|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 39
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 8:22 am: |       |
Alan,
Grounds for suspicion? I guess 34 years as a suspect without having been conclusively cleared. Edward Buchan? What grounds for suspicion are there for him? He was theorized as 'JTR', that's pretty much it. Barber's theory is extremely weak yet Buchan, while not heralded as a prime suspect, is never given the brush off that is apparently going on with Sickert. What about John McCarthy? He was only the landlord of one victim. What about Francis Thompson? What about Ernest Dowson? There is a definite bias against certain suspects.
Just to state history Sickert was named as a suspect prior to the Royal Conspiracy. In 1970 Sickert was theorized as 'JTR' by Donald McCormick. More history, Sickert was stated as constantly conversing about 'JTR' in 1947 by a personal friend of his Sir Osbert Sitwell. Even further back another friend of Sickert claims Sickert was infatuated with the 'JTR' case verifying Sitwell's claims. Then there are the numbers of paintings with 'JTR' titles painted by Sickert. Please. If this isn't grounds for suspicion, and thats all I'm trying to say, suspicion, then what you are looking for is a bloody knife in someone's hand, and you're not going to find that.
This is my last message regarding this because it is becoming a pointless merry-go-round. Nobody is saying Sickert did it, just saying that the suspicion and possibility still remains.
STAN
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 193
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 8:41 am: | |
So apparently to get in the suspect "pool" you just have to be named as such. No evidence required?
I think your suspect pool has too many lifeguards Stan. Most of those suspects should sink to the bottom and drown for lack of any credible evidence whatsoever.
Personally, I only invite plausible suspects, with a reasonable basis for suspicion to my pool party. Using the criteria of "not disproved", I'd have to use the census as my starting invite list, and they'd be stacked 1000 people deep. I like a pool with room enough to swim in.
Regards,
John |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 411
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 9:11 am: | |
Stan
I have never considered Francis Thompson a credible suspect. I have never considered John McCarthy a suspect at all. The other two people you mention I have never even heard anyone mention. However if someone came on here and started claiming to have proved that they were Jack the Ripper because they called their pet cat Ripper and it was a clear confession, rest assured I would argue this theory with them just as thoroughly. You have just said it yourself, the evidence against Sickert is that he liked talking about Jack the Ripper. Guess what? So do I. So do you. So does everybody here. To the best of my knowledge none of us have ever turned a prostitute into cat-meat. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 580
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 10:00 am: | |
Stan,
I don't know everything. I don't know who 'JTR' was. I don't know why the murders were committed.
Then what makes you think that the murders were premeditated? I know what you mean though about a murder being premeditated with no specific victim in mind. Basically he wanted to kill but didn't pick who specifically, just whoever he could.
I don't agree though that Sickert was Jack or that he could have possibly been as I have said before that there would be too many other people who would have been covering it up including his mother. I think she would have noticed if her son went missing for days at a time. Also, how wealthy was Sickert then? Surely all those comings and goings from France to London must have cost a bit if you honesty believe he could have made those trips.
Sarah |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 4:43 am: | |
Now here is an interesting piece of highly relevant information.
Marjorie Lilly, a former art student of Walter Sickert and later a life-long friend who shared a studio with Sickert, was interviewed by Stephen Knight when Knight was working on his book about The Royal Conspiracy. Lilly told Knight that Sickert had "Ripper periods" which lasted for several weeks. During these "Ripper periods," Sickert dressed up as Jack The Ripper. [One wonders how Sickert knew how to dress up as Jack The Ripper, and what he thought Jack looked like all dressed up.] Lilly indicates that these "Ripper periods" occurred after his stroke in 1926. Consequently, these "Ripper" periods must have occurred between 1927 (after Sickert recovered sufficiently) and 1942 (when Sickert died.) It is known that Lilly saw Sickert often between 1927 and 1929 -- the years when he was working on the three major oil paintings that have religious titles. Lilly remarks in her own book how much Sickert enjoyed modeling as Jesus for "The Raising of Lazarus." While I can't date Sickert's "Ripper" periods more precisely, all the circumstances would seem to point to them occurring around the same time the 3 oils with the religious titles were painted. But whenever these "Ripper periods" actually occurred, they must have occurred a minimum of four decades after the Whitechapel murders. They may have occurred as much as five decades after the Ripper murders. In either case, these "Ripper periods" dramatically demonstrated that at the end of his life, after his massive stroke, Walter Sickert had Jack The Ripper very much on his mind. And it is probable that he had Jack The Ripper on his mind at the same time he was painting the three oils with religious titles.
Just to be facetious, I will add that there is no record of Sickert having periods where he dressed up as Abraham's servant, finding the right bride for Isaac, and leading Isaac to Rebeccah at the well.
What do these "Ripper periods" -- that lasted several weeks and involved dressing up in a Ripper costume -- prove? I will save my detractors the trouble of pointing out that they do not prove that Sickert was Jack The Ripper.
But these periods raise the question; why after four decades did Sickert's well-documented long-time fascination with Jack The Ripper suddenly reach the level of an obvious obsession? One should recall that following the murder of Mary Kelly, the police concluded that the Ripper murders had ceased (fallacious as this conclusion may have been). Press coverage of The Ripper gradually faded into the background and eventually disappeared. While occasional stories and articles on The Ripper were published during the first quarter of the 19th Century, public hysteria was quelled and the interest of the mass media evaporated.
But in 1929, a major Ripper event occurred in England, one that certainly did not escape Sickert's notice. The first full-length, serious, investigatory book in English about Jack The Ripper, The Mystery of Jack the Ripper by Leonard Matters, was published. Not only was this greeted with great interest by the book-reading public, its publication also stimulated the sudden appearance of many new Ripper articles in the press. Suddenly, the heat was on again for Jack The Ripper -- and the possibility of the identity of The Ripper being discovered was substantially increased.
