Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 10:13 pm |        |
Hey Jon,
Not that you can take any piece of evidence as gospel in this case, BUT if we take as true that MJK was overheard to say to her client, "you will be comfortable", then I think it reasonable to surmise that she used having a private room as a selling point to her customers. Perhaps she was able to charge a bit extra over the ladies that had to use dark alleys.
Then again, perhaps not.
Sir Robert |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 10:35 pm | |
David,
We're not running a creative writing contest for best fiction with a Ripper theme here.
Imagination is what Stephen Knight and Patrica Cornwell used to come up with their flights of fancy. Logic is what researchers use.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 10:47 pm | |
Jon,
You talk of clues, "the obvious clue." The case has no clues. The clues of the case do not exist. We cannot use clues to solve the case. We can't go back in time and interact with the evidence. We can't "find the murderer." What we are here to do we cannot, this is the allure of the case. We can only reflect the evidence in our minds. The case was this or that for Swanson because he was there, but for us it can only be the whole.
David |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 11:03 pm | |
| ..........wow ! heavy,Dave..........heavy. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 02:30 am | |
| The kettle did not melt, the spout was melted off the kettle. In other words the soft solder attaching the spout to the body of the kettle melted causing the spout to come off. |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 06:36 am | |
| You know I never thought of it, but you're right. What was she doing in that thin chemise on a cold November night? I think we established that it got down to @ 38 degrees fahrenheit that night. That little thing would never keep her warm. Of course she had been drinking so I suppose she felt warmer from that but even so . . . |
Author: richard nunweek
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 06:41 am | |
HI DAVID ,AND EVERYONE. this case is a giant crossword puzzzle ,and like with every crossword there are clues. some of these clues may well be red herrings but every snippit of imformation must be sifted .people say its a long time ago we will never know.but i find it great fun in searching ones brain to find that one special clue that will lead us the right path, for i truely believe that with so many theorys and suspects we are drifting away from the truth.lets examine what possible clues there are.
no 39 figuring a lot in this case ,dates stab wounds + mentioned in a telegram.evidence although some may not agree that kelly was alive that morning statements made by hutchinson and mrs maxwell do match up impossible if she was not seen by her[ will take too long to go into in this post] the logical assumption that the victims knew the killer and these murders were death by appointment.other strange things such as johannis palmer ,pastor of the swedish church,diary entry for the 30th sept stride was seen to be told ;you will say anything but your prayers; she was murdered close to the swedish church, also the only ripper correspondence on the anniversary of the first letter 27th sept 89 said ; i am a member of the clergy. the strange events at leytonstone cemetary after kellys funeral, the picture by walter sickert ; a passing funeral. the suggestion that george hutchinson was paid five pounds by the police at the time .all these and a host of others need to be looked at for they are clues . the problem is it may never be possible. we can only hope regards richard. |
Author: Vila
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 08:52 am | |
About the kettle and the spout...
As I recall, it doesn't actually take a huge great deal of heat cause solder to soften and run. But it does take the application of heat for some fair length of time. This would tend to support the view that the fire was more of a smoldering one than a quick blaze.
That said, I'd like to point out that I haven't the slightest idea of the size of the fireplace or the placement of the kettle and its distance from the fire. Obviously, the kettle had to be closer than was normally the case, and the fire hotter-- or at least for a longer duration than the kettle was used to receiving -- or the spout would have come off in the course of normal use.
I've forgotten if the kettle was hanging on a hook inside the fireplace proper, or if it was sitting on the hearth, or just where it was. I'm sure that someone remembers and will post that info.
It occurs to me that a coal fire would have been cheaper and longer-lasting than wood for household heating. Also that the soft, bituminus coal that would have fit Joe & Mary's budget would not throw off much light for the heat produced. (Hard, anthracite coal would be more expensive, and the soft brown peaty sort of coal [I think that is called Lignite,] would be cheapest.) And finally, such a coal fire would be perfect for keeping a pile of clothes smoldering away until they burnt up.
If I recall correctly, the index was that the poorer the household, the softer, cheaper, and less effective the coal was used.
Sorry if this post seems rambling, but I just got up and haven't had enough coffee yet.
Vila |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 01:06 pm | |
The kettle must have been a cheap tin kettle, handle and spout soldered on, a kettle meant for use on a gas ring, anything more and it would be ruined,--as it was.
"come along my dear, you will be comfortable",--
not in No.13, not without a fire!!
Perhaps she had a fire ready for lighting, with more fuel standing by, perhaps the Jewish gent particularly felt the cold and Mary set too big a fire, used all her fuel, and ruined her kettle making a couple of hot whiskey and water drinks,--
but there were no glasses were there?.
