|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 383
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 11:54 am: |       |
Frank, no the one VS two hand strangelation is a major point - if it was done by someone with two hands large enough to reach around her neck and overlap his fingers, that eliminates Joe Barnett (and a number of others) as a suspect as he is only 5'7" and wouldn't be capable of such a feat.
Shannon |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 257
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
I see what you mean, but since there’s no evidence to back up one or two hand strangulation we can’t use it to eliminate anybody. And only in that respect I referred to it as a minor point.
All the best,
Frank
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 300
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Frank,
Good point on the positions of the bruises. I had forgotten the times I've spent trying to figure out if things like "lower part of the jaw", etc, indicate on the upper part of the throat (as with strangulation) or along the jaw line, indicating covering of her mouth (maybe holding the head during the throat cutting.
It always sounds more the latter to me, which isn't strangulation. But some of the secondary signs of strangulation seem to be present (swollen and protruding tounge, etc), so some form of strangulation seems to have occurred.
But, without further evidence we cannot say "how" the strangulation occurred, even if there are signs that it may have. So, one hand, two hands, ligature, take your pick.
Anyway, as for the deviation with MJK, you are correct. The "waiting for her to undress" is a deviation, and breaking and entering is not an unusual skill for such a killer to have. I was noting that engaging the services of prostitutes is not unusual for killers of prostitutes either. Given that MJK was much younger, and by all accounts pretty, Jack may not have originally intended her as a victim. His knife could have been in his jacket pocket, or in a parcel, etc. If he suffered from ... performance anxiety ... she may have said something, this upset him and he attacked her - grabbed the knife from his jacket; I don't know, maybe pretended he was going to leave? I'm thinking on my feet here - well, not really my feet I admit! - so let's just allow for him to get the knife without her seeing it. And the rest follows. (I'm just thinking along the lines that something sets him off at the point of the transaction; perhaps this occurred with the other victims too? Unlikely though, as it's hard to see Jack attacking with his pants undone in the street really).
As Glenn has rightly pointed out, I have no proof of any of this. I just think it's interesting that the basic scenerio which seems to tie together Nicholls, Chapman, and Eddowes, also more or less works with Kelly. The differences being mostly in that she took him inside, they took him somewhere outside.
In other words, the deviation I've suggested is still within a common sequence of the "approach", or "aquisition stage", of things. To switch to Break and Enter, is an entirely different starting point.
But, I admit B&E also makes sense. If Jack figures the streets are too dangerous, he may want to switch to an indoor location. Since he can't be sure if he's going to be taken back to a room if he picks up a victim on the street, B&E ensures a room. Perhaps B&E makes even more sense in that respect?
As a final thought, what if Hutchinson actually saw someone with Mary Kelly? His description, however, is all wrong. But let's say he saw someone. If Jack knows he's been spotted, he may have decided he has to wait some time before attacking. This gives Mary time to undress, light a fire, and he has to undress as well (and while she's undressing, he can secret his knife into an easy to access location of his clothes, which he places beside the bed?)
Obviously, I'm being highly over exact in these descriptions. But, it's not too hard to come up with various explanations why Jack might have waited in this case because of the fact he's indoors so he has the luxuray of being able to wait. The two general themes I've worked with are the "Mary not initially intended as a victim", or "had to wait because Hutchinson spotted him".
Finally, as it appears the attack may have originated with Mary under the sheets and on the far side of the bed (near the wall), this does fit with the idea that someone was in the bed with her at the time (she's wasn't in the middle, where one would expect someone to be if in bed alone). However, I fully admit that if she awoke during a B&E, she may have simply moved to the far side, so the positioning gets explained both ways.
For the above, I don't mean she was found next to the wall, only that it appears the attack originated with her closer to the wall than when she was found. That means after her throat was cut, she was later pulled over, probably to make the job of mutilating her easier.
- Jeff |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 200
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 4:53 pm: | |
Shannon,
How do you know that Joe Barnett did not have unusually large hands?
Don. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 301
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
Shannon,
Although as Frank points out, we're probably discussing a moot point, but you've got the hand position wrong still I think. Don't try and overlap by going round, but rather, place your right thumb on top of your left thumb, rotate your right hand so the fingers point the same way as your left, then place your right fingers on top of your left hand. Meaning, both hands on the same side (rather than trying to grasp all the way round).
