|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 646
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:42 am: | 
|
Hi How,
Thanks for making me Inspector.
I don't think I would have done things much differently, I only hope that I would have come up with the idea to copy both wording and handwriting, have that checked by several police officers around and to have made drawings of the scene so that the locations of both items, their visibility from the street and the confines of the entrance were recorded.
If that wouldn't have been of much use to the police back then (which I doubt), it surely would not have been done for nothing, as we might correctly say in Holland, because I suspect it might have been useful for us Ripper folk.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood, 'The Rookie'
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 646
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
Adam - I fail to understand why you are making such a fuss about graffito and apron being connected! it's not a point that's provable.
On another point, my post wasn't actually addressed to you. It was a general comment on the discussion here and elsewhere. You don't actually have to respond every time you know?
On new evidence emerging, I'd just remind you of the Littlechild letter and the Swanson marginalia, as well as the material returned to Scotland Yard over the last 20 year or so. It is entirely possible that new evidence may emerge to throw light on the graffito (either way) - from informed police comment of the time, to information about other things, including halse and his discovery and reliability.
Howard makes some convoluted allegory of Glenn and I finding the graffito and asks what we would have done. Irrelevant!! Frankly. the police were right to consider the possibility that writing and material were linked, particularly given the racial tension that existed. But that is not now. This discussion is aimed at determining (to some degree) whether the GSG is relevant to the murders. I for one think not and have stated my reasons.
All the special pleading and examples in the world, Adam, won't make a link where none exists.
"Juives", by the way is nonsense for the perfectly logical and detailed reasons given by Spry and others. we don't even need to consider such an interpretation unless we wish to link it to a particular suspect - Juwes or Jewes will do fine. And is still best explained as directed by an anti-semite at the inhabitants of the dwellings.
Why was the apron found there? Because - whichever route he took, whatever he did in the meantime, that is where "Jack" left it.
By the way he probably knew nothing of the Stride murder at this stage. What we cannot do, is to say why he went as far as he did before discarding the cloth - it may have taken him that long to wipe his hands; it may have only been when he reached that point that he felt safe to dodge into the darkness of the enrty and wipe his hands. we don't know whether he ran part way; walked an ran; spent time lurking in shadows or whatever.
We simply know he left the cloth there, under an anti-semitic graffito which no one has yet been able to link to the murders in any way that satisfies most people. Knight came nearest and his arguments were based on incorrect information.
So Adam, WHy are you so insistent on linking the two things? Why not just let them rest as two unrelated aspects of the case? I have not written off the graffito - I have just read and thought enough to know that building the writing and/or linkage into any argument is to argue on sandy foundations.
I prefer more solid logic personally.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 647
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
Post deleted - please move along, nothing to see here.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on June 12, 2005) |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 420
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Question for Howie-- didn't you do an experiment that showed that tailor's chalk would have been really difficult to write such small leters with?
As for the rest- I have to wonder why we spend so much energy on the GSG.Even if it had clearly been by the killer and about the murders what would it have told us?
That he went from Mitre Square to Goulston Street--we know that because of the apron.(discounting the stray dog theory).
That he killed Eddowes- we know that by definition.
We're left then with:
1.That he did or didn't kill Stride (maybe). That would be a great question to clear up.
2. Motive. Interesting but I think we know that SKs don't really need motive and many times the "motives" or reasons they give are self serving at best. Read "excuses".
As it is,all we can say is that a piece of a victim's clothing was found at a location. Also at that location was some graffiti that is,even if we have the correct wording, ambiguous. We have no reason to assume a positive correlation between those two things.
Mags
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 559
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Phil says...
"Howard makes some convoluted allegory of Glenn and I finding the
graffito and asks what we would have done. Irrelevant!! Frankly. the
police were right to consider the possibility that writing and
material were linked, particularly given the racial tension that
existed. But that is not now. This discussion is aimed at determining
(to some degree) whether the GSG is relevant to the murders. I for one
think not and have stated my reasons."
Thats why I asked you what you would have done and thought back in 1888. You are the vanguard of the Back To '88 thinkers. Here's the opportunity to divulge what you would have done in opposition to your feelings you have now and observations you have now as opposed to then when you would have been in 1888. And as you have stated,you would have thought like they did...
But apparently,all of your perceptions and deductions are based on what you have determined from our time and not then,as you have affirmed the actions of the police and authorities back in 1888,but dismiss others [ Adam,Caz,me,and everyone else either in the middle or in the "pro" camp ],who like you,would have done "the same thing" as the police did then,but don't rely on the totally unsupportable claims that graffiti existed on either building to the left or right of the Wentworth,among other things,and make declarations as if etched in stone as to the easily dismissible connectivity of the graffiti to the apron. Its not irrelevant to ask what I would do if I found the graffiti then,Phil. I would have probably done what they did too. The difference between us,is that I'm a little more willing to lend credence to the observations of men on the spot and not on any of the many plausible reasons why it doesn't correlate to the apron just yet. In the scheme of things, it really doesn't matter who is 'correct' or not. What is important is making an effort not to sweepingly dismiss well intended questions aside if they violate our beliefs born over a century later. Finally, I feel as Stephen does,since you mentioned him, that this message is absolutely worthless to try and explain. Its beyond a definite explanation that would satisfy even a few. What isn't worthless,is that it may very well be a part of the whole of the WM, thats all.
