|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 20
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 2:17 pm: |       |
Glenn,
I respect the approach you are taking, but we shouldn't just be focusing on Cornwell or Knight and how bad there investigations might have been. We just also look at all the phenomenal authors out there too and look at there affects in the case.
If they didn't make books on specific Ripper suspects who they favor, we wouldn't be here talking about it.
I think SOME of the suspects have been derived from the crime scene evidence. For example, Barnett, Grainger, Chapman, etc...
-Peter-
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 21
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 2:26 pm: | |
Glenn,
In case you are interested, I started a thread in the suspects board on "The Lodger." It's about his candidacy.
-Peter-
(Message edited by peter on November 28, 2003) |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 723
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 8:06 pm: | |
Peter,
I see your point. However, Cornwell and Knight are just the most horrific examples. As far as I am concerned, the most valuable Ripper books are those who don't stress a suspect at all, or at least does it with low priority -- like Sugden and Rumbelow. I also like Fido's book, simply because it is well researched -- the last chapter dealing with Cohen is the one I can really do without, although I find the theory interesting. I think the books (or part of the books) just dealing with facts and the historical context from a relatively objective point of view are the ones of value.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 44
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 9:06 pm: | |
Glenn,
I have been meaning to catch up with you and while my question does not pertain to this thread at least you are active here for the moment. I have been busy on a manuscript for more than a week and I forgot where you made the comment I wanted to ask you to expand upon. So this thread will have to do.
Anyway, about a week or more ago you wrote that there is no such thing as a coroner's inquest in Sweden. Just to satisfy my overly abundant curiousity, could you give a quick run-through of what the procedure is in Sweden from, say, the discovery of a murder victim to the sentencing of the murderer. I would appreciate it.
Thanks.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 725
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 11:01 am: | |
OK, Don.
Thanks for asking. I'll do my best, so fasten your seat-belts because this will be a very brief summary.
Regardless if we're talking about a murder committed a hundred years ago or last week (the ground procedures are still mainly the same, although they naturally are more refined today), such things as a coroner inquest after a murder doesen't exist here in Sweden -- unfortunately, because in connection with the Ripper murders, I've learnt what a valuable source of information that is.
After a murder has been discovered and the crime scene investigation has taken place, the first thing to do is to identify the victim. The next step is to take down witness statements.
After a while there are four kinds of main documents that completes the police investigation: 1) the crime scene investigation report; 2) the main police report; 3) the written witness statements [also including transcripts from the interrogations of relevant suspects] and 4) the authopsy report.
The police report (2) is the main document, while the others are to be considered as enclosures added to it.
I think that is a chain of procedures quite similar to those abroad. The difference is, that instead of having a coroner inquest, some sort of public hearings, with witnesses interrogations in public court situations, we have no such thing in this stage of the investigation. The decision made regarding if and how a victim was murdered is done by the detectives and the forensic doctors in written documents and out of public view.
The first public hearing or court matter, is due when a suspect is arrested and brought to court. After a week or two (depending on how serious the the level of suspicion is against the suspect), the police must have gathered enough evidence to make charges against him/her, or else they have to let the person loose.
Until that phase, everything is kept in written documents.
A murder in Sweden is open for investigation and criminal charging for 25 years, after that noone can be charged for it.
All relevant documents or sensitive, incriminating facts connected to an unsolved murder, is protected by laws of secrecy for a period of 70 years (in Denmark 80 years) until the material can be released; if the material is connected to a solved case (with convicted suspects) the laws of secrecy are set aside and one has full availability to all documents as soon as there is a passed sentence and the case is closed.
This was not easy to do in a non-native language, but hopefully it was helpful to you, Don. Otherwise you are welcome to drop some questions.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 29, 2003)
(Message edited by Glenna on November 29, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1427
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 2:43 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
That must make things awkward in the event that no one is brought to trial until, say, 15 years have elapsed. If any of the witnesses have meanwhile died, you don't have a copy of their evidence under oath to fall back on.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 726
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 1:14 am: | |
Hi Robert,
That is exactly right. Well, a witness statement have to be signed by witness, of course, during the investigation, but that is true -- the first real opportunity to say something "under oath" is during the final trial.