Rick
and was there a Jewish gent ?  |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 01:37 pm | |
Hi, Richard:
You stated that Stride was "murdered close to the Swedish church." In fact, the Swedish Church was in Prince's Square, St. George in the East. If you look at the detail on the John Snow map of 1859 you can locate Prince's Square at the bottom of the map and then compare it to the maps on the Casebook, where you will see Dutfield's Yard marked. Prince's Square was south of Cable Street and Dutfield's Yard where the murder occurred is closer to Commercial Road. The murder was thus not close to the Swedish Church as you stated but a number of the blocks northwest of the church.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 01:49 pm | |
As Stewart mentions, there is no way of knowing when the spout had melted off of the kettle. I assumed it was that evening. If the spout did melt off that evening, perhaps it was found in/next to the fireplace? Did the police find the spout laying on the floor? By mentioning the kettle in their report it seems that the police are indicating it had happened that evening. (Otherwise, why mention it at all? There was no mention of any other broken furniture/utensels.)
As to why the clothing was burnt, perhaps the killer ran out of fuel for the fireplace, so used what was available? Does anybody know if any coal was found at the crime scene? I still have a hard time understanding why he would want a fire at all, with the possibility of attracting attention. Perhaps it is as simple as light and warmth. |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 03:50 pm | |
| But why a thin chemise when the temperature was about 38 F.? |
Author: Kevin Braun
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 05:16 pm | |
Jeff,
"As to why the clothing was burnt, perhaps the killer ran out of fuel for the fireplace, so used what was available? Does anybody know if any coal was found at the crime scene? I still have a hard time understanding why he would want a fire at all, with the possibility of attracting attention. Perhaps it is as simple as light and warmth."
Perhaps it was as simple as Barnaby and Burgho.
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 09:42 am</I>
I have often wondered about the clothing fire in MJK's room. Graziano wrote...
"If they acted as to minimize the chances to be caught on the act, they would have certainly not set the fire alight while performing (giving hint that someone was inside and offering the possibility to someone peering through the window to look at his/their face), so probably he(they) set the fire alight just previous to leaving.
We know from the other murders that he/they could perform without a lot of light anyway.
If he/they did just that before leaving, the only reason is because he/they had to.
If he/they had to, the only reason is because something had to be destroyed."
Several weeks ago I attended a wedding reception. While seated for dinner, I turned to the gentleman next to me and said "So,... what do you do for a living". He said, "I raise and train bloodhounds". Over the next several hours we talked about bloodhounds. I acquainted him with JTR, MJK, Barnaby and Burgho. He said that the police should have at least tried to use the dogs. He went on to say that it would have been difficult for the dogs to track a scent unless they had an article of the murder's clothing for the dogs to sniff. JTR must have known that the police were at least thinking about using bloodhounds. Did he burn the clothes to confuse the dogs?
Saturday, 27 April 2002 - 10:38 am</I>
I was not suggesting that JtR placed Kelly's clothes in the fire, although who knows if every layer of undergarment, was neatly folded on a chair at the foot of the bed. graziano's contribution, "If he/they did just before leaving, the only reason is because he/they had to. If he/they had to, the only reason is because something had to be destroyed", and the bloodhound chat led me to theorize that JtR used a piece of cloth, bedding or Maria Harvey's clothes to wipe his hands?, face?, jacket/coat?, knives?. JtR did just that on at least one other occasion (apron on Goulston Street). Knowing that the police were thinking about using the bloodhounds, he set the fire, burnt the clothing; to get rid of his scent, confuse the dogs.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: anthony pearson
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 07:59 pm | |
Diana and RipperFans, hello
My daily tuppence worth . . .
It had been raining, MJK's clothes were drying on the chair.
The fire must have at least been lit at some point early in the proceedings (clothes on the chair near fire?)
The kettle is on a hook above the grate (we have one in our 1840 kitchen). It boiled dry.
On the hearth it would have been chilled by the icy blast sucked in through every orifice and gap in the whole rotten edifice of that room.
All the actors in this play are thieves, deadbeats and blackguards. I'll bet my billycock hat that the mish-mash of clothes Harvey left were somebody's part payment for the rack-renting (sub-letting) that MJK now had to undertake to pay off her mounting debt. I fancy Kelly was the 'fence' and McCarthy was the receiver. (Interesting to note that the Police in the 1860's reckoned that [as a generalisation] every Chandlers shop in the East End was into receiving stolen goods).