In other words,as in the case of the gender preference of Tumblety, where I was called on the carpet for not thinking like they did in 1888 by you, here is an example of the 20th century-thinking [ the decision to dismiss the GSG by you completely ]you chided me for, affecting your thinking on this issue.
You're welcome Frank. I should have made you Commissioner.
HowBrown
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 560
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Mags....
Yes I did,dear. I suggest others try it too, to verify what I found. Tailoring chalk could have been used, but more likely than not,not a pristine piece of tailoring chalk. A cylindrical piece would have been better in order to achieve Halse's description of the message. But,thats not etched in stone. Only a "good guess" or deduction based on the likeliness of tailoring chalk breaking off prior to completion.
Yeah,Mags...you're right. All this does is show us the direction the Ripper moved after the Eddowes murder....and that it could very well be a "part" of the whole of the Case. Thats all.
How come you haven't been in chat? Be there or be square Monday night....
HowBrown
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3583
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Fact remains, that we can't possibly know if the police really regarded it as a vital clue for the case or if they just treated it as what it really was -- a piece of artefact in the vicinity of an item belonging to a victim in a homicide investigation, and that simply should be recorded according to normal police procedure.
The information we have in the police files gives us not enough hints in order to evaluate their true feelings towards the writing as a clue in the case. To not record it or acknowledge it, would be an offence but that does not mean we should jump to conclusions about how vital it was.
For the record, I totally have to agree with Mags.
I have always said that the GSM is a piece of evidence that has been over-empathized in the Ripper context and I for my part can't understand why some people even bother about trying to interpret the meaning of the message and the spelling of Juwes etc. After 118 years we can't in any way know what that message really means and we probably never will. It is a totally fruitless effort.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 561
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Glenn..
" a piece of artefact in the vicinity of an item belonging to a victim in a homicide investigation, and that simply should be recorded according to normal police procedure."
Correct,my friend. NOTHING else was,was it ? Like maybe the "other" graffiti in the area.
But you're right. It doesn't matter and may mean nothing. I just want there to be a "defense" of the GSG,as there definitely exists a counter-camp.
Beers all around,except for The Commissioner,Van Oploo...give him a double shot of Hennessey.
HowBrown
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3584
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Howie...
"...Beers all around,except for The Commissioner,Van Oploo...give him a double shot of Hennessey."
Ouch, Hennessey... you're cruel, man. Do you wanna punish the guy? 
I stick to my Guinness, thanks. Next round is on me.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 563
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Where are my manners,huh?
Sorry Frank ! A double of Crown Royal and a glass of ginger ale.
For Phil, the same..
For Mags, some brandy.... and for Jane...umm...what ever liquor is quicker...if you get my drift...
..as for you, Abbaline...some Negra Modelo beer with your pal..me !
HowBrown
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 648
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
In that stithrum that passes for a post, Howard, you assert that where the graffito is concerned I somehow ignore the 1888 context and thinking.
Actually far from it, BUT in the context of the current discussion, I am interested in where the GSG leads us today, and its relevance.
I don't think that the police could make that much of the writing on the wall then. Warren's concerns were about riots on the streets and the "politics" of the day. Hence the writing was washed off. All that is irrelevant to assessing today whether the graffito can tell us anything useful - at this stage, it seems to me it cannot.
I am, as I have indicated in other posts, Howard, always ready to consider the views of the men of the time. I do not dismiss Anderson, Swanson or Macnaghten - but time does move on.
We have to consider views and opinions expressed since 1888 - such as those of Knight (now discredited) - on the GSG. As historians we have to look at the evidence and what was said about it in contemporary terms (ie 1888) and AT THE SAME TIME - evaluate it in terms of what we know today. That's just historical method - nothing wrong with that.
So no, I don't think I am inconsistent (I just don't go over everything in every post) or missing any points.
Phil |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 564
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Fair enough, Phil. One more question for ya...
Whats a stithrum ? Is that good or bad ?
Hang on...
Could it mean like...."Jane Coram walked by me and I got stithrum lookin' at her.." ?
(Message edited by howard on June 12, 2005)
HowBrown
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 648
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Cheers How, and a pint of Belgian Palm would do just fine as well!
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood, 'The Rookie'
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 649
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
"Stithrum" to me means a tirade. (A bit like lemonade, but sourer!!)
On the other hand it could be an ancient Egyptian musical instrument - or was that a "sistrum"?
Phil |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 567
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
Yeah, the Egyptians had an instrument called the "sistrum" in the days of Hipshithed, circa 4000 B.C.
It was a stringed instrument, 6 catgut strings tuned to "A",that made a "drone" sound....
...kinda like your posts at times..especially when you get a little inflexible.
But I agree with you,believe it or not,that we should do what you have mentioned from time to time. In numerous circumstances, we have to use the "Back To 1888" idea,and you deserve credit for continuing to mention it.
Drink up,old man ! Beers are on me. No hard feelings...and
...no lemonade.
HowBrown
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 651
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
My posts are never "inflexible", Howard.
Ahead of their time, maybe, ill-expressed often, forcefully put on occasion, intemperate more often that than I'd wish, but inflexible...
