Regina v Dudley and Stephens

Because of the prior posting on cannibalism and an English court ruling, inquiring minds wanted to know who "Regina" was. Turns out it's "Regina" if there is a Queen on the throne; "Rex" if there is a king. Latin words, of course

Since Queen Victoria was sitting on the throne in 1884, it's "Regina." So, where Perry Mason might say "the people," in England in 1884 it's the Regina symbolically bringing the charges against the defendants.

The lawyers who I thought might render answer to to the question I posed at the end of the prior posting, did not respond to my query about any similarities between Regina v. Dudley and Stephens to "stand your ground" laws here in the U.S. The short answer is no, entirely different situations according to the other lawyer you can consult, AI ChatGpt. I must say, artificial or not, ChatGpt is proving very useful in getting answers.

All of this proves you can get answer to a lot of questions using whatever AI actually is.

ChatGpt

In English law, "Regina" (or "Rex" when a king is on the throne) refers to the reigning monarch—in this case, Queen Victoria—who represents the Crown and the state. In the context of criminal cases, "the prosecutor" is not a specific person, but rather the sovereign acting on behalf of the public to bring criminal charges against the defendants, Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens. [1, 2, 3]

Because the ship (Mignonette) was registered as an English vessel, the surviving crew members were tried in England under British jurisdiction. The actual legal arguments on behalf of the Crown were led by the Attorney General at the time, Sir Henry James, alongside Solicitor General Sir Farrer Herschell. [1, 2, 3, 4]

If you are interested, I can also provide information on:

• The specific details of the court's landmark ruling on the defense of necessity
• How Queen Victoria ultimately intervened in Dudley and Stephens' sentence

he tragedy began in May 1884 when the Australian yacht Mignonette departed England for Sydney with a four-man crew: Captain Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks, and the 17-year-old cabin boy, Richard Parker. [1]

The Shipwreck and Survival

• The storm: On July 5, a massive wave struck and crippled the vessel in the South Atlantic, forcing the crew into a 13-foot open lifeboat.
• No provisions: The crew escaped with only two tins of turnips and no fresh water.
• Desperation: They survived for two weeks on the turnips, a caught turtle, and their own urine. [1]

The Sacrifice

• Parker falls ill: By day 19, Richard Parker drifted into a coma after drinking seawater.
• The decision: Dudley suggested drawing lots to sacrifice someone, but Brooks refused. Dudley and Stephens later decided to kill Parker before he died naturally so they could preserve his blood for drinking.
• The act: On July 25 (day 20), Dudley offered a prayer and cut Parker’s throat with a penknife.
• The aftermath: The three remaining crew members fed on Parker’s body for four days. [1, 2]

Rescue and Arrest

• The pickup: On July 29, a passing German bark named the Montezuma rescued the three emaciated survivors.
• Honest confession: Upon arriving in Falmouth, England, the men openly recounted the ordeal to customs officials, believing the custom of the sea protected them.
• The arrest: Local authorities disagreed and promptly arrested Dudley and Stephens for murder, while Brooks was granted immunity to act as a witness.

The Landmark Ruling on Necessity

In Regina v Dudley and Stephens (1884), the High Court of Justice ruled that necessity is not a defense to a charge of murder.

The court established several enduring legal principles:

• No absolute duty to preserve one's own life: The judges ruled that self-preservation does not justify taking an innocent life.
• Morality and law: Chief Justice Lord Coleridge stated that law and morality must stay aligned, and allowing murder out of hunger would create a dangerous legal precedent.
• Prohibition of choosing who dies: The court declared that humans cannot legally choose to sacrifice another person to save themselves.

Queen Victoria's Royal Intervention

The court strictly applied the law and sentenced Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens to the statutory penalty of death by hanging. However, both the judges and the public recognized the extreme, horrifying circumstances of their survival at sea.

The Crown used the royal prerogative of mercy to alter the punishment:

• Commutation of sentence: Queen Victoria, acting on the advice of the Home Secretary, commuted the death sentence.
• Final punishment: The defendants served six months in prison without hard labor instead of being executed.