Now the timing in years and the sequence of events is still not sufficiently clear for me to shout: "Aha!" But the confluence of Ripper- events during the years 1926 through 1929 -- from Sickert's stroke, through the painting of the 3 oils with religious titles, possibly including Sickert's "Ripper periods" masquerading in Ripper costume, and finally including the publication of Matter's book plus a spate of magaine articles -- all these events raise very powerful suspicions in my mind. I don't claim to have it all sorted out yet, but I am working on it.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
BJMarkland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Mark, your theory regarding "Servant of Abraham" states, if I understood correctly, that Sickert painted his "confession", not in repentence, but more in the way of a brag.
However, since, as it has been pointed out in this thread by several, Abraham did the ritual killing of the lamb, not the servant, this seems to open the way for two further interpretations to make your theory work.
1) The major servant that we know of went and selected a wife for Abraham's son and returned with her. For some reason, the word "procurement" pops into my head.
2) Since it is more than likely that Abraham had multiple servants, it is equally likely that a servant brought the lamb to be sacrificed by Abraham.
So, cutting to the chase, are you saying that Sickert, while not the actual killer, selected or targeted the specific victims for the killer?
Pardon my mental wanderings this morning but I stayed up all night reading the Ripper Diary book and I am still a bit groggy.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2948
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
Everyone -
Good conversation, but please keep it civil. Have had to delete several queued posts due to inappropriate personal comments peppered within.
Personal insults are not allowed, ever.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
Mark Starr,
Paintings are seldom practical jokes. However, they represents ways for the artist to manifest himself in different ways, and they becomes a mirror of personal dreams and thoughts. But they are not evidence. Neither is "context", if it can't be supported by facts or physichal proof. These kinds of self-identifications as we see i several paintings and self-portraits have seldom any true basis in real life -- on the contrary, I would say. To draw such conclusions is to misinterpret art.
As I've tried to explain before, such identifications -- and interests in subject of the macabre -- was quite common among painters (and still is) and certainly common for the period in art we are discussing here.
Alibi or not, the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor. And I am afraid these kinds of "evidence" wouldn't stand up in court. I have no problem with looking at Sickert as one of possible suspects, that is not my main concern, but I require at least some credible clues and reasonable links to the Ripper -- the paintings doesen't cut it. That is all.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
So, if Sickert was in sound mind when doing his ‘confessional’ pics, after the near-fatal stroke, how in the name of sweet Jesus did he expect anyone else of equally sound mind to respect his reputation as an artist after he died, if they found out that he was Jack the Ripper, and then worked out that he, a known atheist, had tried to con them with a phoney religious cover story?
I’m just trying to understand what level of intelligence and awareness the man must have had at the time to a) dream up such a scheme, and b) think it would have a cat in hell’s chance of fooling anyone, and achieving his goal of protecting his reputation and duping history.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 806
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 1:58 pm: | |
I always follow these lively discussions with an abiding and keen interest, but something that struck me recently as I was reading along was that in the vigorous pursuit of a particular suspect - in this case poor old Sickert - might we not be following a path of deliberate disinformation? Disinformation that was either sown at the actual time of the crimes or by later writers on this subject.
The idea came to me whilst carefully dissecting hundreds of murder cases in the USA, as during that dissection I was struck by an alarming and disturbing trend, and that was in many murder cases involving women who had either been prostitutes or what society might term ‘immoral’ in their social behaviour - such as hitching rides on the freeway, frequenting dubious bars and clubs or even through their drug or alcohol addiction - then the cases either remained unsolved or took many years to bring to a mostly unsatisfactory conclusion.
Cases however that involved the ‘good and respectable’ women of society appeared to be solved very quickly by a keen investigating police force.
Now one could argue that by the very nature of the victims themselves, then the cases could prove difficult to bring to a successful conclusion, as prostitutes, drug takers and drunks are wary of officialdom and secretive about their illegal pursuits. However I do not believe that to be the complete answer, and hence do see a definite pattern that does seem to indicate that when a police force is faced with the murder of a prostitute or similar than their commitment and enthusiasm is markedly reduced.
So rather than suspects being difficult to identify or quantify because of either their ’intelligence’, cunning or sheer bravado, in the case of Jack the Ripper we may be looking at a situation that has simply been created by a lack of concern on the behalf of the investigating police force at the time of the crimes, because the victims were all ‘scum’ - harsh word but that was the honest view held by society in general of working class whores in the LVP.
For example a classic modern example of such a disinformation initiative would be the flawed and failed investigation by the police for the capture of the Yorkshire Ripper whose victims were initially without exception prostitutes… however when Sucliffe murdered and mutilated a respectable member of the female class, by mistake, then the investigation began in earnest.
I believe we look at a totally similar situation here, and that as worthy as this discussion is, there is a underlying principle that is being slowly eroded away here, and that is a flawed police investigation in combination with all the victims being ‘scum’ does inherently increase the suspect market beyond all proportion to the real situation.
Yes, I fear we waste our time, and a serious examination of the Macnaghten memo would bring more reward.
For that is the starting point of the suspect disinformation policy of the investigating police of the time. It was their excuse, and an incitement to look elsewhere for Jack.
So, any old artist will do.
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 51
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
Mark.
"I am charging Sickert with The Whitechapel Murders, so I am the prosecution. You are defending Sickert by claiming he has an alibi (and therefore could not have committed these crimes), so you are the defense."
Apparently my saying that "The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, in this case you..." was a bit too subtle, too confusing for you. I am sorry if you did not fully understand. Yes, Mark I was saying that you are the prosecution and I am the defence. Glad you picked up on that.