Regards . . . T.P. |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 02:50 am | |
| Thanks for the review Kevin. I searched "Mary Kelly, Fireplace" and didn't see those theories. Interesting thought, burning the clothes to throw off any attempt at using bloodhounds. |
Author: richard nunweek
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 04:51 am | |
| HI CHRISTOPHER. my records say that the swedish church was about 300 yards away from the site of strides murder , to put that into some kind of respective, being a racing man is less then a furlong and a half not far to walk on a racecourse it may seem further because of it being blocks away. regards richard. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 07:42 am | |
Hi All,
Well a possible answer to the Fire/Mary Wearing Only a Chemise on a Cold Night I feel might be rather simple. Mary started the fire. The room was small so the warmth from the fire would fill the entire room.
Mary's clothes were probably wet from being out in the night.(Prater stated that she often went back to her room to warm herself by her fire because of the cool/damp air of the night.) So Mary took her clothes off and set them on the chair next to the fire to dry, plus not to be lying in wet clothes on her bed which would make her bed cold. This of course would wind up giving her a cold, so Mary being bright decided to remove her clothes set them near the fire to dry, then lie down in her somewhat dry Chemise under the covers.
The reason why NO ONE would find it curious that there is a fire burning in Mary's room is because well it's a Damp-Cold Night and just about anyone with the ability would be lighting a fire to keep warm anyways.(We see this with Prater.) JTR wouldn't have any problem with this, especially if the fire was ALREADY burning in Mary's room when he entered it. This way he knows that Mary already has a fire, which shouldn't cause anyone inquiring as to the light, because Mary herself stoked the fire not himself. So it's not an odd situation that he created, but rather a situation that already existed when he entered the scene. Thus he doesn't have to fear anyone looking in.
Now perhaps JTR burned the clothes to keep the fire going so he could finish his 'handiwork'.(He would need the light from it, since the only candle in the room wasn't used, and all the exterior lighting was cut off from the Coat covering the windows.) Perhaps he burned some clothing to throw off the Dogs' scent.(Which I find doubtful, because NOT ONLY would the Bloodhounds have to track him through Dorset Street, which has SEVERAL thousand Residents, but also Commercial Street which is a HIGHLY POPULATED thoroughfare. Plus, with all the bumbling antics that ocurred with Sir Charles and the Bloodhounds reported in the Press, I'm pretty sure Jack wasn't worried about their 'skills' when it came to tracking him after killing someone in such a populated area.) Or maybe even a half(or fully) drunk Kelly burned the clothes to keep the fire going since she didn't have anything else to burn and was cold from the night?(A bit unlikely, but still a possibility.)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 09:27 am | |
Jeff,
Try, General Discussions: General Topics: What would Jack have done if "caught in the act", around 23,24,25 April 2002.
Chris H.,
If I'm not mistaken, the first bloodhound test was successful. The second was a bit of a farce. Initially the police at the MJK crime scene waited for the bloodhounds to arrive before entering 13 Miller's court. They must have had at least some faith in the dogs' skills. The bloodhound tests were reported by the press. JtR may have also had at least some faith in their skills.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 10:05 am | |
Hi, Richard:
We may need the intrepid Viper to give us the lowdown on exactly how far away Dutfield's Yard was from the Swedish Church. I get the impression that it's more than 300 yards from the the murder site in Dutfield's Yard to the church in Prince's Square but conceivably we may be talking about a different Swedish Church? You see what makes such questions so fascinating?
All the best
Chris |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 11:01 am | |
As the crow flies, from Dutfield's Yard to the Swedish Church in Princes Square was just under 500 yards. Walking through the streets by a direct walking route it was about 700 yards.
Regards, V. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 11:11 am | |
Hi Kevin,
Yes, the intial test runs worked well. However, they happened in a PARK, not actually in a City thoroughfare that had been filled with people. Plus later Press reports, even those before Kelly's murder, stated that more than likely Bloodhounds couldn't track a person through crowded areas, and the fact that at least ONE of the dogs was reported out of town for a few weeks for a show somewhere in Northern England.
These things could have made Jack feel that the Bloodhounds would be incapable of finding him.(Especially when he's killing someone in such a highly populated area.) I know if I was Jack, just by reading the reports, I would have felt fairly safe from the Dogs catching on to my trail.
