|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 9:27 am: |       |
Hi All,
My question would not be 'was he let out on bail?' but 'if the police had any suspicions about him in connection with the recent ripping of female prostitutes (or indeed suspicions about him in any connection other than indulging in naughties with boys), and if they could have "engineered" the charges in any way, shape or form (to enhance the chances of getting an eventual conviction), couldn't they also have "engineered" things, without too much resistance from anyone, in order to refuse the herbal quack's initial release on bail?' [Sorry, but I had this irresistible urge to balance the idea of Dr. T threatening to stab people with a big knife with the fact that his forte was threatening to cure their acne with duff potions.]
In short, would there have been an absolute legal obligation to release Tumblety, that no amount of engineering could get around? If not, did they authorise his release while unaware of any good reasons not to? Or did they hold him in custody, in which case the 'Kelly need not have been a Ripper victim' argument has to be wheeled out again in order to keep the theory afloat?
Love,
Caz |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 8:37 am: | |
Caz--As long as Dr. T has been discussed on these boards a diverse crowd (that includes a number of excellent researchers) has continued to imply that 1) Tumblety's arrest had merely to do with his homosexuality; 2) he was a Punch-like figure of fun, struttin' the bumbershoot up Commercial road (and hence his arrest); or 3) his arrest on suspicion was largely a 'canard' by the New York newspapers.
I don't mean the following question to sound rude, nor do I mean it as a joke. I strictly seek to understand the opposition, and see no way around bluntly asking the question. Do people really believe that the Chief Inspector of the Special Branch of Scotland Yard gets his information from the New York papers? Is he misinformed or merely an idiot when he specifically states that Tumbelty was 'among' the suspects (and a very likely one)?
Heck, I admit that I've voiced skepticism of the Kosminski theory, but I would never go so far as to imply that the Polish Jew wasn't even a suspect. Swanson says he was a suspect. Littlechild says Tumblety was a suspect. As we know Mr. Browne had access to the Yard files before they were raped and pillaged, and stated that the Irish Home Rule investigation at one point crossed paths with the Whitechapel investigation, what does that tell us? It tells us that Littlechild would have been entirely up-to-speed with the Ripper files. And indeed, the Littlechild letter bears this out.
As for the 'gross indecency', I think people are looking at it backwards. The charges weren't the focus. The charges were merely a by-product of the Yard's attempt to trace Tumblety's movements during the so-called Autumn of Terror. The lucky break came on Nov. 2 when they found the boy prositute Brice. Then came the squeeze..... All the best, RJP
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 12:51 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
But when precisely did Tumblety first join the exalted ranks as a ripper suspect? If it was at any time before his release on bail, someone appears to have screwed up badly. (The man was hardly going to stick around if he thought there was the slightest possibility of ending up charged with the ripper crimes, guilty or not.) But if he was not suspected until later, after jumping bail and fleeing to Boulogne for a short while, then disappearing (Littlechild, in 1913, is under the impression that 'He was never heard of afterwards'), what could have been the basis for that suspicion, and what actual evidence did they have, or did they subsequently uncover, to support it?
Littlechild asserts in 1913 that the ripper was 'unquestionably' a sadist, but also acknowledges that Tumblety 'was not known as' one; in other words, there was no evidence that he was a sadist. He goes on to say that it was on record, however, that Tumblety's feelings towards women were 'bitter in the extreme'. Would it be usual to summarise any actual evidence of physical violence against women, using words like 'bitter' and 'feelings'? Or is it more suggestive of a general attitude Tumblety had shown in his dealings with the fairer sex, as much by word perhaps as by deed? If Littlechild knew there was far more to Tumblety's menace than 'feelings', to support his 'very likely' opinion, he wasn't letting on.
It doesn't help matters that Littlechild's reflections include the observation that 'It was believed he committed suicide', managing to load with significance the fact that Tumblety's absence from the scene coincided with the murders coming to an end.
I wonder why Littlechild decided to 'inflict one more letter' on Sims on the subject of the ripper, if there was nothing more he was free to offer him in the way of juicy information (but knew it existed).
As for the 'gross indecency', RJ, I think it was Tumblety who was 'looking at it backwards'. 
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 8:35 pm: | |
Caz---Surely you’ve heard the phrase ‘the suspect is being held on unrelated charges.’?
