|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1242
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 9:09 am: |       |
Hi all,
I did this on another thread, but I find it more suitable to create a thread of its own on the subject.
Here are my personal list of the Top Five worst Ripper suspects in my view -- that is the least credible among the most well-known ones (which is why I haven't included such ridiculous whims like Jill the Ripper and Lewis Carroll...). Regarding the order, the first one is the absolute worst (although I think number one and two here very well could share the same spot on the list) and then it's a gliding scale.
This list will probably be revised over time, and it already has changed slightly since I did the original one.
Number one and two I think are in no need for further explanations why.
1) The Royal Conspiracy & Dr. Gull
2) Prince Albert Victor
3) Severin Klosowski/George Chapman
A wife poisoner and a complete psychopath with a personality from hell, but hardly a Ripper -- his crimes are completely different psychologically compared to the Ripper's -- even considering that a murder can change his modus operandi. There is really no logical basis for a lust murderer to suddenly drop his need for mutilations and then change to poisoning. Too bad, really, because I actually find him fascinating as a character.
4) Walter Sickert
All we know is that he painted a number of paintings with subjects from The Ripper and Camden murders, which is not in any way incriminating -- those kinds of subjects have always inspired artists throughout history; the fact that he was in France at least during some of the Ripper murders can't be disregarded and it hasn't been proven that he may have travelled to England on those occasions. Furthermore, we have no indications on him being a man with violent traits whatsoever.
5) James Maybrick
An adulterer and wife abuser from Liverpool, without anything significant linking him to the Ripper crimes -- apart from the so called diary, which in my personal opinion is a hoax.
There are probably others who fits the bill on a Top Five scale as well, like D'Onston and Michael Ostrog etc., but these are those who crosses my mind at the moment regarding the top spaces.
As I said, note that this list may change with time -- nothing is self-written and static in Ripper Land...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Difficult one to answer as there are lots of different categories of worst suspect. There are ones who are proven innocent: -
Cream, Miles, Clarence etc.
Ones who probably didn't even exist: -
Dr Stanley, Olga Tchkersoff etc.
And then what I would describe as the 'most overrated': -
Maybrick, Sickert, and from my own personal point of view, Barnett.
Don't understand why you mention D'Onston. He moved into the area shortly before the murders started, and left shortly after they ended. He was suspected by at least four people who knew him. There is strong evidence of a ritual element to the killings - he was an occultist. He demonstrated a big interest in the murders. How can he be anywhere near the 5 worst suspects when you look at what he's up against?
David |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
G'day,
Some of the worst would have to be:
Prince Albert Victor,
'The Elephant Man',
Lewis Carroll,
Walter Sickert, (he was an 'Post-Impressionist' who may have written a letter to get into a mood)and Jill.
These aren't in order and there are others I don't like, but this is just some of the worst.
DAVID: Why does your personal viewpoint not include Barnett as a good suspect? Richard and I hope to change that with our book! We wouldn't claim: 'Case-Closed' though.
LEANNE |
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
My biggest problem with Barnett is that I don't understand the motive for the earlier murders. If he was just trying to scare MJK out of prostitution then why go to the trouble of taking organs - surely just killing them would have been sufficient. And as he was living with MJK during the earlier murders, what did he do with the organs once he'd taken them? Not take them home presumably!
Looking through Bruce Paley's summation of the case against Barnett: -
1. Barnett knew the East End well. Can't argue with that but so did a lot of people, including other suspects.
2. JTR was probably known to his victims - not sure that I agree with this, besides which no concrete evidence that he did with one obvious exception - also would apply to a lot of other people who lived in the area.
3. Proficient with knife - anatomical knowledge. The medical fraternity themselves don't seem able to decide whether JTR needed more knowledge than someone who cuts open fish, or no knowledge at all. Also - does a fish porter actually cut open fish anyway?
4. Matches eyewitness descriptions - there are very few named suspects that don't match one or other of the eyewitness descriptions.
5. Nervous and anxiety in the witness box - give the bloke a break - his girlfriend had just been hacked to pieces!
6. Barnett could explain his presence on the streets in the early hours if need be. Useful, I suppose, but not exactly evidence against him!
7. The contentious question of the key. This has been much debated and there is no more evidence that the door had been locked by the killer than there is to suggest that it was a spring type lock.
