|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 369
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 12:54 pm: |       |
Hi, Ally:
Not so strange. I recall that the Central Branch of the Liverpool library used to, and maybe still has, a funny setup whereby English Literature was in the International Section. Funny but true.
All the best
Chris |
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 5:11 pm: | |
First of all, the clause that ended my original claim remains valid despite Caz’s question, since Mike at some point or another did have this same book at home. Is there any doubt about this? The question of when is actually irrelevant for my purposes.
And, as I wrote above in bold face: "My claim was that Mike never went into the library and discovered for the first time that quote in that space in that source in that way."
It should also be remembered that, according to Mike, he had no idea what the words were when he was handed them -- and he had no idea what might be in that book he had at home – whenever it got there (so he is still claiming that he hadn't seen the words there before). Consequently, in either case there'd really be no reason for him to be "drawn" to a book from the wrong time period written in prose rather than poetry (the wrong form even) out of all the books in the entire library in any case.
And certainly no reason for him or anyone to go there for the first time to find these five words out of the entire history of the written language.
And yet he "discovers" them there -- in a book he also "coincidentally" happens (at some point or another, Caz) to have at home, out of all the books in the library.
Then again, Mike could have been lying about what happened in that library.
Gee, ya think?
Actually, I know two things at this point.
I know Mike was lying about the Miracle of Liverpool Library and I know the real James Maybrick did not write those five words in that book.
I am as certain about those two things as I am about the truth of the sentence "The sun will rise tomorrow."
For more on why such a claim can be considered true in a functional way despite the opposite being randomly and remotely possible (like monkeys typing Hamlet), see David Hume's An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
It has, of course, become painfully clear by now that nearly all of Caz’s assertions around here on the diary issue can be reduced to a single sentence: "I don’t know." Or, more properly, "We can’t know for sure." Thus her earlier invocation of monkey logic.
Now, in an all too familiar gesture, she associates this conclusion with some age old wisdom.
"I wish I could reach just a few conclusions myself, but am finding the old adage truer with every passing day - the more I find out, the less (I think) I know."
Of course, radical skepticism is an irrefutably safe philosophical position (we don't know anything for certain), but it is not functional in life, since ultimately it leads only to paralysis. In order to function, I act as if the sentences "The sun will rise tomorrow." or "I cannot walk through that wall." are true despite the vague and distant theoretical possibility of their opposites.
It is as perfectly safe and reasonable to do so as it is to write "Mike lied about the Miracle of the Liverpool Library." or "The real James Maybrick did not write those five words in that book."
Have a happy weekend, all,
--John (in a brief moment of philosophical reflection  )
|
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 79
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 5:23 pm: | |
RJ,
Do you mind directing me to your source about the book being listed in the "international" section of the library?
Just for fun I searched the listings for English lit in the Liverpool library to see how close it might have be to wherever the book was actually located. Couldn't find which "international" category it might fit into.
Thanks if ya can find it. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
For the down and dirty on monkeys and Shakespeare, see The Awful Truth.
Sorry to interrupt,
Dave |
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
Excellent, David.
Many thanks. And that's about the only way you get to the conclusion that Mike found those words in that essay in that book in that library.
All the best,
--John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 7:25 pm: | |
Ally--Certainly. It's from Caroline Morris's post of October 13th.
"Keith Skinner’s additional information is as follows:
..... I have now ascertained there are 4 copies at the Central Reference Library - three of which the public have immediate access to in the International Collection, whilst the fourth is "stacked" in a repository, (to which the public have no access), which serves the Humanities Section. Members of the public wishing to look at the copy in Humanities can, of course, call it up."
There's more details, but that, I think, answers your question.
Cheers.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 7:25 pm: | |
double posting, sorry.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 10:27 am: | |
Hi All,
Well this then begs the question --if Barret was started on his search by a student saying it sounded Old English, why would Mike have been looking in the International section being--you know..in England.
If someone told me a particular passage sounded "old American", I wouldn't go to the international section to find it.
Hi Ally,
I’m only speculating here, but whether Mike already knew the title or not, he could simply have asked a member of staff where all the books on English poetry were and he would have been directed to the International section. Perhaps Mike was as puzzled as you are. But then again, perhaps he isn’t the sort of person who scratches his head over such things.
And of course, the fact that the 1540s-1670s weren't "old english".
