|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Zach Dillinger
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 2:53 pm: | 
|
I know this is a little crazy... but has anyone ever thought of Arthur Conan Doyle as JTR? He was a doctor, so he would have had the proper skills. He studied under Joseph Bell, so deductive reasoning would have been there. Motive: his parents were cruel and did not treat him well, especially his mother.... |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 9:08 am: |
|
Zach:
I just saw your post. I've never seen anything linking Sir Arthur to the murders. There have been treatments where Sherlock Holmes chased the Ripper.
While Doyle was a doctor, I don't believe he ever practiced medicine. He was pretty mainstream for Victorian times. In this case, everything is posible but, with all due respect, not likely. kindest regards, Neil |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 2:20 pm: |
|
I don't know why Doyle is in the Suspect section, but I remember people discussing the auction of some of his newly-discovered papers. The New York Times has an article about the papers (registration required) here.
Dave |
san
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:54 am: |
|
doyle wrote about many mysterios events of his day (including the disappearance of maria celesta but never mentioned jtr. why? |
san
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:54 am: |
|
doyle wrote about many mysterios events of his day (including the disappearance of maria celesta but never mentioned jtr. why? |
san
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:53 am: |
|
doyle wrote about many mysterios events of his day (including the disappearance of maria celesta but never mentioned jtr. why? |
Keith Ellington
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 8:59 am: |
|
In fact, Doyle did practice medicine in Southsea, during which time he produced, among other works, the novel "Micah Clarke". I have been unable to find any solid account of Doyle's whereabouts at the time of the five "canonical" Ripper murders of 1888. However, during this general time he would have had a reason to be in London, as he was was shopping "Micah" around to publishers. |
Keith Ellington
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 7:25 pm: |
|
san, while I have also been unable to find any reference to the Whitechapel Murders in Doyle's published writings, he showed an interest in the crimes and even tried to investigate them, though it is still not clear to what, if any, conclusions he was led.
Cf. Peter Costello's The Real World of Sherlock Holmes |
Keith Eng Ellington
Police Constable
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Hello, all, this is my first post as a registered user. I am very interested in Arthur Conan Doyle as a Whitechapel Murders suspect. Most of what I have seen of Ripperology has been deductive rather than inductive reasoning. I am of the opinion that inductive reasoning is far better suited for this kind of inquiry. That is, collecting facts is better than extrapolating from only a few facts. I own nearly every book on Doyle that has been published recently, and I have read all of the Sherlock Holmes "canon". Put simply, I have come to conclude that the entire Holmes mythos was an alibi for Doyle, covering some secret. It has been suggested that Doyle was involved in the Piltdown hoax, and I will address that in time, along with the possibility that this was the secret Doyle was hiding, even though it happened rather late in his writing career.
Thank you for reading, and please contact me if you would like to correspond.
-Keith- |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 336
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Keith - welcome to Casebook and I sincerely hope that you have a great time here.
That said, after what I am about to say, you'll probably never want to speak to me again.
Sorry, but I have to say that "theories" of this sort just make me want to say "Rubbish".
Can anyone think of a single parallel, however, remote where someone famous has done something and somehow left a record or "clues" in a coded way?
I am reminded of all the "Holy Blood Holy Grail/Rennes-Le-Cateau/Prieurie de Sion stuff which has now been shown to have been an elaborate hoax.
I am also reminded of the book on JtR I laughed at and didn't buy, which was full of anagrams supposedly identifying the culprit.
Sorry to be so frank, but if we can't be honest on here what can we be?
Phil |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Actually Doyle participated in a Ripper walk some years after the murders and offered his opinion that it might have been a man dressed in women's clothing. The notion of him as a suspect is fairly silly, but sillier suspects have been offered.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Keith Eng Ellington
Police Constable
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Phil -
Thank you for your critique.
"Can anyone think of a single parallel, however, remote where someone famous has done something and somehow left a record or "clues" in a coded way?"
Actually, I don't think there are many clues in the Holmes canon. That's why I called it an alibi. However, I do find it rather suspiscious that the beginnings of Doyle's career in writing Holmes coincided almost exactly with the 1888 Ripper crimes. That is, the world's most famous serial killer seems to be a literary "twin" for the world's most famous detective. Still, if an example from the literature is required of a controversy surrounding the possibility of a famous person leaving clues in his work, I offer the following:
William Shakespeare may have left a "coded" message to his wife, Anne Hathaway in Sonnet 145.
He plays on her name by writing "'I hate,' from hate away she threw." This, like all Shakepearean speculation, has not been proven but, I offer another.
Shakespeare had a son named Hamnet, who died in 1596, and, a few years later (1600-1602), Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, about a young European prince who dies in trying to expose his missing (dead) father's murderer. True, Shakespeare did not invent the name "Hamlet", but he may have left a coded message of grief in his choice of stories for the play.
In the interests of Socratic dialogue, I would like to ask: what is a "clue"?
-Keith- |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 833
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Incidentally, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has recently been proposed as a suspect by John Leighton, in his biography of Montague Druitt. However, I think his tongue was probably partly in his cheek when he wrote that chapter.
