Why put the key on the fireplace mantel?

[Nadzieja]

This is just a wayward thought, we all know how much tension there seemed to be in that house. It seemed no matter what Abby did the girls would find fault. That hatred festered for years. So IMO no matter what Andrew did for Abby I'm sure the girls just verbally tore it apart. They seemed not to want to let her be in the role of wife and have any control over anything. I also see them being jealous. So now Andrew goes and helps his wife's family. Oh my God, Andrew didn't spend it on "them" his own flesh & blood!! What was he thinking?
So he placates them and gives them property and what happens? Do they appreciate it--of course not, they just wanted to get even. And show they also had power over Andrew.

[Yooper]

It seems that the final straw was when Andrew did something favoring Abby's family rather than just Abby.

Lizzie's Inquest Testimony, p. 86(43)
Q. Whose father's house?
A. Mrs. Borden's father's house. She had a stepmother and a half sister, Mrs. Borden did, and
this house was left to the stepmother and a half sister, if I understood it right, and the house was
for sale. The stepmother, Mrs. Oliver Gray, wanted to sell it, and my father brought [sic] out the
Widow Gray's share. She did not tell me, and he did not tell me, but some outsiders said that he
gave it to her. Put it in her name. I said if he gave that to her, he ought to give us something.
Told Mrs. Borden so. She did not care anything about the house herself. She wanted it so this
half sister could have a home, because she had married a man that was not doing the best he
could, and she thought her sister was having a very hard time and wanted her to have a home.
And we always thought she persuaded father to buy it. At any rate he did buy it, and I am quite
sure she did persuade him. I said what he did for her people he ought to do for his own children.
So he gave us grandfather's house. That was all the trouble we ever had.

Lizzie believed that Abby did not care about the house herself, so the purchase did not favor Abby as much as her family in Lizzie's eyes. The same resentment seems to manifest from Abby's perceived influence over Andrew. Perhaps there was no telling what Abby might persuade Andrew to do in the future.

[Kat]

Thanks for finding the rest of the transaction at UMASS dot edu, Yooper. I figured it was there.

So have you figured out the distribution of the shares of the house yet?
That 1/2 sister is in the mix.

Yooper--

It seems that the mortgage was paid by, and sole ownership released to, Jane Gray on the same day as the sale to Abby of a half interest in the property.

Which came first? The buying of the share by Abbie/Andrew or the discharge of the mortgage?

I think this is in Rebello.
Why would Oliver Gray leave Priscilla out of the legacy of the house?

[Yooper]

The mortgage discharge would have to come first technically, but those things are commonly done at the same time, with all interested parties present or represented.

As far as I can determine from the documents, there were no shares of the house to distribute. All co-owners' names would appear on the deed, and all would have to sign off to validate the transaction. There are other deeds listed on the UMASS website which Andrew Borden was a party to and they all list co-owners and degrees of ownership, 1/4, 1/2, etc.

I have no idea what Oliver Gray's will contained, nor do I know his reasons for the contents. If he left the house to multiple heirs, then it would be specified. There should then be a new deed listing the owners and their respective interests in the house. The deed to Abby only indicates that Jane Gray was left the house by her husband, no mention of others involved.

When a house is owned multiple ways, all interested parties must sign off if any part of it is sold. Abby had to sign off her homestead and dower's rights when Andrew gave the Ferry Street house to Lizzie and Emma. The deed is from Jane Gray, and no one else, to Abby. The mortgage is released to Jane Gray, and no one else. There were simply no other legal owners of that house other than Jane Gray, according to the paper trail.

[Kat]

Since Oliver Gray died in 1878, and his will does not seem to impact the case until 1887, I figured anything could have happened in the between time.

But I checked further- into Bill Pavao's article on Abbie in the LBQ and the same issue contains an article by Rebello about the Fourth Street property, "The Whitehead House Discovered." Apparently they have a copy of Oliver Gray's will, because it is cited in a footnote and quoted a little bit. This is The Lizzie Borden Quarterly, Vol. IX, Number 1, January, 2002.

I think I've got the story straight now. I've grappled with it since the website was formed and I created that timeline on there.