Again, it was Mike who used the term, claiming this is what a student suggested, but who knows what Mike’s, or the student’s understanding of ‘old English’ would be. Certainly, if Mike is well aware that ‘old English’ wouldn’t apply to poetry and prose from this period, it begs the question why would he have invented the student’s suggestion – you know – that the quote might be ‘old English’, to support his account of how he found the right book. And if the student existed but knew ‘old English’ wouldn’t apply to the words ‘O costly intercourse of death’, he presumably said, or meant, something else, such as ‘old-fashioned English’, which Mike took to mean older than Victorian.
Mike has made two claims about the quote, 1) that until the student’s ‘old English’ suggestion, Mike had looked on the word ‘intercourse’ as a reference to Flo’s sexual intercourse with Edwin, and ‘death’ referring to the murders of prostitutes, and 2) that the quote in the Sphere book had struck him as appropriate to use in the diary because, to him, the words ‘intercourse’ and ‘death’ meant sex and murder. So if you believe 2), it’s not much of a stretch to imagine Mike wouldn’t know what is meant by ‘old English’.
Hi John O,
Now, what am I going to do with you? I’m not the one struggling with use of English here. 
If your guarantee about the library miracle is 100% rock solid, why do you need to put a silly and utterly transparent spin on your argument with language like this:
…there'd really be no reason for him [Mike] to be "drawn" to a book from the wrong time period written in prose rather than poetry (the wrong form even) out of all the books in the entire library in any case.
We all now know that this volume has the words English Poetry and Prose, in that order, clearly visible on its spine. And common sense tells everyone else here that this is not one book out of ‘all the books in the entire library’, but one of the books in the section on English literature, which would be targeted by Mike if he had been armed with the quote and the suggestion that it was from an English poem written before the Victorian period. Add in the fact that the library offered more than one copy of this volume, and that Mike could have opened one of them straight to the page containing the inset quote, and this is what has to be taken into account by anyone who is serious about examining Mike’s various claims.
Mike at some point or another did have this same book at home.
But did he John? How do you know this for a fact? All we know, or have been assuming, is that Mike handed Alan Gray a copy of the volume containing the quote on 6th December 1994, outside the solicitor’s office. Only Mike appears to know where this copy had been at any point until then. Does it matter that your ‘some point or other’ includes any time from mid-1989 to 6th December 1994, and relies on Mike’s word alone that he ever had a copy of this specific volume ‘at home’? If he did acquire, ‘at some point or other’, some Sphere books similar to the library volumes (and this has never been satisfactorily confirmed either), only Mike knows if volume 2 was one of them. For all you know, he could have obtained a copy at ‘some point’ between 30th September and 6th December and kept it somewhere safe, such as a friend’s house, until he produced it as his only means of claiming any connection at all between himself and the creation of the diary.
I know Mike was lying about the Miracle of Liverpool Library…
I’m happy for you that you are ‘as certain’ about this as you are that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Are you still this certain, despite the possibility that Mike lied and only obtained a copy of volume 2 after finding one of the copies in the library and appreciating just how powerful it would be if he could say he had owned the same book since 1989?
Or don’t you concede that this is a possibility?
Slowly slowly catchee monkey.
(And if Mike was the little monkey who put the Crashaw in the diary, he should have been caught quickly quickly.)
Love,
Caz
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 3:39 pm: | |
hang on a minute,
i don't even know what i think but i have two things to say
firstly how do you store your books at home i put my on a bookcase and can easily find ones with by spine which i like or have to get off a lot or can see most of the time like cds!
secondly does it matter how mike barrett came across a book in a library? he was allegedly doing research giving him cause to mill about the library, secondly know one is disputing the quote exists according to each of you mike barrett found that quote either as he fordged the diary (hence he had to have found all the things in it) or as he alerted us all to the quote surely then it is only pro diarists who can have a problem with his version of finding the quote which seems a little bit wierd as you lot make out but i don't really have a clue!!!!(not surely but anyway your confusing me ahhhhhhhh)
ps still waiting on those five words! JOHN I LET YOU KNOW!!!!!!!!
jennifer |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 4:25 pm: | |
Man, I thought this discussion was over a few days ago. Especially since no one has added anything new to it in weeks now.
It's the same stuff over and over again, and still no one has offered even a vaguely possible, reasonable, or believable scenario for the Miracle of the Liverpool Library other than the "well, impossible long shots do happen" sort of monkey reasoning that we get more of above. (No one's done it with RJ's five words, for instance.)