And even if the witnesses are still alive, one wonders how much credibility their statements in court can be given, after that a number of years has passed since the crime.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 728
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 5:48 am: | |
Thank you, Kris. That has been my main point as well.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 50
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 9:50 pm: | |
Kris and Glenn,
These witnesses' did not observe who they reported to see. They simply took it as another couple conversating.
Do you know how many people they observed during that night?
Could they possibly go back and give accurate accounts of how they looked or there age?
Witness accounts can be deceiving.
-Peter-
(Message edited by peter on December 03, 2003) |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 735
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 6:45 am: | |
Hi Peter,
"Witness accounts can be deceiving."
Peter, you don't have to tell me that. I have for several weeks and on different threads tried to push the notion, that witness statements and witness descriptions are to be taken with a pinch of salt.
However, considering Tumblety's extraordinary appearance (note: this was East End), I find it hard to believe that he would be over-looked (and that he wouldn't get caught!). At least someone would have spotted a similar person, as far as height and superficial features are concerned -- not to mention the enormous mustache. They didn't.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 10:16 am: | |
....."Considering Tumblety's extraordinary appearance......"
Glenn, cardboard villians are easy to topple. Far too easy, in my book. Aren't you taking the path of least resistance, my friend?
Druitt the manic-depressive cricketeer. Chapman the lusty poisoner. Tumblety the dandified quack. Kosminski the mumbling gutter snipe. D'onson the Black Magician.
Good or ill, the above men walked the earth, just like you and I. Air was in their nostrils, blood in their veins. We ought not turn them into one-sided caricatures, tilt them, and then think we have accomplished something. This is poor shadow boxing, in my humble opinion.
The historian's approach? Add blood. Shake well. Serve warm.
R.P.
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 17
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 2:59 pm: | |
Hello all,
I must say that I do not consider Tumbelty to be the best suspect yet. In my humble opinion, that mantle would go to D'Onston. And this is based not only upon the works of Messrs O'Donnell, Harris and Edwards, but upon a lot of new information of my own that has yet to be published.
I disagree with the above assessment of "suspect books" because taking a legitimate contemporary suspect and putting them under the microscope, while at the same time being as factually responsible and through as possible, makes for very interesting reading. And, I might add, it's the backbone and cornerstone of Ripperology. Obviously there are many books we could do without, such as Cornwell's, Gordon's, Abrahamsen, etc. But then there are the Evans and Skinners, Beggs, et al, that make it worthwhile.
Tom Wescott |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 53
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 6:27 pm: | |
Glenn,
I am sure Tumblety was not a moron. Like somebody in this board had said before, he would have kept it "low key." He wouldn't go bring attention to himself. Any person entering a bad neighborhood would know not to bring there expensive and flashy car through it.
Tumblety would do the same.
Thomas:
Yes, Tumblety's not the best suspect, but he does have many qualifications.
-Peter-
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 740
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 6:36 pm: | |
R.J.,
You gotta be kidding. Just like something you would do, to put one single phrase out of its context and blow it up out of proportions. If you've followed the discussion, you'd know by now that his "appearance" is not my only objection against Tumblety -- although, I believe, an important one. I am only basing it on what we know about him (and that is not much). And none of that, except for the police's interest in him, makes him a credible suspect.
"The historian's approach? Add blood. Shake well. Serve warm."
No, but to study facts and not jump to wild conclusions. I can surely recommend it...
"Good or ill, the above men walked the earth, just like you and I. Air was in their nostrils, blood in their veins. We ought not turn them into one-sided caricatures, tilt them, and then think we have accomplished something. This is poor shadow boxing, in my humble opinion."
What in Earth are you talking about, R.J.? You're beginning to sound like David Radka. Who is turning the suspects into "one-sided caricatures"? All we have to deal with is what the material reveals about them -- nothing more, nothing less. But hey, I am not the one here who's trying to nail them for being Jack the Ripper.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 741
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 6:44 pm: | |
Well, Peter,
Guess we'll never agree on this one.
