|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 232
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 3:12 pm: |       |
Thanks Monty
I will get my dad to explain what you mean and move to the Diary Board.
Trevor |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 9:29 pm: | |
G'day,
It's been so frustrating because I haven't been able to make a post for days due to computer problems, so this is a test! LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 10:07 pm: | |
G'day,
Glad to be back! OK here's are my comments on: 'ODD OMMISSIONS, SCOTT MORROS PLEA FOR BARNETT'S INNOCENCE' by Dr. Frederick Walker.
* The argument that 'Barnett must be innocent because he was released by the authorities at the time': I am in total agreeance that one must be naive to believe this one. Keep in mind that apparently motiveless murders were new to the police. I have read that the Ripper case was the first. They were excellent at solving cases where the motive was clear (ie theft, inheritance, clear jealousy etc.) These women had one obvious thing in common: their chosen means of earning a living. This made them easy targets and in my opinion the Ripper had a clear hatred of such a lifestyle. It probably made him feel unimportant, so he had to create a 'monster' that made him appear bigger, feared by, in control of these women. Joseph Barnett's description of his interrigation was: "They kept me four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains and finally finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free." (Lloyd's Newspaper 11 Nov.) He had told the 'Star' that they had kept him for two and a half hours, so take your pick. At the time of this interrigation Mary Kelly's most likely time of death hadn't yet been established, and people today are still arguing that it was too early.
* The locked door: I agree that this is not an argument for Barnett's guilt because not enough is known about Kelly's lock.
* The Hanbury Street envelope: Found near the body of Catharine Eddowes, it had the letter: 'M, 2, SP' on it. Some people believe this was part of the killer's address: 'Millers Court, 26 Dorset Street Spitalfields', but it could have been her old address, because she was said to have stayed in the 'Shed', which the 'Daily Telegraph' reported was located at '26 Dorset Street, Spitalfields' I agree that this was a 'stab-in-the-dark'.
* The 'Lusk Letter' in Barnett's Irish dialect is not an important clue, because I firmly believe it was a clever hoax........................
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 10:43 pm: | |
....
* The Bloody Sink: Why do you say this never happened Glenn? I agree that there's no proof that this sink was in Miller's Court, but it was found in Dorset Street. After the discovery of the Goulston Street Graffito, police were sent in various directions to try and trace the killers most likely route. One found a bloody sink up a close in Dorset Street. At 3:00am in the morning. There were other links to Dorset Street too:
1) Marhta Tabrams friend Pearly Poll lived at 35 Dorset Street.
2) Annie Chapman lived at 30 Dorset Street.
3) Elizabeth Stride lived on and off with Mickael Kidney at 33 Dorset Street.
4) Catharine Eddowes had often stayed in the 'Shed', which was reported to be at 26 Dorset Street.
5) Mary Kelly lived at 26 Dorset Street....
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 10:47 pm: | |
....
* Barnett's Resemblance to credible witness descriptions: Joseph Barnett's height, colouring, moustache and estimated age range match PC Smith's and Joseph Lawende's given descriptions.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 83
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 1:12 am: | |
Well, Leanne.
I'd just started to wonder where you'd gone to...
* The argument that 'Barnett must be innocent because he was released by the authorities at the time':
Thats' right that we only have his own words (through the newspapers) about this incident -- that is why I don't consider this point being of much interest anyway. Being naive is one thing, but we must not forget that the police were under enourmous pressure after the "double event" to find the Ripper. If Barnett really was under serious suspicion I doubt that they would let him slip away without being studied further; most other suspects were thoroughly investigated. Appearently the police didn't find anything to hold him for, even if he were there for four hours or not.
* The locked door:
"I agree that this is not an argument for Barnett's guilt because not enough is known about Kelly's lock." If the accounts about the spring lock is true, and that the door could be opened by stretching the arm through the broken window (and release the lock), there woiuld be no need for a key anyway.
* The 'Lusk Letter':
Well, the only thing that for certain could make us determine whether it was a hoax or not, would be if the kidney really could be eastablished coming from Eddowes. Since that never will be the case, the letter is the worst possible clue ever. And even if it could be claimed as genuine, there would be no evidence showing it was penned by Mr Barnett.
