|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 621
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 11:24 pm: |       |
Hi David
Just to clarify your posts above, no-one Cleckley studied was a serial sexual or lust murderer or, for that matter, even a murderer. Further, you admit you cannot point to a single case in the history of serial sexual or lust murders which involved even so much as a similar type of killer as you propose for your identification of JTR in terms of motivation and behavior.
Therefore, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Ripper murders were perpetrated by an individual unlike any who has ever been identified or studied. Thus, the JTR murders can only be understood by accepting that you are the only one who has, as yet, been capable of relating the garden variety psychopath with his sexually motivated serial killing brethren. Interesting!
All The Best
Gary
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1722
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 4:38 am: | |
Indeed, Gary. Indeed. Well put.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 277
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 7:19 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
I am right in thinking I have copyrighted this as i have written it are is the law different on the net or in the USA or am I just wrong?
Jennifer |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
"If I'm reading you correctly, I'm not sure the Ripper would have had Lusk specifically in mind when he took Kate's kidney (if that's what you're saying). It's my impression that Lusk didn't become a major figure in the press until after the Double Event. There was plenty of reward talk before in the papers, but I don't think Lusk really started pushing until October."
>>Not true. The Mile End Vigilance Committee was formed September 10 and immediately went into operation pushing for a reward. It was pasting up placards discussing rewards September 11.
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 5:44 am: | |
The following list of suspects has been organised using the latest profiling techniques.It qualifies David's arguements.
1. Quaker Oats,the cereal killer.A known religious crank.
2. 'Coco'.A Brazilian nut.
3. 'Peg'.The clothesline strangler.Of gypsey parentege.
4. Dr Spooner.A Bunny Fugger,a.k.a "Rack the Jipper'.A Whitechapel teacher.
5.'Vaseline'.A homosexual mutilator.His twisted mind can only be comprehended by a like minded violator.
All above should be regarded as dangerous,and if found living in a Jewish household,reported to police. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer,
I'm sorry but I am not well versed on copywrite law, so I can't help you with your question.
The point is that I just can't see (aside from his thesis) what is the point of David copywriting everything he put down on this board since he has published the thesis. I suspect it's ego ("I have solved the great mystery, so all my words are valuable") but I still am waiting for his explanation.
I am also waiting to know who John Taylor was.
Jeff |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 229
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Please note the theorist's May 1 post at 9:37 p.m. about the apron being cut in half. It is written in clear, concise language without recourse to confusing terms or ambiguities. As such, it is very instructive about the entire theory.
The theorist, who claims to have worked on his "solution" for years and to have documented everything, can't cite his source that the apron was cut in half. He thinks Paul Begg said that somewhere, maybe on the old boards. Not what you might expect from someone with the academic background of which he boasts.
Then we are told that if in fact the apron was not cut in half it was only ineptitude on the Ripper's part because he meant to do that. This is rigorous logic? When the Ripper does something really strange in order to fit the theory that is all right because he was a psychopath and they can do anything. And when the theory may not fit the evidence, well that is all right because the Ripper intended to do whatever the theorist says, but somehow just failed.
Solution? Pollution!
Don. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
David,
Thanks for bringing the placard to my attention, but those efforts were largely unsuccessful--they only managed about fifty pounds by 30 September, right? In my opinion, there's no reason for anyone to have placed much confidence in Lusk's ability to secure a reward, particularly before 30 September. The Committee just never raised much money.
There is the 27 September petition to the Queen, but if you want to influence that decision, why wait until the middle of October to act (something like a week and a half after the Home Office said no)?
It's worth noting that if the kidney was a message/threat to Lusk to encourage him to greater activity, it doesn't seem to have have communicated itself well. As far as I know, Lusk adopts a low profile after getting it. I've seen a reference (I think it's a brief sentence in the Telegraph or Star) that the V.C. was soliciting the public again for funds the end of October. By the time Mary Kelly is found, there are references that the Committee had disbanded.
Dave
(Message edited by Oberlin on May 02, 2004) |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 371
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
David,
The idea of someone living with two (or more) distinct personalities is not schizophrenia. You are describing a very controversial condition which is referred to as "Multiple Personality Disorder", or MPD. Schizophrenia refers to a collection of disorders, which are characterised by disturbed thinking, inapproprirate affect (meaning inapporiate emotional responses, for example laughing for no apparent reason), halluciniations (usually auditory, but can be visual; most common in paranoid sub-type), delusions (for example, thinking you are being watched through your TV by the CIA would be a delusion of persecution), and so on. Anyway, there was a really good listing of the diagnostic criterion that is used for schizophrenia. You might want to brush up a bit on the psychological disorders. It's a pet peeve of mine that people get MPD and schizophrenia mixed up.