If you want to continue researching this case, I can provide:

• The full backstory of what happened aboard the Mignonette yacht
• How this ruling impacts modern legal definitions of self-defense

----------------------------------------------------------

Does the 1884 British law ruling of Regina v Dudley and Stephens play in U.S cases of stand your ground rulings.

Short answer: not directly, and generally no.

The 1884 English case Regina v Dudley and Stephens is one of the most famous common law decisions holding that necessity is not a defense to murder. The case involved shipwrecked sailors who killed and ate a cabin boy to survive. The court convicted them, rejecting the argument that killing an innocent person was justified by necessity.

Stand your ground laws in the United States address a different legal issue.

Stand your ground laws concern:

• Whether a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force.
• Whether deadly force is justified when facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
• The law of self-defense, not necessity.

By contrast, Dudley and Stephens concerns:

• The defense of necessity.
• Killing an innocent person to avoid one's own death.
• Situations where the victim is not threatening the defendant.

Does the case influence U.S. law?

It has influenced American legal thinking in a broad historical sense because many U.S. criminal law doctrines developed from English common law. U.S. law schools frequently teach Dudley and Stephens, and courts occasionally cite it when discussing the limits of the necessity defense.

However, U.S. courts deciding stand your ground cases rarely rely on Dudley and Stephens because the legal questions are fundamentally different.

Where might it be cited?

You are more likely to see Dudley and Stephens cited in U.S. cases involving:

• Necessity as a criminal defense.
• Prison escape due to emergency.
• Medical necessity.
• Whether necessity can ever justify homicide.

Stand your ground cases instead rely primarily on:

• The state's self-defense statute.
• State supreme court precedent interpreting self-defense.
• The defendant's reasonable belief of an imminent threat.

Could the reasoning overlap?

Only indirectly. Both bodies of law reflect the principle that not every life-threatening situation legally justifies killing another person. But they ask different questions:

Regina v. Dudley & Stephens	Stand Your Ground
Was killing an innocent person justified by necessity?	Was deadly force justified against an unlawful aggressor?
Victim posed no threat.	Victim must be perceived as posing an imminent threat.
Necessity defense.	Self-defense doctrine.

So while Regina v. Dudley and Stephens is an important common law precedent that has shaped discussions of necessity in the U.S., it is not a foundational authority for American stand your ground rulings, which arise from a separate branch of criminal law.

http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com

Page 1 New York Times, 1884, Cannibalism

It is hard not to come away with something else when you're reading a very old edition of the New York Times by virtue of the digitization of all their copies.

It used to be I had to thread microfilm at the library, or get a spot at what was the Science and Technology branch of the New York Public Library on 34th Street and Madison Avenue (no longer there) and plow though someone's digital database. Now, doing it at home.

I didn't set out to find a story about cannibalism, but I did as I scrolled through the September 8, 1884 edition of the New York Times looking for the story about the fire in Libby Custer's home. (Prior posting.)

I didn't have the page number for the fire at the apartment of the widow of General Custer, so I started at Page 1 and kept going until I found what I was looking for on Page 8, of the eight page edition. If the headline of The Latest Cannibal Story on Page 1 doesn't get your attention, then I can't help you, and you should stop reading this posting..

WTF! Are cannibal stories a regular feature in that you're now up-to-date if you read this one? Hard to tell. I'm not scrolling looking for more; this one is more than enough. Midway down in the 8th column of the eight column edition (no photos) is the story. I kid you not.

The lede:

London, Sept. 7 The crew of the Mignonette captured the turtle on the fourth day after the sinking of the yacht.

No photos, but a drawing (above) gleaned from everybody's favorite AI sources, Google and ChatGPT.

The Times spares no gory detail.

On the 18th of June, having been seven days without food and five without water, they discussed the question of casting lots which should die that the lives of the other might be prolonged, but were unable to agree. [Gee, no volunteers, huh?] Next day it was determined to kill the boy Parker, when Capt. Dudley opened his jugular vein with a penknife and he died instantly. The survivors, the Captain and two seamen, drank the murdered boy's blood and sustained life by eating the flesh [raw, I suppose] until rescued by the Montezuma on the 5th of July. The reason assumed for determining upon the boy's death is that he suffered most from thirst and was unmarried. When rescued the men looked like skeletons. They will be charged with murder.

