|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through July 24, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Locating Buck's Row Murder Site:
Archive through July 24, 2001
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 02:55 pm |        | Hi Ed:
You can get a simple smiley face by just doing together a : and ) together (no space between) as  or else a niser one by doing \clipart {smile} .... you must close up before the curly parenthesis so it gives you  or else try \clipart {laugh}  or say \clipart {blush} 
All the best
Chris |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 04:06 pm | | | Chris, On Tuesdays, I usually go to the Turkish baths with a few friends, I used to be a boxer, (I boxed at both welter and light middle-weight). The Turkish bath becomes a habit, often carried on years after the bouts finish. I tend to think whilst i'm there. Tomorrow I will think about a: and, as well as curly parenthesis, but my guess is that you can expect some pretty miserable looking posts from me in the future. Best wishes ED. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 08:46 pm | | Hi Ed:
You sound like an interesting character. Are you an East Ender? As you may know, I am a Scouser though now reside in the United States. Will you be at the Bournemouth convention?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 04:47 am | | Hi Chris,
I do hope your smashing post on smileys won't be deleted as off-topic. I think the great advice you gave to Ed - 'you must close up before the curly parenthesis' - really ought to be preserved for posterity. It is such a perfect example of what makes this site priceless, and all our posteriors should be grateful. 
With advice like that, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find Ed going on to even bigger and better things - like swimming the Channel.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 08:31 am | | Hi, Caz:
Glad you liked my smiley post. I agree as well about the posteriors. . . I will e-mail Alegria about possibly having the post "prasarved" for posterity.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 04:06 pm | | Anyway back to work! Jon, recently e-mailed my private address with some interesting news.( I hope he dosent mind that I am putting this on the Casebook now?)
Jon said he has discovered a picture that matches the one I posted earlier, claiming to be a true picture of New Cottage. Jon states that his photo probably shows the same structure as mine, and it is located where the 'last house in Bucks Row stood'. (I am not quite sure if he means the one West of the District Railway lines that used to stand directly next to the board school, or the 'last house' just to the East of the district railway lines?).
So before I write take my case further on this subject, it might well be worth waiting for Jon to sort his scanner out, his picture might well prove me right or wrong!!!! ED Chris, I am from the East End and I am thinking of going to Bournmouth! ED. By the way have you noticed that one of the Liverpool letters states something like: ' I even give you the name of the street where I am living' Giving the address as Prince William Street. William Wess lived at 2 William Street just near Berner Street! |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 08:33 pm | | Thats OK Ed, two reasons I never mentioned it here, are I like to try to present a clear description when I explain something, and without my scanner, or a .jpg of your photo I would have to struggle to give a coherent description.
But, for those of you who have Rumbelows 1988 hardback edition, one of the photo's between pages 60-61 shows a low level shot of a house in Bucks Row, many of you will recognize the photo from pavement (footpath) level with an iron post (like an upturned cannon) in the centre of the shot. This house shows No.6 (I suggest) Bucks Row, and off to the right is a temporary wall with a section of corrugated steel laid horizontal across the top.
This is what we see in ED's photo. I feel strongly the ED's photo and the low level shot are both of the same section of street but from different perspectives.
I'd like to get them scanned and poste them together so you see the similarities.
Whats missing though, is Ed's lampost.
Regards, Jon |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 07:29 am | | Thank's Jon we await your post.
Grazziano, I have tried twice to send the photo but with no luck, don't worry I will get it there in the end, I have a slight problem with my computor. ED. |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 07:31 am | | Thank's Jon we await your post.
Grazziano, I have tried twice to send the photo but with no luck, don't worry I will get it there in the end, I have a slight problem with my computor. ED. PS I have found a Walter Purkiss in Crouch End, North London, I think there might be a relationship! ED |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 05:13 pm | |  |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 03:18 am | | Now, that's a sight to make your eyes water, first thing in the morning!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 09:42 am | | Hi, all:
According to the shot of Buck's Row in Paul Begg's JtR: The Uncensored Facts, those bollards were actually set into the pavement (sidewalk) across the street from the houses pictured in Don's book. The photograph in Paul's book shows a dog trotting past! One bollard is slightly fatter than the other and I cannot be sure which of the two is the one that is pictured so hugely in Rumbelow. The photographer (Donald himself???) must have been at ground level to take the shot.
