|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
New Assumptions, New Suspect
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
New Assumptions, New Suspect
Author: Jack Baily
Friday, 04 January 2002 - 12:51 pm |        | The following attempts to create an imaginary suspect who perfectly fits the crimes, rather than trying to force known suspects to fit the facts of the case. Here’s what I have so far:
“The killer had a lodging place in Whitechapel, but was only able to spend alternate weekends there. He worked on a shipping route to Boston, which was a one week journey in each direction. The first killing triggered the others. It provided great satisfaction and the Whitechapel area provided many easy targets of opportunity. Boston, on the other hand, did not provide such easy targets, and he did not have lodging there. The killer did not write any of the letters. He had little interest in public acclaim, though he was aware of this from shipboard discussions. He used these discussions to learn something of human anatomy from the ship’s medical person. He became increasingly frustrated with the difficulty in finding easy targets in Whitechapel as the police and public scrutiny became intense. He was never formally interviewed by the police. Two weeks after the killing of Mary Kelly (on his next return to Whitechapel), he was unable to find a victim and returned to the sea unsatisfied. He committed his final murder in Boston, where he was captured and hanged.”
My next step will be to attempt to either prove, or disprove, that this hypothetical person was the killer. I invite anyone else to join in!
JB
[originally posted Friday, Nov. 16. Lost in the system crash.] |
Author: Jack Baily
Friday, 04 January 2002 - 12:56 pm | | ABOUT THIS THREAD:
This thread was lost, in its entirety, with the server crash in late December, 2001. The thread contained over 230 messages. Some of this was backed up to a Word .doc file - but I will only re-post the threads first post (above) and the latest Revised Assumptions (below). Sorry for all of the great messages that I did not archive, but looking forward to continuing~!
JB |
Author: Jack Baily
Friday, 04 January 2002 - 12:57 pm | | REVISED ASSUMPTIONS OF THE KILLER #1:
“The killer had a lodging place in Whitechapel, but was only able to spend alternate weekends there. He worked as a junior officer or mate (1)on a shipping route to New York, which was a one week journey in each direction. The first killing became the model for the others. He idealized this event in his mind, so that no other type of killing could satisfy him. The killer had a long history with the prostitutes of the area, and the killings were triggered by an "infidelity" committed against him by one of them (2). The killings provided complete sexual satisfaction and the Whitechapel area provided many easy targets of opportunity (3). Whitechapel also offered the killer a great degree of safety, comfort and security (4). The killer had permanent, private lodgings in the area. New York, on the other hand, did not provide such easy targets, and he did not have secure lodging there. The killer did not write any of the letters. He had little interest in public acclaim, though he was aware of it. He discussed the crimes with the Captain of his ship. Since he was shy, he was perceived as being obsessed with the topic. He increased his knowledge of human anatomy in order to better recount, to himself, the results of his actions. He became increasingly frustrated in finding easy targets in Whitechapel as police and public scrutiny became intense. He was aware that he had been seen near one or more victims, though he was never formally interviewed by the police (5). Two weeks after the killing of Mary Kelly (on his final return to Whitechapel), he was unable to find a victim and returned to the sea unsatisfied. He committed his final murder in New York, where he was captured and, ultimately, hanged. His belongings, left behind in Whitechapel, were sold to pay his rent when he did not return.”
(1) Bob Hinton, Nov. 18
(2) Brenna Idle, Nov. 19
(3) Michael Conlon, Nov. 18
(4) Stephen Hill, Nov. 17
(5) Robert Maloney, Nov. 19
I have used statement made by those credited above to revise these assumptions, though they may not reflect the precise opinons of the individuals.
JB |
Author: Jack Baily
Friday, 04 January 2002 - 01:01 pm | | REVISED/COMPILED ASSUMPTIONS #2
"The killer's first victim was his mother. He was never convicted of this crime, but a member of his family was aware of it and got him a job aboard a ship - perhaps under threat - to keep him out of trouble.
He worked as a junior officer or mate (1) on a shipping route to New York, which was a six day journey in each direction. The first killing became the model for the others. He idealized this event in his mind, so that no other type of killing could satisfy him. This model for the killings extended to his 'lair' (lodging).