THAT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT I WILL NOT ACCEPT!!
Phil  |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 422
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Hi, Howie
My work schedule has changed and I keep forgetting it's Monday night until too late( time for beddie bye). I'll be home about 8:20 tomorrow and I'll leave myself a note about it.
Mags
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 234
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Hi again all!
Frank:
"I'm sorry, Adam, but that is the biggest load of crap I've read on this thread. Besides, Jack wasn't known as Jack yet, by that time."
Wow, you must have read a lot of crap then, Frank! ;)
Well to me it seems true. For the nay-sayers, any excuse will do to try and show that Jack didn't write the message.
Let me offer you another example. Abberline saying he felt George Chapman was the killer, in his 1903 interview. I've heard anti-Chapman's try and say that Abberline only thought that way at the time because of Chapman's trial taking place at the same time, and he was mis-represented in the article. Well, if that was true, why didn't Abberline recind or change his comments some time in the next 26 years of his life? He certainly had oppurtunities to do so. But he never did.
Same difference as saying the GSG wasn't written by Jack. The theory that an unfortunate series of freaky accidents and coincidences led to the apron and writing being together.
Yeah, right!
As for his not being known as 'Jack' at that point, he may not have been publicly, but the "Dear Boss" letter, which was signed "Jack the Ripper", thus his name, was sent before the Double Event, Frank.
"As it turned out, he may not have, no. But could he have been sure about that? After all, it was written inside an entrance, at the bottom of a staircase leading to dwellings primarily inhabited by Jews and the message seems to have been directed at Jews or about them, at least."
Well I think if we look at it in a September 30, 1888 context, then yes, he could be sure of that. It's easy to say in restrospect 118 years later that there's no proof he wrote it because it mentions nothing of him or the murders, but IMO, it could easily be seen that way, since it was found with Eddowes' bloody apron, on the night of the Double Event. That was enough to see it as a clue then, and IMO, it's enough to see it as a clue now.
"I doubt if things were very different, back in 1888. For instance, exactly like today, lots of hoax letters were written. And I don't know if there were a lot, but at least a number of men turned themselves in, saying that they were the killer, just like we see today. So, as far as such things are concerned, I doubt if they were much different."
That's true Frank, there are similarities, but I still think it's important to look at it as it was, in a East End of London in 1888 perspective, not another country in a different century. Things do change. Besides, we're talking about chalked messages on walls, not the number of people who falsely turn themselves in.
"In its meaning, of course - what else?"
Well the way you wrote the sentence, I thought you may have meant how clearly written the message was, as in the clarity of the writing itself. So I just wanted to double check that.
"I believe I haven't stated that anywhere lately (or perhaps even ever). It's just that, at the moment, I find the arguments against stronger than those in favour. Maybe that'll change in time."
No, that was more of just a general comment from me.
Well I'm glad to see that atleast you are open to changing your mindset over time, that's good.
And you are of course entitled to that opinion, I think the opposite though, so I think it's just another 'agree to disagree' case there.
Glenn:
"Yes, Ive been back temporarily because I need some things to try out and put in perspective as a part of my research, and there is nothing better than doing that on the Boards -- discussion gives you a great insight and makes you polish your own thougths and arguments.
The only downside is, is that it is time-consuming and therefore I will soon get back into my shell again."
Yes, I agree with you there, it certainly gives a lot of insight, and interesting varied opinions.
A pity though that you won't stick around for too long, I quite enjoy our little debates!
Especially when I get to prove you wrong..Hehe. ;)
..Which isn't very often. Still, it's interesting, none the less.
"Well, you tell me. It certainly does not implicate the murders or contain anything that should be reckoned as a vital clue."
No, that's true, but as I said in my last post, it doesn't exactly sound like something minor, either. As for what else it could mean, I have no idea, but "Blamed for nothing" seems to be the crucial part, and to me atleast, it sounds pretty serious. But Blamed for WHAT? If only we knew!...
"Then why do you answer?"
Just so I cover all bases, and try and leave nothing important unanswered in everyone's posts.
If I'm going to reply, I may as well reply properly, huh? ;)
Likewise, why did you repeat yourself?
"Well, I wrote "a number of" because I didn't really know with certainty how many communications you thought were genuine, I have only heard you mentioned Dear Boss, the Saucy Jack postcard and the From Hell letter, but there could have been more. How should I know?
Yes, Saucy Jack is a postcard, but of course I should have written "communications" instead."
Ah, so you admit you didn't know exactly what I thought was from the killer? That's good.
Point cleared up, no need to add anything else.
"As for your change of heart, well you really have your own to blame, because when you go out with such strong ideas and opinions as you have done on this and some other matters, you can't expect people to read your mind if you have second thoughts. You have to advertise that change of heart equally strong! Just an advice, a good way to avoid misunderstandings."
Yeah, Ok, next time I change my mind about something, I'll start a thread called "Update on Adam's beliefs." No worries.
As for strong comments, as far as I can remember, I never stated with any kind of certainty that "Dear Boss" or "Saucy Jacky" were from the killer. "From Hell" may be different, I'm not sure.
I may have said it was possible, or that I didn't rule it out, but IIRC, I never said it with any certainty, and if I did, I shouldn't have done.
Perhaps I said that to you in a private conversation?
