|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 4:46 pm: |       |
Hi Richard,
The problem is that its content -- according to what we've learnt here -- really contains no information that is interesting as far as the Ripper is concerned. It is neither evidence, nor a reasonable ground for any kinds of suspicions in any direction. All we have is that a man at the service was seen spitting on Mary Jane Kelly's grave. The man's identity is matter of guesswork, and if it was Barnett we have no idea why he did this. There is no reason to from this implicate that Barnett was her killer, unless one wants to twist the facts in a certain direction.
I tell you what, Richard: if the letter or an oral tale of this sort was among my source material I would know what to do with it, but it is hardly appropriate to print here...
But, with my sincere greetings, good luck with it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 11, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 7:14 pm: | |
G'day,
As I've said before, The first chapter of the book starts at Mary Kelly's funeral and gives a thorough description of the day, (as described in contemporary newspapers). That eyewitness report that is shown here, was one account used for this purpose. The grave spitting thing is mentioned, as a story that was revealed much later. Points for it being true and points against it being true, are discussed. Then we describe it as cause to 'go back in time' and examine the couples lives and relationship closely.
The 2nd chapter outlines what little is known about their seperate pasts, and finishes with the pair meeting in 1887.
The 3rd chapter looks at the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, the 4th at Annie Chapman, and so on.
We haven't as yet included the murder of Martha Tabram, but that may come later.
There is a chapter about the letters, a chapter about George Hutchinson, a chapter giving the full account of Mary's inquest, and a final chapter looking at conclusions, and Richards '39' observation may go in as a seperate chapter because he is 'stuck' on it, and other readers may be interested.
The grave-spitting thing isn't used as evidence! It is just mentioned so that people know of the claim and can debate it in the future. We hope that alot of issues can be debated after our book is included into these studies!
'Casebook' is well mentioned, and credit goes to whomever credit is due!
GLENN: I'd dearly love to see one of those photos where boards were used, because from the Victorian London funeral reports I've read, every expense was included, and boards weren't mentioned -either in use BEFORE or AFTER the coffin went in.
Isn't it safe to assume that boards were placed to settle the ground, after the grave was filled? (like patting the fill down with the back of a shovel?)
LEANNE |
James Wood
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 9:45 pm: | |
As Glen suggested, if the boards were re-used time and time again for a support for pall-bearers lowering coffins, then they wouldn't be included in funeral expenses. They would belong to the cemetary and be used at all grave diggings, possibly for years. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Leanne,
Once again, I fail to see why boards should be regarded as some sort of expense at all. Just a couple of old planks that one could easily find anywhere, and the same ones were probably used at several funerals. I really don't see your point here, it's making too much out of nothing.
I'd love to send you a couple of those paupers' funeral photos (one I believe was dated Copenhagen 1907), but they were in an old contemporary -- but richly illustrated -- book that I borrowed in a library in Copenhagen during my own research a couple of years ago, and unfortunately I don't have it my possession anymore. If I had, I most certainly would have inserted them in this thread.
"Isn't it safe to assume that boards were placed to settle the ground, after the grave was filled? (like patting the fill down with the back of a shovel?)"
No! That doesne't fit the descriptions I've encountered at all, and to be honest I really don't see the practical points with such a conduct. The thing you describe would be quite easily done by hand, and I have seen depictions of that as well.
The boards were mainly used for the men that lowered down the coffin to stand on (since the walls of dirt from the hole was in their way, so that there would be no space for them near the edges of the hole), and possibly also prior to that, to cover the newly dug hole so that no one should fall into it. But I see no practical use for them after the service or after the hole was refilled.
Regarding your book: I must say I am looking forward to it. It shall be nice to see your approach and also what you have to say about Kelly's and Hutchinson's personal histories -- I believe so far we don't know that much about either of them, so that shall be interesting.
However, I am sorry to hear, that a chapter should be devoted to Richards "39" theory (no offense, Richard) -- those kind of speculative elements I believe will be subjected to harsh criticism, but don't take my word for it...
James Wood,
Thank you for seeing my point. I can't see either why they should be included among the expenses in the first place.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 12, 2004)
(Message edited by Glenna on February 12, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
G'day James,
If the poles were re-used time and time again by coffin bearers to lower the coffin, why did they leave them there? And that also doesn't fit the description.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
Leanne,
What do you mean "leave them there"? And how do you know they really did? Because the letter or the sketch say so?
And even if they did, there probably weren't a funeral for the next 30 minutes!
You are laying your energy on the wrong stuff, Leanne.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 674
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Hi,Glenn,
Every Ripper book, eventually receives critisism, this is a very passionate subject, and everyone, has there own views, we are all guessing, because as I have said countless times' We were not around'.