- Jeff |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 775
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
I must differ here Jeff.
First multiple personality disorder is a disputed concept in the medical profession as far as I understand it.
second Dr Jekill and Mr Hyde is known as the novel about alcoholism not schizophrenia.
Best Natalie |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
1. "I have tried to imagine the mind of Jack the Ripper and what I see is a manic deppressive personality and a sociopath as well. People suffering from mental conditions can display a cocktail of deviations in their personality."
>>Imagining a cocktail is too subjective a matter on the part of the theorist to be a good one. You can imagine any kind of psychological conditions you want resident in a person who you haven't examined. But you'd have to apprehend and examine the individual to know exactly what kinds of problems he really does have. That is why a logically antecedent condition like psychopathy is a better guide and center for a person you can't examine. Since all psychopaths are similar, you have a more solid ground on which to base theory.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 8:41 pm: | |
"Unfortunately, I can't agree with David about the killer himself being Jewish, so I obviously don't think he has solved the case."
>>I don't think I'd want to have this as my epistemological center--the idea that whoever he was, the Whitechapel murderer must be a Gentile. It doesn't offer much to go on, I'm afraid. Thanks for the compliments, Caz.
|
D. radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
"...where is the proof that these markings (on Eddowes' face) were messages anyway? There is none."
>>The point about the markings on Eddowes' face is not limited to Eddowes' face--it goes beyond that. These markings appeared right after a witness remarked to a friend in passing by that there was maybe going to be trouble concerning the couple sighted in Mitre Square. Five minutes later, that very man was eviscerating that very woman in Mitre Square. A reasonable logical opposition applies to those markings.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 9:11 pm: | |
1. "Jack the Ripper was a lust murderer, and most known lust murderers generally don't perform their crimes on basis of such elaborate scheming -psychopaths or not."
>>The "elaborate scheming" is in your mind, not mine or Jack's. It seems to me you are trying to add all his projects together to see what his big scheme amounts to. That is not how psychopaths operate, however. He is not building anything up by all these antisocial actions, he is instead tearing himself down. He is making an ever-widening, careening trail of chaos. He is getting himself into more and more trouble, not completing an elaborate, well-designed plan. As he continues, he is going to need an ever-bigger miracle to pull himself out of disaster, he is not working toward a reasonable end in a rational manner. His actions are inadequately motivated.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
"...even though I can acknowledge the innovative essence of your approach - point out to you that parts of your scenario and attempts to personality analyses, are based on purely theoretical, non-empiric constructions in order to make the murderer fit your rather complex motives, not the general understanding of lust murderers."
>>As I've told you all before, if you walk down the primrose path of empirical-based lust murder as your center, you're going to find yourselves in an inescapable maze. Despite repeated attempts to edify him, Mr. Andersson seems locked into this misconception. Let me point out that psychopathy is a logically antecendent term compared to lust murderer--that's part of why I made it my center. Some lust murderers are psychopaths and others aren't--they are schizophrenics, psychotics, etc. Therefore in the term lust murderer Mr. Andersson has a mish-mash of psychological types which he nevertheless thinks speak univocally, with one voice.
In trying to solve a case, the police try to ballpark a rough typology for the perpetrator so they can close in on him. But they are in a position to adjust the profile at will whenever they get a break in the case. If they don't know yet what his psychological type is, they don't decide on that issue in their profiling.
The police method, empirical-based profiling, and so on are not designed to describe what anybody is really like, taken in and of himself. They are only a rough-hewn set of labels that can be applied and removed as the police get closer--a rough bogey or target to shoot at in a preliminary sense.
Because Mr. Andersson confines himself to working with a mish-mash of psychological types, he's never going to be able to solve the Whitechapel murders. He's never going to get that break in the case that will enable him to adjust the profile. The case is too old for that.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 9:26 pm: | |
"These types of murders are usually referred to in all literature and in the reality of police work as "motiveless" (meaning they are based on an urge to kill, mutilate and to act out the murderer's personal fantasies)...
