|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 123
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:10 am: | 
|
Turning away from the murders and victims for a moment, I want to throw the focus onto an early suspect - Leather Apron.
This episode is interesting as it throws light on the mood in Whitechapel at an early stage in the murders; and also (perhaps) the sort of person the police thought they were looking for - at least initially.
Word got around, soon after the murder of Nichols, that there was a man in Whitechapel who bullied and threatened women. He was known as Leather Apron, from the protective clothing he wore. A further connection to the murders was seemingly established (at least in the public mind) when a leather apron was found soaking in a basin in the backyard of 29 Hanbury St, where the body of Chapman lay dead.
The police finally arrested a man called John Pizer (who admitted at the Chapman Inquest to being known as Leather Apron) but he proved an alibi, having been seen in North London watching the fire in the docks from afar, by among others a policeman.
Pizer eventually successfully sued newspapers who had prematurely identified him as the Whitechapel Murderer. He may also have been a man who appears as John POZER who was imprisoned for violent assault.
My questions about Pizer and Leather Apron have always centred on why this suspect was so quickly dropped by the police. It is clear that there were grounds for suspicion that Pizer may have been violent towards women and was known as such, and that people at the time thought that Leather Apron was capable of the crimes. Yet as soon as Pizer proved an alibi, the line of investigation was dropped.
For one thing, Pizer and Kosminski appear to have many potential similarities.
But even more germane is that the KIND of suspect Leather Apron illustrated was clearly convincing for a while, but rarely features later in the investigation.
Was there more to Pizer than we know? Was there another "Leather Apron", or was something being covered up?
I'll be interested in your thoughts and comments. [As this was written from memory, I'd also be grateful for any factual corrections or additional detail.]
Next in Back to Basics (V and VI) will be the initial police investigation and a study of police personalities.
Regards and over to you,
Phil |
Carolyn
Police Constable
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Phil,
In the book, The Ultimate Jack The Ripper, Pizer alias Leather Apron, was first mentioned in a special weekly report re murder of Mary Ann Nichols, dated 7/9/88.
The same report states, "Careful inquiries have been made to trace him, but without success. There is no evidence against him at the present."
Carolyn
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 522
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Glad to see you start another basics thread.
The whole Leather Apron phenomena is pretty interesting. In some ways it seems like it all could have just been some minor rumor the press learned about and which took off as part of the hugely emotional public reaction to the Nichols murder.
The name is descriptive enough that it really could have referred to any number of different people. If memory serves me, there are reports in which other people were refered to by the name. Weren't there mentions of "Leather Aprons" being descriptive of a class of laborers in general, and also another Leather Apron who complained that his name was dragged through the mud?
And, of course, Pizer was unhesitatingly identified as having been at the scene of Chapman's death talking to her beforehand by someone who claimed to be a witness, but then later wasn't called to testify because of some unspecified problem. That's all very Andersonesque.
The most frustrating thing about Pizer is that the alibi seems unclear with what little information we have. But then the fact that he was cleared and the murder string continued means that they had to have sufficiently cleared him the first time around or else the next killing would have nailed him for sure, right?
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 167
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:35 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Yes, thanks for another "Back to Basics" thread, keep them coming along!
Now, about "Leather Apron":
I believe that the whole "Leather Apron" ordeal was just a bad coincidence for poor John Pizer.
There was lynch mobs on the street on the hunt for the killer, and several cases of perfectly innocent people being chased by crowds simply because someone pointed the finger at them and they started running.
Once Pizer had proved an alibi, which included a policeman, there was no need to keep pursuing him in an investigation, since he was cleared at the Annie Chapman inquest (IIRC.)
As you mentioned yourself, Phil, he had newspapers in trouble for prematurely suggesting he was the killer, and with the hype of the moment, it was common for newspapers to be suggesting people too. They were happy to take even local gossip and turn it into a story.
And just because Pizer may have been threatening to women, doesn't make him anything to do with the killings. Violence against women was common at the time, and I'm sure that if the police came across any more incriminating evidence against Pizer, he would have been brought back in for questioning. It's like that person (I forget his name) that was wandering around a street threatening women with a knife near the time the Ripper was around. Once he was investigated and cleared, there was nothing more the police could do. They couldn't charge him just for carrying a knife around a street.
So, in my opinion, "Leather Apron" was nothing more than a poor coincidence for John Pizer, and that he had no involvement at all with the killings. And that once he was cleared at the inquest, the police had more important trails to follow than trails already covered.
That's my 2 cents on this topic.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 777
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:57 am: |
|
Dan
And, of course, Pizer was unhesitatingly identified as having been at the scene of Chapman's death talking to her beforehand by someone who claimed to be a witness, but then later wasn't called to testify because of some unspecified problem. That's all very Andersonesque.
That was Emanuel Violenia, who picked Piser from a line-up in the yard of Leman Street station and stated that he was a man he had seen threatening to assault a woman in Hanbury Street on the night of the murder. Violenia failed to identify Chapman at the mortuary, and later it transpired that he and Piser worked in the same trade and knew each other by sight, hence how quickly he had been able to identify him. The police dismissed him as a reward-seeker.
"All I know of morality, I learned from football" - Albert Camus
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1562
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
Phil,
Side issue and not really interesting....
I suspect that the Met Search area I mentions on the BTB Nichols thread is tied into a belief that Leather Apron was still out there. Pizer or not.