* The Bloody Sink:
"Why do you say this never happened Glenn?" Because it most certainly didn't. And if it did it had no bearing as a clue whatsoever. This "clue" has its origin in two lines written by Major Smith (as Stewart P Evans also mentions in his critizism). This piece of "information" can't be collaborated with any other source and is therefore totally worthless. The sink is a ghost from past Ripper investigations that has been considered eliminated out of the picture for quite a long period of time, and in the "sink" it should remain.
The so called links to Dorset Street (connecting the different victims with one another) are incredibly thin and means nothing. Too much speculation.
* Barnett's Resemblance to credible witness descriptions:
Once again you're twisting your own words, Leanne. How do you know that the witnesses are "credible", even if they were considered so at the time? No witness statements are fully "credible"; they are subjective interpretations of a sighting or an experience. It's true that we can find some collaboration in some of the witness accounts, but on the other hand is Barnett unforunately not the only one of the suspects to fit this actual description. And the description could easily suit hundreds of male characters in Whitechapel as well. It doesen't rule him out, of course, but it doesen't prove anything either -- witness descriptions seldom does.
Thank you for your comments, Leanne. Interesting that you didn't mention the part about the clay pipe...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 2:37 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
I wonder what your opinions are on the following.
I posted the thirty nine theory on these boards a couple of years ago, and I thought that the results were intresting to say the least.
Martha Tabram. stabbed 39 times, aged 39.
Polly Nichols killed 31st of the 8th month=39
Chapman killed 8th of the month 31 + 8 =39
Stride and Eddowes killed 30th of the 9th month=39
Barnett decided to move in with Kelly 9th april 87
Left her on the 3oth oct,88 9+30=39
He left her on the 30th she was killed on the 9th=39
She lived at 26 Dorset st, room 13=39
Other points of intrest are Ada Wilson aged 39.
A letter received to the police stated 'I Live at 39 cutler street[ very near Dorset st]
Intrestingly IF one reads the first part of the 39th psalm, it could explain quiet well the killers inner feelings.
Of course all the above are just coincedences. or are they?.
regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 608
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 4:49 am: | |
G'day,
GLENN: How come I am reading about that bloody sink, in an article written in 1912 by Robert Anderson and why do you consider the common link to Dorset Street 'incredibly thin'? It's a link, like the chosen means of earning a living of these women is another!
I stopped bickering about that clay pipe, not because I was satisfied it was Alice's, but because I was sick of arguing about it!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 580
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 5:01 am: | |
Hi Leanne
It would be weird and wacky if Barnett, with all his local knowledge, chose to wait until he was outside his front door before washing his hands. Why not some other sink?
He might as well have fixed a notice to his door : "Jack the Ripper within. Do not disturb."
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 609
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 5:11 am: | |
G'day Robert,
The only people who say this sink was possibly the one right outside Miller's Court, are the previous authors choosing Barnett as a suspect.
If it was, or one nearby, the blood was still visible as it was washing down the drain. Why would it have been a 'notice on his door'?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 582
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 6:45 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Whether this was the sink outside room 13, or another one in the same road, it's still odd if Barnett should have waited till almost home to leave this clue.
You can get round this by moving the sink further away from the Court. But the further you move it, the more the connection to 13 room is weakened.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 85
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 9:48 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I rightfully predicted that my dismissal of the sink and the Dorset Street "links" would make your Australian blood boil.
Robert has an important point here, Leanne, whether the presumed sink was "located" in Dorset Street near by the court or in Miller's Court itself (which nothing indicates at all -- Smith mentions a court on Dorset Street, that's it), he would be taking a stupid risk -- now, I for my part don't believe in a cunning, smart Jack the Ripper, but there are limits...
I haven't read the article you so peoudly refer to, but I am pretty sure that Anderson got the information from Smith (and maybe was influenced by him to take the lead serious -- however noone else does, except from barnett fans). The fact is that noone except Smith himself (who was extremely pressed for results and deeply fristrated over the leck of results and the fact that the killer slept away) spotted or had direct information about the sink.
"...why do you consider the common link to Dorset Street 'incredibly thin'? It's a link, like the chosen means of earning a living of these women is another!"
