|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3891
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 8:47 am: | 
|
Helge,
"You claim "After his known established activities", this makes no sense. You speak as if we KNOW for sure that Jack stopped after Eddowes, this is your opinion, not mine."
No, that is not what I mean. What I meant was that we don't know with absolute certainty what happened with him or if he actually killed after Eddowes. He could have stopped, but then again he might not have. I don't see it confirmed beyond doubt that any victim after Eddowes was murdered by the Ripper.
"But you make the mistake of taking your opinion as a given fact. Once more.
I have never seen a domestic case quite similar to Millers court, but would still be much obliged to be pointed in the direction of one."
No, as I've constantly tried to empathize, I do not take my opinions as facts.
That domestic murders do occure that involves extreme mutilations is a fact. It is not opinion.
"So then you agree that if the killer was NOT a very intimate friend\lover then he had no way of knowing about people staying over, etc. Exactly my point!"
No, I don't. I have no idea what you are talking about here. Maybe we both are confused. Maybe I expressed myself complicated and wrongly. But I certainly do not think the Millers Court murder was perpetrated by an occasional client. I believe it was done by someone who knew the habits of the victim and with whom she felt rather safe.
As for statistics and numbers, now there's an issue we seem to agree on though. I do share your doubts about relying too hard on such approaches.
'Perversions of statistics'.. I liked that. 
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 717
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
Hi again Glenn,
“I can't see why the location indoors would provide him with more time and security in order to go to such excess.”
Sure it would provide more time, as he simply would not be noticed as quickly as in the other cases – there really can be no doubt about that. For the same reason the location did provide more security. People could walk by without them noticing a thing. Only if someone would come knocking on Mary’s door, he would have been in trouble. Whether the murderer would have felt more secure is another matter.
“I can't see why he should stay inside the room, go berserk with extensive mutilations and practically wait for someone to knock on the door. The Ripper was someone who worked fast, and I believe he would have done so indoors as well.”
I hardly think he waited for someone to knock on the door. If he killed her during the nightly hours of lull, which is what I believe, there would generally be not much chance of people visiting other people. Yes, the Ripper worked fast, but what gives you the idea that he didn’t do that in Mary’s case – if he killed her? True, the extra mutilations would have taken more time, but I don’t believe they took him hours.
But regardless of all of this, I think it’s quite possible that, finding himself indoors, he let down his guard to some extent in comparison to the other cases where he had to two things at the same time: keep a keen ear and eye out for his surroundings whilst he was doing what he’d actually came for, the mutilations. We shouldn’t forget that that was his driving force. So, now that he was indoors, he didn’t need to worry so much about monitoring his surroundings and could focus more on his favourite thing.
“…they are more crude and does not at all have the same sense of direction.”
It’s true that the facial mutilations and the cuts to her arm(s) were cruder, but we don’t really know that much about the rest of them and, like I said, we don’t know the sequence of areas he attacked.
“No no, that is psychological speculations. By reasoning on such grounds, we could state practically everything.”
Well, I’m pretty sure he didn’t do it because he liked them so much.
“I disagree with you; I am more or less convinced of that the Ripper - although he took some risks - was somone who was very careful not being seen and who wanted to do what he did as efficient and less time-consuming as possible.”
We don’t disagree, we actually agree. What you wrote here is exactly how I see him. What we don’t seem to completely agree on is what drove him or rather, the extent of that. And I think we know too little about the man to be able to say he would or wouldn’t have done certain things.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3892
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
"Sure it would provide more time, as he simply would not be noticed as quickly as in the other cases – there really can be no doubt about that. For the same reason the location did provide more security. People could walk by without them noticing a thing."
I disagree.
Yes, it would be more secluded but it would also be more risky in other aspects and at least on places like Mitre Square and Buck's Row he had another kind of control in that he could see or hear if anybody approached and he could disappear. In Millers Court he didn't have that possibility.
Which is why I don't believe the Ripper would have stayed there longer than necessary, considering how his other crimes looked like. And certainly not long enough in order do such excessive mutilations. I don't think they took hours to do either, but personally (and as usual in my opinion) I don't think the Ripper would have felt safe enough in such a cul de sac in order to do more than he had to.
This is - from there I sit - a murder with personal implications and not a crime committed by a client. I can't prove it, but I am quite convinced of that such a crime had to take someone who knew the habits of the victim very closely (sleeping habits, for example, and whom she lived with and under which circumstances), and I stand by that.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 11, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 208
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
Glenn,
Nothing much to add to your previous post, except that we still disagree
The keyword in "So then you agree that if the killer was NOT a very intimate friend\lover...etc" is IF.
It's me being confusing, I guess..but do you see what I mean? IF the killer was a totally unknown (which you don't think he was, but I do), the point about him being apprehensive about possible stay-overs, etc, is invalid. That is what I see from my side of the fence..
