|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 11:27 pm: |       |
Hi Robert,
There's nothing that definately rules out Stride, but on the flip side, there's nothing that definately "rules her in" either.
Against her inclusion is that the wound to her throat is not as complete a circle as that performed on Nichols, Chapman, and, I believe, Kelly. It cuts the left cartoid artery, but not completely, while the right was not cut.
However, the throat wound in Eddowes is similarly "asymmetric", but deeper this time (severing completely the left and cutting a small hole in the right).
So, based on the wounds, they are different from Ripper victims from other nights, but similar to a Ripper victim of the same night.
The lack of mutilation is thought to reflect interruption, or possibly the Ripper leaves fearing that Schwartz is going to call the police (or that Pipe-man will if he's not in on it too). Although both of these sorts of explanations can account for the lack of mutilation, it is this very lack that must be accounted for. And, keeping to the rule of the simplest explantion is best, it's simpler to explain if Stride is not a Ripper victim.
By accepting the simple explanation there, however, one must decide how that impacts on the similarity of the throat would between Stride and Eddowes. Meaning, it may become more complicated to assume two different killers producing similar wounds than it is to assume one common killer with one interruption/incomplete session.
Regardless, Stride's inclusion can not be verified definately at this point, and so her inclusion is questionable. Because she can't be ruled out decisively, her exclusion is questionable as well.
- Jeff Hamm |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 8:56 pm: | |
There is no rule that the simplest explanation is best. Instead, it seems quite obvious that the best explanation is best. The best explanation would be the one that best explains the hard evidence of the case taken as a whole. The more holistic your explanation of the case is, the greater the chance that your explanations for various parts of the case are correct too.
All you have to do is learn how to think for yourself.
Saddam |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 11:58 pm: | |
I'm inclined to believe Stride was an interrupted Ripper victim. Case in point comes from a serial killer in Del Rio, TX in 1999 named Tommy Sells. I lived in Del Rio at the time and he was caught after he cut the throats of two girls in the same house on the same night. One died, but the other one survived because she was not cut as badly. I don't think serial killers are looking for absolute matches in the wounds they inflict on their victims.
My guess on all this is Millwood, Tabram, and the canonical 5 for a total of 7.
Eric |
G.T. Chapentier
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 2:51 pm: | |
hello all, I am new to the "case" but I have one thing I would like to ask or point out. Is it posible that Kelly was killed by Barnett and the only one killed by Barnet, taking full advantage of the on going murders and publicity to hide his crime? If yu look at many murder cases with excessive mutilatin of the face almost all the killers knew the victims, and usally on some sort of demeaning sexual level. The other mutilations could then all have been a guise to throw off any would legal complications. All except the removing of the the heart which then could point the finger back to Barnett. I know this is a far fetched theory, but I had to put it out there to hear thoughts on it.
Thanks  |
Squirrel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 12:03 pm: | |
Can anyone tell the Squirrel what chemical Jackey boy used to kill?
|
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 10:59 pm: | |
Hi Sadam,
Actually there is a rule that says the simplest explanation is best. It's Ockham's Razor. The basics of this rule is that when given the choice amongst a set of explanations, all of which can equally account for a set of data, the explanation which contains the fewest parameters is to be considered the best explanation.
The number of parameters a theory includes is it's measure of complexity. So, fewest parameters is what is meant by simplest.
Assuming two murders are unrelated is a default (let's call that the 0 parameter model). If, however, two murders have aspects in common, in order to maintain the "theory" the crimes are unrelated, one has to then explain the similarities. Each of these explanations of similarity that are required to maintain the notion of separate killers are parameters added to the "0 parameter model".
The theory that suggests the "same killer", however, generally explains such commonalities with one parameter; same killer produces similar crimes.
When there are enough similarities between two events (in this case two murders), the default explanation becomes very complicated to maintain because of the additional parameters that are required to explain each of these similarities. At some point, the "same killer" theory therefore becomes simpler than the "separate killer" theory.
Notice, however, that both theories may be able to explain "all of the hard evidence." What differs is how many parameters are required by which they do so.
In this case, assuming same killer between Stride and Eddowes requires the theory to include an explanation as to why Stride was not mutilated. Usually, this involves some sort of interruption. This interruption is a theoretical parameter and adds a level of complexity. The "different killer" theory, however, has to worry about the commonalities with other Ripper murders in terms of victim type, date (same as Eddowes), location, etc.