Chris Phillips
|
Keith Eng Ellington
Police Constable
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 3
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Chris-
Where can I find this biography of Druitt? Even if he is kidding, that would be enough for me to want to read it.
-Keith- |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 339
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Keith - you state unequivocally in your post above that you:
...have come to conclude that the entire Holmes mythos was an alibi for Doyle, covering some secret.
That is rather different to Shakespeare including references in one play or a single sonnet. Writers often do that.
If you had suggested that the entire Shakespearian canon was coded to reveal Francis Bacon as the author, I might have seen the analogy. But I don't think that scenario is generally supported nowadays.
Phil
|
Keith Eng Ellington
Police Constable
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
But, Phil, I also said I don't think there are deliberately coded clues in the mythos. I think the clues are in his life story and its psychological, temporal, literary, and geographic relation the Ripper murders. I am going to get into the nature of psychopathy and its possible genetic origins (Doyle's father had a psychotic disorder- as do I, schizoaffective disorder). Also, I would submit that Doyle is in some ways the founding father of deductive reasoning in law enforcement, which is really the worst possible way to investigate a crime, because it almost never results in a conviction. This in itself makes me suspiscious of his motives.
Thanks and lets keep talking,
-Keith-
PS: I am a hardcore Stratfordian!  |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Keith
You can find further information on Leighton's book in these two threads:
../4920/15552.html"../4922/16294.html" target=_top>../4922/16294.html"#C6C6B5"> |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 340
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
Keith, I accept what you say, of course.
However, I take the view (perhaps I'm a cynic or have just been brought up to look for academic standards of argument) that someone as well known as Doyle, and with so much written material available (whether about their life or from their own pen) that you could probably contrive anything from it.
By comparison, a suspect like Kosminski has almost no available background to refer to, of any kind.
Thus, some sort of balance of probability, and of common sense is required.
My rule of thumb would be that I would want to see concrete evidence of something in the life of someone like Doyle, before interpreting anything from their writing. In this case some association with the East End in 1888 (at least), and probably some contemporary suspicion of involvement with the crime.
To use your own analogy, we know that Shakespeare had a son called Hamnet from other records outside his plays; we know he was probably married to Anne Hathaway (though another name is on record, I believe) before we turn to the Sonnets. There will always be doubt about those, for instance, who seek the identity of the "Dark Lady" or the young man, from the sonnets alone.
Besides in the case of JtR, why should we assume for a moment that the murderer was anyone who was otherwise significant? True there are references by police officers that refer to the "top" of society. But even if we accept them, at face value, Doyle would not fit into that category in 1888, if ever!!
So why should we, even for a moment, spend time investigating Doyle as a suspect? Is it not, almost certainly a red-herring and a time-wasting distraction?
I say that, because (unlike the current on-going research on someone like morganstone, for instance) researching Doyle will not shed light on any other aspect of the crimes, any of the victims or their circumstances. To me, it is a pointless cul-de-sac, and I am surprised to find a clearly intelligent man like yourself so determined to go down that path.
Each to his own, I guess.
Phil |
Keith Eng Ellington
Police Constable
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 5
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
I agree that this Doyle thing of mine may be a red herring. I would even go so far as to suggest the possibility that I am experiencing a delusion. But what if the entire Ripperological corpus is a red herring? That is also a possibility. However, I have a gut feeling that there is something to this board, i.e., a frank discussion of potential suspects. Thus, I mean to post here until the admin tells me not to, because I really like the idea of a debate about the potential demerits of any and all persons who may have been in London when the murders occurred. I think what convinces me so strongly of the possibility of a "Sherlock the Ripper" scenario is the fact that, although Poe and Wilkie Collins did basically invent the modern detective story and novel, respectively, Doyle was the one who really popularized the genre. I infer from this that he did have a bit of an obsession with crime, and loved to see himself as a sleuth and vigilante. This "sleuth syndrome" is a phenomenon commonly seen among serial murderers.
I would like to suggest - though I know it has been posited before - that the Ripper drugged his victims before killing them. This would account for for what I perceive to be a lack of coordinated evidence of screaming, etc.
Doyle, it has been suggested, experimented on himself in medical school with the paralytic agent Gelsemium...
http://www.bakerstreetdozen.com/coca.html
Regards,
-Keith-
PS: Thanks Chris for the info. I may take a break from posting now to read the Leighton chapter and do more research. Also I have to make some money first to buy the book (I am a poet; you want fries with that?) |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 8:19 pm: |
|
I'm not sure where you get the idea of Doyle being obsessed with crime. Doyle never liked the Holmes stories and practically had his arm twisted to continue writing them (he always loved his medievel novels most). Also, in spite of receiving thousands (really) of requests to get involved with real cases, he resisted and was mostly annoyed. He only actually helped with cases a handful of times, years after first getting requests. I think you might be trying to force facts.