Jack MIGHT have been worried about being caught in a cul de sac, but I think he was a pretty cool customer (pun intended)
And I DO concur that domestics sometimes involve serious mutilations..but yet I do not see Millers Court as a domestic. It is possible it was, but not in my interpretation.
As I said before, we agree on the facts, but not the interpretation.
And wherever we go, there we are!
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 11, 2005)
(Message edited by helge on August 11, 2005)
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3894
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Fair enough, Helge.
I hear you and accept your views, of course, although I don't agree with them.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Rather than statistics I think it important to randomly examine the behaviour of other serial killers in regard to the ‘outdoor-indoor’ question, and see if other serial killers were wont to dramatically and suddenly change the circumstances of the killing environments that they were used to.
How many times did Richard Chase kill indoors, and how many times did he kill outdoors?
All indoors.
How many victims of the Boston Strangler were killed outdoors?
None.
How many of the Zodiac’s victims were killed indoors?
None.
How many whores did the Yorkshire Ripper kill indoors?
None.
All of Pitchfork’s victims?
Outdoors.
I could go on, but there is a persuasive pattern that emerges which does seem to rule out an outdoor killer suddenly going indoors, and vice versa.
Of course there will be rare exception to this careful rule, like Ted Bundy when he suddenly switched from outdoor boy to indoor boy when he went berserk in the student home, but it is important to note here that by then Ted was a marked and wanted man and was very much in the suicide mode that eventually brings down every serial killer.
His motive had always been clear before, rape followed by murder, but in the end he just smashed heads and ran away.
His ending was signalled by a lack and loss of motive, but in the case of Jack - if MJK was really a victim - we appear to see an escalation of motive rather than a decline…
For me this is unacceptable.
By my reckoning for an outdoor killer to suddenly switch to indoors murder, we should see a softening of motive and intent rather than an escalation. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 248
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Some of the Zodiac murders were technically "indoors", that is, within the doors of an automobile. There's also a question as to where at least one of Chase's slayings occurred but it is true that serial killers tend to favor one or the other.
Goodies,
Stan |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Richard shot a dog in a yard, I'll give you that, Stan.
Technically an automobile is always outdoors unless it is in a garage.
A relation of mine has half a Cadillac in his lounge, but he is just weird.
Thanks for the supporting comment. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2271
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Regarding the "indoors/outdoors" question,there is ofcourse the currently detained Robert Clive Napper in Broadmoor for a series of "indoor/outdoor" rapes,violent assaults,voyeurism,"Cutbush like" random "stabbings",culminating in an indoor murder in the victims flat,which it is believed he entered by false pretences.This murder is amazingly similar to the murder and mutilation of Mary Kelly -so horrific in fact that the police photographer was ill for several months after.
The point is he is linked to a series of previous rapes in parks known as "The Green Chain" rapes.Also to random stabbings mentioned above and crucially of late to the Wimbledon Common Murder by a recently accessed DNA link.
The Wimbledon Common murder was an "outdoor" murder similar in ferocity to the Martha Tabram murder.The Samantha Bisset murder was an "indoor" murder similar in pattern to the MjK murder.
This seems to me to indicate that serial killers can engage in quite a variety of violent attacks,vary their MO and signature ,and vary too the location-which in this case was mostly outdoor but finally indoor and which,like MJK"s was the most horrific of all since he killed,raped,and mutilated Samantha and killed and assaulted her four year old daughter too. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 789
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 6:26 pm: |
|
A.P. and Stan...
Wouldn't it be a little more accurate if we used the terminology, "controlled environment" and "non-controlled environment" ?
The inside of a car is still inside an operating space,just as a house,shed,cabin,dormitory,etc..Regardless of what unknown dangers could be at the next turn for a serial killer, he may simply be substituting the assumed security of the interior of a house for a car, irrespective of the danger,as this assumption of solitude with his prey overshadows the risks that may be around the corner...
To kill outdoors,where that "privacy zone" doesn't exist [ people inside a car are usually afforded privacy from the outside and from interlopers...] , a serial killer doesn't have or need/desire this enclosed space to operate from and an entirely different thought/fantasy process is at work.
Just a thought.... |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Evolution is happening right now as we post, Natalie, and I'm perfectly prepared to accept that a modern killer can be both indoors and outdoors in his curious quest.
However we talk of the past here; and we also talk of a modern police force that appears in this particular case to be attempting to clear its books wholesale... if Napper is already in Broadmoor then he will probably never appear in court.
He's a very safe bet for every rape or murder in the greater London area for the last five years.
We must be so careful here.
I'll look at this and give you my thoughts.
Good robust post, Natalie. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4767
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Hi AP
I accept Kelly as a JTR victim, and veer towards accepting Tabram.
I thought that you accepted Tabram. So, that's already one indoors, isn't it?
Robert |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 250
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Actually, there are quite a few exceptions now that I think of it. Edmund Kemper, Harvey Glatman, "Charlie Chopoff", "The Texarkana Phanton Killer" and Starkweather all killed both indoors and out.