In any case, if you weren't sure exactly what my beliefs were, as you admitted above, then it wasn't a good remark to make.
However, I don't want to make something out of nothing, I think we've settled my current beliefs now. Let's leave it at that and move on.
And yes, as you note in the last part of your post, it's interesting to note that the name Jack the Ripper seems to have come from journalists who wanted to give the story a boost. Perhaps one of the most infamous names in history didn't even come from the killer himself!
Now that's a twist!!
Phil:
"Adam - I fail to understand why you are making such a fuss about graffito and apron being connected! it's not a point that's provable."
I know it can't he proven, Phil, and sorry if it seems like I'm making a fuss over it, but so long as points keep being brought up insisting Jack didn't write the message, then I'm going to defend it. There's two sides to every story, Phil.
"On another point, my post wasn't actually addressed to you. It was a general comment on the discussion here and elsewhere. You don't actually have to respond every time you know?"
Yes, I wasn't sure if it was addressed to me or not, actually, but the question right at the end of your post, "Simple enough for you?" , made me think it must have been meant for me. Still, I don't see any problem with responding to several posts at a time. Why does that present a problem for you, Phil?
"On new evidence emerging, I'd just remind you of the Littlechild letter and the Swanson marginalia, as well as the material returned to Scotland Yard over the last 20 year or so. It is entirely possible that new evidence may emerge to throw light on the graffito (either way) - from informed police comment of the time, to information about other things, including halse and his discovery and reliability."
Well that's of course possible, Phil, you raise a good point there, but even if new information did surfact about the Graffito, it might not necessarily be helpful one way or another. Personally, I think the only thing that could possibly solve the debate, about what the wording of the message was atleast, would be if a photograph of it was to surface. And as we know, the writing was scrubbed off before a photograph could be taken, so that's out of the question.
I can't think of anything else that would make it conclusive.
"All the special pleading and examples in the world, Adam, won't make a link where none exists."
Amusing that you think I'm pleading, Phil. I've said it several times before, everyone's entitled to their opinion, that doesn't mean I agree with it, though. And I don't. You can believe whatever you want, it makes no difference to what I believe.
But I'd add that if there is no link between the graffito and the apron, then it's one of the biggest coincidences that they ended up together in Goulston Street, that I've ever heard of, for one.
"By the way he probably knew nothing of the Stride murder at this stage. What we cannot do, is to say why he went as far as he did before discarding the cloth - it may have taken him that long to wipe his hands; it may have only been when he reached that point that he felt safe to dodge into the darkness of the enrty and wipe his hands. we don't know whether he ran part way; walked an ran; spent time lurking in shadows or whatever."
Well if that's the case, then I think it's safe to say he's set a new world record for the longest hand wipe over a distance!
As I said before, it's always possible he waited to get to Goulston Street before wiping his hands, but that means he probably had extra blood on him until then, and therefore, was taking more of a risk.
As for your first sentence, well, Elizabeth Stride is something else we don't agree on, but here's not the place to discuss that.
"We simply know he left the cloth there, under an anti-semitic graffito which no one has yet been able to link to the murders in any way that satisfies most people. Knight came nearest and his arguments were based on incorrect information."
It may not be possible to conclusively link it to the murders, I know that and I agree, but on the flip side of the coin, there's nothing to prove that Jack didn't write it either. The fact that the apron was with it, and it 'just happened' to be found on the night of the Double Event, among other things, is enough for me to well and truly take the side of the message being from the killer.
"So Adam, WHy are you so insistent on linking the two things? Why not just let them rest as two unrelated aspects of the case? I have not written off the graffito - I have just read and thought enough to know that building the writing and/or linkage into any argument is to argue on sandy foundations."
I know I can't prove there is a link, Phil, as I said, but as long as there is a case to argue for, then I will. That simple, really. It might not get me anywhere, but I'm just not the kind of person who can leave something like that alone.
Why give up? If you believe in something strong enough, why shouldn't you argue for it?
By the way, I'd just like to add here that it's interesting to me that it always seems to be mainly the same 3 people who disagree with me in large threads and debates like this.
(You) Phil, Glenn, and Frank. I remember it was you 3 way back in the days of the Elizabeth Stride - victim/not a victim thread about 6 months ago that were disagreeing with me too.
I wonder....why is it always the same 3, eh!?
"Post deleted - please move along, nothing to see here."
Bit late, Phil.
Ah, it's a good thing to have, e-mail notification when a reply to a thread comes through.
So I already know what you said, anyway. ;)
Howie:
Some excellent posts from you, How. I completely agree with you, and you do post up some excellent points and thoughts.
Good to have someone on MY side for once! That's a rare event!
Don't worry, I'll be sticking around in the "Pro Camp" for the GSG, regardless of what Phil might have said, and then deleted. ;)
Regards,
Adam.
(Message edited by Adamw on June 12, 2005)
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 654
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 1:50 am: |
|
Adam - there is simply nothing to respond to in that enormous screed.
Anything is possible, anything is not. You appear to have abandoned your old absolutist position, so that now anything goes - there's absolutely no attempt by you to evaluate evidence. You simply advance statements (many of no value at all) to defend some position I don't quite understand.