I just want to say, that I have very well considered the possibility that he could have worn a disguise or clothes more suitable for the Whitechapel environment. But have you seen his mustasche? And as far as I know we haven't any descriptions of Jack the Ripper indicating Tumblety's height. And more importantly, in my personal view he seems like too much a clever person compared to Jack the Ripper, but then that depends on our personal interpretations of Jack, and we could both be totally wrong. But my bet -- if I am allowed to speculate -- is that the Ripper wasn't anything like Tumblety in that respect.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 55
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 7:07 pm: | |
Glenn,
I have heard that his mustache may have been a fake. Also, I'm sure this has been brought up by authors and has been on this board, but Tumblety could have been slouching down. Perhaps on accident. He may have obtained that habit when he was younger.
If Tumblety showed us the ability to con his customers and basically fake the fact that he was a doctor, I'm sure he could have acted as somebody he wasn't in other aspects.
Also, I don't think we can determine weather or not JTR was dumb or smart. He sure was smart in couple aspects-the ability to avoid detection and the ability to work in the dark with such quickness.
-Peter-
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 10:49 pm: | |
Glenn--Hi. Ah, we cross swords again. Tell me, is it better to experience a little vigorous debate, or is it better to trade cigars and admire each other's logic? I don't particularly find it insulting to be compared to Herr Radka; one can often see insight peeking out of his splenetic offerings.
Now, I must say that you are mistaken; I've read this discussion carefully. If you don't like my message, read Mr. Wescott's instead--he seems to be struck by the same tone of this thread as I was. Should we really set up Patty Cornwell and Stephen Knight as the Patron Saints of Historians? Surely, Glenn, we can really expect better of ourselves, no?
Facts are just facts. "Approaching the case as a policeman would" is delusional, to my way of thinking, and maybe actually puts you closer to your friend Saddam's philosophy than I am, but then I don't know. History is about men and women. Littlechild's opinion is as much as a 'fact' as the diameter of Kate Eddowe's neck , and of more interest to me. Abberline sat opposite George Hutchinson and smelled his breath and looked in his eyes. That, too, concerns me.
And, often, there are no bigger liars than objective 'facts.' If you have a mind to, read sometime the first three chapters of Osborn's "The Mysterious William Shakespeare" and consider carefully how much the "facts" of a man's life can tell us about the man.
Now, I don't really have much of a grudge with you, and if I sound combative, I apologize. Since I am deeply interested in history, I'm deeply interested in what we consider "fact" and what we consider "evidence." For instance, take your man Packer. You write him up as a liar and a publicity hound. Many would agree with you, and you're certainly entitled to that historic view, but I'm a little worried. You see, Walter Dew (H Division) rather awkwardly recorded that there were grape seeds and skns in Dutfield's yard. Was he remembering press reports or was he telling us the facts? Ah, but the inquest report! Clear objective facts to lead us to reason! "No skins or seeds in the stomach." Hmm. But I wonder.....does that confirm or disprove Dew's statement? Or Packers?
Another example. Martin Fido and Phil Sugden both dismiss Aaron Kosminski, largely based on his asylum records, though, in Sugden's case he also dismisses Anderson's opinions as untrustworthy. But perhaps I should take Paul Begg's point? The asylum records are from 1891 onwards. Do these tell us what the man was about in 1888-1889? Or is it ex post facto reasoning?
With Tumblety, is the way he dressed when he was an advertising physician in the 1860s really tell me much of anything about 1888? Or am I seeing what he wanted me to see? Why does a man dress outlandishly? What is this in comparison to Littlechild's comments in 1913, a man who almost certainly had T's case file sitting on his knee at one time? Why---to accept your objection---isn't Littlechild as concerned about the disparity with witness descriptions as you are? Does this tell me something?
Man is the measure of things, and I am concerned with people. Even Vittoria Cremers. She is dismissed as "unreliable." Just the fact, m'am. But I say: she can be the dottiest Spiritualist this side of Mars, but it doesn't change the "fact" that Stephenson evidently tried to convince her of his guilt, which tells me something interesting about his personality.
No doubt, by now you're wondering what the heck this has to do with the price of tea in China. I'm rambling. Don't consider these thoughts "aimed" in your direction, Glenn. Just stray thoughts on a cold winter night from someone who is wondering about what we know and what we only really think we know. Cheers, RP
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 9:36 am: | |
Considering the probable state of Stride’s teeth and gums, the absence of grape skins or pips in her stomach does not in itself lead to a conclusion that she didn’t suck her way through a bunch in Dutfield’s Yard. The hankie with apparent fruit stains might add some support to the idea that she was indeed treated to a grape supper by someone.
