|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 3:14 pm: | 
|
Hello all,
I have been going over all the info that I can get my hands on. One thing stands out to me...
WHAT ARE WE MISSING???
I feel it is something simple, something that is right in front of us. Nothing new, just something overlooked.
Let's try to put our heads together and see what we can come up with...does anyone have an idea, something that holds true for them?
With all the great minds we have on this board, maybe we can come up with that little bit of knowledge that has been over looked.
For example, I feel he was known in the area and knew the area well. Had a good reputation. The victims may have thought "nothing to worry about, it's just Joe Blow, he wouldn't hurt me." No proof of this, just a feeling.
Anyone else have some ideas?
Thanks,
Carolyn
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 153
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Increasingly, I am intrigued by why he allowed himself to go into the backyard of No 29 Hanbury St.
It was effectively going into the unknown - UNLESS he had been there before and knew the place.
Assuming he had never been there before, it was surely VERY HIGH RISK to go into a place he could not see. A potential (and actual) cul-de-sac, with only one way in and out - he could be corned.
He had no idea who might already be there, or who (or what) might overlook the unseen back yard.
To me this increasingly suggests local knowledge - either he had been there before with prostitutes, or he knew the place from earlier forays and explorations.
Just an idea - but is it the sort of thing you were looking for Carolyn?
Phil |
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
Phil,
Yes, and no. How's that?!
What I am looking for is something we can say that is a common trait or something so simple we may have overlooked it, that might help tie all this together.
I used the local idea as a start, and I agree with what you said, he had no idea what he would find in the back yard of No 29 Hanbury St. He could have very well been there before, but had no idea that the conditions would be the same on any given night. He also was able to make good his escape from the yard.
Phil, I am looking for the "aha, so that is the reason." I know it is very vague, and probably doesn't exist. I felt we were overlooking something so simple. Some little piece of evidence, something just floating out of our reach, but there for everyone to see. Nobody has made a very simple connection. Thats all I was saying, I can't come up with what the connection is and hoping by throwing out the idea to everybody, maybe something would come of it. It has been bothering me that I can't come up with anything.
Again, what are we missing in looking over all the information we have available? It's funny after reading all that I have been reading I can't imagine what we have missed, Just a nagging feeling that I have. Maybe something common to new people on the case?
Thanks,
Carolyn
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 327
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Hi Carolyn,
I think every one of us has had that feeling at one time......sometimes a little light bulb flashes on in my head and I think.......well something.......that I hadn't thought of before, and it usually a rather silly little thought that turns into something worth thinking about......
The other night on the Liz Stride thread, it came up that a prostitute would not have gone with any client unless she had seen the money up front. Not very important, but it did mean that JtR must have had money on the night that he killed them, even if it was only fourpence!
That led to the thought that many of the victims were killed at the weekend or on Bank holidays.
The usual pay day was Thursday which is why the rent was collected on Friday mornings, whilst they still had some cash left....
from there I began to think that could mean that JtR was a working man, possibly a local who had to wait until Friday or the weekend to get the money to give the ladies.......
All very silly thoughts in themselves, but it could well be some rather trivial fact like that which could give some lead, or at least exclude some suspects............
I would say that what we are missing is some rather trivial piece of seemingly irrelevant information that could lead in some new direrction that no-one has thought of before...........
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxxx |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 623
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
And, extending on that idea, it could explain why the pockets of some victims were checked out (i.e., Chapman and apparently Eddowes at least; can't recall about Nichols). He was getting his money back. This would imply that if he did have the money to show them (and give it to them posing as a customer), he couldn't have afforded to abandon that 4p. This does not sit well with George Hutchinson's well off toft, but might fit with the "shabby gentile" type descriptions.
As for Stride, no money was found on her. But either she's not a JtR victim, or JtR was interrupted. If he was interrupted, he wouldn't have time to get his money back (since if he's interrupted one has to argue this happened just as he cut her throat, which would be the first thing he does; not check the pockets). Now, since she didn't have any money on her, it goes against the idea that she was given any by her killer. Which, of course, fits with the description of what Schwartz reports as happening (she was just attacked). So, of course, that fits with Stride's killer being Schwartz's man. And if she's a JtR victim, then JtR didn't, at least in this case, give her any money. And if he didn't give his victim's any money, what was he cutting open the pockets for? What was he looking for, and why did they go with him? Or, if JtR normally gave his victims money, and posed as a customer, why did he change with respect to Stride? Hmmmm, I find more questions than answers in this whole series, but with Stride in particular.
- Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3250
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Hi, Carolyn,
"I am looking for the "aha, so that is the reason." I know it is very vague, and probably doesn't exist. I felt we were overlooking something so simple. Some little piece of evidence, something just floating out of our reach, but there for everyone to see. Nobody has made a very simple connection. Thats all I was saying, I can't come up with what the connection is and hoping by throwing out the idea to everybody, maybe something would come of it. It has been bothering me that I can't come up with anything."