Goodies,
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3895
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
I think it is quite dangerous to say that a certain killer only could kill indoors or outdoors. It is probably true that some prefer one of the other but I can't say that's written in stone. You will always find exceptions.
I think it is quite possible that the Ripper could have been killing and mutilating indoors too if the situation was suitable; it's just that Miller's Court does not ring true to me on several points.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 673
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 11:25 pm: |
|
Hi,
Didn't the Green River Killer kill both indoors and out? Or did he take all of them home?
With the Ripper, however, there is nothing that rules out the idea that the victims took Jack to a location of their choosing thinking that Jack was just another client. If we go with that scenerio (and I admit, it's not proven that we have to), then Mary being killed indoors is simply a result of the same sequence being followed with the difference being that Mary had an indoors location while none of the other victims did. As such, they take Jack to some outdoors location, and Mary takes him indoors.
If we run with that idea, it suggests that Jack is willing to take some risks, such as accept that the location the victim chooses is suitably private for his murderous intentions. Of course, he could always change his mind if the location was considered "too risky", but given that the backyard of Hanbury street, as the sun comes up, with someone in the yard next door and the people in the house likely to be getting up soon, etc, was considered "safe enough", I hardly think Jack (if he killed Mary) would be all that put out over the possibility of someone knocking on the door at 4 am (or whenever).
The risks Jack shows he was willing to take with Annie Chapman simply outweigh any possible risks that I can think of that were taken by killing Mary Kelly in her room. But maybe that's just me (meaning, it's an opinion I'm expressing here).
- Jeff |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 209
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 3:08 am: |
|
AP, you are my foxy fox (re a previous post)
Great post Natalie.
That serial killers does a lot of weird stuff, much weirder than Jack ever did, can be exemplified by something the Green River killer did that included a couple of fish, a paperbag, a bottle, ground meat and a dead woman.
Jeff,
The Green River killer (Ridgway) stated:
"I killed some of them outside. I remember leaving each woman's body in the place where she was found," he said. "I killed most of them in my house near Military Road, and I killed a lot of them in my truck not far from where I picked them up."
However, I don't buy that there was only one killer in that case. Also, the bargaining deal made it highly profitable for Ridgway to fess up for as much as possible.
Yup, this one was a clean sweep, AP.
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4769
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
given that the backyard of Hanbury street, as the sun comes up, with someone in the yard next door and the people in the house likely to be getting up soon, etc, was considered "safe enough", I hardly think Jack (if he killed Mary) would be all that put out over the possibility of someone knocking on the door at 4 am (or whenever).
The risks Jack shows he was willing to take with Annie Chapman simply outweigh any possible risks that I can think of that were taken by killing Mary Kelly in her room. But maybe that's just me (meaning, it's an opinion I'm expressing here).
No, Jeff, not just you. Me too.
Robert |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 210
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 3:21 am: |
|
Jeff and Robert,
Of course, me three
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3896
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 4:25 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
"If we run with that idea, it suggests that Jack is willing to take some risks, such as accept that the location the victim chooses is suitably private for his murderous intentions. Of course, he could always change his mind if the location was considered "too risky", but given that the backyard of Hanbury street, as the sun comes up, with someone in the yard next door and the people in the house likely to be getting up soon, etc, was considered "safe enough", I hardly think Jack (if he killed Mary) would be all that put out over the possibility of someone knocking on the door at 4 am (or whenever)."
Sorry, can't agree with you on this. The crime scenes shows without a doubt that, regardless of the circumstances, he didn't want to stay at the scenes longer than he had to.
To tell you the truth, I find it very doubtful that Mary's killer was someone she brought home with her at all. At least I can't see why that is taken for granted.
And even if she did, if that cry derived from Kelly, I seriously doubt Jack would have stayed in there. Some see Jack as a very bold person. I don't. His crimes as such were bold and risky, yes, but considering how fast he silenced his victims, I'd say wanted as little cries, struggle and interaction as possible from his victim. Certainly not a Bundy type.
The crime scene in Millers Court indicates a short struggle and that she possibly was attacked with the knife before she was dead. This is a total break from the Ripper's approach, but pretty fitting for someone inexperienced.
There is no doubt in my mind that Kelly was taken by surprise by someone she knew and felt safe with, more than she would be with a client, especially if she was as scared of the Ripper in general as has been suggested.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 135
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:34 am: |
|
Now if Kelly's killer was not someone she brought home,and not someone she invited to visit in the early hours of the morning,then it's more than a possibility it was an intruder type murder.The incidence of surprise would hold,although there would still be the probability she was awakened from sleep,but unaware ,untill the last moment,of the intruders intentions.
As we know the killer spent some time in the room,it is apparent he ignored the chance of being interupted,even if he accepted the possibility of that happening.
Then again,a person who was homeless that night might,as it was cold and wet,seek shelter with a person,who was both an aquaintance and alone.