I can only assume, however, that the rest of what I have posted has been a tad too confusing to you as exemplified by this: "When you claim that it is the prosecution's responsibility to prove the defense's claim of an alibi, you simply do not know what you are talking about. You are making up law that does not exist anywhere. It is never the prosecution's responsibility to prove that the defense's claims are true."
Hmm, excuse me but where, exactly, do you think I stated this? I certainly did not think this nor did I think that I even implied this in any way. Apparently I am wrong about exactly what I wrote so help me out here. Where do you think that I said this?
Once more you dramatically state: "in order for the prosecution to demolish any claim of an alibi by the defense, it is sufficient for the prosecution to show that it was indeed possible that the defendant could have been at the scene of a crime, not necessarily that he definitely was at the scene.
This I definitely did not respond to a clearly as I should have but I didn't expect my words to be as baffling as they apparently are. The defence offers proof of an alibi, see Mark, as I stated earlier the defence does this. The prosecution, according to you, merely has to "show that it was indeed possible that the defendant could have been at the scene of a crime, not necessarily that he definitely was at the scene." This then goes to the jury to weigh the merits of the two viewpoints. It is up to the jury, (so that there will be no bewilderment on your part allow me to explain that in this case all those who are reading and responding on this thread are the jury), to make their own decision as to who they think is right and who they think is wrong here. By my reading rather than demolish Sickert's alibi of being in France during four of the Whitechapel murders you are failing to convince anyone other than Stan and even he does not support Sickert as the Ripper.
That's kind of the point I have been trying to make. You see Mark, I am not really debating the letter of the law here, as apparently you are for some bizarre reason, but I am using what I thought was your legal metaphor to try and explain how your so called evidence, and your defence of it, is not really supportive of anything. I apologize for being too subtle for your understanding.
Now that that's cleared up I am still waiting for you to supply that "factual ammunition" which proves Ms Cornwell's point as well as your sources that prove that Sickert was indeed "an arrogant, self-centered, self-indulgent egotist; an original artist completely convinced of his important place in the history of British art."
Wolf.
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 596
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
Mark,
I have only just read your reply to my post now.
Please answer me this, why do you insist on linking this painting to anything that Abraham did at all? Why can't you see that the painting is about Abraham's servant? I know why, because nothing the servant did can't be linked to Jack the Ripper. Please remember Mark that you are supposed to be telling us what Abraham's servant has to do with Sickert being the Ripper. Please just concentrate on the title of the painting and don't just imagine that the painting is about Abraham when it is no such thing.
Sarah |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
Mr Starr,
It appears few posters read The Holy Bible, including you, sir. Really. It becomes a little tiresome to correct you again.
"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a RAM caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the RAM, and offered him up for a burnt offering instead of his son". Now, whether this word "ram" is interchangeable with "lamb" I leave to the rabbinical scribes among us. But it should be remembered that, the motif of the 'ram in a thicket' is pertinent to the origins of the Abrahamic tribal entity...via Ur of Chaldea.
I find it a little disingenuous of some posters to insist on Mr Sickert's 'innocence', in view of the fact that Mr Sickert himself expended a great deal of energy describing himself as JTR... long before this information was in print! Question: Why was Mr Sickert never arrested or questioned about his claim...and oddly enough, why did Mr McNaughton not include him in his Memorandum?
Curious and curiouser.
Perhaps, the truth lies somewhere in between. If this self-portrait had been titled "Cold mutton!"
(to quote Oscar Wilde after a brief engagement in a Parisien brothel), the works of Mr Sickert would still present an enigma, I am afraid.
Anyway, I await Mr Starr's other 'clues'...I bet he is saving the best to last.
Rosey :-) |
J. Rodrigues
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
IMHO there are no grounds for suspicion against Sickert. No one ever stated that he was 'infatuated' with the case and Sitwell only said he was 'interested' in the case because he thought he knew who the Ripper was. There are many such non-suspects in this case and only viable suspects are worth looking at. That leaves only a few and Sickert certainly isn't one of them. No suspicion ever attached to him historically and it was only after McCormick's invention that the idea was born to weave him into the Royal conspiracy fantasy. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
Sarah wrote:
>I have only just read your reply to my post now. Please answer me this, why do you insist on linking this painting to anything that Abraham did at all? Why can't you see that the painting is about Abraham's servant?
Yet, once again, I assert that the painting is NOT about Abraham's servant -- the anonymous servant mentioned in Genesis 14. It is, I maintain, totally irrelevant to Walter Sickert or to any discussion about Jack The Ripper to state, as you repeatedly do, the the anonymous servant of Abraham in Genesis 14 didn't kill anybody. The painting is about Walter Sickert who called himself the "Servant of Abraham." Any other servant that Abraham may have had (specifically including the one in Genesis 14) is -- as far as I am concerned, and I assert Sickert was also concerned, as indicated by the many reasons I have given in past posts -- is irrelevant to any painting by Walter Sickert and to my theory about Jack The Ripper. Now if that explanation does not answer your question, so be it. Your question is based on a false premise and nothing I have yet written can convince you that your premise is false. The only anwer I can give you: in "The Servant of Abraham," Walter Sickert said he, Walter Sickert, was the Servant of Abraham.
>I know why, because nothing the servant did can't be linked to Jack the Ripper. Please remember Mark that you are supposed to be telling us what Abraham's servant has to do with Sickert being the Ripper. Please just concentrate on the title of the painting and don't just imagine that the painting is about Abraham when it is no such thing. Sarah
This is utterly pointless. You just do not understand my point, you have misrepresented my point in every one of your posts, and it is obvious to me that you will never get my point -- much less ever agree with it..