I don't want to be the one who ruins the party here, Carolyn, but unfortunately coming up with such a vital piece of element that ties it together, 117 years after the events, is quite a tough task. Especially since the documents that today would have provided the best clues for us -- the personal note books of the police officers and the interrogation notes -- got lost in the blitz. I think we have to accept that, and personally I believe we will never find evidence crucial enough in order to solve case. After all, if documents like the Swanson marginalia and the Littlechild letter haven't gotten us closer to the truth, then what will?
Murders where the perpetrator have no real personal connection with the victim -- as in most serial killer cases -- are among the most difficult to solve even by modern standards, and then to believe an over 110 year old case can find its solution is not exactly realistic no matter how hard we smack our heads together in intellectual exercise. What we can do is to came up with more or less credible speculations and analyses, and new facts can also lead us in new interesting directions, but that is pretty much it.
I personally don't think there exists a piece of information that is crucial enough in order to represent the missing piece of the jigsaw. So we pretty much have to deal with what we've got, and if that is enough to come up with a conclusion on a 117 year old murder is my mind highly questionable.
What one can conclude is, that it ought to be a local man, or someone born and brought up in the districts -- either option could indicate knowledge of the area. And that he was someone who had a fairly good experience of how to handle a knife (altough that could fit a number of occupations). Then the rest is basicly nothing more than personal opinions and interpretations.
As Jeff implies, old cases like this generally produces more questions then answers.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 328
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 7:35 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
You've got me all excited........now how often does a woman say that to you?..........don't answer that............
Seriously though, that does show that even something trivial can lead to new thoughts and even if they don't lead anywhere, one day they just might..........
I think that could well be what we are missing.......perhaps we are so intent on the 'important' revelations that we have forgotten the insignificant.......
Of course you do realise that I am not going to sleep a wink tonight thinking about Liz's pockets, but what do you care you terrible person you.........
Lots of love
Jane
xxxxxxx
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 329
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
HI Glenn,
I do have to say that you are right, we are not likely to solve the case with what we have at the moment, unless some incredible new document comes to light that has been lost for years. Of course we can't say that won't happen, anything can happen, but it is hardly likely after all this time.
I suppose the best we can do is speculate and fit in tiny bits of information that make the case more interesting and possibly narrow down the field a little, which is still worthwhile.
Having said that what fun would there be in having the case solved? We would have to find a new interest, like floodlit dominoes or origami........then I know what we would all be missing...........JtR!!!!!!!!
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxxxxx
By the way I'm collecting buns for charity at the moment, so do your worst! |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3251
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
I absolutely agree in everything you say here, so the buns unfortunately will have to wait til later,
but I promise I'll do my bit when the time comes. 
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I completely agree that the case will probably not be solved given the info that we have now... What I am saying is that there must be something to bring some aspects of the case together.
Like Jane said, thinking about pay days being on Thursday, he may have been a working man. Something so simple could lead us in a new direction.
I am not naive enough to think I can solve this, I'm not even writing a book! I just felt maybe there was something that had been overlooked. Or maybe there was a new direction to explore.
Like you said,"What we can do is to come up with more or less credible speculations and analyses, but that is pretty much it"...
That is what I meant, said a whole lot better than I said it. I felt we were missing something very obvious and simple.
Thanks,
Carolyn
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 330
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Hi Carolyn,
I do know what you mean, sometimes there is a niggle at the back of your head and you know that you should be seeing something that you can't quite put your finger on. It's like the moment that you wake up from a dream and you struggle to remember it, but can't quite fasten onto what it was about.....
I do feel that quite often with JtR, that there is something just out of reach and if I try really hard I might be able to fathom out what it is.
Sometimes you do get a blinding revelation, that is not really of any important to anyone else and which they might consider trivial, but it leads you to a greater insight into the case and helps you see things more clearly. For me that is often enough.
Jeff point about Liz's pockets is really something that is going to keep me thinking for ages.....okay some people might think that is hardly worth a second thought, but for me personally it is something of real interest......and probably for Jeff too by the sound of it!
I really do think that anything that leads us to a greater understanding of any aspect of the case is worthwhile.
That's my two pennerth anyway. I will let you know if I have any light bulb moments over those pockets.........
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxxxxxx
|
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 9:08 pm: |
|
Jane,
You hit the nail on the head. It has been a "niggle" (love that word) at the back of my head. Something just out of reach. I have felt several times like I have got it, then it slips away.
I know we are not the only ones with these "niggles", That is why I was opening this up for discussion, I was hoping someone else might share what they felt was nagging at them. Not in hopes of solving the case but for a better understanding. Finding out something that has been overlooked.
We have gone over the same things over and over again, I was hoping for a different perspective. Or at best something else to consider... Maybe put in a different context.
Thanks for your kind comments.
Love,
Carolyn |
Neale Carter
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 62
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
In your post above (March 07, 2005 - 7:17 pm) you mention "shabby gentile". I always thought it was "shabby genteel", but has your form of the phrase ever been considered, ie. more likely to be something a jewish person would say?
Carolyn - you have sparked some very interesting comments. Well done
Regards
Neale |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 10:25 pm: |
|
PHIL HILL,
Thank you for referring to the danger of the Hanbury St. Scene. I thought I was the only person that thought....WHAT AN IDIOT! As I have said COUNTLESS times arguing the Stride murder....Berner St wasnt the only place that there were HUGE risks taken.
