|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 4:27 pm: | 
|
Helge
Is this all crap? Baloney? Can anyone please inform me if the book in question is in fact fiction?
As I suggested earlier, you may like to look at the earlier discussion on this point, in this thread, in May.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4993
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Hi all
Is it not possible that the Ripper cut the piece of apron, not at the end, but at the beginning, in order to kneel on it and protect his knees from blood? If he was kneeling by Kate's right side, the blood from the neck wound would have been running down the pavement under her and towards him.
After the mutilations he makes use of the cut piece a second time, either to wipe his hands on or to carry the organs in.
Robert |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 289
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Thanks Chris,
I actually have read all this before, but must have missed that part.
But I fail to see quite how this can be seriously disputed. As far as I know the Inquest files actually exist to this day, and we are not talking about newspapers quoting this or second hand hearsay or whatever.
Evans/Skinner writes "For greater detail on the Eddowes murder reference may be made to the Inquest reports filed in the Corporation of London records Office. These records include the written statements of witnesses at the Eddowes Inquest."
I have always assumed that the statements in the book (Companion) was actually from these written statements. I still think they are, but correct me if I am wrong.
For what it is worth, I see now that I probably misinterpreted your tone in your last couple of posts, and ascribe that to your seemingly disinterest in answering my questions to you. I found that this was apparent also in our last debacle, and probably overreacted.
I did not intend to say that you were a shame for Casebook, in case you interpreted it that way, only that the way the discussion went was that. And I still think that. But I am willing to take some of the blame for that myself. Although not all of it 
Anyway. This may not change anything, but I am sincere in saying this.
Actually I have found a possible flaw in my reasoning all by myself. Beggs "The Facts" states that there was a "corner of the apron" wet with blood, and I thought that was from Long's statement. However, Long said "one portion was wet", which is rather bland, dont you think?
So, until I find out why Begg wrote what he wrote, I admit I feel on slightly shakier ground than before. But it is late and going over this again will have to wait.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1856
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
G'day.
JULIE: 'Leanne
I don't remember the newspaper that reported this, but unless I am mistaken the guy was Richardson.'
The 'AtoZ' gives the names of three Richardsons: *RICHARDSON, MRS AMELIA (Witness at Annie Chapman's inquest),
*RICHARDSON, JOHN (Witness at Annie Chapman's inquest),
and *RICHARDSON, JOSEPH HALL (Journalist working on the Daily Telegraph). Which Richardson do you mean?
The report was from the 'Star' newspaper of October 1 and here is the passage: "From two different sources we have the story that a man, when passing through Church Lane at about half past one, saw a man sitting on a doorstep and wiping his hands. As everyone is on the look-out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and sailor's hat".
To find the message board that discusses it, tipe 'doorstep' into the search box on the left. It's the 2nd link that appears. I couldn't locate it the other way!
The description of the man wearing a sailor hat, appeared before 'sailor hat' was printed in the newspapers, so the 'two different sources' couldn't have copied the description.
If we want to discuss this we should move to the appropriate message board!
LEANNE
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1418
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Helge
As far as I know we don't have any official transcript of the oral evidence given at the inquest. The newspaper reports conflict in some respects, and this is the source of the doubt about what was said.
In the earlier discussion the phrase you quoted today is attributed to the Times report, but from the wording it is evidently not a direct quotation from Brown. It doesn't appear at all in the Daily Telegraph report which is on this site (according to which Brown described the apron piece as "spotted with blood"). But apparently the Daily News did attribute a statement about smears directly to Brown. On balance, it seems likely he did say something like this, but we can't be sure of his exact words.
According to the Telegraph report, P.C. Long did refer to "The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood."
Chris Phillips
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Good point, Robert.
But I'd like to know why everyone thinks the apron belonged to Eddowes?
Just because she left the police station wearing a white apron does not imply that the white apron found belonged to her, even when identified as so by a PC at the station.
The men of Whitechapel commonly wore white aprons - butter makers, sugar makers etc.
There were two or more people concerned in the actual murder, perhaps the murderer left his own apron at the murder scene - and elsewhere - and took the grits home in the victim's apron. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 290
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Again, thanks for pointing this out, Chris.
I was just rummaging through "companion", and I see the reason for my confusion. Evans/Skinner does seem to speak about inquest papers..but a few pages later (p.240 in my edition) they say:
"Despite the fairly detailed statements of the various witnesses contained in the preceeding inquest papers, they would appear to be the initial evidence of these witnesses and the reports to be found in the newspapers do contain additional information. In order to get the full details of the reported evidence in the press, we again turn to The Times."