Ed, yes, of course I know all about the Liverpool letters, which are much played up in Harrison and Feldman's books, for obvious reasons. It will be nice to see Messrs. Skinner and Evans put these letters in perspective in their much anticipated book on the JtR letters due out this autumn. I am sure they will place them among the many obviously hoax letters sent during the Ripper scare. Good to know you hope to be in Bournemouth, Ed. I look forward to meeting you then.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 12:08 pm | | Caz,
ROTFL!!! Yes, it's quite reminiscent of a snow structure built by a female acquaintance when she was an undergrad at Vassar. Even the scale is the same :-)
Cheers,
Jim
PS - Regrettably, I was *not* the model. |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 05:51 pm | | | I hate to have to tell you this, before writing my short essay, but I believe the number on the door is (1). I have both changed the contrast, and blown the photo up. And that does not make sense! Therefore it must be (7) ED |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 06:13 pm | | I do not think that the wall shows the same gate as in my picture, however it might show the section of wall just before the gate. What is interesting is the fact that it is an old bollard, so if we can be sure that the actual bollard(is the one in Paul Beggs photo). it gives insight into the location of this house. But it does not mean it's the correct location of New Cottage. I am more certain as ever that most people have the wrong location for New Cottage. ED. The western end of Bucks Row, between Old Montague Street and the Whitechapel Road, just opposite the entrance into the Bucks Row passageway it's self, there was a school. I can only find one indication of it's name, B S. Does this mean' boys school' or 'Board School'? Best wishes ED Remember what Spratling said, the board school was to the west, New Cottage to the east'.
Grazziano, the photo I am sending is under another file name take no notice of the file name when the photo arrives, the picture is of 'Jack The Ripper'. Sorry I can't give you the name at this point in time, however I do know it and I will. Best wishes ED. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 06:29 pm | | ED
Chris already mentioned the picture in 'Uncensored facts' which shows this bollard, its one of a pair. In the 'Uncensored facts' picture we see two bollards, the farthest one is tilted, or inclined, as is the one above.
Based on that I would think the picture above is of the righthand (westerly) bollard.
Also, I was going to ask if anyone could enhance the picture to get an idea of the house number.
What makes you think it is a '1' ?
Regards, Jon |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 06:51 pm | | Jon, To me, it simply looked like a number 1 when blown up and the contrast had been manipulated a little. Whilst people might have Paul Beggs photo to hand, lets remember the words of PC Neil ,who said that he saw another officer in Bakers Row. Place yourself in the position most claim to be the murder site, how on earth do you see anyone in Bakers Row?
ED. Please ignore it if I have changed posts, and after you have read them I changed them a little. I was going about my route a different way, and decided to change it. ED |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 06:56 pm | | | By the way, if that dog had anything to do with bending that bollard he must have been one hell of a mongrel! ED |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 05:34 pm | | Would you mind if I begin a short essay? Feel free to interrupt, write your own post between my posts.
We know from the maps of the day, that in the 1870s, Bucks Row ran from Thomas Street in the west, concluding at North Street in the east.
The northern side of Bucks Row consisted almost entirely of Wharves and warehouses, the southside consisted of a mixture of commercial and residential properties.
The southside of the row began at Thomas Street and ran for a hundred yards or so, then just after an old stableyard at the end of this section, the passageway directly ahead changed into Little North Street.
At the beginning, and on the the North side of Little North Street, there was a school building. On the north side of the school, Bucks Row continued in a narrower form, concluding at North Street.
Running east to west of the board school there were cottages numbered from 1-29, and then on the corner of Bucks Row and North Street there was a public house.
The 1871 census reveals that all the houses from 1-29 were occupied, there was neither a structure named 'New Cottage, nor a stableyard anywhere along this section of Bucks Row in 1871. Indeed there was no room to build either, because all the space between the school and the public house was accounted for.
Yet in the 1881 census we notice that there is a new building in Bucks Row, officially named 'New Cottage'! And according to the testimony during the Whitechapel murders, New Cottage stood next to a stable yard owned by one Mr Brown.
All the houses from numbered from 1-29 in 1871, were still standing in Bucks Row in 1881, so if there was no room to build in this section, where was this new building sited in 1881? Whereever this was, I believe it was still in the same place in 1888, at the time of the murders!
To be continued, ED. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 06:51 pm | | ED
Is there a number '6' Bucks Row in the 1871 census?
There isnt one in the 1881 census. So according to that there's only 28 houses existing, strange?
Also the 1881 census gives us two more named houses, apart from New Cottage we have Bucks Row Coll. (?) which houses a male beer seller, his wife & a 69 yr old 'monthly nurse'.
Then we have Bucks Row Malt. (?) which houses a manager, two borders & a visitor, all with the same name, Tipple.
Are these only houses?
I still need a copy of the 1891 census, but I am getting the impression they create as many questions as they answer.