IT was broad daylight! There were 19 or 20 people that could walk out the door at any moment. God knows Everybody in Whitechapel went to work at ....like 3:00 in the morning or whatever....What was he thinking by doing that?
Anyway, I just had to say Thanks.
Paul
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 155
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 2:05 am: |
|
But Paul, as I have argued elsewhere, the dangers in Berner St and at No29 were different. The risk of being seen in the former, was much higher than in the latter. Being disturbed or cornered were the problems at Hanbury St. Maybe Jack would simply have killed anyone who came in or sought to stop him.
I don't think Jack was an idiot - I think he knew how to reduce the risks - hence why I think his decision may be an "aha" moment.
I don't think my views DO support your line of argument at all, in fact.
On the "aha" thing generally. Recognising such a point is one thing, but understanding its value another. Look at the Swanson marginalia - the El Dorado we had sought so long - the considered view of a senior policeman on the case. Yet has it advanced us - no. because we don't understand it; are obsessed by the flaws and seeming inconsistencies; and those with theories opposed to Kosminski, seek to rubbish it.
"Aha" moments surely require everyone to TRY to understand the import of that moment and pursue it?
What this thread really endorses for me, is the need to keep an open mind, and not to be afraid of playing with ideas which may be valueless in themselves, but thinking them through (individually or collectively) can provide new angles and insights on the basic facts.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 41
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 4:10 am: |
|
What might have been craved by the killer,in addition to the pleasure he might have sought in the killings,is recognition.Sure there was a lot written,and he was surely aware of the mystic he was creating,but he couldn't own up to what he had done without paying the supreme penalty.
He could however,come forward and involve himself in a way yhat might appear safe.Second best,but at least his name would be there for all to see.
So I say look for a person that did in some way,intrude into the investigation,and whose name became known to all. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 4:26 am: |
|
Hi Jeff, All,
Interesting thread.
Re the money business: if JtR killed Stride, it doesn't follow that they ever got beyond the point of "Will you?" Maybe she just wasn't interested in going with him for some reason (waiting for someone else; didn't care for his manner; felt safer where she was, but he wanted them to go somewhere quieter, etc etc), in which case no money would be changing hands at all.
And if he regarded Dutfield's Yard and Berner Street as too busy to mutilate anyone there, Stride was dispatched speedily and efficiently and he wasn't going to hang around to rifle her pockets.
Re Hanbury Street, I agree he took huge risks here, but the act of going into the backyard with a prostitute wasn't a hanging offence - he could have stopped short of murder had the circumstances dictated it, right up to the instant he struck.
If he had spent much of the night seeking out a suitable victim, he may have felt more reckless and determined as a result, and once he struck, all caution was forgotten and luck took over. But I wouldn't have fancied the chances of survival for anyone arriving at that particular scene for an early morning pee. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
Phil,everybody,
Thank you for your very insightful comments. This is the kind of thing I was talking about.
Yes, he knew how to reduce the risks, and I agree he was not an idiot.
Pay days are important, as were Liz's pockets. He also sought recognition and yes, he could have intruded into the investigation.
Could we take it a step further and say he was an egomaniac, and that he thought he was invincible? A superman from hell?
The "aha", that I am talking about is along these lines. Like Phil said ,it requires everyone to try to understand the import of that moment and pursue it. Keep an open mind, and look at the different ideas and think them through.
Also, like Jane said it is the "niggle" at the back of your head. Nothing is too simple, that is my point. We all look at the big major facts, and somewhere along the line we have missed the simple truth that may lead us to understanding.
All in all, the "aha" is a vague concept, I understand that, but I believe it could well lead to some better or at least different ideas on this case.
Thank you for your ideas,
Carolyn
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1819
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
I am by no means as pessimistic as many others concerning the possibilities of major new documentary evidence coming to light, in fact I firmly believe that this is what will exactly happen in the next five years or so.
Recently Robert Charles Linford was able to find and publish here on the boards some previously unseen press reports of the time, which did contain new information on certain aspects of the case.
I do know Robert is actively searching for the pension records of Executive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush, but so far has had no luck - as the pension records are ‘missing’ - and there is a distinct possibility that if these records can be found they will dramatically alter our view into this case.
Over the next few years more and more records will come into the public domain… I for one can’t wait for the next release of the Old Bailey trials and transcripts for the years concerned, as I’m quite sure within them will be many of the petty offences we have been unable to find in the press reports of the time, as such petty crime was not considered worthy of publication. Here I think of such petty crimes as animal cruelty, stealing of women’s garments, minor assaults against females, the sending of threatening letters etc. For if one was able to find a named suspect in the Ripper case with a petty offence such as the above against him, then it would be a very persuasive argument for that suspect.
No, I am very optimistic that new evidence will be discovered very shortly that will help to solve the case; and given the amazing research tool that we now have with the WWW, we are gathering information at such a speed that it threatens to overwhelm us, and I for one can’t keep up with the rapid pace. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 529
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
I'm also optimistic about the unearthing of those petty crimes and their offenders in the next few years. Like you, I believe Jack is just sitting there, waiting for us. I'm glad people like Robert and you are around.