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
Ah, Rosey, you cut me to the quick! And I was under the foolish impression that every ram was once upon a time a lamb. In the future, I will use the word ram instead of lamb. Or how about a ramb?
Rambunctious as ever, and sitting ramrod straight at my computer, I will now contemplate the ramifications of your rambling message.
Mark Starr, a devoté of the poetry of Rimbaud and the Rambo movies. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 5:58 pm: | |
Caz wrote:
>So, if Sickert was in sound mind when doing his ‘confessional’ pics, after the near-fatal stroke, how in the name of sweet Jesus did he expect anyone else of equally sound mind to respect his reputation as an artist after he died, if they found out that he was Jack the Ripper, and then worked out that he, a known atheist, had tried to con them with a phoney religious cover story?
Hi Caz:
Now yours is a fair question! It is a question that tests my theory -- at least the part of the theory that explains Sickert's motive for paintings 3 oils that point to his guilt as Jack The Ripper -- with a well-reasoned argument.
I think any impartial student of Sickert would have to agree that he was not a raving lunatic -- maybe very eccentric from outward appearances, but not obviously criminally insane like Victorian painter Richard Dadd (who was committed to an insane asylum for life after he slit his father's throat and dismembered his body. By the way, where is the long post I wrote about Richard Dadd? I do not see it in this thread in Casebook.org, even though I wrote and posted it three days ago. I know I am an unregestered user. But does it take three days for unregistered posts to appear? Or are some of my posts being zapped by a mysterious force in fear of me libeling a painter who has been dead for more than a century, libeling him by merely restating the known facts of his life? As I mentioned, I do not see my post about Dadd now on Casebook.org; but I do see some posts I wrote after my Dadd post. This looks to me like a case for Sherlock Holmes. Or, if I could have my preference, for Detective Chief Inspector Endeavor Morse.)
To answer your question, I think what Sickert was NOT trying to do in these three paintings was convince everyone that he was a raving lunatic, bonkers like Dadd. He was trying to convince people that he was really a religious fanatic, killing prostitutes to follow God's order first to Abraham to sacrifice a RAM (Rosey, please note, a RAM!!) and now to him, Walter Sickert, to maintain or renew Mankind's protection deal with God.) A religious fanatic and a raving lunatic are not necessarily the same thing. Nobody calls Abraham a raving lunatic because he was ready to slit the throat of his son Isaac -- even though I wonder what directors of the departments of Child Protective Services might have to say today about Abraham. Billions of people venerate Abraham as a patriarch. OK, they say, maybe he was a little extreme in his religious views, but so what?
So what about Sickert's life-long atheism. It is exactly because of Sickert's "avid" outspoken atheism that Sickert siad to himself: maybe, by painting three surprising oils with religious titles, I can convince these believers (who, after all, represent the majority of the population, certainly in England) that my atheism was just a front all these years to hide the real me. And here, I will tell these believers, is the real me, Walter Sickert alias Jack The Ripper, in these three oil paintings with religious titles. So, even though I was Jack The Ripper, do not judge me harshly. The reason I did it was to save Mankind, and I was only following God's order. And if you don't believe my explanation, Walter Sickert is saying in these paintings, what do I care? By the time any of you figure out what I meant to say in these three paintings, or that my confession was really a phoney cover story to protect my reputation, I will be long dead. Catch me when you can!
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 418
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 3:16 am: | |
Mark
I see that you consider Caz's question fair. My question was also fair, but you have now failed or refused to answer it twice so I will ask it again.
How have you ruled out all of the other things that Abraham is reported to have done during his life in order to conclude that this is the incident that Walter Sickert was referring to when he called himself the Servant of Abraham?
This is an entirely fair question. It is accepting your theory that Sickert was referring to himself in the title of the painting. I should also ask how you have ruled out that the title referred to Sickert attempting to come to terms with his own Jewish heritage which would seem the most obvious interpretation to me?
You mention Sherlock Holmes in the above post. Sherlock Holmes said that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth. I am merely asking how you eliminated all the other possibilities in order to arrive at the conclusion that this one must be the truth.
You have also continually talked of attorneys and destroying alibi's. This question is one that any defence attorney would ask at a pre-trial hearing, and if you do not have an answer then the case is never going to come to trial.
If you are afraid of this question or do not have an answer then say so. But do not keep coming on here saying that everyone is against you and we refuse to listen to you when you have not answered this one most basic of all questions.
And let me make this abundantly clear. I am not saying that your theory is wrong. I am saying to you, convince me. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 598
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
Mark,
Why do you think this painting has nothing to do with Abraham's servant when the title is as clear as day. If he had meant it with regards to Abraham's actions then he would have called it Abraham or The Servant of God, it's a as simple as that.
The only reason you want to think he meant Abraham is as you say in your own words the anonymous servant of Abraham in Genesis 14 didn't kill anybody.
Please try and understand that the painting references the servant, not Abraham.
I will never understand your point unless you actually give some decent reasoning for why you think this painting has anything to do with Abraham. Basically, why do you think he called it "The Servant of Abraham" if he was actually linking himself to an act committed by Abraham?
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 701
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 7:14 am: | |
Hi Mark,
Thanks for addressing my question.
I may have misunderstood your response, and if so I apologise. It appears that what you have been saying is: Sickert’s arty-farty ‘confession’ can be looked upon as his way of protecting his reputation after his death, in the event of being identified as the ripper, because he thought people might somehow excuse his murders on the grounds that he had also apparently lied to them about his atheism, and was after all only a feeble-minded religious nutter, who would have been a harmless vegan if only Abraham hadn’t called upon him from the grave and given him the job of slaughtering mutton dressed as lamb. (Hi Rosey, me old flower.)
