|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 119
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 8:07 am: |       |
Another of Monty's dull questions.
Can anyone define for me the search area drawn up by the Metropolitan Police during the murders ??
I want to know the boundarys and also what the hell went on in that area (was it house to house, stop searches ect?? or just an increase in beats ?? ).
It does have some importance...honest,
Thanks in advance,
Monty
 |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 99
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 9:06 am: | |
Hi Monty
According to Chief Inspector Donald Swansons Home Office report dated 19th October. 80,000 pamphlets and house to house enquiries were made. The area covered was The City boundary, Lamb Street, Commercial Street, Great Eastern Railway and Buxton Street, then by Albert Street, Dunk Street, Chicksand Street and Great Garden Street to Whitechapel Road and then to the City boundary. Common Lodging houses were visited and over 2,000 lodgers were examined.
The same report also mentions enquiries were also made by the Thames police into sailors on board ships in the docks or on the river. Asiatics present in London. Seventy six butchers and slaughterers had been visited. Greek Gipsies and three cowboys.
All the best
Rob |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 24
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 9:37 am: | |
Dull questions like yours, Monty, are far more likely to be productive of historical truth than colourful ones like, "Hey! Don't you think Walter Sickert's Hollandaise looks like MJK?" or "Gosh! Do you thnk the Prince of Wales might have hidden a firefighter's uniform in a love-nest near the East End and used it to go cruising for streetwalkers to kill?"
All the best,
Martin F |
Christian Jaud
Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:15 am: | |
Dear Martin,
seeing your sparkling fantasy and wit, I must re-read "The crimes, detection..." under different views.
;-)
Christian
|
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 30
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 9:28 am: | |
Biggest problem I had with "Crimes, Detection...", Christian, is the perfectly horrible font the publishers used. It makes it hard to detect the punctuation, and so leads people to assume that it is written in a much more turgid style than any of my other books, because it is exasperatingly difficult to read.
All the best,
Martin F
PS (Are you calling my laborious scholarship and brilliant intuitions fantasy????  ) |
Christian Jaud
Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 26
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 11:21 am: | |
Martin,
  just joking!
Talking 'bout "difficult to read", a serious question: Is it very expensive and/or is the German speaking market for decent books on JTR that small, that only "things" like the diary and Cornwell (both big marketing and lot's of money to back up) make it to a German version?
best regards
Christian
|
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 121
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 11:25 am: | |
Robert, Martin,
Rob,
Yeah, Ive read that too. Ive also had a look at the area boundary in the A-Z map of Whitechapel which misses 3 murder sites. Begs me to wonder about the police resources and their mentality. Why were they so sure thats the area to look in ? Heavy concentration of lodging houses ? Surely not their only line.
Prof Canters theory was alive and well in 1888 I suppose.
Martin,
Im not dull...its just my questions.
I didnt find your book exasperating to read......not as much as some...Ms Cornwell knows what Im talking about.
Monty
|
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 100
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 12:54 pm: | |
Hi Monty, Martin, Christian
Monty,
I think the Rippers directions after Mitre Square would be the reason to miss out Berner Street. If the Metropolitan boundary was nearer to Mitre Square I could imagine them extending the search area to as close as Mitre Square as possible. As for Bucks Row they may have felt he went westward after Nichols and not left the scene via Winthrop Street or any of the passages or alleys into Whitechapel Road. I did think it was because Bucks Row was J Division, but the search area didn't cover all of the H Division which I believe went as far as Bucks Row. I got the impression from Swanson's report that the police were looking for something in particular and in some instances they were 'snooping'. They did go several streets north of Hanbury Street which to me is surprising unless they had received specific information from other lines of inquiry. I could be wrong but I think that area was full of 'sweat shops' and weren't most of them Jewish? also Spitalfields Market. I think the whole area attracted a lot of strangers and it was the most heavily populated spot in the vicinity of the murders.
Martin,
I really enjoyed your book. It is one of the few honest and intelligent books on the subject. Unfortunately your publishers used poor paper stock as mine is starting to yellow. I don't suppose there is much chance you are going to revise and update, is there?
All the best
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 3:16 pm: | |
is prof canter the geographical profiler (is that the right word, you know what i mean?)
jp |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 101
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 6:11 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer
I know what you mean.
