|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Daniel M.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 1:34 am: |       |
If you think about it, Tumblety is the closest to the Ripper than any other suspect. So many things lead to him. He is one of the few suspects who was actually being "watched" by the police.
I'm just amazed at how he is not a top suspect.
All the things against him can be knocked down.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 374
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 6:45 pm: | |
Hi Daniel
I'll gladly give my opinion on problems with Tumblety as a suspect. Too old; too tall; too flamboyant; too gay(serial killers usually kill the race, sex and sexual orientation which represent the object of their obsession/fantasy); too much of a publicity hound; too openly eccentric and noticeably unbalanced.
Tumblety was a contemporary suspect, but he managed to make himself a suspect for all kinds of scams and schemes, wherever he went.
All The Best
Gary |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 4:43 am: | |
Hi Daniel and Gary,
In addition to his age and height, we have very little - if anything - by way of tales from women at the receiving end of any physical violence from the quack doc.
A deep hatred of women, resulting in the slit throats and mutilated innards of the Whitechapel victims, yet no hint of a history of physical assault on females apart from plying them with potions and pills?
I find that as hard to swallow and as ineffective as his own herbal pimple remedy.
Love,
SceptiCaz
|
Daniel M.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 8:51 am: | |
Caroline,
He hated women! He kept jars of there specimens. His face turned red when someone asked him why no women were present at dinner. It seemed like he hated them enough to kill them.
Does a serial killer have to hurt or kill before he kills?
I'm sure there have been many serial killers before with a peacful past before they killed.
Did James Kelly show any violence towards his wife? Not until he killed her. |
Daniel M.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 7:41 pm: | |
Gary,
Too old? Perhaps he looked younger. Just how George Chapman looked older.
Too tall? He could have easily slouched down naturally or on purpose.
Too gay? Didn't he have a wife or girlfriend at some point? He did sell porogrophy when he was young. So he was bisexual. Also, he showed enough disgust towards women to seem like he wanted to kill them. I'm sure there have been gay men that have murdered women.
Too flamboyant/eccentric? Yes, he got stares everywhere he went, but when he was escaping detection from London to the U.S., no one said they noticed him on the ship.
When he was being noticed, he was trying to be noticed, like most people try to be. He could play “low key” when needed to. Just like when he was committing the murders and escaping to the States.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 380
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 12:45 am: | |
Hi Daniel
I don't want to come across as too flippant regarding Dr. T. Uncovering him as suspect was an impressive bit of detective work by Mr. Evans and Mr. Gainey. However, there are problems with his candidacy as JTR. He was at least 55 years old during 1888 and he looked it. Check the picture of him in 1889 which he placed on the cover of one of his booklets.
This picture is also a good indication of his flamboyance. He has cultivated a huge handlebar mustache and he appears to be dressed in some odd form of military dress, complete with gold braiding and medals. He could be used in a dictionary to illustrate the word ostentatious.
You say he wanted to be noticed just as everyone wants to be noticed. I don't particularly care whether I am noticed in public. If I was a serial killer I would be even more circumspect in my behaviour and my desire to blend into my environment. The last thing I would do would be to act in such a way as to call attention to myself. As you say he was flamboyant and eccentric and got stares everywhere he went.
Perhaps he could play it low key, as you say, when he wanted: But I have read numerous accounts of his physical bearing and he was at least 6 feet tall. One account that Chris Scott produced of him had him at 6'4". Suffice it to say he was well above the average height for his day and would have stood out in any crowd.
Contemporary descriptions of the man likely to be the ripper point to a much shorter, stoutish man with, quite possibly, a light trimmed mustache. Even if these witnesses are 100% wrong, a man of Dr. T.'s bearing would have stood out like a sore thumb.
He may have married, he is listed as a widower on his death certificate, but this information would have come from an indidual or individuals he had told about a wife and he was a pathological liar. No-one really seems to recall seeing him in regular company with a woman or even women in general. I do agree that he probably had repressed hatred for women.
We do know that he was arrested two days before the Kelly murder and was charged with gross indecency and assault against four men. I can recall reading the legal definitions of the charges against him and it is safe to say the assults were sexual in nature. The statute can be found on the message boards of the casebook.