There's any number of possibilities. Criminals commit crimes. Big crimes, small crimes, medium-sized crimes. Sometimes a Peter Kurten is nabbed for mere shoplifting, and his arrest leads in an interesting direction; sometimes Al Capone can’t be nabbed for racketeering so he’s picked up for income tax evasion; sometimes a suspect is held overnight on weak evidence so Abberline can be sent over to ransack his lodgings.
I think you are confusing suspicion with evidence. The Yard suspected Tumblety (Littlechild tells us) it doesn't mean they had enough evidence to hold him. Likewise, Anderson suspected the Polish Jew, but, (he tells us) there was no legal evidence to charge him.
I’m still trying to figure out whether or not your answer to the question, “Was Littlechild an idiot?” is a resounding “Yes!” or not; for once again you seem to be straining at the possibility that F.T. was guilty of nothing more than spending a few idle moments in a bathhouse with a rent boy or four, and then, having jumped bail and zipped to Havre, [coupled with his vocal slurs against women] has Littlechild’s head spinning to the tune of" “Ah, here’s a likely suspect in the Whitechapel Murders!”
It's not a credible possibility. It's a weak link of non sequitur upon non sequitur that no Chief Inspector could have possibly have found 'likely'...
No, I suspect that there was something just a wee bit more...
Cheers. RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 12:42 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
I didn't think I was 'confusing suspicion with evidence', but apologise if that's the way it appeared. My questions, I thought, were simple ones: why was Tumblety suspected of a connection with the ripper crimes in the first place, and when did they start to suspect him?
Either there were good grounds for suspecting him or there weren't. You are arguing that someone like Littlechild wouldn't have described Tumblety as a 'very likely' suspect for no good reason. I'm simply trying to examine what that reason could be.
As you say, even if the reasons started off fairly vague and unevidenced, they could presumably have held on to their suspect on unrelated charges while getting to the - ahem - bottom of things. But they didn't hold on to him very tightly, did they? They authorised his release and he grabbed the chance to flee the possible consequences of these 'very likely' suspicions. This needs to be confirmed as a credible possibility, unless the suspect didn't earn his 'very likely' description until later.
And this in turn would need explaining, because there is something just a little odd and contradictory about the idea that someone of Littlechild's evident stature and reputation would choose to 'inflict' his unsolicited thoughts on the ripper case in 1913 on anyone, if he had just a wee bit more information than he wanted, or was at liberty, to offer, to back up his 'very likely' opinion.
It smacks of what happens too often here on the boards - people offering their opinions freely, while giving the impression they are retaining information that would add weight to them. Why say anything at all, if you can't provide chapter and verse?
Is this what you think Littlechild was doing when he decided to write one more letter to Sims? If so, is this your 'credible possibility'?
Love,
Caz |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 2:03 pm: | |
Caz--Of course the possibility always exists that those who 'retain information', really do have it at their disposal.
I don't see any contradiction in Littlechild writing to Sims with details about his preferred suspect, without spilling his guts entirely. I think it's human nature. Anderson had recently reaffirmed that the Ripper was a Polish Jew, and Sims himself had become the mouthpiece of Macnaghten's Druitt theory. Obviously, Littlechild was responding to questions that Sims had asked him---No, he hadn't heard of Dr. D., and no, Anderson didn't (in his opinion) positively know the identity of the murderer. Police aren't suppose to tell tales out of school, but what is more natural than Littlechild being unable to refrain from 'inflicting' Sims (still an active journalist) with the hint that there had been another likely suspect, but that he had jumped bail? A bit of a hot potato, if you think about it. And perhaps, in this light, it's not unnatural that Littlechild wouldn't elaborate too much. [Sims didn't prick up his ears: he was still championing the Druitt theory in 1917].
Cheers.
|
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 5:09 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Just reading your last post and regarding Littlechild's "evident stature and reputation" the following quote from 'Feasting With Panthers' by Rupert Croft-Cooke may interest you.
"It is impossible to doubt that the men employed by Queensbury to obtain information where thoroughly unscrupulous and deserved a long term of imprisonment for suborning and bribing witnesses on Queensbury's behalf"
This is in regard to the trails of Oscar Wilde and the two men where detectives called Kearley and Littlechild (yes the same man). Although Litlechild had by this time (1895) left the police force and was working as a private detective, it shows perhaps another opinion of the man.
Regards,
John Savage |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
Thanks guys.
