|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 61
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 6:38 am: |       |
Hi Frank. Nice to see you again. I also like our little discussion here.
I actually din't think my remark about that there isn't "a proven connection connection" between the broad-shouldered man and the killer was that redundant, becuse some people here seem to take this connection for granted, as if it were a fact.
On the contrary, I find it most questionable that he was the same man.
As I stated in my message above, about psychologoly in the case, I find it to a bit risky to rely too heavily on witness statements and the times estimated there -- such statements are seldom correct, and highly subjective. That witnesses, without deliberately taking the time during the incident, should remember such exact times like "12:47" seems quite impossible (the exception here are in that case the corroboration of Mrs Mortimer's time by the official statements regarding Goldstein). So that is really shaky ground, indeed. Of all the witnesses, Dr. Blackwell was the only one to carry a watch and Diemschutz happened to look at the clock on the baker's shop. The other ones can't be trusted regarding the time -- the only ones who most certainly in general can be are the PC:s.
And then there is the possibility that witnesses doesn't always tell the thruth. That we have seen as far as grape-selling Packer is concerned, who probably invented most of his story. We can't even trust the medical testimony on the exact time of death to be absolutely accurate or within the given marginals of error, due to the undeveloped methods of the time. So there are a lot of problems here to take in consideration.
But OK, let's assume the times displayed could be a basis to work upon. It's true that Mrs Mortimer didn't see or hear anything. Now, I think Mrs. Mortimer's testimony is a problem whether the murderer was Jack the Ripper or not -- the fact is that Stride was killed in the yard that night, around that actual time -- or at least just before 01:00 and her appearence makes it just as hard for a murder to appear regardless which alternative you choose. But, let's assume that Mrs. Mortimer was wrong about the time she estimated she went back inside (12:57), let's say she went inside one or two minutes earlier, that would give the murderer and Stride enough time to sneak into the yard and for the killer to surprise her in a "blitz" attack and cut her throat, just seconds before the clock strikes 01:00 and Diemschutz appear. But, of course, if one disregards the interruption factor, I can agree with the fact that your first time scenario (that the murder occured between Schwartz left and Mrs Mortimer went outside) is quite plausible. And I see where you're getting at: if this scenario is correct and the interruption factor therefore seems unreasonable, then the case for the murderer being the Ripper becomes thinner. It's quite true. But as I don't see any reason for Scwartz' broad-shouldered man to be the killer (which in that case most likely should be the result), there would hardly be any time for Stride and her companion to appear in between and for her to be killed. And regarding the medical factors: when the body was found, the blood was still running from the throat and her body was warm. By the way, the medical testimony stated the time of death as "after 12:36 to after 12:56 am, not between 12:36 and 12:56 -- there is a slight difference.
And if Mrs. Mortimer stood in the door-way for almost fifteen minutes, why didn-t she at one time or another discover the body? Of course it was very dark, but the body must have been right beside and beneath her. It doesen't feel right.
However, your scenario could very well be right, it certainly is logical and I can't argue against it with total certainty.
I don't see a problem with Stride being attacked for a second time -- these were problematic neighbourhoods with a lot of drunkards hanging about, and prostitutes mostly choses a spot and stays with it. She could have been assaulted anywhere, on any street. As I've said earlier; this was a common feature in their occupation and I simply beieve that what Schwartz saw was nothing but an ordinary street fight or disturbance, which I believe happened to the women more than once in a day. Stride was, in my view, first assaulted by a man in an ordinary street incident, a few minutes later she was unfortunate enough to be victim of a murder or fall in hands of the Ripper.
As the yard is concerned, yes the witnesses said that the yard wasn't used for soliciting but one of them, West, changed his mind later and stated that there had been several incidents with strange couples, and other residents on Berner Street also claimed that the yard was a highly troublesome and unsafe area.
Enjoy your week-off from work, Frank.
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 211
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 12:30 pm: | |
Glenn,
Your post of Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 2:27 pm:
I have read it and took it in board.
Many thanks,
Monty
PS....just re read your post....I dont think its rubbish. I just prefer could be to definates....until something more concrete comes up. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 65
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 12:50 pm: | |
Hi Monty.