This would result in only one set of thumb and finger marks. However, this position is very awkward if the victim is standing, but probably quite easy if the victim is already on the ground (perhaps with the perpetrator sitting on top of the victim as well). Even a victim backed up against a wall would make this difficult I would think.
Let me know if I'm being clear. It's not a hard thing to do on one's own leg, and as Michael has indicated, it's done fairly often. Without knowing this for sure, I would suspect in the cases where it is done the victim is subdued first somehow, and is not standing. However, it may be possible if the victim is pinned to a wall or fence? But I find it hard to imagine this being easy if the victim is not already prone.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 302
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 6:30 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I think there are some forensic aspects that link Kelly with Nicholls and Chapman. And some that link Kelly with Eddowes as well.
Nicholls, Chapman, and Kelly all have their throats cut in a complete circle, and down to the spinal column. Both the left and right cartoid are completely severed. If I recall correctly (and please correct me if my memory has again failed me), all show signs of two cuts along the throat. Possibly, the first to direct blood away, the 2nd being the large circular cut.
Eddowes, however, shows only a single cut which does not encircle the neck. The left cartoid is severed, the right has a small hole. The cut does reach the spinal column at it's maximum, but it's not the same throat wound as the other 3 listed here. But, as an aside, the wound seems very similar to that of Stride, which I've posted about before and won't get into again here.
Unlike Nicholls and Chapman, however, Eddowes shows mutilations in areas other than the abdomen. Her face is also attacked. With Kelly, we see these facial mutilations, and the attack has also included arms and legs. This increased area of attack seems to link Kelly and Eddowes, and the similar encirling throat wound seems to link Kelly with Nicholls and Chapman.
Finally, the concentration of the mutilations on the abdomen, removal of the visera, and the taking of body parts (Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly; Nicholls was not mutilated to the point where visera was removed so no trophy could be taken), creates enough common links across these 4 victims to suggest all were killed by the same person.
Although it is possible that we have a copy-cat for one (or more) of these killings, I would think it takes a certain kind of individual not to completely break down after committing such acts. If Joe, for example, killed Mary and then tried to make it look like a Ripper killing by doing what he did, I would think that when the police interviewed him the very day of the murder, he would have completely broke down. So either Joe does them all, or someone else did them all.
No, not proof. But to me I see the common killer as the "default" explanation because of the evidential ties between the cases. The commonalities are all derived from things the killer had control over, the differences seem to be in aspects the victim had control over (i.e., the location, the amount of struggle she could put up, etc).
I'm certainly not suggesting alternatives must be wrong, though. It's just I don't see them as better than the "default explanation", which doesn't come from nowhere but in fact is based upon the evidence. It's where the evidence tends to lead us without many complicated assumptions. The "detailed" versions I've spelled out are, pure conjecture, and are really intended as examples of how events might have played out if we stick with the big picture of 1) pose as client 2) taken by victim to location 3) blitz attack to subdue victim 4) cut the throat to avoid blood 5) cut throat again, as if to decapitate or to ensure death (would this suggest Jack is also highly unsure of himself? similar to the blitz attack? Hmmm, talking aloud here) 6) mutilate abdomen 7) take trophy 8) leave.
Within that "generalised story", all the crimes seem to fit that pattern, apart from Stride (but then her throat wound still seems very similar to that of Eddowes of the same night; at least to me it does).
I don't know. Maybe it was a monkey after all! ha!
- Jeff |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 384
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 8:59 am: | |
Don, Joe was only 5'7 inches tall. His hands would have to be very disproportionate to his body, so much so that someone would have noticed; friends, police, someone...
Shannon
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 971
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
Don,
....and someone would have mentioned this.....it stands to reason.
Monty
S & C & V L F.
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 975
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
Frank,
Re folding of Kellys clothes.
Its little things like this that get me going.
The tidiness of Nichols clothes, the arrangment at Chapmans site, placing of Eddowes intestings and then the neat folding of Myletts scarf.
Now Kellys clothes.
A trait ?