8. Joseph Barnett was known to have an aversion to prostitutes. OK, but you can't convict him on the basis of that!
9. Paley believes the original JTR letter to be genuine .. he's in a tiny minority there .. I am happy to accept that it was written by Bulling - the writing is consistent with his.
10. Motive, which as I say, I don't really accept.
Finally, he mentions the FBI profile but John Douglas the profiler himself states "no one who had a relatively normal relationship with a woman, as Barnett evidently did, could perpetrate this kind of crime".
Hope that answers your question - but I look forward to your book and wish you all the best in trying to change my mind!
David |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
I agree about Prince Albert Victor ("Eddy") and the Royal Conspiracy. If the Royal Family wished to avoid scandal and disgrace (albeit threatening their constitutional standing as regards the Church of England), they singularly blew it within the next few years, first with the rumours about Cleveland Street and then with the Tranby Croft Scandal in 1891. Eddy may not have been named by Ernest Parks officially, but the high ranking court figure, Lord Arthur Somerset, was named and had to live out his life in exile in France. His father Bertie may have only been a witness to a slander suit by Sir William Gordon
Cummings, but he had to appear in a witness box for the second time in his career (the first was nearly two decades earlier, in the Mordaunt Divorce Case), and he had to admit to being part of an illegal gambling game. None of this sat well with the Government of Lord Salisbury, or the Queen, or the public for that matter.
The same for Dr. Gull, an obnoxious person at his strongest, who was elderly and sick in 1888.
I would also reject James Kenneth Stephen.
Add to these Neill Cream (perfect alibi in this case), probably Fred Deeming. Although I have been following Glenn's excellent arguments against Chapman, I still think some work has to be done before he can be jettisoned.
I think we can reject Mrs. Pearcey. Her only object of hatred was Phoebe Hogg and her baby, due to Mrs. P's fierce jealousy. Nobody has even tried to show a connection between her and the Whitechapel victims (and I doubt there was one).
As for the literati, Lewis Carroll should be removed - nobody would go to the elaborate lengths to write dozens of anagrams as clues in real life (it sounds like a character like
"The Riddler" on Batman). Don't know enough about
Francis Thompson to make any comment. If we want to consider writers, seriously, the father of the detective novel, Wilkie Collins was still breathing in 1888 (although he was dying - he'd die the next year). He was a drug addict. Maybe Whitechapel was his last hurrah [do not take this seriously - the same reasoning against Gull operates against Collins].
None of the current local suspects seem strong enough, but it probably was a local man.
Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1244
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
Thank you, Jeff, Leanne and David, for your interesting views. And thank you for indulging in this thread.
Just a quickie, David:
Well, D'Onston... I don't think the Ripper was an occult follower. It is of course hard to totally discount anyone (except for the most ludicrous and hilarious ones like Lewis Carroll and Jill the Ripper), but to me D'Onston appears to be someone who wanted to be a part of the investigation and -- just for the kicks -- enjoyed to claim that he knew Jack the Ripper. I can't naturally be too certain of anything, but I have always considered him as uninteresting and unlikely in this context.
And I think Jeff says it best in the end:
"None of the current local suspects seem strong enough, but it probably was a local man."
I perfectly agree.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 8:45 pm: | |
Hi All,
Glenn, I was wondering if you were gonna start this thread or not. ok....here are mine...
Mine are not in any particular order:
Royal Conspiracy- This is the biggest bunch of Bologna I have ever heard....other than Jill the Ripper.
I would say Joe Barnett, but Leanne would kick my butt!
Michael Ostrog- wasnt he like 5'11 or something
Francis Tumblety- Im Probably gonna get killed for this one, but,.. he was too old, too tall and
homosexual. Gay killers kill the race that attracts them.
Jill the Ripper- the name says it all.
Druitt- didnt live anywhere near whitechapel, and serial killers dont just suddenly commit suicide after killing someone.
Those are mine....I know im gonna get blasted, but Hey, what are these boards for?
Paul
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 28
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 9:01 pm: | |
Hey Paul,
Francis Tumblety- Im Probably gonna get killed for this one, but,.. he was too old, too tall and homosexual. Gay killers kill the race that attracts them.
I think myself and Glenn can address a few issues on Tumblety. My belief of the "too old" excuse is over with me. George Chapman looked different than he really was. What makes Tumbelty special?
Also, I believe Glenn should take over the “murdering same sex” issue. There have been murders where a gay man has killed the other sex. You can thank Glenn for the find and thanks Glenn for telling me!
