|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2838
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:08 pm: | 
|
It being obvious that many folk here do view the crimes of the Whitechapel Murderer as being of a sexual nature, I thought it worthwhile to examine the individual thoughts of all the officials involved in the murders to see what the consensus of opinion was amongst the men with first hand experience of the murders.
Here is Dr Thomas Bond:
‘He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis.’
So there is one point for the Whitechapel Murderer having a sexual motive.
Any other opinions from officials connected to the murders would be more than welcome. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 597
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
JtR certainly fits the pattern of what we think of as a sexual serial killer and I would probably come down on that side of the fence. That being said, he may have done it for a thrill and not all things that give us thrills are sexual.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2625
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Well this is an area where I must admit my ignorance Ap.
However its a good idea to try to find out where on a continuum the police
views were.
Most seemed to stress the insanity angle-the work of a maniac etc
Machnaghten asserted that Druitt was "sexually insane"- which implies he[Machnaghten] placed some store by the idea that the Whitechapel murderer was "sexually insane".
Anderson too seemed to set high store by Kosminski"s alleged "solitary vices" and believed they were of such an obsessive nature as to make him the strongest contender to be his own personal[?]"Prime Suspect" for JtR.
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2841
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
But, Natalie, can we score Macnaghten's somewhat convulated opinion as a point for Jack's motive as sexual or not?
Seems a bit borderline. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2628
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
I suppose so Ap.Trouble is I am not quite sure what a sexual serial killer is. Such a person would seek sexual gratification from the actual killing and then, in this case, mutilating?
No wonder they were a bit confused.
I suppose there are some clues that he was in that he took certain organs,presumably as trophies to keep and later use to induce a state
of ecstasy.It has puzzled me that he took away those organs.
But the police,for the most part, seem to have been convinced that he was a crazed maniac-
most of them state this somewhere such as "noone could have seen the terrible state of the last victim[MJK] and not come to the conclusion that the man who committed this terrible act was a complete madman" ....
But hasnt knowledge about motive moved on since then?We now have a number of case histories we can study to help us decide.
I still hold the view that he his behaviour was sectionable.That he was indeed seriously mentally ill.And if this is so then its not likely
he was much into sex of any kind -not even "solitary vices"----unless you include in this involuntary fidgeting with himself etc
But then-why did he take away those organs?
Natalie
ps Where is Robert?I am missing him too! |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2843
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
I think it save to say that Abberline obviously considered the Whitechapel Murders as not having a sexual motive.
That's one point each.
And one in the middle. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2844
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Natalie, I agree with your thoughts in the last post.
But I would like to establish exactly what the investigating officials thought, as a stepping stone so to speak.
Robert's computer has gone AWOL. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1161
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 11:27 pm: |
|
A.P.
Although no motive has been definitely determined..it may be,as you infer, sectionable...or a crossing over of motivations.
I remember suggesting that when the BTK killer said that his "motive" for his heinous acts was of a sexually motivated nature and that this "confession" more or less cleared up any confusion as to his actions.
Then,Ally mentioned that she didn't believe that explanation. She felt that Rader was simply complying with the authorities and using "textbook" cop out techniques.
In retrospect,after watching the "confession" in court on television, from that untermensch just recently, I think that Rader was telling the truth,for once,,yet Ally was correct as well in her counter argument.
It appears that people who commit serial crimes have multiple motivations. I think,not being a clinician, that they are liars...they will say whatever necessary to soften their situation after capture...they may have motivations that they are not conscious of,but only manifest themselves in the act of murder.
Dahmer,for instance..had a sexual motivation to his crimes. He also had a need for control. The question that we here invariably strive for is "which one" was primary.
The answer may be a blend of multiple motivations which are culminated in the murder of members of the "opposite" sex [ which tends to create,naturally, a knee jerk response that "sex" was the prime motive ] but may "hide" the acts of a coward...a control freak...a psychotic...a sick schtup that wants organs to use in a ritual...a trophy collector...a kook in the throes of religious frenzy...et al...
I'll tell ya,A.P. The more I think about it, I'm leaning toward someone with "power and control' issues. The problem is...what did the Ripper think was holding him back [ a Cutbush with his percieved syphilis]...some misfit,but a bright one,who needed to make his mark before he left this mortal coil [ RDS]...a jilted ineffectual man [ fill in the blank here...]. Therin lies the rub,old bean. What HE thought was suppressing him.
I still have trouble imagining a psychotic being as successful eluding capture. Somehow down the line, at least to me, a psychotic would lose control and the jig would be up. But then again...I'm not a psychotic,so I don't know how they think. This is such a hard question to answer to everyone's satisfaction.
I hope you understand what I mean here...