Now you're grasping at straws. Even if you could prove that the women knew each other, that doesn't appeal to anything but our imagination. Dorset Street was a "popular" and practical street to work and live in if you were in the occupation of soliciting and the lodging houses lay close to one another -- the street was one of the worst, maybe the worst and most notorius of all. Of course they could have bumped into each other, of course they could have been neigbours at some time. But what does that prove?
And why should the fact that they all had the same occupation be of any importance? Prostitution was hardly a rare way to make a living in Spitalfields and Whitechapel.
I do believe the clay pipe was Barnett's, but the point here is that clay pipes were very cheap and costed nothing, so Barnett had most likely several or at least more than one. That's why he didn't bother to come back and get it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 86
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 10:02 am: | |
Richard,
I'm sorry, but I don't know what to say about these constructed innovations of yours. I wouldn't call it a coincidence, but anyone can produce interesting factors, if one sits down and calculates long and hard enough.
Not a single letter in this context can be considered genuine with full certainty and the 39th psalm (I'm sorry, Richard, but how do you come up with this stuff?) -- why should that have any connection with the Ripper murders (yes, I have read it and it's interesting but is the number 39 the only link you have to the Ripper murders and/or Barnett)? I'm afraid it's all speculations (once again) -- I don't mind keeping Barnett as an interesting suspect, but not on such speculative and unscientific grounds. It is interesting and innovative, though, for a fiction novel.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 586
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 4:51 pm: | |
Leanne, another point about the night of 30th : where in 13 room is Joe supposed to have hidden the organs?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 87
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 5:09 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Excuse me for breaking in;
"...where in 13 room is Joe supposed to have hidden the organs?"
Nowhere! There is no way in the world that would be possible. That's why Dr Walker in his first article Joseph Barnett came to the conclusion that Barnett had an accomplice -- Ostrog!!! 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 5:25 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Leanne and myself are certainly not writing a fiction novel, I purely mentioned the 39 Theory, as a intresting fact.
It is certainly not the main evidence , we have against Barnett, we have a lot of imformation , which obviously is under wraps untill possible publication.
I Thought it was intresting for our members and visitors to ponder on, As I have mentioned before on these boards I am employed in the profession of odds being in the bookmaking industry, and I would state that the odds that such a coincedence should occur bearing in mind that one day out would blow the sequence are huge.
Glenn.
IF you have read the 39th psalm, you will have understood what my conclusions are. A person who tried to hold his tongue, even tho evil was before him, but the fire raged so intensely, he finally spoke his tonque, and he begged forgiveness for his weakness, this I believe was 'Jack The Ripper'
Barnett was a religious man , he said himself he wanted Mary to attends mass with him like she used to.
I respect that as a crime historian , you are trying to get everything in line with reality, but if one does not make intresting speculation in this case, one is left with A,B,C possible facts, which after about 39 years has got me absolutely nowhere, what I have suggested is a possible frame of mind for our killer,and the twisted motivations that drove him on to these blood baths,
One more 39 for you If one adds up the surnames of Tabram, Nichols,Chapman, Long Liz, Eddowes, And kelly, what does one get 39.
A case of cheating possibly, but Stride was known locally as Long Liz, and that is a fact.
I am a speculator I must agree, but I try to use my 39 [ same number] years of research, into finding some new talking points that ,may have a influence on our collective brains, to move forward in a baffling case of murder.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 6:32 pm: | |
G'day Glen,
No you didn't rightfully predict anything! I live on the other side of the world to you and Robert, and I do get sleepy sometimes, so went to bed!
That article appears in 'The Ultimate Companion' page 634. Let me quote the introduction: 'The next mention of Anderson's theories appeared in 'The People' of Sunday, 9 June 1912, in a series of articles titled "Scotland Yard and its Secrets" by Hargrave L. Adam.' Because the name 'Anderson' appeared in this introduction, I may have wrongfully said that Anderson wrote it, but if Hargrave L. Adam wrote it, he appears to have interviewed Lieut. col. Sir Robt. Anderson and Lieut. col. Sir Hy. Smith, as I am reading their names now in the first two lines.