Especially if it came down to catching my scent in a room that had a fire burning, also with a woman's blood splattered about it, other people's clothing(obviously that big coat covering the window wasn't Mary's), and the fact that the Hound would have to track me through AT LEAST TWO Busy streets(Dorset and Commercial St.) and most probably several others.(Especially since it's Lord Mayor's Day, and people are all over the place for the parade, which would also distort the scent.)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 11:58 am | |
Warwick:
No gas rings for the poor in 1888.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 12:07 pm | |
Timsta, explain yourself! why not. Anyway I said the kettle was meant to be used on a gas ring, I didn't say whether anyone of Millers Court class would have one
Rick. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 12:38 pm | |
Hi, Viper:
Many thanks for your informed view on the distance between the Swedish Church in Princes Square and Dutfield's Yard in Berner Street. That, as you state, "As the crow flies, [it]. . . was just under 500 yards. Walking through the streets by a direct walking route it was about 700 yards."
Much appreciated, Viper! Looks like I owe you another pint. Now if some of the other board controversies could only be settled as quickly. . . 
All the best
Chris |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 12:45 pm | |
My understanding of the spoutless kettle, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that it was found by Abberline on a metal grate which raised it a certain number of inches above the coals in the hearth. Is this correct? About how many inches higher than the coals would have been the kettle, then?
Thank you.
David |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 01:13 pm | |
Warwick:
Although I don't have precise details to hand, it is my belief that domestic gas supply was a pretty rare animal in the 1880s. My most recent recollection is of watching "The 1900 House" on PBS, where they decided to equip the house (in Bromley, I seem to recall) with gas lighting even though it would have been unusual for such a house to have gaslight at the time.
In any case I think it's unlikely that a kettle marketed at the poor would have been designed for use on a gas ring. Most likely it would have been designed to sit on a fire grate.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 09:02 pm | |
The evidence showed that a roaring fire took place in the grate on the morning of the murder and that certain items of clothing not belonging to Kelly were also burnt. I cannot see Kelly burning clothing which belonged to a friend so probably the killer placed the items on the fire to give more light and possibly to cover up the fact that he had also destroyed certain evidence on the fire. The suspect seen going into Millers court with Kelly carried a parcel wrapped in oilcloth. Did the killer carry a change of clothes wrapped in oilcloth to Kelly's Room ? Oilcloth would keep clothes dry and it was a wet night.
Did he murder Kelly and use the oilcloth as an apron and when finished burn the oilcloth in the fire along with any soiled items only to change into clothes which were taken to the room wrapped in the oilcloth ? I think he went prepared knowing that this murder was going to be a messy affair and his final act.The implications of going to Kelly's room in one attire and leaving in another have several advantages for the killer apart from using the oilcloth as an apron. In fact it is what I would have done if in Jacks shoes. |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 06:22 am | |
HI IVOR.
what you are saying is quite plausible , although the parcel discribed by hutchinson is a small one . what it contained we can only guess but if this man was kellys killer it is proberly relevant to the carnage which was to follow.i believe hutchinson did see kelly as he stated , but have my reservations as to his dress attire.
it is not impossible that hutchinsons discription was vastly different to the one that was issued under hutchinsons signature and that the police in order to give kellys killer a sence of security dictated to him the discription we have all debated for 115 years. after all the police were frantic to catch this maniac and would not want him altering his discription in any way . if they were convinced that the man hutchinson saw was kellys killer this would be a good ploy ,regards richard |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 06:18 pm | |
Hi Richard,
Yes indeed the suspect's discription has been the subject of debate for many years. It is of course possible that Hutchinson's discription was wrong for several reasons it is one of those things that we will never know. Perhaps the killer had a very valid reason for dressing in such a mannner while in the company of Kelly prior to her murder.In my opinion the killer was as slippery as an eel and as crafty as a fox and nothing should be taken for granted with him. |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 04:29 am | |
At whatever time Kelly was killed,and whether there was such a person as Hutchinson describes,Aberline stated his belief in such a person.What I find odd in Aberlines actions,being the respected detective he was,is taking such information at face value,and not attempting some follow up to ascertain if Hutchinson was indeed the truthful person Aberline believed him to be.
What appears unbelievable to a lot of posters,did not appear as such to Aberline.I wonder why.
One other small point.Some undigested portion of fish and chips were found in the body.If indeed she was seen being sick,would not such food be evicted from the body at that time.And would it signify that she had had such a meal for breakfast.
Fish and chips for breakfast,after a night on the beer?.
However I'm not sure how long food takes to be fully digedted. |
Author: richard nunweek
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 07:11 am | |
HI HARRY.
it actually was stated remains of fish and potatoes . i believe they believed at the time that death occured approx 3 hrs after it was eaten . mayby kelly ate the cold remains or even heated up food from the previous evening , and ate this after she had been sick. actual i believe the digestion process would be about half what they thought in 1888. regards richard |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 03:13 pm | |
Hi Harry,
Aberline may have followed it up we do not know because only scraps of the evidence remain. It certainly is a shame that the files were not kept intact for posterity due to the nature of the murders. |
Author: Garry Ross
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 06:44 pm | |
Hello all,
Back to the kettle...I don't know how many know this already but in days gone by kettles were used by the poorer people for cooking, I have a nice little quote but I apologise that I can't remember where it is from but you may find it interesting:-
'In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always
hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot.