Right, y'all can carry on with your interesting posts now.
Monty
I'm funny how, I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 128
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 8:54 am: |
|
I don't think this is a "side issue" at all.
If we are saying (and I agree it as a possibility) that the Leather Apron episode influenced police actions or approaches to the investigation thereafter, then it is a crucial point, and exactly the sort of thing these Back to Basics threads are designed to capture.
Thank you,
Phil |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Phil,
His alabi was proved sound. Hence, no need for a search of the premises, stopwatch analasis, line up, new folders, psychological profiling, etc.
I think it's important not to get carried away about Police procedure.
 
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 527
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Hi Alan,
You wrote:
"Violenia failed to identify Chapman at the mortuary, and later it transpired that he and Piser worked in the same trade and knew each other by sight, hence how quickly he had been able to identify him. The police dismissed him as a reward-seeker."
I realize that that's kind of the standard assumption about what happened, but I don't think we have the actual police reports. All I've been able to find are a few brief newspaper accounts, and they are extremely vague about what actually happened at the mortuary and later. Some authors have made conclusions about what happened, but I don't think it's anything more than marginally informed guesses on their parts, unless they have other sources we don't know about and they didn't cite. The press reports are quite brief, inconclusive and not all that reliable even when more details are printed.
My main interest in it is that a good deal of it sounds very similar to what Anderson later claimed about a suspect identification. I think it's quite possible that he was referring to memories of hearing about this event and may have gotten details mixed up. Perhaps there were two Leather Aprons and he blended him in his head. This could go a long ways to explaining why he's the only one who claims that the suspect was unhesitatingly identified. It seems logical that if Kosminski were actually unhesitatingly identified, other police officials would have noted the fact and believed in that suspect's guilt, when they apparently didn't. Some even heaped scorn on it, which would be odd if this alleged positive identification actually happened.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
"My main interest in it {the Violenia "identification" of Pizer} is that a good deal of it sounds very similar to what Anderson later claimed about a suspect identification. I think it's quite possible that he was referring to memories of hearing about this event and may have gotten details mixed up. Perhaps there were two Leather Aprons and he blended him in his head. This could go a long ways to explaining why he's the only one who claims that the suspect was unhesitatingly identified. It seems logical that if Kosminski were actually unhesitatingly identified, other police officials would have noted the fact and believed in that suspect's guilt, when they apparently didn't. Some even heaped scorn on it, which would be odd if this alleged positive identification actually happened."
>>The Violenia identification has nothing to do with the Hove identification, except in that both were identifications. Many people were "identified" as JtR in those days. It may "sound similar" to Mr. Norder, but there is no evidence linking the two. *** We don't have evidence of other police officals knowing the details of the Hove identification and "heaping scorn" on it, do we? Wouldn't that merely indicate that Anderson did it secretly? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
I can't seriously be the only one who is beginning to find this a little tedious can i?
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 531
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Hi David,
The reason I consider Pizer's case similar to the story about the mysterious Kosminski "identification" as reported by Anderson and Swanson decades after the fact is that we have actual confirmed details of:
*A "mad" Jew implicated by word on the street and watched by police
*One who was brought in and "unhesitatingly identified" by an alleged witness
*Alleged witness being from Eastern Europe, may or may not have been Jewish but could certainly be described as such by members of the British upperclass who couldn't tell German from Yiddish in other instances.
*Alleged witness' story, if taken to be true, would certainly be the person who got the best look at the killer, as he reported seeing a man in reasonable morning light talking to Chapman immediately before she was presumably killed.
*Proven example of the alleged witness later being unable to testify (details of which are sketchy, but could easily be interpreted by Anderson and Swanson later as not wanting to lead to suspect's death)
*A suspect who would not be given up by his own people (Pizer being hidden by his family, providing alibis)
There is also a plausible explanation for why Anderson would have been confused upon some of the details, as I believe he was out of the country at the time this went down.
The parts that don't make sense between the two is the "Kosminski" name, the asylum, the witness being a "City PC" (which is a problem for most other theories I've seen anyway) and the Seaside Home location. But then it's apparent from the mess that is the Macnaghten Memoranda that it's not too difficult for a high-ranking police official to either conflate separate individuals into one or otherwise royally screw up details about a person's life.
The whole part about the killings stopping immediately after doesn't quite work for Pizer, but that part always sounded like a little massaging of the facts anyway. In fact, I think that Pizer's "identification" would fit that description a whole lot better than Kosminski, as there were something like 4 weeks after Pizer and then the killings stopped, versus the killings stopped and then years later Kosminski is put away.
While there are some problems with this theory, most notably the name difference, the facts of Pizer's arrest and alleged identification fit the description that Anderson and Swanson gave decades later for their suspect quite well, at least within the realm of error already demonstrated in other instances in which we can check what officials said years later versus what really happened.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Mephisto
Police Constable
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 9:54 pm: |
|
Hello Mr. Hill,
In your posts of February 15, 2005 - 8:10 am, and February 16, 2005 - 8:54 am, you propose two interesting and related questions.
On February 15, you wrote: "My questions about Pizer and Leather Apron have always centred on why this suspect was so quickly dropped by the police […] there were grounds for suspicion that Pizer may have been violent towards women […] yet as soon as Pizer proved an alibi, the line of investigation was dropped".
