|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 301
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 8:19 am: |       |
Glenn,
Thats where we differ. I do not think he took too many risks. Some but not too many.
I cant help but feel he would have been caught had he not had a little cunning. The classic example is Berner st...but then again we have to establish if this is in the series.
I appriciate your input Glenn, though our differences are clear it doesnt mean I turn them down flat. Im willing to learn.
Monty
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 414
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 10:38 am: | |
Hi Monty,
"I appriciate your input Glenn, though our differences are clear it doesnt mean I turn them down flat. Im willing to learn."
Likewise, Monty. Likewise.
I'm partly building my assumptions on how criminal profiling would interpret his actions and his character. And although I am very well aware of that that isn't an exact science, I actually got this hunch about Jack (based on my experiences of studying other cases), long before I even read a book in criminal profiling or Douglas' profile on the Ripper. I see ol' Jacky as a disturbed and rather confused character, acting on impulses rather than planning.
Believe me, Monty, cunning or not, it is not that surprising that the police didn't catch him. They did their best in many ways, but they were actually toally defenseless against a serial killer of any kind. My personal belief is that he was more lucky than cunning and that he knew the area well enough to get away. I believe his ability to slip away has been exaggerated in the light of that.
The belief in Jack the Ripper as a cunning psycopath is in my view a misconception based on old myths and the fact that psycopaths are characters that easily attracts and puts a spell on everyone. I don't see any clear signs of such a character, though, looking at the crime scenes.
But I do see your point as well, although we differ in the interpretation of the circumstances. I appreciate your inputs also, Monty; nice talking to you.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 303
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 11:19 am: | |
Glenn,
When I say caught I wasnt just talking about the police.
If he knew the area well enough to slip away then surely thats using his skills of evasion, ie cunning.
Im interested in your profile, would you care to share ?
Curious Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 416
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 2:06 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
"When I say caught I wasnt just talking about the police."
Hmmm... Aaah.. You mean the public or other residents of East End? Well, yes, that is correct; but I think it is there he was lucky. I don't think it is that much cunning as self-preservation and instinct. Most people do the mistake to believe that a criminal with a mental ilness is "sick" all the time, and that he is incapable of taking care of himself in other situations. I don't think that's the case and it seldom is. It is my belief that he occasionally very well could have managed to hold an occupation etc.
Curiousity killed the cat...
Do you mean the profile on Jack the Ripper (not my own, I hope...)? Well, it's not that different from Douglas' & Hazelwood's. To make it even easier, we've had a lot of murder crimes in Sweden involving knife attacks, some of serial character (nice country. eh...?) with similar characteristics. I also have several friends working in mental asylums and prisons, so I have gained some insight, although I am by no means an expert. In the Ripper's case we have to consider the life conditions and historical, environmental context of Victorian London, though.
In short:
1) Dominant mother and abscent father figure
2) Early signs of disturbance and uncontrolled rage. First "crimes" would have been arson and abusing/torturing animals and occasioanl violent threats or attacks against others (the last one doesn't necessary, though - it could have appeared much later)
3) Intelligence below or somewhere around average
4) Anti-social and loner; probably holding an occupation that doesen't have to involve to much contact with other people but could also be a homeless or unemployed during the time of the murder; could have been living at a lodging house as his victims. Could at occasion very well be "sane" enough to interact with the victims to some degree during the sexual transaction
5) General problems with contacts with women. Unmarried and probably never involved in a longer, more serious relationship. Hatred against women. Probably a regular customer of prostitutes
6) Could suffer from impotense and could even have a defect or veneral desease, something that would trigger his hatred against women even further (not necessary, though)
7) Paranoid, seeing enemies and threats all around him during spell of illness. Women representing threats he have to destroy. He hates them and is at the same time afraid of them. Could be the reason for that the murders were done so quickly (a psycopath generally likes to get to know and associate with the victims to gain control, torture them during a longer time for pleasure and also rape them. The Ripper doesen't do neither -- he wants to get over with it quickly. That is why he cut their throats first and in a fast "blitz"-like manner; he doesn't want them to be able to resist or scream)
8) Low self-esteem
9) Lower middle class or working class
10) Could have been employed at a hospital, mortuary, slaughterhouse etc. (at least earlier in life)
11) Possible problems with hygiene during later stages of illness
12) Local man. Murders probably committed within a "comfort zone" that he feels safe in. First murder probably closest to his residence.