P.S. The great researcher Robert Linford should be back and kicking ass by Thursday. My man has computer problems. |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 263
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:42 am: |
|
Quickly, I think Jack was searching for something. It was definitely gender specific, but I don't see sexual gratification as part of the strategy.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 55
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:45 am: |
|
I don't consider the Ripper murder pure sex crimes, if such things exist. It doesn't appear that his intent was to inflict pain on or degrade his victims the way a sexual sadist would. The likelihood that they were all dead or near before they were mutilated eliminates that possibility. Nor does it appear that he used his knife as simply a substitute phallus. If all the victims had been treated as Tabram was--stabbed repeatedly in the breasts and genitals--then I would be more inclined to view him this way, as a piquerist like Cleophus Prince, San Diego's "Claremont Killer."
So, although I know his opinion isn't given a whole lot of weight around here, I tend to agree with John Douglas on this point. In The Cases That Haunt Us he does refer to the Ripper as a "lust murderer" of the "disorganized type" but states that in these types of murders, the mutilation "may represent not only his fear, but a basic sexual curiosity about what goes on below the body's surface."
Now, I do feel it's a good deal more complicated than all that. Perhaps our boy had been taught that women were "dirty" and he had to see for himself. Maybe he'd never seen a woman up close and personal and to his disordered mind this was the way to do it. I tend to think of him as being a bit like A.P.'s Grevey stallion--a creature so confused, so poorly socialized, so "miswired" that when he was let out among the females rather than try to mate with them, he attacked them instead. It's as if the instincts toward sex and violence had grown so intertwined that it was no longer possible to distinguish one from the other. Clearly in Jack's case the mutilations satisfied some deep-seated need, but I'm not so sure we can term that need "sexual," at least not in the traditional sense. I think it goes deeper than that, which is why I feel calling the murders sex crimes is a bit of a misnomer.
P.S. I hope this all made sense. I have a tendency to ramble on so you'll have to forgive me if this was altogether dull and incoherent. I did use the word "phallus," though, so I hope you all don't feel your time was completely misspent.  |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4243
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:33 am: |
|
Hi Erin,
Well, I think it would be a mistake to say that a sexual serial killer need to be a sadist in order to fit the bill, because there could still be sexual motivations behind the crimes without any kind of sexual intercourse, rape or sadism. The concept of 'sexual serial killer' is much more complex than that.
One thing that might point at a sexual gratification is the focus on the victim's genitalia and the fact that the womb was missing from two of the victims. To me this seems to suggest that this area of the female body meant something to him and that these trophees had special importance.
Howard is of course right, that it is more than probable that the motivations behind crimes like these are too complex in order to nail them down as one; it is reasonable to assume that there are several kinds of motivations that interacts, like sexual, hate, revenge, curiousity (yes, Erin, I agree on the curiousity bit) etc. Or at least a mix between some of them.
Does this makes him a sexual serial killer? Maybe. Because I think people are using the term in a too narrow way. But then again, defining what goes on in the killer's head - especially when we don't have his own accounts - is close to impossible.
I don't agree with Howard regarding the psychotics, though. We already have several examples of psychotic serial killers with a medical diagnose who have gotten away for a long time with their crimes - and this is in modern times, with modern police methods at hand.
We've had people like that in Sweden for example. One of them - who killed both little girls and 25 year old prostitutes - turned out to be an anti-social and very strange paranoid schizofrenic. But it took the police twenty years to catch the guy and when they did it was out of sheer luck. Some of these have showed to be just as clever and cunning as psychopaths in some situations; some of them even likes to play games with police in a way that we would connect with a psychopath. So I think we should let that myth about psychotics being easy to catch rest in its coffin. In fact, what sometimes make them hard to catch, is the fact that they sometimes are way more unpredictable in their behaviour than for example a psychopath.
Still, Howard, very good points about the multiple motivations. I think this is true and just shows how complex this psychology thing is.
Erin, you are never dull, and reading your posts is never time misspent.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 602
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
Hi Mike,
That's another possible explanation. The Cleveland Torso Murders were thought to be sex crimes by most but some thought he was some sort of insane human vivisectionist.
Stan |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
Hi all,
I think it's best to keep a few things in mind here before trying to figure out the Ripper's mindset.
First up, as Howard notes, there can be a lot of different motivations for a serial killer, and one person can have more than one of them. On the other hand, a lot of these motivations that look different still would fall under the term of a sexual serial killer. I think many people get hung up on the more ordinary definitions of sex and miss out on what the designation is really aiming for. People can develop pretty strange fetishes, and the drive for destruction, power, control, etc. can all tie into that.
Second, OK, yeah, killers can lie about their motivations, but when there was semen evidence found at the scene of a crime (BTK), that's a sex killer, obviously... And if you say, well, he masturbated over his victims not for sex but for control/power, no, that is sex.
Third, and this is extremely important, we shouldn't mistake how things happened to end up with how the Ripper would have done things in a best case scenario. You can't rule out sadism (sexual or otherwise) as a motivation just because he didn't torture his victims before death, because we don't know that he wouldn't have loved to do that if the conditions were right. Because of the environment the Ripper worked in, it's very unlikely that he had the opportunity to torture living victims over a period of time. He may have wanted to but didn't because people would have heard and come running. Same thing for other aspects such as hiding the bodies and so forth. One can say from our vantage point that smart killers hide their victims' bodies after a crime instead of leaving them out on the street, but then if you look at it from the Ripper's viewpoint in the locations he was at, taking the extra time to try to move the bodies elsewhere was very likely to be nothing more than an added risk as compared to just getting away from there as soon as possible.