Quite how Sickert thought anything of the kind could possibly ‘protect’ one’s reputation is I suppose put down to eccentricity of the highest order. And the fact that all serial killers are generally considered to be nutters of some sort anyway rounds off the circle nicely, except that it kind of renders Sickert’s whole exercise pointless. If an artist were ever identified as Jack (and I ask again – how would Sickert have thought this possible in his case?), he would hardly need to have clarified that he was as nutty as the proverbial fruit cake but rather hoped his reputation as an artist would not suffer in consequence.
And you also appear to be saying that if Sickert considered the possibility that the message would be too subtle for anyone, or that one person might one day get it but not be fooled by it, then Sickert would have said to himself, “What the hell? I’ll be dead and gone so I won’t be around to care whether it worked or not”.
So in your view, Sickert was either a homicidal nutter who cared enough about his future reputation to leave a cryptic claim to have been a religious homicidal nutter, or a homicidal nutter who didn’t care how his artwork might be interpreted. In considering the former, I wonder why he didn’t write a bogus, but clear and unambiguous account of his supposed religious conversion, as his insurance policy, to be found after his death. The latter leaves me with precious little to consider at all, apart from the likelihood that he was a typically eccentric arty type who never killed a soul and left others to interpret his work as they so choose.
Sorry I can’t be more positive unless I have misunderstood or there is more to come.
Love,
Caz
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 5:30 am: | |
Although I can't recall any comment I've made that I would call an insult, maybe our illustrious editor construed something I wrote as an insult to someone, and that is the reason my post containing the story of Richard Dadd is still missing from this thread. Whether censored or lost in transit, the story of Richard Dadd is just too interesting and too close to the case of Walter Sickert to let it slip through the cracks. And it is inconceivable to me how the case of Richard Dadd, who died more than a century ago, could ever insult or libel anyone. So I will try again and see if it gets through. However, since I didn't save a copy, I will have to write it from scratch.
Richard Dadd (1817 - 1886) was an important British artist in the Victorian era primarily known for fairy paintings and fantasy pictures of incredible detail and wild imagination. During the 19th Century, Dadd was better known to the art world than Sickert was, but not as well known as the dozen-or-so painters in the Pre-Raphael Brotherhood, a school of painting founded by Dante Gabriel Rossetti. This group of painters, many with Sir and Lord attached to their names, totally dominated British Art throughout much of the 19th Century. Anyone who has viewed Dadd's delightful, delicate works but has not read details about his life will be shocked to learn that he was a ripper just as savage as Jack. Dadd may have only slit his father's throat (and dismembered him, spreading the pieces over a wide area) and later slashed a total stranger (who barely survived,) but there is absolutely no doubt that he was well on his way to slaughtering a long list of friends and acquaintances that he kept in his pocket. The only reason he was prevented from carrying out all of his plan was his capture in France as he tried to escape.
This bizarre story began in the 1840s when Dadd visited Egypt with his aristocratic patron Sir Thomas Philips. While in Cairo, Dadd experimented with drugs and water pipes. The generally accepted theory is that the drugs must have damaged his brain. Upon return to England, he began to suffer weird visions. His behavior became erratic, with violent episodes directed at Philips. A medical doctor specializing in what little that was known about mental illness at that time diagnosed Dadd as "non compos mentis", of unsound mind. But instead of committing Dadd to an insane asylum, customary procedure with such a diagnosis, the doctor thought that Dadd was fit enough to carry on his career as a painter. So he recommended a rest-cure in a nearby village. Dadd agreed and went there with his father. Big mistake. Soon after, he slit his father's throat with a knife and ripped him to shreds with a razor, dismembering the body in many pieces, and distributing the pieces in many different places.
Covered with blood, Dadd fled to France (once again demonstrating how easy it was to travel from England to France, and this was the 1840s.) Evidently, no one bothered to report to police the unusual sight on coaches and the ferry of a man traveling from London to Calais in blood-stained clothes. Upon his arrival in Paris, Dadd selected a tourist on the street and began to slash him to pieces. Somehow, the man survived. But Dadd was captured by French police and locked away in jail to wait for a trial.
Meanwhile, back in Victorian England, the dismembered body of Dadd's dad was discovered and the police were called in to investigate. At first, they did not suspect Dadd fils; the police assumed that Richard Dadd had been either kidnapped or abducted and killed by the murderer of Dadd père. Finally, they located Richard Dadd's brother, who led police to the artist's studio. Upon searching the studio, the police discovered drawings by Dadd of many of his friends. In each one of these drawings, the subject's throat had been slit. It was at this juncture that one astute detective observed: "Looks like Richard Dadd murdered his father." I hasten to add that the detective made this brilliant deduction solely by examining the images. He didn't even have a title to help him. If that detective had been a participant in this thread, the police might still be hunting for Dadd as a kidnap victim.
I don't know how the police finally learned that Dadd was in a French jail awaiting trial for attempted murder -- but they did. When the British police finally examined Dadd in France, they found a handwritten note secreted on Dadd's person, entitled "those who must die." The note listed first his father's name, followed by the names of each friend that he had sketched in London. There was a check next to the name of his father.
Now, according to the logic of some here, such a note should never be considered proof of anything. Maybe it was just Dadd's list of friends and relatives whom Dadd thought might die someday from illness or overwork. After all, the note does not absolutely prove that Dadd killed or intended to kill anyone.