Things get more complicated when factoring in probabilities. For example, what's the probability of two unrelated throat cutting murders occuring on the same night? I don't know, but we shouldn't forget there was a third thoat cutting murder that night where a husband killed his wife and then turned himself in.
These kinds of weighing of the evidence is where interpretation comes in, and with interpretation comes errors. Regardless, when evaluating and comparing two or more theories that explain the same set of evidence, the simpler one is considered best. That is the rule.
Just remember, the "best" explanation isn't always true, and the true explanation isn't always "best".
- Jeff
|
bbm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:15 am: | |
I think interruption is a very plausible explaination to the lack of mutilation. Her body was certainly laid out in the same position as most of JTR's victims. I've thought about the way the victims were laid out some. Right hand across the body left hand stretched out. I think JTR kneeled on the victims pinning their Right hand against their chests with his Right knee while pinning the Left hand down by stepping on it with his Left foot. This would free his hands up for the throat slashing. Aside from the wounds on Catharine's and Elizabeth's necks being similar, if you look at their hair, it appears as if the killer used their hair as a handle of sorts while slashing their throats.
JeffHamm, I used to know a Jeff Hamm. You wouldn't happen to be from the North Texas area would you? |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 3:37 pm: | |
I think interruption is a very plausible explaination to the lack of mutilation. Her body was certainly laid out in the same position as most of JTR's victims. I've thought about the way the victims were laid out some. Right hand across the body left hand stretched out. I think JTR kneeled on the victims pinning their Right hand against their chests with his Right knee while pinning the Left hand down by stepping on it with his Left foot. This would free his hands up for the throat slashing. Aside from the wounds on Catharine's and Elizabeth's necks being similar, if you look at their hair, it appears as if the killer used their hair as a handle of sorts while slashing their throats.
JeffHamm, I used to know a Jeff Hamm. You wouldn't happen to be from the North Texas area would you?
P.S. Re-entering this post because I realised I used the wrong username. |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:52 pm: | |
Hi Valerie S,
I think going through the reports concerning the victim's position, when such descriptions are available, is a good idea. Probably one which would warrent it's own thread.
And no, I'm not from North Texas. Originally I'm from Nova Scotia (Canada), and now I live in Auckland, New Zealand.
- Jeff |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 8:06 pm: | |
That's not a bad idea Jeff! I know not all of the women were found in that position, Catherine's arms were at her sides. I think she may have been attacked from behind though. And I think being attacked from behind may also explain the severed earlobe. JTR most likely couldn't see where the cut was starting if he was standing behind her.
Sorry you're not from North Texas, I thought I'd found a long lost friend. |
John the Sipper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 9:53 am: | |
Killer can change his style if wanted.
You can also use your left hand instead of right hand if needed. Even with little practice. This could be the case with the Alice Mackenzie case.
Personally I have hard time believing that Ripper murders ended so quickly. Because Mary Kelly murder happened inside it's kinda safe to believe Ripper had more time to do what he was doing when with other victims he had to be more sure not to get caught. This is most likely the reason why she was so heavily mutilated and some others not.
If "Ripper" was just some insane person it could be possible that those five murders were enough but cold-blooded murdered that enjoys murdering because it gives "thrills" could go on longer and definately would try different methods.
What I'm saying is that it's all about assuming whether Saucy Jack really planned these murders or was he just simply insane looking for easy prey. |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 11:29 pm: | |
Hi Valerie,
I doubt Eddowes was killed from behind. If, and this applies to all the "outdoor" Ripper victims, if she were then there would be a lot of blood down the front of her dress. However, with Eddowes and the others, the blood seems to have flowed out beside the bodies and then underneath for the most part. The front being relatively un-stained. Given that, it appears that the victims were on the ground at the time their throats were cut.
With Mary Kelly, it looks like she was killed on the "far side" of the bed according to Dr. Phillips. One possibility that I haven't seen suggested for this position is that her killer was having a "sleep over". If, and this is a big if, G.H.'s testimony is at all accurate (i.e., he saw Mary with a client, waited around but he never came out), then those aspects fit. A fair number of things might be explained by such a scenerio, but I admit that I've not looked at the evidence with that in mind before and it may actually be possible to rule it out. Also, there is very little to actually suggest it directly it beyond her position in the bed and some questionable testimony by G.H. In this case, unfortunately, the position evidence is by no means conclusive and could easily be explained by other theories. Just one more of the many possibilities.
- Jeff |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 149
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 11:51 am: | |
Jeff,
Your theory therefore begs the question of how the victims ended upon the ground before Jack started his knifework.
Could have laid down themselves but can you see this happening ? I cannot.