From the evidence we do have it seems that the Ripper is all but certain to have been a sexual serial killer. Whether the police at the time recognized that fact or not is really beside the point, but even back then most of the officials knew about the existence of lust murderers and seemed, from direct comments and the kinds of suspects they were looking for, to be looking for that kind of person, albeit in a rather ham-fisted way colored by Victorian sensibilities.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 760
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Hello there, Dan:
"Because of the environment the Ripper worked in, it's very unlikely that he had the opportunity to torture living victims over a period of time."
Translation:
You're twisting the case evidence to conform to your ideology. Like most, you've bought into the Krafft-Ebing/Robert Ressler "lust mort" mythology, and thus you speculate what the murderer intended to do. You've looked into his heart and you see lust.
Personally? I think you're wrong. I think the murderer did his 'work' (ugly phrase) in precisely his chosen setting. And that's one of the best clues of all, when one looks at it correctly. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the setting was the most important part of his purpose. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on November 21, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2631
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Hi All
-and Hello again Erin!-great to see your post and Glenn is so right-you are never dull-far from it!
I think Dan that you and Howard do have an
important point about the varied motivations of a serial killer-but for me,if JtR was a sexually motivated killer,he would have left at least some semen evidence. Fetishist,sadist whatever it was he was primarily as a "lust killer"----but -surely--- he would have had an erection and ejaculated as he killed and mutilated-----?and so surely the police would have found at least some trace of semen which is after all is not transparent like a "tear drop" but opaque and visible wherever and in whatever form its found?[as we know from a certain high profile trial concerning a certain Mr C.].
As far as I know none was found anywhere-on any clothing,in the streets or even in Mary Kelly"s room
Neither was there any evidence of pentration or attempted penetration although I recognise that there doesnt have to be for this last for him to have been sexually motivated.
But surely some evidence of the former?
Natalie |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4250
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Hi, Natalie,
No. There do not need to be any evidence whatsoever of ejaculation, sadism etc. in order for killings of this kind to be considered as lust oriented.
Of course fetischism could go in under the body part throphees that he took and naturally we can't know anything about his erection.
As I said above, the fact that the womb area seems to have been the target and that the wombs were taken from two of his victims does implicate to me that there are sexual connotations there. However, if he got sexual gratification from it, we will never know. He could have gotten an orgasm from it without ejaculating, of course, during the act, but to me it seems more reasonable to suggest - because of the pressed timescedule on the murder sites - that he might have used the trophees for this, if that was the case. For many killers who relives their crimes thanks to their collections of thropees from their victims, it is often sexual.
But no, there does not need to be any evidence of semen or sexual intercourse in order for it to be classified as a lust murder. As someone else pointed out here, for a lot of people very different things can be have sexual symbolic meaning.
Take people who ties themselves up with ropes upside down in strange constructions or stuffs themselves inside a plastic vaccum bag (yes people do that) and suffocates themselves in order to receive sexual gratification from it - unfortunately to the extent that it sometimes leads to death. For the most of us, the sexual part of this is very difficult to understand, but for those people it is sex.
The same with bondage and whipping, for example, which have very strong sexual meaning and gives arousement for quite a lot of people, but is something that totally goes beyond me. But for those people it is and even creates orgasm.
So you see, we are all different.
That does not in itself prove that the Ripper was a sexual serial killer, but it can't be ruled out just because there are no obvious traces of it.
My personal bet is that it might have been a mixture of driving forces, like Howard suggests, and that sexuality was one of them.
But that is as far as I am prepared to go, and that is not written in stone either.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 57
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Thank you all for your kind understanding, I wrote my post very late and I was afraid it was going to be rather incomprehensible. I do think, however, that I was somewhat unclear in my conclusions. It was not my intention to state unequivocally that there was no sexual component whatsoever to the murders; on the contrary, I think it's most definitely there. My point was that it's not quite that easy to quantify--it's much more complex than mere lustmord as R.J. put it. Granted, anything dealing with the human psyche always is, but in Jack's case I just feel there's a good deal more going on than, say, sexual sadism. All I can say is that I see a very diseased mind at work. I wish I could put it more clearly, but unfortunately I can't. Perhaps A.P. can help me out here. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4252
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Hi Erin,
"All I can say is that I see a very diseased mind at work."
I definitely agree with you on that.
Nice to have you back, by the way.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2846
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Some very provoking posts here and I’m pleased to see the high level of interest, but I was attempting to catalogue the opinions of the officials at the time, as unlike Dan, I do view their opinions as highly relevant to the present discussion.
It gives us good starting ground to be able to say what the consensus of opinion was amongst the many officials of the time who were directly or indirectly involved in the investigation into the murders.
Obvious is that some of these officials believed the murders to have a sexual motive, but still others did not believe that… and that does show that at least some of these officials were making their judgements on informed thinking.