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Hi,
Neatness, could be a indication of a military experience, since Tabram a seeker of male soldiers, proberly was the first victim, also Hutchinson remarked kellys accoster walked sharply, Are we looking for a medical orderly?.
Richard. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 201
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Shannon & Monty,
Yes, I would certainly expect Joe Barnett did not have unusually large hands, but only because of the strong probability his hand size would fall within one standard deviation for someone of his height. That's all, though, because we don't really know and a lack of comment upon his hand size is worth little in the context of the dearth of information available about the the Ripper crimes.
I'm not sure just where you would expect to find such commentary. I can't imagine the police scrawling on the bottom of his statement "He is possessed of uncommonly large hands" or even for newspaper reporters to mention it since their main concern must have been his statements and how he gave those statements.
That it would have been mentioned, if he had uncommonly large hands, may seem likely at this remove in time, but that is only because we have created the somewhat artificial situation where his hand size could be important. That seems a trap we all fall into from time to time as we look back on the events. From our vantage, certain things seem particularly crucial, but need not have been to contemporary investigators. And, because some things were not recorded does not mean they didn't happen -- nor that they did.
I was never arguing that Joe had big hands, but only that he may have -- and while I doubt it, there still remains a possibility that he did have huge mitts and they went unmentioned. With so much of what little evidence we have we can only deal in probabilities, not certainties.
But that is also much of the fun, isn't it?
Don. |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 7:58 pm: | |
This is a test of the formatting this is bold text here does it work? OK try underlining OK how about the font? well? does this do it? |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 305
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 10:36 pm: | |
Monty,
Interesting idea about the folding of the clothes. I don't think I've seen such a suggestion before. Is it a new one, or have I just missed it up until now.
- Jeff |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 980
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 4:06 am: | |
Don, Jeff,
Don,
I was being SAR-CAR-STIC. I agree with you totally.
Just a point, nowadays the police (and we) fill out a form known as NPA01. The form is a request for previous but also acts as a sort of description sheet which we fill out during an interview.
It starts with ethnic appearence at the top to build, shoe size (British or Metric), eye colour, glasses, hair (pink wig or orange beehive) facial hair, accent (North west, German, Cultured), left, right handed or ambidextrous, marks/scars/abnormalities (Piercing/tatoos ect) and the area these marks are (arms, legs, buttocks, genitals ect), Habitual dress, jewellery, habits and mannerisms and finally special skills.
There is nothing, absoulutely nothing about the size of their hands !! So I doubt the Police then would have noted it.
Jeff,
Ive had this idea since end of last summer when I was looking at Myletts death in depth. It just seems that out of the carnage he needs order.
That or a symbolic ritual.
Its another curious act he seems to do.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 246
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
Monty,
In America we fill out what is called a FIR, Field Investigation Report. It has the same info as you were indicating above and interestingly enough, nothing about the size of the hands. I agree with you totally and we have discussed this neatness thing before.
Mikey |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 202
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
Monty,
I'm a little slow on the uptake lately (company coming for the holiday has my mind wandering) so I missed the sarcasm. Sorry. And as I hasten to clean the apartment I have more appreciation for the neatness notion (aside from a DOB many years after 1888, I think lack of neatness would exonerate me). But your observation is an intriguing one and merits more thought.
Don. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 259
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
Hey there Monty & all,
I’ve stumbled upon the possibility that tidiness was a trait somewhere in November. What really struck me as odd and got me thinking in the first place was the contrast between the tidiness of the clothes and the mess Jack made of Mary’s body.
The way I see it there are 2 situations and 4 possibilities:
· Situation 1: MJK was still more than tipsy/quite drunk by the time she lied down in bed
· Situation 2: MJK had sobered up/was still a little tipsy by the time she lied down in bed
· Possibility 1: MJK didn’t bother to take off her clothes
· Possibility 2: MJK took her clothes off, but dropped them on the floor/on the 2 chairs
· Possibility 3: MJK took her clothes off, but hung at least the outer layer of clothes to dry on the chairs as they were damp as a result of the rainy night
· Possibility 4: MJK neatly folded her clothes and put them on one of the chairs
Possibility 1 can be stricken right away as we know MJK was nearly naked when she was attacked and as it’s highly unlikely that JtR undressed her.