On February 16, you wrote: "If we are saying (and I agree it as a possibility) that the Leather Apron episode influenced police actions or approaches to the investigation thereafter, then it is a crucial point".
My understanding of these issues is taken from the writings of Begg, Evans & Skinner, Sugden, et. al.. To begin with, police records indicate that Emma Smith (April 3-4, 1888) was the first victim in a series of homicides that became known as The Whitechapel Murders. Although the sexual nature of Smith's injuries made her murder remarkable, the investigation process was typical: identify the victim, question relatives, friends, and acquaintances; establish a time line; compile a list of suspects, question the suspects, check alibis, etc.
On August 7, Martha Tabram was found dead on a stairway landing, her wounds focused on her throat, breasts, and vagina. At this point, the police and the coroner's office had no reason to link the Smith and Tabram cases. Thus, the methodology the police used to investigation Tabram's murder mirrored that of Smith's. However, the murder of Mary Ann Nichols not only changes their perception of all three murders, but also the way they investigated Nichols' murder and the murders that followed.
Prior to Nichols' death, the Smith and Tabram cases were investigated separately; i.e., who killed Emma Smith? and who killed Martha Tabram? The sexual character of all three homicides, and the type of weapon used on Tabram and Nichols, changed the hypothetical question to; who killed these three women? According to Evans & Skinner, "both police and press linked the killing [of Nichols] with the previous two, and the idea that a maniac was abroad, killing prostitutes, was born" (2001 :3). The police realized that the victims shared similar circumstances; consequently, they began looking for a single murderer with the means, motive, and opportunity to kill all three women.
Basically, what we can know with certainty is that Smith, Tabram, and Nichols were destitute women who supported themselves through prostitution, therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the investigation would focus on a typology, that is, men who:
1. Had something against women.
2. Had something against these three women in particular.
3. Had something against prostitution.
4. Had something against destitution.
5. Had some experience with a knife.
The 10 September edition of the Manchester Guardian described "Leather Apron" as a man who "blackmail[ed] women late at night. […] He never cut anybody, so far as known, but always carries a leather knife" (Begg 1988 :78, 79). It was reputed that John Pizer, a boot maker, was "in the habit of ill-using prostitutes", and "assaulting them if they did not comply with his request [demand for money]" (Evans & Skinner :23, 32). When Detective Sergeant William Thicke finally arrested Pizer, he was only too happy to accompany him to police headquarters and answer questions. DI Fredrick Abberline wrote that after giving "such a satisfactory account of his movements as to prove conclusively that the suspicions were groundless" (Evans & Skinner : 71). If you take into account that the police were looking for the murderer of three women, it is reasonable to assume that Pizer was able to explain his whereabouts for all three crimes.
Pizer had an opportunity to clear his name during Annie Chapman's inquest, which apparently he did to everyone's satisfaction; i.e., he was not questioned about Chapman's murder, nor was he questioned for any of the subsequent murders. It is noteworthy that the sobriquet, "Leather Apron" was not limited to shoemakers. Police also questioned Joseph Isenschmid, a butcher, known in his community as "Leather Apron".
Isenschmid's estranged wife stated "that he was in the habit of carrying large butcher's knives about with him" (Evans & Skinner : 58). Sgt. Thicke questioned Isenschmid at the Fairfield Road Infirmary Asylum. The medical superintendent there recounted to sgt. Thicke that Isenschmid "told him that the girls at Holloway had called him [Isenschmid] 'Leather Apron' and that he said to them […] I am 'Leather Apron'" (Evans & Skinner : 64).
What I've been able to gather thus far, is that Pizer and Isenschmid fell under suspicion, because they: a) wore a leather apron; b) used a knife; c) were known in their communities as "Leather Apron"; d) Pizer had a rather unpleasant countenance; e) Isenschmid was mentally unstable. Although both men were cleared of any involvement it the Whitechapel Murders, their association with the crimes would have a significant impact on the course of the investigation.
The anti-Semitic outcry that rippled through Spitalfields and Whitechapel would cause Scotland Yard commissioner, Major General, Sir Charles Warren, to wipe out the Goulston Street Graffito to avoid the possibility of anti Jewish riots in the East End. The Isenschmid connection would leave the investigators and the public with the notion that the murderer was mentally unbalanced.
Thank you for your time.
Mephisto
|
Mephisto
Police Constable
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Hello Jen,
You wrote: "I can't seriously be the only one who is beginning to find this a little tedious can i?".
Can you explain just what is it about this thread that you find so boring, and why you felt it was necessary to denigrate the posters?
Mephisto
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1979
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
Ah,
JT,
i knew I should be glad that you had registered.
I think what I meant is pretty obvious really.
I never said that the thread was boring, in fact it is quite fasinating.
I said tedious and I wasn't refering to the thread.
thanks though for raising the point to clear up any unnecessary feeling that i was degenerating them that Phil H., Dan, Carolyn, Monty, Alan, Adam or Joan might have been having had it not been blindingly obvious what I meant.
Jenni
"Pick up the pieces and make them into something new, Is what we do!"
|
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 4:13 am: |
|
Jenni,
As one of the degenerates, God I have never called myself that before! I did understand what you were refering to, or at least I hoped I did.
It was a little ambiguious, but then again maybe it was just me. I did have to read it twice, as I did take it the wrong way at first.