And, of course, you are right, my version of Browns statement WAS from the times. I looked for Browns statement and looked a few pages too far!
The earlier "initial evidence" states:
"The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of the apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood. I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street."
Of course, this does not necessarily imply that the Times got it all wrong, but yes, I agree, what they write is a transcribed version of Browns statement. And not necessarily 100% accurate or official.
Still, I would image the core of it is true.
But I do stand corrected on the origin of the statement, that much is certain.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 49
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
This is what the casebook dissertation says:
P.C. Long reported ' ....about 2.55am I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced, there appeared blood stains on it one portion was wet lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 - 119 model dwelling house. Above it on the wall was written in chalk - the jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing...'
Notice it says: One portion was wet. It says nothing about blood, however. Is there a different statement by Long out here, or is the dissertations's quote wrong? If this is the actual statement, it cannot fairly be discerned from this that it was blood. In fact I would argue against that likelihood. If the dissertation is wrong, all bets are off.
AP,
Good thoughts, but I'm not buying it at this point.
Cheers,
Mike the Mauler
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 291
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
So that is what have been on your mind, AP!
Never would have guessed it in a million years.
But would it not be awkward to dress the women up in his apron? As far as I understand Eddowes (to stick with her) was actually wearing the other part of the apron..
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 292
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 6:20 pm: |
|
Mike, all
If we choose to disregard the newspapers, then it might seem that we do not even know what we thought we knew about this case, and that even Begg is..should we say...not necessarily correct...
At least on that point.
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 50
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Helge,
Hvordan har du deg? I agree. Most writers/reporters try to be accurate, but most newspapers care about circulation. I don't think newspapers can be ignored, but I think they have to be looked at carefully. We seem to get hung up here on details, and rightly so because details matter, but with those hangups comes the disregard for other details that may not fit in with our speculations.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 21
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:04 pm: |
|
Hi all!
While our recent exchange of ideas has been a thoroughly fruitful and enjoyable one thus far, it has yet to be satisfactorily refuted that an organ was transported in the infamous apron fragment.
An attempt to discern a "smear" from any other variety of bloodstain would seem to be an obfuscation of the central issues, but I would welcome any protestations to the contrary.
Regards and best wishes,
Ben |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 51
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Ben,
It has not yet been proven that an organ was transported as well. I'm sticking with status quo on this topic.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 293
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 6:07 am: |
|
Hi, Mike..
Jeg har det bra!
Yes, although it does seem that several people much more knowledgeable than me in this case lend much credit to the Times reports (Evans/Skinner/Begg), I must agree with people who call for caution (for example Chris here...) Caution is indeed in order.
So, I agree on caution, and would classify whatever comes from the Times as less certain than what are in the official documents.
And now we see the problems in this case clearly. They had the piece of apron. They examined it. But did they leave us with a proper description of it? Not at all.
Especially Longs statements seem to me to be vague and, at least for our purposes, almost worthless. Boy, would I give much for a proper description and even possibly a photograph!
Although, of course, one must also consider that the Times had reporters at the inquest, and their rendering of it does not appear to be sensationalism at all in form. As a matter of fact "smears" sounds to me to sound less sensational than simply blood spots, bloodstains etc.
Anyway. There seem to be indications that there were only smears on the apron, although it cannot be ascertained as absolutely certain (this is how I will rephrase myself)
An experiment to see how much any organs will bleed is still in order IMO. If they bleed a lot, we may still refute the probability (another rephrasing) that they were carried in the apron.
My reasoning still stands, either they will then produce one major stain more or less in the middle of the apron (being carried as a sort of bag), or they will produce stains consistent with a "folding effect" (if the piece was folded around the body parts).
There is also the matter of how fast those stains dry.
If the stains happen to show up very well (i.e. much blood), I am certain we may say that there would at least be a great probability that people at the time would have noticed those patterns.
They did not comment on any such patterns, and this (given that the experiment proves me right in my assumptions) seems to indicate to me that there is a very little chance that the organs were carried. The odds depend of course on how easy it is to interpret the stains we get.
We must assume the people involved to be at least of average intelligence, and it seems clear that a great deal of effort was in fact spent on the apron. Which is not more than what is to be expected, though, it was a major clue!
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 53
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Helge,
I agree. The detectives would have probably looked at the possibility of missing organs being taken. They would have examined the apron piece and looked for blood and bits of matter. I think they would have put that in their report.