When situation 1 and 2 are separately combined with each of the remaining possibilities, we – or at least I – find that possibility 2 fits the best with situation 1, maybe possibility 3, but possibility 4 doesn’t seem very likely. Looking at situation 2, I find possibility 3 the best fit, maybe possibility 2.
Anyway, regardless of the extent to which MJK was intoxicated, the sensible thing seems to have been to hang at least the outer layer of clothes to dry over the chairs by the fireplace. That MJK in fact might have done just that is seems to be supported by the suggestion (under victims > mary jane Kelly) that her boots were found in front of the fireplace.
Taking this together with the placing rather than tossing around of the things he cut off or out of his victims, the arrangement at Annie Chapman’s crime scene, etc., I think Jack may have been responsible for the folding of the clothes. Perhaps as some sort of compensation for the mess he made of MJK, or as some sort of message that he wasn’t the monster he was made out to be.
Although, of course, this is all speculation, I still find it feasible.
So, Monty, I’m with you on the possible trait.
All the best,
Frank
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 981
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 8:17 am: | |
Frank, Don...oh and Mikey,
Frank,
Although, of course, this is all speculation,...
Hell yeah, I agree. Im not even sure to include Rose at all. In fact its the tidiness thing that holds her in there for me.
Im a little unsure on the statement about 'placing' the intestines. Im assuming that it means placed in terms of neatly and in close proximity as opposed to flung across the square and hanging off the lamp post.
Tell you a story, it may have a baring...it may not. When I was but a 16 year old spotted gimp I had a evening job at a well known supermarket. Just a shelf stacking job, thats all. It was drilled into me that I should 'face up' (making the labels face the same way on all tins...looks neat and tidy) all the tinned goods whenever I had the chance. I was there for around 2 years then left to start 'proper' work full time. Around a month after I left I found myself in the same local store with my then girlfriend. We were just shopping for some bits and bobs when I noticed my girlfriend looking at me oddly. I asked her what the problem was and she said "you dont even realise do you ? You were facing up those tins". And I was....just instinct. Now Im not saying Jack was responding without thinking in terms of repeating an action (as I was) but he may have been doing this without realising...Victorian morals ??
Don,
No worries. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit my Mother tells me....I retort with at least it is wit !
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 249
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 2:44 pm: | |
Monty,
Thanks for the "oh and". I will take any little crumb. 
Mikey
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 250
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
Guys,
I agree, the neatness thing may be totally unconscious. Early childhood training from a dominant mother figure? Force of habit from military training? Obsessive Compulsive disorder?I definitely think it has a bearing on the case. What that is, I am not sure at this time, but it is part of my "profile" (for MJK's killing, I have one for each victim)of Jack.
Mikey
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 260
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
Monty,
“Im a little unsure on the statement about 'placing' the intestines. Im assuming that it means placed in terms of neatly and in close proximity as opposed to flung across the square and hanging off the lamp post.”
No need to be a little unsure, ‘cause you’re assuming right! BTW, the ‘flung across the square and hanging off the lamp post’ is nicely put – though it’s terrible MJK was cut up like she was, I couldn’t help but laugh when I read this.
I agree with both you and Mikey that the business of tidiness might have been an unconscious thing – just as the facing of your tins.
All the best,
Frank
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 306
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Now, this is one of those times where not being able to inspect the evidence ourselves is so frustrating! If Jack "tidied up" Mary's clothing, then this would probably occur after the murder (as with the arrangement of things around Chapman's feet; possibly Eddowes?). If so, we would expect blood stains on the clothes, and possibly bloody finger prints.
Because nothing like this is ever mentioned, either
1) Jack has washed up prior to tidying
2) This was simply not mentioned
3) This was not noticed (blood was everywhere, and no special notice taken of the clothes)
4) Jack didn't actually fold up the clothes.
I don't really think #3 is a very good suggestion. The police were quite careful in their examinations.
But, they may have with-held such information since it would not impact upon the inquest, and they were being quite careful about what got released to the press. Unfortunately, there's no mention of such things in any of the "internal memos", and I'm sure the contrast in Jack's behaviour would have struck them as something of a curiosity.
Washing up would simply be cleaning his hands on something, perhaps using water from the kettle, etc. Then, after viewing his work, he's folding clothes, etc.