David Canter is a Professor of Psychology and a Police advisor on psychological profiling.
He believes Jack the Ripper was a local man living near the Whitechapel, Spitalfields border (about dead centre of the Police search area), he calls this his 'safty area'.
Rob |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 36
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 6:57 am: | |
Hi Christian,
It's big money and marketing, by and large, that get the translations. The only book of mine that has been translated is the Murder Guide to London, and that only into Italian.
Hi Monty,
Do you mean the Ripper A-Z has missed three murders? If you'd let me know which you have in mind, and they are murders that fall within the area, then I'll draw measured grid lines on my copy and tell you where they should be if I know them.
Hi Robert,
The Metropolitan/City Police boundary ran (and runs) down the middle of Petticoat Lane (Middlesex Street).
Hi Jennifer,
Yes, you are quite right. Canter is an environmental psychologist who thinks that people's habituation to certain locales makes an important difference to their behaviour. This contrasts with Paul Britton, who draws conclusions about people's fantasy lives from SoC evidence and witness statements.
Canter is currently working, however, on an attempt to categorize the semi-conscious perceptions that go into making up an experienced detective's "hunches", with the hope that they may be fruitfully built into some sort of computerized form of fairly standardized criminal identification analysis.
All the best,
Martin F
|
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:15 am: | |
Regarding beat coppers and whether extra beats were set up. When Anderson remarked in his biography that when confronted with his suspect a City beat P.C. unhesitatingly identified the man.
A lot of confusion reign's over this I.D. later writer's assuming that he must of meant the Met., beat officer who saw Stride in Berner St. with a man that same night.
But did a City P.C. indeed catch a glimpse of the killer after he had murdered Eddowes?
After his escape from Mitre Square it seems remarkable that he didn't bump into one of the patrolling P.c.'s. Could he have even been stopped by the city P.c.?
I know what you are going to say, why wasn't there a City P.C. at the Eddowes inquest to give a description,
The City Poilce might have had their reasons for not calling their officer to the inquest, and Anderson definately stated in his biography that a City P.C. identified the killer. |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 128
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 11:49 am: | |
Rob, Martin
Rob,
I can understand Mitre sq being left out on account of it being on Citys patch. I cannot understand why Berner st (despite your explaination..sorry) and Bucks row were missed out. As the Met covers J division Id have thought the powers that be would have pull rank and included Bucks Row's surrounding area...infact Id have thought that they would have taken in a certain sized area around each murder site. As much area as they could have managed productively.
Why would they assume he moved west from Bucks row ? Was it because of Police presence on that night ?
I just get the feeling that they knew something we dont and were reacting to it.
Martin,
You misunderstand me. I mean that the Boundary lines for the Met search area misses out Mitre sq (I guess for reasons above, City area) Berner st but more importantly in my eyes, Bucks Row.
Whilst I assume that the police procedure straight after the murder would include house to house ect around the sites, these actual areas were not included in leafleting nor examined at random as were the areas mentioned by Robert in his post dated 23/6/03.
Reading Police reports they obviously included Nichols in the murder series so why fail to include the surrounding area (especially to the East..perhaps as far as Mile End)?
It defies logic...unless as mentioned above, they had an agenda. Which makes me also wonder (my I do alot of that) how certain they were that Leather Apron was their man....and how they were gunning for him !
Baffled Monty
|
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 102
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 5:21 pm: | |
Hi Monty
I pressumed he went westwards after killing Mary Ann Nichols on the bases that he had only just left the scene, when Charles Cross entered Bucks Row. I believe P.C Neils beat took him from Winthrop Street and into Bucks Row so he would possibly have been seen by him, someone unless, as it has been suggested that he was skiving, and he was in the slaughter yard. I don't believe he went down one of the side roads and on to the Whitechapel Road, as I think he was trying to keep away from the Main road, which is what I think he was doing after Mitre Square.
I think you were right when you mention they were reacting to something. The search area fell a few roads short of Bucks Row, but continued a few roads north of Hanbury Street. I wonder if it is because they were looking for something that could only be found in that area.