Nevertheless, these drawings and the note, taken together, were in fact sufficient evidence to have Dadd committed by a judge in the UK to life imprisonment in Bedlam, the quintessential insane asylum. Later, he was transfered to Broadmoor. A kindly doctor in charge of Dadd arranged for painting supplies in the asylums for many years. For the rest of his life, Dadd painted in the asylum, producing a body of astonishing and accomplished paintings, some of them of fairies. It was here that he produced his two greatest masterworks: Fairy Feller's Master Stroke (one of the pinnacles of British Art) and Contradiction: Oberon and Titania. A number of Dadd's paintings eventually wound up in the Tate Gallery in London, placed not far away from paintings by the British artist Walter Sickert. Modern doctors have retroactively diagnosed Dadd as suffering from bipolar manic depression.
Many parallels in the stories of these two artists are inescapable. But I want to point out the most significant. As in The Whitechapel Murders, there were no eye-witnesses to positively identify the killer of Dadd's father. It was Dadd's drawings of his friends that pointed to Dadd as his father's killer. The handwritten note was sufficient evidence for the prosecution to obtain a conviction for murder -- even though the note is not necessarily a confession. Eventually Dadd confessed, corroborating the evidence. But since Dadd had already been diagnosed as a madman, the confession was of no legal significance. The evidence that convicted Dadd was the drawings and the note -- and both had to be interpreted by the prosecution and the judge (I'm not sure if there was a jury in this case.)
In the light of the Dadd case, I think the reflexive assurance with which some here dismiss the evidence against Sickert as Jack that I and others have noted in his paintings and activities is what we in the States sometimes call whistlin' Dixie.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Rosemary O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 4:47 am: | |
Dear Mr Starr,
In a pastoral community we have enough reason to distinguish a ram from a lamb. Believe me!And I apologise if I seem to 'ramble' at times :-)
The painting "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" at Manchester City Art Gallery was examined by me and the conservator of that Art Gallery nearly a decade before Ms. Cornwall had an inkling to its existence. I commissioned the original photograph
and it was then placed in the public domain via the editors of the "A-Z" under a rather misleading title. The title is in pencil on the reverse side of the canvas (Caveat...).
In the right hand lower frame, very faint is the legend: "R W H"
Rosey Was Here :-) |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 270
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 9:21 am: | |
Let's see...
In the Dadd case we have paintings of actual people in Dadd's life murdered, we have a note of these people's names with a tick next to the one who was actually murdered, we have Dadd definitively in the country of the murder and in the same local at the time of his father's murder, we have him with an eyewitness who survived his assault.
With Sickert, we have some paintings. None that show the crime scenes, none that are of the actual victims, none that show the actual ways in which they died, none that show...well anything related to Jack the Ripper except one called Jack's bedroom. Wow. You know if I started listing all the artists of some sort who have used Jack the Ripper as an example in their work, I would be here all day. Let us not forget, we also don't have him in the country at the time of the murders and we don't have a written piece of evidence such as with Dadd. And there is no one, not one person who ever claimed Sickert acted violently or attacked them in anyway.
So yeah, wow...these two cases are virtually identical. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 601
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
Mark,
With regards to your note saying (once again demonstrating how easy it was to travel from England to France, and this was the 1840s), I would just like to say that, we are not disputing Sickert going to France as Dadd did, but rather that he went from France to England and back again at least four times to kill these women whilst at the same time his mother didn't even notice he had left the country.
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Ally, I completely agree with you.
I think you summoned that up very well. No additional comments necessary.
I believe this thread, intiated by Mr Starr, has given the word "circumstancial" a whole new meaning...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 8:00 am: | |
All the copious evidence points to Sickert being in France. No evidence points to him leaving France during this period on any occasion, let alone the multiple occasions tht would have been necessary. Even if you assume he was a serial killer (a supposition with no evidence to support it) there's still no sensible reason for why he would have gone back to London and several strong reasons for why he wouldn't.
If you are someone who doesn't believe that because that isn't sensible enough for you, how do you even know there was a Walter Sickert? It's not impossible that Patricia Cornwell invented him for her novel, which then accidentally got labeled non-fiction and then, so she didn't look like a fool she pretended he was real instead of just admitting that it was a mistake at the printer and used her wealth to create evidence that looks like he actually existed.
I mean, if you are going to believe things without evidence and demand other people find evidence to disprove any potential scenario you came up with, what's to stop you from inventing up any wild theory at all?
Oh, that's right, nothing.
Until someone on the pro-Cornwell side actually comes up with real evidence or reasons instead of just arrogant wishful thinking there's no point to having this thread any more than there's a point to discussing if the world is really flat. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 6:02 am: | |
Alan wrote:
>I see that you consider Caz's question fair. My question was also fair, but you have now failed or refused to answer it twice so I will ask it again. How have you ruled out all of the other things that Abraham is reported to have done during his life in order to conclude that this is the incident that Walter Sickert was referring to when he called himself the Servant of Abraham?
I never ruled them out. I discounted them. There is a fundamental difference. I do not say: it is impossible that the other things Abraham may have done during his life could have anything to do with Sickert's painting. If you want to make a case for a connection between some other Abraham story and Sickert's painting, be my guest, and maybe you can convince everyone (except me) that you are correct. I went through all of Abraham's stories when I first forumlated my theory. In my opinion, I found them all (except Abraham's sacrifice) totally irrelevant, not only to Sickert's "The Servant of Abraham," but also to everything I knew about all of Sickert's paintings and all of his activities. I have described many times in this thread my reasons for finding the story of Abraham's sacrifice highly relevant to Sickert's painting, and I am not going to do it yet again here. I have described many times why I think the anonymous Servant of Abraham in Genesis 14 has
absolutely no relevance to Sickert's painting, and I am not going to do it yet again here. As for all of the other stories of Abraham, in my opinion they are of minor philosophical and symbolic significance to three religions, world culture, and the history of painting in comparison to the story of Abraham's sacrifice. Consequently they were of no significance whatsoever to Walter Sickert. Walter Sickert wanted to make a statement about Walter Sickert. And in order to say what he wanted to say about himself, he had to compare himself with a story in the bible. In order to communicate his statement to his viewers, he had to choose a bible story that he could count on to convey his specific meaning. When he compared himself to Abraham, he had to use the most significant and the best known story about Abraham to make his point to his viewers. I think he had to use the one story about Abraham that gives Abraham central symbolic significance to 3 religions, the one story that originally defines faith in God for three religions, the one story that first defines monotheism for three religions: the story of Abraham's sacrifice. I think no other story about Abraham has such religious significance to so many people. You may not agree. That is your opinion. I will not try to convince you out of your opinion. Either you find my theory credible on the basis of the known facts or you don't. If you still think I have ducked your question, I guess I will have to live with that.