You're welcome. Thank you.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 212
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 12:50 pm: | |
Jon, Robert, Glenn, whoever,
Jon...I did address the post to you...I spelt you name wrong.....sorry,
Yeah, I take in what your saying. And I agree. But we are not just talking about how long it takes to walk a beat here. We have to take on board other factors as well. We know that PC Andrews was checking doors along Castle Alley when he came across MacKenzie. We dont know what actions Long was doing that night.
My question wasnt did Long walk slower but rather how confident Long would have been executing his patrol and would this have any factor ? I guess I was refering to the missing of the apron at 2.20am...if, indeed, Long did miss the apron.
That said, you are obviously correct in stating that patrols must have been completed within a set time. I was led to believe that PC's did carry watches (if you want to know the time ask...), Fobs, but I may be wrong...can someone clarify that for me ?
I dont know where this leaves us...I dont care...Im enjoying it.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 66
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 1:04 pm: | |
Hi Monty.
I assumed too that the PC:s were carrying watches in order to keep track of the time of the beat. In source material the PC:s in general seem to be considered as quite reliable when it comes to estimating time.
But maybe a London crime historian can get this straight for us...? 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 567
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 1:36 pm: | |
Hi all
I'm not a London crime historian, alas! There is a reference to a watch in the Sourcebook (paperback P.244) regarding Watkins : " He next came into Mitre-square about 1.44.He fixed the time by reference to his watch after he had called the watchman." But I don't know whether this was police issue available to all PCs, or police issue available only to City PCs, or even Watkins's own watch.
Robert |
Robert W. House
Police Constable
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 6:14 pm: | |
But, of course, if one disregards the interruption factor, I can agree with the fact that your first time scenario (that the murder occured between Schwartz left and Mrs Mortimer went outside) is quite plausible. And I see where you're getting at: if this scenario is correct and the interruption factor therefore seems unreasonable, then the case for the murderer being the Ripper becomes thinner.
Glenn,
I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. Whenever anyone on this thread talks about the interruption factor, it is implied that the interuption was by Diemshutz, at 1:00. What this fails to recognize is the fact that if the broad shouldered man was the killer, and killed Stride at about 12:46, then the killer WAS in fact interupted... by Schwartz. If this man was the Ripper, he could have been scared enough to leave the scene quickly, thus no mutilations etc. In other words, there is not a conflict with the ripper's MO. I do not see how this scenario makes the case for the broad shouldered man being the ripper any thinner as you say. If the Ripper had been seen in the act of killing any of the other victims, I would assume that he would have run away... it just happens that he was never seen while in the process of killing/attacking any of his victims, except (perhaps) in the Stride murder. This scenario seems to me to be the simplest and most logical assessment of the evidence.
Allow me to introduce myself by the way, I am from Boston, MA in the US. I have been enjoying the discussion you guys are having, because the Stride murder is of particular interest to me. I hope you don't mind my butting in like this.
Rob House |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 68
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 7:39 pm: | |
Hi, Robert,
Welcome to the board; always refreshing with new people to  with. Nice to meet you indeed. I (or we) don't mind at all -- the more the merrier.
Well, allow me to retort. It's true that it's maily Diemschutz that's been mentioned in connection with the interruption factor. The main reason for this is probably that he was the one who found the body.
I agree that I may have expressed myself a bit flimsy in the message you refer to -- these are complicated details that are discussed here and I find myself more or less confused most of the time.
But I find it quite hard to see why the man Schwartz saw should be the one who was the "interrupted" murderer.
The witness only saw this man throw her to the ground as she was calling out "No" three times. Do you imply that he after being discovered should have taken her into the yard and killed her -- without her protesting and screaming? Physical evidence show that she was murdered in the yard and that she most certainly went in there by her own free will.
It is indeed an interesting scenario you display here, but I find it less probable that the man in question should be the murderer and even less probable that he was Jack the Ripper. You are absolutely right that the Ripper most certainly would have run away if he was caught on sight, but when the broad-shouldered man was seen by Schwartz, there wasn't a murder in progress -- yet. If he was the one who killed her, then he would have fled also, but Stride wasn't killed during this incident, but probably later.