I still think the reason for missing out Berner Street was because he was moving northward after Mitre Square and to the safty of home, I can't see him heading back in the general area of Berner Street as it would be swarming with police.
I have just been wondering whether Mary Kelly, Joseph Barnett and Nathan Kaminsky were interveiwed. Since they fell in the search area.
All the best
Rob |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 42
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 6:29 am: | |
Hi Tommy!
I think there's a degree of confusion in your posting. Anderson said the only witness who ever had a good sight of the murderer unhesitatingly identified him. Macnaghten said a City PC saw a suspect near Mitre [Square] who strongly resembled Kosminsky. Swanson said the witness described by Anderson was Jewish and refused to give evidence against a fellow Jew that might lead to the man being hung. I think it's a little precipitate to put this together as Anderson saying a City PC definitely saw the murderer. My own suggestion, to be found elsewhere, is that Macnaghten's remarks (in line with his frequent garbling) represent his misinterpretation of some phrase like "City Police witness" used to described Lawende, as meaning "City Policeman witness". remember that Macnaghten, who is the SOLE source for the idea of a police officer making the ID, wasn't in the police at the time, and had only secondhand accounts of the canonical five murders and the immediate steps taken to investigate them.
Hi Monty,
Sorry that my dozy early-morning reading led me to misconstrue your posting.
It remains a complete mystery to me, why they thought the search and handbill area should extend north of the murders sites, but not south and east. But I think it's a mystery you're right to pounce on, suggesting some sort of suspicion in their minds.
There were, indeed, a lot of sweatshops in the area, mainly Jewish, mainly tailoring and bootmaking, though Israel Lipski was trying to open one for umbrella-making.
All the best,
Martin F |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 132
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 12:07 pm: | |
Robert, Martin,
Rob,
Aye, I agree about his escape after murdering Nichols.
Always had something for Old Monty st myself.
But it still doesnt answer why that area was left out of the search and handbilling......I guess we will never know unless something crops up.
Martin,
Thats ok...Im dozy no matter what the time.
If its true that they had a suspicion of someone or something specific and ignoring other leads, then thats bad policing...very bad policing....bad enough to put the investigation back a number of weeks. Which is possibly what happened.
Who knows ?!
PS Its nice to have you back on the boards Martin. I hope you're back to your best after last year. Just waiting for the other members of the 'Holy Trinity' to return.
Cheers,
Monty
|
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 9:43 am: | |
Seems i got my Andersons's mixed with my Mcnaughtons.
Although if Anderson's witness was Lawende he wasn't being exactly truthfull when he stated that Lawende identified the suspect unhesitatingly. Lawende when asked, would you know the man again apparently answered in the negative.
Were there any Jewish Police officer's in the City force at the time! Only kidding Martin. |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 46
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 7:58 am: | |
Hi Tommy!
Lawende's statement made at the inquest on Katherine Eddowes preceded the identification of the suspect. So it is quite possible that he made the honest acknowledgment that he hadn't paid much attention to the face; only noticed the clothes when asked by the coroner's court, but then some weeks later was astonished to find himself looking at what was undoubtedly the man he'd thought he wouldn't recognize easily. (And equally, of course, his certainty that this was the man might have been a mistake: a trick of the memory). Major Smith refers to a very good witness (probably Lawende) whose excellence is shown by his refusal to be cocksure that he would know the man anywhere.
All the best,
Martin F |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 134
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 11:37 am: | |
Tommy, Martin,
Im in a cybercafe and therefore I do not have any books to hand, but I was wondering about the question put to Lewande "would you know that man again ?" that Tommy mentions (26/6/07).
If thats the exact wording of the question (as Ive mentioned, no books, so forgive me if Im wrong) then to me Lewandes reply of 'no', means that he does not know the man. Quite simply Lewande had never seen him before.
If he was asked "would you recognise the man ?", then a answer of 'yeah' would indicate to me that he would indeed idenify him if he saw him again.
What Im saying in my long winded way is that Lewande could have misunderstood the question. A question which may have been put to him incorrectly.
He didnt KNOW the man but he would RECOGNISE the man if he saw him again.