The killer established a permanent residence in the area after the first killing, going to any length or expense to secure this room. It was the perfect room; private and with a basin of water - and the room used following his first great "triumph". In order to derive the maximum satisfaction, he had to be assured that his 'lair' would allow him to complete his gratification after each murder. The room was located in the vicinity of Whitechapel High Street (1)(6). He reserved, and paid, for this room ahead of time, and it went vacant on or about October 19th, his ship being detained in New York by Hurricane 7 (October 8 - 12).
The killings provided complete sexual satisfaction and the Whitechapel area provided many easy targets of opportunity (3). Whitechapel also offered the killer a great degree of safety, comfort and security (4). New York, on the other hand, did not provide such easy targets, and he did not have secure lodging there. He did not kill there, and was extremely agitated at the delay occuring in October.
It is unknown whether the killer wrote any of the letters. He had little interest in public acclaim, though he was aware of it. He discussed the crimes with other officers aboard the ship. Since he was shy, he was perceived as being obsessed with the topic. His fellow shipmates noted that the killings coincided with their stays in London. They became suspicious of him.
He increased his knowledge of human anatomy in order to better recount, to himself, the results of his actions. He was aware that he had been seen near one or more victims, though he was never formally interviewed by the police (5).
After the Mary Kelly killing, an on-board incident cemented the suspicions against him. They became afraid of him. They dumped him into the North Atlantic. Since they had committed murder, no one reported this as anything other than an accident.
Some personal belongings, left behind in Whitechapel, were sold to pay his rent when he did not return.”
(1) Bob Hinton, Nov. 18
(2) Brenna Idle, Nov. 19
(3) Michael Conlon, Nov. 18
(4) Stephen Hill, Nov. 17
(5) Robert Maloney, Nov. 19
(6) Chris Zimmerman, Nov. 25
I think that this represents the current views expressed in this thread. Obviously, certain items are included since they are researchable (ie. provable or disprovable). I don't include any of the speculations about other things related to the crimes, since these have been exhausted elsewhere. The purpose here is to continually challenge and refine the assumptions. |
Author: Jack Baily
Friday, 04 January 2002 - 01:17 pm | | So...
We lost the most recent direction of the thread, but nothing had been compiled. If anyone would like to summarize where we were at, that would be great! We had discussed Sadler and LaBruckman. We had looked at hop-picking as an explanation for the killer's absence in October (proved to be unworkable as an explanation), but were looking for other occupations that could account for the month of October.
Currently, we are waiting for Michael Conlon to summarize his new information regarding LaBruckman. Officially, we are the "No Specific Suspect" thread. We attempt to create the perfect hypothetical suspect, without any limitations. We look at someone like LaBruckman to see what he may add to our knowledge of the life and times of a certain type of person from this period. We did the same thing with Sadler. It was useful to know more about him, although he didn't look good as a suspect. If LaBruckman turns out to look better, this will be noted.
Hunting wild strawberries on an island off of Tijuana,
JB |
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 04 January 2002 - 09:23 pm | | Hi, Jack,
Sorry about your 'thread' being lost in the recent 'meltdown'.
I'll try to briefly summarize the main points of my recent article, "The Ripper In America", which has just appeared in the December "Ripperologist".
It has been known for some time that a murder closely resembling a 'Ripper' slaying occurred in a seedy section of New York City on April 23, 1891. The victim was a 60 year old prostitute named Carrie Brown, nicknamed "Old Shakespeare", and she was found slain in the East River Hotel on the morning of April 24,1891. Contemporary press speculation was rife with the notion that Jack the Ripper had come to America. Reports of the exact nature of the mutilations were part of my recent discoveries and I think they settle the question of why the press was so insistent in its JTR conjecture. Brown had been 'ripped' from the pubic area to the breast, had been disemboweled, her entrails had been torn out and scattered over the bed and "...there was the same abstraction or attempted abstraction of certain organs."
The only good witness the police had was a prostitute named Mary Miniter who had assisted Carrie Brown and her companion obtain a room. Her description of the man,though sketchy, is consistent with equally concise accounts of the Ripper. Miniter described the man as being about five feet eight inches tall, about thirty years old, with brown hair, a brown moustache, and a sharp nose, wearing a derby hat and a cutaway coat. He looked foreign and from the few words he spoke, she thought he must, indeed, have been a foreigner.
