|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 567
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:48 am: | 
|
Hi, Andy:
Thank you for being open to different interpretations of the photograph in your book that is said to be of Miller's Court.
I should have said that the Devereaux will was witnessed by an "A. Graham" not as I stated "Anne Graham". I had been made to understand that this witness is not Anne Barrett Graham of Diary fame. Nonetheless, this does not of course preclude some type of Devereaux - Graham connection other than Anne's supposed handing of the Diary to Tony Devereaux to give to Mike "to do something with it." 
All the best
Chris |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 568
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:52 am: |
|
My impression of a Maybrick Diary forger as Pinnochio--
Well, of course, it's actually a sketch of Cyrano de Bergerac, but you get the idea, ha ha. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I don’t disagree with you about the use of the word ‘Jack’ in diary and watch suggesting they are independent hoaxes – I can’t agree or disagree until I understand the logic of such an argument. 
As for the two Manchester attacks, as described in the diary, your opinion doesn’t in any way alter the fact that whoever put the scratches in the watch, be they the diarist or an independent hoaxer, would have had a perfectly valid reason for not including two more sets of initials.
The wonder of it is that these two attacks were mentioned at all, given the obvious suspicions that would be aroused when no evidence turned up that they ever took place.
Hi Andy,
Well, as Chris says, we know that Tony and Gerard knew each other, and I’m sure it’s possible that Billy knew Tony and Gerard, and that Tony and Gerard knew Billy. But I stand by the statement. If there is evidence that they all knew one another, and I have seen it, I can only apologise for having missed it, or forgotten about it. And it would still tell us bugger all about whether any of them was actually involved in forging the diary, or even knew it to be forged.
Actually, there is not one scrap of evidence that doesn’t rely on the word of the suspects, or those associated with them, that Billy, or Tony, or Gerard even knew the diary existed when Mike was planning to take it to Doreen. Take Mike's 'dead friend' story out of the equation, and who is left? Chris’s little impression of a lying diary forger is great fun, but think about it. Where do we get all our possible lying forgers from? One lying source, that’s where. So how far are you prepared to trust a suspect when he gives us information about who else was involved with himself and the diary pre-Doreen?
Hi John (H),
Ah, but that assumes that whoever scratched the watch (just like whoever wrote the diary, it seems) would have been aware that their handiwork could not, or would not, be scientifically dated with any degree of certainty. If they weren’t aware, but didn’t care, none of those involved with either hoax could have been bothered that they could quickly find themselves in prison like the forger of the Hitler Diaries.
And assuming you believe the watch to be an independent hoax, created and introduced before the diary was even published, why could your hoaxer possibly have considered it ‘safer’ than the diary? His own work depended totally on no one being able to trip up the creator(s) of the diary!
In short, the diary falls, the watch falls with it - ‘safer’ doesn’t come into it.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 22, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 663
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:04 pm: |
|
By the way Chris, didn’t I see you once describe the diary as a ‘brilliant’ hoax? I may be wrong though – there are an awful lot of Christophers about. 
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Caz,
"Ah, but that assumes that whoever scratched the watch (just like whoever wrote the diary, it seems) would have been aware that their handiwork could not, or would not, be scientifically dated with any degree of certainty."
That knowledge isn't particularly difficult to come by, but yes, I would assume anyone who was able to work out how to artificially age scratches would be aware of this.
"If they weren’t aware, but didn’t care, none of those involved with either hoax could have been bothered that they could quickly find themselves in prison like the forger of the Hitler Diaries."
Prison isn't likely as the watch was never sold. I would think that it would need to be sold for it to be fraud. But I admit that I don't know that much about British law.
"And assuming you believe the watch to be an independent hoax, created and introduced before the diary was even published, why could your hoaxer possibly have considered it ‘safer’ than the diary? His own work depended totally on no one being able to trip up the creator(s) of the diary!"
At the time of the original newspaper reports, there was no public suspicion that it was a hoax, so there wouldn't necessarily be fear on that front but even so the margin of safety is pretty fair. The diary only had to be older than than the watch was in the possesion of it's forger and they would be A-Ok. In the same sense that it's impossible to date scratches, it's impossible to say who made 'em. :-D
But this is all just speculation of course.