Im torn between strangulation or blows. Or perhaps an alternation depending on the situation.
But like yourself, I doubt he worked from behind.
Monty
 |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 5:09 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
You're right. I suspect there's no way they laid down willingly. Chapman does seem to have been strangled first. Stride appears to have been thrown down, at least once. Kelly was in bed already. In general, though, I tend to lean towards strangulation simply because of the lack of a struggle being heard by anyone. Manual strangulation should leave marks, and I would think they looked for them, but I have no idea what the throat cutting might do to such evidence? I suppose it could obliterate it.
Anyway, how they got on the ground is a slightly different question from whether they were on the ground. If everything points to them being on the ground, which I think it does, then we may have to satisfy ourselves with and these are a few possible explanations of how that came to be.
- Jeff
P.S. Kelly is impossible to tell, but I recall someone suggesting there were defense cuts on her arm/hand/thumb that may indicate she wasn't strangled? |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 12:58 am: | |
Maybe JTR offered the women a large sum of money to lie in the dirt? If you're a starving prostitute with no bed for the night, offering a pound or even two would drive most people to "wallow in the mud". |
Glenn A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 10:29 pm: | |
Hi everybody.
This discussion appears to have died three weeks ago, but I'll try to pick up the thread, as I think the number of possible victims is an interesting problem. 
It is my belief that it would be a mistake to rule out Elisabeth Stride as a Ripper victim. One reason have been given accounted for here, namely the fact that the murderer most likely was interrupted and therefore only managed to slash her throat.
Reason number two is that another body (Eddows) was found less than an hour later -- both murders had just occured when each victim were found, and as I recall both bodies were still relatively warm!
Without claiming to state my assumptions as facts (they are, as everyone elses, pure assumptions -- nevertheless based on my experience), it is highly unlikely that two murders on female prostitutes, both having their throats cut, could appear the same night -- with only an hour's time difference between them.
I strongly believe that Eddows was more badly mutilated than the previous victims because the Ripper was interrupted on the Stride incident (and therefore frustrated and psycologically/sexually unsatisfied) and partly because his madness had increased (to later reach its highest peek in Miller's Court).
Two bodies the same night, close in both time and geographical distance, can't possibly be a coincident -- even though the first one "only" had her throat cut. Stranger things have indeed happened, but I think it would be a scenario that totally conflicts with reason, especially as we see similarities in the throat wounds on both victims.
Also, according to what's been suggested here, I find it unlikely that a serial killer like Jack would change his methods more dramatically -- serial killers seldom does, if we're not talking about minor changes or "improvements". Consequently, I'm afraid I can't agree with "John the Sipper's" comment, that an insane serial killer that does it for pure pleasure, would be able to change his method when he wants to.
We are here most likely dealing with a killer that acts irrationally and can't control his emotional impulses. Such killers mainly stay with their known method (unless they try to develop it further, to gain more comfort and effectiveness). To state that jack the Ripper was a cunning, intelligent and calculating individual, capable of changing his methods to fool the police, is to accept the myth that he was a distinguished doctor/surgeon with a top hat -- which is in my opinion not the case.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 4:00 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
"It is my belief that it would be a mistake to rule out Elisabeth Stride as a Ripper victim. One reason have been given accounted for here, namely the fact that the murderer most likely was interrupted and therefore only managed to slash her throat."
Ok, somethings to consider.....
It is strongly held that Jack's first move was choking/strangling or some means of restricting breathing.
That once they slipped unconscious he lay them down to cut their jugglar (release pressure) then methodically slice around the throat.
That is a three-step process, but, with Stride, McKenzie & Coles, whoever it was who attacked either of them simply slashed at their throat.
That approach indicates a difference worthy of note.
"......it is highly unlikely that two murders on female prostitutes, both having their throats cut, could appear the same night -- with only an hour's time difference between them."
To be honest, this argument was used by many, that is until Stewart Evans brought to light a third murder that night. And this, to my knowledge has never been attributed to JtR.
So, if 3 were murdered in one night, you are saying 'he' must have done all 3. But, as you only accept him doing 2 of the 3 then by what logic do you exclude the third, but include the second. And whatever logic you choose to apply can be equally applied to the second, therefore, once again, we end up with only one - Eddowes.
(P.S. Yes, I understand you were not aware of the '3rd' murder, but now you are, does it change your opinion?)
Regards, Jon |
Glenn L Andersson
Police Constable
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 10:49 am: | |
Hi Jon. Thanks for your interesting views and info.