Monty...who doesnt half go on ....sorry !
 |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 50
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 7:56 am: | |
Hi Monty,
Speaking from memory, I think Lawende said that he didn't think he'd recognize the man again because he hadn't paid much attention to the face, only the clothes. So I don't think there was any mistake on his part as to whether he was being asked whether he recognized the man as someone he knew or had previously seen somewhere.
All the best,
Martin F |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 139
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 11:26 am: | |
Martin,
Yep, you're right. I checked my books at the weekend.
Cheers
Monty
|
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 9:46 am: | |
The scenario you describe Martin is entirely possible. Could Levy and Harris have played their part in the identification? Also it would be interesting, although impossible to know, whether the police found any of the clothes mentioned by any of the witnesses in the possession of kosminski, that is a deerstalker hat, a red neckerchief, salt and pepper coat etc. And whether they found the most incriminating thing of all, a great big knife. |
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 54
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 9:34 am: | |
Hi Tommy!
I doubt whether Levy and Harris were used for ID as they were, I thnk, fairly clear that they had not taken in the man's appearance. (Though I seem to remember that Paul Begg had an interesting observation about Levy's being described somewhere as seeming to know something he wasn't letting on to the press).
We have, alas, no evidence whatever about the Anderson ID which I believe identified Cohen in the asylum, or the Kosminsky investigation which apparently became confused with it, or the ID in the Seaside Home which Swanson remembered taking place and which, given the amount of error and garbling in his notes might have been either or neither of the above. Nor have we any record of the possessions found and examined in the cases of any of the serious suspects. Some blighter took those files home to work on and forgot to bring them back! Search, search your attics and basements, oh all ye descendants of senior Metropolitan policemen or Home Office civil servants of the 1880s and '90s!
All the best,
Martin F
|
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 75
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 8:16 pm: | |
Martin
Wonderful to see you on the boards..Just wondered whether Levy,Lawende and Harris actually only saw Catharine with her hand on the man's chest in Church Passage from the back?They were allegedly "not up to much good" so they all scuttled away..hardly in a position to recognise Kate I think..don't mean to cause a problem!
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 76
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 8:20 pm: | |
Martin
Wonderful to see you on the boards..Just wondered whether Levy,Lawende and Harris actually only saw Catharine with her hand on the man's chest in Church Passage from the back?They were allegedly "not up to much good" so they all scuttled away..hardly in a position to recognise Kate I think..don't mean to cause a problem!
Cheers
Suzi |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 693
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:40 am: | |
Chaps & Chapesses,
Need help....yes, yes, very funny but I really do need help.
It may be related to the search area but then again...
Walter Dew, just after Chapmans murder, was given a task to search a particluar route.
The route was from 29 Hanbury st, east to Brick Lane, south along brick lane to Princes St. West along Princes st to Wood st, south along Wood st to Red Lion Court, west along the court to Commercial Road.
An odd route no ? It seems to me that Dew was given this task for a reason. And thats my problem...why ?
Was it due to information given or a clue picked up? And this is where you come in my little gang of investigators.
Has anyone found, read or knows of anything regarding this route ? A newspaper article which mentions Princes or Wood st or an excert from a book mentioning clues found in Red Lion court ?
It seems to me, just as it does with the Met search area that they were working on something.
Cheers,
Monty
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
Monty, the following extracts contain the only even remotely relevant references to Princes or Wood streets, or Red Lion Court in the Star or Daily Telegraph, Sept. – Oct. 1888.
“The streets inclusively referred to by the constables on beat duty in the main thoroughfare as “round at the back” presented a dismal appearance indeed, the dim yellow flames of the not too numerous lamps only rendering the darkness of night more gloomy. Such passages as Edward-street, connecting Hanbury and Princes-streets, Flower and Dean-street, between Brick-lane and Commercial-street, which, in daylight only strike one as very unwholesome and dirty thoroughfares, appear unutterably forlorn and dismal in the darkness of night. From an alley in one of these, leading to uninviting recesses, a miserable specimen of a man – hollow-chested, haggard, and dirty – shuffled hurriedly into the wider street and, crossing to the opposite pavement, dived into another recess and was instantly lost to view. No constable would have thought of interfering with him had he met him, nor would there have been any excuse for accosting him; and yet his ragged clothes, of some dark hue, might have been saturated with blood, invisible in the depressing yellow shade of the flickering gas jets.” (Extract from “A Night in Whitechapel” The Star, 11 Sept. 1888, page 3)
“Nearly Murdered in Berner-street.