What I meant in my earlier message was that Frank's scenario possibly implied that the murder could have happened between the incident with the broad-shouldered man and Diemschutz' appearence (if I read it correctly). If that's the case, we can't be sure if the murderer was interrupted or not. If it wasn't Jack the Ripper, then it could just as well be an "ordinary" killer, who only wanted to slash her throat and not mutilate her -- the basis for the whole interruption assumption lies just in the fact that there was no mutilation on the body. And I can't imagine that the broad-shouldered man should be the one who -- after she had screamed and he himself had been seen -- took her into the yard and murdered her.
Welcome in the gang, Rob.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 8:55 pm: | |
Hi Monty & Robert.
Yes, watkins appears to have had a watch, but doesn't PC Harvey make reference to the post office clock with respect to timing his beat?
Don't you think it's safe to assume some PC's had a watch and others didn't?
Quite likely Watkins was the exception rather than the rule, I say this because throughout all the Whitechapel murders many PC's were involved in giving evidence with respect to 'time' and yet how many actually refer to their watch?
Only Watkins comes to mind right now, but I haven't looked at every murder case beyond Kelly.
Regards, Jon |
Robert W. House
Police Constable
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 12:00 am: | |
The witness only saw this man throw her to the ground as she was calling out "No" three times. Do you imply that he after being discovered should have taken her into the yard and killed her -- without her protesting and screaming? Physical evidence show that she was murdered in the yard and that she most certainly went in there by her own free will.
Glenn,
The position of Stride's body in the Alley, as far as I can tell, was just inside the gates. So in other words, even if her throat was slit on the sidewalk, as she was on her knees for example, the killer would only have had to lay her back and drag her a few yards to where the body was found.
When asked if her feet touched the gate, PC Lamb replied, "No, they went just behind it, and I was able to close the gates without disturbing the body." The Surgeon Frederick Blackwell said her feet were 3 yards from the gateway. So, it seems her body was found only a few yards from where the struggle that Schwartz witnessed occurred.
As to the rest of the comment, what evidence is there to show that she went into the yard of her own free will? Granted, the fact that she was discovered still clutching the packet of cachous is a mystery, but I do not think it tells us much.
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 70
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 6:37 am: | |
Hi Robert,
"So in other words, even if her throat was slit on the sidewalk, as she was on her knees for example, the killer would only have had to lay her back and drag her a few yards to where the body was found."
If that is the case then he took considerable risks doing so, after he already had been spotted and there was disturbance in the street! I find it (not impossible, mind you) but very unlikely.
And if he cut her throat on the street pavement while her body was upright, then there probably would have been blood-stains on the street and on the walls (as well as on himself) -- that's the result if you cut the throat on someone standing up. Since there were no signs of blood splatter, Stride was most certainly lying down (or was held in a horisontal position) while her throat was cut. Furthermore, there were no blood in the street to indicate that it had happened there in the first place, even if she were laid down and killed before she was dragged into the yard.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Police Constable
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 7:44 am: | |
Glenn,
You are certainly correct in what you say about where she was actually killed. I am new to the case, so I sometimes miss some of these points. I guess my only point is that she was found so close to where this struggle took place. Its seems possible that he could have grabbed her around the throat and dragged her into the alley, or something like that. Dr. Phillips suggested that she had been forced down onto the ground anyways. Do you suggest that she laid down on the ground willingly? If not then she was forced, and that means there was a struggle of some kind, like the struggle that was witnessed by Schwartz.
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 71
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 8:35 am: | |
Hi Rob,
I'm quite new to the case also and I've totally lost track of how many times I myself has missed details in the case, it certainly is a complex one to investigate.
Yes, I can see that it could look as an interesting correlation that she was found murdered so close to where she was seen in the quarrel.
However, my point was that I found it, mind you this is only based on my common sense and fairly specualtive, a bit unreasonable that he should continue the act after already had been discovered and found quarreling with the woman. It really doesen't add up with reason, I think (even though it's not impossible in theory).
Nice to see you being so alert and willing to discuss, Rob.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Julian Rosenthal
Police Constable
Username: Jules
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 9:17 am: | |
G'day guys,
I've only just got back to this message board, but I'm pretty sure there were only FOUR victims that Jack claim his notiority for.
Lizzy Stride was not one of jacks victims.
Just my opion.
Jules
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 72
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:13 am: | |
Hello, Julian.