I think we all agree your position (if that is your position) that there could be a link between apron and writing. But there may not be and none has been proved. Nor has anyone yet given an interpretation of the graffito that makes it likely to relate to the killings - a none-Ripper meaning is just as likely and perhaps more so.
I think you may have read too many Ripper books from the 60s and 70s with their tendency to weak but overdone self-justifying argument. Your posts increasingly resemble them.
As for what I deleted, it was very cleary labelled "ironic" (twice) and made a joke about your changed position since earlier in the year and your not telling anyone. You explained to Glenn and I commented that that was more than I got, you told me off!!! So don't try inferring that I somehow insulted you. I deleted the post because it was inappropriate to the thread, not for any other reason.
Just stand back from the case Adam and have a look at what we know in a more judicious way. It might mean you have to type a lot less.
Phil |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 235
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 5:12 am: |
|
Phil,
"Adam - there is simply nothing to respond to in that enormous screed."
Nice to see you on here again too, Phil! ;)
"Anything is possible, anything is not. You appear to have abandoned your old absolutist position, so that now anything goes - there's absolutely no attempt by you to evaluate evidence. You simply advance statements (many of no value at all) to defend some position I don't quite understand."
Disappointing that you feel that way, Phil, but what I would suggest is that you read back through some of my earlier posts. I have already explained my views clearly, and why I believe in them. There is very little evidence to evaluate, just a lot of speculation from both sides! Because we have nothing to go on, it's largely just down to opinions of why Jack did or didn't write the message. So can you explain how I am meant to evaluate "evidence", when there is next to none?
"I think we all agree your position (if that is your position) that there could be a link between apron and writing. But there may not be and none has been proved. Nor has anyone yet given an interpretation of the graffito that makes it likely to relate to the killings - a none-Ripper meaning is just as likely and perhaps more so."
That's true, and I agree with you there.
I am aware that no link has been proven, nor, in all likelihood, will a link ever be proven. But that is one of the points I've been trying to get across here, there's nothing to prove either way that Jack did or didn't write the message. There's problems with both. I choose to believe Jack did write the message, but as I am with everything else, I am open to change if a strong enough case for it is put forward. It's like the "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" communications, I changed my views on those.
However, there is too much divided opinion and too little evidence either way at the moment, unfortunately.
"I think you may have read too many Ripper books from the 60s and 70s with their tendency to weak but overdone self-justifying argument. Your posts increasingly resemble them."
For your information, I have never read, nor do I own any Ripper-related book from the 1960's or 70's. To be perfectly honest with you, the oldest book I have at the moment is the first edition of "The Lodger" !! They're all pretty modern after that, though admittedly, I don't have a huge collection of Ripper books yet.
"As for what I deleted, it was very cleary labelled "ironic" (twice) and made a joke about your changed position since earlier in the year and your not telling anyone. You explained to Glenn and I commented that that was more than I got, you told me off!!! So don't try inferring that I somehow insulted you. I deleted the post because it was inappropriate to the thread, not for any other reason."
My intention was neither to tell you off, nor infer that you insulted me, because neither is the case. If it seemed that way, then I apologise, but that isn't the case.
My mentions of your deleted posts were also meant to be in a joking manner, nothing serious intended. You're entitled to your opinions, and I accept that. I don't think there is, nor should there be any problems.
As for me changing my views, as I said before, I took some time off the forums and managed to get stuck into more Ripper material in that time, and it swayed me to a different opinion on the letters. Therefore, because I was off the forums at that point, it wasn't necessary, nor was there really an oppurtunity anyway to show that I had changed that opinion. And, as I said in my earlier post, it was hardly worth starting a whole new topic for just so everyone knew, was it!?
"Just stand back from the case Adam and have a look at what we know in a more judicious way. It might mean you have to type a lot less."
The amount I have to type is the least of my concerns, Phil.
What does concern me is the fact that for about 6 months already, it's almost always been the same 3 people (you, Frank and Glenn) who I've landed in debates with!
I've accepted that you're entitled to your opinion, and rather than make unnecessary comments about my posts and opinions, I think likewise you should accept my opinions as being just that - my opinions.
While it might not seem like it at times, I can promise you, I don't like getting into long, heated, drawn-out debates. I'd much rather it if everyone just got along, but there doesn't seem much chance of that happening in a hurry.
So I think yet again, the best thing for us to do is agree to disagree. I don't think there'll be a solution at the moment that will draw a general agreement.
Hope I've cleared some things up for you in this post, Phil. If I haven't, well...I give up!!
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1846
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
As for the Ripper not writing any other form of communication on the other crime scenes, that is a very valid argument indeed. Usually this is a very constant part of a killer's approach, and fact remains that we have no signs whatsoever of any message delivered by the killer on any other crime scene.
The graffito wasn't at a crime scene. It was found above an item taken from a crime scene and later discarded. You don't know that the killer, if he left this message, didn't leave others - especially if the argument is that graffiti was everywhere.
Hi Phil,
I don't think that the police could make that much of the writing on the wall then. Warren's concerns were about riots on the streets and the "politics" of the day. Hence the writing was washed off.
Again, if this sort of anti-Semitic graffiti was common, there should be evidence that the police were so concerned about this kind of message causing riots (even after removing the pinny) that they checked all the surrounding buildings and erased all similar examples.