Doyle was a true renaissance man -we ought to call them Conan Doyle men. There were several dozen things he was interested in more than crime stories.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Hi Keith,
I just wanted to correct one point you made. Poe and Collins and the French writer Emil Gaboriau created the detective short story and detective novel. Doyle created the first memorable characters in a series of detective stories (Holmes and Watson). But the popularity of detective fiction had been established by 1888. The previous year an Australian writer, Fergus Hume, wrote THE MYSTERY OF A HANSON CAB. It would sell 100,000 copies around the English speaking world before the end of the year - one of the first real best sellers. There were other novels by Mary Brandon and others (Sheridan Le Fanu among them) that were popular too. Doyle's success with his characters would pave the way to Chesterton's Father Brown, Austen Freeman's Dr. Thorndyke, Bramah's Max Carrados, and eventually characters like Peter Wimsey, Mrs. Marple, and Hercule Poirot.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Keith Eng Ellington
Police Constable
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:02 pm: |
|
Good posts! Learned a lot, and I'm sure I will continue to...though I'm not sure we can infer that Doyle was not obsessed with crime and sleuthery because he claimed not to be. And, of course, if the Holmes mythos were an alibi, I can see how its author might be reluctant to continue it beyond its initial "purpose". "Forcing facts" is rather subjective, wouldn't you say, Kelly, since historical facts are relative to the position of the observer? For all we know, an elderly Abraham Lincoln, after having survived Booth's gunshot, came to Britain and committed the Ripper crimes in revenge for British blockade running in the American Civil War! Even if I said that, I would not be forcing facts until somebody went to his tomb and sequenced his and his sons' DNA.
Please keep posting; I see the whole problem of JtR as a bit like Quantum Mechanics...it deals in the realm of probability, not absolute certainty. The more data we present, the better our probability of arriving at facts we can all agree on.
Fact: Upon his graduation from medical school, Doyle drew a cartoon of himself holding his diploma with the caption "Licensed to Kill."
http://www.sherlockholmesonline.org/Biography/biography3.htm
Now, about that Gelsemium thing...
-Keith-
PS: Jeff, you forgot Eco's William of Baskerville, my favorite because he screws the whole investigation up so badly due to his insistence on deductive reasoning! Now that's my kind of detective story...
 } |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 342
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 1:50 am: |
|
Doyle... always loved his medievel novels most).
Quite right, that's my understanding too.
Which by Keith's reasoning must surely mean Doyle was "Dr Who"!!
Keith, you wrote: "Forcing facts" is rather subjective, wouldn't you say...historical facts are relative to the position of the observer? For all we know, an elderly Abraham Lincoln, after having survived Booth's gunshot, came to Britain and committed the Ripper crimes in revenge for British blockade running in the American Civil War!
This is absolute nonsense by any standards of evidence or logic. We have MANY witnesses to Lincoln's death and NO evidence of his survival or coming to Britain later.
I am a poet
THAT explains everything!1
Cordially,
Phil |
Keith Eng Ellington
Police Constable
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 7
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 3:16 am: |
|
Yes, I agree it's nonsense, but I think you misunderstand my point...I was trying to point out that everyone born after circa 1800, whose whereabouts are unaccounted for during the Ripper crimes, and who had the wherewithal to make it to England in 1888 could possibly - though not without controversy - be considered a suspect. So why toss poor Sir Arthur out of the mix? To recap, he was 1) A surgeon; 2) In the general vicinity of London, England in 1888; 3) From a family with a history of mental illness (as am I yadda yadda yadda); 4) Clearly hungry for some kind of notoriety at this stage of his career; 5) Well versed in paralytic agents; 6) A skilled practicioner of violence (boxing); and 7) Thoroughly convinced that the best way to investigate a crime is to extrapolate from past experience and a few measly points of evidence the identity of the culprit.
This is not to mention the abhorrent spiritualist detective methods he advocates in "The Edge of the Unknown". I am reminded of a homicide investigation by the New Orleans Police I once heard about. They were investigating the death of someone who was hit by a bullet falling from the sky, which was fired by someone in celebration of New Year's Eve. The police chief said something like this: "Everyone who fired a gun in the air at New Year's is a potential suspect."
Well, IMHO, Doyle did fire a gun in the air, metaphorically speaking, and he did so by his constant self-aggrandizing attempts to promote himself as a kind of Imperial Übermensch, which I believe were a cynical attempt to hide some very distressing secret. The cult of fame is a terrible thing.
That's all I was saying.
-Keith-
PS: Phil, you should try poetry! I don't think it should disqualify me from debate! |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 345
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 4:11 am: |
|
No anyone who could reasonably have been in England in 1888 could NOT be "possibly" considered a suspect!!
Two things:
a) in English law at least it is usual to consider someone innocent until proved guilty;
b) in this case that should at least require and indication of motive, opportunity and some evidence before traducing someone's name in the way you are doing. What you are doing is, IMHO, worse that Patricia Cornwell's attack on Sickert, in that he has at least been proposed as a suspect by people who knew him!!
These are people who cannot answer back or defend themselves, common decency, if not morality, demands some restraint in putting their names forward.
Why should not everyone alive in 1888 be considered a possible suspect?
Well, not even the police in modern investigations take THAT line. I would argue that you have at least to show that your suspect had the opportunity to commit the crime by being able to physically be in the east End at the right time.
You claim to be an expert on Doyle, so I challenge you now to tell us what is known about his whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 and, if possible, on the dates of the five "canonical" victims. Given the amount of data that exists on Doyle, that should not be too hard a task. But if he was demonstrably elsewhere on any single occasion, then I think you must admit that your case is sunk.