Regards,
John |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Hello Caz,
You have made a poor illiterate old man even more confused now.
I am going to retire to my room because there's f-all on the telly, with a strong scotch and play my guitar.(Very badly I might add).
Andy.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Hi John (H),
You are honestly arguing that the con artist who knew enough about artificially ageing scratches in gold in order to create a hoax would have swallowed whole the early stories about a genuine Jack the Ripper diary being found, without wanting to know more? You do surprise me sometimes!
Anyway, on Thursday 13th May 1993, just a couple of weeks before Albert contacted Robert Smith about his discovery, there was an article in the Liverpool Daily Post in which Nick Warren observed about the diary:
‘The material certainly bears many hallmarks of a forgery; it consists of several unbound sheets, with a rambling discontinuous narrative, stuffed inside an old leather binding. Old paper is easily bought….There is apparently no clear evidence in the diary to show that it was written by James Maybrick.’
Nick Warren and Stewart Evans had already given their opinions that the diary was a hoax towards the end of April, in the Observer (although poor Stewart is referred to as ‘Steve’ Evans – why do people have such trouble with his name?) as well as the Liverpool Post.
So your con artist was either not a very good ‘observer’ of the latest news on the subject, or didn’t care about the fool he might make of himself, or at least the person he conned into coming forward with the watch, when the disbelieving Ripper experts set to work on that as well.
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Caz,
As I said, that was all simply speculation regarding the risks. I have no idea what papers the forger read or didn't read, or what he felt the risks would be.
I can come up with any number of what I feel are viable scenarios, but without knowing WHY it was done and by whom, any speculation as of this sort has no foundation on which to rest.
I do stand by my first point however, and believe that anyone who knew enough to artificially age the scratches knew that they couldn't be scientifically dated with any certainty.
Regards,
John |
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:46 pm: |
|
Hello Everyone
Could anyone tell me how hard it would be to make the scratches on the watch look aged. I did read where the test showed that some of the scratches had pieces of corrosion on them. This seems almost impossible to do unless an expert in machine and metal fabrication was involved. Also, there are other initials on the watch that are very hard to read. Could they be the initials of the other two victims, or maybe these victims weren't reported in the news because they didn't have anyone who could identify them,
Regards,
Anthony |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Anthony,
I've looked into it and I don't think it would be difficult at all. But I don't want to get into a huge discussion of the subject at the moment due to time constraints. (Plus it's a tad off topic on this thread.)
A quick overview however:
Turgoose covered the basics. Read his descriptions in Shirley's book.
Put in the initial scratches with a brass implement, polish.
Scratch with something else to simulate incidental scratches via wear, polish, repeat, etc... After a while you will achieve that which would have occurred naturally. Scratches on top of other scratches, the bottom ones more polished out than the ones on top.
The key here is that the "corroded brass particles" did not necessarily corrode through age. Aging (oxidizing) brass is a common enough thing for those who like the "aged brass" look.
For a table top experiment, take a piece of brass and remove any covering. (Most brass objects of modern manufacture are lacquered to prevent oxidation or "aging".) Depending on the nature of the covering, nail polish remover, boiling, or a good assault with sandpaper will do.
Once it's clean, apply vinegar, let dry, repeat, etc. until it looks old enough for you. :-)
If you would like to email me privately I would be glad to send you some old posts or go over any questions you might have. My address is in my profile. Just make sure you put "Casebook" or "Watch" or something in the title so I'll notice it amidst the tide of Spam I get.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 7:09 pm: |
|
John, Thank You for the explanation. I appreciate it. I understand how a Talented Forger can fool almost anyone. You're right. We are way off the subject here. I'll be going to the proper one next. Take Care.
Regards,
Anthony |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 678
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Ah, but why would a talented forger have wanted to fool Albert? Or, if Albert was in on the fooling, who were they trying to fool and why? There has to be a reason why anyone would come forward with something like this, knowing the forger’s talents would be put to the test by experts, but not knowing yet what the diary contained, nor what was happening at the time to test the work of it’s creator.
