| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 11:23 am: |       |
Hi Suzi, Bob,
I am coming to the conclusion that my posts are being misunderstood, i am basing all of my conclusions on facts also albiet circumstancial evidence.
George Hutchinson did make a statement on the 12th November 1888, and mentioned a respectably dressed man , he admited that he was standing opposite the crime scene for some time, and his statement makes it clear why he stood there.
It has been claimed that the father of Reg handwriting is different than the signature on the statement, so if thats the case then one of two possibilities are availiable.
A] Reg used his surname to suggest George Hutchinson was his father.
b] the signature on the statement was signed by somebody else with or without GH permission.
Lets look at some more [ circumstancial ] evidence.
The interview with Mrs coxs neice in more recent times, gives an account of a well dressed gent seen by her aunt walking through the passage in front of kelly.
At this time Mrs Cox was waiting at her door for her husband a drunk to arrive back from the pub.
The statement she officially gave states that she was returning home and followed Kelly into the court when she observed Mr blotchy face.
This was approaching twelve oclock,note that the pubs were still in full swing, and she was not waiting for her husband to come home at that point.
Is it not possible that she saw kelly with two men that night, and that she was standing by her door just yards from kellys room around 215am when she saw the respectably dressed man , that hutchinson had just seen, and it is this sighting that she told her neice, as the first person she saw was obviously not the killer.
If this is the case,then the police may have used her original sighting as her issued statement , not only to protect her from a possible attack from her killer, but to give the killer a false sense of security.
Of course when Hutchinson cofirmed this sighting of a repectably dressed man seen at the same time as Mrs Cox, they obviously took hutchinsons observations very seriously.
Speculation Yes, but all based on evidence contempary, and evidence obtained since.
I have always maintained that a vast amount of press issued at the time was misleading, but i tend to believe witnesses who make observations like' She said 'Oh i have lost my hankerchief' and 'All right my love 'Dont pull me along'. another classic is 'You will say anything but your prayers' these are at least in my mind indications of a true account.
regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
'You would say anything but your prayers'!!!.....A Liz Stride reference!!!!!
Sorry but facts and circumstantial evidence are not happy befellows!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1623
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
"You would say anything but your prayers" is a Liz Stride ref!!!!
Also facts and circumstantial evidence are unhappy bedfellows!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
Hi Suzi.
'You will say anything but your prayers' obviously was not concerning the Kelly murder, it was just a exsample of possible truthful accounts.
What exactly is circumstancial evidence.?
Is not a neice of the woman cox of consequence to this case, and the reported son of George H, they actually knew the people involved, and more likely to have been in the know so to speak.
Just taking the reported facts of this case without attempting to analyze them is fruitless, the truth will proberly be known when someone out there releases some personal knowledge, which will be classed as circumstancial, yet too hot to discard.
Richard.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
Circumstancial evidence is..
According to Chambers...'Evidence that is not positive nor direct,but which is gathered inferetially from the circumstances in the case'
There is of course strong or weak circumstantial evidence....the strong evidence is usually from a number of different sources,weak circumstances are usually from one, or an unimportant source.
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
Have just been picking through 'The Ripper and the Royals' again ..and the closing line is chilling in the light of the above
"To Abberline's courage we should add that of Joseph Sickert,without whom we would never have been able to solve what has been,until now,one of the most enduring mysteries in the annals of British crime"
Joseph may be responsible for more than we realise in that case...
"You convince Mozart,but you do not persuade"-Saleiri 'Amadeus' Peter Shaffer
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1626
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Have tried in vain to not post here again!
But there are a few points here Richard that I feel need to be addressed-
1.Surname change?....Why would a man do that except for 'fame'?perhaps it was a fashionable thing to do!
2.A statement signed by someone else?- Impossible I'd say!
3.Mrs Cox's neice I believe is c/o of Dan Farson surely this is extra extra circumstancial evidence!!!!! enough said there
4.Mrs Cox....if her husband was ' a drunk' then why was she waiting for him at 12pm when she knew the pubs to be 'in full swing?'
5.Know....Did Mrs Cox know Hutch????..............more than likely but probably of no consequence
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Suzi,
I am confused.
What do you mean by surname change?