My reference to poets was tongue in cheek, but I suspect it does explain your detachment from reality in this matter.
Phil
|
Keith Eng Ellington
Police Constable
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 8
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Actually, Phil, I subscribe to no standard of "decency", nor "morality". These are created doctrines which my own philosophy of science does not recognize. I subscribe to the philosophy of saying the big "YES!" to life.
I don't claim to know that Doyle was JtR, but I do claim to know that he is no longer alive nor aware of this matter, nor is he or his estate in any legal jeopardy. Thus I do not care about his inability to defend himself. Sorry if that bothers you, but that's the way I am.
This a public forum, provided as a service to the public by a citizen. I assert my First Amendment rights in this matter.
Without access to Doyle's papers, I don't think I can accept your challenge in good faith. If you can gain legal access to these papers, I would be much obliged if you were to "sink my case".
As for "detachment from reality", we all do what we can to broaden our horizons.
Thanks Again,
-Keith- |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 346
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Well, Keith, since you have no standards, and plainly feel you can say anything or do anything, what's the point of debating with you.
Incidentally, I assume you don't hold with inconsistency either? since you argue that Doyle's technique of deductive reasoning is flawed and a distraction for investigators - but deductive reasoning is all you rely on for your own case? Seems none of the rest of us can win, eh? One law for you another for the rest of us. Mr "Right"?
Good luck, ( though no doubt you don't believe in that either) poet,
phil |
Keith Eng Ellington
Police Constable
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 9
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
deductive reasoning is all you rely on for your own case
This is just not true. I have presented several points of evidence that Doyle should be considered a suspect in this case, but I do not claim to draw an absolute conclusion from them. Compare the following two articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Deductive reasoning attempts to know everything about a notion before drawing absolute conclusions about it - this is why I say it is not suited to investigating crimes. Inductive reasoning may arrive at a conclusion less certain than the initial proposition, i.e., "JtR was a person, and I have evidence that leads me to conclude that Doyle might have been this person." In fact, by insisting that I present you with evidence which I do not have access to, and implying that, upon my refusal, I am therefore engaging in deduction, you are engaging in deduction yourself. Further deduction is your statement that I "have no standards"; I never said that. I have never claimed to know Doyle was JtR, but only argued that he should be considered a suspect, and not an entirely outlandish one. I have supported this with numerous points of evidence, few of which have been addressed by anyone other than me in this thread.
When I say deduction implies extrapolating from only a few points of evidence, I mean extrapolating to a certain conclusion, i.e. "Sickert is JtR because I know everything about him and the case". I think you will agree, I have not done this.
Roses are red,
-Keith-
PS: You're right! I don't believe in luck either! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2333
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Micah Clarke was written of course by Doyle... and based on a resident of Havant... one of the Crime centres of the South...
God in those days it was a village!
It's about ten minutes drive from me!
Suzi |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 148
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Keith,
I'm not sure why you say that Doyle was clearly hungry for notoriety at that time? He definitely didn't need to seek it out (nonetheless kill for it)in 1888. He was at the height of his career.
I looked up the info. I have about Doyle's Ripper walk and learned some interesting things about Dr. Bell (the inspiration for Holmes) and Bell's interest in the Ripper case. It's pretty nifty. I'll paraphrase the chapter here but I forgot to bring it to work.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Keith Eng Ellington
Police Constable
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 10
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Thanks, Kelly!
Doyle only had a few minor pieces in print in 1888 - with the exception of the first book version of A Study in Scarlet, which came out in that year - so I'm not sure if he was at the height of his career,
http://www.ash-tree.bc.ca/acdschron.htm
though certainly on an upward trajectory before JtR committed the Whitechapel Murders.
Look forward to your Bell post...
-Keith-
PS: Just got some work in from my job, so I will soon be able to afford the Leighton biography of Druitt. I will post a synopsis of the Doyle chapter here when I read it.
|
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Hi Keith-
The titles published in 1888 might seem minor today, but were much better received then (including the earlier mentioned Micah Clarke). I realize I'm on the defensive side regarding Doyle, but I think that
if you are seeking a motivation for Doyle as a suspect, a quest for notoriety is not a very substantial one given Doyle's career.
If you come up with more though, I'm glad to spar (in a friendly way). For once we're in an area I know a bit about.
Looking forward to the Leighton post as well,
-Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Keith Eng Ellington
Sergeant
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 11
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Are you talking about critical reception or popular reception? Even though I know Doyle seemed to care more about serious literature than the Holmes stories, I would think that his career didn't really kick off in the popular imagination until the Holmes stories hit their stride...does anybody have any sales figures on Doyle's books? Jeff?
Also, I want to clarify that I don't think Doyle would have killed for notoriety, but out of a compulsion that he didn't fully understand. Like I said, the Holmes stories may represent an alibi, not a "souvenir".
BTW, I just emailed the guy who started the "Doyle" thread...he's a very clever young fellow, of course.