Now, you can't just say "Lizzy Stride was not one of jacks victims" without explaining what you base this opinion on -- it's just a silly way of debating that leads nowhere. Since you're so sure I'd prefer it if you'd choose to elaborate.
I've read your piece Double Trouble: Elizabeth Stride & Catharine Eddowes and some of your scenarios and analysises I found quite realistic, plausible and quite agreeable, like the Eddowes murder incident (Eddowes could very well have pre-arranged this meeting as far as I am concerned), the accounts for Diemschutz interrupting the killer and the murderer's escape. However, it's unfortunately hard to find any real conclusion in the paper saying if your for or against Stride being a Ripper victim -- even though it could be read between the lines.
So why are you so sure in your message? There is nothing to be "pretty sure" about" in the Ripper case, Julian; that one has a certain personal opinion is another matter, but I wouldn't use the word "sure" in this context.
If your basis for dismissing Stride still only lies in the murder site being "teaming with people" (as seems to be the case in your paper), I hope you have read the debates some of us have had regarding the matter on this thread only a couple of days ago.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi All,
Jon, yes, PC Harvey referred to the post office clock when asked by the Coroner when he last passed through Aldgate. I've looked through the testimony of other PCs during the Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes inquests. They frequently referred to the time of certain events, but Watkins is the only one I could find that specifically mentioned his watch. So, FWIW, I think you're correct, Watkins was the exception.
Robert House - welcome to the boards! Boston, eh? I live about an hour north of you, in New Hampshire. There are two other very prominent Ripperologists living in our immediate area. Perhaps we could arrange a little Ripper conference of our own?
Cheers,
Jim |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 215
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:49 am: | |
Glenn,
Its that old devil called 'Reason' again.
Your right, Stride cannot be dismissed. I just wish we would have the same debates about Millwood, Wilson and Ward.
Not enough info I guess.....but I wouldnt bet against at least one of them being on his list.
Jon,
Im beginning to turn to your views re the watches.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 73
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 1:15 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
Actually, I think Annie Millwood and Ada Wilson are quite interesting, especially in connection with Martha Tabram, whose injuries were similar to the other two women's (although Wilson "only" got stabbed twice in the throat) and also occured early in 1988 -- some have claimed that all these three victims could be the first murderous attempts by the Ripper before going further into experimenting with mutilation. In each case it probably were a stranger as well who was the perpetrator.
The problem with Ada Wilson's case is that robbery seemed to be the motive here.
But unfortunately, as you say, the information regarding those cases are probably even more sparse than in the cases of the other victims.
But Monty -- who the heck is Ward??????? I never heard of her and can't find her...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 6:30 pm: | |
Hello all,
Just for the record, my list is somewhat expansive. I generally accept the canonical 5, plus Tabram, and possibly others (Coles mostly). Also, I think it is likely that he attacked women before Tabram. This type of early experimentation is consistent with other Serial Killers (Bundy, DeSalvo).
Glenn... I appreciate your thoughtful comments on the case. To me, for some reason, it does not seem improbable that the killer would "stop" just because he was seen. I mean, it is possible that by his actions and demeanor, he somehow revealed to Stride that he was indeed deranged. So perhaps in killing her, he was protecting his identity in a sense. I think ultimately, the facts surrounding the Stride murder are rather difficult to decipher.
In my mind I picture it like this... JTR invests a certain amount of time in talking with Stride, gets himself all worked up, then everything falls apart. He is seen. He bungled the killing essentially. Then kills her quickly, and leaves, frustrated and angry at himself for almost being caught. But still worked up he continues to hunt women.
Jim- Hi. I am up for a conference, sure. Even though I am a newbie. It is nice to talk with people who appreciate how confounding and interesting this case really is.
I am up to discuss Millwood, Wilson, Coles or anyone else in the running. And I still have power here in Boston!
Rob H |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 6:27 am: | |
As an 0fficer engaged in patrol duties,and later in organising patrols,albeit as a Customs officer and not a policeman,perhaps I can add something to the discussion.Except for the location,I believe there would be little difference in how patrols are or were performed.
There are different types of patrols,and depending on information and/or neccessity,this would be imparted to the patrolling officer at the commencement of shift briefing.Bear in mind that each individual officer,if on solo patrol,would have a fair measure of responsibility to act to his own dictates,within certain perameters.(This,depending on supervision and circumstances,meant he could practically do as he bloody well pleased).