They saw it and described it as best they could. We have to give them the benefit of the doubt unless other evidence surfaces. I am all for keeping an open mind. If no one did we would all be conservatives.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 4:38 am: |
|
Hello
The rag could also have been used to cover his hand as he reached into the body cavity to pull out his prize (in the same way a butcher inserts his hand into a polythene bag to pull out a steak, then inverts the bag) thereby accounting for the faeces and the wet blood. While I dont mind getting a few blood spatters on me, getting my hands covered in faeces hardly appeals and maybe it didnt to him either.
He then may have wiped off the mess of his prize or even stopped in Goulston street to check he had got what he wanted (or what he had been lucky enough to get depending on his level of medical expertise) and discarded the rag.
Mr P |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
Thanks for the info Monty
Lets consider this in a little more in depth for just a second.He did'nt just take the kidney did he....Uterus & womb too, thats quite a parcel he has there.PC Long did not see or hear anyone and he searched the building....our boy was long gone I think.
Consider this a moment......I'm aware that the Police reguarded this letter as being sent by a journalist but...it was not published until the 30th
'I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits.'
Stride & Eddowes are killed in the vicinity of Jewish clubs,a piece of Eddowes apron is dropped below an anti-semitic message.
'The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you.'
He DID clip her ear off but did'nt send it...the part of Eddowes ear that was severed fell out of her clothing when her body was being stripped at the morgue.....did he drop it and then couldnt find it?
I'm not suggesting the letter was from our boy but it points in the right direction I think. I think the killer read the papers, and I think he himself took up on the 'Jewish' connections being made by the press,public and police.
I dont think the killer wrote that message, I think he'd seen it before he killed Eddowes,I also think he killed both women that night in specific places of his own choosing - near Jewish clubs - and dropped the apron in a Jewish dwelling under a piece of graffiti he had previously seen.
I think he was laughing at everyone. |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
From the report of Doctor Gordon Brown re Eddowes
The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder - they we're smeared over with some feculent matter.
later in the same report.....
I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips ans stated to have been found in Goulston Street.It is impossible to say it is human blood.I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had evidently been sewn onto the piece I have,the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding.Some blood and,apparently faecal matter was found on the portion in Goulston Street.
I'd say he wiped his hands on it. |
N. Beresford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
I think this subject has moved on quite a lot since I last posted.
Howard,
Thanks for the list. It helps , of course, but it never tells you enough! There is a discussion about the cigarette case going on somewhere and I'll post on there no doubt shortly.
Steve Swift added a few extra items which was useful aswell, so thanks Steve.
Yours faithfully, N. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Leanne,
G'day. Your post mentioned that Jack could have carried the organs in a parcel and might have been able to explain it away had he been stopped by a policeman. I had the same thought only I took it quite a bit further. I'll call it the hide in plain sight theory. What if Jack was a butcher or slaughterman or was simply dressed like one. That would allow him to be on the street with a knife or knives, a bloody apron or bloody clothing, and a container or parcel for carrying organs. As you stated, he could put any organs from the victims in with a couple of sheep's kidneys and should he be stopped simply say that he was taking them home to his family and/or pets.
Yes, I will admit that this theory is way out there and there are a lot of problems associated with it. I know the dates and times might not jive with someone in that profession and of course the likelihood is quite great that he would be stopped and questioned, but we have seen that the PCs were not always the brightest of people. Could it be that if you want to hide the best place place to do it is in plain sight?
Sometimes you just have to run 'em up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes.
c.d. |
mpacana
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
With Lawende's description of Eddowe's hand on the
man,it's even possible that they knew each other,
all the more drastic to create a ruse. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 4:54 am: |
|
Hello
The rag could also have been used to cover his hand as he reached into the body cavity to pull out his prize (in the same way a butcher inserts his hand into a polythene bag to pull out a steak, then inverts the bag) thereby accounting for the faeces and the wet blood. While I dont mind getting a few blood spatters on me, getting my hands covered in faeces hardly appeals and maybe it didnt to him either.
He then may have wiped off the mess of his prize or even stopped in Goulston street to check he had got what he wanted (or what he had been lucky enough to get depending on his level of medical expertise) and discarded the rag.
Mr P |
mpacana
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Just thoughts, opinions and speculations...
About the graffito
If he wrote the graffito and dropped the bloodied apron in the Wentworth MD going home,(seemingly) to cast blame on the Jews,he could have done better writing "The gentiles will pay/die"or something similar.It is more likey to incite more anti-semitism or turn the suspicion towards the jew.Also it is easy to conceive and easier/faster to write.For all the risk he took I think he would have gone for the simple and maximum effect. With or without the graffito,or just the apron it could still be looked at as either genuinely coming from a jew or planted anyways.