-Keith-
PS: Just edited my profile! Check it out! |
Zach Dillinger
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Perhaps the JtR murders were an attempt to create a case that even Sherlock Holmes couldn't solve? I found this idea intriguing and thats why I asked the question to begin with. If anyone has any new ideas, please email them to me @ dillin11@msu.edu and I will do the same with anything I uncover. Thanks |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Keith,
Study in Scarlet was indeed published in book form in 1888, but it wasn't the first printing. It appeared in a magazine a year previous, sold out, and was released as a book due to its popularity.
Zach,
An interesting idea. The opinion of a lot of literary critics,though, re: Holmes and Jack is that Holmes was the antidote to the Ripper, and perhaps the popular reception was due to the public's desire for some competency in the police force.
As promised, a paraphrasing of the Jack the Ripper chapter from
The Real World of Sherlock Holmes: The True Crimes Investigated by Arthur COnan Doyle by Peter Costello, Carroll & Graf (1991)
On Wed. Apr. 19th Doyle met with some members of the Crime Club in the East End to participate in a tour of the murder sites. Doyle had been shocked by the crimes along with the rest of the country. the author says "ripples of ...horror had even reached Conan Doyle in Southsea..." which I take to suggest that he wasn't in London at the time of the murders. Sorry, I'll try to avoid commentary in the rest of the summary.
On Dec. 2 1892, Doyle visited the Black Museum along with Dr. gilbert (medical officer at Newgate) and E. W. Hornung and Jerome K. Jerome. Doyle's attention was caught by the Mary Kelly photograph and by one letter in particular (Dear Boss).
Blah,blah, lots of background on the murders and the letter.
In 1894, Doyle outlines to an American journalist just how Holmes might solve the case.
My lunch break is over,but I'll do more summary later and include the bibliography for this;it might be helpful to you guys.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Kelly Robinson
Inspector
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Summary p.2:
Doyle suggests how Holmes would track the killer (ellipsis mine)
"I am not in the least degree an observant man myself. I try to get inside the skin of a sharp man and see how things strike him. I remember going to Scotland Yard Museum and looking at the letter...of course it may have been a hoax, but there were reasons to think it genuine, and in any case it was well to find out who wrote it.
...I tried to think how Holmes might have deduced the writer of that letter. The most obvious point was that it had been written by someone who had been in America...contained the phrase "fix it up" and several others....then we have the quality of the paper, and a round, easy, clerkly hand. He was therefore a man accustomed to the use of a pen.
...there must be somewhere letters which this man has written over his own name, or documents or accounts that could readily be traced to him. Oddly enough, the police did not, as far as I know, think of that, and so they failed to accomplish anything. Holmes's plan would have been to reproduce the letters in facsimile and on each plate indicate the peculiarities of the handwriting. Then publish these facsimiles in the leading newspapers...and in connection with them offer a reward to anyone who could show them a letter ...of the same handwriting. Such a course would have enlisted millions of people as detectives...."
Ingleby Oddie arranged with Dr. Brown, (same Dr. Brown who came to Mitre Square) a Crimes Club trip to the scenes of the murders which included Doyle. They were guided by Brown himself and by London police familiar with the details. The Crimes Club also saw the insides of a dosshouse and other lodgings typical of the area. According to one participants' diary: "Conan Doyle seemed very much interested, particularly in the petticoat Lane part of the expedition, and laughed when I said "Caliban would have turned up his nose at this".
They also visited Miller's Court and Mary Kelly's room.
After having a chance to see the scenes of the crimes, Doyle has been recorded as believing that Jack may have dressed as a woman to escape. This notion arose perhaps from the finding of the burnt clothes at Miller's Ct.
Dr. Bell (inspiration for Holmes) and a medical friend were working seperately on detailed reports of the crimes. From suspects investigated by the police, he deduced the murderer and put his name in an envelope. His friend did they same, and they discovered that itw as the same name. They gave their info. to the police, and one week later the murders ceased. (my note: what's the source for this???).
It is doubtful that Doyle knew of this incident in Bell's life until after his death.
Rest of the chapter is an overview of well-known suspects.
I think the Bell story is intriguing. I promised to type the bibliography, but I'm tired of pecking. If anyone wants further info. for research purposes I'll e-mail it or post it later.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Keith Eng Ellington
Sergeant
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 12
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:41 pm: |
|
Wow, Kelly! Thanks for all your hard work...I actually have this book, but I forgot about it because my books are in piles around my house.
But I'm sure others will benefit from this info.
I find it rather chilling that Doyle seems to focus on the handwriting on the letters, rather than on the known facts of the case...I and many writers on the subject are of the opinion that the letters are all complete hoaxes. And what a typically Doylean leap of logic to guess that the murderer would have been collected enough to engage in transvestism in order to escape...
Query for the criminal psychologists among you:
Aren't serial murderers usually in a haze, or state of ecstasy, after they commit their crimes?
Just curious george,
-Keith- |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Hi Kelly,
On the issue of the story regarding Dr. Joseph Bell and the Ripper. I suggest you read the book, THE SUNDAY GENTLEMAN by Irving Wallace. Wallace took various essays he had written on historical/literary/sociological subjects over the years and updated them. One was about Joseph Bell, and it was about Bell's career as a criminologist, and how he was the model of Sherlock Holmes (Adrian Conan Doyle, Sir Arthur's son, insisted that Wallace was wrong in emphasizing Bell, and that Sir Arthur himself was the model, but there is area for debate on the point).