Everywhere you look,Hutchinson fits in nicely. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4770
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
Hi Glenn
I go along with you that Mary was surprised, and probably not by someone she brought home.
As for how long Jack would have felt comfortable staying in the room once he had killed her : I don't think we can conclude that "regardless of the circumstances, he didn't want to stay at the scenes longer than he had to." With Nichols he was probably interrupted, with Eddowes we have Morris opening his door (or else Watkins's approaching feet) and with Stride (for those who include her) we have Diemschutz. We just don't have a previous example where we positively know that Jack had plenty of time, but left early, voluntarily.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 826
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:31 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Yes, The Greenway Killer murdered both outdoors and indoors, along with a long list of other serial killers.
Hi Glenn,
The idea that Miller's Court was somehow more risky than the scenes of other Ripper victims' deaths is a rather astonishing suggestion to me. I would think that it's very clearly the least risky of all of them, both canonical and otherwise.
And you can't claim that "regardless of circumstances" that he didn't stay any longer than he had to because you don't know the circumstances that happened at each of these. There's a very real possibility that he stayed as long as he thought he could at all of the scenes and only left when he heard people coming or other noises that worried him. In three of the canonicals there is strong evidence that someone was approaching while he was there, and he could have left the backyard of Hanbury Street when John Richardson was around (by hopping the fence, for example). And, further, even if there were actual evidence that he ran off quickly from all the outdoor crime scenes, that's in not a good argument that he would have done so when he had the cover of being indoors.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 828
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:56 am: |
|
And that's what I get for loading up a bunch of threads at once and then taking my time reading and replying to them: People can hop in and make the same points before I get around to hitting the Post button.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3897
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 7:29 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
"And that's what I get for loading up a bunch of threads at once and then taking my time reading and replying to them: People can hop in and make the same points before I get around to hitting the Post button. "
Hee hee. Tell me all about it. If I had a pound for each time...
As for the point regarding how long he would have stayed with the other victims... granted. I can see that argument. Those may be valid objections.
I disagree with that Millers Court was the least risky location, though - that I find to be a very strange statement.
If you only look at how the killer was hidden from view himself - yes - but as I've pointed out now three times (with the possible exception of the Hanbury Street yard), in Millers Court he had no control whatsoever of the situation compared to the sites outdoors and could himself neither see (or hear) people approaching until it was too late. Therefore I'd say it is probably one of the most risky locations, if not the most risky. If someone did interrupt him in Buck's Row and Mitre Square (as I agree with), then he had a much better chance of fleeing the scene. In Millers Court he would be dead meat.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 718
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
Hi Robert & all,
I'm also inclined to think that Mary was taken by surprise and not by someone posing as a punter or someone she invited in.
"As for how long Jack would have felt comfortable staying in the room once he had killed her : I don't think we can conclude that "regardless of the circumstances, he didn't want to stay at the scenes longer than he had to."
I guess what it boils down to is how you would define 'longer than he had to'. On one end of the spectrum, if he just wanted to kill her, he would have left directly after cutting her throat. If, on the other end of the spectrum, he additionally wanted to completely destroy her, he would have left right after finishing that, provided he wasn't disturbed somewhere in the process.
So, we’re left with two questions:
- Where in the spectrum was Jack?
- If he killed Mary Jane, how safe would he have felt in her room?
To answer the first question, I think you’re right in saying that we just don't have a previous example where we positively know that Jack (felt he) had plenty of time, but left early and voluntarily. So we don’t know whether he would or wouldn’t do more in Mary’s case than he did in Eddowes’ case – if he did kill her. We do however know that Jack did more in Eddowes case than in Chapman's case.
To answer the second question, I agree with what Jeff wrote and think the risks taken in Chapman’s case exceeded those taken in Miller’s Court, certainly if Mary was murdered during the nightly hours of lull.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Jeff Burns
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:45 am: |
|
If you consider that the police in 1888 had a hell of alot more insight into the case than we today, than it is more than likely there was more than one envolved. The police in 1888 thought there was more than one person, and so they approached the Home Secretary who issued, in advance, an official pardon to a co-conspirator. This certainly indicates that there information supported a conspiracy of some sort. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
Hello
Just on the subject of statistics, Ive got to jump in as it is a subject close to my heart.
So far, at least to my reading of it, we have so far been using classical statistics which assume a "random" variable (ie. the assumption being that the appearance of a SK at any one location (in this case Whitechapel) is just as likely as the occurrence of one at any other location). Fair enough.
What is possibly more correct is that the occurrence of serial killers is whats known as a "regionalised variable" in which case some of the assumptions of classical statistics do not apply and some assumptions that cannot be made for classical statistics do apply. A regionalised variable is not strictly random but varys in some predetermined manner as a fucntion of location, time etc. There may be a random component superimposed on the structured variability but the latter component is still the primary.