For instance, Sir Robert Anderson gives a loud ‘yes’ here:
‘One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type.’
Whereas Dr Frederick Brown seems far more cautious, and uses very real evidence for his opinion:
‘There were no traces of recent connection.’
Could we then be looking at a situation where officials who had intimate contact with the victims did not see a sexual motive, whereas the officials who only saw the crimes from the back of their desks did indeed see a sexual motive?
And then could we perhaps transport that divide to our present age and then see an even clearer divide between the opinions of those who have had very real first hand experience of such murders - such as police officers and autopsy surgeons - and those of us who sit behind a grand desk pontificating about such murder with absolutely no experience of that whatsoever - such as writers, editors and criminal profilers?
Anyways, great posts folks… and How, I agree with you, it’s a mixed up mucked up muddle of motive.
Yes, it is good to see Erin back. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4253
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
I think basing anything on the views of the officials at the time, AP, creates problems. They lived in the Victorian era and their view on sex and sexual madness could very well have referred to anything that was beyond their understanding.
Macnaghten's belief that the murderer had become insane from 'solitary vices' is typical of this. As we know today, no one gets insane from masturbating, but in 1888 the concepts of this were different. Judging from the talk about 'solitary vices' they had no idea what they were talking about.
Therefore I think basing the view on the killer as a sexual killer based on the officials' views is problematic.
It doesn't matter one bit that they were there in that respect, because they did not have the same concepts or the same knowledge as we have - especially in a time that created strange myths about sexuality in order to suppress it.
So no, if we should rely on the officials at the time, I'd say there is no evidence of sexual mania. But from what we know of these types of crime today, it can't be ruled out that it played some part. And in my opinion, the killer didn't target the genitalia area for no reason.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
That is a very good point, Glenn, and nicely expressed.
However I do not share this problem with the ‘then’ and ‘now’, as I was looking for virgin opinion and not the sullied goods of modern times.
We may think we are better placed now, to judge the motives of a serial killer, and we are, if that serial killer is working in the time slice we occupy now, but, and this is a big but, serial killers are also influenced by the age they live in, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Whitechapel Murderer was a killer who was killing women in the LVP and his opinion and motive would have been influenced by the social conditions of his age and not ours.
As he killed he would have been using exactly the same information and influence as the people who attempted to catch him.
His upbringing, his influences, his motive would have been gained from exactly the same sources as the men who judged him.
And as you quite rightly pointed out the LVP was inherently a sexually repressive period.
Today we live in an age of sexual freedom.
Two different ages, two different motives.
I suppose the simplest way I can say it, is that the modern serial killer is a man of leisure indulging his hobby, while Jack was doing a job of work. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4256
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
No, I can't agree with that, AP.
A serial killer kills on instinct - pretty much like a predator. From what we know so far, his actions tend to be ruled by inner urges (sexual or anger), not anything else.
That's why these crimes are referred to as 'motiveless', and mostly these people don't know why they kill.
As far as I am concerned, the environment and the social context the killer lived in compared to our modern age means very little, if anything.
Jack the Ripper would have had the same needs today if he were operating in the modern age as in 1888. What could change, would be the methods and the aids available for him, but as far as I am concerned, a compulsive serial killer's instincts and driving forces would be the same today as in 1888, since these instincts and driving forces are predatory and something that has driven humans in hundreds if not thousands of years.
Of course there are those who becomes serial killers from being unemployed or from being sacked by their girlfriends.
But generally speaking we are dealing with crimes that are compulsive here and in my view not necessarily based on environment.Then of course there are those who becomes serial killers from being molested as a child, but as we know, that existed in Victorian times as well as it does today - it was only hidden under the carpet more.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1016
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Translation: You are pathologically opposed to profiling and all modern studies of serial killers in general and therefore falsely accuse people of twisting evidence because you want to believe what you already believe. If you want to ignore all the experts, hey, by all means, but then that would be you twisting the evidence, not the other way around.
Hi Natalie,
Killers only leave semen evidence if they engage is some sort of physical act then and there at the crime scene. That's not what many sexual serial killers do. They kill and then run on the sexual high and go do their jollies elsewhere. That's the perfect example of what I meant about people too caught up in the standard sexual responses of normal people instead of people who fetishize bizarre behavior. Things can be sexually-motivated without there being standard sexual activity. That's kind of the whole point behind sexual serial killers... if they were after plain vanilla sex they could just use a prostitute's normal services and then leave without killing her. They are abnormal, and get sexual arousal from doing these abnormal things.
and AP,
Your opposition to the concept of sex crimes in general... even ones with rape component... is quite well known here. I'm sorry, but you are definitely in the minority in your conclusions both from the experts back then and now. This thread is just a rather transparent attempt for you to try to dig up someone somewhere who believed as you do so that you can paint them as being more well-informed than the psychiatric professionals who directly dealt with those situations. Any theory based upon the idea that beat cops are more informed than mental health experts is really just wishful thinking. You can't just pick and choose what you want to believe and expect others to agree with it.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2848
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
All well and good, chaps.