All i said was Reg [ if he was a fraud] realizing he had the same surname as the famous George, claimed he was the son of the said man.
Statement.
Are you claimimg that no statement throughout police history has ever been altered for a reason, we know in the case of hutchinson that at least one item was deleted., that being the pub name.
For what reason are you doubting the integrity of the interview with Mrs coxs neice?.
Regarding Mrs coxs husband [ a drunk] i never said she was waiting for him at 12 oclock, infact if what she told her neice or what her neice was told, she was more likely to have stood outside her door from 130am onwards.
And finally Why should a resident of millers court know hutchinson, he knew Kelly but did mrs Cox know all of her associates?.
i am sorry Suzi, but we are on different wavelengths....
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1629
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
Richard-
No change of surname! ..merely changing whatever your name was to Hutchinson to 'fit the bill' so to speak may have been a thing to do!!!(Five mins of fame and all that!)
OK the pub name was changed...for what reason we will never know!
There are way too many 'what people told people 'things here this has gone past inconsequential into quite another wavelength Richard
As to Mrs C knowing GH etc Of course they did even if not in 'the street' am sure they muddled around' in Ringers!
Suzi
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 339
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Suzi,
Then there is Henry David Thoreau's dictum: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
Don. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 388
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
“…and his statement makes it clear why he stood there.”
According to Abberline’s report Hutchinson’s reason for following the couple and his vigil was “that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company”. According some of the newspapers the reason was that his “suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed”, but he had no suspicion that he was the murderer. Nothing more was reported about the ‘why’.
With all the will in the world I just can’t discover a clear reason in there. In fact, I think Hutchinson is very vague. He tells us why he suspects him, but he doesn’t tell us what he suspects him of. And why he suspects him (his respectable appearance against her poverty) certainly is a very weak reason for standing and waiting there for 45 minutes in cold and rainy weather.
“At this time Mrs Cox was waiting at her door for her husband a drunk to arrive back from the pub.”
Perhaps it was her boyfriend, because her official statement and her inquest deposition clearly say that she was a widow.
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1174
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 3:48 am: | |
Hi Frank,
Hutchinson appears to have been just curious that Mjk, claimed such a well dressed man, he admits that the man did not appear of menace, yet he felt it somewhat odd.
It seems to me that he just thought he would wait close by for a while , incase she needed him .
He admits to being friendly with her, and i would say he just wanted to be sure of her safety in his own mind before venturing off.
With reference to Mrs Cox widow status. according to her neice she at the time was not long married, so something is not right there , of course the man she shared her life with [drunk] mayby have been just common law.
I cannot accept that the reason Hutchinson reported himself to the police was a fear of being reconized.
if he was the whitechapel killer, and was that paranoid, why did he not report after Mrs longs sighting or schwartz, or lawande and co., and if he was so scared of being seen why would he take such risks as to kill in a backyard beneath windows that residents occupied at near light.
No the paranoid theory does not wash with me, I believe George Hutchinson simply had a gut feeling something was strange, and plain curiosity kept him close by.
Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 4:12 am: | |
Richard
Once again you are failing to address the points raised.
You are claiming that Reg is the son of THE George Hutchinson and as such was told certain things. I dispute that for several reasons already outlined.
Instead of addressing these points raised by me, you now switch to talking at great length about the statement made by George Hutchinson.
We are not discussing that. We are discussing your assertion that Reg is the son of the GH who was a witness.
You then start introducing things told to the niece of such and such. How many times must I reiterate that things told to people are interesting as oral history, but completely lacking in any validity as evidence unless backed up by independant fact?
Anyway the whole point is academic, because I was recently sent a tape recording made from an original wax disc recording made in 1918 which is a deathbed confession of George Hutchinson who states quite clearly that he was Jack the Ripper and that he doesn't have a son called Reg.
Now you must accept this as fact because I say so, and besides I'm sure the person who sent me the recording isn't a fraud!
Case solved.
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1631
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Sensational!
Oddly I have a rather faded photograph which shows a Conan Doyle lookalike surrounded by his caring daughters holding a board on which is written in chalk...I am Jack...
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1632
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 1:05 pm: | |
Richard -
I feel the problem here is a mismatch between orally and aurally..