The head of the N.Y.C. Detective Dept., Inspector Thomas Byrnes headed the investigations, and for reasons outlined in my article, apparently felt more compelled to make a quick arrest and declare the case closed rather than to assiduously and accurately pursue justice. Early on in the case, a man named Ammer Ben Ali was arrested as a material witness in the case, being present in the hotel on the night of the murder and closely associated with the man who was the prime suspect. This man, Arbie La Bruckman, was known as Ali's cousin (although there is no evidence of a biological relation) and was identified by Miniter as the man who brought Brown to the hotel and accompanied her to the room. He became the object of a massive police search but eluded detection for some time. During this period, there was a public outcry to find the culprit and the press were persistent in their criticism of Byrnes for a variety of reasons. Suddenly, Byrnes announced that they were charging Ali with the murder, that Miniter's identification of La Bruckman was no longer valid, and that new, incriminating evidence in the form of a hitherto unnoticed blood trail leading from Brown's room to Ali's room had rather miraculously materialized. It was sometime after this blood evidence appeared (and the police were then committed to their perjurious course of action) that La Bruckman was found and arrested in New Jersey. This presented the N.Y.P.D. with an obvious dilemma, so they changed the description of the wanted man, dismissed and slandered the veracity of Miniter and following a purely pro forma interview of La Bruckman, released him.
The press, however, learned that the New Jersey police had been tipped off to La Bruckman by an anonymous tipster who told an extraordinary story about La Bruckman's arrest in London in 1889 on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer.
The long and the short of it is, that the papers were thrown into paroxysms of journalistic joy at this startling revelation and there followed a series of reports, investigations and interviews with La Bruckman himself which confirmed that this report was, apparently, true.
La Bruckman was a cattle boat slaughterman who worked for the National Line for fourteen years crossing back and forth between New York and London. He was known to cut up injured cattle while they were still alive, the horror of his fellow sailors being compounded by his obvious delight in this sadism. La Bruckman was arrested in London sometime around the end of 1889 on suspicion of being the Whitechapel killer and, according to his account, was tried and acquitted of the charge. The anonymous New Jersey tipster and press investigations claim only that he was arrested on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer and, after being detained for sometime between 2 weeks and 1 month, was released. La Bruckman claimed that, upon his release, the British Government compensated him with 100 Pounds in cash and a new suit of clothes. This presents an interesting possible avenue of investigation, as records may exist somewhere for governmental money paid out in such circumstances.
Anyway, in addition to several other facts which may link La Bruckman with JTR, I was able to establish that National Line cattle boats were in port in London during each of the Ripper slayings.
My research is ongoing and I am hopeful that there are many more sources of info. out there in regard to this case, but those are the bare bones of my article. I hope this is of help to you, Jack.
Best Regards,
Mike |
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 04 January 2002 - 09:59 pm | | Hello,again,Jack,
Just a quick addendum to the above. I omitted a salient bit of info. La Bruckman was born in Morocco, looked "foreign", spoke with an accent and matched Miniter's description of the wanted man (after providing the initial description, Miniter later recalled that the man with Brown was the 'cousin' of Ameer Ben Ali, Arbie La Bruckman.
Thanks |
Author: Jack Baily
Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 01:03 am | | Michael,
Great. Thanks for taking the time to give us a write-up! Did I see somewhere that the Nat'l Line were steamers that made this trip in six days? Also, what sort of pay would a cattleboat slaughterman earn? How many men on the crew of these boats? Did they ordinarily retain permanent apartments - or have the means to do so? Any idea as to what grounds the London police might have had for his arrest (if true)?
He seems to be somewhat outgoing and to enjoy what notoriety he can get, if I'm reading this right. Talking to the media, performing sadistic acts in front of shipmates... Does this match our idea of a quiet/shy individual who might be considered obsessed with these crimes by those who knew him? In fact, clearly there were people with strong opinions on LaBruckman. Where did the notion that he was known to cut up cattle come from?
And - in the spirit of remaining hypothetical - how can we better refine our perfect suspect by looking at LaBruckman?
"Reading a newspaper" in the lobby of the Mark Hopkins,
JB |
Author: Michael Conlon
Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 01:07 pm | | oooHi Jack,
I'll endeavor to answer some of your questions.