So, I guess out of politeness, I should respond to Caz, although there is nothing new in her post either.
First of all, Mike had, according to his miraculous claim, no idea what the five words he held in his hand were. And my clause is most certainly not spin; it's a simple fact. Mike was looking for what seemed possibly to be verse ("O....") and therefore there was no real reason to go looking in a book of criticism and prose essays, even if they were essays about literature. So the fact that Mike would actually find those five words of poetry in, of all places, that book of prose essays (the wrong form even, I say once again), excerpted conveniently out of all the words of verse written for centuries, simply defies common sense and credibility -- unless one is bound and determined to keep hope (and mystery) alive at all costs and so is willing to believe miraculous claims from pathological liars.
And so, someone hands a guy five random and unidentified words and, out of the entire history of the written language, he pulls open a book of prose essays and finds these five words of verse singled out and conveniently excerpted not in a work by the lines' author, not in a book of his verse, not even in an anthology of work from the period, but from a book which the same dude also, at some point or another, happens to own himself -- and whether Caz is just offering the possibility that it got to Mike's house not because of the Disaster Relief but sometime later as a red herring of her own manipulative devices or whether there is really any evidence at all for that claim remains another artificially created mystery added on to help prevent people from arriving at the most likely conclusion offered them by their own experience and their own common sense -- that Mike's miraculous discovery did not happen as he described it. And, of course, it didn't.
But not satisfied with arguing the circle again, and simply layering doubt upon created doubt for the sake of silliness (or perhaps for the sake of keeping people talking about the "mystery" and preventing it from finally dying the simple if not so dignified death it deserves), Caz goes on to offer an assertion which also seems to come utterly without reason:
(And if Mike was the little monkey who put the Crashaw in the diary, he should have been caught quickly quickly.)
Why? Why, if Mike was the dude who first saw the quote and thought it would be a cool five words for a fake Ripper diary, would he be any more likely to be caught then if he wasn't that dude?
Once again, all we get is more of the radical skepticism in which Caz finds such rhetorical safety (you are always prevented from being wrong if you never assert anything positive -- of course, you are, scholastically speaking, useless as well), but we get nothing of any real substance and certainly no evidence even suggesting, and no reason whatsoever to think, that the Miracle of the Liverpool Library could have possibly happened the way it was described by Mike.
He didn't find those five words there for the very first time and James didn't write them.
Make of that what you will, but those two things are certain.
And I'm sure I'll get more skepticism in reply and the conversation will not be allowed to end.
All the best,
--John
PS: Oh yes, I should probably answer at least one question put directly to me. Caz asks one that begins, Are you still this certain...
Yes.
And I have a great many years of professional library research experience and advanced graduate level training in scholarship methods to support my claim concerning this bibliographical miracle's credibility. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 9:13 am: | |
Hi All,
First of all, Mike had, according to his miraculous claim, no idea what the five words he held in his hand were.
Yes he did. According to Mike's claim, he had the impression from Shirley and the student that the five words came from a poem that sounded like pre-Victorian English.
…there was no real reason to go looking in a book of criticism and prose essays…
No, but there is simply no point in denying the words clearly visible on the spine of at least one, probably three volumes next to each other, on one of the shelves Mike would have been looking along - English Poetry and Prose, 1540-1674. Mike only had to pick up one of these and flick through it fairly routinely to see that it was not a book full of verse, but, as John himself says, the five words Mike would have been looking for were excerpted conveniently out of all the words of verse written for centuries, so his task would have been made infinitely easier for him than if the book had been one not dominated by prose. We know this was the case (although it would be interesting to ask the essayist why he chose to highlight this part of this poem, beginning with the now all too familiar lines that are way too obscure for anyone else to have ever picked out for special attention).
What we don’t know is which ‘miraculous’ claim from a pathological liar we can afford to believe, if either. But John, naturally, chooses to believe the one Mike came up with after revealing he knew where the five words could be found, ie “I had the books at home (so it follows I put the words in the diary myself)". Mike knew the power this statement would have over everyone, but even he may have underestimated the eternal grip it would have on those who wanted to believe it, whether he was lying or not this time. Yet he made it on the rebound from the library story, as if he’d only just thought of it, instead of pressing home his advantage by producing the volume at the first opportunity as exhibit A in his forgery claim.
And unfortunately, whether John likes it or not, there is no more evidence for volume 2 ever making it inside Mike’s house than there is for the same dude opening this library book with English Poetry on the spine and stumbling across the five words there.