But the reason I started this thread was specifically to look at the opinion of the officials concerned at the time of the murders.
That’s what I’m doing.
What comes later, comes later.
But there is a large body of evidence from our modern age that shows many modern serial killers have been influenced by the modern writings of modern writers like Colin Wilson.
I don’t think in the LVP that one could buy Wilson’s work and be influenced by it.
As you are.
‘True colours come shining through.’ |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2633
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:21 am: |
|
OK Ap,I realise you are wanting police view data and not our views but I just want to add a little to my post above regarding the sexual element [or not ]of the crime scenes.
There was was evidence of
an urge to
- wrench out innards
-model those innards around their owner"s corpse in a "decorative" way.
-if MJK is included then presumably there was a desire to also
-wrench off all surface organs as well as wrench out innards
But to have no evidence of "connection"of any kind/no evidence of semen anywhere-------in Mary Kelly"s room in particular--- would indicate to me that the case cant be closed on him "definitely" being a "sexual" serial killer.....
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2849
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
No worries, Natalie, my objection was not to the opinion of others on the site, but rather that the argument and counter argument threatened to swallow the purpose of the thread, which was to examine the opinions of the officials involved with the actual murders.
I think so far the score is 2 to the sexual serial killer, and 2 to the non-sexual serial killer with Mac sat on the fence (where he always was).
Interesting is that one police official believes the crimes to have sexual motive, whilst another believes they do not, and that this is also reflected in the two doctor's differing opinions. |
Barge
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Hi
I Have been a JTR phanatic since 7th grade. Although this is the first Ive posted, I have been reading it for two-three years. I will be sending in my request to offically join soon.
About weathe ror not Jack was a sexual killer or not????
The lab technologies of the era couldnt process for seman or blood, correct. Therefore whose to say that he didnt at least masturbate on Annie's and Kelly's corpse??? Or maybe he went home and used the act to fuel his fantasies???
Although its not the exact MO... How about a comparision to Chikatilo??? We know what he did before he destroyed his victims. We dont know what jack did before though. I know the time table wouldnt work for this angle. However, it could of in an abbreviated sense |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Hi Nats,
I really don't get why you'd expect some evidence of semen.
Two possible scenarios spring to my - albeit prurient and far too knowing for a slip of a girl like me  - mind.
If Jack had difficulty getting an erection or reaching orgasm it wouldn't necessarily stem the urge or desire, like a cat with his nuts off sleeping by the fire instead of chasing the Diddles equivalent of skirt.
In fact, a thoroughly frustrated Jack could conceivably (sorry!) have become a thoroughly resentful teasing-female's-reproductive organs-buggering Jack.
Another scenario could be that he was Jack the premature ejaculator. If he came too quickly during any kind of normal sexual activity, might he not have come in his pants just thinking of a Mary Kelly job, let alone once he actually had the opportunity?
No evidence would be found if he took it all away with him.
But if the mutilations do come, in part, from a Jack with sexual pleasure, function or disfunction on his mind, I think it must reflect a less than fulfilled sex life, and some pretty extreme attempts (temporarily successful or utterly failed - hard to tell which) to find a way to remedy the situation one way or t'other.
Love,
Caz
X |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2634
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
OK,OK Caz------------No sweat!
Maybe we"ll agree to differ eh!
guess the cops may like to have some say here? |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Caz:
I was going to mention the exact same thing,about this inabilty to achieve erection by the Ripper as a possible element of the motive.
What I had conjured up was a man who was not able to perform at home with his wife. This,of course, was and is, an embarrasing situation for men then and now. In some,it may be even more than embarrasing. It often leads to violence,I'm sure.
What I had put together mentally was a man,not necessarily "there" yet and still in need for a "reason" to unleash his pent up rage/anger/revenge...whatever.
Since Mighty Joe Young [ his manhood ] doesn't work so well at home with Mrs. Ripper...he takes it to the street. This happens all the time even today.
Perhaps his encounter with [ fill in the blank ] turned out to be an assault with a dead weapon...he then uses his deadly weapon to show that bitch who was boss and failed erection or not,goddamnit...he's a man.
This,of course, eliminates the GSG as an element or evidence.
But it could make us reassess the letters to editor/police that were sent as possibly a little more believeable. This BTK animal wrote letters too,which within them were quite possibly his expression of his manhood being expressed in his own effed up way.
Again,if there could be any possible way that what you and I just mentioned could be true, then the ssk concept may be accurate,with the pre-existing mental mindset of the Ripper providing the fuel to enact the sexually-located violence on the women. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Hi How,
They say rape is all about power and control and not about sex at all, which kind of relates to your 'weapon' analogy. What happens when a would-be rapist's weapon is not playing ball with him?
Maybe Jack knew.
And if so, that would please AP because it would mean Jack's crimes were all about power and not about sex.
A rapist who lacked the tool of his trade - if you will.
Love,
Caz
X |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Well Caz, you’ll probably be disappointed to know that I regard motives based on ‘power and control’ with just as much disdain as I do the sexual motive in murders where neither sex, power or control seem to come into the motivating forces or urges.