They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the
stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and
start over the next day. Sometimes the stew had food in it that had been
there for quite a while hence the rhyme, "Peas porridge hot, peas porridge
cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old."'
Perhaps Kelly had cooked the fish and vegetables in the kettle and due to the length of time she had it in her possession, it just deteriorated? Also with her having just the one room (bedsit type thing) she'd have to cook in there too?
I can't for the life of me remember if the report also stated if there was anything in the kettle or not.
take care
Garry |
Author: alex chisholm
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 08:31 pm | |
Hi Garry
While I may be drastically wrong, I think whoever wrote the quote you reproduce above used ‘kettle’ to mean a cooking pot hung over a fire, not kettle as in the container with spout for boiling water with which we are all familiar.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 12:41 am | |
I'd like to reiterate my question if I may. How did Abberline find the kettle? Was it on a metal grate? About how high over the bottom of the fireplace was the melted spout when Abberline found it? My take on this is that the kettle was up perhaps 12 to 18 inches from the bottom of the hearth. Is this reasonable?
Thanks to anyone who can help.
David |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 02:32 am | |
Ivor,
Yes you are correct in that we do not have as much material as we would like.The reason I say Aberline was hasty in forming an opinion of Hutchinson,is that the same evening he compiled a report for Arnold stating his belief in Hutchinson,s story,but giving no details as to why.Would he have had time to check out Hutchinson,and if so why not include the details of those checks.
I accept potatoes instead of chips,but would digestion be quicker.And if she had wakened feeling unwell,would she feel like breakfast.
Thre is currently a murder investigation here in South Australia of a 14 year old shoolgirl.A man came forward nine days after the abduction saying he might have seen her with a couple of adults.He recognised the description of her clothing.Although he only saw the back of the girl,he could give no information of the adults although they were facing him and were at no great distance.It was broad daylight.There have been no details given of any further developements.
I think the investigating officers would want to know more of the person to judge how reliable a witness he might be. |
Author: John W. Whitaker
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 04:21 am | |
Hi Richard,
Is there a difference between fish and potatoes and fish and chips? I have always believed that the English refered to french fries (fried potatoes) as chips. And I've always believed fish and chips (french fries) to be a fairly common English meal. If I'm mistaken could someone explain the difference?
Thanks, John. |
Author: Steve Hodder
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 05:26 am | |
I read on these Boards that Hutchinson was paid for giving his description of J the R - do we know the details? Perhaps the much maligned Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, was right after all in refusing to offer a government reward. No doubt he feared that it would generate just such false reports from uncrupulous people motivated, amongst other things, by financial gain.
To me the reason Hutchinson was so easily believed was that he said what people wanted to believe - namely that the murderer was a "foreigner" and an affluent and mysterious one as well. I strongly suspect that, in reality, the murderer was far more ordinary - somebody like Hutchinson himself perhaps?
On a side issue, I read with interest the references to the social makeup of the Spitalfield area in the 1880s. I'm a little concerned however about being tempted into dividing the population into the honest,"deserving poor" and the dishonest,"undeserving poor". Although this is a very Victorian concept it doesn't help our understanding. Poverty and disease (including alcoholism) drove many into "crimes" like prostitution. The local population were more forgiving - "respectability" was a luxury not all could afford!
Steve |
Author: Philip Rayner
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 07:27 am | |
Fish and chips are a traditional meal here. You mentioned fries but chips are not the long thin offerings purveyed by McDonalds. A tradional English chip is about 50mm long and 1cm by 1cm in section. It is cut from whole potatoes and deep fried till golden brown. Unless you go into the chip shop as they are closing, when it looks as though the proprietor has sat on them and they are a soggy coagulated mess. Fish is the traditional accomaniment to this gastranomic wonder. Pies are a close second. It is all very unhealthy but then so is the muck purveyed in some fast food resaurants.
The most popular meals now, specially after a few ales, are Indian meals (Particularly curries.) or Kebabs. This is followed by the tradition of................(Censored due to good taste.).
Hope this is of use. |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 07:02 pm | |
Whatho all,
Another delicacy offered by British chippies is the batterred sausage. That is a sausage covered in batter and not a sausage that's received a good smacking. With chips, vinegar and HP sauce. Hmmm lovely!
Cheers, dribbling Mark |