>This is an entirely fair question. It is accepting your theory that Sickert was referring to himself in the title of the painting. I should also ask how you have ruled out that the title referred to Sickert attempting to come to terms with his own Jewish heritage which would seem the most obvious interpretation to me?
Oh? Tell me more, and I am not being facetious. What did you read about Sickert's heritage being Jewish? And where did you read it? I don't claim to have read every book or article about Sickert -- at least not yet. But I must have missed this very important information if it appeared in Cornwell. Who in Sickert's lineage was Jewish? What contact with Judiasm did Sickert ever have? When you write "Sickert attempting to come to terms with his own Jewish heritage," what are you taling about. When did such a thing ever occur -- in his art, his writings or his life?
>You mention Sherlock Holmes in the above post. Sherlock Holmes said that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
Sherlock's dictum is utterly useless in either the case of Jack The Ripper or the Case of Walter Sickert. With virtually no hard evidence at the scenes of the Whitechapel murders that incriminates anyone, and at least 27 named suspects, no one -- not even Sherlock -- can ever eliminate all of the impossible solutions. Similarly, since we do not have a detailed explanation from Sickert that rules out a connection with every Abraham story in the bible except one, there is no way to eliminate the impossible solutions. Just because Sherlock is of no help here, that does not mean that other detectives can't show the best way to approach this case. Try examining Marse's case "The Wench Is Dead."
>I am merely asking how you eliminated all the other possibilities in order to arrive at the conclusion that this one must be the truth.
Oh, this is getting tiresome. Because they were unimportant, insignificant and irrelevant.
>You have also continually talked of attorneys and destroying alibi's. This question is one that any defence attorney would ask at a pre-trial hearing, and if you do not have an answer then the case is never going to come to trial.
When a defense attorney proposes an alibi, he/she is attempted to do one of two things. He/she is either attempting to convince the prosecution to drop the charges, or trying to convince the judge to dismiss the case. If the alibi is air-tight, the prosecution has a responsibility to drop the charges. Even if the prosecution resists, the judge has a responsibility to dismiss the case. But if neither occurs, then no alibi has been established. In order for any jury to accept the defense's claim of alibi, the defense would have to prove in court that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. This is not the same thing as proving that the accused was not at the scene of the crime when the crime was committed. No one can prove a negative. To demolish a claim of alibi, it is sufficient for the prosecution to show that the accused could have been at the scene when the crime was committed, not necessarily that he was. This principle is fundamental to the rules of evidence.
>If you are afraid of this question or do not have an answer then say so.
I have answered this question many, many times already. If this response doesn't satisfy you, nothing ever will.
>But do not keep coming on here saying that everyone is against you.
ATTENTION: STRAW MAN ALERT!
>and we refuse to listen to you when you have not answered this one most basic of all questions.
The only thing I insist on is when people restate my views, they state them correctly, not that they necessarily agree with me. You, for example, just wrote I keep on "saying that everyone is against [me.] Here is a perfect example of such a mis-statement of what I wrote. I have never said "everyone is against me". I have repeatedly written that many on this thread have twisted my views for their own purposes. I am reminded of Senator John F. Kennedy in his first presidential debate with then Vice President Nixon. Kennedy said: I am always amazed when I hear my own views restated to me by the Vice President. And so it is with you, Alan. Don't put words in my mouth, words I never said.
>And let me make this abundantly clear. I am not saying that your theory is wrong. I am saying to you, convince me.
Sorry, I will explain my theory by answering questions. and defend my theory against attacks. But if the theory and it supporting facts don't convince you, I won't try. And if you are not convinced, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Ally wrote:
>Let's see... In the Dadd case we have paintings of actual people in Dadd's life murdered.
No we don't Ally. Once again, you got it wrong. Dadd never painted the 1 person he murdered or the stranger he slashed in France. He drew sketches with slashed throats of lots of friends who he apparently wanted to murder and, according to the prosecution, planned to murder in the future. Straw men arguments are not worth a brass farthing.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
Caz,
In response to your post of Feb. 5, all I can say is some things you got right, some things you got wrong. But most of what you wrote is impenetrable, and I am not even going to try.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 53
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
Mark.
In regards to your "highly relevant information" re: "What do these "Ripper periods" -- that lasted several weeks and involved dressing up in a Ripper costume -- prove?"
I don't know. What does this prove? "But, again according to [Marjorie] Lilly, Sickert ‘had his Burns days, his Byron days, his Whistler days, his Degas days, his Napoleon days, his Dr Johnson days and many other days...'"
Rumbelow, Donald. Jack the Ripper The Complete Casebook.