Anyone else noticed that the watch must have been put in the jeweller’s shop window around the same time as the diary was being shown to the first investigators – during the first half of 1992? A coincidence of course, if one assumes the scratches were made after the purchase date in July 1992.
Love,
Caz
|
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
HI;
Has everybody conceded that the FM relates only to James Maybrick. One of the other major theories involves Sir William Gull and the masonic plot.Lots of little clues have made this theory intersesting. Does anyone else think that the FM might actually be reffering to the 'FREE-MASONS Thanks, Stuart |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 600
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
Most people don't concede that there is an FM there, let alone that it exists and refers to Maybrick.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 320
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Stuart:
...One of the other major theories involves Sir William Gull and the masonic plot.
Is it a "major theory? I thought it a thoroughly discredited theory.
Lots of little clues have made this theory intersesting.
Such as? Like to give us a flavour of the "little clues" that you find so interesting?
More please,
Phil |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Nope,it's definitely Frequency Modulation!
Kane |
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
Dear Dan and Phil,
* Joseph and Walter Sickert.
* Cleveland street affair.
* Annie Chapman's body.
* The pentagle star
* " juwes" will be blamed for nothing.
* lack of blood at some crimescenes indicating victims murdered elsewhere ( possibly coach).
* Royal coach seen by witnessess on morning of double event.
* Netly trying to run down prostitute and chased by mob
* Prince Albert's prior knowledge of crimes indicated by the fact he has left London exactly before each murder and returned after it.His timing was immaculate.
* Abberlines statement: look at the top end of society, not the bottom.
* FM on Kelly's wall could be Freemasons
* murders stopped after Kelly - she was the target.
* 2 men in Stride murder - indicating conspiracy by definition of the word.
I have more but am too busy. That is enough to keep my attention at the moment anyway. I know every point will be rebuttled, but that comes with the territory of this theory.
Thanks, Stuart |
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Thanks Dan and Phil,
I do see the MF on the wall. There is one thing I wish that would be done once to put the problem to sleep.A test under laboritory conditions needs to be done.Seeing as though you are both police inspectors, you might have access to a crime lab that could do it.I just want to see a substance like human blood ( I assume the real stuff is not feasible) squirted at an analogous distance, and angle, from Kelly's bed to the wall. If in any of your tests, you can cause the blood to settle in straight lines, as is the case under the 'M' and 'F', I will walk naked across the Great Wall of China.I mean it - I will! So would you consider putting this theory to bed.
Thanking you - Stuart. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 606
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 11:08 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
Well, of course the things you brought up are all very old and very bad information about the case. "Juwes" is not a real Masonic word, there is no pentacle (not without mapping the locations in completely wrong locations anyway), there absolutely was no royal coach report seen at the murders, and so forth and so on. It isn't a question of us having to argue against what you say, those things are just plain wrong. There's nothing to debate because you have no credible sources for any of that, and several of them have been outright proven wrong. If those are your arguments, you have no arguments.
Regarding wanting us to prove that blood settles in straight lines, again, that's not a real argument. That assumes that what you think you see in the photo was 1) actually on the wall and not something on the surface of the photo, 2) blood and not some other substance like old stains or dents, and 3) actually in straight lines and not just appearing that way because of how you look at the photo or how it was reprinted. Each of those things are not necessarily true (although one or more might be true), you just assume they all are true and want us to jump through your hoops. Sorry, but that doesn't fly here.
All in all, you've got some pretty awful information there that you are working with and a pretty backward way of deciding when things are likely to be true or not.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 324
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 5:09 am: |
|
Stuart, I agree entirely with Dan's comments above.
Might I ask where you get your information from? Is it from feature films rather than books? While "From Hell" etc tend to re-cycle old ideas, the literature has moved on, and even a casual re-reading of the latest publications (Rumbelow's new edition; Sugden; Begg etc) would reveal that the whole conspiracy theory is fundamentally flawed and the assumptions and evidence on which it is based have been fundamentally discredited.