Perhaps the graffito could be saying the jews are the people who will not be blamed just for no/null result ,implying, some changes must be made/happen.Although relatively meek,I see this as typical and could come from any racist.
If the word 'nothing"means evidence,as if pointing to the apron, again the above is the likier scenario.
I don't see the connection between the graffito and the apron.
With less leeway compared to the Nichols and Chapman cases because of the reinforcements
I don't see no other purpose for the apron taking and the dropping in the Wenthworth MD except to save his neck.Maybe that in this particular case some ruse must be made.
At this time it is widely known there is a killer operating,plus the reinforcements,I think he was just reacting against those pressures. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Hello Helge.
Suppose Jack was forced to leave Mitre Square in the direction he didn't want to go, due to the return of PC Watkins on his beat. Suppose he operated out of the City, and not Whitechapel.
If he was clever and cunning, and I think he probably was, he would know that the discovery of the piece of apron and the graffito would bring full Police attention to Goulston St.
If concealed in some dark vantage point nearby, he could have waited until the Police descended on the scene of the discovery, then doubled back across the City boundary, leaving the Police to believe that his direction from Mitre Square indicated that he lived in Whitechapel.
Just my idea. What do you think Helge ??
Best wishes.
DAVID C.
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 11:36 pm: |
|
From the age of fourteen I worked as a 'saturday lad' on the markets & abbatoirs in Liverpool before being apprenticed as a butcher at sixteen.
The kidney does not leak blood.
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Ok everyone take a chill pill.
I think whats happening here is a little misunderstanding over a word.
I'm pretty sure the word 'apron' is being used to describe a pinifore here.The 'pini' was still being worn in the early 70's by most working class women and if you look at a lot of photo's from Whitechapel in the 18 or early 1900's the women are wearing pinifore NOT aprons.
Pinifore have pockets.In the North of England they're called 'pini's' and in the south 'aprons'. |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 54
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
All,
I can see it now:
PC Long: There now sir. Where are you going in such a hurry? Hey, and what have you got there in that bundle?
Jacky: Oh, I'm on my way home, sir. Y'see I was out drinkin' a bit late, and I've got to get up early, and I know my wife and I will have a row over the whole thing, so I brought her some nice pig's organs to make it up to her.
PC Long: Mind if I have a look?
Jacky: Oh no sir. I'll just untie the bundle for you.
PC Long: Good enough. Lucky for you that 24-hour butcher shop is in business or you'd be sleeping in the tool shed, eh?
Jacky: Lucky indeed sir. Good evening to you.
PC Long: Just one more thing.
Jacky: Yes sir?
PC Long: You haven't seen anyone suspicious about, someone that might be concealing a long knife with which he butchers women, sometimes extracting their organs?
Jacky: No sir. Nothing like that.
PC Long: Good enough. Be on your way.
Jacky: Thank you sir.
Mike the Mauler
|
mpacana
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
also...
I think with all the changes in Whitechapel /Spitalfields,the press coverage,the reinforcements,etc. I would think that at that point leading up to Sept. 30,an impression would have been given that if another murder/mutilation happens there will be a big investigation. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 5:00 am: |
|
hi,
One of the main points in discussing the murders of Stride and Eddowes is the complete contrast that the men seen with each of them showed.
Strides attacker if he was her killer shows him to be a rough neck type who showed real aggression from the outset, where as Eddowes accoster shows a more relaxing attitude and if anything was showing patience.
There is also because of this a possibility that two men were acting in liason of two different characters.
Could this therefore [ speculation] be the answer.
Schwartz witnessed Jack' approach Stride and attack her immediately , and witnessed another man standing close by who appeared to have rushed towards the couple before heading in the direction of schwartz.
After he had shaken of Schwartz he then heads back to Dutfields yard and by then Mr Broad shoulders has cut Strides throat leaving her to die for fear of her telling the police what she witnessed.
Mr pipe man then heads in the direction of Mitre square to accost another Prostitute, and 'Jack ' after sitting on a door step cleaning his knive followes on .
Shortly afterwards Mr pipe man finds Eddowes and stands in the entrance of church passage awaiting 'Jack' to approach, but Jack' cannot find his accomplice and walks up to a nightwatchman in orange place [ Blenkeinsop] asking 'Have you seen a man and woman pass this way?.
Shortly after this Mr Pipeman notices his murderous friend in the square and encourages Eddowes to enter down church passage on reaching the corner she is grapped by 'Jack ' and despatched.
All far fetched mayby?
But it would explain the stride sighting and the accounts of Scwartz/ Lawande and Bleinkensop and mayby the reason why the killer was able to get away after each murder as two men seen together would have been less suspicious as a lone person.