If there is no evidence for this, it suggests to me that the police presumed - rightly or wrongly - that this was something of a one-off: the words being potentially more inflammatory (regardless of the murder clue beneath) than your average yobbish scrawl.
And again, what kind of person is more likely to have 'blame' on their mind than a serial killer who has just bagged another victim, and is in the act of discarding the evidence that would have blamed him for everything?
Psychologically, it makes total sense to me that a killer who was impractical enough to risk his own neck putting the finishing touches to Kate's face, could also have risked taking the apron half all the way to the Dwellings, just so he could chalk whatever words were on his mind, and the finder would know that he had been there.
Love,
Caz
X |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 101
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Adam,
Surely it was also a long way to travel before writing on a wall,considering there were walls a-plenty between Mitre Square and Wentworth building,and between the killing of Nichol's and Eddowes.
The killer did not need an additional item to prove a connection.All he needed was to inject extra words to the message.
Besides,if he took the apron piece to leave beside a message,it indicates the idea of a message originated at,or before Mitre Square.
However,if the message was an afterthought when he reached Wentworth building,what was the reason for taking the apron? |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 424
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 8:54 am: |
|
I don't think anyone's arguing that the message wasn't written by the killer just that we can't accept as fact (as we used to 20 years ago) that it was.
Since the message is meaningless,which is to say we can't find and agree on a meaning,it really doesn't matter who wrote it. We know the killer was there from the apron and the message advances us no further.
Mags
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Monsieur Zinna,
Merci pour votre explication. Alors, voici une traduction pour ceux qui ne comprennent pas le français:
"Sorry to contradict you [Matfelon], but mister Ryder is completely correct. The word "juif", as a noun, is the word given to descendants of the monotheistic Semitic people who lived in Palestine and who, in general, remain faithful to the Judaic faith and traditions. The noun "juive" - as a *name* - means "a Jewish female". As an adjective, "juif" applied to a masculine noun, means "relating to the community of ancient or modern Jews". If the noun is femenine, the adjective must be feminine also. And the feminine of "juif" is "juive". I know what M Donston wrote on this subject; unfortunately he was wrong there" |
Dale Huddlesceugh
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
Just passing through and reading through this interesting thread, I am surprised how lightly the Masonic "Jubilo, Jubila and Jubelum" explanation of "Juwes" seems to have been discarded by many interested in the case (including many policemen?!). I typed "Juwes" into Yahoo and it was the first thing that came up. Surely this would explain the otherwise bizarre spelling error and give a valid reason for Warren, as a high-ranking Mason, erasing the graffito. There's no need to buy into any wider conspiracy theory by just accepting that the message writer intended a Masonic reference and Warren didn't wish this to be seen. Of course, it may not have been the killer who left the graffito. Perhaps a more likely candidate might be the policeman on patrol in the area, who in a moment of boredom decided to express his disgruntlement at the promotion and preferment of Masonic colleagues. Of course, while he was scribbling away, back in Mitre Square.... |
Matfelon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 6:24 am: |
|
the burdon of being an unregistered guest... so i'll cut this short:
eduardo, there is no need to post a scan here, you will find the "juives = judenvolk" in almost every pre-WW2 dictionary. but you're absolutely right about the german gender. there are: der jude (masculine), die jüdin (feminine) and die juden (which means the jewish people or folk)
but not before the 1950's.
by the way, "judenvolk" is indeed very ugly and you can get in serious trouble for using it. you'll better say: "das jüdische volk".
danke.
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Re "Juwes or Juives". Could it be neither? Might we all have been barking up the wrong tree for over a 100 years?
My skills at writing with a mouse are severely limited, so the attached PNG file is a bit more jagged than I'd want and is far from being in a "rounded schoolboy hand" as a result.
Nonetheless, it actually spells "Jukes" and a slight elongation of one of the "arms" of the letter "k" could make it look like a "w". There are dozens of people called Jukes in London in the 1881 Census - perhaps someone had a grudge against a family of that name?
Apologies for wild speculation. I myself am not at all convinced, but "no stone unturned" and all that ...
|
Matfelon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
thanks eduardo,
but as I said, i'm not an expert on the french language. not even on the english, i'm afraid.
En tant qu'adjectif, "juif", appliqué à un nom masculin, veut dire relatif à la communauté des juifs anciens ou modernes.
I think that i'll might have an idea of what you are trying to say, but put the gender question aside, for a moment ...just think of a french person and read the GSG out loud. to me, the whole sentence construction sounds like that of a french who's trying to speak or write in english. that's the simple cause for me, why the word juives makes sense.
how,
I have no idea on the originator of the message. IF we assume that it was written by the killer, a french person would be my prime suspect. maybe an uneducated one, like arbie labruckmann or one of edward knight-larkins "cattleman"... but, who knows?
anyway, good points on RDS regarding the GSG. I'm still thinking of him as a strong suspect, because he was my first one. :-)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 9:18 am: |
|
Dale
I am surprised how lightly the Masonic "Jubilo, Jubila and Jubelum" explanation of "Juwes" seems to have been discarded by many interested in the case (including many policemen?!). I typed "Juwes" into Yahoo and it was the first thing that came up.
It is indeed all over the Internet, but unfortunately no one can produce any evidence that "Juwes" was really a masonic term.