Yes, all in all, I'm not convinced that Littlechild's letter can get us any further. I'm not saying I don't believe his 'hint', as RJ calls it, that Tumblety had indeed been suspected.
But it's also human nature to hint, or suggest inadvertently, that you are retaining information, if you want to put the case against one suspect over others, if you really do have it at your disposal. And I can't find even a tiny hint in the letter that Littlechild knew anything else about the basis of the suspicions. He may well have done - it's just a pity that without the hint, let alone the information behind it, it's hard to see how the case can be made markedly stronger with this letter.
Love,
Caz |
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 57
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 6:44 am: | |
Hi RJP!
Not necessarily true that there was no evidence on which to charge Anderson's suspect, as Anderson implies that he was already safely caged in an asylum when ID'd, in which case he could not have been brought to court as he would have been unfit to plead. Swanson, of course, supports the mystifying rider that the identifying witness declined to give evidence (or in Anderson's words, swear to the ID) as the suspect was a fellow-Jew, and, as Swanson recalled, also objected to the idea of giving evidence that might hang a fellow human being. None of this witness obstreperousness need necessarily have prevented charges being brought, though they might well have given the police pause (and today's pusillanimous CPS - Crown Prosecution Service, or, in some police eyes, "Criminals' Protection Service" - would almost certainly have chickened out).
I like your use of Monro's phrase "hot potato": it would certainly justify Monro's cryptic metaphor and observation that the Ripper ought to have been caught, though he wasn't, if he were in fact thinking of Tumblety.
Hi John S!
I personally think Littlechild (like most police officers of the time) was markedly and unpleasantly homophobic: his silly suggestion in the letter to Sims that all homosexuals are sado-masochistic is a perfect example of ignorant know-all bigotry. But Croft-Cooke, a notable Wildean, is probably capable of being over-sympathetic to Oscar. Queer-bashing (as the horrible Evangelical extremists of th Church of England are currently demonstrating) is always vile, and likely to turn one flatly against the bashers. But Wilde was no saint: his prosecution of Queensberry was a completely unjustified attempt to perjure an unbalanced man into prison and, as Wilde himself recognized at one point, the reason for his own ultimate downfall. So I wouldn't automatically assume that a writer as sympathetic to Wilde as Croft-Cooke is necessarily giving a fair account of littlechild's integrity.
All the best,
Martin F |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 284
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 7:54 am: | |
Hi all
The whole usefulness or otherwise of the Littlechild letter rests, it seems to me, on one sentence, namely:
"I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.)"
and specifically the phrase "a very likely one."
This is often interpreted to mean thet Littlechild is proposing Tumblety as a very likely suspect to be the Ripper but within the context of the sentence I think a different and more likely interpretation is possible. The sentence is addressing the specific point raised in an earlier letter from Sims, evidently inquiring if Littlechild knew who "Dr. D" was amonst the suspects at the time. This, and the fact that Littlechild makes the point of raising the possible phonetic confusion between D and T, suggest to me that what Littlechild was saying was, in effect, "A very likely one to be the Dr. D that you inquired about is Tumblety."
Incidentally, a possible candidate for Dr. D is Dr. Morgan Davies, who was accused by Stephenson.
Hope this is of interest.
Chris S |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 8:36 am: | |
Martin--I fully accept your point, but I was specifically thinking of Anderson's little essay on the difference between 'moral' and 'legal' evidence, the implication being (as I read it) that the case against the Polish Jew was a moral certainty in Anderson's mind, but there was darned little useable legal evidence. Hence the distinction.
John--I hestitate to point out that Mr. Croft-Cooke himself was charged in the 1950s for an act of 'gross indecency', so his sympathy might not have been with the police in such matters. Even if our modern sensibilites make us feel squeamish about the Wilde case, I don't see how Littlechild's zeal has any real bearing on whether he is accurately reporting the contents of a Scotland Yard file. I once used a similar argument , suggesting a strain of bigotry in Sir Robert Anderson's theology and politics, much to the disgust of Sadam Radka, who pointed out that such criticisms have no real bearing on whether Anderson is being truthful about the specific allegation that there was evidence against a Polish Jew.
Chris--interesting speculation, but I can't agree with your reading. Slice it or dice it, there's only one way of reading "among the suspects"... and, to my mind, it's clear what Littlechild is saying.