Under the heading 'Murderer's Narrow Escape', the article says after it tells of the graffiti and the decision to errase it: 'The assassin had wiped his his hands on the missing half of the apron, and, it was further discovered, had, with remarkable audacity, washed his hands at a sink up a close in Dorset St, only a few yards from the street.' What's your opinion of that and why should the sink in Dorset St be dismissed?
I still don't understand why the common link to Dorset Street is grasping at straws! And your saying that Barnett, who grovelled for odd-jobs to earn a living, should have had more than one pipe! If he did have two, he could have left it to have an excuse to return, I suppose!
ROBERT: Why do you think it odd that Barnett washed his hands in Dorset Street, with police out on the streets chasing him? Do you think he should have waiting until he was inside with Mary?
And why on earth would he have hidden organs and bloody clothes inside that room, when his search for work would have taken him all over the East End? I don't even think he had to have an accomplice - that's grasping at straws!
Why do you say the link that these women once lived in Dorset street is grasping at straws, Glenn?
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 6:40 pm: | |
G'day Richard,
No where, in all the years that I have been studying this case, have I read that Barnett wanted to take Mary to Mass, and if you can't find this reference, then it should stay out of this book! You see why we have to leave 'constructed innovations' alone?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 589
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 6:53 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I'm saying that Barnett should have washed his hands sooner - not waited till he was nearly home.
Re the organs, if you're saying that Barnett could have hidden them at some location in between Mitre Square and Dorset Street, then he obviously would have had time to find a suitable sink to wash in (one that wasn't virtually on his doorstep). Also, if he had time to hide the organs, then Major Smith wasn't so hot on his trail as he'd have us believe.
I also think that as he wiped his hands on the apron, there wouldn't have been much blood in the water if he did wash at the sink. I suppose his hands would have been stained red with dried blood, but when the water had loosened this off his hands, I doubt if the water would have been noticeably red and bloody - he'd already wiped his hands on the apron.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 88
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 7:06 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I understand that you have additional information you want to keep under wraps until publication -- its a natural thing to do when you're writing a book, I know that from my own experiencies as a writer, editor and publisher. I must say -- and I do mean this without being sarcastic -- that I actually look forward to your book. Apart from more objective text-books, I mostly find publications opposite to my own views more interesting to read. Have you set a date yet for publication and is there a title ready?
Well, I must admit I'm not much of a betting man and I don't like guessing. Originally a university man, I have my roots in the academic system's harsh demands for source verification and critizism, and its dislike of speculation without a solid base of facts to follow the arguments. So don't take my critizism personally, and I expect you and Leanne to both be professional enough not to do so.
Anyhow, to your point: "but if one does not make intresting speculation in this case, one is left with A,B,C possible facts, which after about 39 years has got me absolutely nowhere...".
Well I'm sorry that you feel that way, for clinging to and analyse facts is the only proper way to do a serious investigation, really. I can't agree with your statement; many published books on the subject are more or less subjective and also focusing on finding a certain suspect, that can't be deinied, but most of them deal very much with facts and has this as a solid base for their investigations -- they (Fido, Rumbelow, Evans, Sugden etc.) only have different ways of interpreting and reading the facts. Some contains minor factual errors but that can't be avoided.
It's another thing, though, to set out for a certain target (the suspect) and then wrap "facts" and speculations in a way that suits the investigation. This was the intent of the late Stephen Knight and of Patricia Cornwell. Even if most other books on the subject mainly try to rely on facts and avoids more extreme speculations, I would call it unfair to claim that this approach "doesen't lead anywhere" -- in fact, it is this method that do produce interesting findings; the speculative books only misleads the investigations in strange directions and contributes seldom with anything of value. The heritage of Mr Knight's fairy-tales are (with no disrepect to his memory as a writer and person in general) something we still has to live with and try to load off as an intellectual baggage.
I also have contacts with people in the Swedish police investigation forces and I can assure you that common sense, instinct and a "good nose" is invaluable in effective police work, unfortunately, speculation is not! It's OK to find some new "talking points" but if they only are based on second hand-sources and imaginary guess-work, I find it hard to believe that leads the investigation serioulsy further -- but that doesen't mean it can't be an interesting read!