In fact I would honestly say that such killings as we look at here reflect a genuine loss of ‘power and control’ on the part of the killer rather than some kind of magical gain.
I fear you lot eat too much Wilson for breakfast.
Anyways, back to the business at hand.
Inspector Keaton was decidedly against a sexual motive, as he felt the killer was a doctor collecting diseased specimens for research purposes.
Sergeant Leeson was not for a sexual motive either, feeling that a doctor was behind the murders.
Inspector Reid reckoned a wife killer to be the killer.
(No sexual motive there then!)
Major Henry Smith sat on the fence, but he does not seem keen on a sexual motive at all.
So what’s the score so far? |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 773
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
I've just come across this 'gem' by Mr. Dan Norder--
"You are pathologically opposed to profiling and all modern studies of serial killers..."
It now it appears that if someone dosen't buy into the simplistic and superficial explanation of the-penis-is-a-knife school of Messrs. Norder & Ressler, one is suffering from a pathological condition. Some call that 'pathology' intelligence.
Neither Douglas nor Ressler have academic credentials in sociobiology, psychology, or anthropology. The only expertise they have is in self-promotion and in repeating Freudian cliches. One recent academic compared these two gentlemman to shamans...they achieved their 'expertise' by crawling into the belly of the beast, and then crawling back to the campfie to tell their tales to the rustics, their mouths agape. But I suppose if a bloke can see female anatomy in a bed bolster, it only goes that he would see a knife representing the penis.
Here's a story. A man breaks into a bank at night. He cracks the safe. On his way out he urinates on the wall.
Only a psychologist would argue that his motive was vandalism. RP |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1228
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
A.P.:
My friend you stated above on Nov. 25th:
"In fact I would honestly say that such killings as we look at here reflect a genuine loss of ‘power and control’ on the part of the killer rather than some kind of magical gain."
Exactly. Really,whats the difference between displaying a sense of having or expressing power and control....and having the feeling one does not have power and control to express,other than in the gruesome way the Ripper did ? In a way,don't you feel that they can be both manifested in the same fashion or manner ? Thanks in advance...
R.J.:
Regarding that analogy of the bank and the urine:
I came into work one Saturday and found the plant had been broken into. Nothing was taken,but something was delivered. A turd on the seat of the fork truck we use to move material.
The cop who responded to the break in mentioned that this act of defecation at de scene of de crime was common.
Now...I said that to say this: Did the burgular leave the present on the truck seat out of fear or maybe as a reprisal towards our company for not having accessible items to steal ?
I agree with you about the penis as knife thing. In a nation that has about a quarter billion guns and treble that amount of knives,its a miracle there aren't more murders. If there were no guns or knives as of tomorrow by some miracle,would we then claim our fists or sticks were penis substitutes,when members of the opposite sex are killed or victimized? Or are they already symbols ?
In other words,R.J.....isn't it just as likely that since objects like knives,guns,sticks,etc. are foreign or not body parts, like the fist,the karate chop, the well placed elbow, the knee to the groin...that that is the only reason that these foreign objects get so much ink as erzatz penises ? That in fact cowardice on the part of the enactor or the theory that it is an insurmountable advantage to the assaulter to use a weapon such as a knife is closer to the truth than this profiler penis-knife theory ?
We often forget that a lot of women [ help me out here,girls !!! ] get beaten to death by fists even when guns are present and as well as when not present.
Do profilers ask these type of perpetrators why they used their fists in cases such as these?
In other words...isn't ALL violence to opposite sex victims [ just to narrow it down to a case such as the WM ] a matter of them containing a little of several different motivations? Power and control or the lack thereof...penis and knife..and others.
Sorry to drag that out,R.J.
(Message edited by howard on December 09, 2005)
(Message edited by howard on December 09, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5363
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Well, I guess it could be answered that men don't use their fists to penetrate women's abdomens and remove their wombs. But I don't see why a knife has to be a phallus - it could, for example, be a spade.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
RJ,
People are free to have different opinions, but when someone is so dead set against the current scientific understanding of things that they go around trying to promote snide remarks by people with no true experience or understanding as if they held real meaning, and also take it into unrelated threads, and then using that hatred to personally attack a large number of comments by posters they know to disagree with them on threads that have nothing to do with that topic (even going as far as you do to insult myself and everyone who contributes to the leading magazine in the field, one that you don't even read unless you subscribe under a false name), I think it's fair to call that pathological.
You don;t seem to want to argue your point, you (and a few posters like you) seem to want to play slash and burn on anyone who disagrees with you, whether they are just people here or whether they are the accepted experts in their fields.
It says a lot when, in order to advance your arguments, you have to try to tear down all the modern advances and research that have been going on for more than a century. Jack as sexual serial killer was the conclusion of the experts at the time of the murders as well, but since your theory won't allow that, you have to try to set the calendar back even further. Pretty soon all that's going to be left is the claim that the killer obviously was possessed by evil spirits that had usurped his body. Pity that nobody on the Met police force of 1888 had a convenient goat to drive the possessing spirit into so that they could drive it off into the desert and free the promised people from such accursed bedevilment.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 774
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Hi Dan - It looks like we have no commonground, so I see no point in discussing the matter.