In the course of the essay, Wallace mentions Dr. Bell's involvement as an advisor to the police in several famous crimes: the 1878 Chantrelle Poisoning Case in Glasgow, the 1893 Ardlamont Shooting Mystery, and the Whitechapel Case. His friend, government pathologist Dr. Sir Harvey Littlejohn, was the other person who supposedly on his own found the same name of the Ripper that Bell did. Wallace does not give that name, but his description ends the way you put it - "and one week later the murders ceased." So that is your source for the Bell story.
Jeff |
Kelly Robinson
Inspector
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Keith,
I don't find it odd that Doyle was so attracted to the letters, because Doyle was a writer and not a detective. I think he was particularly struck by the items that lent themselves well to dramatic fiction. Interesting that it's the direction Cornwell went, eh?
Jeff, thanks for the further info. on Bell. I find this whole circle of guys to be fascinating.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Keith Eng Ellington
Sergeant
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 13
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Yeah, that Cornwell book, I just don't what to say about it...it's one thing to insist that someone should be considered a suspect, but quite another to insist that your suspect actually did it, and you can prove it more than a hundred years later from DNA scraps on letters which have never been conclusively linked to the crime.
After some reflection, I understand why Phil went ad hominem on me; I guess he might be thinking that I'm looking for publicity or a book contract. That's really the farthest thing from my mind, honest. I've basically presented all the evidence I have, so I'll keep posting here occasionally, including the Leighton synopsis, but my heart's just not in it anymore.
-Keith-
"A gentleman does not advertise himself."
- H.P. Lovecraft |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 364
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 1:47 am: |
|
No Keith - had no thoughts about you publishing anything.
I simply stand for higher standards and logical reasoning on JtR. Your theory needed challenging, IMHO, and I therefore did so.
Sorry if I was too frank, but the usual academic approach to taking an issue forward is by exactly the same route.
I continue to maintain that your theory is trivial, baseless, inconsistent and damaging to Ripper-studies in that it perpetuates the worrying fixation with libelling the famous dead on no grounds and to no benefit of the wider subject.
Phil |
Keith Eng Ellington
Sergeant
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 14
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
I simply stand for higher standards and logical reasoning on JtR. Your theory needed challenging, IMHO, and I therefore did so.
The strange thing about this, Phil, is that you have marshalled a number of adjectives against my ideas (I hesitate to call them a theory; perhaps my scientific background), but have yet to address the very real possibility that Doyle was JtR. That is, you still have not "challenged my theory," which is really not mine, in the sense that I did not begin this thread.
In academia, impugning the ideas of someone remains very different from the kind of baseless attacks you engage in above. I object to your methodology of insisting that you can somehow discern who is "detached from reality" and who is not, without ever addressing the points raised. If you can determine that from reading someone's posts on a forum, then you are the greatest psychologist in the history of the science! Furthermore, I refuse to take your demeaning route, and you refuse to consider my evidence, so where does that leave us? Why should I post anything else for Kelly, Zach or other interested parties to read if you persist in jumping in with your army of adjectives to interrupt or preempt a learned discussion on the subject of this thread?
-Keith- |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 889
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
Ya know, one thing I am a little tired of on the boards is the idea that because someone has different standards, their standards are therefore lower, or the person themselves are somehow unethical. You cannot libel the dead. Therefore, ethics doesn't come into it. Ethics are the only thing that has place in an argument because they are determined by collective consensus; ones own values and morals are subjective and cannot be used in a logical debate. You cannot claim you are arguing for higher logical standards and stand on a platform of personal morality. The two are mutually exclusive.
What is the distinction between accusing Doyle and some relative unknown like D'Onston. There is as little reason to believe he did it as Doyle or Sickert but people don't get up in arms about him being discussed and claim how it is trivial, baseless and damaging to Ripper studies. Fame doesn't shield you from talk and speculation, if anything, it increases the liklihood of it occuring. Keith being on this board discussing his opinion is no more damaging to Ripper studies than anyone else discussing their opinion.
Yes, I too find the idea of Doyle as the Ripper to be ludicrous, but it is hardly damaging (except to Keith being considered at all logical). As long as you find someone willing to discuss it with you Keith, yak on. We shall be most entertained by your efforts.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1804
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
I agree with Ally here 100%.
Also it sometimes seems like some people think that working class men have the monopoly on
murder and that a "gentleman" just wouldnt have behaved in that way.Talk about detachment from reality!
What planet are you living on Phil ?
Natalie
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 365
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
Different one to you, it seems, Natalie. |
Keith Eng Ellington
Sergeant
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 15
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 11:56 pm: |
|
I'm back!
Just got Leighton's Montague Druitt: Portrait of a Contender in the mail and read the chapter on Doyle. I may be biased, but I don't think it is entirely tongue in cheek.
The chapter is titled "The Judgement of Solomons", and, happily, it converges with my own reasoning on Doyle as a suspect pretty closely. It includes a picture of the aforementioned cartoon Doyle drew of himself with his diploma, captioned "Licensed to Kill".