That's all she wrote that day. But no end to the story.

ChatGPT:

In 1884, the small yacht Mignonette sank in the South Atlantic while sailing from England to Australia. Four survivors escaped into a 13-foot lifeboat:

• Tom Dudley (captain)
• Edwin Stephens
• Edmund Brooks
• Richard Parker

After about 20 days with almost no food and very little fresh water, the 17-year-old cabin boy, Richard Parker, became gravely ill after drinking seawater. Believing they were all about to die, Dudley and Stephens killed Parker and the three survivors ate his body to stay alive.

Four days later, they were rescued by the German ship Montezuma.

ChatGpt

Crew of the Mignonette ate a crew member as they were marooned

Yes. This was the infamous Mignonette case, one of the most famous legal cases involving survival cannibalism.

The case became famous because the survivors openly admitted what they had done. Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder. In the landmark English case Regina v Dudley and Stephens, the court ruled that necessity is not a defense to murder. Although they were initially sentenced to death, their sentences were commuted to six months' imprisonment.

The case has had a lasting influence on criminal law and is still taught in law schools around the world as a classic example of the limits of the "necessity" defense.

One curious historical footnote is that the cabin boy's name was Richard Parker—the same name later given to the tiger in Yann Martel's novel Life of Pi, though the novel's Richard Parker is an animal rather than a person.

More AI Sources 

Here's what happened:

• After the Mignonette sank, the four survivors escaped in a 13-foot dinghy.
• They had only two one-pound tins of preserved turnips and no fresh water.
• On the fourth day, they managed to catch a sea turtle, which provided meat and blood for food and drink, prolonging their survival for several more days.

Eventually, after the turtle and turnips were gone and no rescue had appeared, they killed the cabin boy, Richard Parker, leading to the famous legal case of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens.

------------------------------------------------------

I don't know how the events unfolded after the rescue, but obviously the three that were left didn't hold together and tell the rescuers that they were the only survivors. Since the case reads Regina v Dudley and Stephens I'm going to guess that Brooks spilled the beans on the other two.

Perhaps, not being lawyers, they felt that the law would allow the killing and eating of another human if dire circumstances presented itself. Guess not.

I wonder if "necessity defense" is what drives "stand your ground" defenses when someone is harmed by a person who feels they are in imminent danger of being killed.

I have a source who might render an opinion on this if they answer. It will be interesting to learn if they have familiarity with  Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, when they were in law school, despite it no doubt being in British law.

http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com

All Things Custer, 150 Years Later

I'm not going to bury the lede.

My grandmother, grandfather, and their 4 sons, one of whom was my father, were neighbors of "Libby" Elizabeth Custer on East 18th Street in New York City. I kid you not.

There's nothing we Americans like more than celebrating, or acknowledging a milestone anniversary. And even if that anniversary is about a massacre of U.S. calvary troops at a confluence of rivers in what is now Montana and at a place called Little Big Horn by an allied force of Native Americans against General George Armstrong Custer, who was only obeying his own ego rather than his orders, then it's still okay to think about it.

I think it was a Caleb Carr book, probably 'The Alienist', that I read that Custer's widow had been robbed during a fire. She lived in the Rutherford Stuyvesant Apartments, that at the time of their construction at 142 East 18th Street, New York City, introduced a ground breaking type of living in that multiple families lived in a single dwelling.

My grandmother's apartment was at 146 East 18th Street, on the southwest corner of 3rd Avenue. The family flower shop occupied the storefront. In the 1950s I remember being taken to see my grandmother and the flower shop. I always liked that the flower shop had two entrances; one on 18th Street, the other on 3rd Avenue. I have photos.

In the photo to the left you can see the Stuyvesant Apartments. Just to the left margin is my grandmother's building. I can't say I distinctly remember the Stuyvesant Apartments, but I certainly remember my grandmother's on the second floor, front corner, overlooking 3rd avenue and 18th Street, and of course he flower shop.