Regards, Jon |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 11:47 am | | Jon, do you remember that I asked Viper if he noticed the beer shop in Bucks Row? The structure you have named as 'malt', is, actually the malthouse. I believe, from observing the positioning of other buildings, mapped in several other East End locations, that in 1888, the 'malthouse' was located at the eastern end of Bucks Row, very near to the Brady Street end. New Cottage, would then, have been at the western end. New Cottage being, the last building in the wide section of Bucks Row before it became narrower on the left side of the passageway, after the school house.
New Cottage, therefore, would have been situated just before a small alley on the right. The front door of New Cottage being just before the board school, the board school situated left at a 270 angle,on the (north side).
To be cont. ED. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 12:16 pm | | Jon, I am going to try to cut the whole thing short, if I can. I have examined the work of several journalists who worked for Police illustrated in 1888. It seems that if the artist drawing a murder scene thought that the background did not look very frightening, he would invent appropriate scenery. Therefore the artist drawing New Cottage could well have made the grid at the right side look more violent than than it actually appeared. Thus drawing violent spikes, instead of a less violent curve se
en on the photo I posted. Thus, on seeing the inacurate drawing that included violent spikes on the grid to the right of New Cottage, other, interstead journalists, copied this. Therefore, we have an inacurate picture!
My friend, who is a photographer, believes that in the photo claiming to be the grid attached to New Cottage, has been super-imposed on to the picture. This would account for the 50 year old grid, in the picture, looking almost brand new! Best Wishes ED. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 03:38 pm | | ED
The Malt shop you refer to is listed (on the 1881 census) along with a duplicate set of Bucks Row addresses (Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13) in between 124/125 Whitechapel Rd and 8+8A Court Street. This seems hardly explainable so I fail to understand how you come to place the Malt shop where you suggest above, at the East end (Brady St.) of Bucks Row.
You lost me with that one.
And New Cottage is listed following Essex Wharf but before No.1 Bucks Row, so this is no indication on which side of the road it was located. Though tradition has it at the south side and the census does not conflict with that tradition.
It appears that addresses in Bucks Row went through more renumberings than we are aware.
Regards, Jon |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 06:11 am | | Jon, my points are, that between 1871 and 1881 the structure of the buildings in narrow stretch of Bucks Row stayed exactly the same, yet in the 1881 census a new building (officially) named New Cottage appears. As there is no space in the narrow section, because the last house at the western end is right next to the board school, the last house in the east is right next to the pub. There would have been no where to put it. Therefore it must have been placed elsewhere!
New Cottage does not exist on the 1871 or the 1891 census. Now when I was researching, this began to seem strange, a building, officially named New Cottage was sited somewhere in Bucks Row between 1871, and 1881 however, by 1891 it has gone, but someone, by sheer coincidence, has in 1888, decided to 'unofficially' name another structure by the same name 'New Cottage'. The new location now being next to number 6 Bucks Row. Here, we must also stop to think why the site next to number 6 was thought to be the correct location, one main reason is that we assume that several cotages were pulled down to make way for the railway in 1874. This has been proved false because the cottages were all still there in 1881, and still numbered in consecutive order!
If we look at the drawing in police illustrated we see a gateway, then a cottage, then some sort of a corner possibly leading into an alley, then the houses continue.
If one imagines that the position of this drawing shows the southside of Bucks Row, in the wide area just before the board school. The line at the end of the cottage is indeed an alleyway on the right, and the lampost is in the alley.
If we read the testimony with great care, we will see that much of it is ambiguous, lets remember, Spratling did not see Polly actually lying in the alley. His descriptions were then translated via jounalists who did not see the actual position of the body either. If Spratling stated to a newsman she was ' next to the railway embankment' lets face it there were three embankments! There were two schools administered by the board, and two commercial enterprises named Brown's in Bucks Row. It is also a little odd that one of the commercial enterprises named Brown's is opposite to number 6 Bucks Row! Could someone have simply been directed to the wrong Brown's and assumed the rest? The key to this little mistery is the line at the right side of the sketch in Police illustrated. I don't think that's a mistake, it gives us the answer. To be cont. Best Wishes ED> |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 08:27 am | | Continued: If we assume that the south east corner was indeed the murder site, it makes sense of Neil's claim that he saw a fellow officer in Bakers Row, simply because Bakers Row can be seen from here. It also makes sense of the route taken by PC Thain to the doctors house in Whitechapel Road. Not that I believe their stories entirely, you understand!
Now if you look at the photo I posted above, and compared it with the sketch in police illustrated, I think you will agree that the two sites could well be the same.
The logical place for this site is in the south east corner, the main reason is that there appears to be an alley, or some sort of break between New Cottage, and the rest of the houses on the right hand side of the road.