Cheers,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 530
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
"And, extending on that idea, it could explain why the pockets of some victims were checked out (i.e., Chapman and apparently Eddowes at least; can't recall about Nichols). He was getting his money back.
As I remember having read somewhere that it wasn't uncommon for women to keep things of value in their bonnet, I think that Nichols' bonnet may have been her 'pocket'. This would explain why it was found beside her body.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3252
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Well, I am quite used to study old cases (that is mostly what I do, since I am not that interested in modern ones and I am originally a historian), and from those 25 that evokes interest here at home, none of them is actually possible to solve, and all available material that exists have already been realeased (we have shorter periods of secrecy than you have in Britain).
No matter how you look at it, AP, in one hundred year old cases you will always face the major problem of incomplete material and lack of evidence. You can probably find information through thorough research, that supports an idea of whom the suspect might be in your own mind, but you will never be able to prove it beyond doubt.
Among documents that claims to identify the killer, the Littlechild letter, The Swanson marginalia and the Macnaghten memoranda are those that has come closest to a solution, but EVEN THEY have not succeeded to deliver the ultimate proof! And if they couldn't, what will????????
That is just the tricky part with old cases, AP. You can come up with any exclusive document and research result you want, but people will always find ways or facts that discredits it.
Since no person from that time no longer is alive, we are stuck with our own interpretations of the facts that appear, and even if we find exclusive documentation, where he or she or the police says who the suspect is, we will never know if that really was true.
Likewise with all kinds of archive records. You may find a suitable person in the records indulging in petty crimes, but you will never be able to prove that that person actually was the Ripper. No document or record can ever be regarded as the ultimate proof, since we already have so many documents in that direction that contradict each other.
Martin Fido did a thorough research in the asylum records, and he found the person he found could be the only possible candidate. It was a massive research effort. But has that led to a proven solution? Of course not.
That doesn't say, that the efforts of those people is meaningless, because new directions and new research makes us understand the case better. But that is another matter.
Those who believe that a 100 year old case can be solved, have very little understanding of the historical sources and the problems connected with them.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 531
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
Very good post, although you know the combination ‘frustrated Mr BS - speedy & efficient dispatch – cachous’ does pose somewhat of a problem for me.
“Re Hanbury Street, I agree he took huge risks here, but the act of going into the backyard with a prostitute wasn't a hanging offence - he could have stopped short of murder had the circumstances dictated it, right up to the instant he struck.”
This is exactly why I think that, if Stride was killed by a (Narrow Shouldered) JtR, he wasn’t interrupted. I have been trying to find just these words, but couldn’t, so thanks a bunch!
All my best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
"You may find a suitable person in the records indulging in petty crimes, but you will never be able to prove that that person actually was the Ripper"
You are almost certainly correct from a legal point of view; I sincerely believe that we'll never get the sort of evidence that would hold up in court.
But......(and there is always a "but" in this case, isn't there?) AP and Frank are on the right trail. The Ripper wan't born fully armed from the forehead of Zeus; looking for records of petty crimes makes a heck of a lot of sense.
If I could conjure up one old document, though, it'd be the memoirs of Robert Sagar. They'd tell a tale.
"SAGAR, Robert
Born : 1852
1880 : Gave up studying medicine at St Bartholemew's Hospital and joined the City Police force.
1884 : Made a Detective Constable
1888 : Promoted to Sergeant
1889 : Made a Detective Sergeant
1890 : Promoted to Detective Inspector
1905 : Retired
1924 : Died
Henry Smith (Commissoner City Police 1890-1901) wrote "A better or more intelligent officer than Robert Sagar I never had under my command."
"Reynolds News" (15 September 1946) printed an extract from Sagar's unpublished, and now untraced, memoirs. Sagar wrote that "We had good reason to suspect a man who worked in Butcher's Row, Aldgate. We watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed there were no more Ripper atrocities."
Although there are some differences this could possibly be referring to Swanson's suspect Kosminski. If this is the case it is significant because it suggests that the City Police, to which Sagar belonged, and the Metropolitan Police, to which Swanson belonged, were following similar lines of inquiry. While Sagar was probably aware of Robert Anderson's statements about the ripper being "caged in an asylum" etc he would not have known about the Swanson Marginalia which did not come to light until some 40 years after the above extract was published.
As somebody who had studied medicine, even if only briefly, and was involved in investigating the murders it would have been interesting to have known Sagar's opinions on the amount of skill displayed by the killer.
Source:
Begg, Fido, and Skinner. The Jack the Ripper A-Z."
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3253
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
You are missing my point.
I am not saying that searching through petty crime archives or any other new research method is wrong or redundant. On the contrary, I too think it makes a heck of a lot of sense and that it can result in new thinking.
But regardless of which documents or information we'll find in any form, it is my firm belief that they will never -- 117 years in retrospect -- give us full confirmation of who the Ripper was (and I am even not speaking of evidence in legal meaning, that "would hold up in court").
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1820
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Thanks Frank for your positive comments,
just like you I am convinced that careful study of the incidental will reveal the improbable.
In that regard, Sir Robert, I have spent a good deal of time looking at the career of Robert Sagar, and it does appear that he was in fact a very low key police officer, more involved in the arrest of barrow boys for stealing cloth and such like; the high point of his career being when he arrested 66 folk for illegal gambling.