Rutherford Stuyvesant was wealthy, and was a direct descendent of Peter Stuyvesant, the last Dutch Director-General of  New Amsterdam. He was a great-great-great-great grandson on his mother's side.

There is a Rutherford Place that runs between 17th and 15th Streets, just north of Stuyvesant Park that is bisected by 2nd Avenue. Rutherford Place is between 3rd Avenue and the park. St. George Episcopal Church is on Rutherford Place, a church that J.P. Morgan worshiped at. Every morning on my way to high school at Stuyvesant High School on 15th Street I walked through Stuyvesant Park. There is of course a statue of Peter Stuyvesant in the Western portion of the park.

Additionally, there is the Friends Seminary and School on the corer of 15th Street. We supplied a small bouquet of flowers every morning for their Quaker services.

Did anyone in my family ever mention that Custer's widow lived next door until about 1924, when she moved to 71 Park Avenue where she passed away at 91. Seventy-one is still there, condominiums. I was in the city last Wednesday, and passed the building not knowing anything about a prior tenant. Next time I'll inform the doorman.

Did Libby buy flowers at the shop? Who knows? What we do know is that there was a fire in her apartment on September 7, 1884. It was reported in the NYT on September 8, Page 5 of an 8 page paper that cost 2¢ for the weekday edition; 3¢ for Sunday.

Some of the wording is quaint. The heading goes:

A PANIC IN A FLAT HOUSE

The sub-heading: 

Slight Damage in the by Fire in the Rutherford Stuyvesant House

The Rutherford Stuyvesant flat house, on the south west corner of Eighteenth-street and Third-avenue was on fire at 4:15 o'clock yesterday morning, causing much alarm amongst the inmates...

Flat House for apartment house; Inmates for tenants.

The fire started in Mrs. Custer's apartment at the base of the air shaft, thought to have been caused by a match thrown from above, landing on rubbish.

There is tremendous detail in the reporting. All the people who were affected by the disturbance, what they lost in the fire, how they made their way out. They are all named, and the value of their losses is reported.

"Mrs. Custer laments the loss or partial destruction of many mementoes of the General. Mr. Calhoun lost a gold watch presented to her by her brother. It was stolen by some one who entered the apartment after the family left it. The thief also took a small morocco purse, which was empty. It is believed that the fellows snatched up the property in a great hurry, as in a case in plain view was solid silverware worth several thousand dollars."

-----------------------------------------------------

ChatGPT provides a further summary

The New York Times covered the fire the next day under the headline "A Panic in a Flat House" (September 8, 1884). The fire began in or near an air shaft connected to Libbie Custer's first-floor apartment and quickly spread upward through the building. Residents fled in panic, many climbing to the roof while firefighters battled the blaze. Fortunately, no lives were lost.

What made the story especially newsworthy was that Mrs. Elizabeth ("Libbie") Custer, widow of General George A. Custer, was among the tenants. During the confusion, thieves reportedly entered her apartment and stole valuables while everyone was focused on escaping the fire and saving property. Contemporary accounts described the theft as an example of opportunistic looting amid the chaos.

The Stuyvesant Apartments themselves were famous as one of New York City's earliest upscale apartment buildings. Libbie Custer used her apartment there as a base while writing and lecturing to defend and preserve her late husband's reputation after the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

One detail that struck newspaper readers at the time was how novel apartment living still was. A fire in a large "flat house" drew crowds and extensive press coverage because multi-family apartment buildings were still a relatively new concept for middle- and upper-class New Yorkers.

---------------------------------------------------------------

ChatGPT provides background on the apartments.

The Rutherford Stuyvesant Apartments (also called the Stuyvesant Flats) at 142 East 18th Street, between Irving Place and Third Avenue, were demolished in 1958. They were replaced by a newer apartment building on the site. [ My grandmother's apartment house was also demolished in 1958. 150 East 18th Street, a "luxury" high rise was built on the site in the mid-60s.]