And of course, the "didn't do it himself" is always an option.
Still, these tidy clothes surrounded by such chaos create a contrast. As does the arrangement of Annie Chapman's things, a bit of order amongst disorder, the contrast of the careful deliberate cuts on Eddowes face compared to the general mayhem of the removal of the nose and abdominal mutilations.
If, and it's a big if, if these extremes are all connected to Jack it's suggestive of someone going through a roller coaster of emotions and drives, from furry and frenzy to calm, collected, and almost caring (note the alliteration! ha!)
Anyway, despite the fact we can't be sure if it was Jack, I think such things make for interesting possibilities. What I especially like, is that even if Jack didn't fold Mary's clothes, the general notions could mostly be drawn from the other cases by themselves.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1470
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 7:48 pm: | |
Hi
I must say I really don't understand this discussion concerning Jack's "neatness" and tidiness" at all. What "neatness" and tidiness"?
The intestines in Chapman's and Eddowes' case could be thrown over their shoulders just simply because he had to put them somewhere and that is where it suited him best to place them. Why must we over-interpret everything into symbols, order and deliberate intent?
What is so "neat" about the murder sites? To me they are complete slaughter houses, speaking of chaos in combination with some sort of mental concentration on his "task", but hardly neatness and order.
To me it's perfectly logical that it was Mary Kelly herself that folded and placed the clothes in that fashion -- naturally before she was attacked and before she went to bed (with or without a customer) -- why it has been suggested that it should be Jack who might have folded those clothes in the first place goes beyond me. I can't be sure, of course, but I can't see any logical reason to make such a peculiar deduction.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 8:10 pm: | |
How about he was waiting outside for her last john to leave and her to go to sleep?
If JTR had been stalking his victims which I believe he was this would also explain the men people saw last with the victims. They saw the last johns of these hookers and not JTR. Is it so hard to believe that JTR watched the last act of sex these women had from a safe place in the shadows? Then all he'd have to do is get them right after the john left. With Mary Kelly he likely saw the trick of unlocking the door through the broken window or was smart enough to figure that out himself. I think JTR reached in that window while Mary was asleep, walked around to the door and walked inside. Upon seeing Mary on the bed he struck her with the knife thus waking her up. She put up some fight from which she got the cuts on her arms and maybe cried out "Oh murder!" Then came the cut that shut her up, the neck. As she fell limp he moved her legs apart like he did the other victims and cut into her private parts. However he knew he was indoors and could do whatever he wanted to this victim unlike the others. So he did just that wacking her face up and cutting into her thigh like a leg of lamb, etc. Enjoying his "work" the whole time he was there cutting this poor woman apart.  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 786
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 4:28 am: | |
Hi,
Surely the police would have asked Barnett, if it was kellys habit to fold up her clothes in this way before retiring.
The obvious explanation, for the clothing, is either Kelly folded them herself before retiring to bed alone, or she was with someone , that she knew was not anxious for sex.
Excluding Barnett, the killer, of these women, was clearly not the type, who could control his murderous lust, while she carefully removed her clothing , and laid it on a chair.
One thing is clear , as her boots were laid in front of the fireplace, and it had been raining, the fire was lit at the time she undressed, for there would be no point laying her boots in that spot, when the fire was unlit.
Although it had been a wet night, i have my doubts if it was raining at the time of hutchinson sighting, for the asrtracan man was seen loitering on the corner of Thrawl street, they stood for three minutes talking in Dorset street, and hutchinson waited for 45 minutes outside crossinghams lodging house,
Surely not in the pouring rain. yet we know it was raining at 8am, because of Catherine Picketts, attempt to borrow Kellys shawl, and I would therefore consider, that the wet boots ,were got, whilst she was in Dorset street that morning.
I would suggest that Kelly left her room that morning, to get some milk, I would not exclude the possibility that her killer was in the room by then, possibly with Kellys knowledge, as i have said before, the most likely use for milk, was to make a brew, and one could not have done that, without a form of heat, to boil the kettle, therefore a fire was intended to be lit.
It therefore points to me, that kelly was killed soon after returning to her room, after maxwells final sighting at 845am, and I would also claim that she knew her killer, and feeling unwell got undressed to return to bed.
Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