It seems odd to argue Tumblety was not a suspect at all, when we know that Sir Robert Anderson himself contacted U.S. authorities, seeking information about Tumblety at the height of the investigation. I would suggest that that settles the matter. Cheers, RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 9:46 am: | |
Hi Chris,
I actually think you may well be right. Although, as RJ says, 'among the suspects' leaves little room for doubt that Littlechild considered Tumblety to be a suspect (and I don't think either of us is trying to argue that Tumblety was not a suspect at all, are we?), your explanation for 'a very likely one' sounds as plausible as the generally accepted one.
Purely on a grammatical footing, it doesn't actually make much sense to say Tumblety was a 'very likely suspect' if you have just established that he was a suspect. A 'very likely' ripper would seem to me to be more correct.
I was always slightly concerned by Littlechild's choice of wording, while I could only conclude that he did actually mean that Tumblety, among the suspects, was in his opinion very likely to have been the ripper.
Now, your alternative interpretation would appear to make better sense, both grammatically, and within the overall context.
Try this for size:
'I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind very likely to be the one you are thinking of, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.)'
Love,
Caz
|
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 39
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 1:08 pm: | |
Chris,
I'm afraid I can't go along with your suggestion, either. "A very likely suspect" means only one thing to me: "A suspect very likely to be the perpetrator." It doesn't mean "Very likely to be a suspect," nor does it mean "Very likely to be the suspect you are thinking of". Admittedly, I am American, not English, and the nuances of grammar and syntax differ slightly. But it would never have ocurred to me to take Littlechild's sentence in the way you suggest.
Andy |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 4:13 pm: | |
Hi Martin
I must admit that I have no opinion either way regarding Littlechild and it was never my intention to suggest that his statements regarding Tumblety were anything other than what he believed. I posted Mr. Croft-Cooke's words only because I was reminded of them by reading an earlier post on this thread and thought that others may be interested in his opinion.
Your comments and those of R.J. Palmer add a good balance and I thank you both for them.
With regard to Queensbury I have always been of the opinion that by sending the 'posing as a somdomite' card to Wilde, his intention was to provoke a reaction from him, so in that respect I think them both equally responsible for the tragic mess that followed. By the way, I look forward to reading your book on Wilde, as soon as my local library get their act together.
R.J. Palmer,
I am glad you did not hesitate, and your info on Mr. Croft-Cooke is most valuable and helps me to interprate his views all the better, once agian my thanks to you.
Regards,
John Savage |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 11:07 pm: | |
"And I don't think either of us is trying to argue that Tumblety was not a suspect at all, are we?"
Caz--My apologies if I misunderstood you! Perhaps it was when you asked when Tumbley joined the "exalted" ranks of suspects, or when you stated "'if the police had any suspicions about him in connection with the recent ripping of female prostitutes (or indeed suspicions about him in any connection other than indulging in naughties with boys)'...that I somehow jumped to the wild conclusion that you were implying that Dr. T wasn't a suspect in the murders...
I stand corrected. Whew; we've reach our very first understanding. All the best, RP
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 7:58 am: | |
Hi RJ,
My tongue-in-cheek use of 'exalted' was not intended to imply that Tumblety shouldn't be consisdered a suspect at all. It was but a small jest; a note of the way some people here champion their suspect, as though the suspect himself has achieved something by being dignified with the name of suspect. Get the picture now? 
My other concerns, as I thought I'd made clear, were with the timing of the suspicions, ie when the police first suspected Tumblety. I don't understand how asking the question: 'When did he become a suspect?' rings a bell in your brain that tells you 'Ah, by asking such a question, she evidently believes, or is arguing, that he never was a suspect'.
But then, it's not the first time that someone has reacted to a question, not by trying to answer it, or address any of the related concerns, or even with a simple 'good question, but I don't know the answer', but by an analysis of what was in the questioner's mind, by way of an excuse to dismiss the question itself.
Sarcasm is not a useful tool if your conclusions really are wild ones.
Love,
Caz |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 8:39 am: | |
I would hazard a guess that Evans & Gainey were correct in that 'Dr. D'is a reference to Druitt. It was Sims' favorite theory, but it is entirely likely that Macnaghten would have protected Druitt's actual name from a working journalist, using, instead, the initial 'D.' If Chris Scott is correct in that Littlechild's mentioning of Dr. T is in direct response to Sims' query about Dr. D, "the chap that drowned himself in the Thames the last day of the year", (which makes good sense) what would more natural than to repeat the mistaken belief that Tumblety committed suicide? Ie., "No, I never heard of the young Dr. D. that committed suicide in the Thames, but there was a quack named Dr. T that had a bitter hatred of women, escaped to Havre, and was believed to have committ suicide."