My understanding from these articles is that Oliver Gray left the house to Jane, his second wife, and to Sarah, their daughter. Why he left Abbie and Priscilla out, will always bother me. Anyway, those two, Abbie & Priscilla, according to Rebello, page 6, were left $200 each, and Priscilla (maybe as Oliver's eldest daughter?) "was also given a feather bed and a large engraved silver spoon." Poor Abbie seems to have made out with less than anyone, but she was married to Andrew by then, and I don't think we know when Priscilla married.

Then, later, when the widow Jane wanted to sell, there is the info (skip to page 21) that "Mrs. Gray's half-share interest of the house was sold to Abby Borden in May 1887 for $1,500." The Registry of Deeds is the source there.

Skip to page 22 and we find "By September 1893, Emma and Lizzie were in their new home on French Street and the Whiteheads now owned three-quarters of the property on Fourth Street and Mrs. Fish owned a one-quarter share."
That's probably because "Two months after the trial, Emma and Lizzie sold their inherited half share of the Fourth Street property for 'one dollar and other considerations' to Abby's half-sister Sarah and Abby's sister, Priscilla Fish of Connecticut. Abby's personal belongings and bank deposits totaling $1,716.05 were released to Sarah and Priscilla." (Page 22, as well.)

So- to recap-
Jane has 1/2 from Oliver's will and Sarah, their daughter, has 1/2.
Then Abbie/Andrew buy Jane's 1/2 in 1887. When Abbie dies, Emma and Lizzie inherit Abbie's 1/2. They basically give (or sell for $1) that 1/2 to 2 people- Sarah and Priscilla, in late 1893 . That's when Priscilla gets a 1/4 share, and now Sarah has 3/4 shares.
After Priscilla died, as did her husband, Mr. Fish, in 1894, "Their interest in the Fourth Street property was deeded by their relatives to the Whiteheads in 1897." It doesn't say if that share was bought or given. (Page 22.)

Whew!
I knew it was complicated. Sure would like to see the will of Oliver Gray.

[Edit here: Also see "Land Transactions," Rebello, Lizzie Borden Past & Present page 554 for the 1887 transfer info and discharge of mortgage by Jane Gray.]

[Kat]

Thanks for sticking with it Yooper!

[Yooper]

This is beginning to make more sense now. Jane Gray couldn't have sold a half share if she only owned a quarter share. She had to have owned at least half.

Oliver Gray may have figured that Abby and (possibly/probably) Priscilla were married and no longer dependent upon him if he left the house to the two women who were dependent upon him. That makes sense to me, splitting the property four ways could potentially spoil his intent with more personalities involved. It may also imply that Priscilla was married by the time Oliver made this will.

Where the quarter shares first come up is when Abby's half is split between Sarah and Priscilla. By the way, the phrase "$1.00 and other good and valuable consideration" is often used when buying/selling real estate or other items with large price tags. It prevents people from knowing the actual selling price. It could mean $1.00 and the "good and valuable consideration" is another $99,999.00 if the price is $100,000.00.

I'm still wondering why Sarah's name isn't mentioned in the paperwork, especially the satisfaction of the mortgage, but maybe under Massachusetts law at the time it wasn't necessary. Maybe the banks would mortgage a half interest at the time, I don't know.

Did Jane Gray move out of the house at the time she sold her half to Abby? Maybe the sale was intended to provide Jane and Sarah an unencumbered residence if Jane remained there.

Thanks for the research, Kat!

[Kat]

Bill Pavao and Len Rebello did the research, but thanks for the pat on the back for finally finding the info they provided us!

Same source, same page, to answer what happened after that~ ~ ~

The Whiteheads moved the house to the rear of the property and built another house on the lot in 1897-98, and George Whitehead died before moving in. The article states that Sarah Whitehead and Lil' Abby age 14, and Georgie, age 11 "were in the new house by 1900 and resided there until 1912. The two houses on Fourth Street were sold.
Sarah and her daughter, Abby, who was now married, moved to New York City and subsequently to Salt Lake City, Utah, Toronto, Philadelphia, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and eventually to Providence, Rhode Island. Jane Gray...died in Winnipeg in 1932 at the age of 80."

BTW: the article, by Rebello,, page 21, states:
"By 1883, Jane left the Fourth Street house and moved to Park Street, a short distance away. She eventually moved next door to her daughter to 43 Fourth Street boarding at the Alexander Milne house from 1885-1888, and one year later she lived across the street from her daughter at 40 Fourth Street (1889-1890). At the time of the Borden murders she resided at 215 Second Street (1892-1894), a short distance from the Borden house at 92 Second Street."