I wonder if Packer would have been believed if he said he sold grapes to a stooping giant with eccentric clothes and face furniture, who smiled at him and tried to fondle his behind while offering him a bottle of memory-improving pills? 
Love,
Caz
PS Sorry, carry on chaps!
(Message edited by Caz on December 05, 2003) |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 10:14 am: | |
Glenn,
I have to agree with you regarding Tumblety's appearance being a major problem with him as a Ripper suspect. His manner of dress aside, his height and moustache are extremely distinctive. There's no way he could disguise his height, and contemporary sketches of Tumblety from before his trip to London, and after his return show that huge moustache.
It's certainly not the only objection, nor is it definative, but it IS a strong one and I don't understand how people manage to simply shrug it off. Eye witness accounts can be mistaken, but it seems unlikely that if he was indeed the killer that NO ONE would have noticed such a distinctive individual
Regards,
John |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 229
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 10:32 am: | |
On the other hand, were grape skins and pips really such an uncommon thing to find on the ground a couple of doors away from a fruit shop. The thing that strikes me most about Packer's testimony, and makes me inclined to think he may have indeed seen something, is that if you move it to the end of his timescale it does seem to correspond exactly to that of PC Smith. Smith saw them in exactly the position Packer described them in, and the newspaper parcel that Smith described could easily have been the grapes that they had bought. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 11:24 am: | |
John, Caz, et al. Look, I'm not really plumping here for Tumblety, D'Onston, Matt Packer, or anyone else. What I am plumping for is the quality of historic evidence. If, like Glenn, we are going to demand "facts", then let's put the "facts" under a microscope. All the facts.
The quality and the quantity of the evidence is so slight in most instances, that we ought not even have an opinion about much of the "case evidence." When John writes NO ONE noticed this "distinct individual" who does he refer to? Lawende? Then I would have to agree. Elizabeth Long? Well, then I agree with somewhat less certainty. John Lardy? Well, then I don't necessarily agree at all. Surely someone noticed him, because he ended up in police custody. And the files have been rifled. Can we really accept the "sketches" that appeared in the New York World as contemporary? They show a man walking his greyhounds up 5th Avenue---a once well-known figure of a by-gone era. Again, they don't tell me much about 1888.
Aaron Kosminski was probably not the man seen by Elizabeth Long on Hanbury Street. Or the man seen by Schwartz, for that matter, if the 'broad-shoulders' are indicative of body weight. How far am I willing to accept that this really tells me anything?
Lawende never came forward to the police and there were three entries into Mitre Square. How much weight should I give his description? He probably didn't see D'Onston, then again, maybe the woman who was scared by the odd man in the alley on Nov 12 (?)(who had connections to the London Hospital) did. Who knows?
I am not particularly enamored of anything that is being called 'fact' or 'evidence.' The beginning of wisdom is ignorance.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 742
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 11:27 am: | |
Thank you, John.
You managed to deliver my points of view better than I did myself. I naturally agree with you.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 11:49 am: | |
R.J.,
"When John writes NO ONE noticed this "distinct individual" who does he refer to?"
I mean that none of the witnesses whose testimony we have access to provides a description that suggests Tumblety IMO. The more distinctive someone is, the more likely the person will be remembered, at least so far as their distinctive aspect is concered.
"Can we really accept the "sketches" that appeared in the New York World as contemporary?"
Well, I am drawing that conclusion from the sketches in Stewart's book. The greyhound pic that I assume you are referring to is labled as "A contemporary American sketch of Tumblety, prior to his arrival in Britain". (I must confess I'm taking Stewart word on that one and have not tried to track down when exactly it was drawn and from what reference.) And the other one appeared on the cover of his 1889 pamphlet.
Indeed, every single illustration I have ever seen of Tumblety showed the moustache so I see no reason at this point to imagine that he didn't have it when he went to London. Is it possible he didn't? Sure. But there's nothing to suggest it.