Evan Srewart Evans and Paul Gainey are forced to admit that he may have been at the very least bisexual. They base this on his sexual relations with a man known to be bisexual. They then posit that he may have been of the same class of killer as another bisexual killer they mention. The problem with this reasoning is that, as far as we know, the ripper only killed women. I cannot state it with certainty but if the object of his seual desire included men, it seems he would have killed them. Similar perhaps to The Cleveland Torso killer in the 1930's. There was speculation that this killer was bisexual because he murdered women as well. If his desire was for younger men then he would have killed in a fashion similar to Wayne Williams, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy.
I believe we should move any more discussion to the Suspects board and the Tumblety as a suspect thread.
All Ther Best
Gary |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 647
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 7:14 pm: | |
Gary,
An excellent account with very fine reasoning.
I must say, though, that I like to be noticed in public and is somewhat of an exhibitionist, but then we are all different in our own ways. However, I don't think Jack the Ripper was an exhibitionist, most likely the complete opposite.
As far as Tumblety's mustache is concerned, there have been speculations about them being "fakes" because one of them - on one picture - is bent upwards and the other one downwards. Let me just point out as a curiosity (I have done so once before), that men in those days - especially those with large mustaches - used mustache wax, a very thick and shapeble white wax that is quite tough and makes is easily shaped in any form necessary. It then hardens after a few minutes in the open air, thanks to the oxygen. I know because I use it myself. When my mustache isn't cut down, I can do practically everything with it. 
And I agree, I hate to bother people here with psychological reasoning, but a serial killer or lust murderer mostly attacks those who belong to the sex that represents their sexual fears. frustration and attraction. If Tumblety was bisexual, he would most likely kill men as well.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 139
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 3:15 am: | |
Hello All,
I have been wondering if some of the more difficult-to-pin-down suspects might not have committed lesser or related crimes, pale imitations - or even written the countless hectoring JTR letters .
And in this way have been linked to the Ripper crimes in the minds of investigators. Although these suspects might not have actually been the Ripper.
To my way of thinking, a loud, bi-sexual,
American giant seeking to add to his collection of female sexual organs, wandering about in the seediest part of a foreign city, would have to have been mighty cunning to cover his tracks AND conceal his dangerous tendencies.
The fact he was American and sought to collect
uteri are the only factors which might suggest
guilt, in my mind.As was Dr Wentworth-Bell.
I always think of that striking poster of James Dean, Elvis and Marilyn Monroe seated at a diner or drug-store. Surely, given the roll-call of celebrity suspects allegedly hacking and murdering down-at-heel East End women...the streets of Whitechapel must have resembled a veritable Who's Who of well-known,blood-stained personages. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 654
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Hi John,
Interesting thoughts, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some of the suspects on our list had been involved in some minor crimes. If we look at some if the hoax letters, one can at least assume that not all of these writers can't be regarded as mentally "healthy" (altough a great deal of them indicates a high intelligence level), and one hopes that their fantasies stopped at just being -- fantasies. We know that a couple of these authors were exposed but we have no confirment of the identity of the greatest majority of these hundreds of letters. And even if the individuals on our long list of suspects most certainly weren't Jack the Ripper, they very well could have been involved in sinister affairs.
Regarding Tumblety's collection of uteruses, we don't even have that point confirmed in any evidence -- this detail is obviously (according to Evans himself) originating from a second-hand source or unverified witness statement, so that could very well just be another hoax as a part of the Tumblety myth. The strongest -- or rather the only -- reason for his suspicion is, in my view, the fact that the police were so interested in him that they followed him all the way to the United States.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Brad McGinnis
Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 45
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 10:03 pm: | |
Hi John,
I have seen the poster to which you refered, except the version I saw had Brando too. I have have never figured this out unless Brando is dead and no one told him.One of lifes true mysteries.
Brad |
Daniel M.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 5:44 pm: | |
Glenn and Gary,
Why do we always have to go into profiling?
I have my own conclusion I got from profiling: Each victim during 1888 got murdered by a family member. That is what profiling says doesn't it?
Your conclusions are being drawn by this profiling nonsense. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 664
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 1:29 pm: | |
No, I don't draw every conclusion from profiling "nonsense", Daniel. That is a total misconception. I base them on my own deductions from what I see and from common sense, as well as from what we know today about most known serial killers. I can actually think for myself, Daniel, without indulging in ready-made formulas, as you imply -- I am not a theorist and never will be!