In that case, you would have to look at the occurrence of serial killers in the US or wherever as a function of, perhaps distance from each other, or social conditions. Once the structured variability is esatblished, you can use that to figure out the probability of one or more SK's in the Whitechapel or any other area. As social conditions are related to location which can be derived from distance and it can be argued that perhaps social conditions can allow SK's to exist or manifest, I imagine that not treating the occurrence of SK's as a random variable but as a regionalised one would be more productive.
THis isnt exactly new science and there are many companies using the principles of regionalised variables to map out trouble spots in various cities.
How it is done (crash course: simplified) is that the city is broken into geographical blocks of X and Y dimesnions that exist in a larger X and Y area (the city of LOndon or whatever). The relationship bbetween number of murders per block for a given decade or whatever (have to assume social conditiojns remain static for that decade) is described as a function of separatory distance nad used to derive whats called a variogram. This is then used in a process called kriging to derive estimates of the numbers of murders that would have occurred in blocks for which no data exists for example or to calculate the probability of X number or murders occurring in a block for certain time frames. Such an analysis would therefore highlight "hotspot extent" or areas with high probability of X number of murders per year for example. Tie it in with a GIS wizard and some intersting maps could be produced of Victorian London, crime, social problems, lodging houses etc. Maybe its been done already.
Google "crime" "murder" "geostatistics" and you will get a better idea of what Im talking about.
Could be an interesting PhD thesis for someone with a few quid:
"Geospatial Statistics as Applied to Crime Statistics in Victorian London"
Mr P.
|
Peter Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
Hi Helge
Actually I think we are in general agreement - there is some evidence of 'purpose' in MJK's mutilations, we have both said.
But in a domestic, except in the very rare cases that the perp is also a 'proper' SK (Was it Edmund Kemper who killed his wife and mother as well as others?) there is usually an obvous reason, understandable by non-murderers, behind any mutilation. Buck Ruxton, for example, surely was trying to conceal the murder. There can be no question of that with MJK. Nor are her injuries consistent with uncontrollable rage or fear.
They suggest some kind of actual sex thrill or the consequence of some delusion, and this is the territory generally of the SK and not the domestic.
I'm using the word delusion to mean the kind of thing that is totally off-base like Elizabeth Bathory wanting to bathe in virgin's blood to keep her looks or Richard Chase being convinced his blood was turning to powder - something that is not a sexual fetish however extreme, but a total loss of touch with reality on a certain point.
Being out of touch with reality in such a way has not stopped such killers carrying out some degree of planned behaviour, just that the motive behind the plans is not readily understandable without knowing something about the planner's state of mind.
There is the question of a copycat trying to conceal a genuine domestic, and, while I think that unlikely, it does at least have the merit of providing a motive. But would such a copy cat go that far, and if he did go that far why such bizarre actions as flensing her leg? Why not just randomly hack at the lower abdomen? And surely to copy a murder there would have to have been similar murders, and all the previous ones were outdoors...
Regards
Pete Tabord |
Chelsae
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
There are two firm reasons why I believe there was more than one person at work here.
A. The variation in the witness desciptions. From Chapman, the double event, and Kelly , there is a wide gap in appearances. Particularly in age and build.
B. The home secretary offered a pardon to a co-conspirator. The police at the time must have thought there was more than one person envolved in these murders. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
AP,
Love the "vacuum" imagery. OT in terms of the thread, perhaps, but such splendid, poetic English should not go unrewarded  |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Glenn,
"In Millers Court he would be dead meat."
Mmmm, unless the killer knew he wouldnt be disturbed.
Enter LEANNE stage left....
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4772
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Yes, Frank, I go for a night scenario - day time would have been incredibly risky, even more so for Barnett.
Monty, "Enter LEANNE stage left...."
Monty, no, you don't know the genie you're releasing from that quart pail! Get the stopper back in.
Robert |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 211
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Mr poster,
Interesting approach, but my initial rejection of any kind of statistics in addition to what has allready been done is that we don't have the numbers. And even if we did, I would not trust them. With the limited understanding of serial killers in 1888, I doubt if we could come up with anything useful. How many got away with it?
We can't even agree on the cases attributed to Jack!
Even the modern numbers have a pretty wide margin of error. Besides, what if Jack was the fluke? I still maintain that statistics can only show a trend here, fortunately that trend is pretty clear.
What we should do IMO, is try to figure out if modern numbers per capita is still applicable to 1888 London. If they are, maybe further work can be done?
Personally I don't think modern statistical numbers are fully applicable. And we might be fumbling in the dark.
Hi Pete,
"They suggest some kind of actual sex thrill or the consequence of some delusion, and this is the territory generally of the SK and not the domestic."
Absolutely agree. The time spent (even if "only" half an hour or so, as some suggest), the methodical removal of flesh and organs (allthough NOT in a surgically correct manner by any means), etc, tells me the murderer was actually in a perverted way fascinated about what he was doing.
"But would such a copy cat go that far, and if he did go that far why such bizarre actions as flensing her leg?"