This doesn't make Tumblety the killer, it just may release some myths surrounding him.
Peter
Glenn, I will be e-mailing you tonight/tomorrow morning.
|
M Baker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
hi all,
i'm new on here, my name's mark and i've just developed an interest in the case.
for what it's worth, my top 5 worst suspects (like glenn discounting lewis caroll as too ludicrous to even mention, though not dismissing jill) would include maybrick (diary is a forgery), kosminski (harmless lunatic), ostrog (ditto), albert victor and druitt - i fail to see how some people list him as their top suspect. i don't see any reason for suspicion to fall on him other than the marginalia, in which mcnaughten mistakenly thinks he is a doctor.
you may like to know which of the known suspects i do consider interesting in this light: i think tumbelty is fascinating, and my 'favourite' suspect, intriguing as he is as a personality, but if i had to back one as the most plausible i'd probably, on the basis of my little knowledge and understanding of the case so far, have to go for james kelly, for all the reasons put forward in the book 'the secret of prisoner...'
my two-pennoth anyway,
cheers,
mark |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 168
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:03 pm: | |
Top five list of the worst Ripper suspects:
5 - Benny Kubelsky, better known as the comedian Jack Benny. He was of Polish-Jew descent and certainly had an obsession with the number 39. However, his 1894 birthdate would seem to rule out this otherwise good suspect.
4 - Dr. W.G. Grace. His candidacy has been proposed in the privately printed pamphlet Googly or Just Goofy? by the pseudonymous "Overlord of Lords" in response to the McNaughten memoranda. Overlord was of the opinion that if Jack were a cricket player he might as well be a great one. Much stress was laid on Grace's medical background, but the theory was thoroughly refuted in a letter to the Times by the equally pseudonymous "L.B.W."
3 - Piet J. Pahrcrek, alleged Latvian seaman who was a soot swabber on a French-flagged ship that carried coal from Guernsey to Newcastle and made regular stops in London. His name is a cunning anagram of "Jack the Ripper" and his alleged diary surfaced several years ago in an Aberdeen flea market. Whether or not the diary is a fake remains to be determined, but instead of detailing the Ripper murders the entries seem only to be endless musings on the proposition that William Shakespeare wrote the works of Francis Bacon.
2 - Eccentric artist Sebastien Crook. A little known and thankfully well forgotten LVP painter, his first (and only!) exhibition drew a certain amount of attention because of his medium -- dog feces on soiled sheets -- but the notoriety soon faded and he died an embittered nuisance in 1898. He has drawn some attention as the Ripper following the discovery of a newspaper article in which he claimed to be the Ripper. However, since in the same interview he also claimed to be (among others) King Arthur, Joan of Arc, Nell Gwynn and the "May Queen" no reputable researcher has followed up on this lead. Another theory, that he at least wrote some of the Ripper letters foundered on the fact that he was totally illiterate.
1 - And the number one worst suspect(s): the theory that the Canonical Five were all members of a suicide pact and suffered self-immolation in serial fashion in order to draw attention to the nascent suffragist movement.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1245
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
Hi Guys,
Paul,
I'm sorry, I've had large computer problems during the whole weekend, so I preferred to wait until I got that in order.
Thank you for your contributions, and I agree on all of them. I probably wouldn't rank Tumblety that high on "worst" scale today, although I probably would have done so a couple of moths ago. I still thinks his appearance is what speaking against him as a suspect, and the fact that we have no evidence of him being of violent nature, but merely just someone who liked attention and killed someone during malpractice.
However, although it isn't my "find" (thanks anyway, Peter  ), there has been of cases where homosexual or bisexual male serial killers actually have focused on female victims (I used to reason exactly the same as you do) -- I can't at the moment recollect concrete names or years, but I can get back to it. I must admit that it is still quite illogical to me, since I think it would be logical to assume that it is the gender that is subject for ones own sexual desires that should be of interest for a lust murderer. But obviously such generalizations doesen't always work well with reality. I must admit I am puzzled myself. Besides, we don't know if Tumblety really was homosexual, he could have been bisexual.
However, I also think your point about that serial killers don't usually commit suicide, are valid; that is one of the problematic things with Druitt's candidacy. As I see it, Druitt is probably more interesting than he is credible in that context.
Don,
Thank you for delivering such an odd list of names. Interesting. Well, let me just say that they certainly deserve to be on the list.