This building was historically significant because:

• It was built in 1869–1870 for Rutherford Stuyvesant.
• It was designed by the renowned architect Richard Morris Hunt.
• It is widely regarded as New York City's first apartment building designed specifically for the middle class, helping popularize apartment living in America.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

At some point I must have told my one of son-in-laws, whose father is retired New York Police Department, about the fire, and the theft.

No mystery to a retired NYPD: "The firemen took the goods."

NYPD and FDNY have always been a bit intolerant of the other. My son-law's father, if near a fire house will always tell you to, "keep quiet, because they're sleeping in there. We don't want to disturb them."

The NYT in yesterday's Arts Section ran a full two page spread with paintings, sculptures, and news articles about the massacre at Little Big Horn. Custer, with under 300, men attacked a Native American presence of over 4,000 from various tribes. He either got very bad intel, or ignored it.  

Two nephews, two brothers, and a brother-in-law of General Custer were slain. A lot less seats were needed from then on at the family's Thanksgiving dinners.

The two-page spread is impressive, and even more impressive when viewed online. The color from the artwork really stands out. A clip from the 1912 silent movie about the massacre comes to life online. Amongst one of the pieces is a piece done by Standing Bear, who fought in the battle as a teenager.

No cameras, but an eyewitness/participant of the battle. We're so conditioned to pay attention to the soldiers who were killed we forget there were Native Americans who took part in the fight who lived for decades afterward. The artist Sitting Bear  passed away in 1933.

The artwork he created was at least 40 years after the massacre on June 25, 1876. It is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

I have only one older cousin left who could possibly reflect on what my family knew, or didn't know about a woman who lived next door to them. We're not in touch, so if there is knowledge, it's probably going to the grave.

I will see if I encounter the doorman at 71 Park Avenue and ask if he knew of the famous tenant Elizabeth Custer. I'm prepared for them to reply that they never heard of General Custer and the Battle of Little Big Horn.

http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com

Jeopardy Champion Caleb Groen

When a Jeopardy contestant gets rolling toward a double digit streak, I like to take note. The current 9-day champion, Caleb Groen, is a 27-year-old policy and law student formerly from Thousand Oaks, California. Where he's from now is not disclosed. He is up there with enough real money for a decent down payment on a house, or buying a really nice vehicle with $240,500 in winnings so far. He'll qualify for the Tournament of champions, having won 5 games.

The 5 game cutoff for getting into the Tournament of Champions can be seen as getting promoted from the minor leagues, AAA ball, to the majors. It's the farm system for future shows and where really significant money can be had for advancing.

Caleb is a pleasant looking young man with a Pepsodent grin that lights up a room, or a camera. He doesn't always get his Daily Doubles right, or even know the answer to the Final clue. But, he is usually so far ahead that mathematically he'll win, unless he has brain freeze and bets too much in the Final and doesn't know the answer. I've yet to see a contestant go out on a limb in Final and shoot the works. Hasn't happened.

He was deeply disappointed with himself when he didn't know the answer to yesterday's Final clue. But, his can't-be-caught-lead saved him for another round.

Historic Books

Ann Eliza Webb, an ex-spouse of this man, penned an exposé about the experience titled "Wife No. 19."

The third contestant, Khalid Kiirji, from Toronto, Canada,  with the lowest amount of money, answered "Hugh Hefner." He was in the right vein, but the clue would have had to worded differently for Hef to be right.

Patience Bruce, in the middle from Medford, Wisconsin, answered correctly, "Brigham Young," who of course was polygamous and didn't have 19 wives consecutively, but rather somewhat concurrently. Birthdays and anniversaries must have been tough to remember without a spreadsheet.

Caleb looked sheepish when it was revealed that be wrote "Nabokov", likely thinking of his novel Lolita.

Still the champ and headed for double digits in trying for No. 10. Caleb is headed into Death Valley.

No statistics kept on champs going for No. 10 who don't make it, but it is guessed it's one-third to one half who don't make it.

Tonight's Final clue:

20th Century History

The U.N, conference of April 25, 1945 opened with a speech that said this man "gave his life while trying to perpetuate these high ideals."