That kind of easy arguments is really pathetic and annoying, Daniel. Why don't you comment my points regarding Tumblety instead, which is what this thread is all about?
"I have my own conclusion I got from profiling: Each victim during 1888 got murdered by a family member. That is what profiling says doesn't it?"
I don't want this thread too be turned into yet another profiling discussion, so I won't ask how how you reached that dazzling conclusion based on profiling, because that is totally uncomprehensible.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 11, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Daniel M.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 1:00 am: | |
Glenn,
I think that YOU misconcepted something. I never stated that you drew every conclusion from profiling. I just stated that SOME of your points were being drawn by profiling when you were talking with Gary and John.
You state that you base your own deductions from what you see and commonsense, and also by today's serial killers. By looking at today's serial killers and comparing them to JTR, aren't you profiling? If so, why do you get all angry when I say some of your conclusions are drawn by it? You just stated some of them were, but in a different way.
I'm confused.
MY commonsense tells me that Tumblety had enough hatred to kill women. He cursed them and kept jars of their specimens. Remember, JTR took some from the victims he killed.
Just because he was maybe gay, you shouldn't conclude atomically, that because of profiling, there could be no possibility that he killed women. Zero chance. That's what my commonsense is telling me.
I can actually think for myself too. I just thought for myself when I typed those above statements. And I’m thinking for myself right now. I did not get any of those ideas from profiling either. But I don't understand what those "ready made formulas" are.
Glenn, what argument of mine is pathetic and annoying?
I never was the one to initially start talking about profiling. Didn't you say,
"I hate to bother people here with psychological reasoning, but a serial killer or lust murderer mostly attacks those who belong to the sex that represents their sexual fears. frustration and attraction. If Tumblety was bisexual, he would most likely kill men as well"
Kill men as well? So you’re saying he could kill women too? Didn’t women represent his frustration?
You simply brought it up and I'm responding to it. How can we just forget about profiling? It's part of this thread.
How was your "dazzling" conclusion reached when you said he would most likely kill men?
Should we just forget that Tumblety hated women because he was gay and would most likely (drawn by your conclusion) kill men?
I did comment on your points regarding Tumblety a couple days ago-you probably missed it.
Uncomprehensible?
I read that in many murders, a family member is a main suspect.
I got that from profiling, so it must be true.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 668
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 10:06 pm: | |
Hi Daniel,
Sorry for losing my patience in my earlier post, but it is not the first time that profiling has become a ball and chain for me here. Since I picked up on the profiling subject (when I first entered the boards), everybody seems to think that I get everything from Douglas & Co and can't make my own deductions. And I think your lines said it clear enough: "That is what profiling says doesn't it? Your conclusions are being drawn by this profiling nonsense." I believe that can't be misinterpreted, and I took that as an accusation. Maybe I over-reacted. But you're arguments regarding Tumblety or the case naturally isn't pathetic, they are as good as anybody elses, it was just that remark that was annoying to me.
Nevertheless, I just want to add, that my experiences here tells me that everytime profiling is injected in a thread as a subject, it totally invades and takes over the thread for good and although I find the subject personally intruiging, I don't wan't to be accused of manipulating the content of the threads. The only thing I did was mentioning that part about which sex male serial killers generally attacks in connection with their own sexuality. My intention was absolutely not to pick up on profiling here.
Now, regarding your other points, which I actually find very interesting;
-- Daniel, we don't need profiling to tell us that serial killers mostly tend to choose their victims among those who are the target for their sexuality. There is a connection to consider here. So I stand firm to my statement, that if Tumblety was gay, men would most likely be his victms instead of women, and if he were a bisexual maybe representatives from both sexes, but it is merely speculations. Anyhow, that doesen't really help us much, since there really isn't that much evidence concerning his alleged bi- or homosexuality. Therefore I can admit that that argument against him could be somewhat problematic, but then most regarding Tumblety is.
-- I believe he hated women (although we don't have any clear proof ot that either), but that doesn't mean he had to murder them -- that is a completely different matter.
Once again, Daniel, we don't know if those glass jars with female body parts really existed. It came from a second-hand source that wasn't verified, so you can't reckon that as a stated fact. They could have existed for all I know, but we can't automatically take that as a certainty in our analysis. But I agree, if we could find evidence regarding those, that would indeed be interesting and worth considering.