Some points from the chapter are:
- Doyle was an enthusiastic killer of seals when a sailor; he said the work "showed what a man is made of."
- Leighton says "If anyone benefited from the murders it was Doyle," and I agree with him.
- Doyle is on record (though Leighton does not reference a primary source) as saying that prostitutes were "vile women."
- Though this is not really significant, Doyle was once accused by a heckler at a lecture of being JtR.
I wish I knew more about Gelsemium; I had been hoping Leighton would have said something about that!
Is there a doctor in the house?
-Keith- |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 24
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:45 am: |
|
Keith, I never read such transparent nonsense in my life.
Doyle was an enthusiastic killer of seals when a sailor; he said the work "showed what a man is made of."
Most of the English propertied classes engaged in killing animals for sport in 1888 - hunting, shooting, stalking etc. They did it with "enthusiasm". IMHO the Doyle angle is frankly worthless.
- Leighton says "If anyone benefited from the murders it was Doyle," and I agree with him.
You may agree, but I certainly am not such a push-over. many profited from the killings - newspaper editors and owners; and socialists in that Jack gave a major boost to their campaign to improve social conditions. you are simply special-pleading for a lost and pointless cause.
Doyle is on record (though Leighton does not reference a primary source) as saying that prostitutes were "vile women."
So where is the "record" and what is the source if not primary? Again, I would have thought that a large proportion of late C19th men might have made a similar remark. It need neither represent their true views (ie they might still use prostitutes); nor a murderous intent. it simply reflects the fact that these woman had fallen as far as they could go and offended against Victorian values, however hypocritical they might be.
- Though this is not really significant, Doyle was once accused by a heckler at a lecture of being JtR.
Well at least you don't push this - so why refer to it. Read the books - it was common practice for men in the East End to be chased by lads shouting out similar accusations!! So what??
If you want anyone to sympathise with your baseless view about Doyle, I'm afrais you'll have to do better than that, Keith.
Phil |
Keith Eng Ellington
Sergeant
Username: Messiahntist
Post Number: 16
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:49 am: |
|
That's it, Phil, I quit.
All I was doing was summarizing the salient points in the chapter for others to read.
Seeya,
-Keith- |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 25
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 3:33 am: |
|
Sorry, that you took it so personally Keith. My apologies for any offence. But you seemed to be supportive of the argument advanced. I think all my points were backed up by argument too. I hope you'll reconsider your decision.
Phil |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
Hi Phil, Keith, and Kelly
Certainly all we really know about Doyle and the Whitechapel murders is that the write showed a certain dalliance with the idea of the murders. That would be only natural, given that so many people were fascinated with the murders and the possible solution to the crimes. It would be natural for people to look to the creator of Sherlock Holmes for a solution but in truth though he might be able to write puzzles in his Holmes stories, it's a different thing to come up with solution to a real-life case. That having been said, I think the idea of the killer having dressed as a woman is not that far-fetched and at least is a reasonable suggestion. I do think that Kelly's observation that Doyle seemed fascinated with the Dear Boss letter is a good observation, and the parallel noticed with Cornwell, another fiction writer, is a very good one.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Hi all,
If we insist on looking at Conan Doyle as a suspect, we have to stretch the list to include other detective story writers of note:
G.K. Chesterton - a notorious anti-Semite, the creator of the Father Brown stories might have decided to commit the mayhem to cause anti-Jewish riots in the East End of London. He also was flamboyant, supposedly walking around London with a sword stick.
R.Austin Freeman - The creator of the Dr. Thorndyke tales worked in the East End as a doctor, and disliked Jews almost as much as Chesterton did.
Ernest Brahmah - The creator of the Max Carrados tales would be our least likely suspect. He kept a very low profile. His detective was a sweet tempered, visually impaired gentleman. A least likely suspect candidate.
The fact is that Doyle is a lightning rod for people seeking to make any event (even one interesting in itself, like Whitechapel or Piltdown) even more interesting. His connection (that is documented at all) is that he thought the crimes were done by a mad midwife. That is in his memoirs. Unless some Doylean scholar turns up with a bloodstained midwife's clothing that is traceable back to Sir Arthur I don't think that he can be seriously considered.
Best wishes,
Jeff
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff
Good post, Jeff. Coming into play here is the old story as well of the tendency to confuse the artist with their creations. Just because Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote murder mysteries does not make him a murderous individual.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Kelly Robinson
Inspector
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Right Chris, especially considering the large body of non-mystery work Doyle produced. I think there is ONE good reason to look more closely at Doyle, but not as a suspect: he was given a tour by, and had conversations with, people who personally had a connection with the case. Doyle was possibly privy to information or opinions that have been lost to time. He left a lot of paper behind. Maybe he wrote something down?
Also, thanks for the earlier compliment.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Considering that a large proportion of the modern writers on the subject of Jack the Ripper are ex-cops or criminal profilers, are we to assume that they too are now’t but a bunch of murdering bastards with a ‘down on whores’?
This is what I call the ‘Titanic syndrome’, that any author who writes on the sinking of the Titanic must have sunk it.
Wobbly.