Now, to address your response to my earlier post in detail:
* Joseph and Walter Sickert. Does anyone regard Joe Gorman's evidence as reliable any longer? On what basis do you do so? If so, which VERSION do you rely on - Knight or Fairclough?
* Cleveland street affair. What relevance has this 1889 case to your view on a conspiracy? It related to a HOMOSEXUAL brothel. Please be more precise about the link you perceive.
* Annie Chapman's body. Do you mean the arrangement of the entrails or the items at her feet? The brass rings (representing Masonic pillars according to Knight) has now been shown to be a fabrication.
* The pentagle star Dan has exploded that one more than adequately, above.
* " juwes" will be blamed for nothing.
Again please tell me why this is relevant? Are we still harking on about the Jubelow etc link (Masonic). That has again been well exploded by reliable research. It has never been something that was important to Masonic ritual. But perhaps I miss your point.
* lack of blood at some crimescenes indicating victims murdered elsewhere ( possibly coach).
What sort of coach exactly (this is important)? Why was it unnoticed in say Buck's row or Mitre Square?
Was there little blood? That is NOT my reading of the evidence and police actually mentioned and accounted for the explanation in 1888.
* Royal coach seen by witnessess on morning of double event.
Exact citation please, and what precisely IS a royal coach? How would it be identified?
* Netly trying to run down prostitute and chased by mob
I suggest you re-read the book you read (Knight?) - you'll find that his connections between the three cases are loose and spurious on closer examination. This has been well discussed by more recent authors.
* Prince Albert's prior knowledge of crimes indicated by the fact he has left London exactly before each murder and returned after it.His timing was immaculate.
Was it? Why does this indicate a conspiracy and not coincidence and how would you prove that? can you please give the precise dates for each murder you see as part of the conspiracy.
* Abberlines statement: look at the top end of society, not the bottom.
Abberline said many things. He also is supposed to have suggested that Chapman was the Ripper.
* FM on Kelly's wall could be Freemasons
See other current threads for a discussion. The alleged writing is not there.
* murders stopped after Kelly - she was the target.
Could equally have been because MJ Druitt committed suicide, Tumblety moved away, Kosminski was put away (just to quote three suspects of the time) or later murders were unrecognised as such.
* 2 men in Stride murder - indicating conspiracy by definition of the word.
It is FAR from clear that Stride was a Ripper victim. Kidney or A N Other might have killed her.In any case, Schwartz's testimony is unclear - it is NOT certain that the two men were involved.
I have more than a suspcion, from the points you make, that you rely on Stephen Knight's book. If so, are you aware that many of his "facts" underpinning his theory were shown to be untrue even in his lifetime. He was told about the research that PROVED this, but declined to change his book. It is, therefore discredited as a reliable source or theory.
I suggest strongly that you should read some of the later authors I have cited above and then review your conclusions. You may still adhere to the conspiracy theory (your right) but if so, at least you will do so on more solid ground than at present.
I look forward to your response,
Phil |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Hello Dan & Phil,
Not wishing to get into a prolonged argument with either of you and I respect your views but they are just that, your views. My post is in connection with your disregarding of the word Juwes in Freemasonry. We must remember that lodges of instruction vary from country to country and lodge to lodge. You are both correct in that the word Juwes is not in frequent use, but was more so in the nineteeth century until being replaced by the use of the term the 'Three Ruffians' etc. Even today some insructors when re-telling older anecdotes of Masonic history do sometimes use the word Juwes. And for the record I do not believe the JTR murders were the work of Freemasons. But perhaps, and it is a big perhaps, whoever it was possibly did have a knowledge of Masonic ritual.