You're absolutely right -- I didn't know about the third murder. I therefore must study this more thoroughly before I can answer your question -- if I can find the information.
What I can state at this point, is that if there really was a third murder that night, in an area not too far away from the other two, this is -- of course -- new facts to consider that sets certain things in a new light. That is true.
Much is depending on the the way the victim was killed, where and when. I also have to check out why this murder wasn't contributed to JTR.
I wouldn't, however, lay too much weight on what way the different victims' throats were cut or if they were strangled first or not (it can lead to unnecessary far fetched detail arguments that lead nowhere) -- these discussons have come up also in connection with the murder in Miller's Court. We are talking about relatively small differences here in method, and there are many factors that could have ruled the killer's actions or what happened at the crime scene in question. He killed different individuals, not machines acting in the exactly same manner. So small differences in method doesen't necessarily has to tell us anything.
As I stated earlier, the similarities between Eddows and Stride lie more in the fact that the murders occured with only an hours time difference (and both just recently being killed before they were discovered) -- that's what makes it more conclusive to contribute Stride's murder to the Ripper, than the specific process of the killing. (But with this said, I'm not saying that you are wrong or that what you say isn't valid.) And do we really have serious accounts or evidence saying that the other women really were strangled at all?
Another murder could very well have occured the same night (remember, this is East End) without the Ripper being involved; this was a violent environment. Therefore it is necessary to state exactly when and where this third murder took place -- and if there at all were any similarities regarding the method. If facts points in these directions, one obviously must consider that Stride could be a victim of the same killer that made this third murder or by someone else but the Ripper. We can't, as being said earlier, rule anything out.
I've never considered McKenzie or Cole as Ripper victims. McKenzie could very well have been the victim of another murderer or a copy-cat, inspired by JTR. This could also be correct in Cole's case, unless the man she knew and who were a thinkable suspect didn't have anything to do with it.
I'll see if I can find some information about the murder you refer to (which indeed would be an interesting circumstance) and get back to you on this point. Thanks for the tip.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
Hi Glenn.
The point I was trying to make in mentioning the 3rd murder was only one of coincidence, please do not assume 'by some remote chance' JtR could have been involved. I do not recall the details but I think the situation was more of a matrimonial dispute, the man involved I think, was arrested.
Do not assume I was hinting this could have been another Ripper murder, certainly not.
I was focusing in on your point of view, which you repeat above, in that "another murder the same night must be related" (provided it was not too far removed).
My point was to accept coincidences 'do happen' and therefore we must look beyond that fact and address the circumstances of the crime itself. Compare the details, eg; the attack of Stride was in front of witnesses, a noisey exchange, drawing attention to himself (the attacker) and then she is thrown to the ground and slashed about the throat.
With Eddowes, no scene, no noise (witnesses very close), no-one saw or heard anything, the method used was similar to that of Nichols & Chapman. Eddowes (strangled?) body laid out, then jugglar cut and throat sliced, similar details as before with Chapman (& Nichols?).
From witness statements concerning the Stride murder it appears more of a violent street brawl, mugging, or something of that nature.
coincidently it occured the same night, but beyond that what else is similar?
Signature & M.O. do count for something and we see them with Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes (some with Kelly), yet where is it with Stride?
I perceive a marked difference thrown together by coincidence, nothing more.
Best Regards, Jon
P.S.
Please look at this from a different perspective. If it was not for the 'Dear Boss letters' then these may not have been connected.
Assume for a minute they were believed by the police to be unrelated from the start.
What evidence or circumstances about the crimes would/could you bring together to try indicate they were actually by the same hand?
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 2:27 pm: | |
Hi, Glenn:
If you're intested in details about this third murder (actually the first of the three), Evans and Skinner devote a couple of pages to it (actually the first of the three) in The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Companion, pp. 134-5. They quote The Times, 1 October 1888:
MURDER IN WESTMINSTER
A murder was committed in Westminster on Saturday. Shortly before midnight John Brown, a gardener, employed in St. James's park, asked the police at Rochester-row Police-station to permit him to see the inspector on duty. He was brought before Inspector Fairlie, to whom he stated that he had killed his wife, and that her body would be found at their place in Regency-gardens, Regency-street, near the Horseferry-road. He handed the inspector a large, spring-backed clasp knife, which had blood on it, as also had his clothes. The man was detained, and the police went to the house, where the woman was found lying dead on the floor with her throat cut. Several wounds had been inflicted in the shape of stabs and cuts. The body was seen by a medical man, who pronounced life to be extinct. When charged with the murder Brown declared that he had committed it in consequence of the woman's unfaithfulness. He had been brooding over her misconduct since his return from a convalescent home, to which he had been sent after treatment for an acute illness in Westminster Hospital. The woman is stated to be nearly the age of her husband who is 45. When at the police station Brown was quite calm and did not appear to have been drinking to excess. But it is said that he has of late been peculiar in his manner. He will be brought up at the Westminster Police-court this morning.