I have not been able to find a single involvement in a case of murder or other serious crime, and there were many such crimes in his period of employment with the Met, therefore I do feel that his supposed involvement in the Ripper crimes may have been based on wishful thinking rather than reality.
Of course he may have been involved, as the Met was stretched at the peak of the killings to get enough officers on the street, but he certainly doesn't come across as an officer to be trusted with serious criminal offences.
All I can say to Glenn is be prepared to be surprised what comes up in the next year, and yes, Glenn, you may have to end up eating your awkward hat. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1821
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Sorry, it's the brandy.
Robert Sagar was of course employed by the City police and not the Met. |
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
AP Wolf
I agree with you 100% with respect to evidence being discovered in the future that will solve this case.
I don't know if it is forthcoming, but I am confident there is paperwork out there somewhere with that evidence. It is just a matter of time.
all the best
Restless Spirit
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1658
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
I often think its like a jigsaw puzzle-you start at the edges and work inwards and somewhere along the way the pieces start fitting more rapidly.But in the case of the ripper a number of pieces that dont belong keep moving in and creating digressions.
Apart from the research that sometimes throws light on bits and pieces of the case there are other factors that come into play such as being able to adjust the focus because of a better understanding of what was going on in Whitechapel
in 1888 and only some history books and newspapers
seem to give an authentic flavour.
For example taking just Hanbury Street:
On the map a cow field abutts the backyard of no 29---and fairly recently I learnt that the name of the owners of that field of cows was the same name as those who owned the slaughterhouse in Winthrop Street near to the spot where Polly Nicholls was found.[Barbers I think it was].I often wondered about those slaughtermen possibly giving each other alibis ---just a thought.
By day and early evening Hanbury Street seems to have been a hotbed of activity which centred round its old hall[opposite no 29].In the 1870"s it was where Charles Dickens gave numerous readings from his latest novels whereas by the 1880"s it was becoming a focus of radical politics together with places like Toynbee Hall and the Berner Street Club.By 1888 it was THE focus of radical trade unionism and would have had such luminaries as the Match girl strikers/Eleanor Marx etc in and out organising
various events.The police probably kept an eye on it as well.
By late night though the character of the street seems to have changed.No 29 was fairly respectable by day by all accounts.The business woman who was the landlady and took up the packing case business when her husband Mr Richardson died was a devoutly religious elderly woman who held meetings in a back room [overlooking the yard] every Sunday.So kind and generous apparently she looked after a very old homeless lady herself there free of rent etc and didnt bother to lock her doors at night because "she trusted all her neighbours and had known them all for years"-though her son seems to have been quite concerned about it as he often found people kipping on the landing there or
engaged in illicit "business".The toilets in the back yard seem to have been something of an attraction too at night according to the next door neighbour Mr Cadoche.[all this reported at Annie Chapman"s inquest].
So just taking one scene a few hundred yards only from the notorious Dorset Street brings us,at least during the daytime and early evening
to quite a different neighbourhood where intellectuals and literary figures mingled with
political activists and the Mre Richardsons and Mr Caddoches of the street and all watched over probably by police etc on the look out for people who might overturn the state!
while at night various homeless people dossed.Did the ripper know the Hanbury Street of the daytime as well as the night?If he did know both what brought him there?
And what about Mitre Square?
Another hotbed apparently for we have policemen reporting that they kept watch there too[for anarchists/radicals?]as well as prostitutes taking clients into the shadows picked up across the road at St Botolphs church.
Berner Street of course was another hot bed of radicalism,undoubtedly kept a watch on for anarchic activity especially since the workers newspaper--- and what a siren call to action that apparently was ---was also printed there--"The Arbiter Freint".
Just some thoughts about the different faces of Whitechapel in 1888 and where Jack might have fitted in.
Natalie
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3254
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
AP,
"All I can say to Glenn is be prepared to be surprised what comes up in the next year, and yes, Glenn, you may have to end up eating your awkward hat."
I'll have to buy a hat first, though, and an awkward one wouldn't be my first choice.
In any case, have fun with the research.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 87
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
AP,
That was a fine point you made concerning the web. The rapid means of communication that are at our finger tips today are the strongest assets modern Ripper researchers have.
Littlechild's words to the Daily Graphic in April 1893 were, "Murders have been committed in my time in which it has been morally certain who the perpetrator was, but owing to the lack of positive and direct evidence it has been impossible to bring him before a magistrate."
Littlechild may or may not have been talking about the Ripper. But for those people who think he was, these researchers can strive to obtain the same moral certainty which they believed Littlechild had attained. But proving beyond reasonable doubt who the Ripper was is a much higher obstacle. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 333
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Nats--
That's a very interesting post and reminds me that I,at least, have to struggle to get a feeling for what the area really was like. It's hard enough never having been there, but the cultural differences are something that I probably don't even know how little I know (if you know what I mean.)
Thanks again!
Mags
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
Yes Natalie
very pertinent.
Recently I found a story in The Times about Fieldgate Street that highlighted your point.