13) As an anti-social he doesent want to get too much attention (A psycopath would have been bragging about his deeds in the press and to the police, and since it is assumed that the Ripper letters are hoaxes, this could support that point)
14) Could have relatives and friends that protects him (as long as he's able to function at home or wherever he lives)
15) He selects a suitable victim -- first maybe as an ordinary customer. When the coast is clear and the opportunity comes, he acts
16) The sexual satisfaction (if there is one)doesn't lay in the killing itself, but in the signature, that is: the mutilation and the position of the victims' bodies
17) Age: 25--35
18) That fact that the murders are done in high-risk situations, close to populated areas or streets, with a dangerous risk of being spotted or disturned, indicates a disorganized killer and actions that aren't that carefully planned. Or as Roy Hazelwood once expressed it: "I don't think we're dealing with a rocket scientist here..."
Probable diagnosis: paranoid schizofrenic -- or a mixture: a paranoid scizofrenic with some psychopathic, organized tendensies (more common than most people think).
I have no doubt whatsoever that I'll be shredded to pieces by those who thinks this is psychological mumbo-jumbo, but remember -- these are generalizations describing a character TYPE, not necessarily a description of a certain individual. Profiling or criminal psychology is not a science, it's subjective interpretations and estimations, nothing else, and not something that claims to be the ultimate truth! But this is what I see, on basis of what the formula of profiling says and what the crimes themselves indicate.
Well, Monty, there you have it. These are just ground pointers and sometimes methods like these contradicts itself or are incorrect in its interpretation, so some of the points above could be unvalid and some could even be missing. But that is the main details. Enjoy!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 305
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 3:59 am: | |
Glenn,
Very interesting....thanks,
I have a profile from a gent who used to post on the old boards (Philip C Dowe).
He came up with the possibility Jack had a deformity of kinds. I think he stated for example a hair lip. And it was this affliction, or rather the mocking of it, that was the trigger.
I suggested something a bit more embarrasing than that.
You views ?
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 418
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 5:59 am: | |
Hi Monty,
A hair lip? Do you mean a split upper lip (forgive me; I'm Swedish so sometimes I come across English expressions here that confuses me).
Interesting, but that kind of deformity would have med him easier to identify, I imagine. I think the Ripper was seen by at least some witness, and such a face mark would have been quite descriptive...
I believe you suggested a deformity on.. hmmm... Yes, I think that is more likely, actually; if a deformity should trigger him into such actions and frustration I think it would have some sexual connection, since I believe the signature of the murders (the mutilations etc.) are sexually based. But I also think, in addition to the other mental issues, that impotense (which is quite common among rapists and serial killers) would be quite enough in that respect, but I can't be sure. Maybe he had neither of the problems.
Why a hair lip? Doesen't make sense... (although I've seen stranger things than that in similar contexts). Interesting fellow, that Mr. Dowe...
Thanks for your answer, Monty
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 733
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 6:18 am: | |
G'day,
What about a speech impediment? An inability to have long conversations with any woman? That would have made him seem like a harmless 'softy'.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 419
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 9:46 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
I know what you're getting at... 
Could be, Leanne, could be. Nothing is impossible. About that detail we can only speculate. He may not even have had a defect at all.
I don't know what you and Richard have managed to dig up from Barnett's closet (and I am also aware of that you know more about this man than I do), but the problem with him -- from the profiling point of view -- is that he fits the profile in many ways (his background etc.), but not in other ways -- and hardly as far as his ability of social contacts and or his personality in general is concerned.
Barnett had obviously the capacity to live with women and involve himself in a relationship with Kelly; I don't believe for a minute that that would be possible for a man with the character of the Ripper. Barnett doesen't seem to have the mental status I believe the Ripper would have. Furthermore I can't see how Barnett would have been capable of coming back to society after the murder of Mary Kelly (if he was the perpetrator) -- it seems rather unlikely from a psychological point of view.
As far as I know I have never seen any documentation of Joseph Barnett being violent to this degree or anti-social, psychotic or schizofrenic in general. I believe a Ripper suspect must respond to most of these behaviour criterias to be regarded as a probable one -- from where I sit.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 306
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 10:07 am: | |
Glenn,
A hair lip was only an example. I think it was the first thing that came into Philips head at that time.