However, I do feel that Keith’s exploration of the theme should perhaps not be treated so harshly. We all explore, no reason to hammer someone into the ground for an honest bit of exploration.
There are probably some very valuable and valid avenues of research connected with Doyle from a historical point of view that might well open up new areas of thought and research.
I personally would encourage Keith not to give up so easily, and to be prepared to take this sort of flak without feeling jaded about the attitudes of some posters here.
Once you got your body armour on they make quite good friends.
I count them thus. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 664
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 10:59 pm: |
|
Hi all,
To me, the key to the use of Doyle, or any other historically remembered person from 1888 is how they reflect or interact with the historical event of Whitechapel. When I wrote that piece about the Goulston Street graffiti in the book WHO WAS JACK THE RIPPER?, I was trying to note what I thought was an interesting possible link between the clue of "JUWES / JEWS" in the graffiti and the similar clue of a double word clue in the novella "A STUDY IN SCARLET" that was published only 10 months earlier (December 1887). That was to show a possible spark or causation between Doyle's writing, and what one reader of his work might have made a note of.
If one is going to look into all the major or still remembered writers of Great Britain, France, the U.S. , the German Empire, Russia, etc. in 1888 and what they wrote or commented on, you have to check on their writings and their personal correspondents. This is not totally impossible. Shaw for example. He wrote several half-serious, half comic comments (letters to the newspapers) about the Ripper. I once tried to study how true crime effected Shaw.
He was far more conscious of it than he normally let on. He may have even made comments on several true crimes in his plays (though, curiously, he did not write a straight play about crime).
Chesterton was occasionally invited to meetings of "Our Society" the London based true crime club that Conan Doyle helped form. He too can mention actual real crimes in his fiction. In one of his Father Brown stories he makes an odd comment reflecting on the Radcliffe Highway Murders (he comments on the oddity of a man named Williams killing a man named Williamson). I'm sure he would have made comments about the Ripper in personal correspondence.
One of the ones I am most curious about was dying 1888. It was William Wilkie Collins. He died in 1889, and his last years were clouded by his drug habit (he was hooked on opiads for the pains he was wracked by). I can't believe that a man who used the Constance Kent Case in THE MOONSTONE and other true crimes in his other fiction never made any comments on Whitechapel.
So I would encourage the study of the writings of these men of letters - for commentary and comment, not to pin the murders on them.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
blue meanie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 3:59 am: |
|
I have been a regular visitor to these pages over the last few months as i find the subject fascinating. I was on the verge of registering and thought i might have a couple of new ideas to throw into the pot . That was until i saw the ridicule & scorn being thrown at a bloke who was only giving an opinion on a case kept alive by opinions and theories. How dissapointing. |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 29
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 2:50 am: |
|
blue meanie, hi.
All views are welcome here as are you.
But one of the purposes of this site is to discuss, debate and subject ideas to rigorous scrutiny.
If an idea has substance and worth it will survive, if it hasn't it won't.
Speaking purely for myself, I do get a little tired of this rather pointless "game" of picking some hapless and unlikely celebrity from the 1880s and then accusing him on the most circumstantial grounds of possibly being Jack. There is a whole list of such unfortunates - Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) being one; but including Dr Barnardo; the Duke of Clarence; and numerous others.
Such suggestions frankly add little or nothing to Ripper studies and are part of what continues to keep the case ridiculed and scorned (to use your words) by professional historians and the public.
If you think it was my post to Keith, I don't think you'll find any personal comments there. My points were supported by argument, and I stated my view of the point under discussion - worthless and the arguments brought to bear weak. That is what I feel. I regret very much that keith felt wounded by my words.
I think AP is right. Get a little confidence, or armour, and you'll find that I am/we are not so bad.
IMHO it is the quality of discussion that keeps this board alive, as much as new points per se.
I say again welcome, and hope you'll share yor insights with us.
Phil |
Katie Bugins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:05 am: |
|
I too had the idea that Arthur Conan Doyle was Jack the Ripper. One thing that none of you have mentioned is his membership in the strange religion Spiritualism.
I am not going to get into a big thing with a bunch of nay sayers, but there is absolutely nothing ridiculous about this theory. The fact that so many people are saying it is ridiculous can almost be seen as just another encouragement; people do not want to consider him, which perhaps, in his time, was to his advantage.
What is ridiculous about ACD as JTR?
-Surgeon
-Was, in fact, in London at the time
-Carreer was fueled by public's interest in crime, due to JTR
-Participated in strange ceremonies with Spiritualism, an occult religion not much respected/trusted
-Has a marked disrespect for police: does not trust that they have the sensitivity, insight, or skill to track down any truly talented criminal. Seems to take this as a fact, without mallice.
-He SAW things. He said he saw his friend D.D. Home levitate and float out the window into the street. Yeah.
-While writing crime by no means makes you a criminal, it certainly makes you knowledgable about crime. Gotta research stuff, understand it, look around, gotta have an interest in it.
All I'm saying is, it's not crazy. You don't have to beleive it, but there is absolutely nothing silly or illegitimate about this idea. The only silly or illegitimate thing about this whole forum is that people seem to feel a real indignance about ACD's being accused without any more proof than we honest, interested theorists have. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