I don't know what pay a cattle boat drover or slaughterman would have made, but apparently La Bruckman had some seniority and was a foreman of some sort, so it may be assumed he made more than the average wages.
Similarly, I don't know what size crew cattle boats of the National Line would have had, but, according to Lloyd's Register, in terms of tonage, National Line ships were apparently much larger than the norm, their heaviest being 3,022 tons, their lightest being 2,419 tons. In the same register I find other ship weights to average around 700 or 800 tons. Extrapolating from this, I imagine they had relatively large crews.
Again I must profess ignorance concerning your next question. I don't know if it was normal for crew to procure rooms on their 'layovers' in foreign ports. I tend to think that they domeciled on board ship. La Bruckman was known,however, to work in slaughterhouses in or near his ports of call and may have had lodgings in the immediate area of work. It is also known that La Bruckman possessed no fixed abode (although he apparently had a mother and sister who lived on Water Street not far from the Brown murder site) and that he stayed in rooming houses and cheap hotels in New York and New Jersey (he was living in a rooming house in Jersey City when he was arrested by New Jersey police).
La Bruckman was apparently arrested in London in 1889 (to answer your next question) on suspicion concerning the Whitechapel killings. I have found no more details about this. One interesting report that may relate to this arrest (which was kindly pointed out to me by Stewart Evans , who felt is was too close to be coincidence) states that around the same time that La Bruckman was arrested, a British newspaper reported, "During the past few days there has been an increase in vigilance on the part of the East London police owing to 'information received'. A number of police have been watching some cattle boats which have just arrived from the United States, and a very sharp lookout is being kept at night in the neighborhood where the recent tragedies were committed by Jack the Ripper."
I don't think we can conclude that La Bruckman was "outgoing" or enjoyed his new found notoriety. The press tracked La Bruckman down and cornered him at his lodging house when they obtained their interviews, and La Bruckman, while admitting that he had been arrested in London on suspicion of being the Whitechapel killer (as the press had discovered), was quick to point out that he was exonerated. He was not someone who was looking to achieve fame by coyly insinuating that he had something to do with the killings (as some people occasionally do in high profile crime cases).
The story about cutting up cattle came from the anonymous tipster who alerted the papers and the New Jersey police to La Bruckman's arrest in London. Whoever this person was, he was able to dig up quite a bit of info. on La Bruckman and this makes me wonder out loud if perhaps this tipster was connected with Scotland Yard, as it is known that Scotland Yard men were in New York and New Jersey on Ripper related business.
As for applying all this to your hypothetical suspect, I leave that end of things up to you, Jack.
I hope this has been helpful!
Mike |
Author: Michael Conlon
Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 01:15 pm | | Hi, again, Jack,
The "oooHi'" intro. to my last post was a typo and should not be construed as moaning, groaning or singing. I'm quite happy to answer your questions.
Mike (somewhere on the sunny side of the street) |
Author: Jack Baily
Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 02:35 pm | | oooH-Howdy!
There is certainly a lot known about this character after all these years, and he looks like someone we should try to disprove. Anyone care to try? If it's true that he was arrested and released, that information should be obtainable. Why did they suspect him in the first place? A tip from a shipmate? Obviously, police interviews with shipmates would be the source of the animal cruelty stories.
We've suggested that the killer likely had a criminal record prior to the crimes. He may have committed other violent acts against women, though this was very common in the area. Our hypothetical suspect would have been known to the police for earlier acts.
"Jack's Lair" (one of our popular assumptions) states that the killer would derive the maximum gratification by having a very safe and specific place to retreat to after a crime. Isn't it logical that the killer would have established a similar locale before committing other crimes? What was his place in New Jersey like? Wouldn't it make sense that it might be similarly arranged to his Whitechapel lair? At least, he would attempt to recreate it - and be disappointed if he could not do this. New Jersey seems too far to have been a first choice.
Could family members of LaBruckman have tipped off police - possibly to protect themselves? It seems that his shipmates were afraid of him. Could they have tossed him overboard? Any records of him being alive after 1891?
Question: What is it about LaBruckman that does not fit the crimes? Any responses welcome~!