Also there are things that are said as a matter of FACT and are scarcely remembered ,that are of prime importance,..There are also things that are said as a throw away remark that mean an awful lot!...also this maxim can be reversed so there lies our problem!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
Hi Frank
Thanks for your input here! Mrs Cox's marital status is of course a matter of something or other!!!!!!!
Cheers!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
I feel that we are at loggerheads over this issue, you gave a exsample of a wax disc recording which of course is utter nonscence, however I Certainly heard that broadcast, and just because no one on this site appears to have heard it seems to be assumed that it did not exist.
we should remember that we all are different ages , and i am talking about a broadcast over thirty years ago, that would eliminate a number of members, and even the posters who are of a older age group would not have nessesarily realized that a programme was being aired at 8pm on a certain night on a radio wavelength.
it just happens that i was and i would place a hefty wager that my ears and mind were not playing tricks on me.
But as you state Bob, that is only my word, and even if it were proved , it means nothing relevant.
I have read your book which incidently was excellent, the Hitchcock ending with your suspect was a gem.
However it does contain a lot of speculation, and claims that Hutchinson was a stalker, or a love sick weirdo is grossly unfair.
Unfortunetly Reg is no longer with us to defend himself, and i would say that since he started all of this with dare i say the radio broadcast and tracked down by Melvyn, he proberly regretted his involvement, and the disbelievers that shuned his recollections.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1634
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
A stalker and a love sick wierdo! Gosh! I'm sorry Richard this is NOT what is being put forward in Bob's book
OK Reg is no longer with us (despite the recording and the photo!),
I cannot believe under any circumstances that he genuinely believed what he quopted to Melyvn and co.BUT we need Melvyn in here to have a say maybe
ps Bob would never be a fraud!!!!! wanna see the negatives??!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Oooooops sorry typos!!!!!! Just the excitement I guess!!!!!!
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
Evidence at last |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:08 am: | |
And of course this is to posted in the Bumper Christmas 'Ripperana' |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1638
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:17 am: | |
Abberline catches Jack napping |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:19 am: | |
Im Jack! No I'm Jack..... |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:36 am: | |
Richaard
Why is my tale about the wax recording utter nonsense - and your story about the broadcast absolutely genuine and must be believed by all?
We apparently both have the same amount of proof ( ie none) that both events happened.
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1640
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
And all that time wasted sketching too!The lengths a girl will go to to prove a point!!!!! |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:48 am: | |
Richard
You say my book contains a lot of speculation. Absolutely correct - but I did make quite clear that it was speculation.
However I then listed the various FACTS that I used to back up my speculation.
What I didn't do was to say 'This is what I think happened and you must believe it because I say so', which is exactly what you are doing!
If you re read my book you will find the last chapter begins;
'Was George Hutchinson Jack the Ripper? It is of course impossible to say.......Look at the circumstances that make him the strongest suspect yet.'
I then enumerate the FACTS that back my assertion.
You are not doing this. You say something and then say this must be accepted as fact because I heard a radio broadcast. When other posters ask you for details of this broadcast, such as when and on what station it was broadcast, what was the name of the play, and do you have verification that his actually occured you throw a hissy fit and say ' I have absolutely nothing to back up my assertion but you must accept it as fact because I say so.
Hardly the same is it?
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1641
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
Surely the point of writing a book based on speculation....which lets face it most 'theorists' do...is to "Hands up" at the beginning and admit to 'That's what this is...read it and make up your own mind'.
When these theories are backed up by unassailable fact then we have to look again....and say maybe they have a point....
PLEASE don't dismiss ANY theory unless you have irrefutable proof....that must be the only way forward here!
Please don't disregard this Richard because I think there's a point to be addressed here!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1642
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 10:42 am: | |
Feel this should be posted though as irrefutable proof that in fact Mary was the assailant in Millers Court!! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1643
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Leather Apron Apprehended!!!! Hold the front Page!!!!!! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1644
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Leather Apron Apprehended!!!! Hold the front Page!!!!!! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1645
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
Try again! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1646
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
oooooooooooops1 sorry about that!!!!!! double trouble!!!! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1647
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
oooooooooooops1 sorry about that!!!!!! double trouble!!!! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1424
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
Suzi,
are you feeling ok?