Regards Richard. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 294
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Steve,
You got some interesting thoughts re Stride and Eddowes. It also seems like these women actually worked for Jews occasionally, at least they frequented Jewish neighbourhoods, and that might have been a contributing factor of them being murdered.
I have myself considered Jack to be anti-Semitic before, but maybe he was not. Maybe he just played along with the newspapers, etc. Indeed, what better cover than play along with false rumours?
However, that there should be such a message that he accidentally saw that same night (the GSG) is stretching bit a bit, IMO. I think he wrote it. But that is just opinion, obviously.
Mr. Poster,
Your scenario of Jack using the piece of apron to rummage inside the body cavities seems inconsistent with "spots" or "smears" of blood. I'd think it would be dripping wet! Also I think it would be hard to feel anything through that cloth. And, to top it off, it would soon soak through, and his hand would have been dripping with blood anyway!
David,
Your idea seems reasonable the way you explained it. If Jack played games with the police, he just might have wanted to confuse them. That was my basic premise with trying to pin it on the Jews. However, I still don't think he really needed to create any diversion as to where he lived, the police seemed clueless at the time.
However, your scenario can't be ruled out.
Steve,
I wonder if the kidney does not leak blood because slaughtered animals are bled. Would that be true? I think Jack hardly waited until Eddowes body was bled for blood, and thus the kidney might very well still be full of it, thus leaking through the artery?
Another matter is the uterus that we know he did not get out in one piece. That should bleed IMO. (But I admit I don't know how much)
AP has been trying to tell me that the aprons were indeed used to carry stuff. I have no idea whether they were called pinifores or not, but contemporary reports use the word apron. But I go along with pockets and stuff.
However, no pocket is mentioned to be part of the piece from Goulston Street, so I guess there were none.
However, if the aprons, or pini's did have pockets, I'm sure Jack rummaged through them.
Richard, I find your scenario possible, although speculative. I have always wondered myself about pipeman. Was he a lookout? And was he perhaps Hutchinson?
Or, other scenario. Was Pipeman Jack, and did he double back, finding Stride still reeling from the previous attack, sweet talked her a bit, and then killed her?
Pure speculation, I know. But if anyone met Stride after the assault (i.e. the initial assaulter was not the killer), pipeman seems the most likely suspect.
Had we only known the full thruth about the "Lipski!" shout we would perhaps know.
That there should be two "Jack's" operating together is not at all impossible, though. However I personally think the odds are against it.
But again, just opinion.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 695
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
You mentioned the following idea as to a possible explanation as to why the Ripper did not take some of Annie's clothes (in response to my wondering why he didn't):
Two possible explnations present themselves here. The distance between 29 Hanbury Street and the ripper's home may have been considerably shorter that the distance between Mitre Square and "home".
For additional reasons, I get the feeling that Jack may have lived close to 29 Hanbury street. Quite close actually. Basically, if the time of death for Annie is correct (after sun up), it seems to me that there's a good chance that Jack lives nearby. He has to get "out of sight" fairly quickly, so if he's willing to kill when there's light and activity around, I would think that means he's confident he can "get home" right away. Anyway, I think Jack must have cleaned his hands a bit though, before leaving the backyard, because otherwise I would think he would have left blood on the door handle as he left the area. There's no mention of any blood on the door handle (either the backyard door or the front door back into the street), which makes me think Jack's wiped his hands before leaving. Of course, perhaps there was blood on the door and we just don't have the report. And, if he did wipe his hands before leaving, that sort of goes against my idea of him cleaning up after leaving the area. However, since it's daylight for Annie's murder (or at least there's much more light), perhaps it's riskier to leave with bloody hands than it is to take the extra time to wipe them down before leaving (in Jack's mind at least). And, if that was his decision, then again, it appears he had something to clean up with (or took something out of her pockets; who would know if some cloth was missing from her person?). Anyway, too many options are open for "theory" here so I think almost any story can be made to fit.
It is equally plausible, however, that the ripper adopted a trial-and-error mentality towards the murders. In other words, he learned from previous mistakes and so "progressed". He became more efficient, and demonstrably, more brutal.
Yes, he may have learned from the previous murders. Again though, without evidence of blood on the doorhandle, it's hard to be sure that he hadn't been cleaning up a bit already. And if so, and since he didn't use the water at Annie's murder location, then it appears he had something to wipe his hands with that time (or found something).