It is hard to imagine this now, but in the 1880's gangs of 'High' and 'Low' Germans used to regularly riot against one another in the street, and as there was a large shooting gallery in the street things could turn a little bit nasty, with various parties of Germans taking pot-shots at others.
No wonder the police were a tad reluctant to get involved!
The social politics and racial tensions of the area around Whitechapel Road were a total nightmare during the LVP. |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 332
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Just following on from the last few posts, how is this for some really politically incorrect observations from a 1901 book on Wentworth Street Market..........no wonder there was racial tension with this sort of statement in print..........
'Wentworth Street is off MIddlesex Street, once known as Petticoat Lane - and appropriately so, for it was the headquarters of the "old clo'" trade - not far from Aldgate Railway Station. In Wentworth Street, any Sunday morning , may be seen such a spectacle as portrayed in our picture. From all the purlieus of Whitchapel crowds of foreign Jews flock to do the marketing that their faith prevents them from doing on their own Sabbath. It must be confessed that they are not all scrupulously clean, not is one's sight the only sense that is offended. The noise is often deafening, and in the babel of sounds half a dozen different languages my be distinguished - Frech, German, Russian, Hebrew, with the Yiddish compounds of them all, and occasionally English.'
The Juwes are definitely not the men to be blamed for nothing but the sound of it!!!!!!!!!
As a child I was fortunate enough to know Jews who were living in Whitechapel in 1888 and they said that it really was pretty grim and the Jews did get the blame for everything. My great grandparents were first and second generation Jews from Russia living in the area at the time and from what I can gather life for them was actually pretty dangerous. The tension was not only between Jews and Gentiles but between Jews from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Good times.............
I wonder whether we are missing something in respects to what was actually going on socially and politically at the time? I have heard some pretty strange ideas about the murders being perpetrated by anarchists to start a revolution ...........Maybe we should miss that one!!!!!!!!!
Love to all
Jane
xxxxxxx.
(Message edited by jcoram on March 09, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1661
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Well yes---ofcourse there was prejudice of all kinds, including that you refer to Jane,between established and some maybe quite prosperous Jews and the recently arrived Jews these being exploited by whoever had made enough dosh to own a factory-whether these were Jews or Gentiles or whether ,they owned the vast gas companies,the ship building industry, the local Bryant and May Match factory or just a local sweatshop.
I enjoyed that about the German High and Lows AP!
Difficult to imagine Fiedgate Street at that time and without its impressive Mosque of today.
Thanks Maria.It took Hanbury Street to bring it to life for me for despite the destruction by the brewery company of one side of this street-
including no 29
the other side retains much of what was, including the lovely old meeting hall I wrote of above.
I forgot to mention Mitre Square"s Kierley and Tongue Tea warehouse[hope I remembered the correct name there]and where Thomas Cutbush had worked!I wonder if he was also friendly with the policeman who lived there and on the fatal night had slept through it all?
Natalie
Sorry about the muddle in the first paragraph |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Hi,Carolyn
Just thoughts.
If I look at the sequence of of the murders Flower & Dean St. is the main street where the victims came from not Dorset St.,it seems.The first Polly Nichols came from a doss-house there,no.56,Chapman(from Dorset St.) likely was a chance meeting or sighting,next is Eddowes, again from Flower & Dean St.,no.55 beside Polly's-and Wilkinson's too(the deputy),and then MJK from Dorset St..
ideal time to kill,I think
2:30 a.m.-2:38 - Nichols-last sighted by friend
2:30-2:35 a.m.-in MJK's murder sighted by Sarah Lewis checking the murder sight,a time the killer chose at a time when there were more cops,vigilantees,etc.(although nobody was watching Dorset St.)
Chapman-possible chance meeting or sighting(perhaps(?) through the busy market)
Eddowes-to me,a bit different...early (it appears to me)
In an article on doss-houses,12:00 a.m.,3:00 a.m,and all night.were mentioned as times of closing.
The Star
LONDON. THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER, 1888.
Eddowes inquest.
Frederick W. Wilkinson -deputy of the lodging-house
A Juror: Is it usual to have your house open at two in the morning? - Yes, till about half-past two.
Times (London)
Friday, 5 October 1888
By a juryman. - It was usual for the place to be open at 2 o'clock in the morning. They generally closed at 2:30 or 3.
I don't know if the newspaper's transcripts are right or which.If it is..
----I think there is something wrong with Frederic Wilkinson's testimony and one particular action in the inquest.
In theThe Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3
Mr. Crawford: Did any one come into your lodging-house and take a bed between one and two o'clock on the Sunday morning? - No stranger came in then.
[Crawford] Did anyone come into your lodging-house about two o'clock on Sunday morning whom you did not recognise? - I cannot say; I could tell by my book, which can soon be produced.
---BUT
The deputy was dispatched for his book, with which after an interval he returned. It merely showed, however, that there were fifty-two beds occupied in the house on Saturday night. There were only six strangers. He could not say whether any one took a bed about two o'clock on Sunday morning.
Can you tell me whether any one came into your lodging-house, either a stranger or anyone you knew, and took a bed between one and two? - No, I don't think so. Two detectives came about three.
---AND in the Star, THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER, 1888.