Carolyn
Mephisto,
Welcome aboard!!!
|
Mephisto
Police Constable
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 4:50 am: |
|
Jen,
Have you ever troubled yourself to read the Guidelines and Rules of this website? Unfortunately, they are words and not things, but they are written in plain English, so you shouldn't have much of a problem figuring them out. Here are two good examples for you to ponder.
Go to- Read This First, then Look under Quick Dos and Don'ts and checkout rule #2.
"Don't post the same message in multiple threads. All of the messages will be deleted and your account will be as well".
Next, go to- Posting Guidelines and Board Basics. The 7th paragraph down states: "Please do not post the same question in more than one thread. Most of the regulars receive e-mails of all new posts or use the Last Day function and the post will be viewed by everyone. Multiple posts cause wear and tear on the server without any benefit". Multiple posts are also childish and tedious.
Have you become so obsessed with grinding your ax that you've completely lost sight of where you are and what you're saying? How would you feel if someone decided to follow you around the boards, commenting on your eccentric prose: I can't seriously be the only one who thinks Jennifer Pegg is illiterate can I? How "blindingly" uncool is that? If it's not good for you to be victimized, then why is it good for others? Wise up Jen. We've had enough derision here.
Wouldn't you agree that personal issues should be pursued through private e-mail, instead of burdening everyone with your crude derogatory innuendo? And if private e-mail isn't happening, try getting over it.
For you information Jen, tedious and boring are synonymous, and I said denigrate, not degenerate.
Oh, by the way, my user name here is Mephisto, don't wear it out.
(Message edited by mephisto on February 21, 2005) |
Mephisto
Police Constable
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 5:05 am: |
|
Hello Carolyn,
Thank you for your kind welcome.
I've been posting here, on-and-off, since 1998. My personal circumstances have changed for the time being, and I now have a little more time to devote to exchanging ideas with my Casebook friends. So, I decided to register under the "new" system.
I look forward to reading your by-line, and discussing The Whitechapel Murders with you.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
Mephisto,
In my opinion thats an excellent summary of the Pizer issue.
Monty
I'm funny how, I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3149
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
Adam wrote:
"I believe that the whole "Leather Apron" ordeal was just a bad coincidence for poor John Pizer.
There was lynch mobs on the street on the hunt for the killer, and several cases of perfectly innocent people being chased by crowds simply because someone pointed the finger at them and they started running.
Once Pizer had proved an alibi, which included a policeman, there was no need to keep pursuing him in an investigation, since he was cleared at the Annie Chapman inquest (IIRC.)
[...]
Once he was investigated and cleared, there was nothing more the police could do. They couldn't charge him just for carrying a knife around a street.
So, in my opinion, "Leather Apron" was nothing more than a poor coincidence for John Pizer, and that he had no involvement at all with the killings. And that once he was cleared at the inquest, the police had more important trails to follow than trails already covered.
That's my 2 cents on this topic."
And those 2 cents are as good as any.
For once I totally agree with Adam.
Pizer was completely cleared because he had a bullet-proof alibi, as he discussed the fire of London docks with a police man in Holloway. Can't get any more satisfying than that.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1982
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
Hi Mephs,
how ironic you should tell me to take it to email when i have already emailed you about this and you have not responded.
Jenni
ps i'll think you will find personal insults are agianst the rules, but nevermind
"Pick up the pieces and make them into something new, Is what we do!"
|
Mephisto
Police Constable
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Hello Monty,
Thank you for your kind words, I appreciate them very much.
I was reading through the victims page last week when I came across your posts on the Catharine Eddowes thread.
I had a few ideas that I wanted to post re: F.W. Foster's sketches, and a couple of other related issues that I've been mulling over, but I'm a little undecided about what I wanted to say, and I didn't want to post any half assed concepts, so I put it aside until I could collect my thoughts. I also didn't want to write about these issues from the same point of view that you might be considering for your article, so would you mind if I e-mail you privately. I think I have a few ideas that you might find interesting.
Thanks again.
Mephisto
|
Mephisto
Police Constable
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
Jen,
I replied to your e-mail about 20 after I received it; i.e., 4 am EST. I think the replies go through fourum@casebook.org, so there might be some delay. Nevertheless, I will click on your name, and resend it to you that way. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1567
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 9:23 am: |
|
Mephisto,
Aye, no worries.
Though I feel I should tell you that the article is completed now.
Later,
Monty
I'm funny how, I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
|
Mephisto
Police Constable
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Thanks Monty,
I'll be in touch later today.
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 179
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 5:19 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
You wrote:
"And those 2 cents are as good as any.
For once I totally agree with Adam.
Pizer was completely cleared because he had a bullet-proof alibi, as he discussed the fire of London docks with a police man in Holloway. Can't get any more satisfying than that."
Thanks for agreeing, Glenn.
Unfortunately Pizer being completely innocent wasn't enough for the general public, though. Lynch mobs on the street were common, and many people with nothing to do with the Ripper were attacked, or attempted to be attacked.
A good example of this can actually be seen in the JtR 1988 mini-series with Michael Caine. Although George Lusk is wrongly portrayed as a villain and gangster, the scenes with mobs were pretty close to the truth.
There is 1 scene with John Pizer in it in that movie. A huge mob outside where Pizer was, throwing things through the windows, and yelling things out like "Pizer! Pizer! Murderer! Hang him!", as shown in the movie, was actually a lot like what really happened.
Don't mean to veer off topic here, but I just think it's an interesting point and shows the public hysteria of the time, that such huge lynch mobs were out to get men like Pizer, and many, many others.