This fits in exactly with the small alleys in Winthrop Street. ED To be continued. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 23 July 2001 - 02:09 pm | | Cont. This also makes sense of the lamp-post seen just in the distance, this could well have been sited in the same alley.
At this point we need to look at the stories of both PC Neil, and PC Thain in a little more detail.
Neil, said that to attract PC Thain's attention as Thain patrolled passed the eastern end of Bucks Row, he did not whistle or shout, but he flashed his lamp. Myself, I would think on finding a woman lying lifeless on the pavement, it would be bloody good excuse for a bit of whistle blowing and shouting on Neil's part. ( In fact a bit of arm waving might not have gone amiss!) But instead, Neil decided to flash his lamp at his fellow officer who, 100 yards away, was walking north with his back to PC flasher--er PC Neil. Inspite of the fact that most people cannot see through the back of their heads, PC Thain managed to overcome this by turning around just in time to see the light from Neil's lamp.( It takes exactly three seconds to pass the eastern end of Bucks Row) We must remember here that PC Thain saw Neils lamp despite of the fact that there was a bright light from a lampost shining behind Neil's head.
Thain then attends the scene, but on his way to the doctor in a dire life or death emergency, in his panic, Thain runs around in a half-circle, collecting his cape on the way to find urgent medical attention. More importantly, collecting his cape from a place that was not even on his beat, the same place (Winthrop Street) that, Neil oddly claimed to have seen three slaughtermen half an hour before! I use the word 'oddly', because Winthrop Street was not on Neil's beat either! Thain, had then in prioritizing his actions, thought it more important to have this unimportant piece of clothing about his person incase at some point later, one of the inspectors who could well at some point, arrive on scene, might, send him to an unknown location on some sort of yet undisclosed errand. When let's face it, Thain could simply have collected the cape after bringing medical help! After this, PC Neil managed to see a fellow Officer through two brick walls or round a corner, (take your choice!) He called him over! And from this point on, I believe everyone is telling the truth! Well almost! ED
To be cont. |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 04:03 am | | Ed,
Where exactly did PC Neil's beat go? You state that Winthrop Street wasn't a part of it, but several newspapers, in detailing his evidence suggest otherwise. For example, the East London Observer reported, "They [the slaughtermen] had just finished work, and were on their way home. He had seen them and another man at work in the slaughter-house when he passed it, about twenty minutes past three o'clock."
Regards, V. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 10:01 am | | Viper, I view that the very statement that you use to indicate Neil, was legitimatly in Winthrop Street, in fact suggests Winthrop Street, was a location where he should not have been at the time! I could go into more convincing detail here; and using Neil's own words, however, lets begin with another aspect! Slaughtering animals has never been a spectator sport in England, therefore, the act of killing animals has traditionally been undertaken where it could not be observed by the passing general public. If Neil did then see these men 'at their work' he would not have been able to identify all three of them from the roadway as he passed. He must therefore have actually been inside the building at the time! Best Wishes ED.
Cont from above.. 'Coincidence': An unexpected relationship in two events happening together.(Collins New English Dictionary).
It also seems a strange and unexpected relationship in two events, that in the south eastern corner; of the wider section of Bucks Row we have definate proof that around the time of the murders, an old stable yard existed!
But in the narrow section of Bucks Row, we have no such proof one existed, except ambiguous newspaper testimony, several photo's in books written years after the murders, and a dog leg shape next to a railway line.
When I say ambiguous newspaper testimony, lets look at one piece of evidence put forward by the attrending doctor, made public by Detective Spratling then again conveyed to us in recent telivision programme! Llewellyn stated that Polly Nichols had been stabbed on 'private parts' this was correctly interpreted and conveyed by DetectiveSpratling! However as the years have passed, the word 'private parts' has come to mean the vagina in recent, so called, knowledgable TV programme! Rubbish! The evidence points to the stab wounds being in the area between the pubis and the right illiac fossa!
Now let us look at the books, remembering that the murders took place in 1888, the first serious book concerning the murders published in 1922, written by Matters; 34 years after the murders took place! This is a huge gap! The murder location shown in most photos accepted today as the murder site were taken in the 1930s, '50' years after the events took place! Best wishes ED. To be continued. |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 12:35 pm | | Ed, PC Neil could have seen these men at their work if they had been sweeping or washing out the yard, or if the horses and ponies were penned up close to the gates, or if wagons were admitted to dispose of the animal's carcasses that night. By suggesting that he had to have been inside the building to see them at work is to adopt too literal an interpretation of words. That is something which can distort logic. The questions still remain; where did Neil's beat run, and was Winthrop Street on it or not?