This morning, at the Thames Police-court, William Seaman, 40, of 11, Princes-street, Whitechapel, was charged with attempting to murder John Simkin, a chemist, of 82, Berner-street, Whitechapel.
Prosecutor was now able to attend. He stated on Saturday night, the 8th ult., at ten minutes to twelve, as he was about closing his shop door, Seaman came in and asked for 1d. worth of zinc ointment and then for 1d. worth of powdered alum. Whilst witness was serving prisoner struck him a heavy blow on the head with a hammer. Then he rushed round the counter and struck him again. He then dropped the hammer and witness picked it up and gave it to a man who came in.
Dr. Francis John Allen said Mr. Simkin had a wound on the head, and was bruised all over the body, and at one time his life was in danger.
Henry John Smith said he heard prosecutor’s daughter scream out, “They are murdering my father.” Witness went into the shop and saw Seaman holding Mr. Simkin by the throat and punching him about the face and chest.
Constable 85 H, said that Seaman when arrested said: “I shan’t tell you what I did it for, but I will tell the magistrate.” He had been drinking.
The prisoner, having been formally cautioned, said, “I will say nothing.”
Mr. Saunders committed him for trial on the charge of attempted murder.” (The Star, 2 Oct. 1888 page 3)
Best Wishes
alex
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 698
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
Alex,
So near yet so far......
Its just that Dews route seems a hell of an unlikely one I couldnt help wondering why. I guess its my suspicious mind.
Many thanks for looking anyway......how much do I owe you now ??
Monty
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
No worries, Monty. I’ll post you the bill, once I can think of a suitably extortionate fee.
Sorry I couldn’t cast any light on Dew’s wanderings.
All the Best
alex
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 126
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
Monty,
Yes, a puzzling route, but once more researchers are faced with the question of how much credence can be placed in memoirs published 50 years after the fact. Certainly, those things Dew wrote about the Ripper investigation that can be checked are not apt to instill confidence. Of course, it is always possible that in this instance, anyway, his memory of the detailed -- and puzzling -- route was spot on. Possible, but. . . .
Don. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 704
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 8:36 am: | |
Don,
Yeah, I understand your point. Its something that I did think of. Hence my reason for asking if anyone can provide any evidence or pointers to what Dew was asked to do.
Another thing, which I guess bares little relevence to this subject but interests me, is another of Dews 'statements'. He said that the Bobbies were doing stop searches during the height of the murders. Dew states that locals (or rather those known to the Bobby concerned) would be spared this because, well, they were known. If true then a) I find this disturbing and b) Its the first sign I have found of incompitence.
Then Dew states that this all went out the window because the Met were dragging in Bobbies from other divisions, therefore they did not know the locals and continued with a thorough stop search policy.
So the introduction of PCs from other divisions may not have been just because numbers in 'H' were low but also to ensure that procedures were adhered to.
Just something to think on.
Cheers,
Monty
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 391
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 8:46 am: | |
Monty
Similar to this, I was looking at Alice McKenzie stuff last night and found a news report, East End News, 19th July 1889
Some four hours after the murder a man was arrested in the district and taken to the Commercial-street station, on suspicion of being the murderer. On being searched, a butcher's knife, amongst other things, was found in his possession. When questioned, he without hesitation referred the police to the keeper of the Victoria, a lodging-house in the neighbourhood. This person was accordingly sent for, and identified the prisoner as a man he had known for some years. Other statements made by the man having been ascertained to be correct, he was at once discharged.
Now maybe these "other statements" exonerated him, but otherwise it does seem a very lax way to go about things. Whoever Jack was, there must have been at least some people who had "known him for some years"! |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 705
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:06 am: | |
Alan,
Victoria ?? A lodging house ???
Mmmmmm, wheres my A-Z?
Hutchinson, Hutchinson, Hutch....ah found it !!!
Depends on the statement. It seems as if the carrying of knives during a murder scare in which the main weapon is a knife is acceptable.
Cheers,
Monty
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