The important point is that he felt there was something that could have made Jack become riddiculed in some way.
I went along the impotency line...that or the chap didnt measure up.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 420
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 10:25 am: | |
OK, Monty,
I though you asked for my opinion on the hair lip exclusively. Sorry.
I think it could be possible that he could have had some sort of defect of some kind or a sexual problem -- and if he had the former, then I assume there is a great possibility that he could have been mocked for it and that this could have triggered an anger within him either further, although I don't think it is a factor that is that necessary for the context of the murders. I don't think this point is that crucial and in my list I also put some question marks around that the importance of that point. And if such a deformity existed, I wouldn't go far enough to make a specific suggestion -- that would be intellectual suicide (read: Patricia Cornwell).
However, impotency has shown to be not that uncommon in cases like these. But it doesen't have to be included among the characteristics at all nevertheless. I wouldn't dare to state one or the other with certainty.
"I went along the impotency line...that or the chap didnt measure up."
What do you mean?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 421
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 1:05 pm: | |
Hi Donald,
Welcome to board. As a unregistred guest it can take a day or two for a post to be registred, so that's why you've got stuck in the Archive above -- I nearly missed you.
I see your points and they are absolutely worth a discussion (although these points have been debated earlier a few times), but in my personal view they have some flaws, if you don't mind.
"An earlier post stated 'the only elements that really seperates the Kelly murder from the others are the nature of the crime scene -- indoors.' This isn't true.
[...] Kelly, who was much younger, blond and by most accounts fairly attractive. If the other victims were more varied, this wouldn't mean much, but the fact that he seems to have chosen victims of a particular type does establish a pattern."
That could be true. I can't recall if I'm the one who wrote that original post, but quite a large amount of water has run under just as many bridges since then and when I wrote my first post here I was not as well-read on the case as I am now.
However, I can't say that I totally agree with you. There have been cases where a killer have changed his type of victims and also his modus operandi. The reasons for this to happen is mostly hard to explain or understand, but it happens nevertheless. I think the main reason for Kelly being a victim is the fact that she had access to an indoor residence. I don't think the fact that she was young or pretty is of that much significance as I see it.
But now to the more crucial point:
"To me, it could be reasonably argued that Kelly was killed by someone who was familiar with the JTR murders , but who did not know the true extent of the injuries. [...] This person mutilated Kelly in an attempt to make it LOOK like a Ripper killing, but in his attempt to disguise his part went too far in his mutilations..."
Well, Donald. The Miller's Court murder is hardly an easy task to perform -- mentally or physically -- and it is certainly not done by a first-timer or someone without earlier experience of similar murders. An "amateur" or an unexperienced copy-cat killer would in my view never be able to go this far -- such a person would rather keep to the throat-cutting, not being compelled to do such extensive mutilation. And I find it equally hard to believe that there were two individuals with such a sick character, performing such ghastly mutilation on female prostitutes in the same area and so close in time. I could understand it if it was "ordinary" murders, but not crimes of this extreme nature. Sorry, Donald. I don't buy it.
I have no doubt whatsoever (in my personal opinion) that poor Mary Jane Kelly was a Ripper victim -- and that she (probably) was the last one.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
You stated that a copycat murder would have never have gone this far, I say the opposite,
Once you have killed your victim , strangulation, stabbing, or whatever means , Then if caught you would be hung, that fear would drive you on to commit all type of atrocities, on a already lifeless victim, if you believed it could save your neck. Especially, if you believed, that you may be suspected of killing that person
How many domestic squabbles in the past have led to tragic circumstances, and ended up with the body being dismembered, or burnt or chucked in acid baths, or parts been stacked in trunks.
so as I have said, fear of being suspected can cause a horrendous reaction.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 424
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 1:43 pm: | |
Nope. Sorry, Richard. I don't agree with you. Yes, it is true that domestic squabbles can lead to body dismembering etc., but these crimes are not usually done by people who found this "ability" out of the blue. And you can't really compare that to the slaughter of Mary Anne Kelly, which must have taken quite some time to perform.