So, I guess I think it's a question of whether or not there were signs of blood left on the doors that Jack exited through at Annie's murder. We have no report that indicates there was blood on these doors, but that's because we have no report about the state of the doors (as far as I know). So we can't be sure they were free of blood either. If they are free of blood, then we still can't know if he brought the cleaning cloth with him, or if he found some cloth on Annie (and simply didn't have to cut her clothes).
I don't belive for a moment that the ripper used the return journey as a hand-wiping opportunity. This would surely have aroused far more suspicion - should he have been spotted - that a wrapped apron.
Since Dr. Brown's testimony seems to indicate the blood on the apron appeared to come from the wiping of hands or knife, at the moment it seems that this is just what the Ripper did. It's "why" he appears to have done this that might tell us more about the Ripper, although of course the "why" can only be speculative and never proven as a certainty.
Anyway, I'm enjoying this discussion. I'm certainly not convinced that what I'm suggesting must be true, and so I would be surprised if I convinced you "it must be true"! But, given that the testimony at the inquest suggests the apron was used as a clean up rag (for hands or knife), then I think that's the most promising place to start from. From that starting point, I'm interested in the "why this time?", meaning "why does he need some of the victim's clothes to clean up this time" and apparently did not need them on other occasions? He didn't cut away any of Nichol's or Chapman's clothes. Either he had something, or found something on them. With Nichols, he didn't appear to have time to find anything, although with Chapman, he did search her pockets, so may have found something then.
- Jeff |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 365
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 10:14 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
The theory that Jack lived very near #29 is my proposal on the thread - Mr. Ripper's Neighborhood? - in Suspects/General if you haven't checked it out. He may have even lived at #29.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1881
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
AP,
Good point, Robert.
But I'd like to know why everyone thinks the apron belonged to Eddowes?
Just because she left the police station wearing a white apron does not imply that the white apron found belonged to her, even when identified as so by a PC at the station.
The men of Whitechapel commonly wore white aprons - butter makers, sugar makers etc.
There were two or more people concerned in the actual murder, perhaps the murderer left his own apron at the murder scene - and elsewhere - and took the grits home in the victim's apron.
Im in mischievous mood.
Does it matter?
Half an apron was found with Eddowes, tother piece was in Goulston st. How did it get there?
Also are you inferring Eddowes apron was removed and taken, never to be seen again?
Cheeky Monkey Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Walton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 5:53 am: |
|
If the section of apron was used to carry organs as far as Goulston Street, what happened to them then?
Did the murderer decide that he'd been carrying the organs in plain sight near a murder scene for long enough and now at a safe distance he should hide them, transferring them to his pockets, or under his hat? If he had an alternate method for transporting the organs, why use the apron for that purpose at all?
Or did he sit on the step and eat his trophies using the piece of apron as a napkin? |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Something else that explains Stride being seen with different men is the fact that she was a prostitute.....would'nt you think? |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Hi Helge
One of my jobs was bringing pigs over from the abbatoir for my boss to sell on the side to make a bit of extra money - no blood from the kidney sorry, and remember,the killers victims had 'been bled' also.
Judging from the autopsy report I'd say he wiped his hands on it and although it's speculation I'd say he did it on purpose i.e. he didnt actually NEED to do it. I think it was in keeping with the evenings 'jewish' theme, the apron was pointing to the grafitti which someone else had written and he had previously seen.
In short, I think he had the whole thing in his head when he set out that night.
I must admit I dont find the idea of Stride being seen with so many men odd,she was a prostitute after all.
But was he disturbed OR did he just kill her and move on because he had been SEEN? I think it's more likely that having been seen by Schwartz he was fully expecting the guy to be running for a policeman, so he did Stride fast and got out of there.
I think people give this killer far too much credit.I dont think he did go searching for another victim,I think he was running for home and just happened to bump into Eddowes while he was still hot from Stride, is it likely that SHE accosted HIM? She was supposed to be going home but headed in the wrong direction......looking for doss money?
He sliced away almost half her apron and then dumped it, its not likely that he carries the organs in it for a few minutes and then stops in the middle of Whitechapel, with cries of 'murder' ringing through the night, transfers the organs to his pockets and then goes on his way....that makes no sense.
It makes no sense either that he did it ONLY to wipe his hands, Eddowes had numerous cloth about her person that he could have used and it's almost certain he searched her. In my humble opinion he dropped it for a reason, and he clipped half of Kate Eddowes apron because he WANTED it to be known that it was him.
Now, to my mind there can only be a couple of reasons why he would do that...
A- He's pointing a finger either at or away from the specualtion in the papers about the killer being Jewish, and all the time probably chuckling to himself.
B- He was goading the police.