Caleb...piece of cake.

http://onofframp.blogspot.com

Meet the Mets

Well, maybe you don't want to meet the Mets. They are 40/57 at the All-Star break, solidly in last place in their division and are trying the patience of even a casual Mets fan.

By virtue of an annual outing with a former co-worker and his entourage of co-workers and son, I took in Sunday's afternoon Met game against the surging Red Sox, who prior to the game had won 8 in a row, and after the game?...well, guess.

There were Red Sox fans all around us. How is this possible? Are they all visiting New York baseball and smell blood in the water? Even heading home on the 7 train I was surrounded by people wearing Red Sox merchandise. 

The subway was of curse crowded after the game and I was standing between two guys having a conversation, one wearing a Mets jersey and the other a Red Sox shirt.

I inserted myself politely into their conversation when I heard that the Red Sox guy lived in Queensbury, New York. Queensbury is where my friend and I stayed for decades in our motel base at the Grey Court Motor Lodge before heading back down the Northway to Saratoga.

Red Sox told the other guy he lived behind the Wal Mart. Queensbury is hardly big. It sits between Lake George to its north, and Glens Falls to its south on Route 9, Lake George Road, within walking distance of the Great Escape amusement park. I asked the Red Sox guy if the Grey Court had reopened, since we knew it was changing hands from the McDonoughs to the ex son-in-law who bought it.

Red Sox didn't know of the Grey Court, despite Queensbury being about the size of a postage stamp. This of course made me try ands see if the Grey Court had gone back in business. On Monday, I finished talking to Tom McDonough who ran the motel with his wife Marianne for decades. The motel right now is being occupied by Great Escape staff as a bit of a dormitory. Massive construction is going on to connect the motel to the municipal sewer line. A fall reopening is planned.

I digress, but only to show that when in New York there is a connection to something or someone you know about right where you're standing in a subway car. Better than Six Degrees of Separation.

Initially, when my former co-worker Steve booked the tickets, it with an understanding that it was to be a giveaway event handing out retro Met Jerseys. In fact, Steve told me he was planning on wearing only a T-shirt to the game and leaving the game better dressed.

Not to be. The Mets made it a Kids Sunglasses giveaway, meant to give sunglasses only kids who entered. Once I cleared the metal detector and the ticket scanning, I asked where are the sun glasses? I was pointed to two high school girls who were handing them out, but ostensibly only to children at the game.

Not knowing it was supposed to be a giveaway to only kids brought to the game, the young lady asked me if I had kids. "Yes, I've got kids, just not with me." She somewhat reluctantly handed me a pair of the Met blue plastic sunglasses. I intend to give them to my 2½-year-old grandson. "Pays" to be a little pushy.

Eat something before the game? Got plenty of time.

Been looking forward to the pastrami on rye I had last time that was decent. That and a water and I'm at the seat. There are no little platform ledges to stand and eat this thing before heading to the seat.

Open the sandwich.  It is not cut in half. The lazy bone bone heads assembling these sandwiches didn't even cut it in half. I don't have a kitchen knife with me. (Would the metal detector go off if I did?) But I prevail, but not happily. I email Guest Services to alert their staff to CUT THE SANDWICH IN HALF. No answer. Writing a USPS letter to Steve Cohen today. I hate to be ignored. I still have 78¢ Forever stamps, which are now 82¢, so I'm getting a bargain on delivery.

Even a casual baseball follower would be aware that the Mets are having a terrible year. After a prolonged losing streak they fired their manager in his third year, Carlos Mendoza. Despite a wild card playoff appearance one year, the Mets have underachieved. I never thought much of Mendoza. He seemed asleep standing on the dugout steps. Goodbye Carlos.

Managing now? Andy Green, plucked from the front office. A former player and manager, Green assumes the role of interim manager. Huge change in now winning more games? Not at all. My 14-year-old granddaughter will tell anyone who asks about the Mets that METS is an acronym of MY ENTIRE TEAM SUCKS/STINKS. Something about teenagers who get things right.

It would seem like other teams, the Mets have added a dance team. This of course means young, J-Lo type ladies with boundless energy and bare midriffs who dance on top of the Mets dugout with Mr. and Mrs. Met to thumping music.