But, anyway, back on topic -- based on what's already been said, I think we can fairly well say that they were right at the Chapman inquest in the first place, and Pizer had no involvement in the murders.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3160
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 8:11 am: |
|
True, the mobs were a big problem and sometimes the suspects taken into custody were more afraid of them than the police, and it is certainly understandable. Public hysteria -- which very much was fueled by the tabloid press -- was indeed great at the time, no doubt about that.
Pizer is totally uninteresting, the witness who have pointed him out was seen as an attention-seeker and Pizer himself could provide a clear-cut alibi. Clearly he had noting to do with any of it.
It is not even certain if the character Leather Apron really existed as a real life person in the first place, or simply was a creation of public hysteria.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “The reason I consider Pizer's case similar to the story about the mysterious Kosminski "identification" as reported by Anderson and Swanson decades after the fact…”
>>In general, so what if “similarities” can be found among various police investigations of the same set of crimes? Numbers of people were investigated for possibly being JtR, many came from the neighborhood, some were eastern European Jews, some were odd ducks or psychologically aberrant in some ways, some were identified or claimed identified by “eyewitnesses.” Wouldn’t these events naturally be superficially similar to one another in various ways? After all, we’re talking the same crimes, the same times, same places, same kind of people, suspects, etc. Your thinking is getting started based on mere generic resemblances among elements that are not necessarily related one to the other. You have not offered a perspectival connection or critical reason to think Anderson confused particular parties.
2. “…is that we have actual confirmed details of:”
>>”Confirmed” as to what, Mr. Norder? What is being “confirmed” here? You are trying to get us to believe that SPECIFIC things are confirmed as connected (i.e., that Anderson confused Kosminski and Pizer), but you offer confirmations of only GENERAL relationships of various details to do so. You’ve got “confirmations” all right, but these confirmations can’t be shown necessarily connected to the specific events you claim they are connected to.
3. “*A "mad" Jew implicated by word on the street and watched by police”
>>Typical public and police behavior under the circumstances.
4. “*One who was brought in and "unhesitatingly identified" by an alleged witness”
>>Pizer was arrested, Kosminski was not. Don’t imply someone was arrested when they weren’t. Further, Anderson had almost nothing to do with the Pizer matter, whereas he was the prime mover concerning Kosminski. Don’t you think he and Swanson would be capable of keeping this significant difference firmly in mind?
5. “*Alleged witness being from Eastern Europe, may or may not have been Jewish but could certainly be described as such by members of the British upperclass who couldn't tell German from Yiddish in other instances.”
>>Violenia was not from Eastern Europe! He was half-Spanish and half-Bulgarian, of mulatto appearance! He didn’t look like an eastern European Jew! He looked like Halle Berry or Mariah Carey, not like John Pizer or Aaron Kosminski! There is no evidence he was Jewish! German or Yiddish, and any alleged inability on the part of upper class Englishmen to distinguish either from the other, has nothing to do with these matters! You’re making up a fantastic baloney story!
6. *Alleged witness' story, if taken to be true, would certainly be the person who got the best look at the killer, as he reported seeing a man in reasonable morning light talking to Chapman immediately before she was presumably killed.”
>>Violenia said he saw TWO men quarreling with a woman, in Hanbury Street, one of them threatening to knife her, and one of them being Pizer. This is NOTHING like what you describe above! What you attribute to Violenia is what a different witness, Mrs. Long saw! Violenia then refused to identify Chapman’s body, which throws significant aspersion on his having seen her at all!
7. “*Proven example of the alleged witness later being unable to testify (details of which are sketchy, but could easily be interpreted by Anderson and Swanson later as not wanting to lead to suspect's death)”
>>Violenia was not “unable to testify!” He was booted out of the investigation by police officials as a complete jerk, an unreliable morbid pervert, and a man who saw nothing but claimed he did merely to get a chance to view a mutilated body! There is nothing “sketchy” about this matter! All the police knew about it! Anderson, Swanson, everybody! Violenia had given the police trouble, and they didn’t like it! He’d made quite a negative impression on the police, one they wouldn’t easily forget! This has NOTHING to do with one Jew not wanting to turn another over to gentile justice!
8. “*A suspect who would not be given up by his own people (Pizer being hidden by his family, providing alibis)”
>>What does this have to do with Violenia!?
9. “There is also a plausible explanation for why Anderson would have been confused upon some of the details, as I believe he was out of the country at the time this went down.”
>>Well, you are correct in that he was out of the country during the Pizer affair, but why should we regard this as a reason for him to confuse the details of it? He had an excellent opportunity to get all the information direct from the officials who were involved with Pizer upon his return. I don’t have to actually be in Baghdad to know of bombings there, I can watch the news, can’t I?
10. “The parts that don't make sense between the two is the "Kosminski" name, the asylum, the witness being a "City PC" (which is a problem for most other theories I've seen anyway) and the Seaside Home location. But then it's apparent from the mess that is the Macnaghten Memoranda that it's not too difficult for a high-ranking police official to either conflate separate individuals into one or otherwise royally screw up details about a person's life.”
>>That doesn’t mean Anderson did it!!!! You’re speaking totally generically here!!!