The model you cite is from the 1880s.
I resist it as antiquated nonsense, and will keep doing so.
If crimes of this sort had a purely sexual explanation, they would be occurring at the same rates in all cultures. They aren't. Modern sociobiologists and anthropologists that have studied homicide don't accept these simplistic explanations--and for good reason.
When the cultural forces that shape these types of crimes are seen in their proper perspective, then a clearer idea of who the Ripper really was will emerge. The undeniable power of the lustmord myth is precisely what keeps the case from moving in the correct direction. Instead of trying to debunk a few old wives tales, you should expend some energy debunking the biggest myth of all....instead of promoting it. IMHO Regards, RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on December 09, 2005) |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 84
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 9:44 pm: |
|
"Cultural forces," eh? Oh boy, here's a little clue for us all on what RJ may be thinking. What suspect may have committed the murders because of "cultural forces?" There was a Jewish cultural force here, a poverty one, a humanistic one, maybe a religious one, a political one (e.g. vote radical), eh? Let's put our little noggins together, kiddies!
The Walrus was Paul!
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 85
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Mr. Brown wrote:
"I came into work one Saturday and found the plant had been broken into. Nothing was taken,but something was delivered. A turd on the seat of the fork truck we use to move material."
>>Shouldn't something be done about this?
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Dave:
We did,my man. We showed him the ropes on the fork lift...gave him minimum wage...and now he's my boss.
Back to the ssk..or not.
Dan..when you state the the experts at the time felt [ and A.P. gave examples above from these men...] that the motive was sexual, isn't that more of a generalization? These experts [perhaps not all of them...] also felt that masturbation led to insanity. Therefore,these experts... and again,A.P. has shown 5 examples of people involved who felt otherwise..not that they were correct.... may have been of the times as far as the true motivational force at work here. There doesn't appear to be an across the board acceptance of an ssk. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent here.
Most of us are aware of the emphasis and impact of Freudian based psychology,in which sex as a motive was paramount in almost everything. Now,we see the shift that has taken place in medical circles,that acknowledges more specific and less sexually based motives for human behavior.
Not to argue against you or anyone else,but aren't we relying a little too much on contemporary "experts" such as Bond ... How many incidents of satyrisis... the need to control feelings of inferiority through sexual success....according to the A.M.A....had Bond ever seen? He wasn't a psychologist after all....... |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2939
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
Hey RJP, you talking my language here.
I agree with you 190% - which is the same strength as my over-proof rum.
In fact if Freud were stood in front of me right now I would hit the old sod over the head with a shovel.
Just like you I find it totally unacceptable that people still recite cant from that charlatan weirdo with a beard, and while they recite that cant we are left dealing with a sanitised modern version of a serial killer with about as much to do with the Late Victorian Period as frozen peas. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2940
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
How, thanks for your kind comments.
Basically what I am trying to say is that time has moved on and we now live in an age where a totally unrealistic motive might well be totally correct, the age we live in dictates that men might go out and brutally murder a women and get some kind of ‘thrill’ from such a useless crime.
However if we step back to the LVP we see much more realistic motive at play in the murder of women: revenge, jealousy, anger and very often ignorance of the true role of a woman in that fledgling society.
Men of the time who wished to dominate or exercise power over women, sexually or otherwise, merely had to marry one, or employ servants, or prostitutes. The law was always on their side.
It is, I think, quite wrong to ascribe ‘power’ or ‘sexual’ motive to a crime within a society that had every possible means available legally to satisfy such urges.
Realistic sexual crime of the time would have been bondage.
Murder?
Nah! |
Guest
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 5:00 am: |
|
At the time of these crimes little was known of sexual serial killers as such. Most cases were looked on as the work of a madman. Some say serial killers were responsible for the myths of vampires and werewolves in days gone by.
By 1888 there were a few cases for comparison to Jack's crimes. Fred Baker, Thomas Piper and Jesse Pomeroy for instance. I think Dr Bond in his 'profile' wasn't too far off the mark, and did a good job considering.
IMO Jacks motive was sexual. There wasn't any signs of sex or semen found at any of the murder sites, but this means little. He possibly orgasmed during his crime (no semen being anywhere except inside his trousers), or perhaps more likely, he fed on the fantasy of the kill and mutilation later, when he was alone.
The actual murder was a means to an end, I suspect Jack got his kicks from the actual mutilation. Somebody mentioned picquerism. Picquerism is the act of stabbing, cutting and gouging with a knife for sexual gratification. Jack could well have been a picquerist. Andrei Chikatilo also suffered from this, it's rare, but not unheard of.
Trophy taking amongst sexual serial killers is far more common. From Ridgeway's trophy's of shoes and jewellery, to JTR taking Annie Chapmans rings and victim body parts. The removal of body parts is mostly a trait of a disorganized killer which Jack undoubtedly was.