Both claims probably appear miraculous to those who don’t think Mike knew anything at all about the forgery when he confessed in the June. But Mike, out of all those involved with the diary, with the possible exception of Feldman, did have the greatest incentive to come up with the source of this quote, either to prove his worth as a researcher or to use it to prop up a confession that didn’t have an ounce of backbone without it.
(And if Mike was the little monkey who put the Crashaw in the diary, he should have been caught quickly quickly.)
John asks why.
Because Mike confessed - to being involved in forgery. And he went to a lot of trouble trying to make his confessions believable, telling lie after lie after lie. So if he put the Crashaw in the diary, using his own copy of volume 2, he should have been able to come up with something – anything – else about his involvement that was actually true.
Ever wondered about the book Mike handed to Alan Gray in December 1994?
I’m wondering about it more and more lately, and will continue to do so unless or until someone is allowed to get near enough to examine it.
And that is all thanks to John, and his insistence that Mike told the truth, for once in his life, about just happening to own his own volume 2.
Love,
Caz
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 10:51 am: | |
659 words, and still nothing new.
Here then are the same five words from me.
Mike lied. It didn't happen.
Caz begins by saying, "Yes he did. According to Mike's claim..."
And already we're in trouble.
By the way, if she had bothered to read the pages of the Ricks essay in question she would know why he had bothered to choose those obscure lines from that largely unanthologized poem -- he was speaking (after Eliot and after Modernism's recanonizing of the Metaphysicals) specifically of the relationship between Crashaw and Herbert and of a certain evolution of influence.
And there's still no way Mike just "found" those five words, out of all the writing of all the verse in the history of English, on that page in that essay in that library. Insisting on the vague and random possibility does not lessen the miraculous claim by the pathological liar.
Also, why Caz once again demonstrates her inability or unwillingness to read by claiming that I "believe" Mike when he says "I had the books at home (so it follows I put the words in the diary myself)" remains a mystery for the ages. I can only hope it's because she doesn't want the discussion to end (for some perverse reason) and not because she has no moral objections to misstating my position repeatedly for her own rhetorical advantage.
I have never said I believe Mike's claim here. I have never said anything at all about whether Mike was or was not telling the truth about such a claim. I have said that the timing of the Sphere Book acquisition is irrelevant for my purposes and that it does not change at all the fact that the discovery as Mike described it did not happen.
I even wrote a post which insisted in moronically simplistic prose that this latter conclusion was my one and only claim and which repeated this to the point of deliberately ridiculous absurdity, so that even Caz would be forced to acknowledge the singular extent of my claim here (as Chris was kind enough to do).
It did no good. Secretly, I knew it wouldn't.
So here's Caz again insisting that I have "chosen to believe" Mike concerning when he got the book and whether he put the words in the diary.
So here's me again saying (for the millionth time, in English again):
I have not chosen any such thing. I have not claimed any such thing. I have not said any such thing. Such claims are irrelevant to my own.
I have not.
Those of you who speak foreign languages, please add your own translations of the phrase "I have not" in messages below.
Perhaps then one of them will be heard and understood.
I have not said that Mike told the truth about getting the book for the disaster fund or that he didn't. I have not said that Mike put the words in the diary or that he didn't. I do not care to make any such claims.
I have said that Mike did not, definitely did not, walk into that library and find that quote in that essay in that book for the first time. That never happened. Mike lied about it.
And nothing Caz has written in the 659 words above suggests in an even remotely reasonable way that any other conclusion is likely or is available to those with experience in such matters and a little common sense.
My own common sense and my own experience will not be swayed here by the proliferation of monkey logic and deliberately manipulated mysteries.
And unless I see some real evidence that the Miracle of the Liverpool Library is anything other than one more of Mike's many lies, I see no reason to continue this. It'll just be more of the same.
Oh, except for the now added call by Caz to let her (or "someone") see the book. That, of course, has nothing to do with me.
In any case, I'm sure there will be another round. That's fine. It's a slow day and other than golf, I have nothing to do. But there is still no way the Miracle really happened and there is still no way Mike was telling the truth about it.
And there is nothing new in this post of mine either. Nor will there be in the post that is soon to follow from Caz.
So, proceed. But readers are cordially invited to stop wasting their time and read something of some value.