Can you by referring to your books see if any one came in between one and two? - Yes, by my books.
---WILKINSON,the lodging-house deputy, had by this time returned
Does your book enable you to say whether any person came in about two on Sunday morning? - It does not indicate what time anyone would come in.
No register is kept of names of any kind? - No, sir. It's all done by crosses and numbers.
He was asked,depending on which newspaper,if someone came in at a certain time and his answer is to the effect that he could answer this by his book but the book does'nt answer the question.
(Presumably there would be a different marking for a regular and a stranger and also 1:00 a.m.-3:00 a.m. would indicate a different day-)
He should or would have known that the book would'nt indicate the time.
If anything this is a daily occurence.And he was a deputy for years(if the time he'd known Kelly and Eddowes would indicate that).And ,I strongly assume,there would have been a one way of logging.
It appears to me his recollection of at least one of the hours between 1:00 a.m.-3:00 a.m. is uneasy and his retrieiving the log book to determine if anyone came in at a particular time was a show.
Little things connect.And coincidences like of the 1200 unforunates,and in more than 2 month's,and despite changes in the community,the victims came from Flower & Dean and Dorset St.are somewhat set aside.Also the direction the killer run from Mitre Square makes F&D St.(or the general area where the 4 victim's live) a possible target.But among other things i don't have any idea why the murders were done Friday-Sunday mornings.And how did he know about the door in MJk's room and perhaps knowledge of Maria Harvey leaving 2 day's before.Also how would he know when will Eddowes come out.
(Census info,courtesy of Chris Scott and David O'Flaherty)
Wilkinson in the 1891 census, listed at 55 Flower and Dean Street, listed as a lodging house.
His entry reads as follows:
Frederick W Wilkinson
Married
Aged 35
Lodging House Manager
Born Manchester
His wife was Mary A Wilkinson, aged 24 born Whitechapel.
No children are listed. |
Nomad
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Perhaps saucy Jack was actually Jacklyn? |
James Bond
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:17 pm: |
|
Hi,
Will we ever have the vital clue to solve it? This is my view anyway.I believe most attemps to solve the case have been using linear thinking - no offense intended.We can look at what is in front of us and try and make sense of it using the linear approach.As Glen sais, it may never be solved this way.Perhaps to get that vital missing link or something we are missing , it may take someone who is a genius at lateral thinking.It might not be a mathamatician that can solve it but an artist? |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
On Eddowes, as far as when drunks are released from Bishopsgate station, I think Constable George Henry Hutt's, 968, City Police,testimony "I took over our prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning. The inspector, being out visiting, I was directed by Sergeant Byfield to see if any of the prisoners were fit to be discharged"(THE DAILY TELEGRAPH FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1888)is telling on the norm.
|
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Hello,
Carolyn, I too share your enthusiasm that in the entire country of old England there might be something that is a vital clue to solving the case.The problem with solving the case though, is finding enough people with the desire, and CASH, to do it.I have thought of something that may work, but not sure what others might think.
After 117 years why doesn't the ripper following community put an American style bounty on Jack's head.Start a lotto style pool to be controlled by a seniour police officer.Everyone who wants the case solved puts in however much they want.The money sits in the pool gaining interest until it becomes large enough to grab peoples attention world wide. Once it reaches a million pounds, I think simple overlooked things may indeed come out of the woodwork.
So what do think? WANTED - JACK THE RIPPER - For Whitechapel murders. $1 000 000.00 plus for the person whose evidence leads directly to the conviction of JACK THE RIPPER. It might not be as wierd as it sounds.
Your pal Stu. |
Joan Taylor.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
What a nice lot of people, admitting this type of problem after years of research. For sure, Jack is indeed still laughing his head off somewhere, one eyebrow raised, saying.... how hard can it be? 
Well, I agree with Glenn, it's harder even than that, when all the clues have long gone.
But what a nice lot of people on this board all the same. |
Carlitos
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 2:28 am: |
|
Hi Carolyn:
I don't know if you did it on purpose but you made such a beautiful and ironic statement.
You're basically proposing an Okcham's Razor (who was english and the principle's name alludes to the ripper's weapon).
Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.
In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'', but in reality the Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning.
I would search in the letters. Even if i don't agree 100% with Patricia Cornwell in "Portrait of a Killer", I think she made a serious investigation of the paper, the handwriting, the style, etc.
Personally I don't believe that absolutely all letters (more than 600) were hoaxes. I think that if we stick to the "canonical victims" at least five letters must have been written by the ripper according to the fact that most serial killers feel excited revealing their crimes,challenging the police, visiting the crime scene and even attending to their victim's funeral. There must be at least a couple that contain data that only the assasin should have known from the crime scene.
Now that we are talking About Hanbury St. I believe that sometimes we stick to the common ideas that serial killers are 100% cold blooded, calculating, murdering machines. Sometimes we even overestimate the intellect of a serial killer and we forget that they are "human". With this I mean that they can commit a bunch of mistakes. A related rule, which can be used to slice open conspiracy theories, is Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity", therefore i think that jtr simply got over excited and took the risk. I think we should search for errors or some kind of revelation in the letters.
Thank you.