The thirty nine theory, is a intresting point to make in any book, on this subject, because it will make an intresting observation, it is irrelevant, how the balance of opinion flows, it is up to the reader.
The grave spitting is also a relevant point, albeit circumstancial, it will trigger off peoples imagination, and hopefully give our suspect a good deal of credence.
Speculation forms a part of our book, but intresting specualtion, and speaking from a personal view, If I Purchase a Ripper book, I want to be entertained, and not read the same old boring A,B,C.
I feel confident, that Leanne, and myself, will shortly reach our objective, and produce a book, that will be a stepping stone for future publications,ie, new ideas, new approaches,and great entertainment.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1128
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 4:55 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
"Speculation forms a part of our book, but intresting speculation, and speaking from a personal view, If I Purchase a Ripper book, I want to be entertained, and not read the same old boring A,B,C."
I disagree, Richard.
Speculations are OK if they are built on interesting facts, leading to theories that have their base in actual concrete facts. However, theories and speculations based on fantasies and twists, in order to underline what the author wants to see in the facts are not acceptable. The 39 theory and the grave spitting are such examples. I prefer real factual books rather than books containing efforts in the style of Patricia Cornwell or Stephen Knight. Personally, I think factual books are more interesting, because it it allows the reader to judge the material himself/herself. I am not really interested in the author's personal opinions, theories and whims. I am through with those kinds of subjective publications, because the destroy and twists facts beyond recognition.
That being said, I will naturally check out your book and I am sure it will be a good read for entertainment. But while writing a non-fiction book the aim should really be more than that.
New ideas and approaches are only valid if they are based on true facts.
As a writer I myself don't mind being criticed, but it depends on which grounds. Things like the 39 theory and the grave spitting are all unnecessary and I hate to say it -- but the same critics that slayed Patricia Cornwell will fail to appreciate them.
Anyway, best of luck just the same, and I do with all sincere respect look forward to the result.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
'Speculations are Ok if they are built on interesting facts.'
I agree, but I'm looking for FACTS that state that 'mutes' or coffin barers used boards to lower a coffin, and not ropes tied to the handles, which they took away with them. I'll look in the library today.
LEANE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 6:53 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
I don't know if we have a case of misreading (maybe due to language problems on my part), but I actually mean that they used both -- that is, the boards to stand on WHILE lowering the coffin with ropes wired around the coffin -- for pauper burials mostly very simple wooden boxes or coffins were used, and they had no handles (at least this was the general approach in my part of the world -- I can not garantee they didn't do it differently elsewhere).
And please note, that I also believe that the boards probably could have been used to cover up the hole between the digging and the service -- I have seen photos of that as well and I think it would be practical indeed, for safety reasons. But as I said, I see no reason for the boards to be used AFTER the hole was filled in, and this is not speculation. We must use common sense here!
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 12, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 675
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 3:42 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
In ones attempt to solve a hundred and sixteen year old mystery, one has to rely on contempary newspapers, or if one started research forty-fifty years ago, possibly oral history.
It has been well documented, on these boards , that both these sources, are not to be trusted, they can be full of red herrings,
But the fact remains, that press reports, made at the time, and the scotland yard files, are the only means to access any imformation.
Any specualation, that I have added to our book , is based upon, press reports, and oral history, and is purely my interpretation, of the events, and not made up rubbish.
Facts have more then one way of interpretation, and my speculation, will give the reader, a fresh approach, but I make it perfectly clear in the book, that any scenerio, i suggest, is purely my own opinion.
Our book is not a fictional book, far from it, and neither is any speculation, on my part, I am just using the facts we have at our disposal, and looking at them from a different angle.
Regards Richard. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
"If I Purchase a Ripper book, I want to be entertained, and not read the same old boring A,B,C."
If you find "A,B,C" boring I suggest you write a fiction book about Jack the Ripper instead of attempting nonfiction.
If you want to be really entertaining, go for a book about how Diddles the Kitten was Jack the Ripper. Mystery and true crime book purchasers almost all love cats (well, at least judging from that line of cat detective stories), so I'm sure it'd do well.
The readers of nonfiction love "A,B,C" and want to see that, not endless what if scenarios that can be cooked up without rhyme or reason. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 678
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
I Quess it is have a go at Richard time,what I intended to say was,when one buys a book on 'Jack' one expects more than on 31st of ... and on the 8th of sept .. and on the 30th of sept... etc.
I Will agree that there are people out there who require the basic facts ,ie, newcomers to the subject, but a vast amount of punters[ for use of a better word] know all of these recorded facts, and want a theory from the author, which may , or may not, give them food for thought.
Dan.
Leanne ,and myself are not writing a book on fiction , every fact that is known , and more,is included in the book. so the ABC, Is well catered for, and we have not even mentioned diddles.