From an undisclosed location beneath Vatican City,
JB |
Author: Jack Baily
Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 02:54 pm | | HELP WANTED!
This entire thread, "New Assumptions, New Suspect" was lost in the crash. It contained over 230 messages, about a third of which I had backed up. Periodically, I would compile a summary of what had been discussed. These have been reposted. If you're familiar with our thread, please help jog our memory as to recent posts. Any other opinions are also very welcome. Help us get back on track!
Thanks in advance,
JB |
Author: Jack Baily
Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 10:55 pm | | What's Wrong With La Bruckman?
From the perspective we've developed here, (which is subject to revision), there may be some things wrong with La Bruckman as a JtR suspect. The fact that everyone who knew him was afraid of him may or may not fit our profile. What troubles me most is that La Bruckman appears to be a vicious drunk and someone recklessly out of control (I know I'm inferring a lot from very little information). Still, if this were the case, would this be the type of person to pre-plan a place to return to after his crimes? ("Jack's Lair") Probably not, and his actions following the crimes were predicatable, we have inferred. Are we wrong in this assumption?
Unfortunately, there has been no discussion in this thread as to the role of alcoholism in the killings. Is it likely that the killer was a raging drunk, or someone of more controlled temperance? There is information on the 'Carrie Brown' victim thread that suggests that he might have continued drinking after the New York killing before returning to his room at a farm he worked on. In that case he was carrying a pail of beer. What about Whitechapel? Could the killer have cleaned himself with alcohol rather than water, so to speak? Is there a scenario in which this would not have aroused suspicion if done publicly? Or is "Jack's Lair" intact?
Well, it appears that La Bruckman can help us refine our assumptions after all :-)
JB |
Author: Jack Baily
Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 02:11 pm | | Just To Summarize:
This thread seems to have run its course. We developed a few ideas which may have been helpful. I - like others I now correspond with via email - generally agree that the crimes are not solvable. In this thread (now lost) was also posed a challenge:
"Can anyone propose a scenario, any scenario, in which these crimes are actually solved?"
At a time when the thread was fairly active, only two individuals attempted to answer this, plus myself. Many more people opted to argue the validity of the question itself; what did I mean by "solved", etc. In other words, the question was heavily dodged.
As a newcomer to JtR, I had started the thread because none of the known suspects looked that good. I wondered, "Why not create the perfect suspect and see if this might lead to a real person?" It did not do so (although the sailor mentioned above merits a closer look). So...
Still in place is my belief that a sailor on a shipping route to New York best fits the timing of the killings. We've had quite a few posts saying, "I disagree", but none that offer a better alternative. So that particular assumtion did stand the test of more than 200 postings to the thread. Thanks to all who participated~!
From Antarctica (see ya on GPS!),
JB |
Author: Jeff D
Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 04:11 pm | | Hello Jack,
At the risk of great ridicule, I do believe I can put forth a scenario along with a name that has not yet been put into the mix with an argument that fits in absolutely perfectly with the known facts and evidence. (I can hear all of your moans and groans now :-)
No-one could ever state they could gain a proper conviction for pre-meditated murder against any Ripper suspect, however I do sincerely believe I have an excellent case with a great deal of circumstancial evidence and witness corroboration that if nothing else satisfies my own curiosity better than any previous work of fact or fiction.
All shall be revealed in the fullness of time, and please... this is not an empty boast or attention grabbing headline such as the recent W Sickert example. I have focussed on this particular aspect of the crimes for a considerable time (nearly 2-years now) and have worked very hard to prove this persons non-involvement but the more I look the stronger a suspect this person becomes.
There are a few things I would like to run past some friends here on these boards before I attempt to go into further detail, but I am quite excited as this is a name that would be familiar to all JtR devote's and yet previously only thought of as someone on the periphery, exactly the type of character I had always thought would be a credible suspect.
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Jack Baily
Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 05:11 pm | | Jeff,
Life is short - take the risk! I did. [Though mine was lost in the crash, I can repost it if anyone is interested.] "All shall be revealed in the fullness of time..." is more of the evasiveness this challenge seems to elicit, as you note. Better to submit a weak scenario and then refine it, I would suggest. Here's what I found:
Writing up a scenario forces you to look at the weaknesses in your theory. To see where the holes are. Then, you can refocus the research. Mine ended in a Scotland Yard endorsement, which I think is the only ending that makes sense. If you can't get there, you have not imagined it all the way through. (Just look at Patricia Cornwell).