Maybe she was renting out her half, for the income?

Also, to confuse the issue- I think we figured out there were 2 *Jane Grays* in the neighborhood of Second Street back then? (See the Witness Statements. ) One of them may be showing up at one of these addresses?

[Yooper]

I can see why Jane Gray might want to sell her half interest in the house if she wasn't living there anymore. Perhaps she left when Sarah married? There may not have been a new deed drawn up subsequent to Oliver Gray's death, it may not have been necessary at the moment and could be done at any time if needed.

It could be that Sarah was renting Jane's half of the house for sole occupancy. I'm not sure who may have been paying the mortgage, but probably Jane if the mortgage was released to her.

Sounds like a tradition of mother/mother-in-law hovering close to her married children in that family. It might have been a matter of financial necessity at the time.

[Kat]

Yes it's an interesting surmise. And it sounds like Lil' Abbie, after marriage, went off with her mother- or maybe her mother went off with Lil' Abbie and her husband, Mr. Potter?
I can't tell which.

[Allen]

According to the testimony given by Sarah B. Whitehead at the Inquest the half house interest was bought from Jane Gray and given to Abby to keep it in the family.

Q. What is it in, real estate or personal property?
A. It is in real estate.

Q.Where is it?
A. It is the house I live in.

Q. What is the value of it, about?
A. Well, I think when it was sold it brought $3000.

Q. It already belonged to the three of you?
A. No, my father left half to me, and half to my mother; and my mother sold her part to my sister.

Q. Your sister, Mrs. Borden?
A. Yes sir.

Q. So it belonged to your sister and you?
A. Yes sir. She bought it to keep it in the family.

[Curryong]

This daylight robbery has always intrigued me and I think some very good points and old news articles were brought up in this thread.

Some fascinating bits and pieces about Oliver Gray's will, too. Such as Abby and her sister Priscilla being left $200 each but Priscilla also getting a silver spoon and a feather bed. Was Priscilla married to Mr Fish at that time?

Later: Yes she was. She married in 1840, at the age of twenty, leaving her spinster sister Abby at home for another 25 years.

[irina]

I think it's important to refresh some of these old subjects, especially with Kat and Harry.

I personally never fully bought the idea that Lizzie did the burglary and that the key on the mantle was a kind of threat against her. I wonder if the burglary could be a key to the murders, that Andrew had an idea a person outside the household committed it. Perhaps a crazy relative? ~~~~~~Hey Franz...where was Morse & his horse trading associates a year before the murders?

[Curryong]

Lizzie Bridget AND Emma were all at home on the day of the daylight robbery, but no-one saw a thing!

[twinsrwe]

Please note: Some of the following has already been presented in this thread by Kat and Harry, however, some of it has not yet been presented. Underlining and highlighting are mine.


Rebello’s Lizzie Borden Past and Present, page 36:

"Mr. Borden immediately reported the affair [robbery] to the authorities with the request that it be kept a profound secret. It was kept quiet for over a year and had it not been for the terrible developments in the family last August, the robbery would almost have been forgotten. In any event, it never would have reached public prints. It is understood that the fastenings on the desk had been tampered with, although the final entrance may have been effected with a key which fitted the lock, either by accident or intention.

It is coincidence that an officer [Dennis Desmond] was put upon the case who knew the Borden family thoroughly. In fact, it may be said that he had, in a sense, grown up with the daughters.

There had been a series of robberies in Fall River just preceding this, and a young man was finally tripped up with a lot of sized keys in his possession, but there seems to have been something distinctive in this theft that did not indicate an expert.

Mr. Borden was the director in the street railway company, and the tickets stolen were those issued only to directors. Consequently, being of such limited use, it was comparatively easy to trace the thief the minute the tickets were presented. The amount of money taken was not large.

A watch was kept on the street cars for several weeks, but just what the detective's work disclosed will not be known before the trial, for suddenly, Mr. Borden told the officers to drop the case. It is said, however, that the tickets were traced to some person.

It does not appear that anything else was taken from the house at this time, nor were any other of the houses in that neighborhood robbed." Fall River Daily Herald, May 26, 1893: 7."