I have a reputation , for specualtion on this website, which is fair enough, but I do believe, that my specualtion, is fair play, because I start good flowing conversations, and to be honest, i feel I have contributed to some good headliners, not only on the new site, but the old.
I love facts, but there are only so many availiable to us, we seem to interpret them in the same old way, I use my knowledge, to offer alternative suggestions.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
G'day,
AHHH, DANN: This is not a fiction book!!!! I have spent heaps of time exploring real Victorian-London history, getting a good 'picture' of the East End, the workings of the markets etc., what a costermongers job involved and explored things I haven't read in any Ripper book so far! There is VERY LITTLE speculation!... and no one has written a full chapter on George Hutchinson yet!!!!
....except the guy who wrote a whole book on him of course!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
G'day,
By saying that the A.B.C. is boring, I think Richard just means to say that it looks at every detail too briefly. It is a great book, however!!!! I use it like a dictionary!
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
Leanne and Richard,
Although Dan certainly has his own way of putting things, I completely support his views on the matter.
For those who love and find non-fiction books usable, the factual A-B-C is quite often the most rewarding read -- and the more detailed the better.
As I said, books containing the author's personal theories and whims can very easily destroy and twist facts beyond recognition (just look at Stephen Knight -- whose obsessive ideas and fabrications we still have to live with and fight against after so many years of more fruitful Ripper research) and therefore create a lot of damage.
Now, I am not saying this to discourage you both, just to raise a warning finger. Everyone who writes a non-fiction book based on facts, have actually some responsibility for the outcome of their writing and their consequenses on future research.
That being said, don't worry; I am curious and I will be among the first to obtain your book for a genuine study. I just hope that elements like the 39 theory and the grave spitting won't turn it all into mere entertainment, because that would be a shame.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 680
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 2:35 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
By quoting A,b,C, I was not refering to a certain book, but books in general, seem to use ninety/per cent, of there space , refering to the same descriptions of the five [or six] victims, and there injurys, and a lot of readers, are purely reading , what they have read a dozen times before.
That is why I believe ,that plausible speculation, is essential, so that the reader , has something to dwell on, something to digest, that he , or she has not considered.
I cannot agree, that plausible speculation, is fiction, if it derives from known recorded sources.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
Hi Richard,
(although your last post was directed to Leanne)
"By quoting A,b,C, I was not refering to a certain book, but books in general, seem to use ninety/per cent, of there space , refering to the same descriptions of the five [or six] victims, and there injurys, and a lot of readers, are purely reading , what they have read a dozen times before."
Yes, I understood that -- I just wanted to point that out. Besides that, I think your description of such books is a rather exaggerated one.
"That is why I believe ,that plausible speculation, is essential, so that the reader , has something to dwell on, something to digest, that he , or she has not considered.
I cannot agree, that plausible speculation, is fiction, if it derives from known recorded sources."
And I disagree with you.
Now, if you excuse me, I am going to prepare myself for my London trip on Friday next week. I need some sleep.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 683
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Every time , you relay to the boards , that you consider, Stride may not have been murdered , by the person seen to have attacked her, you are speculating an opinion.
Every time I express to the boards, i consider stride was killed by that attacker, I to am speculating an opinion.
The people who doubt Mrs Maxwells story of seeing kelly, and offer possible explanations, are speculating an opinion, people who suggest, that kelly yelled 'oh murder' and offer alternative reasons, are speculating an opinion.
I Believe quite strongly , that the reason we cannot advance in this mystery, is that we are all walking down the same path, and reaching a dead end, and on our journey , we should mayby take a detour, and discover new walkways.
I repeat myself, facts can be interpreted many ways, and providing one makes assumptions, that offer alternative posibilitys, I cannot see reasons why this is unhealthy.
The police in modern times, will alter their original investigation, if it proves to be loss,and I would suggest many a case has been solved by detectives ,interpreting facts in a different way, and proceeding along a different route.
Anyway Glenn, have a great trip to London, enjoy Whitechapel, and retrace the route of jack, pop along to Leyton[ st patricks cemetary] and pay respects to kelly, speaking from my view ,I found my visit there, having discussed her for years, quite unforgetable.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
You are compeletely right. I have expressed numerous different opinions on these boards, and certainly not any one of those can supported by evidence.
However, to do the same thing in a book as an author is something completely different, and not something I at any cost would indulge in.
As you know I have published a crime history book myself, and it contains nothing of my own personal speculations, I prefer to just deliver the facts as interesting as possible and then leave the speculations and conclusions up to the reader. To me there is a difference discussing on these boards and to write a book -- believe you me.
