|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 5:34 am: |       |
Hello All,
Sue & I visited our local library yesterday and in the true crime section we found 2 copies of Cornwell's book. I light heartedly explained to the librarian that they should be in the fiction section. She readily agreed as she was a big fan of Sickert's paintings etc. She went on to show us a copy in which every photo plate had been very carefully razored out! So someone found a use for the book!!
A&S |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 3:06 am: | |
Tom Ackerman's recent post should be required reading for all those posting about Cornwell's book. I read all these post's looking for significant issues that would invalidate Cornwell's case against Sickert. Despite all the silly sarcasm and scorn heaved her way, no one yet has invalidated any of her evidence, disqualified her documentation as fiction, or broken her case against Sickert. Her errors are minor and inconsequential. She may not have proved her case yet, but the naysayers have not disproved it either.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 304
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:11 am: | |
I wonder why it is that only the severely logic-impaired defend Cornwell.
By the very fact that she hasn't proved her case the naysayers don't have to disprove it.
And her errors were not minor--unless you count creating an entire fictitious life for Sickert to be "minor" and ignoring any actual facts that show your theory to the contrary. } |
RoseyO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
Dear Mr Starr,
Now, the dagger! Try reading "The Patristic Gospels", by 'Jack the Ripper' (oops, I meant Roslyn D'Onston).
(1) At the scenes of crime;
(2) Interviewed by police;
(3) claimed to be the killer.
A 'biblical maniac' identified by Mr Sickert via his paintings.
What goes round comes round!
Rosey :-) |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 10:04 pm: | |
Mark Starr wrote:
"Tom Ackerman's recent post should be required reading for all those posting about Cornwell's book."
I agree. We all could use the laugh.
"Despite all the silly sarcasm and scorn heaved her way, no one yet has invalidated any of her evidence, disqualified her documentation as fiction, or broken her case against Sickert."
LOL, other than the fact that she has all her major facts completely wrong and that he wasn't even in the country at the times of the murders.
You either have to woefully ignorant about the case or look at her arguments with a pretty drastic pro-Cornwell bias for what she says to make any sense. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:21 pm: | |
Dan Norder wrote:
>LOL, other than the fact that she has all her major facts completely wrong...
Specious Claim No. 1.
>and that he wasn't even in the country at the times of the murders.
Specious claim No. 2
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 803
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 1:03 pm: | |
Mark,
Patsy would....but would you ?
That is arrest this man for murder ?
Speaking of specious, isnt Cornwells evidence as specious as it comes ?
It wouldnt stand on two legs in court.
Respectfully,
Monty
 |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 73
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Mark; Respectfully, I read Cornwell's book and she offered no evidence that Walter Sickert was in London at the time of the murders. Please re-read my post above as I do not believe I was trying to be demeaning or sarcastic. If I come off as such please accept my apologies. Were I coming into this case having read no other books on Jack the Ripper I still would have the same objections to her evidence. Ms Cornwell brings up points that should be looked into particularly in regards to the Jack the Ripper letters however, as I have stated before, I believe she formed her theory first and then looked for the evidence to support it.
I believe that Jack the Ripper was either incarcerated or died ending his spree probably in late 1888 or early 1889. I don't believe that he stopped killing of his own volition. That in itself leads me to believe that Sickert was not the ripper. Also I do not believe that JtR would have switched types of victims in mid stream as Ms Corwell suggested. She tells a good story but were I a judge or a member of a grand jury, I would dismiss for lack of sufficient evidence. Kindest regards, Neil |
Michael Raney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 123
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
Mark,
Cornwell would not have enough evidence to get a search warrant let alone an arrest warrant. She states as fact many things that are not facts in evidence, such as the newspaper wrapping the Whitehall torso, that he had a penile fistula which is unknown but highly unlikely according to medical experts and that he was in England when he had written to his mother from France on or about the dates in question. These are all speculation, not facts. I will agree that she may have proven that he could have written letters to the Press and Police, but she clearly does not prove that he is the killer. She also makes many statements as fact that none of us can know for sure as there is no one living from that time that could possibly tell us, she again merely speculates. Even if her speculations are correct, they are not proven facts. I think she is a great writer on the whole, I love her novels, I just think she over stepped the boundries when she calls her supposed non-fiction work "Case Closed".
With all respect,
Michael |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:02 pm: | |
Michael Raney wrote:
>Cornwell would not have enough evidence to get a search warrant let alone an arrest warrant.