“Mysterious Robbery And Its Relation to the Killing of the Bordens,” New Bedford Daily Mercury, August 10, 1892: 1.

“Captain [Dennis] Desmond, Jr., then inspector of the department, was detailed to look after the stolen articles. He made a long search, but could find no trace of the missing valuables. The peculiarity was that the only thing disturbed was Mr. Borden’s desk where a man might be believed to have kept his private papers was significant. Mr. Jennings, who is steering Supt. Hanscom in his efforts in behalf of the Borden family, was asked about the robbery, but he said he could not say a word about that.”

Note: The same article appeared in the Fall River Daily Herald on August 9, 1892:4.


Officer Desmond’s notes about the investigation were included in a letter sent to Albert Pillsbury by Hosea Knowlton on September 9, 1892. The last written comment read, “P.S. Mr. Borden told me three times within two weeks after the robbery in these words, ‘I am afraid the police will not be able to find the real thief.’ ” (The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Lizzie A. Borden, The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893: 74-75)


Rebello, pages 36 & 37:

"Chief Hilliard [allegedly] told the members of the grand jury why it was the mysterious burglar who stole Mrs. Borden's watch ...The chief said he was satisfied that Lizzie committed the theft, and went on to say how he convinced Mr. Borden that such was the case. All the articles stolen at that time were the property of Mrs. Borden and included, beside the watch and money, a quantity of free horse tickets. A number of persons were found presenting free tickets who were not entitled to them. The police asked them where they secured these little pasteboards. They said Lizzie Borden gave them to them. Lizzie had never any of these tickets until after the theft from Mrs. Borden, so Mr. Borden requested that there be no further investigation. A number of such points were brought before the grand jury which never before made public, and they added much strength to the case. ...," New Bedford Evening Standard, Tuesday, November 22, 1892: 4.


Alice Russell testified at the trial as to Lizzie’s remarks about the robbery. (Trial: 378) Lizzie told Miss Russell, “… they have broken into the house in broad daylight, with Emma and Maggie and me there. …” According to Alice, Lizzie said, “It was in Mrs. Borden’s room, what she called her dressing room. … her [Abby’s] things were ransacked and they took a watch and chain and money and car tickets and something else I can’t remember.”

[twinsrwe]

Lizzie Bridget AND Emma were all at home on the day of the daylight robbery, but no-one saw a thing!

Yes, isn't that amazing?

Sounds a bit like the morning of August 4th, 1892, doesn't it? Lizzie and Bridget were both home during the time Abby and Andrew were murdered, but neither one of them saw a thing. Hmmmm!

[Curryong]

Thanks for all that research twins. It is pretty clear that the 'daylight robbery', (sorry Possum, I know you don't like the term) was an inside job. Lizzie, in contrast to her usually reserved self, was excited and talkative, showing the police the cheap nail that was stuck in the dressing room door.

It's pretty obvious who the thief was, but Andrew decided discretion was the best policy. If it had been a stranger he would have insisted on a prosecution. I don't know how Lizzie thought she was going to get away with distributing horse car tickets to acquaintances and get away with it. They weren't going to use them?

This robbery always treated as an interesting little side issue, but I think the invisible stranger moving through the house like a phantom at will, striking and then departing was played out a year later to greater effect wasn't it? Plus, as the money in the safe was Abby's bill money, kept in the safe because Abby didn't like making out cheques (checks) ALL the things stolen were hers or for her benefit, with the exception of the horse car tickets. The jewellery pieces and Russian leather item were sentimental items too, and never recovered.

[twinsrwe]

You're welcome, Currong. When I submitted a post on page two of this thread in 2008, I didn't have my Lizzie Borden Past and Present yet, so thanks to Len Rebello, I now have a reliable source!

There is no doubt in my mind, that Lizzie was the thief! I still believe that Andrew was an enabler; he made it possible for Lizzie to avoid the consequences of her unacceptable behavior. (When there are no consequences for unacceptable behavior, then one becomes more comfortable in repeating the unacceptable behavior).

As for the horse car tickets; perhaps Lizzie didn’t know they were issued to only directors. This is the only way I can think of as to why Lizzie would even think it was OK to give them away, and that she would not be caught.