"Suicide pact"...
I also saw that you listed yours in a more correct direction, namely backwards, which probably is a more logical approach compared to what I did.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 09, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 831
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:55 am: | |
Hi All,
My worst suspects would be those suspected at the time, for various quirky-sounding reasons, who had no known record of physical violence with a weapon towards females.
Since I believe Jack was a serial killer (possibly bisexual) who led a secret fantasy life that he told no one about, and which he acted out by targeting available and vulnerable female strangers in the same small location - one he was already familiar with - until he was no longer physically and/or mentally capable, and for no 'obvious' motive (like adding to womb collections, direct revenge for contracting syphilis, black magic rituals, scaring a girlfriend off the streets and back into one's life and so on), I also believe that once suspected at the time, the pieces would likely have begun to fit together and the penny may have dropped that they had the right man. And the fact that hardly two top cops had the same pet suspect supports my opinion that Jack was probably not even among them.
IMHO the killer got away with it because he was never suspected, had simple psychological reasons for murder and mutilation, that would not have been hugely apparent to those around him, and stopped killing while his secret life remained unexposed.
You can work out for yourselves which suspects I would find the most unbelievable on this basis.
Love,
Caz |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:14 am: | |
Worst five:
1) Sheer lunacy mentions like Winston Churchhill, Lewis Carroll, aliens, Diddles the Kitten (hey, I never advanced it as a *serious* option), the killer monkey, etc.
2) The Royal Conspiracy... If they were going to cover up a secret that could supposedly endanger the crown (not that the one being pushed makes sense) by getting rid of unfortunates they most certainly would not stretch it out over a month or two and make the killings so bizarre that they became newsworthy. It would have been grab, kill, dispose, or imprison, or ship them off somewhere, and all at once. And the whole concept of it being a Masonic conspiracy is beyond foolish, as there are no legit Masonic ties (this "Juwes" term is a feeble invention of a nutjob out to prove that Masons were evil).
3) Sickert, who was in the south of France during most of the Autumn of Terror and would have had to travel all the way back to London not once but two or three times for no logical reason, drawing attention to himself in the process.
4) Maybrick. For the reasons mentioned above, no need to rehash.
5) Any sort of Jill the Ripper scenario -- killer abortionist, MJK offing people and then faking her murder, etc.
I consider the occult element unlikely, but wouldn't put D'Onston in the top 5 of bad suspects because he doesn't rate that badly.
Tumblety doesn't strike me as a good one either, but I'm not convinced he was a full-fledged homosexual (bisexuals can pick and choose sexes of victims, like Chikatilo did, especially if the motive potentially includes cannibalism instead of a direct sex replacement, but then other than some rumored boy victims I haven't seen good evidence on all the Ripper's were female, which is a good indication...) so can't rule him out based upon that. Age, ditto, Chikatilo was older than many profiler's assumptions would have us believe is possible.
Klosowski and Chapman I consider unlikely also but not so much to be top 5.
Barnett... well, while I think the reasons people have given to think he was a killer are claptrap, there'd have to be good negative reasons to include him in the top 5 worst. Sickert I didn't rule out just because Cornwell's case is sheer fantasy, but because of his damn strong alibi. I consider the case against Barnett to be approaching Cornwell-level fantasy, but, hey, he was at least in the area at the same time (not that that narrows it down). And while it is unlikely for a serial killer to end a string with someone they were involved with, it's not completely unheard of (I tracked down one case and posted it here a year or two ago... Christie maybe? I forget, would have to look it up again). |
Noo_Noo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
Has anyone actually read Patricia Cornwall's book? I do not understand why so many people are discounting Walter Sickert? Too many people want an easy answer --> well in this case there is no easy answer - if the culprit had been 'easy' to work out [i.e. always living nearby unlike Sickert who travelled to France often] then they would have been caught! As it is, he was NOT caught. This is because of people like those here - people allowing sickert to carry out his murderous behaviour for as long as he liked. The facts there. plain and clear. read the book before dismissing sickert.} |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 340
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
I would say that everyone here has read Cornwell's book and she did more of a disservice to the idea that Sickert was the Ripper than anyone here. Her "evidence" was manufactured, fabricated and invented and her theory was laughable. If you want to make a claim that Sickert was the Ripper, I suggest you don't recommend Cornwell to anyone you wish to convince.