Regards, V. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 01:07 pm | | Hello Viper,
you raise a good point in saying that PC Neil could have seen the slaughterers at work at 3.20 a.m. as he says (telling the truth I think) at the inquest without the slaughterers seeing him.
But how could we explain , following what the same PC Neil says at the same inquest (once again telling I think the truth) that they were the first on the site of the murder after him ?
For Winthrop Street, as I said in previous message, I must doubt that it was not on PC Neil beat.
Where was Broad street ?
Why PC Neil says that he call for Purkiss and Purkiss does not corroborate that ?
Thank you. Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 01:29 pm | | Hello Viper and Ed,
I think that in the previous message I misused the english language.
When I say "I must doubt that Winthrop Street was not on PC Neil beat" I mean that I think it was and this for the reasons I gave in previous posts.
Nevertheless I think that it is only a point with very marginal importance in determinig whether the testimonies of the three PCs were reliable or not (of course they were absolutely not).
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 01:41 pm | | | Let's also look at Neil's actual statement, I think this has been totally misunderstood! Neil actually said that the school board 'school' was to the west! This is a very important discrimination! ED Because there was a school to the west! |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 03:06 pm | | Graziano, let’s take your questions one by one.
You ask, But how could we explain, following what the same PC Neil says at the same inquest (once again telling I think the truth) that they were the first on the site of the murder after him ?
At first site the reports are contradictory. I do think, however, whether this can be explained either by Neil’s interpretation of the question he was asked or to the interpretation and reporting of the journalists present.
For example, let’s take The Times, which reports Neil as stating that, The first persons who arrived at the spot after he discovered the body were two men who worked at the slaughterhouse opposite [sic]. The same newspaper reports Tomkins as saying that the doctor and “three or four” constables were present when he arrived. I assume that this is the discrepancy to which you refer?
But contrast this with one of the most detailed write-ups of the inquest. It appeared in the East London Observer for 8th September, which in reporting Neil’s evidence says “With the exception of a man who had passed down Buck's-row while the doctor was present, they [the slaughterers] were the first of the general public to arrive.” (The man mentioned is the one also referred to by Mulshaw). In other words, if this report is accurate, it suggests that Neil had separated those present into the professionals who were working there (himself, his colleagues and the doctor), and members of the public. It now ties in with the reporting of Tomkins’ testimony.
You then ask Where was Broad Street ?
As far as I can ascertain from Cross’ testimony, he was referring to the area around Broad Street Station in the City of London, (just west and slightly south-west of Liverpool Street Station).
Why [did] PC Neil say that he call for Purkiss and Purkiss does not corroborate that?
The only dissenting comment I can see is the one in The Times of Sept. 18th which says of Purkiss, “When the police called him he opened the landing window. He could see the deceased, and there were two or three men there besides three or four constables.” Once again this might be an instance where the reporting of the inquest has created a misleading impression. The reporter may not have recorded all of Purkiss’ words. I think this is probably the case. However, if that explanation is incorrect then there is a minor discrepancy; the papers seem unanimous in reporting that Neil knocked at the door of Essex Wharf just after he dispatched PC Thain for the doctor.
Regards, V. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 03:12 pm | | | Viper, we must begin by setting some sort of standard! If anyone had posted claiming that 'any other' murder site including, Chapman, Stride, Eddows or Kelly was the wrong location, it would have taken us no more than two posts to prove them wrong! So what's the problem here? ED |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 03:20 pm | | | Let's face it, you, as everyone else, is not actually sure beyond doubt where Polly was found! Let me ask you, would you, or anyone here, convict on the evidence that claims the narrow area was indeed the murder site. If you would, I would hate to defend myself in any court where you presided. Best Wishes ED. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 03:24 pm | | Are you sure ? If so
convince me. ED |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 03:41 pm | | Hello Viper,
"Minor discrepancy" between PC Neil and Purkiss ????????????
That's not fair, Viper.
Of course all the papers were unanimous about the calling of Purkiss by PC Neil after he having dispatched PC Thain.
PC Neil states right that at the inquest and they just repeat what he says.
He is summoned the 3rd of september.
Purkiss only the 17th.
As far as I know no reporter goes out to question Purkiss independently.
Bye. Graziano. (whatever, thank you for the answers) |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 03:41 pm | | | And, I am awaiting! ED |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 03:58 pm | | | Please read my next post. ED |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 04:00 pm | | | The Jack we have sought for so long, will, if caught, in retrospect inform us about a whole generation of future killers that will opperate in this particular mode. Because, Jack was in extreme ED |
|
|
|
|