It still amazes me that Emma, Lizzie and Bridget were all at home when the robbery occur, but neither one of them heard or saw anything! I wonder if Emma and Bridget ever figured out that Lizzie was the thief.

[Curryong]

Yes, it's very annoying that from start to finish, shoplifting, the robbery, the trial, the Tilden Thurber affair, Lizzie got away with it all. Her demeanour, the Borden name, the family money, Andrew's prominence in the local business community, all assisted in making Lizzie one of those Teflon people. Nothing seems to stick!

What on earth the atmosphere in the house must have been like after Andrew's consultation with the detective I'd hate to think. I just can't contemplate allowing an adult child to remain living in the house after being convinced that she was a thief who, in a spirit of sheer malice, took things which were precious to your spouse. (I presume Andrew had known about Lizzie's little habit of bringing trifles home from the shops for years, but this was something else again.) Why, in the name of heaven didn't Andrew pay for Emma and Lizzie to go and live elsewhere? Of course family reputation meant everything then.

I believe that both Emma and Bridget had a pretty shrewd idea of what Lizzie was capable of. Emma pesumably kept pushing such thoughts away. In many ways Lizzie still appears to have been the little sister in Emma's eyes, and she had a strong protective streak.

[debbiediablo]

I've said this before...I think Lizzie used shoplifting in a manner similar to charging to Daddy's Titanium Mastercard. She took and Andrew paid.

[irina]

It might be worthwhile to start a thread about kleptomania, was Lizzie or not, etc. I just got back from a trip & have a headache so am not doing any background & shouldn't be starting anything. I didn't reply to Curryong on "Debunking Myths" because I thought it wasn't the sort of thread to start a discussion.

My thinking is that if Lizzie stole and staged a burglary, etc. was it for attention or what? I agree with what Debbie said about it working like a charge account but then there is the later incident. Could the murders have been an attention getting exercise with only Abby as intended victim, if Lizzie did it? Did she seek her father's attention? Dr. Bowen's attention?

Personally I have some problems with reportage of Lizzie's habit of stealing. I need to refresh my memory with what is available. I don't have Rebello. Even what is reported above, grand jury proceedings tend to be ultra secret and usually those involved take that very seriously and it is very ahrd to know what was actually said or done. Considering the car tickets, how could Lizzie be so stupid? Even if she didn't know about the restricted nature of the pieces, why would she, probably suddenly, start passing out car tickets? Nobody ever came forward that I know to say they had received the tickets, etc. Why would she give them away? Why not burn them? If she was thinking waste not/want not, why didn't she just drop them in the street & let someone find them?

There are two versions as to whether anyone was home or not when the burglary happened. If Emma and Bridget were present, no matter who did the burglary, they didn't seem to notice that someone~even Lizzie~was in the parents' bedroom. There's lots to discuss and as with the murders I doubt the answers are simple. Perhaps Lizzie desperately craved attention and that could have led to murder. Though I still believe she is innocent of murder, if she had a bad habit of seeking attention how might that have led to murder? Could she have sought attention from someone who was not OK, someone who was a murderer?

[Curryong]

I think that is an excellent and interesting idea, irina.

I note there is an early thread called 'Excellent Reads' or something and there were mentions in it of (a) an article in The Hatchet May 2006 entitled '92 Seconds: Lightfingered Lizzie and the Kleptomania Craze' by Mary Naugle. Pages 40-46.

There was also mention of a book about kleptomania in Victorian America called 'When Ladies went A'Thieving: Middleclass Shoplifters in Victorian Department Stores' by Abelson. It apparently sheds light on a bit of an epidemic of respectable women who just couldn't resist this sort of 'bargain'. It's very cheap, on Amazon and I'm going to check it out!

[regofam]

It's kinda fun going back in time to read this discussion.

Let's say the thief was Lizzie, for the reasons stated above (horse car tickets, Andrew's calling off the law, etc.) Maybe she broke into the desk for the purpose of looking for a will or other legal/real estate documents. Once in there, whether she found the papers or not, she'd have to remove items to make it seem an outside job. And if some of the items were sentimental for Abby, that's just icing on the cake.

[Curryong]

Yes, I agree. The rifling through the desk, through Andrew's papers, could very well show anxiety about a will. IF the thief was Lizzie, however, I do think it was an act of vindictiveness that Abby's jewellery etc was gone for ever. Couldn't there have been a staged return of these items, anonymously through the post for example, a few weeks later? It's not as if the thief could have been traced through fingerprints!