I must therefore admit I can't speak highly of your fascination with the number 39 (such methods are alient to me), the reality is for the most part less exciting and puzzling, on the contrary, it's fairly tedious and unromantic -- as a crime historian that is a fact I soon had to consider, unwillingly.
And yes, I did read the psalm and I think I saw what you're getting at, bit even if it's interesting thoughts, the link to Jack the Ripper and Barnett is somewhat blurry.
All the best from a devoted cat-lover
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 7:09 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
In my chapter on the 'Double Event', I've seen a way in which the killer of Eddowes, could have made it home in between finding her body and the discovery of the graffiti. There's about an hour between the discovery of each. Perhaps he had already disposed of the organs, because they weren't found in Goulston street, returned to implicate the Jews who lived in the street by dropping the apron piece there, and being chased from Goulston Street noticed some blood drops on his hands and thought to wash them off before he walked back into his room. The fact that the sink was discovered before the blood washed down the drain, shows how close he was to being caught!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 590
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 7:28 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Well, like Glenn I don't want you and Richard to feel that you have to reveal elements of your book on the Boards, before it's finished being written or published. So it's a bit difficult. If you want to discuss the sink, the apron etc, I don't mind - it's up to you.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 614
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 7:50 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
Well I figured it would Ok to reveal that element I mentioned in my last post, because we can discuss and debate it and I can edit it when we're finished. Potential readers will still be interested, especially if it is tidied-up. When we're finished and have the book published, I hope that alot of things in it will be discussed!
Now, I'm going to turn this computer off and get dressed. I am not running from this discussion and no my blood is not boiling Glenn. I've printed out the last few posts, and will sit down and read them slowly!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 89
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 7:52 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
Well well, here I am again -- I should really be working instead...
Yes, the point was that Barnett would have washed his hands sooner instead of waiting till he arrived at Dorset Street (this may be poor neighbourhoods, but that street can't be the only one with a sink...).
The clay pipe... Leanne, clay pipes were throw-away items. They were cheap and could be afforded by anyone. If Barnett and Mary Kelly had a quarrel, he probably found the pipe less important in order to go back, or otherwise he just forgot about it -- sometimes it is as simple as that! To loose such a pipe was not the end of the world.
"If he did have two, he could have left it to have an excuse to return, I suppose!"
That is true, that is something we can't know. I'm just pointing out another possibilty.
"Because the name 'Anderson' appeared in this introduction, I may have wrongfully said that Anderson wrote it, but if Hargrave L. Adam wrote it, he appears to have interviewed Lieut. col. Sir Robt. Anderson and Lieut. col. Sir Hy. Smith, as I am reading their names now in the first two lines."
Well, that's just it, it doesen't change my objections to it. It is a paper article, written by someone who possibly did interview Anderson and Smith. That doesen't change anything. I can't call that a verified source. A verified source could have been that someone else who were present at the time of the discovery of the presumed sink, could comfirm it. Smith was the only one who really did, there exists no evidence proving otherwise. I for my part believe he invented the existence of the sink in order to show off a lead in a pressured moment of the investigation. Then he convinced Anderson (which by the way has left a number of confusing statements in general, filled with considerable errors) of its value.
"Why do you say the link that these women once lived in Dorset street is grasping at straws, Glenn?"
Because if they did, it wouldn't at all be that remarkable. I thought I made that clear. We have no evidence saying they knew each other, but if that was the case and they at one time or another used to live in the same area, so what? The names "Mary" and "Anne" are common names and female prostitutes (also in Sweden) usually borrowed well common, uncharacteristic names due to the nature of their occupation and to make it more difficult for the police to identify them. Even though this were their real names, it doesn't mean anything -- these were names that statistically a good deal of the female inhabitants of East End wore, so I wouldn't draw any heavier conclusions from it. I don't see the point. Such a link is a result of theoretical constructions and intellectual mind games, nothing else.
All the best
(Why haven't I used this clip-art before..?)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 591
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 8:56 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I still don't see how there'd have been enough blood left on his hands to make the water appear bloody in the dark.
But more fundamentally, Smith couldn't have been that close behind Barnett, even an hour after the crime. Halse wanted to leave the graffito until Smith had seen it - Smith never even saw it!
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