Sez you.
>She states as fact many things that are not facts in evidence, such as the newspaper wrapping the Whitehall torso, that he had a penile fistula which is unknown but highly unlikely according to medical experts and that he was in England when he had written to his mother from France on or about the dates in question. These are all speculation, not facts. I will agree that she may have proven that he could have written letters to the Press and Police, but she clearly does not prove that he is the killer.
This is a point that I and numerous other posters have previously made many times on Casebook. However, I moved on long ago. Moreover, I believe the evidence that I have ammassed, much of it detailed in volumimous posts on Casebook, including new material emerging only recently, is more than sufficient to conclude that Sickert was indeed a murderer.
> She also makes many statements as fact that none of us can know for sure as there is no one living from that time that could possibly tell us, she again merely speculates. Even if her speculations are correct, they are not proven facts. I think she is a great writer on the whole, I love her novels, I just think she over stepped the boundries when she calls her supposed non-fiction work "Case Closed".
The value of Cornwell's book is not her conclusion "Case Closed." The value is that it is a gigantic compendium of accurate, carefully researched, scrupulously documented factual information about Walter Sickert. If you don't like her speculations and her opinions, skip them. Certainly, any reader has the intelligence to separate her facts from her speculations without having them color-coded in red and green ink. She has a right to present both her researched facts and her speculative opinions in her book. I did not have the slightest difficulty in distuishing between the two, and I seriously doubt that anybody else who has an open mind had the slightest difficulty either.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Mark,
If you think my claims are "specious" you either don't know what the word means or have a very distorted view of the facts of the case.
Or perhaps both. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Monty wrote:
>Patsy would....but would you ? That is arrest this man for murder ?
Only on the evidence in Cornwell's book? No. On the evidence in Cornwell's book in conjunction with the evidence on Sickert that I have developed, yes.
>Speaking of specious, isnt Cornwells evidence as specious as it comes ?
No.
>It wouldnt stand on two legs in court.
Her factual evidence about Sickert is accurate and it would indeed stand up against cross-examination in court. However, her conclusion of "Case Closed" would not stand up in court.
One thing that is absolutely certain: claims of an alibi for Sickert by Matthew Sturgis and various posters on Casebook would not stand up to 5 seconds of cross-examination in any criminal court in the world.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Derek Bolli
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 2:26 am: | |
Hi all,
I have read Patricia Cornwell's book ( Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper Case Closed (2002) ) and feel that it is somewhat lightweight in its approach and that she makes egregious leaps of faith in order to link Walter Sickert with reported events (e.g. p249 person described by witness does not match Sickert - ah, but Sickert was an actor and actors have access to makeup and disguises. Please.)
However, I think her comparisons between Police methods in 1888 and forensic methods now are useful and enlightening.
I would also assume that any psychologist would opine that Sickert's outlet for any ill feeling or frustration toward women was largely satisfied by his art and also that his relationships with his wives etc. would preclude him from being a sexual maniac serial killer on the side.
I disagree that the Ripper was a sexual serial killer per se. and agree that (as per Stephen Knight's and Joseph Sickert's theory) the five canonical victims were hunted down and killed because they had knowledge of Alice Margaret Crook (aka Prince Albert Victor's illegitimate offspring) as it is unlikely that five victims chosen at random would be found over a large area but would live in a small area (in or close to Dorset St.), would know each other and would have been laying low and avoiding their usual haunts in the week prior to their deaths. Also the chances of the penultimate and final victims of a random serial killer having the same name (Mary Ann Kelly (aka Catherine Eddowes) and Mary Jeanette Kelly) are near astronomical.
Great Ripper web site, BTW.
Cheers,
Derek Bolli,
Sydney Australia. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
Rosey wrote:
>Now, the dagger! Try reading "The Patristic Gospels", by 'Jack the Ripper' (oops, I meant Roslyn D'Onston).
(1) At the scenes of crime;
(2) Interviewed by police;
(3) claimed to be the killer.
A 'biblical maniac' identified by Mr Sickert via his paintings.
What goes round comes round!
Rosey :-)
Hi Rosey:
By any chance, did you write a novel entitled "The Da Vinci Code" under the pseudonym Dan Brown?
Do you ever get to visit Manchester these days?