-- Those "ready made formulas" in connection with profiling, Daniel, is not that static. You say: "I read that in many murders, a family member is a main suspect. I got that from profiling, so it must be true." That is to abuse profiling a bit, I fear. One must look to each situation. There are no exact formula that suits every murder, just some ground rules to apply and then develop further (which very well can prove to be false; things doesen't have to be true just because they come from profiling). Yes, a relative is mostly the first suspect regarding a murder in general (although that was known long before proling), but I think that is more suitable for domestic killings, not that much in connection with serial murders. When you find several victims with the same modus operandi and signature, I think it is obvious to most criminal detectives that it is the victims' looks, personality, sex or occupation etc, that made them victims in the first place; if there is nothing that links the victims to one another on a personal basis, there is no reason to see a family connection either.
Facts remain, that Tumblety would stand out too much from the crowd to get away with these kind of murders; the Ripper would have to blend in and I don't think that would be possible for Tumblety (based on the little we know of him). He would also be quite old; these murders take their toll physically and experiences show that it is generally a younger offender that performes these kind of brutal crimes (although there are exceptions, naturally). Together with the fact that we have no real evidence of violent tendensies to that degree, I'd sat Tumblety is quite a weak suspect (although I wouldn't rule him out altogether nevertheless).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 34
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 5:36 pm: | |
Glenn and all;
I find it interesting that Tumblety be he Jack or not is almost as much of an enigma.
By his own admission he was married and was "down on women" (my quote not his)after seeing his new bride coming out of a house of ill fame.
As to his propesity or lack of violence toward women, he was tried in Montreal, Quebec for performing an abortion on a woman by the name Philomene Dumas. Are there studies on the relation of pornography use to violent tendencies? (Just curious) Also, Scotland Yard thought enough of him as a suspect to detail a detective to trail him to New York where a New York detective also kept tabs on him. My understanding is that he was not extradited because the crimes Her Majesty's were non extraditable (I believe they were homosexual offences) On a side not and in closing Tublety is buried in Holy Sepulcher Cemetery In Rochester, NY about 75 miles from where I sit. Have a good evenng, Neil |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 717
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:04 pm: | |
Thank you for the input, Neil.
Yes, Tumblety is an enigma indeed. Was his abortion offense a result of violence against women or was he just a sloppy quack? I prefer to go along with the latter, since we have no evidence showing otherwise. The fact that Scotland Yard was very interested in him, indicates to me the strongest incriminating point against him, but apart from that he is indeed an object of speculations.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 11
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:10 pm: | |
Glenn and Neil,
Clearly, this abortion offense was devastating to the baby and the mother. A clear example of some hatred. If not that, violence. In all likelihood, Tumblety was the Lodger. Isn't that big evidence also Glenn?
-Peter-
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 719
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:28 pm: | |
No, Peter -- it's not.
I must admit I don't know that much about the circumstances around the incident in question, but such cheap, ill-fated "abortions" were quite common during this time. And most of them were performed by women. Hardly a proven example of hatred against women or violence. But I do believe he was a sloppy doctor... And that is all we have evidence of.
I don't doubt that he had a hatred of women, but we have as little evidence of his violent streak as his alleged jars with female body parts.
He may have been the Lodger, but was the Lodger Jack the Ripper...?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 12
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:38 pm: | |
Glenn,
Just because these abortions were common during the time, it doesn’t mean they weren’t violent. Can't you say the same thing for all the killings and unfortunate things happening in Whitechapel?
You had pointed out in your previous post that, "The fact that Scotland Yard was very interested in him, indicates to me the strongest incriminating point against him, but apart from that he is indeed an object of speculations."
I just brought up him being the Lodger because I feel that the Lodger could have been Jack the Ripper and that is huge evidence.
Why? His strange movements during the night, his bloody clothing, etc... If this was Tumblety, this is good evidence against him.
-Peter-
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 720
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 5:49 am: | |
Peter,
Too may ifs, as far as I am concerned.
Those abortion attempts were made on the women's own initiative, since they were cheap and discrete, performed out of public view. They were, however, dangerous and often often lead to deadly consequenses. But I think "violent" is the wrong word in this context. Violence indicates a harmful or evil intent, which usually not was the case -- just ignorance, sloppy medical knowledge and bad sanitary circumstances (and maybe even a chance to earn an extra shilling). But it doesen't suggest that the person who performed those had to show signs of violent character, and that is what we are talking about here.