>>I don't see where any position I've taken differs significantly from this one. I've said many times that the WM's crimes were inadequately motivated. We may be getting some confusion when we start talking about his desire to score the reward. Since this amounted to big money (assuming the Home Office were to kick into the pot,) a normal person might reflexively think that the murderer has an adequate motivation here. This would lead them to apply rationality to the murderer's personality, which in turn would differentiate him from the type of person who usually commits this type of crime. But a psychopath is incapable of taking ANYTHING seriously; even when dealing with a matter in which it would appear motivation were adequate, what HE does is still inadequately motivated.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 1:49 pm: | |
1. "I firmly believe that a psychopath could do all sorts of stuff that a sane person would not consider."
>>According to both psychiatric and legal definitions, psychopaths are regarded as 100% sane and responsible for their actions. They do not suffer from delusions or "mental illness." They are instead regarded as mis-developed, irrational personalities--profoundly disordered but not insane. The difference is that a "mentally ill" person often does not know what is the case, whereas a psychopath always does. No simple opposition should be drawn between sanity on the one hand and psychopathy on the other.
2. "I have asked him specifically about Levy and he has refused to answer, dodging away with lame excuses and arrogant attacks on my intelligence."
>>I believe I've answered all your questions since then in my troll through the archives. I am here to answer all reasonable questions, but have lots of work to do at this time, so it is slow. If there are any I haven't, please pose them again. I never attack your intelligence, Ally! I think you are a smart woman, fully capable of understanding my work.
3. "He told me to read Hare. Hare says that a psychopath never shows his true nature until long after his fly is deeply entangled in his web of manipulations. So it strains credibility to think that Levy, upon witnessing a brutal killing would fall instantly under the spell of the psychopath...BS and balderdash. He has yet to elaborate on any circumstances that would make this remotely credible."
>>The psychopath did not cast a spell on Levy in Duke Street. What he did was put him in an impossible position with respect to the police on the one hand and the Jewish community on the other. If Levy goes to the police and tells on the murderer, as far as Levy knows it's pogrom time, and all the Jews are blaming him! This has nothing to do with the "spell" of the psychopath--I think you are over-hastily reading Hare.
4. "I, personally, like David. The world would be a lot less interesting without the Davids of the world. But he is his own worst enemy (as we all are, I imagine)."
>>I like you too, Ally, and feel the same. And you are correct, I am surely one of the "Davids" of the world!
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
"...now that David has enlightened me about the "v"s underneath Catherines eyes[inverted]and pointing to a"one eye shut and the other eye open"[as in a wink] type of mutilation as message
Such could also mean "the One Eyed one is watching [all our movements and I am carrying out his commands].This "one eyed one"[a greater power]
is often symbolised thus in such schizophrenia and is one of its manifestations as I understand it[like the hearing of voices is another manifestation]"
>>Yes, the murderer could have been a schizophrenic and the carved marks could have been about the one-eyed one. But if you want to posit this, then you have to say something more than merely that you read it in a book about schizophrenia. You have go ahead and tie schizophrenia to and through the case evidence. Otherwise, you are carving up the case evidence into arbitrary bits, instead of predicating based on the whole. Your logic would be unsatisfactory.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 9:36 pm: | |
"There is no reason to believe in a complex motive like the one David offers in this case. If it was another psychopathic killer, like George Chapman etc. -- yes. But not someone who, in my view, mutilates to act out personal fantasies. It doesen't add up."
>>Chapman was a sociopath but not a psychopath. Basically what he did was get all he could out of a woman, then poison her to get rid of her, then start again with another woman. Although this behavior is hideously unconscionable, it makes too much sense to the ordinary man to be the work of a psychopath. It basically runs like a business. It is accumulative, Chapman profits long-term by it (as long as he doesn't get caught,) and he does it consistently. If Chapman were simply blowing the money he made off these women on trifles, behaving inconsistently with them, or so on, then he'd be a candidate for psychopathy.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
"Just imagine if Police Departments or Courts of Law were allowed to use Mr. Radka's definitions of 'solved' and 'evidence'."
>>Just imagine of the Met CID of 1888 were to be able to get a copy of my Summary. Don't you think the causes and effects presented there would give them a few cogent hints concerning who to investigate? So where are you coming from, claiming that I haven't solved the case?
Ripperology is a community of thinkers, not a police department.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
1. "Sure, it's very plausible, even likely, that the Ripper knew of George Lusk in September. But if he's truly thinking of him the night of the Double Event, why wait two weeks to drop off his package?"