Exactly my point also. Even a domestic trying to disguise it as the work of Jack is to some extent trying to rationally behave as a copycat. And allthough the newspaper descriptions sometimes was way off, nowhere was there a mention AFAIK of such bizarre acts. This is the "inspired" work of the "genuine" killer, IMO.
Glenn,
I agree Jack would be in a fix if caught in Millers Court. I don't think he cared..
Think about it. With all the police on the streets, would he not be in even more danger outside? Actually, his most vulnerable moments could be argued to be not while committing his crimes, but when he actually fled a crime scene.
Obviously, if any blood could be detected by anyone he encountered, this would be a high risk situation. And he could not know if he got unlucky with the blood until after the fact. Meeting a copper (or a vigilante, or even a civilian) on his way home could always have ended his career instantly.
Indoors, in a non public area, he could, regardless of how long time the killing\mutilation lasted, always take the time to freshen up.
Maybe even time for a little housework.
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3899
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Pete Tabord,
"But would such a copy cat go that far, and if he did go that far why such bizarre actions as flensing her leg? Why not just randomly hack at the lower abdomen? And surely to copy a murder there would have to have been similar murders, and all the previous ones were outdoors... "
This has already been explained several times above on this thread, last time just a few posts above. Although it is apparent that you are well read up on some detais in this context, all I can say is that I can't agree with many of your assessements.
People have some strange idea that only serial killers are capable of these types of crimes. Yes, Buck Ruxton did his mutilations because he wanted to conceal the vitims' identities and in order to erase the traces. I for my part can't see why this can't be the case in the Millers Court murder; how anyone can say with such clarity that "There can be no question of that with MJK" really goes beyond me.
Nor do I understand how anyone can state that "Nor are her injuries consistent with uncontrollable rage or fear."
Helge,
"Absolutely agree. The time spent (even if "only" half an hour or so, as some suggest), the methodical removal of flesh and organs (allthough NOT in a surgically correct manner by any means), etc, tells me the murderer was actually in a perverted way fascinated about what he was doing."
And still several domestic cases exists where this has happened. Tell me again why a spouse can't be 'perverted' in a domestic murder of this nature? Do you really in your own head believe that this just happens in the context of serial killers? If so, I'd advice you to read up a bit before you comment on this issue with such certainty.
And what about the cases where the spouses kill their wives and for example take the body apart in dismemberment? Sure, that is for practical reasons and for the purpose of transportation (and, again, to make the victim harder to identify, since hands and the head often are missing in those cases), but it is still a very nasty thing to do to your wife or girlfriend. Still, hundreds of people commits these types of murders. So this is, according to your interpretation, uncommon and even impossible?
"Think about it. With all the police on the streets, would he not be in even more danger outside?"
Actually no. This I have explained too now several times. Outdoors he had more control of hearing or seeing someone approaching. That would be impossible indoors. Maybe with the exception of Hanbury Street yard, Millers Court is without doubt the most risky of the locations, especially if a victim had already cried out loudly enough for the neighbours to hear it. Personally, I don't think Jack would put himself in such a situation, nor do I think he would attack with the knife first (a serial killer generally develop and changes his techniques in order to improve the level of security for him, not to worsen his odds).
Although I still give Mary Kelly a 40% chance of being a Ripper victim, the murderer in Miller's Court is in my view definitely not Jack or a work of a serial killer at all.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3900
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Monty,
"Mmmm, unless the killer knew he wouldnt be disturbed."
Exactly. Which is why I believe in a killer with close relation to the victim.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 212
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Glenn,
This is Casebook syndrome all over again!
I really thought by now we could avoid it!
I quote myelf:
"Absolutely agree. The time spent (even if "only" half an hour or so, as some suggest), the methodical removal of flesh and organs (allthough NOT in a surgically correct manner by any means), etc, tells me the murderer was actually in a perverted way fascinated about what he was doing."
And you think I cannot believe a domestic murder can be perverted? Why? I think I even stated it could involve serious mutilations a few posts above. Maybe I'm not clear enough? Read my words in context with the rest I have said. I try again:
IF the mutilations were done to make it LOOK like a RIPPER murder, then the KILLER (in this scenario obviously not Jack), would do this to HIDE his OWN MO and SIGNATURE.
I thought that was your theory..
IF, however, this KILLER (still not Jack in this scenario) KILLED THIS WAY using his own signature and MO, then he could not at the same time try to hide it as a RIPPER murder.
Get it? You can't have it both ways!!
To me (and disagree all you like, that is your prerogative), the slaughter of Kelly looks more like it was done with true glee by the killer. In other words, I think it shows his true perverse MO and signature.
So you decide. Do you think it was a domestic that was intentionally made to look like a Ripper murder? Or do you think it was a domestic murderer that just happened to have some of the same hobbies as Jacky?
Both scenarios is possible, although the way I see it, less likely than the possibility of it being Jack. And I thought we agreed to disagree on that!