The Mets have only two starting pitchers who have winning records: Nolan McLean is 6-5 and Christian Scott is 2-1. The highly sought after and expensive Freddy Peralta acquired in the off season is hardly an ace, at 5-8 and a 4.66 ERA for the first half of the season. The New York Post awards him an F in today's mid-season report card.

Young Zach Thornton starts the game, and pitches a gem. He shuts the Red Sox out through 7 innings, issuing 2 walks, along with just two hits, throwing only 82 pitches, striking out 5 and retiring 12 of the first 13 batters. Very effective.

But of course in this era of protecting a pitcher's arm, 82 pitches over 7 shutout innings means Zach needs to come out and let the bullpen nail the win down. I said to my friend's co-worker after the 7th inning that I was now worried about the bullpen. Eddie, being a rabid Met fan knew my fears were justified.

The Mets need 6 outs to give Thornton his first MLB win. In comes Luke Weaver. Three outs.

But of course, a reliever has to be removed for another reliever to get the real nails driven into the Red Sox coffin and secure the win for Thornton and avoid a three game sweep by the resurgent Red Sox.

Well, how did that go? It might have gone well if Fransico Lindor didn't muff a game-ending double play for an error. Now the Red Sox are standing on bases they weren't standing on all game, Today's New York Post gives a mid-season report card on the Mets and its players and mangers.

Fransico, coming back from a prolonged injury, gets a D. from the New York Post report card. Up to the 9th inning, was the hero, driving in the runs with a double and a homer. If Bill Gallo were alive Lindor would be drawn as the game's hero.

After the error, Gallo would have drawn Lindor as the goat, and that didn't mean Greatest Of All Time. It meant the boo-boo guy.

So, who was the second reliever? Devin Williams, who the New York Post gives a D to, telling us "a disappointing overall performance for Edwin Diaz's replacement, who has pitched to a 4.70 ERA and blown three saves. When he's off, he's ugly bad." Meet "ugly bad."

Met fans will remember the Mets flubbed signing Edwin Diaz, and saw him go to the talent rich Los Angeles Dodgers. Nothing like helping out the team in your league. The Dodgers are currently coasting with a winning percentage of .629, with the second place team, Arizona, behind them by 11½ games. The Dodgers look like the Yankees of old. Break up the Dodgers.

Devin gets out of the inning, but he allows a run to walked in, and a single that ties the game. The Red Sox have occupied the bases like the British did New York City during the Revolution. It was hard to watch.

Brooks Raley comes in to stop the invasion. A 10th inning is required, and that means a man gets to start at 2nd base in order to speed the game up and get to a decision. One of the better changes in baseball.

Raley stays in to pitch the 10th. Tactics. The runner on 2nd is bunted over to third and a sac fly gets him home. 3-2.

Bottom of the 10th for the Mets. Three outs and the fair-size crowd heads for the exits. It's a nice Sunday afternoon, and no one seems to be booing. They should be.

The extra inning has caused Steve and his entourage to miss a train at Penn Station that would take them home to New Jersey. The 5:11 is missed;. the 6:11 is taken, making the day even more frustrating.

I leave the game thinking I'd rather lose 9 races at either Belmont or Saratoga than sit through a 10-inning Mets game loss.

The New York Post is really the only New York paper covering baseball and all home sports with any attention. In Tuesday's edition when report cards are revealed, the Mets General Manager, David Stearns get an indelible F. "The architect of this nightmare. His misses on this roster far outweigh his hits."

Fans have already taken to creating signs that say "STEARNS MUST GO." After Mendoza was let go it was widely assumed that Stearns should be looking toward his next employment. Well, not so. Steve Cohen of the Mets has given a vote of confidence to Stearns telling anyone who will write it down that he'll be here to finish his contract, which expires in 2½ years.

This seems like a hollow promise, and likely means the kiss of death for David's employment with the Mets when the season ends.

Meanwhile, Steve, our social director, is already planning on what tickets to buy for next year.

Because if anything is true about sports, there is always next year.

http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com