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1251
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
Noo_Noo,
This is hardly the thread for it, but I wouldn't call holding a critical approach to an author's rather lame attempts to distort the facts beyond recognition (in order to make it fit her suspect theory) as "wanting an easy answer". I would say, on the contrary -- those who wants an easy answer are those who swallows a theory without considering the factual flaws.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 245
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:57 pm: | |
Awww, I like my killer monkey! And, to be precise, it's a large killer monkey! ha!
Anyway, there are so many bad one's to choose from it's hard to order them really but here goes:
5) Sickert: 99% likely to be out of the country
4) Prince Eddy: was out of the country
3) William Gull: was a stroke victim, half paralysed, etc
2) Deeming: was in jail and out of the country
1) Mary Kelly: couldn't have done herself in because no knife found at the scene.
- Jeff
|
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:13 pm: | |
Hey Folks,
Im gonna get beat up for this, but Joe Barnett just made his way to the top of my worst suspect list. Ok guys, take your best shot.
Paul |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:35 pm: | |
Having read Donald's marvelous list of bad suspects, I felt that I could add one more to his list if he doesn't mind:
Mr. Enoch Soames - now forgotten (or mostly forgotten) fin-de-siec British minor poet (Negations,Fungoids) who vanished under still mysterious circumstances in 1897. Supposedly he was seen, oddly enough, in 1997 at the British Museum's reading room, checking out a book about the literary scene of the 1890s. Mr. Soames was one of the few practitioners in the Catholic Diabolist movement, and some of his poetry certainly showed a fascination with the Devil - a
veneration that could almost make him (to use the terminology of his contemporary, and approver of the Whitechapel Killer's actions - G.B. Shaw) "The Devil's Disciple". A curious memoir of his existance appears in the book SEVEN MEN AND TWO OTHERS by Sir Max Beerbohm, which is of interest as Beerbohm suggested a solution regarding Soames' disappearance. If true it would explain the poet's diabolic actions in Whitechapel.
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:22 pm: | |
Even though Noo_Noo's post is, for me at least, almost illegible in red text, he (she? it?) asks a very good question: "I do not understand why so many people are discounting Walter Sickert?"
The answer to that question is: much of the evidence against Sickert is in a form that these very same people cannot deal with: art. Rather than try to crack it, they prefer to dismiss it altogether -- unexamined. Various self-proclaimed art experts seem to have missed the really significant links in favor of minor details of little or no importance.
When you have a murderer who was not merely an artist by profession but a genuinely original and creative figure in the history of art, and the only evidence of his crimes that survives in 2004 are the traces he specifically put in his paintings, then you have to deal with what you've got. No one ever said it would be easy to find a solution. But some of these people are so intellectually lazy, the do not even try.
No one could possibly put it any better than you did when you wrote: "If the culprit had been 'easy' to work out...then they would have been caught! As it is, he was NOT caught."
And yet, these armchair naysayers expect everything to be presented to them 116 years later in a nice neat package, with no work on their part -- and no credit for Sickert having worked out a cunning plan. After all, why would Sickert have bothered to go to-and-from France, when it would have been so much easier for him to have slit the throat of some French whore. They expect such speculation to stand up to Sickert's history, his oeuvre, his cunning, and his documented lies.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:26 pm: | |
It is nice to know that Ally evidently regards Walter Sickert as a viable suspect -- DESPITE Patricia Cornwell's book.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:26 pm: | |
It is nice to know that Ally evidently regards Walter Sickert as a viable suspect -- DESPITE Patricia Cornwell's book.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 341
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
Mark,
Plug in your brain before attempting to engage me in your rampant spew of illogic. And learn to read. I did not say Sickert was a viable suspect. I said if someone wanted to argue that he was, they should not use Cornwell to do so.
Of course, you have failed to grasp points far more simple than this so I am sure that the distinction is too fine for you to comprehend.
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 170
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 6:27 pm: | |
1. Prince Albert Victor
2. Lewis Carroll
3. Sir William Gull
4. Jill the Ripper
5. Walter Sickert
Mikey |
jackie oozageer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:19 am: | |
just because the finding of others do not comply with you and your CRONYS you do not have to be so rude there is nothing wrong in what Ms Cornwell wrote you might not agree with it but they are her findings i have read quite a bit of this casebook i dont see you bad mouthing other Authors give it a rest no one will ever know the truth....pick on someone else |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