And read my words here "Although the way I see it" means just that. It is an expression of my personal opinion.. And, sorry, it is the opposite of yours, and will remain so until I am persuaded otherwise. So far I'm not even beginning to see things your way.
That you think it was safer outside is OK by me. I don't think so. And you can't say "I have explained so several times". You have explained your point of view, not the established fact about that.
WE are interpreting what Jack would have thought here, and he was neither you nor me (AFAIK), so both our views are INTERPRETATIONS only.
Besides, you failed to comment upon the fact that I said his getaway could pose the greatest risk. Maybe you disagree (I would not be surprised!), but that is one of the arguments for me saying that it was dangerous for Jack on the streets.
Were we DO agree is the fact that Jack probably did not attack with his knife first.
If we are to talk about statistics off the top of my head I would say I give Millers Court about 20% chance to be a domestic and 10% chance to be a copycat.
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
It’s entirely possible that I am making a rod for my own back here, but I shall press on regardless.
Perhaps if we were to reduce our target to serial killers that mutilated their victims but had no obvious sexual contact with them, then we might get a better overview of the situation.
Killers like Sutcliffe and Chase who mimicked sexual intercourse and mutilated their victims.
It is obvious that many killers are not fussed about the environment they are killing in… but equally obvious is the fact that the police will ascribe certain murders to certain killers, which those killers certainly have not committed.
Such action rewards both killer and police; and as a reward system it is very dangerous to our true understanding of men who kill.
But hey, it happens all the time, and it is up to us to try and peer through this forest and find a tree.
As Robert knows, my greatest misgiving in accepting any or all of the ascribed victims of the Whitechapel Murderer is the simple fact that nobody else was killing prostitutes in Whitechapel in 1888... Apart from Jack.
This is not right, for in 1887 and 1889 they were.
I would say at the rate of one prostitute every two months.
For me it is now an impossibility to accept all of the ascribed victims, because someone else must have killed some of them.
The indoor killings make me wary for this very reason, as the majority of prostitute murders took place indoors in 1887 and 1889 but the majority of prostitute murders took place outdoors in 1888. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 214
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Mmm
AP, good points.. need to think about that one..
Maybe we should indeed try to establish some kind of statistics of known prostitute murders in the years before and after 1888? Say five years both ways.. Just my opinion..
Hell of a job, though.
And I also think we should talk about prostitute murders in general, and leave the question about serial killers and copycats until we have a better understanding of the general situation.
Of course, any murder where the facts are known should be labeled accordingly.
We can always fight over the rest later..
As I said, AP, you're my fox.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 12, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3903
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Helge,
"And you think I cannot believe a domestic murder can be perverted?"
Well, maybe I misinterpreted Pete's and yours statements, but what I thought Pete was apparently saying was that crimes looking like those in Millers Court are generally typical for serial killers and not domestic murders. Which would be quite a wrong thing to say.
And you agreed with him (you said 'I agree'), and then added the 'perverted' part.
Maybe I got confused.
I think I know now what Pete were trying to say, but I still think I'd disagree with him a bit. I have seen murders like Kelly's been a result of rage and jealousy. Such results as can be seen in Millers Court is NOT purely a result of sexual deranged thoughts. I wish human psychology was that simple, but it isn't.
But of course, somene who does this, can't be considered totally in tip top shape psychologically speaking.
As for facts, all you have to do is to make some small research efforts on your own part, if you don't believe me.
As for a copy-cat killer or a domestic murderer with the same mutilation urge as the Ripper, but independent of him (since you want me to elaborate and clarify that), I think the latter is very unlikely.
I think the outcome of MJK:s murder at least was influenced by the Ripper, and maybe (although not certain) it even was made with the attempt to disguise it as Ripper murder (remember 'influenced' and 'deliberate copy' is not the same thing). That is how far I am prepared to go.
In any case, I see it as a murder influenced by the Ripper one way or the other. Although nothing is impossible, I don't think a domestic murder like this would happen totally independent of the Ripper context, especially not considering the news value and the strong impact the murders had at the time on people. So I don't really believe in a domestic murder looking like this and being totally independent of the Ripper's crimes. That doesen't say, though, that the killer wouldn't be perverted or whatever one wants to call it - many people is, unfortunately, and you have to be to some extent in order to achieve a crime like this.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 216
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Just because I agree with someone on one point, is not to say I necessarily agree with every nuance. My posts would be pretty long if I was to have all kinds of caveats.
It was to me pretty clear that I was talking only about Millers Court. But if it was misconstrued any other way, I was probably not making myself clear at all.
I had stated things about domestics before that I thought made my position clear on that. I can't say everything in every single post.
Maybe it will help if I quote myself:
"And I DO concur that domestics sometimes involve serious mutilations..but yet I do not see Millers Court as a domestic. It is possible it was, but not in my interpretation."
Yes, I think serious mutilations qualify as "perverted". But sometimes I see the endless debate over the same things here as the same
Allright. I'm afraid you will not be satisfied until I "do some small research effort" and come back agreeing with you.