I would love to read your take on the Lodger in Chris Scott's material from the Port Philip Herald.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Neil wrote:
>Respectfully, I read Cornwell's book and she offered no evidence that Walter Sickert was in London at the time of the murders.
That is not true. Cornwell wrote: "Dates in Sickert's handwriting on music hall sketches prove that in 1888, [Sickert] was in London from February 4 through March "and after", in his words, and including in the spring, on May 25, and at some point during June, July, August, September and October." The fact that Sickert was definitely in London at times during August, September and October is suffient evidence to totally demolish any claims that Sickert could not have traveled back and forth to France. Also, there is no doubt whatsoever Sickert was also in London in November when Mary Kelley was killed.
>Please re-read my post above as I do not believe I was trying to be demeaning or sarcastic. If I come off as such please accept my apologies.
Actually, I didn't have your post in mind when I wrote that, in my opinion, Tom Ackerman's letter should be required reading for all those posting about Cornwell's book. Nor do I criticize anyone for opposing or disagreeing with Cornwell or me (not the same thing, by the way.) What I find repugnant are others' heavy-handed attempts at sarcasm dripping with condescension and arrogance, and the shotgun blasts with no factual support. Even a casual glance through this thread will reveal numerous examples. If the shoe fits...
>I believe that Jack the Ripper was either incarcerated or died ending his spree probably in late 1888 or early 1889. I don't believe that he stopped killing of his own volition. That in itself leads me to believe that Sickert was not the ripper. Also I do not believe that JtR would have switched types of victims in mid stream as Ms Corwell suggested. She tells a good story but were I a judge or a member of a grand jury, I would dismiss for lack of sufficient evidence.
FIne, now prove it to the same degree of certainty that you demand of Cornwell. As I written elsewhere many times, I do not believe that Cornwell proved her case -- yet. I believe I have found considerably more relevant evidence implicating Sickert than Cornwell did in her book. With my recent information about Sickert's painting, Jack The RIpper's Bedroom, and his conversation with Sitwell, both of which are Sickert's lies, I think there is now sufficient evidence to conclude that Sickert was indeed a murderer -- although I cannot, and Cornwell cannot, specify if he killed all five canonical victims, and perhaps some of the other suspected Ripper victims as well. I cannot positively place Sickert at the scene of any one of the crimes at the moments they were committed. But concersely, no one can prove he was not at the scene of any of the crime scenes at the moments the crimes were committed -- and thus there is no valid claim of an alibi for Sickert. There are innumerable cases of convicted murderers who were not detected during the commission of the crimes but who tripped themselves up by there actions afterwards. And that is what we have in Walter Sickert.
Finally, it is clear to me that the most important hard evidence ever to emerge soon after the Whitechapel Murders until the present is the amazing material from the Port Philip Herald recently uncovered by Chris Scott and posted in the Lodger section. I am not claiming yet that it points to Walter Sickert, but there are already signs that Sickert is a possible suspect here as well.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 806
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Mark,
Your Evidence? Im afraid I missed that. Want to share it ?
Her factual evidence about Sickert is accurate and it would indeed stand up against cross-examination in court. However, her conclusion of "Case Closed" would not stand up in court.
Thank you. We agree.....slightly confused about her factual evidence about Sickert. Can you be a bit more specific for me ? Like how that would tie in with the accusation and charge of murder?
What I find repugnant are others' heavy-handed attempts at sarcasm dripping with condescension and arrogance, and the shotgun blasts with no factual support. Even a casual glance through this thread will reveal numerous examples. If the shoe fits...
I agree, arrogance is repugnant. Hence the reason I steer clear of Cornwell and her followers. I also find accusing someone of murder with no evidence (and until you show me otherwise I stand by this comment of no evidence) just as repugnant.
I wait your reply with the rather repetitive opening of "Monty wrote".
Regards,
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 774
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 12:06 pm: | |
I can't write much about Patsy's book but just wanted to say that whilst reading though this thread I kept having urges to laugh. Sorry Mark, I don't mean it disrespectfully but Patsy didn't offer any evidence to him being the Ripper and I haven't seen any evidence form you either.
I'm also having a horrible feeling that this thread may close if tempers start to flare again.
Wow, I wonder what Sickert would be thinking about all this. I'd love to have heard his take on Patsy's book. He'd probably laugh too.
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
I agree, Sarah.