11. “The whole part about the killings stopping immediately after doesn't quite work for Pizer, but that part always sounded like a little massaging of the facts anyway. In fact, I think that Pizer's "identification" would fit that description a whole lot better than Kosminski, as there were something like 4 weeks after Pizer and then the killings stopped, versus the killings stopped and then years later Kosminski is put away.”
>>You are merely force fitting pieces and shards here! There is no reason to believe in any of these “connections.” You establish no critical perspective anywhere.
12. “While there are some problems with this theory, most notably the name difference, the facts of Pizer's arrest and alleged identification fit the description that Anderson and Swanson gave decades later for their suspect quite well, at least within the realm of error already demonstrated in other instances in which we can check what officials said years later versus what really happened.”
>>Evidence is like a three-position switch. There is a plus position, in which evidence indicates the truth of a proposition. There is a minus position, in which evidence indicates a proposition is not true. And then there is a neutral position, in which evidence doesn’t indicate either way, but leaves open either a plus or a minus possibility. The BEST you do here, Mr. Norder, ignoring your several ridiculous misstatements, is that you offer a few neutral positions. But then you claim that in their aggregate they positively establish your position! While it is not my business to forbid that anything concerning the Whitechapel murders could be possible, I find no reason to think you’ve established the truth of anything.
|
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Jenni, I'm with you, I keep on pinching myself to stay awake!
  
all this stuffy obsession with procedure, as if noone had ever thought of it.... |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1992
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 9:45 am: |
|
Joan,
that is not what i meant.
the subject matter of the thread had no relevance at all to the point i was making. just count yourself lucky that you are new enough to not understand what i meant
For the last time i find this thread very interesting!
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on February 23, 2005)
"Pick up the pieces and make them into something new, Is what we do!"
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 536
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Hi David,
"In general, so what if “similarities” can be found among various police investigations of the same set of crimes?"
The so what is that the whole story Anderson and Swanson tell is disjointed, lacking in specifics, and on the face of it seems outrageously implausible. A City PC who is Jewish refuses to testify against someone because he finds out after he identifies him that he's a fellow Jew? That's so out there that most people, yourself included, dismiss aspects of it out of hand. To come to the truth of what really happened, we need to look for any parts of what they say that has similarities to known facts.
"What is being “confirmed” here?"
Confirmed details related to Pizer's identification as the killer by another person... ones that fit the details of the bits of the details that Anderson and Swanson said better than what is known about Kosminski.
"Pizer was arrested, Kosminski was not. Don’t imply someone was arrested when they weren’t."
I never implied Kosminski was arrested. Don't chastise me for your errors.
"Further, Anderson had almost nothing to do with the Pizer matter, whereas he was the prime mover concerning Kosminski."
No, David, we don't know any such thing. You assume Anderson was a prime mover in what you think happened with Kosminski. What he actually says is ambiguous and could very well be his recall of a story of what other people did.
"Violenia was not from Eastern Europe! He was half-Spanish and half-Bulgarian"
Sorry to break it to you, but Bulgaria is in Eastern Europe.
"of mulatto appearance! He didn’t look like an eastern European Jew!"
Yes, there was one report that said he was mulatto. That is a somewhat ambiguous term, but it's generally for someone of darkish complexion but not what someone would call black. That leaves a wide range of possible appearances, some of which fall well into what would be Eastern European Jew. Not to mention that Anderson could easily be a little loose on how he views foreigners in general, and even moreso if he did get the story secondhand.
"There is no evidence he was Jewish! German or Yiddish, and any alleged inability on the part of upper class Englishmen to distinguish either from the other, has nothing to do with these matters"
Of course it matters. If Anderson says someone was a Jew, before we take him at his word, we need to know if he was capable of discerning someone's religion and/or ethnic background accurately.
"Violenia said he saw TWO men quarreling with a woman, in Hanbury Street, one of them threatening to knife her, and one of them being Pizer. This is NOTHING like what you describe above!"
The Times report claims one man, the Telegraph claims two. Either way you look at it, the statement has Pizer talking to Chapman immediately before she was killed, which is what I said, and which is correct.
"What you attribute to Violenia is what a different witness, Mrs. Long saw!"
There you go, making illogical and downright wrong assumptions again. More than one supposed witness reported someone talking to a victim before she was killed. Long is one, Violenia is another.
"Violenia then refused to identify Chapman’s body"
We don't know that he refused. The reports are sketchy and not direct in their knowledge and say that he was unable or unwilling to identify Chapman.
But, by the way, if he did refuse to, or otherwise acted in a way that could be interpreted as refusing to, that could very well explain Anderson's claim that the suspect who got the best look at the killer identified but then refused later to follow through. So you're more supporting my argument than yours with that statement.
"which throws significant aspersion on his having seen her at all!"
Yes, most authors don't believe he saw her. I don't think it was likely either, but he could have.
The important part here is that Anderson could have decided at some point that the story was legitimate and used it to rationalize away why the killer was never caught.
"He was booted out of the investigation by police officials as a complete jerk, an unreliable morbid pervert, and a man who saw nothing but claimed he did merely to get a chance to view a mutilated body!"
We don't know that either. Some newspaper reports speculated some of that, modern authors have added their own suspicions, but that's not a proven fact.
"There is nothing “sketchy” about this matter!"
The only way we know about it at all is through unreliable press reports from journalists who didn't have direct access to the police, and the different reports about the matter contradict each other on some points. It'd be difficult to get a better example of sketchy than that.
"There is no reason to believe in any of these “connections."