Carlos
P.S. I apologize for any ortographic or grammatical mistakes but i'm mexican and i have few opportunities of practicing my english skills.
|
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Also
The concidence,and this may only point to a "local man",that 2 days after Eddowes returned from hop-picking and Maria Harvey leaving MJK's room both of them were killed, is'nt surprising.I'm maybe wrong but those coincidences and the 22 days interval after Chapman's murder when Eddowes was killed and 39 days interval after Eddowes murder when MJK was killed gives the impression that the killer became cautious after Chapman's murder,although when he got a target he was brazen. |
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Hello all,
Sorry that I have not answered all of your ideas before now, but I have just seen ones posted as far back as March 7, were they late in being posted? I have tried to keep up with this thread.
Zxcter,
Yes little things do connect, that is my point. I also feel that location is very important. Jane made the point in an earlier post that the timing could have been because payday was on Thursday.
Nomad,
Something to think about, would change everything around.
James Bond,
Yes, I agree we may need an artist to solve this, a different approach.
Stuart,
I'm afraid if we offered a reward, all the flakes of the world would come knocking at our doors, but maybe some of the flakes would offer some real information. Interesting idea.
Joan,
Of course we are nice. What did you expect me to say?!!
Carlitos,
Thank you for your very kind words, I am not familiar with Ockham's Razor. I am of the old school of KISS, Keep it simple, stupid. But I do feel we get so hung up on so many details we are losing the larger picture. Clouding the water.
Maybe the letters will offer some new insight, I think we tend to lump them all into the realm of fiction.
Thanks,
Carolyn
|
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 12:17 am: |
|
Hi,all
a little addition to the above post.It gives me the impression that after Chapman's murder,the ripper became cautious,selective and just waited(he would'nt have known MJk would split with Barnett,and also of Maria Harvey moving out).Of course one could say this is all irrelevant and just another coincidence.
In anycase basic facts and optimism are good.Just bring everything to an ordinary,street-level.And in sequence. |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
Hi All.
a little correction-After Chapman's murder ,with the increased patrols,resident's awareness changing(ex.-Squibby who almost got mobbed and some people turned in for some suspicion)it gives the impression that the killer became cautious and selective ,and just waited(also after Eddowes murder he would'nt have known MJK would split with Barnett and make her a target),although when he got a target he was brazen.Of course one can say this is all irrelevant and just another of those coincidences that happens.
In anycase basic facts and optimism are good.Just bring everything down to an ordinary and street level.And in sequence. |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 12:18 am: |
|
Hi,all
a little addition to the above post.It gives me the impression that after Chapman's murder,the ripper became cautious,selective and just waited(he would'nt have known MJk would split with Barnett,and also of Maria Harvey moving out).Of course one could say this is all irrelevant and just another coincidence.
In anycase basic facts and optimism are good.Just bring everything to an ordinary,street-level.And in sequence. |
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 12:01 am: |
|
Hi Carolyn,
The good thing about a bounty is that it only gets paid when the conviction is maid. When you consider how desparate for answers people have been on this case, more than any other criminal case in history I would think, the public might not care if 10000 flakes answered the call, as long as just one had the decisive evidence. This would be the only person to get their hands on the reward.
Your pal Stu.
|
Erin
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 41
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 10:53 pm: |
|
Carolyn, I entirely agree with you. Every time I read or reread one of my books on the Ripper I underline passages and dogear pages that contain information that, for whatever reason, stands out in my mind. In quiet moments I will often go back to these passages and turn the information over and over in my mind, hoping, just like you, that somehow it will provide me with the vital clue. It hasn't happened yet (obviously!), but one thing I keep coming back to is the strange juxtaposition of order and chaos that is present at several of the murder scenes. In Chapman's case, it is the peculiarly neat arrangement of items at her feet and next to her head, which stands in stark contrast to the savagery inflicted on her body. I feel the same way about the careful, symmetrical cuts made on Eddowes' face coupled with the apparently random and brutal mutilations to her abdomen. It is almost as if he was trying to bring some perverse degree of order to a scene of absolute, unmitigated carnage. Why? Do the arrangement of Chapman's possessions and the strange cuts made to Eddowes' face hold some special significance for him? Is it a code of some kind that we are meant to decipher? And moreover, when time was of the essence, why bother hanging around to perform these seemingly random, unnecessary actions? Clearly, these rituals were important enough for him to risk getting caught, but why? I often wonder if the key to his identity might very well be contained within the answers to these questions. Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I'm not ready to stop trying.  |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 1:33 am: |
|
Erin,
I wouldn't call you a cockeyed optimist at all. Thinking like yours is exactly what I am talking about. There are a lot of details that just don't make sense. Why would he take the time to do certain things. Was he leaving us clues that we are just too blind to see,or understand.
The more I read the more I feel we have taken a pretty straight forward case and twisted it all around with different areas of speculation, making it much more complicated than it really is. I'm beginning to think if JtR could read all that has been written about him/her he would probably shake his head and say, "I did all that? All I really did was kill me a few whores." I really think he/she would be totally at a loss, at all the theories etc. that have been put forth. All the so called connections that have been made. It can't be this hard!
That is why I believe we are missing something so simple...
Cheers,
Carolyn
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