--John
PS: I do seem to recall, vaguely, the Sphere book in question being seen by some other people at some point in the past, but I have no idea when or where or by whom. Perhaps it was Melvin that saw it, or others? |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 11:41 am: | |
Hi, John and Caz:
Might I make a plea to take this to e-mail before you both eat up more bandwidth on this debate on which you are never going to agree? Pick another topic. Thanks.
All the best
Chris |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 11:45 am: | |
Sounds about right to me, Chris.
Thanks for the nudge. 
--John |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2847
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:19 pm: | |
Amen, Chris. Guys, there's an entire web site and forum out there devoted to the Maybrick controversy. If you really want to hash this out ad infinitum, perhaps its best to move this discussion there.
But do either of you really think you're going to convince the other of your position? 
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:25 pm: | |
Hi, Stephen:
To clarify, what is address of the web site and forum that you describe as devoted to the Maybrick controversy? Thanks.
Chris |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2848
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:30 pm: | |
I believe the site's url is:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/James_as_Jack/
(I can't say for sure what type of debate goes on in here, as someone just this week informed me I've been banned from joining... not sure if that's true, or if so, why, but there you have it!)
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:38 pm: | |
Hi, Stephen:
Thanks. I have just sent them a request to join so let's see if they let me in. I would find it highly ironic if it's true that they won't let you join. You are after all the gentleman who is responsible for the top website on the Whitechapel murders. Moreover, as you tell it, it was Maybrick that got you involved with the case, as it was with myself, as a Liverpudlian curious about the "Liverpool Ripper Diary." 
All the best
Chris |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 2:50 pm: | |
Is it there where Melvin is now hiding?
Cheers, Mark |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:50 pm: | |
Hi Guys,
Thanks for the site -- I'll check it out on the weekend. I can't imagine why Stephen would be banned. That's very odd.
You'll hear nothing further here from me on the Miracle of the Liverpool Library. I sympathize with your pleas to take it elsewhere and I'm fine with what now stands in the archive.
Be cool, and enjoy your days and nights. 
All the best,
--John |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 87
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 6:55 pm: | |
That site is run by TrueBrits...y'all might remember them from when they posted here a while back. 
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 7:45 am: | |
Hi Stephen, All,
In all fairness, if you all believe John O holds the stronger position here, could I please be allowed to respond to his latest post then I promise to let this particular subject rest unless new information emerges. He has, I believe, used up more space than me on it. If this isn't allowed, could my response at least be moved to a Pub Talk thread? Thanks.
Fact: On 30th September 1994, Mike knows there is a book in the library containing ‘O costly...’.
Fact: On 3rd October, Mike tells Shirley he thinks this book is Sphere Volume 6 [coincidentally, Volume 6 is The Victorians] but didn’t make a note of the details. Shirley tells Mike to go back to the library and find the reference for her.
Fact: On 6th October, Shirley has the reference and gets the library to fax her the page from Volume 2 with the quote.
Fact: On 6th December 1994, Mike hands a copy of Volume 2 over to Alan Gray, which no other investigator apart from Melvin Harris has ever been able to examine.
John and I are in total agreement about one thing: Mike knew, by the end of September 1994, a source of the quote, and his knowledge is suspicious.
But neither of us knows how and when Mike obtained this knowledge, or the copy of Volume 2 now with Alan Gray - or which happened first. Only Mike knows. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that he did either prior to 1994.
So ‘suspicious’ is as far as the actual evidence allows us to go. John may deny the physical facts about the Sphere book in the library; he may ignore all the convoluted lies and the total lack of substance in Mike’s various confessions; but he can't deny that he clung to the unsupported word of a pathological liar with his claim that Mike 'just happened to have the same book at home', the physical facts about which remain a more tightly guarded secret than the Queen’s bottom. (If there is nothing ‘suspicious’ about this book, that throws doubt on Mike’s claim to have owned it for five years prior to 6th December 1994, we will never know if we are not allowed to see it.)
Anyway, John’s last refuge, when I pointed all this out - a classic which he can’t even see – was to question my sanity and to doubt my integrity and motivation.
In plain language, Caz now has to be mad and bad in order for John to hold his head up, and maintain both his original argument and position of superiority.
If this is the way academics carry on when asked to support everything they have written, then what hope is there for the rest of us? At least John did it where we could all watch and learn.
And if I am not allowed, with this post, to finally defend my own position by confirming the state of the evidence, it will speak volumes.
Love,
Caz
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2851
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 8:43 am: | |
This thread has been closed.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
|
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