No other theory fits the facts better than Jack being a sexual murderer. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Im not an expert on these matters. I know very little when it comes to a discussion of technical terms.
However, to a layman there seems sexual overtones at least. With Kelly for instance, her face, breasts, sexual organs, abdomen and thighs were mutilated. These seem to be the main aspects of womanhood.
One thing we know for certain, Jack wasnt interested in mutilating women's feet.
Dont ask me to explain why he took away the heart, i can't. |
Nicholas Smith
Inspector
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 157
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
G'day guys,
Let's get back to the basics. 'Jack' sexually mutilated women. He didn't just kill them he attacked their sexual organs. Whether he wanted to collect 'souveniours' is open to speculation, but the attacks were of a sexual nature.
Jules |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 775
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
If you ever make it into the V&A Museum in London, take a look around and notice how all the paper butterflies are in one glass case and all the bees are in another. The ceramics are in the West Wing and the glass ashtrays are in the East. Why is this?
The Victorians loved to collect and classify things. They loved to divide things up and place them in neat little heaps. Imagine the outrage if you were to take one of the paper butterflies and place it in with the ceramics.
The Victorians went a long way to invent a field called "Criminology," and we’ve been doing it their way for 140 years. Predictably, one of the first things they did was to divide all the criminals up into neat little heaps. Let’s put the 'slow poisoners' in this glass case over here, and the embezzlers here, and the 'sex fiends' over here by the fire exit. And let's place Mudgett and Petiot and the East Wing along with the other murder-for-proft blokes.
Has it occurred to anyone that this might be a fundamentally bad way of doing business? What if you went into a library in Borneo and found that the librarian had arranged all the books by the color of their spines? The orange ones on one shelf, and the blue ones on another? No doubt the lunatic who tried to re-arrange them in a different fashion would be called pathological. So how far are we willing to go? Should the embezzlers who wore blue kneckties be given their own catagory? Or might there be something a bit more going on? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2949
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Just a small point.
He actually attacked their ‘reproductive’ and ‘nurturing’ organs and seemed to steer clear of what might be termed as ‘sexual’ zones of the female body. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2713
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Yes.I have often wondered about the focus of his attacks too.He took the uterus and kidney and possibly Mary Kelly"s heart.
He is not recorded as having made frenzied knife attacks specifically within the birth canal
or on the labia or clitoris.
He showed some need to mutilate the face in the case of Eddowes,taking away her kidney.[and very clearly in the case of MJK].
He seems to have dug out organs via the belly and diaphragm when possible.
Its recorded that when victors of past tribal wars [and this still happens in some tribes today],kill their enemies,after battle,they frequently cut off their testacles and stuff them in the victims mouth. They also rape and loot.This isnt considered to be "sexual" but rather an assertions of power,post battle blood lust and dominance.
Might not this have been a similar motivation of the Ripper"s?
Natalie |
Nicholas Smith
Inspector
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 159
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Quite righyt Nat, The Zulu people cut open the stomach's of their fallen and also their vanquished so their sould could go to heaven. The Vikings used to rape the men, not the women, and the Serbs castrated the Croats not as a means of being sexually superior but just of being superior.
Jules |
Guest
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Hello RJ Palmer. To put labels on people may not be a great idea at times, but when it comes to serial killers the different types have to be classified. Or mixed amongst sexual serial killers we would have Mafia hitmen and black widow poisoners. But there are new categories that include these too, thought up by criminologists R. Holmes, S. Holmes and De Burger. It's based on motive rather than the FBI categories which are based on method.
IMO Jack was a disorganized killer and they often take body parts. What they do with them afterwards is vague, and usualy different in almost every case. They are unpredictable and that's what makes them so hard to catch.
There's a new theory that the taking of trophies by a serial killer is connected to past crimes of stealing. It would be interesting if any of your suspects had a criminal record for this.
Jack's ultimate fantasy was the complete mutilation of a victim, which he succeeded in doing with MJK. It's interesting that an organized killer having this fantasy would entice the victim to his home. A ploy that these unfortunates would have fallen for easily. Being paid for sex and a free comfy bed for the night would interest them greatly. It would also be far safer for the killer. These women wouldn't be missed, and I doubt if they would be reported missing to the police at all.
Thou he may have been married, or living with parents or relatives which could explain why he didn't follow this thru.
A disorganized (and usualy mentaly unbalanced) killer doesn't think like this and will kill on urges. They are usualy younger than a organized psychopathic killer because of the nature of the desease. Schizophrenia is the usual ailment of the psychotic killer, which in a male manifests itself in his mid-teens and becomes fully blown in his mid-twenties. Between these ages the development of the desease differs, and they can be perfectly lucid and 'normal' at times. I believe Jack was one of these cases, and where we would be most likely to find him. Once a kill is over for these people, they have no interest in contacting the police or newspapers. I discount any letters and the Goulston St graffiti as red herrings because of this.
But it's almost impossible to be absolute on anything here. Hard facts are difficult to come by and that makes this more difficult than modern day serials. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