Evans and Skinner go on to briefly describe the hearing, noting that in the weeks and days before the murder, Brown had displayed disturbing behavior. He was paranoid that men were inside his house, apparently to have relations with his wife. Brown hunted for these imaginary intruders in corners using a lit match and on one occassion went through an entire box of matches looking for them. He also made a point of repeatedly sharpening his knife in front of his wife during meal times. Brown's wife feared for her life and tried to get the police to intervene but failed.
As Jon has pointed out, this killing is unrelated to the Ripper crimes. In my mind, it does show that at the very least there was a second throat-cutting, knife-wielder at work that night.
Best,
Dave
|
Glenn L Andersson
Police Constable
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 7
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 4:29 pm: | |
Thank you very much, David.
Evans' and Skinner's book are among those it haven't been able read yet, but I 'll look further into it.
Based on the quote you presented, I seems more like a domestic violent occurence, though -- an incident directly connected to their marriage, rather than a killer running around in the streets (although it's a bit of a coíncident that it happens the very same night). Reading it, it doesen't seem likely that the man indicated here should have murdered Stride -- even if he used a knife and cut her throat. But I'll have to read more about it before I deliver a stronger opinion.
I have never been to London and doesen't have a London map around at the moment, so I don't know where Regency Street and Westminster (isn't that closer to West End, or am I totally wrong here?) is sited compared to Berner Street and Mitre Square, but I'll check it when I get the chance. Interesting, nevertheless.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 113
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 5:14 pm: | |
Hi, Glenn
You're welcome Like Jon, I'm not suggesting that John Brown had anything to do with the murder of Liz Stride. He was already in custody, for one thing. I think the relevance is for those who think that it unlikely that there could have been two murderers working the same area, the same night. As you and Jon have said, it's coincidental that the Brown murder happened the night of the Double Event (about a couple of hours before the Stride murder). So if coincidence strikes once, why not twice?
Westminster is west of Whitechapel, and the area of the Brown murder about a five minute drive today from the stomping grounds of Jack the Ripper, if I understand my map correctly.
Take care, Glenn! I hope all is well in the land of Charles XII. I'll leave you and Jon to it, since I only meant to post the details of the Brown murder.
Best,
Dave
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 9:36 pm: | |
I have studied the witness accounts with a view to determining if there are any commonalities. Most of them give very differing descriptions of Jack but the two (Israel Schwartz for Stride and Joseph Lawende for Eddowes) most likely witnesses for the Stride and Eddowes killings seem to have seen the same person. There are minor variations in their accounts such as would be created by human error, but by and large their descriptions match. The other eyewitness descriptions all vary widely. For this reason I am inclined to think Jack was responsible for Stride. |
Glenn L Andersson
Police Constable
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 8
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 11:07 pm: | |
Thank you, Diana.
A fine observation. I'll throw myself over the witness accounts and check it out as well.
All the best.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 7:19 pm: | |
Hi everybody,
I agree with Jon Smyth in that I don't believe Elizabeth Stride fell victim to Jack the Ripper. As Jon already pointed out, signature & m.o. do count for something and in this case they were clearly different from especially Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
First of all, if we assume that the broad shouldered man Schwartz saw at about 1:45 a.m. was the killer, we see a man who is physically agressive to Stride and probably also verbally agressive towards Schwartz.
Secondly, the crime scene is right next to a crowded club house, full of possible witnesses who are wide-awake.
Thirdly, the throat wound is not as deep and severe as the ones inflicted on the other canonical victims.
And fourthly, there are no abdominal mutilations.
I think it's safe to say that it was JtR's objective to kill and mutilate his victims, in this way satisfying whatever dark needs he had. If the man with the broad shoulders was JtT we would expect him to go for this goal and not to waste any time over it, being outside and in this neighbouhood.
Being in the agressive mood he seemed to be in and given the circumstances (crowded nextdoor building and the possibility of Schwartz going to the police) he would likely not have 'waited' until a few minutes to 1:00 a.m. to finally kill her and then to be forced to make his escape, without mutilating his victim.
I hope to hear from anybody soon.
All the best,
Frank
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