I urge you to use the expression "huge evidence" with a bit more carefulness, Peter. We have actually evidence of nothing in the Ripper case, and nothing as far as Tumblety is concerned either. The Lodger is hardly "huge evidence" of anything, and although we can't rule him out from the Ripper context, he hasn't more credibility than other suspects. And that goes for Tumblety as well.
By the way, I thought you were more interested in Grainger and Klosowski as main suspects?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 13
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 2:23 pm: | |
Glenn,
Too many "ifs"? Can you name a suspect with not too many "ifs"?
Due to his supposed known hatred towards women, in my opinion, it was an act of violence even though the women gave consent of it.
Dr. Kevorkian killed many people who wanted to end their lives. He videotaped their permission for him to kill them. Is this not an act of violence?
We do have evidence of many things in the Ripper case. For example, we have evidence that the Ripper took specimens from his victims. With that evidence we can then work off that evidence to say that maybe Jack the Ripper was a cannibal. I’m not saying that is true, I’m just saying there is evidence out there. Also, we can lessen the amount of suspects. And we have a lot more than just one piece of evidence.
Ripper suspects actually do have more credibility over the other. For example, Barnett has a lot more credibility than Sickert or the Prince? Sickert and the Prince weren't even there at the time. Is this not more credible?
Regarding who I favor more as a suspect, I don't think that should stop me from looking at other suspects too. I'm not just going to focus on those two specific suspects. Though I do support Grainger and Chapman the most, I still look at others, like Tumblety. And I may even revise my favorite suspect list today, next year, or never. And I do realize there are problems with any suspect. How can the case be solved it when you’re not expanding your options?
If I had to choose a suspect listed here on these boards for the Ripper killings right now, I’d say it’s the Lodger. And that is for many reasons.
-Peter-
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 721
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 6:40 am: | |
Peter,
I must admit I don't understand your way of thinking as far as "violence" is concerned in this context. It really goes beyond me and it seems we have different interpretations of the word. And that someone have a "hatred of women" doesen't necessarily mean that women have to be killed. You are drawing too wild conclusions from it. There are a lot of more or less freaky characters, who hates women, but who doesen't feel they have to murder them or rip them to pieces. And we don't even have a shred of evidence saying that Tumblety would do that. Just speculations.
Of course I know that we have crime scene evidence available to us, Peter, but we don't have that many evidence linking any of the available suspects to the Ripper. We can't even be sure that the Ripper was any of those on the list!
And naturally, although I personally don't believe in any of the suspects you mention, some suspects are more credible than others. That was not my point. My reaction was based on that you referred to the Lodger as "huge evidence", which I think was an exaggeration, to say it mildly.
"How can the case be solved it when you’re not expanding your options?"
I for my part, choose to study the Ripper mystery with an objective approach; chasing different suspect characters lead too much to "fit facts into theory". And personally, mainly for that reason, I don't have a favourite suspect candidate myself.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 17
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 1:02 am: | |
Glenn,
Like I had stated before, this "wild conclusion" was just my opinion. You and I have different ones here regarding Tumblety's actions.
What I really mean by that "huge evidence" is that it is "huge evidence" compared to many other Ripper suspects out there.
Although I am also objective to some extreme here in the Ripper case, I like to think with an optimistic type attitude. I do think it is a possibility that it was none of the suspects, but how can I research "nobody"? I'm going to be researching what's possible to research.
-Peter- |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 722
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 6:24 am: | |
Hi Peter,
Yes, I see your point regarding investigating certain suspects on the matter. But there is a danger to it, and quite many authors on the field has shown us that, and I believe we should learn from their mistakes. Not all have been that extreme in their efforts to fit facts into theory as Patricia Cornwell or the late Stephen Knight, but it is unavoidable that this approach in the end leads to factual flaws and a restricted view on the case as a whole. You have every right in the world to indulge in that, and you would most certainly not be the last or only one to do so, but I prefer to tackle it as a police man would -- looking at the crime scene evidence and let them tell us something about the killer, not looking for a specific person and then fit the evidence into that picture (which usually becomes the result).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Kris Law
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 9:59 am: | |
Hello all,
I agree with you Glenn on all of the above posts. I think Tumblety is an intriguing suspect, but he does seem altogether too outlandish to not have been noticed by at least one if not several witnesses. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