[irina]

Interesting, Regofam. I had thought of the will possibility but not of the idea about taking a few items to substantiate burglary.

It's always possible Abby had an enemy outside the family, but who and why? Possibly also Abby's watch was the nicest object available to steal if the person was from outside the home.

I just can't believe Lizzie was stupid enough to give the tickets to people. Unless she gave gifts like that regularly~not likely~that act with traceable or untraceable tickets would call attention to her. Weird.

[regofam]

The following is from Alice Russell's trial testimony, telling the court about what Lizzie said when she came over for a visit on Aug. 3, the night before the murders.

"Well," she says, "they have broken into the house in broad daylight, with Emma and Maggie and me there." And I said, "I never heard of that before." And she said, "Father forbade our telling it." So I asked her about it, and she said it was in Mrs. Borden's room, what she called her dressing room. She said her things were ransacked, and they took a watch and chain and money and car tickets, and something else that I can't remember. And there was a nail left in the keyhole; she didn't know why that was left; whether they got in with it or what. I asked her if her father did anything about it, and she said he gave it to the police, but they didn't find out anything; and she said father expected that they would catch the thief by the tickets. She remarked, "Just as if anybody would use those tickets."

Note that Alice remembers Lizzie saying the theft was from "Mrs. Borden's dressing room." The police report and several newspaper stories that say Mr. Borden's desk was tampered with. I'm not sure if this is contradictory or not. In those days, any desk in a man's house could be described as "his."

It's the final comment that is most interesting: "Just as if anybody would use those tickets." That makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. You can hear the scorn in her voice.

As to the original question of this thread, the key on the mantle was to Andrew's and Abby's room, not to the desk. The police report does not say their room itself was broken into, but that the desk was tampered with, and possibly a key was used to open the desk. If the bedroom door was kept locked back then, it would seem as though the thief used the key. If it had been unlocked, it would seem that the custom of putting it on the shelf was not yet in place.

I am not coming up with a theory about why Andrew would put the room key in full view beyond the idea that it was a statement to the household that if anything goes missing again, unless the door is bashed in, he will know it's someone in the family.

Irina, in almost everything Lizzie, there is always some doubt. For me, it comes down to probability. I've enjoyed your posts. You appear to be able to keep an open mind!

[Curryong]

Many moons ago, and I can't remember which thread it was, someone mentioned that the desk was more like one of those old-fashioned bureaus with a fold-down top. Mrs B., as Lizzie often called her, kept sheets and napery in the drawers underneath, so I don't imagine it was like Fort Knox to break into. I don't think that the interior security was so strict before this incident, though Andrew and Abby would have kept the bureau locked.

[irina]

I wonder if keeping the key on the mantle had anything to do with Abby's comment to Phebe Bowen that "they" had taken her key away from her? Did Andrew declare THE ONLY key to the bedroom would henceforth be on the mantle? That sounds like something more than foiling Lizzie. If the mantle key was an anti-Lizzie device I would expect husband and wife to unite against the possible threat. Could Abby have had an enemy other than Emma and Lizzie? Any crazy relatives of record? Did Andrew have any disgruntled, rejected lovers or crazy women in love with him and his money?

There are always little things that support consciousness of innocence. Lizzie mentioning the car tickets to Alice that way could be one. Andrew might have stated to the police in Lizzie's presence that the tickets could be traced. Therefore she wouldn't have given them away. If Andrew was closed mouth about this fact and Lizzie had given them away why would she mention it to Alice the way she did? Especially if someone(s) had already been caught with the tickets and had said Lizzie gave them the tickets? Some could see this as evidence that Lizzie was simply brazen, that she had given the tickets away and had the nerve to deny it in a rendition of the tale. I tend to think she didn't have anything to do with the tickets, that she was smarter than that.

It ruins half the fun to take a side and insist on it. That just leads to arguments. If the facts were known we wouldn't have a mystery to solve. By proving or disproving every supposed fact and examining all sides, we could come up with solutions.

[irina]

Where the heck is it recorded that Abby told Phebe "they" took her key? I thought this was in Phebe's testimony but I don't find it there, or any place else at the moment. I wanted to check the context again. Thanks.