Apparently Sickert's "obvious obsession," with Jack the Ripper was more like several "obsessions" with several different historical figures all of whom affected his work. Lilly also pointed out that in 1907, along with a Ripper craze, Sickert also had a "princes of the church" craze personified by Anthony Trollope. Sickert transformed his studio into an ecclesiastical setting so that after "...reading Trollope we had the Dean's bedroom, complete with iron bedstead, quilt and bookcase."
With this in mind exactly what evidence do you have to prove that The Servant of Abraham was not painted while Sickert was obsessed with the Bible, let say, or God? It is certainly apparent that his interests regarding his work were wide and varied.
I am having a little trouble understanding exactly what you think Dadd's story means to Sickert as a viable Ripper suspect. From what I can tell you are trying to say that Dadd was an artist. Dadd killed his father and then attacked a total stranger therefore Walter Sickert must have been capable of murdered five, or more according to Cornwell, women in the streets of London. ?
Or, to put it another way, that because one artist committed murder then all artists are capable of committing murder ?!! This is of course ludicrous and you apparently totally disregard the fact that Dadd was demonstrably insane while Sickert was not. It is the insanity of the man that is important here not the mere fact that he was an artist.
I see your back on your legal metaphor "To demolish a claim of alibi, it is sufficient for the prosecution to show that the accused could have been at the scene when the crime was committed, not necessarily that he was. This principle is fundamental to the rules of evidence."
Ah, I see. So you are saying that if the defence provides some evidence all the prosecution has to do to destroy or demolish that evidence is to provide another explanation of the value or relevance or meaning for that evidence?
So. You, the defence, have made the claim that the title of Sickert's painting The Servant of Abraham is evidence that proves that Sickert was the Ripper and you give your reasons why you believe this. The prosecution, posters on this thread, now merely have to show that there is some other possible meaning for the title of this painting to prove you wrong. Therefore when it was pointed out that the servant of Abraham was an actual Biblical character and that this fact would fundamentally change your interpretation then, your entire point has been totally and entirely demolished.
Oh, by the way I am still waiting for you to supply that "factual ammunition" which proves Ms Cornwell's point as well as your sources that prove that Sickert was indeed "an arrogant, self-centered, self-indulgent egotist; an original artist completely convinced of his important place in the history of British art."
Wolf.
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 273
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
Mark,
It's kind of hard to paint the face of a total stranger before you meet him. Even warped logicical abilities can process that fact right?
And you don't know that he never painted his father with his throat slashed, by your anything is possible that can't be proved impossible logic, maybe he destroyed the painting after he killed his father as he no longer needed the painting to fuel the fantasy need as he had actually committed the crime.
See there? Once again you are wrong.
I noticed you didn't bother countering anything else in my post. It must be hard to come up with enough illogical rationalizations to do so.
|
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
Sickert was also a user of women for money and whatever else he wanted from them. If you want to talk about his problems. It's unfair to say he hated women but he believed they were lower than men. However you must recall that in the 1800's a lot of men put women on the same level as a pet. Women didn't even get to vote in America until the 1920's. So Sickert's view on women was the same as other men from that era. (Thank goodness it's in the past) However I think one word fits Sickert like a glove, "NARCISSIST" or one who loves only themself. 
From what is understood about Sickert was that he had been quoted as NOT having faith in God or the Bible. Painting something from the Bible could be making a mockery of it or something other than soaking in the faith of it. All the subjects of all his paintings went all over the place. He painted a beach with swimmers that puts one in the mood to get to the surf. On the other end he painted gory images of women that seem Ripperish. But does it mean he was Jack the Ripper? Unless more points to him I believe Sickert is a weak suspect but worth being on the list. Mostly I think because he could as he said once, "He knew who Jack the Ripper was." Either he was making one of his off the wall jokes or he did in fact know. (???) Perhaps he could be a key figure but the main suspect? That remains to be seen. |
Heather McSharry
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 11:14 am: | |
TO ALL - I am amused.
YES, in the >100 years following the murders there have been countless artists, writers and bored housewives depicting, contemplating and gossiping about, JTR.
I ask you this:
how many painters painted - even one - JTR painting near when and where the murders took place? My Point? Artists not alive during times of the murders are obviously not logical suspects, but perhaps those who were, are.
I also ask you this:
Has there ever been a murderer who was not a suspect FOR ANY REASON until caught red handed, after which those involved closely reacted with complete shock or horror? My point? Just because one might think someone is not a reasonable suspect does not make it so. If Ted Bundy had murdered in the late 1800's, without good forensic tools, he would not have been caught, nor do I believe would he have been suspect. Hmmmm.
And with utter astonishment I finally ask this:
HOW CAN ANY ONE OF YOU, WITH ONLY SECOND-HAND CENTURY OLD EVIDENCE AND HERESAY, CLAIM THAT SICKERT MUST NOT BE INVESTIGATED FURTHER?
Had detectives, such as they were in late 1800's, been privy to the fact that there were uncommon watermarks, common to Sickert and JTR, that alone would have led to an investigation.
Mind you I say...an investigation.
Curiously yours,
Heather
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2949
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
This thread is now closed.
Everyone (registered and unregistered users alike) must follow the oft-repeated rules of conduct on these boards. If you are unable to conduct a conversation without peppering your comments with personal jibes directed at your fellow posters, then your posts will be disallowed on this forum. PERIOD.
Registered users who have repeatedly been warned about their conduct will have their accounts suspended. Unregistered users will have their posts immediately disapproved upon receipt.
The Casebook exists as a forum for ALL PEOPLE interested in the Ripper case - this includes pro-Diarists, pro-Sickertists, and yes, even those who still believe Lewis Carroll wrote anagrammatic Ripperine confessions. You don't have to agree with everyone, you don't have to agree with ANYONE, but you DO have to retain a certain level of decorum if you want to remain as a poster on this site.
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