In my mind this is the one clear aspect of this case in ALL the murky water. He could have wiped his hands on her skirts or on the numerous cloth in her pockets buit he did'nt. He went to the trouble of trimming her apron and whatsmore I think he did it BEFORE he mutilated her.
He WAS poiting to something.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 310
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 7:31 pm: |
|
Steve,
We read some details differently, but basically what you say makes perfect sense to me.
I'm also certain Saucy Jack was pointing to something.
Thanks for the information about the kidney. I disagree on some details, though. First of all Jack most probably did not wait until the victims were bled. His mutilations probably started instantly. And it takes theoretically several minutes to bleed to death even with a cut throat. Secondly, there is also the mutilated uterus, it should bleed in my opinion.
I will try to establish this for a fact if I can, if anyone doesn't beat me to it.
Anyway, we certainly seem to agree on the fundamental points here.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
I'm sorry, but I just can't see this whole apron as a communication thing. If you accept that theory, then you have to ask yourself why Jack chose to communicate in this manner and at this time. As for the time element, it seems that this is the WORST possible time for Jack to attempt to communicate. Carrying the apron (if it was for the purpose of pointing out the graffito),even for a short distance was dangerous. Stopping to write the graffito, even if only for a short time, was dangerous. It increased his odds of being caught or seen by someone in the act of writing it. So the question is why did he have to communicate now? Was this his only chance to do so? Of course not. Why not cut off a small portion of the apron and hide it somewhere near the crime scene? The next day you write a letter (from the safety of your home) with a message and tell the police where to find the apron. The point is that there were numerous ways to communicate that were much safer. And finally, ask yourself why there was no other communication in the case. If he killed Mary Kelly, he had time to write dozens of messages. Yet he didn't do so. The point is that Jack did not have to communicate on this night or forever hold his piece. That just wasn't the case.
c.d. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 352
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 6:05 am: |
|
C.d.
I see your points about communicating, but we need to ask WHY he wanted to communicate. I think he simply wanted to blame the Jews. Not to communicate with the police, or anyone in particular per se.
If he wanted to cause a riot against the Jews, or even just throw suspicion in their direction, then it was the perfect timing. The police feared, probably justly so, that public tensions might cause a riot unless they wiped out the GSG.
That was the situation at the time. Jack almost lit a fuse that was allready set.
The question is not if the timing was correct, but if Jack was aware that it was, or if he was just winging it.
Carrying bodyparts was even more dangerous than to carry the apron. A PC not knowing of the murder, would not necessarily think twice about a man carrying a piece of cloth. It was dark, the streets were dim lit, the blood might have gone unnoticed easily (besides, it was probably only on one side of the apron). Unless Jack was searched, he would be pretty safe. If he was searched, he would be caught anyway.
Whatever the reason, he DID carry the apron. That cannot reasonably be disputed! And the question then is: Why did he carry the apron? To carry bodyparts? I have earlier explained why I don't think so. To wipe his hands? Sounds ridicilous to me. Not that he should need to wipe his hands, but that he should need to carry the apron to Goulston street in order to do that.
If his "games" that night failed (and I am not for a moment suggesting the desire to blame Jews was his primary reason for murdering women), there is no reason why he should attempt this again in the case of MJK.
Think about it. Even if he DID want to frame the Jews that night, what should he do? Write a message on the wall of # 13 saying "Im a Jew after all"? Some other cryptic message? The police did not fall for it the first time, why should he expect they would now? It was just one of his games, it failed. Although he got his attention.
With MJK he was also sure to get his attention. And that was, except for the urge to kill, IMO, most important to him. Much more important than a failed attempt to stick the blames on the Jews.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
c.d.
Police Constable
Username: Cd
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
Helge,
Hi. Thanks for your response. You make some good points as you always do. I would argue that it is unclear whether the GSG was an attempt to blame the Jews. The message is so enigmatic that it could also be read as a defense of the Jews as so many on these boards have noted. Also, since the message was erased and riots did not ensue (as Jack might have hoped) why not try again at Miller's Court? It seems inconsistent that if the message was so important to Jack that he was willing to take the risks involved in writing it, that he now just lets it go.
c.d. |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Hi CD,
It's not inconsistant if you think about it,before that night the papers had been full of 'Leather Apron' & the fact he was jewish, after that night Leather Apron & Jews we're pretty much forgotten.
I agree with you that the message was ambiguous and can be read either as an attack OR a defence but as stated,I do not think he wrote it,I think he'd previously seen the graffiti and decided on some fun. |
Walton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
I don't believe the message is as enigmatic as it is often perceived to be. Use of a double negative gives rise to all kinds of interpretations, but it is a common form of expression in this area (I'm a Londoner, and worked in Aldgate for some years, walking along Goulston Street many times!).