>>Read the Summary. It says that the murderer sent the package to Lusk as a reaction to Matthews pronouncing that any decision on a reward would not be related to anything beyond the inner workings of his department and staff. The pronouncement means that no matter what Lusk says, no matter what the Queen herself says, in the future all reward consideration is an inside deal--his department only. Since the murderer is relying on Lusk to push the Home Office so hard that it gives in and puts up a reward, the mrderer interprets this pronouncement as the end of Lusk's effectiveness. He thinks Lusk will now follow Matthews' directive and shut up. The letter and packagage is designed to so terrify him that he doesn't shut up, and instead renews his efforts to get the Home Office to put up a reward despite having been cut out of the loop. I provide dates of letters in the Summary to back this position up.
2. "Interesting about the tailoring symbols being different. If as you say, some are universal--images of these are what I suggest you use, if you ever revise. As a reader, the comparison falls a little flat for me--not because I necessarily disagree, but because I'm not familar with these symbols and so don't know what you mean. As the author of A.R., it's your job to guide me."
>>You're getting way too cute and fancy here. We're talking about how a psychopath uses tailoring symbols under extreme conditions of time pressure, not the official or proper use of tailoring symbols as promulgated by some authoritive organization like the U.S. Department of Weights and Measures. Perhaps he made up his own tailoring symbols right on the spot, or adapted what he had seen at his local tailor's shop. He needed symbols at the time, so he projected himself through a tailoring motif to get what he wanted. I wouldn't want to hold him down to official requirements.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 7:58 pm: | |
1. "...a psychopathic killer would not try and "ensure a witness". The whole notion that the killer is trying to make sure he is spotted at two murders is not something a psychopath would do. A psychopath is a rational thinker along these lines and goes to great lengths to ensure they are not spotted."
>>Truly this writer has no idea of whence he speaks. The essence of the psychopathic personality is a gross irrationality concerning what it thinks it is capable of accomplishing. Erraticalness, fearlessness, inconsistency, apparent purposelessness of actions, and self-contradiction of chosen aims are typical.
This kind of post is increasingly typical of this thread. They are being made by people whose egos are bigger than their knowledge about psychopaths. All they need do is obtain a copy of Cleckley's "Mask of Sanity" for a remedy.
Copyright david M. Radka, 2004 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 5:39 pm: | |
1. "Psychopaths are not delusional in their thinking, meaning they do know very well how to avoid getting caught, and though they can do very nasty things (like mutilation murders) they also go to great lengths to do them in a manner that does not put them at risk of capture. And, if they are going to send messages, they make sure these messages are clear."
>>What a cartoon! Not only a caricature of reality, but a false one at that! A psychopath is an extreme narcissist with a grossly overrated view of what he can accomplish. He sees himself as the center of the universe in an egocentrical way, with the rest of the world being his oyster. His planning is typified as self-ruinous, self-contradictory and self-disintegrative in nature. Let's get this straight: HE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DELUSIONAL TO BE SELF-RUINOUS. For the psychopath, his utter ruination of his own and others' lives is a delicacy to be savored with relish and pursued single-mindedly as the real purpose of existence. His attitude is fundamentally anti-life on all counts. Thus the murderer overrates his ability to avoid capture by doing the murders as he does, and he overrates his ability to communicate as he attempts to do. All of this is dead-center typical psychopathy.
2. "The notion that the cuts on Eddowes face are tailor's marks intended to send a message to Levy, however, is not a way a rational thinking person would send Levy a message. Psychopaths are not irrational in their thinking, at least not in this kind of a way."
>>I agree, the THINKING of psychopaths is rational. Their BELIEF IN WHAT THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH is irrational. So what's your problem?
I think you need to spend several months of your spare time studying Cleckley's case histories, where exactly what I'm claiming will become clear to you.
3. "I admit, deciding that killing and mutilating someone is an activity worth doing does not seem a rational choice; but doing so because you are angry is "rational" but doing so because you believe that you need to replace your blood because it's evaporating, is not."
>>Where did I claim our killer had delusions? I never did. He did not think his blood was evaporating. You need to reread my Question #39 to get straight in your mind what aspects of his behaviors were organized and disorganized, respectively.
>>Most of your other points are covered in responses I have previously made.
4. "...As does the interpretation of the word "Juwes". A psychopath is just not going to risk his message getting misunderstood by presenting it in a sentence that almost guarentee's it will be interpreted as an antisemetic message. Again, for someone to believe that his "true message" will be obvious to others indicates that the "writer" is delusional about what others will see."