Chris Phillips
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 571
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Thanks Matfelon !
Appreciate the comments...
How
HowBrown
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 656
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:44 am: |
|
Gareth, thank you for taking us to the mouth of another cul-de-sac (no doubt inhabited by expatriate "Juives"). I just hope no one goes down it.
How in heaven's name can picking a name at random like "Jukes" help us in this case? Even if it did, I'll bet good money the Ripper's surname wasn't jukes, and that we'll never be able to find out who had grudges against them.
But you never know, maybe someone called jukes lived in the dwellings.
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 652
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
Them Jukes of Hazzard maybe?
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood, 'The Rookie'
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 663
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Now you are thinking outside the Jukes "box", Frank!! |
Dale Huddlesceugh
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Having apparently resurrected this thread I've been fascinated by the responses over the last couple of days. I'm revisiting an old interest in the case after a recent trip to London, but it seems it's almost a way of life for some of you - this site is great! My original point was just that to me, the Masonic interpretation of the graffito remains the best one I have come across. Two of the most puzzling issues surrounding the graffito are the spelling of 'Juwes' (yes, I know that's debated!) and the fact that Warren took the trouble to visit the scene in order to erase it personally. The Masonic interpretation resolves those two mysteries. If (yes, if!) the killing of Eddowes displayed some traits suggestive of Masonic ritual, the killer would have had such matters on his mind as he left the scene and wrote the graffito (yes, I know, maybe he didn't!).
But that is all.
The above does not have to imply any conspiracy theory. It doesn't mean that the killer or Warren were acting as part of a Masonic conspiracy. All it would mean was the killer was a Mason and had incorporated some of the ritual he had learned into the fetishes he was enacting. And Warren, as a senior Mason, didn't want the spotlight to fall on the secret society. It doesn't mean Warren was protecting the killer or didn't want him to be caught, just that he didn't want the Masons dragged into it.
My personal view is that it is a mistake to look for a "perfect" theory, one that answers every aspect of Ripper folklore, as I think the Ripper was by no means a genius and was just plain lucky not to be caught. I feel this tendency to look for a perfect solution has led to valid points gleaned in pursuit of ultimately unsuccessful theories being disregarded too easily. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Phil,
Lol! I wasn't suggesting that the Ripper's name was "Jukes" - only that it was possible that a scrawled bit of graffiti (who's exact spelling is in doubt anyway, let's not forget) could have been misinterpreted as referring to Jews. Given the Police reaction to it, isn't there a possibility that the Zeitgeist might have made them hyper-sensitive to anti-Semitism or even forced them to misinterpret what they saw?
All I'm saying is that ambiguous stimuli are often susceptible to being "over-interpreted" depending on psychological and social factors. And, boy, is the Goulston Street graffito an ambiguous stimulus!
For instance, in the 1970s there was a piece of painted graffiti on a rock-face in the Brecon Beacons which proclaimed "Big Ears out of Wales!". People of a certain background might interpret this as a bizarre attack on one of Enid Blyton's more loveable creations, although those with an awareness of Welsh nationalism might opt for the interpretation that this was a slur against the Investiture of Prince Charles.
What the Police interpreted as a slight against the Jews could have been a totally unconnected protest (i.e. neither directed at the Jews NOR written by the Ripper) simply against a family called "Jukes".
Unfortunately, apart from obliterating the evidence and recording two different (mis)spellings, the police left little in the way of a useful description of the writing itself. What does "round schoolboy hand" mean anyway? We don't even really know if it was cursive or block letters, upper or lower case. If cursive, then it's as possible that the word was "Jukes" as it was "Juives". All but the most practised hand "slurs" letters when writing in chalk on a vertical surface, and my crappy mouse-drawing shows that a slurred "k" could be interpreted as a "w".
However, if the "rounded schoolboy hand" were marking individual block letters (whether upper or lower case) then the case for both "Juives" and "Jukes" is less easy to argue and we're left with "Juwes" as the more likely. Or "Jewes", of course...
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Chris,
It is indeed all over the Internet, but unfortunately no one can produce any evidence that "Juwes" was really a masonic term.
Quite so. Had the Internet existed prior to Steven Knight's book (which first promulgated the Masonic explanation of the term "Juwes" to a wide audience) I bet a search on "Juwes" would have turned up precisely zilch.
In a similar vein, I daresay that a search on "I - tego arcana Dei" (Away! I guard the secrets of God!) wouldn't have turned up much prior to Baigent, Lee and Lincoln's "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" nonsense. Now you'll find it everywhere as the definitive meaning (ancient, of course) of the anagrammatical phrase "Et in arcadia ego" seen on spooky French tombs and mysterious (not!) paintings by Poussin.
Again, secret brotherhoods were all too easily deployed in this bit of sales-boosting mythologising, much as Knight did in his "JTR - The Final Solution" book. Both these books are - pardon the pun - ripping good reads, but their main selling points are about as believable as the "Da Vinci Code" or "Chariots of the Gods" in the last analysis.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4842
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Hi all
Are there any medievalists out there? I was wondering how common a spelling of "Juwes" for "Jews" was in those times.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4851
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 6:04 am: |
|
No medievalists? Well I don't suppose it's important. It's just that I noticed that Arnold's Chronicle uses "Juwes" and that Arnold's Chronicle was being auctioned just before the murders started. But if there were loads of medieval writings with that spelling knocking about, then it doesn't matter.