He probably would -- like most of us here.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden  |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
Monty wrote:
>I also find accusing someone of murder with no evidence (and until you show me otherwise I stand by this comment of no evidence) just as repugnant.
Monty,
I have expended considerable time and effort in writing numerous lengthy posts in Casebook on the exact matter you contest. They are extremely easy to find. As my late mother used to tell me repeatedly whenever my housekey's were not at hand: "put your eyeballs in your hands and look."
You might start with the post I wrote last night in the thread entitled "Why Defend Walter Sickert?" In this post, the link that Cornwell established between Sickert and at least one of the Ripper letters -- which even the most vocal detractor's of Cornwell's book usually now concede to be convincing -- suddenly assumes major new significance in ways Cornwell's never even mentioned. Specifically, this link dramatically shows that what Sickert told Osbert Sitwell in the 1930s, and what Sickert painted in Jack The Ripper's Bedroom in 1906, was a lie -- a baldface, calculated lie. Not an inconsequential error, a deliberate lie. When you join this lie together which the other Sickert lies I have established in other posts, you will see that Sickert repeatedly lied about his involvement with Jack The Ripper and The Whitechapel Murders from 1888 until his death.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 74
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
Mark;
Thank you for your kind reply. I would enjoy seeing your evidence proving Walter a murderer. My point was not to hold Ms Cornwell to a higher standard than anyone else who puts forth a theory. I will look at your post mentioned above and re-read Ms Cornwell's book. (I don't agree wiuth her but the book was an interesting well paced read.) I concede that Sickert is a possible suspect as is Francis Tumblety, et cetra, et cetera,
I do believe that Sickert wrote some of the JtR letters. I think in that aspect, Ms. Corwell is right. I stand corrected about Sickert being in London. However, London was a big city even then. The locations of his studios or other flats would be critical and I don't recall Ms. Cornwell mentioning their locations.
wouls Sickert's lies brand him a kiler? I don't know and until I read your post in the "Why defend Sickert" thread I would hate to speculate. (too much)But being a liar doesn't make a person a killer. As an artist, I would think Sickert would be used to taking licence with the things he painted. Just suggestions. By the way, I'm glad you weren't referring to my thread. Kindest regards, Neil
|
Michael Raney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 141
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
Mark,
I want to express that I thoroughly enjoyed her book to read, I just don't agree with her conclusions. I work in forensics. I help to develop profiles. I research case histories. I write case histories. It's not that I even think that her speculations may be that wrong, I only meant to say she does not show hard, beyond a reasonable doubt, facts, that Sickert was the murderer, whether he was or not. My personal belief is that he was not. I have never seen enough evidence on ANY one suspect for me to say he was the Ripper. I have been trained to work from the murder outwards to the killer. I do not believe you can find a suspect and then trace him backwards to the murder unless you have absolute, proven factual hard evidence. This is merely my humble opinion and is not meant to detract from anyone else's opinion.
Respectfully,
Michael |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
Dear Mark Starr,
Beware of THIS particular bedroom!It can hold a strange fascination for the unitiated...it exhibits an extraordinary power over the most perceptive mind. But if you must enter, garlic will not save you - even that crucifix hanging above the head of that THING is powerless to help!
Otherwise, 'come into my parlour...' :-)
No, I have not been to Manchester since waving David Koresh off on his great adventure, down Mexico way.
Personally, I could'nt care a fig whether Mr Sickert was in London -even Whitechapel- on those particular dates, and if he were, the likelihood of his being Jack the Reaper still remains UNCERTAIN.
Another suspect I would like to place in Whitechapel on the said dates is Sebastian...I have even contemplated having Sickert and Sebastian unwittingly fight for a seat in a train compartment in a desperate effort to rush back to Whitechapel in time for the next canonical murder!
Rosey :-)
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
Mark wrote:
"the link that Cornwell established between Sickert and at least one of the Ripper letters -- which even the most vocal detractor's of Cornwell's book usually now concede to be convincing"
I think people are letting that one fly to throw a bone to the people who fell for Cornwell's book and want to feel like they got something out of it that might actually be real. It may also be that the people who know about the ripper case and know the numerous errors she makes there tend to know less about the science behind the claims of a link to a supposed "ripper" letter -- the one in question being considered one of the most clearly hoaxed of the bunch, by the way.