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Jenny!!!!!!!!!!
Never better!!!!!! Seriously this is the best ever!
Just thought things needed a bit of lightening here!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1649
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:10 pm: | |
Great image tho...........
Seriously though Richard there is a point to be addressed here even after the pix!!!!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1650
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:13 pm: | |
OK theres been a bit of fun here..
Mostly on my part
- but Richard there are still some issues to be dealt with here
Suzi
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Suzi,
i know the feeling which is why I asked!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1651
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
Am away for three days here! Probably to some peoples delight!
Please Richard! despite the pics and the fun ...There is still a question and answer here....am waiting...
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
Jen
There are a lot of quite serious points to be addressed here!!!
Richard -Have just read this through again and want to go back to my previous post and say there are a lot of points STILL to be addressed here
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 5:02 pm: | |
HI suzí,
The only point to be addressed here is my word, i would never attempt to mislead this site , because i am a genuine person.
Sorry Bob , that remark may be unsatisfactory,however as you state Suzi there are a lot of points still to be addressed here.
I Take you point Bob, that you did state in your book, that you considered George could be the strongest suspect yet, however I Cannot beam myself on your wavelength there.
The only way we can end this pro/anti discussion is to have a actual recording of the said recording, it may not result in a hit, but it would at least it would verify my sanity.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1658
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 6:05 pm: | |
Richard-
I'm sure no one is doubting your sanity here!..and no one I'm sure,
is trying to mislead, BUT......There are SO many points to be addressed.....OK let's take these one at a time,as by trying to take them all on at once we're only confusing a) the issue and probably b) most of the other 'readers' on this thread! We must try to verify 'the programme' I agree..
As to 'an actual recording'...that would ,I admit, be a start, sadly though I feel this is going to be very unlikely.!
I have no doubts as to your credibility here Richard , but it all comes down to FACTS again am sorry to say.
Suzi
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 265
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 6:49 am: | |
Richard
I am quite sure that you are not trying to mislead anyone, and I am equally positive that you genuinely believe you heard the broadcast, I am also quite willing to believe, against all the evidence ( or lack of it) that such a broadcast hapened.
What I am saying is that you cannot keep saying that we must accept as fact anything you believe you may of heard.
In any case even if you were to prove beyond all doubt that such a broadcast was made and your memory of it is absolutely correct it still proves absolutely nothing, as there is no way of showing that what Reg's father told him was correct.
In fact the only evidence that seems to be in existance ( handwriting, different name) seems to show exactly the opposite.
I do hope I haven't given the impression that I thought you were telling fibs - that certainly wasn't my intention - and if anyone thinks that I must apologise for not making my position clear.
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
Dont get me wrong I am not paronoid about my integreity, its like someone claiming to have seen a ghost, and no one else saw it, that is just one of those things that occur in life.
I appreciate that if Reg was the voice coming out of my 1960 transistor radio, then it does not prove that either him or his father were telling the truth, however the ice skating, violin player, and a man that worked beyond retirement age does not strike me as a stalker [ with homicidal tendences] .
of course this could be entirely the wrong assumption, I am just a player in this wonderful game of 'whodunnit'
Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
He doesn't strike me as a stalker either that's why I don't believe Reg's father was the GH we are interested in!
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
The violin playing,ice skater,yodeller and skipping rope artiste marrying man sounds absolutely wonderful and am sure was not a stalker of any description...mind you ..............others may be.
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1662
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Richard-
Sadly failing a 'Hold the Front Page' sensation!!!! all we have are 'assumptions' to go on...it is after all the 'whodunnit' and 'withwhat' and 'to who' that keeps us all going I feel!
Suzi
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
Checkable Detail: Keep looking for a listing of that program. Newspapers sometimes have program listings and libraries sometimes have copies of very old newspapers. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1666
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
Diana-
There are of course details for many things but such an obscure (sadly) programme is very unlikely to be listed .Robert Linford has one of these (read back up this thread) and it gives no info as to the details of the prog.
Suzi |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 107
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:33 pm: | |
Diana,
I think we're flogging a dead horse here.. Suzi and Bob have already checked and double checked. The programme doesn't seem to be out there.
(And my glass is half empty to boot)
Bestest,
Lyn |