Robert |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 854
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Dear Robert...
Could you please elaborate a little on "Arnold's Chronicles" for us? What were they all about..what year...and so forth.
Dave Radka has stated that "Juwes" was a usage of the word "Jews" previously...Maybe he was in error about the youth group reference,but this Arnold's Chronicle reference from you may mean something...this is good stuff !
It would be most appreciated if you could comment,R.C. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4852
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
How, according to a Times announcement Aug 20th 1888 it was being auctioned Aug 21st-24th. I will email you.
Robert |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 223
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 7:13 am: |
|
The difficulty with the word ' Juwes ' is proving that not only is it a Masonic word , but also that it was known to Masons at the time of the murders ( Knight and Lomax use the word in ' The Hiram Key ' , thats about the best we have got ).
I think its wrong to use the term ' meaningless ' to refer to the fact that we don't know the meaning of it though : whoever wrote it intended it to have a meaning , thats a different matter.
Not only was the writing intended to have a meaning , it was also meant to be understood by someone - even if that someone had to have specialist knowledge to understand the meaning. Else why write the message on a wall ? It was meant to be seen , in a similar way that the Ripper victims were left for show out in the open. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2055
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
Could you send me a private message too please? I'm very curious about this Arnold's Chronicle.
Many thanks.
Love,
Caz
X |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4857
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
OK Caz, on its way.
Robert |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 225
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
I'm sure the word Jews is spelled ' Juwes ' somewhere in Medieval Literature.
Chaucer in ' The Prioress's Tale ' uses the following spellings :
JEWES : " 628 With torment and with shameful deeth echon,
629 This provost dooth thise Jewes for to sterve. "
JUES : " 599 Among the cursed Jues she hym soghte. "
JEW : " 600 She frayneth and she preyeth pitously
601 To every Jew that dwelte in thilke place, "
Link : http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/canttales/priort/pri-par.htm
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 736
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Simon - if I spell Edinburgh as Edinborough, does that have meaning or is it simply a mistake? My intention was to refer to a particular place, my mispelling has no meaning.
In medieval times - indeed until Dr Johnson's dictionary, there was no real conception of proper spelling. people wrote as they spoke, so Chaucer's spellings probably relate more to his accent, or dialect, and to the rhymes he wished to create than to some special meaning in one spelling or another.
Juwes as in the Goulston st graffito, is IMHO probably just a mispelling by an illiterate local. He meant Jews.
Phil |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 226
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Richard Arnold's chronicle is more properly Renaissance literature , the first edition published in 1502 and the second in 1520. There was a reprint in 1811.
Arnold, Richard. The customs of London, otherwise called Arnold's Chronicle; containing, Among divers other matters, The original of the Celebrated Poem of The Nut-Brown Maid. London,1502.
Arnold was a London merchant. His work is a slice of business life in sixteenth century London, containing lists of city officials, texts of charters, regulations and assizes (including assizes of ale), forms of oaths and various legal and mercantile documents, a section on weights and measures, various instructions and recipes, and much other material. His recipes include various alcoholic beverages. ( http://www.tirbriste.org/dmir/BrewingVintning/slpebmod.html )
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 227
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Phil , I was using Chaucer to merely illustrate the variety of spellings that the word Jews had in the Middle Ages.
My point was that since spelling was so subjective in the Middle Ages , almost certainly the word ' Juwes ' would have been used somewhere outside Arnold's Chronicle to mean ' Jews '.
Its theoretically possible that the Graffiti writer wrote ' Juwes ' with a medieval spelling to refer to some incident in medieval history or refer to a medieval text.
Its possible the graffiti is a quote from somewhere , I doubt it though. I remember asking a few years ago if it was a quote from the Bible but it wasn't apparently. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 855
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Robert Charles:
Thanks very,very much for the e-mail. You are an ace.
So there are references to Jews that spell it "Juwes"..
Its interesting that Stephenson's December 1st article/expose' of the GSG and its meaning didn't use this usage,rather than the erroneous one that he did, with his mistake to gender-use in French. He was, after all,well versed in the Gospels...Very interesting....
Robert....por favor,senor...Could you please upload the pages that include this spelling of Jews for us...?
|
LARRY
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Hi, I too have racked my brains over the word. Maybe the correct spelling was on the wall, but the authorities misread it as 'Juwes' In a rounded schoolboy hand the 'e' might look like a 'u' and the 's' as 'es' If you check my attachment it should illustrate the point.
(If you cant see it let me know and I will try to send it again, Regards)
 |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Harry,
I have to say that your post contains some of the best arguments I have read regarding the GSG. I think it has been so overanalyzed at this point that we can no longer see the forest for the trees.
If it was Jack's intention to communicate a message, how could he be sure that the apron would be found by the police? It could just as easily have been found by someone living nearby and thrown in the trash never suspecting that it was related to the Ripper. If the message was premeditated, the smartest thing to do would be to leave it as close to the body as possible so that a connection would be assured. If the message was not premeditated, but spur of the moment, then Jack conveniently just happened to have some chalk in his pockets at the time. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Alternative spelling