If there WAS any evidence that he shaved it off for the trip to London, when apparently he wore it for most of his life, he would leap up the suspect ladder immensely in my eyes. Both because it would someone mitigate a serious objection to his "suspecthood", but also because changing his appearance so drastically for the trip would certainly be suggestive that he was intentionally trying to conceal his indentity or at least lower his visibility.
Glenn,
Thanks :-)
Regards,
John |
Kris Law
Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 16
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
R.J.,
You are completely right. The man who is wisest is the man who realizes he knows nothing at all.
And I keep this in mind constantly when reading and researching the Ripper . . . let's be honest, we don't know for certain that ANY of the people witnesses saw are actually the Ripper. Even the man accosting Long Liz. It probably was, but we don't know for sure.
I think we all put a little too much stock in the witness accounts.
And Tumblety probably was smart enough to know not to dress like a smart-ass in an area of London that most police wouldn't even venture into alone, so it's not impossible that he might not have been noticed. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 743
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 12:20 pm: | |
Hi R.J.,
Now, THAT was an interesting post, your large one. Finally something to sink my teeth in.
Nonono, you're misreading me, RJ. I have never claimed that all we should do regarding JtR is clinging to facts. I know very well that the fragments of files we're left with are quite inadequate. I have also myself a number of times delivered the opinion, that witness descriptions ain't that reliable in this context. What I protested against was your description of historians and their approach.
Now, my point was, that it becomes a problem when people tries to stretch facts into something that isn't there, in search of a suspect. And I don't care if it's Cornwell or somebody on these boards. It is OK to speculate, but sometimes too many wild conclusions are drawn out of nothing, and I believe this is especially valid in Tumblety's case. AND Chapman, AND...
I am quite aware of the fact, that we can't tell how Tumblety actually looked in 1888, but that is just my point. As far as I know, the remaining pictures we have of him are the ones showing him with an enormous mustasche and extreme clothing. And that is all we know. But since these are the only pictures of him, why should we automatically disregard this image of him, just to make him fit into the suspect category? Let's put it this way, RJ: IF this is how Tumblety looked in 1888, then he wouldn't stand a chance in the East End. He would be robbed inside out in no time. And if he were the Ripper, looking like this, he would have been identified and captured before he even had time to say "bummer".
The story that the mustasche was a fake, like Peter correctly points out, is originating from the fact that the ends are pointing in different directions on one of the portraits. That is probably a misconception. It is evident that such mustasche demanded wax, and when mustasche wax is put in, you can form it into practically everything. He could very well have worn a fake, but I see no evident reason to assume that he did.
Regarding Packer, yes I think he was a con man, and that his motives was to get more people to visit his shop. We can assume that from his many spells in the press and the various different versions of his testimony, which became more and more distorted. Finally the police lost interest in him, and I can understand why.
BUT, that doesen't mean that he never sold any grapes to a man and maybe even Liz Stride that night -- he very well might have. But the rest of his testimony is probably complete garbage. I am simply dismissing him, because he is unreliable as a witness, since he changed his story a number of times and seemed to found of appearing in the papers. To take such an individual with a pinch of salt, is natural procedure for any police officer. I have no idea, why you´re dismissing the thinking of a police man in the Ripper context -- yes, this is indeed history but it IS also a criminal case!
What I didn't understand in your earlier post, was your point concerning people in historical documents being people of flesh and blood. That is old news to me and I really don't see what that has to do with anything. I deal a lot with old cases and the fates of the people concerned, and they are always interesting and sometimes it is quite easy to get attached to them and you feel like you know them. But if we are to show the Ripper suspects the respect you refer to and accept them as human beings, then I can't see why it is more legitimate to pin them as Jack the Ripper. If they sometimes turns out as caricatures, it is because the material available about them is sparse, which hinders us from digging deep enough into their characters. If we had just as much information on the suspects as we have on the victims, then it would be another question. So I must admit, I don't really follow your line of reasoning here.
And you're right, I DON'T agree with the last passage in Wescott's post about "suspect books". But he is, of course, entitled to his opinions.
I don't have a grudge against you either, RJ. I have actually missed you, since you're fun to "cross swords with", in spite of the fact that you're sounding more and more like David... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