The fear of being suspected of the murder can hardly lead to a flesh-and-blood orgy like that of Mary Kelly, Richard. Parting the body for rational reasons, in order to make it easier to get rid of -- yes! But I'm having great difficulties with drawing such conclusions regarding the extreme mutilation in Miller's Court, performed on grounds of perversion.
This kind of deed takes more than the average killer to pull through -- even if you do it just to make the body impossible to identify, you'd still need to be quite a character out of the ordinary and you'd certainly need to be a complete lunatic -- regardless the motive. And you'd certainly would have done mutilations before in connection with previous crimes.
I'm not saying it's totally impossible or that one can't find such examples from previous occurences in crime history (one can find examples of practically everything). But I'm having a hard time with a scenario where a killer -- copy-cat or not -- having a slaughter feast without further experience in mutilating his victims, and in such a exaggerated manner as being displayed in Miller's Court. A copy-cat killer would most likely be "satisfied" with cutting the throat of the victim (like in Frances Coles' and McKenzie's case) and/or doing some occasional stab wounds. If the Miller's Court murder was done by someone else than the Ripper or someone without his mutilating experience (especially if he knew the victim on apersonal level), we would have seen a lot more traces of hesitation and less of determination and deliberate savagery displayed in the act.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 7:27 am: | |
G'day Glenn, Richard, Monty,
So do you believe that the Ripper was single? You say that Barnett had the capacity to live with Mary Kelly. If he had to be at Billingsgate Fish Market before the ringing of the start of trade bell at 5:00a.m., he had to be in bed fairly early. Mary was known to often go out drinking with her friends, so when did they have time for a relationship?. Things wouldn't have been much different when he lost that job, and had to be at the fruit markets early to fill his trolley. And it would have been even more frustrating if he stuttered, even if it was just when he was under stress!
I am sure there are those who think there is not strong enough evidence that he suffered from echolalia, (repeating the last words of everything said to him), but some newspapers chose to mention that feature of his testimony, other's decided to leave it out, (one that did was the 'Illustrated Police News' Nov 17). Any if it was simply the heat-of-the-moment, how come no other friend or relative had a remarkable problem with their speech?
If Mary Kelly was murdered by a copy-cat who read about the injuries of the victims in the newspaper, why didn't he wait until Mary was in a dark, isolated spot outside? The cops had increased in numbers following the 'Double Event', but Dorset Street was still feared by them!
If Mary Kelly was killed by someone other than Joseph Barnett, how could he have been sure no one was going to put their hand through the broken window any moment to open the door? Such a person would have performed the minimal mutilations to ensure she was a Ripper victim, then got the 'ell out of there!.....taking the uterus or kidney with him!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 429
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 8:23 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
"So do you believe that the Ripper was single?"
Yes, absolutely. I don't think a killer of this type could interact with a woman in egough degree to live together with one. The point that they were away from one another a great deal of time doesn't matter; they still met over a drink and decided to live together and Barnett obviously was social enough to make or accept this arrangement, and they also manage to to live together for quite some time. The Ripper was a person who feared women and loathed their company. Sorry, Leanne. The personality doesen't fit as far as I'm concerned.
I don't dispute Barnett's echolalia, Leanne, and it's not the point here. I believe that if the Ripper had some sort of physical defect it would be of more sexual character, taken the nature of the crimes in consideration. However, as I said earlier, it is not certain the Ripper must have had any defect whatsoever, it is merely speculation (like many points in profiling are), and I wouldn't dare to suggest one specific disease or defect to attribute to him.
I totally agree with your copy-cat argument, though -- good point. And I believe if a copy-cat killer had been inspired by the Ripper, I'd assume that he would do it in environments (on the streets or in back-yards) similar to the Ripper locations.
"If Mary Kelly was killed by someone other than Joseph Barnett, how could he have been sure no one was going to put their hand through the broken window any moment to open the door?"
How could the Ripper had been sure no one was coming round the corner on Mitre Square?
How could the Ripper had been sure no one was stumbing out through the door to the back yard of Hanbury Street?