>>You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what psychopathy is. Its basic nature is passing right by your mind. I urge you to devote yourself to studying it in depth before you jump to wrong conclusions. A psychopath is capable of living his life as what would be perceived by normal people as a madman, despite an absence of delusions on his part. The psychopath in this case is merely pompously overconfident in the efficacy of his intended communications.
5. "However, it is at this point that David suggests a change in motive for the killer. The original motive, which is that a psychopath gets angry at his female spouse and then goes out and kills women in order to express his anger, is the kind of thing that psychopaths have been known to do;..."
>>Psychopaths are incapable of real anger--it is too deep and complex an emotion for them. Additionally, they do not "express" their inner feelings as normal people do, they in fact simply externalize. You are thinking wrongly here.
6. ..."coupled with sexual fantasies associated with violence and such as well. I seen no reason why this motive has to change. The entire series could maintain this initial motivation, and as such "work".
>>But then what about the evidence? Don't you want to account for that? The Leather Apron affair, the double event, the Lusk letter--what do you want to do, throw them all away?
Copyright David M. radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 8:27 pm: | |
1. "So where was Aaron living at the time of the murders? If this can be established, then according to your theory, the home of the killer is found."
>>There is no evidence to indicate where Aaron was living during the Terror.
2. "Now we have a definite direction in which the killer was heading after Eddowes Murder, as he dropped a piece of Eddowes apron in Goulston street. I only hope for your sake that he was heading in the direction of Aaron’s home."
>>How would you know which direction he was "heading" in just by the location of the apron? He could have bounced in 20 different directions in the 40+ minutes before the graffitus appeared, and 20 more before he went home after placing the apron. He wrote the graffitus in the Jewish street market to have an impact on that when it would open shortly. The location does not indicate any direction in which he was "heading."
3. "When Stephen Knights book arrived in the 1970’s, he also thought he had found the final solution, within a year you could drive a bus through the holes in it. I suspect the same thing will happen to your theory."
>>Based on what, may I ask? Who is the real blowhard here?
4. "One thing though that had me thinking. Regarding the markings on Eddowes eyes being the marks used by tailors. They could be, and I’m surprised that you missed the point that a thimble was also found just by one of her fingers. It’s always been my opinion that the killer placed this thimble on Eddowes finger, it being knocked off by the departing killer or one of the discoverers of the body. Couldn’t think of why he had placed a thimble on her finger, in the end I put it down to juvenile devilment. Combining it with your tailors marks under the eyes gave it new meaning however."
>>No "new meaning" applies here. Eddowes carried a sewing kit on her person. The thimble was very likely her own, and she merely had a habit of wearing it on her finger. There is no evidence the murderer placed it on her finger.
5. "One further thing about Eddowes, she did apparently confide to someone that she knew the identity of JTR, had your Psychopath met Eddowes on a previous occasion and spun her a yarn about the identity of JTR ,could your Psychopath have arranged to meet her in Aldgate High Street on the night of her murder?"
>>No evidence indicates this. He could have easily picked her up at St. Botolph's Church, or really just anywhere walking.
6. "Come to think of it did he also arrange to meet Stride in Berner Street? He might just of arranged to meet these two, in order to murder them near to the two Jewish Clubs."
>>He placed Stride at the IWEC to be attacked there, yes. The two may have walked to the IWEC together.
7. "Did he carefully arrange a timeset, whereby he arranged to meet Eddowes shortly after murdering Stride?"
>>He was basically guided by when he thought he could get a Jewish witness leaving the Imperial Club. He was at Church Passage more or less for closing time. I don't think meeting Eddowes had anything to do with it.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004 |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 373
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 11:17 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Yes, MPD is a highly disputed condition. That's what I intended when I referred to it as controversial, but I should have been more specific. There are those who believe that no such condition ever occurs, and the reported cases are due to overly zealous therapists, while others believe it is even more common than currently reported. And, just for fun, there are those who believe just about every possible weighting of those two extremes.
David made a comment in one of his posts about someone living with two distinct personalities inside them, and called this schizophrenia. I was just pointing out to him that his understanding of schizophrenia is incorrect, and that what he was describing was MPD. Also, and I didn't make this clear enough, that acording to some, MPD does not even "exist".
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on May 02, 2004) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