Not gonna happen.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 12, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
Not so much a hell of a job really, Helge.
I have read through just about all the prostitute murders that took place in London between 1800 and 1901, paying careful attention to the 1880-1900 period, but have not had the time to catalogue what I have read, which means I have to read it all again.
Information is power though, so I enjoy that reading.
If nobody else can catalogue the situation before, I'll do it in September.
The results should give a much clearer picture, and yes, I agree with you, let us concentrate on that rather than the behaviour of later killers.
One point I would make though, and I think it an important one, is that in almost every 'domestic' case I read involving the mutilation or murder of a prostitute by a partner did result in the prosecution of that partner. It does appear - and I say this in a very little voice - that the mutilation and murder of a prostitute that does not result in a prosecution appears to indicate that the crime was carried out by a 'stranger'.
This sort of leads me down a strange path where the shrubbery is no longer recognisable to me; as I begin to speculate that the killers of some of the prostitutes - especially where that crime took place indoors - would have been prosecuted if it had not been for the series of murders known as the Whitechapel Murders which fuddled the 'domestic' issues.
I must work harder.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2274
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Myself I find it difficult to believe the man who lived with Mary Kelly went to such lengths to kill and mutilate her,a woman he had loved despite her behaviour and then have the equanimity to sit through hours of police questioning,followed by the inquest and the clamour for interviews by the international press
yet present no sign of mental illness.Such a bloke just doesn"t seem real. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3905
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
AP,
Indeed, in all domestic cases I've seen, the perpetrator has actually been caught (or else we wouldn't know these cases as 'domestic' in the first place).
However, this is based on the aspect that there doesn't exist more domestic cases than those we know of, and that some of those might have been wrongly attributed to serial killers. Serial killers do sometimes confess to some killings but not to others and we don't know why.
In this particular case, though, I feel the huge focus on the Ripper and the desperate search for the Ripper, might have been the very reason for why the killer wasn't caught. The same reasoning could be applied on Stride.
Still, just my thoughts.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 252
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Since multiple Jacks could mean two or more, how about a six pack of Jacks?
#1 The slasher who killed the canonicals.
#2 The person responsible for the first four torso murders. (I think the 1902 case is a little too far out.)
#3 A copycat who killed McKenzie and Coles.
#4 A strangler who killed Rose Mylett and Francis Hancock.
#5 The stabber who killed Tabram and Millwood. (I believe the attack hastened the death of the latter.)
#6 The blackmailer who killed Emma Smith and "Fingers" Freddy.
Pop the top again,
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3906
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
"Myself I find it difficult to believe the man who lived with Mary Kelly went to such lengths to kill and mutilate her,a woman he had loved despite her behaviour and then have the equanimity to sit through hours of police questioning,followed by the inquest and the clamour for interviews by the international press
yet present no sign of mental illness.Such a bloke just doesn"t seem real."
No, but still it happens - and has happened - on several occasions, Natalie. In one way or the other. No mental illness. No prior criminal record. No serial killer. After years of marriage or after a period of intense relationship. It happens, and it's high time we accept that it does and don't stay in the fawlty perception that people aren't capable of this.
The darkness of human behaviour is more gloomy than we think. I used to state the same thing as you did, but I was wrong.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3907
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Stan,
Very interesting post and I find most of it quite possible.
But who is 'Finger Freddy'?
As for Coles, I think she was killed by Sadler, though, but it's impossible to prove.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 217
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
AP,
Great effort! I knew you had a lot of data on this. To make the catalogue is probably where the "hell" comes into the picture.. But maybe not for you. You know I'm too lazy to do actual research (even some small research effort) Hahah..
Your point is certainly valid. My view is that because Millers Court were in fact NOT solved, then it might be because it was NOT domestic.
But maybe the police were blinded by the light?
The problem with the statistics, as I see it, is partly what Glenn mentions, that some domestics may have been attributed to serial killers, etc. Only solved murders can be properly labeled, and the unsolved ones might skew any statistics 'orribly.
But that is not a problem at this stage. Besides "Unsolved" is also a label.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4775
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Blimey, if we're not careful here, we'll have more murderers than victims.
I guess the murderers will have to start murdering each other.
Robert |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 218
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Natalie,
Despite the fact that even once caring(?) husbands or lovers sometimes do the most horrible things (yes, I agree on that Glenn), most of them does not:
"sit through hours of police questioning,followed by the inquest and the clamour for interviews by the international press",
without breaking.
"Such a bloke just doesn"t seem real."
No, he does not, does he!
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Was there any furniture in Mary's room that Jack could have used to bar the door? I know there was a bedside table (which he used for other purposes). It would seem to me that that would have been a logical thing for him to do thus ensuring that he would not be disturbed. Does anyone else agree? On second thought, if anyone attempted to look in through the room his only means of escape would be blocked. Oh well, it was just a thought. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