So some types of patrol.
The static or close patrol.The officer stationed in a fixed or close position to the target area.
Open patrol.Within sight of the target,but able to move within a given area.
Extended patrol.Over a reasonable distance and of a general nature.No discernable target in mind.
Roving patrol.As extended,but depending on the officers own initiative,to patrol in the direction and at a time of the officer's own choosing. The last two of course would have a defined area.
The mobile patrol in vehicles,did not of course apply in the ripper's time.
From my own experience it would be unwise to accept any officer's declaration that a patrol had been carried out in the official prescribed manner,and in a zealous and detailed way.
Therefor I am suspicious of the Goulstan Street episode,For instance, having a time frame that can be reliable.
H.Mann. |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 9:50 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
It's my turn again. Thanks for wishing me an enjoyable week.
For now I only have a couple of short remarks (or rather, I hope I can keep 'm short).
About the remark regarding the absence of indications for a proven connection between the broad-shouldered man and the killer: it was a redundant remark for me then, because I don't take it for granted. So, were on the same line here.
About witness statements: I am indeed well aware of the fact that they - more often than not - are inaccurate. But as Goldstein corroborated Mortimer's statements, Schwartz's statement seems to have been taken seriously (and why not indeed) and we have nothing furhter to go on, I used them to draw up the timetable, which of course consists only of approximate times. I only meant it, as you stated, to be a basis to work upon.
As for the medical testimony: you may be right, but 'The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook' reads on page 168 that according to Dr. Blackwell Stride had been dead 'From 20 minutes to half an hour' when he arrived and this puts the time of death between 12:46 and 12:56 am. As Dr. Philips stated that she died within an hour of his arrival on the scene, we can only make an estimate that she died no earlier than between 12:36 and 12:44 am. So again, you may be right. I may have misinterpreted or missed something, but this is what I 'know'. Maybe you can let me know where you got the info on the estimated time of death. Of course, I'm interested.
And last but not least, regarding why Mrs. Mortimer at one time or another didn't discover the body: according to the newspaper reports she didn't notice anything suspicious during her 'doorstep vigil' and estimating from the photo (taken from the intersection Fairclough Street-Berner Street) of the entrance to Dutfield's Yard and the Club, I think she must have been standing 12 to 15 m (13 to 16 yards) from the spot. This photo can be found under 'Victorian London' I believe.
You, being an antagonistic kind o' guy, would disappoint me if you wouldn't find anything questionable about some of my notions. 
Till next time,
Frank
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 12:30 pm: | |
"And if Mrs. Mortimer stood in the door-way for almost fifteen minutes, why didn-t she at one time or another discover the body? Of course it was very dark, but the body must have been right beside and beneath her. It doesen't feel right."
Mrs. Mortimer wasn't located anywhere near the body. Her front door was well up Berner Street. In order for her to see the body she'd have to exit her house, turn right, walk down the street, then turn right into the alley, pass through the large green gate, walk up the alley several paces, then look down and turn to her right. That's a whole lot of architecture to negotiate. Certainly she'd have no chance to see the body from where she stood at her front door. Diemschutz's horse didn't even sense the body until it was about to step on it, well up the alley.
Saddam
|
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 10:45 am: | |
"Do you imply that he after being discovered should have taken her into the yard and killed her -- without her protesting and screaming?"
Different people react to the presence of a knife in different ways. Perhaps Liz simply did what she was told, as many people will do with a knife at their throats. Is there any reason to rule out the possibility that Stride (or Nichols, Chapman, or Eddowes for that matter) went where they were told to go at knifepoint? |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 8:30 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Like Glenn, of course I don't mind your 'butting in like this' either. So: welcome!
And for the sake of clearness, I think there are two possible scenario's for Stride's murder: she was killed only a few minutes at the most after Schwartz witnessed the assault on her, or only seconds to 1 am., just before Diemschutz showed up.
Take care,
Frank |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 5:30 pm: | |
Good evening all,
An addition to Robert's reference: constabable Harvey didn't seem to have a watch, at the inquest he only referred to the post office clock. I also found this in the Sourcebook (paperback 236 & 258).
Regards,
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.
|
|
|
|