Of course I don't get why the people who know she is wrong on the points they are educated about assume she is right on the points they have less background in. And, in fact, when someone who understands the basic science behind mitochondrial DNA analysis and these other tests she ran looks at her conclusions, they also say she is completely jumping to unsupported conclusions in those areas as well. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Michael Raney wrote
>I want to express that I thoroughly enjoyed her book to read, I just don't agree with her conclusions. I work in forensics. I help to develop profiles. I research case histories. I write case histories. It's not that I even think that her speculations may be that wrong, I only meant to say she does not show hard, beyond a reasonable doubt, facts, that Sickert was the murderer, whether he was or not. My personal belief is that he was not. I have never seen enough evidence on ANY one suspect for me to say he was the Ripper. I have been trained to work from the murder outwards to the killer. I do not believe you can find a suspect and then trace him backwards to the murder unless you have absolute, proven factual hard evidence. This is merely my humble opinion and is not meant to detract from anyone else's opinion.
I don't disagree with you at all. I too do not think that Cornwell proved that Sickert was Jack The Ripper. That is just what I am trying to do, and I think I have now amassed enough evidence and strong enough arguments to secure a conviction in the Court of Historical Review. Scores of criminals have been convicted on less. And in 19th Century Britain, considerably less.
However, I certainly do not believe I have "found a suspect and then trace him backwards to the murder." Neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing all the evidence I reviewed and how I reached my conclusions. Neither I on Casebook, nor Corwell in her book, bother to go over all of the evidence -- on Sickert and on other suspects -- that each of us reviewed and discarded for one reason or another. The principal reason why I have concentrated here on Casebook on evidence relating to Walter Sickert is to discover whether any evidence exists that would ELMINATE Sickert from consideration as Jack The Ripper. And to date, no one has ever presented so much as a scintilla of hard evidence that convincingly eliminates Sickert.
What must remembered here is that no evidence directly pointing to anybody was ever left at the scenes of any of the five canonical crimes. The eyewitness reports have proven virtually worthless for 116 years. So unless some new forensic evidence turns up some day, the Whitechapel Murders will never be solved by
that kind of evidence of the crimes themselves.
As an expert, you surely are aware that forensic evidence is not the only kind of evidence that can be introduced in a murder trial. Some of the most powerful evidence that can lead to a murder conviction is ex post facto evidence: such as a confession, such as a coverup, such as perjury, such as a pattern of behavior. There is also circumstantial evidence that can lead to a conviction.
Let's take the remarkably similar case of 19th Century painter Richard Dadd -- who was convicted by a British jury of murder. He slit his father's throat. There were no eye witnesses to the crime. There was no evidence at the scene of the crime to link Richard Dadd with the death of his father (Dadd's dad.) Dadd escaped to France -- where he was arrested in Paris for attempting to slit the throat of a tourist. British police discovered in Dadd's studio Dadd's sketches of all his friends -- each with their throats slit. However, there was no sketch of Dadd's father with his throat slit. Since the French tourist was not killed, Dadd's father was the only murder victim. Dadd also possessed a list of names --including the names of his father and Dadd's friends -- with a check next to the name of his father. Dadd eventually confessed to the murder, but his confession was inadmissbale evidence in the trial because he had already been medically examined and declared insane. Nevertheless, Dadd was convicted of the murder of his father on the evidence of his sketches of his friends with their throats slit and also the list of names. So here is a remarkably similar case in the annals of British justice just a few decades before the Whitechapel Murders, in which a ripper painter was convicted of murder without any forensic evidence directly tying him to the crime itself, or even the scene of the crime, and no eye witnesses.
I think, with all of the evidence and arguments that I have developed against Sickert beyond what Cornwell presented in her book, I now have enough to justify an arrest, an indictment, a trial, and a conviction -- especially using the judicial standards in force in the the UK at the end of the 19th Century. I don't include an execution because I don't know whether Sickert's manic obsession might have been ruled insanity -- and like Richard Dadd, he would have been condemned to Bedlam for life.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
Dan:
I don't know enough about DNA to dispute her evidence one way or the other. But I do know that Cornwell bases her claim that Sickert wrote at least one Ripper letter principally on the watermark evidence and the more recent paper lot evidence, not the mitrochondrial DNA.
I would assume you will dismiss that evidence also by saying lots of people could have bought that stationary. But that watermark, plus that paper lot, plus that mitrochondial DNA add up to more than a flying bone. We are talking about only a small fraction of all that stationary with that watermark.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