I am giving one scenario that could fit ambiguous information we have. I believe it fits the facts as we know them far better than most theories do. I'm not surprised you don't believe in it, mainly because you have a long history of getting upset at anything that shows weaknessess in your own little theory.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
REVISED POST
1. “Mr. Radka: "In general, so what if “similarities” can be found among various police investigations of the same set of crimes?" Mr. Norder: The so what is that the whole story Anderson and Swanson tell is disjointed, lacking in specifics, and on the face of it seems outrageously implausible. A City PC who is Jewish refuses to testify against someone because he finds out after he identifies him that he's a fellow Jew? That's so out there that most people, yourself included, dismiss aspects of it out of hand. To come to the truth of what really happened, we need to look for any parts of what they say that has similarities to known facts.”
>>Anderson and Swanson do not write of a “City PC.” You are confusing them with Mcnaghten.
2. “Mr. Radka: "What is being “confirmed” here?" Mr. Norder: Confirmed details related to Pizer's identification as the killer by another person... ones that fit the details of the bits of the details that Anderson and Swanson said better than what is known about Kosminski.”
>>Please explain why you think they do. I certainly don’t think they do. Here you speak in terms of Pizer’s identification and other details related to him being “confirmed,” yet below you speak of there being considerable doubt associated with newspaper and other reports concerning Pizer. The mark of a deceiver is to try to have the truth both ways. *** What does “the details of the bits of the details” mean?
3. “Mr. Radka: "Pizer was arrested, Kosminski was not. Don’t imply someone was arrested when they weren’t." Mr. Norder: I never implied Kosminski was arrested. Don't chastise me for your errors.”
>>You sure did. You spoke of both of them in the same vernacular concerning police work, as having been “brought in.” There is no police file on Kosminski. There is no evidence he was “brought in.”
4. Mr. Radka: "Further, Anderson had almost nothing to do with the Pizer matter, whereas he was the prime mover concerning Kosminski." Mr. Norder: “No, David, we don't know any such thing. You assume Anderson was a prime mover in what you think happened with Kosminski. What he actually says is ambiguous and could very well be his recall of a story of what other people did.”
>>That is certainly not the way Anderson and Swanson wrote about the matter. If Anderson was not the prime mover of some suspect, then why did other high-ranking policemen attribute having a suspect to him? It is not reasonable to think they were attributing Pizer to him if Anderson himself did not process Pizer, and Anderson did not process Pizer because (1) he was on vacation at the time and (2) there are no records of it happening under his command. *** ‘Could be, could be’ you always say. ‘Could be’ is not knowledge. Please provide positive evidence that it happened the way you say it did. You lack appropriate respect for empirical data.
5. “Mr. Radka: "Violenia was not from Eastern Europe! He was half-Spanish and half-Bulgarian…" Mr. Norder: Sorry to break it to you, but Bulgaria is in Eastern Europe.”
>>How would this make Violenia an Eastern European, like Kosminski? How would it make him look like a Polish Jew?
6. Mr. Radka: "…of mulatto appearance! He didn’t look like an eastern European Jew!"
Mr. Norder: Yes, there was one report that said he was mulatto. That is a somewhat ambiguous term, but it's generally for someone of darkish complexion but not what someone would call black.”
>>I didn’t say black. I said mulatto, like Mariah Carey or Halle Berry. Not black like Spike Lee. Mulatto is not an ambiguous term. Mulatto people are a well-recognized type. So are Polish Jews. Polish Jews are fair skinned, mulattos are brown or dark tan skinned.
7. “That leaves a wide range of possible appearances, some of which fall well into what would be Eastern European Jew. Not to mention that Anderson could easily be a little loose on how he views foreigners in general, and even moreso if he did get the story secondhand.”
>>No evidence supports any of these speculative assumptions. You don’t have an interpretation of the evidence, you have a diffusion of it. Through a lamp shade, darkly. A particularly worthless and dangerous diffusion.
8. “Mr. Radka: "There is no evidence he was Jewish! German or Yiddish, and any alleged inability on the part of upper class Englishmen to distinguish either from the other, has nothing to do with these matters" Mr. Norder: Of course it matters. If Anderson says someone was a Jew, before we take him at his word, we need to know if he was capable of discerning someone's religion and/or ethnic background accurately.”
>>He’d almost certainly have to develop people skills like this to be able to do the job he had. You are calling him unqualified for his work, with no evidence to support yourself. If I know that Sam is the Chief Programmer at a major software company, then I can safely assume he has good quantitative and analytical skills. If I know that Anderson was Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan CID, then I know that he could tell the difference between a mulatto and a Polish Jew. What positive evidence do you have that Robert Anderson had difficulty discerning differences in ethnic features? *** Where is the work you’ve supposedly done to determine if Anderson “…was capable of discerning someone's religion and/or ethnic background accurately,” as you promise to do above? You can’t leave your logic half-developed, as you do. Clearly the validity of your conclusion is dependent on a test of Anderson’s ability to distinguish ethnic features, but you do not make any such test, instead leave the matter wide open, BUT THEN YOU GO AHEAD AND CLAIM JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT ANYWAY.
9. “Mr. Radka: "Violenia said he saw TWO men quarreling with a woman, in Hanbury Street, one of them threatening to knife her, and one of them being Pizer. This is NOTHING like what you describe above!" Mr. Norder: The Times report claims one man, the Telegraph claims two. Either way you look at it, the statement has Pizer talking to Chapman immediately before she was killed, which is what I said, and which is correct.”