AWP. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 611
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
I am open to the idea that Juwes was actually used as you claim, but I have never seen any evidence for this. In fact, when I've gone to look for such references (including in a two volume Freemason encyclopedia from the late 19th/early 20th century I uncovered a couple of years ago) I've not found anything close. Simply asserting that something is true doesn't help if you have no proof of what you claim. The only uses I've ever seen of that term to refer to a Masonic context came after Stephen Knight's book. Considering how many other things he gets wrong (and apparently completely made up, either on his own or following along Joseph Gorman's stories), not to mention the sheer implausability that those names would be abbreviated with a word that suddenly gains a W in it for no reason, it seems far more likely to me that this is yet another of his mistakes than that he uncovered a real reference that hasn't been verified since then despite efforts of a large number of people to do so.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3362
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Stuart,
Dan and Phil have in an excellent way already punched holes in your very strange and outdated arguments, so this feels a bit redundant.
But let me just address a couple of points and elaborate a bit.
The bodies were not dumped at the murder scenes. The women were killed where they were found.
In Nichols' case, the blood on the ground under her was soaked up by her clothes. This is an established fact, you can read about it in the original documentation and this has been noted by every author on the subject after Stephen Knight.
Other reasons for the "little" amount of blood on the scenes, is that most of the victims were strangled or suffocated first, and that their throats were cut while they were on the ground, something that also helped to reduce blood splatter.
Furthermore, if the bodies were dumped, then were wouldn't be any blood at all -- which there were.
As Phil and Dan has pointed out, no coach was ever seen by anyone in connection with any murder. This idea is just ludicrous and is once again one of those idiotic points delivered by the late Stephen Knight and Hollywood.
All facts in the original contemporary material speak against it.
As for the pentangle star: Looking for patterns in geography or on maps is totally useless, since we can't know with certainty which victim really was attributed to Jack the Ripper. If just one of them would prove not to be a victim of the killer, then the whole pattern idea falls to pieces.
You have read too much Stephen Knight, Stuart. He was an excellent and very talented writer but unfortunately he was also a liar who twisted and constructed facts in order to fit his own fantastic fairy-tales.
It is a good story for Hollywood, but that's pretty much it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 327
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Andy and Sue
I would put Dan's question in a different way.
Please quote or reference one single volume, likely to have been available c 1888, to any reasonable suspect in the JtR case; or one single published instance of the use of the word in Britain or America, 5 years either side of 1888 - and you'll gain my respect.
Without that or something similar all you say is just hot air;
Sorry to be demanding,
Phil |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 3:45 am: |
|
Hello Phil,
As I said I will not get into a prolonged argument with you. But I will live without your respect.
By the way do you attend the WS1888 society meetings?
AWP. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 331
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 6:10 am: |
|
Glad to hear it Andy. And the answer is NO. I no longer live in London.
Sorry that you regard citing evidence as "prolonged argument" (I prefer the word discussion, myself). But it's absence does rather undermine your statement.
Regards,
Phil
|
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Dear everybody,
You may have seen a few of my posts as I have been posting for a few months now.I must point out that I am saying only this: I find it interesting and I DO NOT DISCREDIT THIS THEORY YET. There is still too many loose ends and ambiguous arguments. I respect that you all discredit it, but I have not reached that point yet.
I have not RELIED ON THE FILM' FROM HELL' FOR INFORMATION. The fact that Det Abberline was amorously involved with Mary Kelly in the film indicated it is 95% fiction and 5% fact.
So as I have stated, I just dont rule this theory out yet, and it is on my list. Of all the information I have gained in 6 months, in books and on this excelent website, I have a clear idea of my favoured suspects and the weight they carry with me.This is it:
1. Joseph Barnett - 30%
2. James Maybrick - 30%
3. Arron Kosminski - 20%
4. The Gull Theory - 15%
5. Tumblety - 5%
6. Jill - 0%
Thanking you all, Stuart |
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Hello Stuart.
You're reading too many books that are 80% fantasy and 20% fact. I won't go into my own complete percentages list, but as regards the one above, I'll just say this --------------
1. Joseph Barnett - 0%
2. James Maybrick - 0%
3. Aaron Kosminski - 0%
4. The Gull theory -0%
5. Tumblety - 0%
6. THE REAL KILLER - 100%
I think you should be talking to Phil Hill a bit more, and put the fantasy books away.
Regards.
LUKE WHITLEY |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page