Resorting to dynamite to complete the excavation,
JB |
Author: Jeff D
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 05:26 am | | Hi Jack ! :-)
I believe there is enough information out there today to offer a good psychological profile of the killer, we can give a reasonable physical description of the killer, and we can virtually give his address...... and ..... his name is ........ :-)
Naming the killer would not really serve to strengthen the case I have built at this time. I do hope you don't think I'm just another crackpot and I hope to be able to explain my theories on these boards where I have always tried to be careful not to make wild unfounded claims. I would like to discuss some of these aspects on these boards before I do offer what I understand to be a very credible motive, supported by a strong, common thread that runs through all of these horrific killngs.
Jeff D |
Author: Jack Baily
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 11:25 am | | Jeff,
Until that time, the challenge stands:
"Can anyone propose a scenario, any scenario, in which these crimes are actually solved?"
Overlooking Wilshire Blvd's 'La Brea Tar Pits',
JB |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 06:44 pm | | Go for it Jeff,
Even if you've actually finally solved the case, many will disagree and try to tear your theory to pieces,so what have you got to lose?
Regards,
Mick |
Author: Jeff D
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 07:42 am | | HeYa Guys !
I know exactly what you mean and I do appreciate that it will take a great deal of fact, supporting documentation and clear, concise reasoning to convince many of the people who post here.
I have worked from the premise that the man who was JtR appears to have been very clever at covering his tracks after the murders. It is looking into events before the series of Whitechapel murders that I hope to provide a pursuasive argument that this kind of person, was very likely to have been the author of these crimes. "No way" was Polly Nichols (or Martha Tabram for that matter) the first time the killer had struck.
If I can provide an argument and proof that a particular individual had such a violent past along with circumstancial evidence and witness descriptions that fully supports these claims, I hope it could be considered as close as anyone could get to securing a theoretical conviction. Something that all theories so far put forth have fallen short and really failed to do.
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Jack Baily
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 12:23 pm | | Jeff,
Your last post is, essentially, a "Solution Scenario"! Congratulations. It describes a set of circumstance which would lead to these crimes being solved. It shows where the holes in the theory are, allowing the research to be focused. I consider it a good first draft of a scenario in which the crimes might be solved. We'll look forward to watching the scenario be refined and developed further 
Down to my last pith helmet (for this season),
JB |
Author: Jack Baily
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 12:45 pm | | "SOLUTION SCENARIO: Hypo-suspect"
[I wrote this up for the purely hypothetical suspect from this thread in order to show that such scenarios could, honestly, be attempted. I also made the assumption that anyone working on a named individual could do better - way better. These scenarios show how challenging this endeavor is. Does it suggest that a solution is impossible?]
1) Premise of scenario: A sailor on a shipping route to New York best accounts for the known facts of the 'Jack the Ripper' case.
2) How this was proven: It is discovered from shipping company records that a certain sailor, later listed as lost at sea, was in port at the time of each of the murders. His ship was detained in New York in early October by Hurricane 7 (October 8-12).
3)Now, having his name, we are able to show that he went to extraordinay lengths in reference to obtaining private lodgings during the time of the killings. We research his known associates and find that he fits many aspects of the assumptions already summarized in this thread.
4) Too much time has passed to ascertain with certainty his motive.
5) His private address is obtained, and it is found that he never returned to this address after mid-November, which matches the date he is listed as lost at sea. His belongings were sold to cover his rent. However, the landlord kept one item of uncommon interest, and this has been passed down through the family. It is the murder weapon which the family had always imagined - if only for their own enjoyment - belonged to the killer.
6) The possesor of this weapon discovers "The Casebook". He notes that the 'Hypo-suspect' is uncannily similar to the stories passed down through his family.
7) DNA evidence is gathered from the weapon. Scotland Yard agrees to perform additional testing, which confirms that this is the murder weapon. They officially concur with this solution to the case. It is reported as hard news - and generally accepted by the public - that the matter has been resolved.
There you have it
Beneath the hood of a Shelby Cobra (I CAN'T HEAR YOU!),
JB |
|
|
|
|
