garter on her right leg, but her left leg is bare, which would imply that she was attacked and killed soon after she romoved the left stocking from her foot . the bundle that is visable i believe to have been kellys rolled up clothes possibly on a broken backed chair, with the left stocking drapped across the bundle.
Question is 'when did this attack take place?'
Richard. |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 75
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Richard-
The light colored long narrowish thing that the rip in the picture goes across is the stocking that was removed?
It's possible-- I still think that the dark line that appears to go around her right leg below the knee is a cut, but you could be right.
So, if she was undressing before she was attacked, it seems to me that we need to reassass her candidacy as a Ripper victim. I hate doing that.
Mags |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Jon et al
Jon.. Yes I'm sure we know it's feasible!
Richard-
I'm sorry but I cannot go with the stocking thing that is a cut as sure as eggs is eggs!
not a garter of any description1!!!
Surely Mary, as most women, would have taken off the boots, put 'em in front of the fire to dry, and then the 'stockings ' before getting into bed and then curled up facing the 'partition' to sleep for a few hours!..until...........
Well who knows!
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi Girls,
I am not a expert on stockings, them dreaded tights have been in operation since the late sixties, however that red mark on kellys right leg does not appear to be a cut, it is exactly the right position for a elasticated hold up below the knee stocking[ not a garter] the red bit being the hold up top.
We can only go by the photo evidence, and that white wrap could be the left leg hosery....
Richard. |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 77
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
Hey!!
"Them dreaded tights" are the greatest invention since sliced bread.
Mags |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
Hi Maria,
From a womans point of view I agree, but us men well need i say more ...
Bring back the good old days.
Richard.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2988
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
Did they have elastic in those days? 
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1232
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 5:44 pm: | |
As a stocking afficianado!!!!!!ooooooooooooooooooooooops!
Of course my dear Quelch they had elastic!!!!!]
Richard!!!!! they didnt have the abomination known as 'hold ups' in the 1880s!!!! sadly they appear to have em now! Sockings as were known then were of the lisle variety but hardly sexy! Garters and stockings!!!! NO! (Not for Mary at least!)
Cheers Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
SOCKINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oooooooooooooooooops! must remember the T!!!!!!!! x
|
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
While elastic was indeed invented, a stocking still would not have had an elastic band at the top. It would have a looser fitting top, made to wear with a garter and fit a variety of sizes.
K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2992
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 6:58 pm: | |
Suzi, Kelly, thanks for the info.
Suzi, I do not know what "socking" was except that in olden days a glimpse of it was looked on as shomething socking.
 Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2993
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 7:29 pm: | |
If you look at the drawing of Eddowes in situ that appears in the Sourcebook (and she definitely was wearing stockings) there seems to be the same dark circle effect at the top of her stockings, although there's no mention of her having garters. Weird.
Robert |
Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 59
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 10:50 pm: | |
Getting back to the type of camera employed....
Perhaps one of the policemen/women [?] that are members of Casebook would know if the camera's that police in 1888 used were usually tripod-mounts.
IMHO,the photo of Ms.Kelly was a tripod mount. The reason is that,at least to me,it appears they wanted to get the view with the most visible damage on record,as opposed to a view that may have focused on one particular area.
Perhaps the lighting was superior from the position that it was taken compared to another angle.
We may also want to take into account the "human side' of this visage. It had to be all one could stomach to even be in the same room with this carnage.
What do I know? I can't boil water...
Any other thoughts?
(Message edited by howard on September 11, 2004) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:37 am: | |
Hi,
What we need is an expert on nineteenth century stockings and indeed socks.
Surely mens socks were elasticated, otherwise men of that period would have been constantly bending down trying to keep there socks up.[ unless they wore garters..]
I Just find it hard to imagine that the cut like shape on marys left leg is a circular cut, it is the precise place where the top of a stocking would be.
Being right handed when i sit on the bed and remove socks i automatically take off the left one first with my right hand, which is precisely what kelly would have done.[ asuming she was right handed].
I still believe that bundle contained kellys clothes, and the left stocking was draped over the top , being that it is more then likely she was swiftly attacked whilst reaching across the bed.
Richard. |
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 24
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 3:49 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
The following victims were wearing stockings.
Nichols: Black ribbed wool stockings
Chapman: Red and white stripped woolen stockings
Stride: White stockings
Eddowes: Brown ribbed stockings
The common garter of the time was an elastic roll garter. (Covered round piece of rubber) It is likely that they weren't mentioned in any of the reports because they probably came off with the stocking and were considered part of it. Mens stockings were also held up by garters.
I don't believe it's a garter in the photo, it looks like a cut to me. More so when I view the enlarged photo.
As for the original question on this thread, It looks like a rolled up woolen blanket.
Nina |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2994
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:20 am: | |
Hi Richard
Men used to have a kind of suspender device that held up their socks. Don't you remember Eric Morecambe?
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1234
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 8:11 am: | |
Robert- Threadgold Thoroughgrip Garterets I say!!!!
For what its worth in a previous incarnation as a member of the English Civil War Soc. I can verify that in the 17th C that stockings worn by both men and women were made of cotton with no elastication at all and held in place by a ribbon tied above the knee (known as a garter!) as in Order of!!! and worn underneath the skirt/breeches
Nina- I know it looks like a cut to me too...ok an odd one I agree but.... and as to my bundle...yes it looks like one of those grey blankets to me and I think Bob's onto something with it's use!
Richard -
Am going to do some research later on 19th Century sock elastication!! (must get out more!) but I feel that the suspender....sock or otherwise was a preserve of the 'gentry' and not something affected by the doyens of Dorset St who were probably lucky to have one sock between 'em!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 10:17 pm: | |
That missing left stocking would have made an excellent ligature....
Jus' thinking out loud
Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1251
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
Jon...
If indeed it was a stocking..........God we're really getting into stockings here!!!!! You can tell that men dont have to wear 'em!!!!
Don't think a ligature came into it though judging by all that blood sprurting!!
Jus thinking(ish!) sort of out loud too
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
Hi Suzi, the blood spatter is neither here nor there, the use of a ligture does not necessarily kill the victim, they can just as easily loose consciousness.
I'm not suggesting he used one in this instance, just........that it would make an ideal ligature 
You can tell I'm having a slow day..
Regards, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
Hi Jon
Hmmm yes maybe you're right...if Mary was lying against the wall asleep, her lover/assailant could just have easily put his hands around her throat and squeezed.....a loving ligature would seem to be the act of a man who loved tho maybe...maybe not Mary but he loved..
Cheers
Suzi
|
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 79
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 12:20 pm: | |
Just realized that I used the term "garters" in my post, when the term to be used is "stays". They're basically the same principle, and are referred to in the crime scenes, as far as who had them and who didn't {"no drawers or stays"}.
K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 27
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
Hi Kelly,
I can see how the term stays would logically lead you to identify them as a kind of garter.
Stays were early corsets, they were less boned (if at all) and lighter than corsets.
The following link has a pattern for stays.
http://www.tudorlinks.com/treasury/articles/1853stays.html
Nina
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 2:36 am: | |
Hi all,
I have looked at the colorized photo and I think that the bundle looks like a comforter or a heavy blanket. [If I am looking at the right image.] There is some indication that Kelly had on some sort of clothing on. I believe that a chemise was a popular under garment of the period. Inspector Dew years later wrote that Kelly had her cloths torn to shreds. I believe this indicates that she had something on when the ripper attacked her. If you have read Inspector Dew's book then you realise he made a few mistakes on dates and names. Old age and time probably took its toll on his memory. So for what its worth.
Take care,CB |