If this is the scenerio (and it seems likely to me to be the correct one) then Littlechild would be completely aware that he & Sims weren't speaking about the same person, and his reference to "likely" could only have referred to Tumblety's strength as a suspect, and not the "likeliness" of him being the said Dr. D. I think it's twisting the grammar to believe otherwise.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 7:18 am: | |
Very good observation, RJ.
If you are correct that Sims gave Littlechild all these details about 'Dr' Druitt's suicide, then yes, it's hard to see how Littlechild could have been suggesting Tumblety as a 'very likely' Dr. D.
It would still be interesting to know if there is any way to trace police suspicions back to before Tumblety's release on bail. And, of course, to know what Littlechild would have said if Sims had asked who, in his opinion, was 'most' likely to have been the ripper. A 'very likely' suspect, who was 'constantly brought under the notice of police' (yet was released on bail and hopped it) and was the subject of 'a large dossier...at Scotland Yard', whose feelings towards women were bitter in the extreme, and who apparently vanished after the last murder, is not quite enough for me to conclude that evidence must have existed that was any stronger than whatever may have existed in the case of other contemporary police suspects.
In other words, we are left in the dark as to whether - best case - 'very likely' meant most likely, or very likely, to have been the ripper, based on evidence we don't know about, or - worst case - that Tumblety was one of several suspects, but, in Littlechild's opinion, he was a good one, in that there were better reasons for suspicion having fallen on him than for others.
Love,
Caz |
Raskolnikov
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 3:30 pm: | |
The main problem posed by the arrest is that it pretty much scotches the idea that Tumblety was the Batty Street lodger, or else it scotches the idea that the police suspected him of the Ripper killings while he was in custody.
If Tumblety *had* been a Ripper suspect while in custody, *and* been the Batty street lodger, this should have been pretty easy to prove. Just get the landlady to ID him, and if the ID is positive, you have a pretty strong suspect.
As such, either Tumblety as the Lodger is a dead end, and/or the police didn't start suspecting Tumblety until after he skipped bail and fled the country.
|
Catherine Catherine Atherton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 10:40 pm: | |
One major question is whether Dr T was free to kill Kelly on Nov. 9th. When Oscar Wilde was arrested in his hotel on the same charges as Dr T, his first question was whether he would be allowed bail. He was not. Presumably the police saw him as a flight risk; and indeed his family and friends had been urging him to flee to France that very day, while a warrant was being drawn up. But surely Dr T would have been a flight risk too: a foreigner, and with some means of support. Does anyone know what the policy was then on bailing those charged with gross indecency? (Today gross indecency can, I believe, count as an immediately arrestable offence with the option to lock you up for 72 hours and deny you access to a lawyer for that period.) Was the policy different for those charged under the same act with having sex with underage girls? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 668
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Hi Catherine,
I don’t know the answers to your specific questions I’m afraid.
The only point I would make is that if there were any suspicions around that time that Tumblety could be involved in the Whitechapel Murders, I can’t imagine why they would not have used the other charges against him to keep him very much where they could see him – if they had the authority to do so.
If they had to let him go because the charges were not serious enough, they either had no suspicions at the time that he was a killer, or they tried to watch his movements but he gave them the slip.
Love,
Caz
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Let's just have a look at what Littlechild wrote from a grammatical angle, and with the emphasis on Victorian precision in drafting
On that basis, we begin with:
"I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders..."
Fair enough (Littlechild would not have heard or read of a DR D (Druitt was a lawyer, remember. Sims got his information (directly or indirectly)from MM's incorrect draft and memo; Little child would have seen the file.
He then goes on:
"..but amongst the suspects..." so we are talking of suspects AT THE TIME (note the tense (past).
"...and to my mind a very likely one..." This immediately follws the word "suspects" and must relate to it. So in Littlechild's view (but not necessarily anyone else's at the time or at the time he wrote) Dr T was a VERY likely suspect.
"...was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.)" So he ends by relating his suggestion to what Sims had heard or misread.
I think there is no doubt that at the time he wrote to Sims at least (maybe in 1888/89) Littlechild knew Dr T to have been a suspect and thought him more than credible.
Sorry if I have laboured the point, it helped me to work it out!!
Phil |
|
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