Since the Miller's Court murder was committed indoors, I believe he took his chance to perform his fantasies to the fullest -- he wasn't really that aware of the risks connected with the other murder sites either. And who says the Ripper knew about Barnett or that she had lived with someone in the first place? Considering the high risk momentum of the other murders performed outside, I don't think he payed that much attention to that point.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 735
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 8:36 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
That daring aspect of Mary's murder, suggests it was the same person who murdered the other victims doesn't it? Don't you agree that a copy-cat killer probably would have worried about the man's pipe on the mantlepiece?
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 430
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 8:48 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
What are you talking about? Elaborate, please!
You know as well as I do that I think they all were done by the same hand, and that Kelly's murder was NOT performed by a copy-cat. Are you directing your question to the wrong person or are you deliberately trying to confuse me (which isn't that hard, I must admit...)????? What is your point? What "daring aspect"?
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 9:14 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
The Ripper wasn't worried about someone comming around the corner in Mitre Square, wasn't worried about someone waking up in Buck's Row, didn't worry about someone comming out the door at Hanbury Street, didn't worry about someone walking past Dutfield's Yard and didn't worry about someone walking past outside Room 13 / 26 Dorset Street. He had the same confidence during each murder, suggesting it was the same man each time.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 954
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 9:18 am: | |
Hi Leanne
If you're saying that Barnett and Kelly didn't have much time for a relationship, and so Barnett fulfils some of the profiles, then what happens to the Jealous Joe/All For Love scenario?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 737
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 9:19 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
I wasn't debating with you! It was just a comment for other people to read! 
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 738
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 9:25 am: | |
G'day Robert,
I'll print your comment out, think about it and respond tomorrow. It's time for bed for me!
I've also printed out your last comment Glenn and will say something about the single-Ripper thing tommorow too! Good night!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 431
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 10:54 am: | |
OK, Leanne.
But then you shoudn't have adressed it to me or you should have expressed yourself differently, because I was just as confused by your new post as by your previous one! 
For the record: we seem at least to have the same view upon the fact that the same man was responsible for the murders (that's why your comments made my hair even grayer than it already is...).
"I've also printed out your last comment Glenn and will say something about the single-Ripper thing tommorow too!"
Can't decide whether that sounded like a threat or a promise...
All the best.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 432
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 11:00 am: | |
Robert!
Good point.
P.S.
There's a comment for you on the Frances Coles thread from me, Robert!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 1:24 pm: | |
Hi Guys,
The way I see it , there are three possibilitys
a] Barnett was the imfamous 'jack'
b] Barnett killed Kelly only , and in desperation tried to put the blame on the killer.
c] Leanne and me are entirely wrong, and the killer was Mr x....
Obviously I discount [C].
if one analyzes the couples relationship, we can sense ,kelly appreciated Barnetts kindness to her, but couldnt bear the man on account of his excessive behaviour on trying to get her to lead a decent life.
By Barnetts own admission, he used to read the papers to her, mentioning the murders, infact according to Barnetts nephew, he had press cuttings from Tabram- mckenzie, these he obviously saved all of his life, one wonders how he could have known that Tabram was the start of a series?.
He so it appears read the cuttings to kelly, one can imagine, with nothing left out, ' you could be the next, if you dont lead a decent life'
After the double event, I would suggest Barnett upped his concerns to Mary, It is a strong possibility that Kelly knew Eddowes, having stayed literally on her doorstep, and he preached strongly that she may be murdered next , unless she changed her ways,
I Believe that at the beginning of oct Kelly had a bad nightmare, that she was being murdered, her friend Lottie,said she told her that, saying I hear the ripper is in this area,and since that dream, I am scared to venture out alone.
I believe it was Barnetts consistant preaching, that made her fearful of spending nights alone. it is clear that he was proberly working mainly at night, and it is because of this , that she in late october started to ask women to stay with her , simply because she was scared to be alone at night,
I will not go into full detail,about the following, for it will be in our book, but I will say I believe it is entirely possible , that the scream heard at 4am on the morning of the 9th, was Kelly waking suddenly from the reoccuring nightmare , and not her final seconds.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 960
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 3:25 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Going back to the copycat theory, I agree with Glenn. Though nothing is impossible, I feel it's extremely unlikely that a novice would kill Kelly in this manner - the sheer time involved (at least for a novice), the stomach-churning nature of the deed, the stench.....
It's as if someone set out to design a nice parish church and ended up with the Sistine Chapel.
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