Oh I certainly will enjoy my London trip, which will be my debut in London, Richard, and I will certainly try to pay Kelly and hopefully some of the other victims' my respect. As I can recall, I believe you once delivered a post regarding the locations of the graves, and I will certainly make us of that.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 2:13 pm: | |
Richard wrote:
"I cannot agree, that plausible speculation, is fiction, if it derives from known recorded sources."
I would agree that plausible speculation (provided it is presented as such) isn't automatically fiction.
But I would also respectfully point out that the things you have tried to call plausible on these boards have not matched up with the vast majority of other people's opinions about what is plausible and what is not, at least from what I have seen. This entire thread would be a prime example. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 4:09 am: | |
G'day,
We can search the 'A.B.C.' books and filed records on this case for ever, and never put our finger on the real murderer's name. He wasn't identified!
So we have to consider plausible speculation to get anywhere!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1147
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
G'day!
"We can search the 'A.B.C.' books and filed records on this case for ever, and never put our finger on the real murderer's name. He wasn't identified!
So we have to consider plausible speculation to get anywhere!"
Yeah, that's right -- plausible speculations... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 446
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 7:43 am: | |
We can search the 'A.B.C.' books and filed records on this case for ever, and never put our finger on the real murderer's name. He wasn't identified!
In 1994 when he began to research his book on James Kelly, James Tully discovered that Kelly's mother-in-law Mrs Brider's house was raided by the Metropolitan Police the day after Mary Kelly's murder. He did not find this out from the official files on either the Whitechapel Murders or on James Kelly, because the incident is mentioned in neither. He found it in a letter from Mrs Brider's solicitor to the Governor of Broadmoor, a copy of which was held in Kelly's Broadmoor files. If he had not gone searching we would never have known about this raid.
This is an example of why the above statement is wrong. Maybe we can search the currently revealed files, newspaper reports etc forever and not find a name, but we can find clues which will lead us to search other files, ones which nobody has thought of looking in before, and sooner or later we may find the file with the vital clue.
Speculation is another weapon in our arsenal, it too suggests to us new lines of enquiry and new places to search, but by the very nature of speculation it will not in itself lead us any closer to evidence of the Ripper's identity.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1155
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
Alan,
"Maybe we can search the currently revealed files, newspaper reports etc forever and not find a name, but we can find clues which will lead us to search other files, ones which nobody has thought of looking in before, and sooner or later we may find the file with the vital clue.
Speculation is another weapon in our arsenal, it too suggests to us new lines of enquiry and new places to search, but by the very nature of speculation it will not in itself lead us any closer to evidence of the Ripper's identity."
Very well put. I agree with every word of it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 145
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
East London Advertiser
Saturday, 24 November 1888.
The body was enclosed in a polished elm and oak coffin, with metal mounts. On the coffin plate were engraved the words: "Marie Jeanette Kelly, died 9th Nov.1888, aged 25 years.
Today when a body is buried it is placed into a concrete vault. Perhaps in 1888 they used a wooden vault of sorts. This would explain the removing of the boards.
The grave spitting incident may have been an apocryphal story or it may have been a fact.
If it was a fact then I see a man who blamed himself and Mary for the fact that she had died in such a tragic way and that he was powerless to stop it. His spitting on her grave was his way of dealing with the anger that he had towards her for not listening to him and for him not being there to protect her. I know it sounds odd but different people deal with death in different ways.
Nina |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 8:51 am: | |
Hi Nina
I think the removal of the boards has a simple enough explanation, independent of whether the grave is a simple hole in the ground, or whether it is lined in some manner. The gravediggers would put boards over the hole to prevent people inadvertently falling in. 
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 147
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Good point! I attended a funeral where the distraught family member had to be restrained from joining their loved one in their grave. It was truly heartbreaking.
Nina |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 1:39 am: | |
In the UK, even now, I would say that VERY few burials are into concrete vaults.
Surely the "boards" are place, with canvas straps, under the coffin during the "committal" part of the funeral service, and support the coffin above the then open grave. At the appropriate moment, the undertakers lift the coffin on the straps, and the "boards" (short planks) are removed and the coffin lowered into the grave using the straps, which are then pulled from underneath..
I have seen planks put around the open grave in wet weather for the undertakers/pall-bearers, clergyman, chief mourners etc to stand on. But i suspect the former explanation is what was referred to.
Phil |
Nina Thomas
Inspector
Username: Nina
Post Number: 155
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 12:48 am: | |
Phil,
In the UK, even now, I would say that VERY few burials are into concrete vaults.
I suppose things are done quite differently here in the states. A concrete vault is a requirement at most cemeteries even if the remains have been cremated. Also a mechanical lowering device is used to used to lower the casket into the vault.
Nina |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 1:42 am: | |
I can only speak for my experience, but all the internments I have been to have just been a hole dug in the earth of the cemetery.
Others might be able to speak more authoritively of UK law or custom.
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