>>Please quote a report that says Pizer spoke to Chapman. You are making up another arrant lie, Mr. Norder.
10. “Mr. Radka: "What you attribute to Violenia is what a different witness, Mrs. Long saw!"
Mr. Norder: There you go, making illogical and downright wrong assumptions again. More than one supposed witness reported someone talking to a victim before she was killed. Long is one, Violenia is another.”
>>But Mrs. Long doesn’t report the woman being threatened.
11. “Mr. Radka: "Violenia then refused to identify Chapman’s body" Mr. Norder: We don't know that he refused. The reports are sketchy and not direct in their knowledge and say that he was unable or unwilling to identify Chapman.”
>>You are forgetting the context of Violenia, Mr. Norder. Not considering anything he might have seen in Hanbury Street, he was in a position to know Pizer, but not Chapman. Doesn’t this make it seem a little bit suspicious, then, when he picks Pizer out of a lineup right away but fluffs on Chapman? Don’t you think it may be because he knows what Pizer looks like on the one hand despite he that didn’t see him in Hanbury Street, and because he doesn’t know what Chapman looks like on the other because he’s never seen her? He’d possibly be figuring the police might be trying to test him by showing him a different body in the morgue.
12. “But, by the way, if he did refuse to, or otherwise acted in a way that could be interpreted as refusing to, that could very well explain Anderson's claim that the suspect who got the best look at the killer identified but then refused later to follow through. So you're more supporting my argument than yours with that statement.”
>>Anderson says, and Swanson supports, that the witness refused to TESTIFY against THE SUSPECT. Not that he wouldn’t “follow through” concerning THE VICTIM. Violenia was hot to trot to point the finger at Pizer.
13. Mr. Radka: "which throws significant aspersion on his having seen her at all!" Mr. Norder: Yes, most authors don't believe he saw her. I don't think it was likely either, but he could have.”
>>Then why make this argument? I mean there’s never been absolute proof, like a DNA test, that Betty and Reinhard were my biological parents, but the other evidence seems conclusive. Your argument that Anderson may be referring to the Pizer affair is worth as much as an argument that they weren’t my real parents.
14. “The important part here is that Anderson could have decided at some point that the story was legitimate and used it to rationalize away why the killer was never caught.”
>>Yours is a promiscuously derived theory, without pertinence to the case evidence. It is suitable only to people who will accept “anybody and everybody,” as I woman I once knew once said to me.
15. “Mr. Radka: He was booted out of the investigation by police officials as a complete jerk, an unreliable morbid pervert, and a man who saw nothing but claimed he did merely to get a chance to view a mutilated body!" Mr. Norder: We don't know that either. Some newspaper reports speculated some of that, modern authors have added their own suspicions, but that's not a proven fact.”
>>Didn’t the contemporaneous police reprimand Violenia?
16. “Mr. Radka: "There is nothing “sketchy” about this matter!" Mr. Norder: The only way we know about it at all is through unreliable press reports from journalists who didn't have direct access to the police, and the different reports about the matter contradict each other on some points. It'd be difficult to get a better example of sketchy than that.”
>>I’d hardly think the only evidence we have is unreliable press reports. This was a big police investigation, done mostly above board. Pizer was made a major celebrity by it, and spoke extensively of the matter.
17. “Mr. Radka: "There is no reason to believe in any of these “connections." Mr. Norder: I am giving one scenario that could fit ambiguous information we have. I believe it fits the facts as we know them far better than most theories do. I'm not surprised you don't believe in it, mainly because you have a long history of getting upset at anything that shows weaknessess in your own little theory.”
>>What possible value is there in “giving a scenario that could fit ambiguous information we have?” Hasn’t this been the very bane of Ripperology for more than a century? How many bad books have been published under this philosophy? If there is no reason to believe such a scenario by the case evidence, what good does it do to promote it?
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 505
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
Howard,
What manner of post is your latest? Were it not so incoherent I would imagine it would be offensive on several levels. People joke that David can drive them mad -- he may have succeeded here.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 616
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
David,
"What possible value is there in “giving a scenario that could fit ambiguous information we have?” Hasn’t this been the very bane of Ripperology for more than a century?"
No, the bane of Ripperology is the presenting of scenarios that don't fit even the ambiguous information we have, and then claiming that they solved the case.
Sticking to what actually fits the evidence and admitting that what little evidence we do have can be interpreted different ways is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 312
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Lighten up Don...It was a joke.
Just like arguing about the features of a suspect who was of Eastern European extraction and may or may not have looked like a mulatto because....
...thats real important.
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 506
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Howard,
It was a joke.
Okay, take your word for it . . . but it's getting harder and harder to tell around here.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 313
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Don.
You're absolutely right,my friend. The joke is on me,because it isn't funny. When I threw it up there, I misjudged it and am embarrased for putting it there. I've asked Ally to ask Steve to remove it along with my remarks following your post and apologize for "messing" up the thread.
My apologies for the very off-color remark to anyone it may have offended. It was out of order.
Zoltan The Idiot |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 507
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Howard,
And leave my post hanging there? Then I'll seem incoherent. (More incoherent ?)
Anyway, my remark about it getting harder to tell what is joke and what isn't was not necessarily addressed just to your post. Take care Zoltan.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