"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" simply means "Jews get away with everything". It is the common sentiment of a 'native' against the immigrant, and is still in evidence today.
It may be a simple message, but it does appear to have been Jack the Ripper's intent that it should be read.
Wiping his hands could be done at the scene, there was no need to take the apron, and certainly not to carry it approximately 1600 feet away. At a brisk walk, that's about three minutes or so; wiping his hands would take only seconds.
If the cloth had been used to carry organs, they would appear to have been disposed of elsewhere and then the empty section of apron deliberately taken to Goulston Street.
It is true there seems to have been no attempt to repeat the message in connection with the next murder, but the circumstances were somewhat different. Eddowes was killed and mutilated in a hurry and afterwards the murderer may still have been in a state of mind to build and elaborate on the crime. Making more 'mischief' for the police and general population by stirring up fear and hatred of Jewish immigrants (and possibly sending half a kidney accompanying the letter to Lusk, with it's anti-Irish intonations), could have been the killer's way of prolonging the experience.
The Kelly murder differs in a significant way. The Ripper had the time to finally go 'all the way', to do what ever he wanted: Mary Kelly's body was fairly thoroughly destroyed. More than likely, the killer stopped his mutilations when he *wanted* to stop; that night he was satisfied. No need to start playing games.
Contemporary witnesses stated only that the chalk message was recently written, so it could have been left a short while before the murder, written by the Ripper himself or seen by him earlier in the day.
It would take only about twenty to thirty seconds to leave the message, so maybe not a huge risk to write it while initially fleeing the murder scene. If nothing else, we certainly know he was a risk taker.
Perhaps the most substantial clue to come from the whole GSG incident is that it would seem to confirm that the Ripper was at least semi-literate; he either wrote it, or was able to read it. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 6:50 am: |
|
Hi AP,
Liz Weaks was arrested in April 1883 with a pair of boots, pinafore and other stolen clothing ‘in’ her apron.
That's ambiguous. It could mean that she was arrested with stolen boots and pinafore - and in her apron was more stolen clothing.
But fair's fair, those aprons were quite large and capacious.
Hi All,
It seems that the difference between an apron and a pinafore is that an apron is tied around the waist with strings, and a pinafore is traditionally pinned afore - ie to the bosom of the dress or blouse.
I don't think it would have taken Jack much more time to wipe his hands and knife at the scene than to cut the apron half to use later for that purpose. But maybe he wanted better light for the wiping, so he could do it more effectively.
We just don't know what he did on previous occasions, or what he was able to make use of. It's only the fact that the discarded cloth was found in such circumstances that we are left this small snapshot regarding Jack's behaviour that night.
This makes it hard to rule out the possibility that there was a dual purpose in cutting the apron in half and leaving it where he did. If he had taken the whole apron, there may have been no final proof it belonged to the dead woman. A much smaller piece, though adequate for hand-wiping (and even organ-wrapping), might not have been found or associated with the victim. But he took half.
The whole thing smacks of deliberation IMHO.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on September 27, 2005) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1900
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Walton,
Wiping his hands could be done at the scene, there was no need to take the apron, and certainly not to carry it approximately 1600 feet away.
Timings (sightings and time of death) indicates that Watkins was very close by towards the end of the mutilating act, Harvey may have stumbled upon the murder being commited, and Morris possibly disturbed the killer.
So I ask you, would you hang around at the scene wiping hands?
Cheers
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2575
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Trust me Caz, it was all 'in' her apron.
The Whitechapel girls commonly kept their pipes and baccy in their aprons.
Anyways what ever happened to the post where I showed an LVP victim had been dragged about by their apron before being knifed?
It was common back then, to drag the women about by the apron and then to strangle them with their funny little hankys which had ties on them. |
Walton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
I certainly would not hang about wiping hands next to the body if someone was approaching (or stop to cut off half of the apron for that matter).
But after a swift exit from the square, he would want to get the blood off quickly to prevent being spotted in the street literally red-handed. So he hurriedly wipes his hands, probably in the very act of fleeing the Square. But, gore now removed, what use is the cloth? Hands cleaned up, wouldn't anyone just drop the rag right then? Certainly no need to carry it for several more minutes, even if he were the most thorough of hand wipers!
Taking the section of apron for simply wiping his hands doesn't fit easily with carrying it so far away. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 943
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
I would have thought that, for someone under tension and anxiety, as Jack must have been at that moment, and with adrenalin pumping through him - wiping the hands could also be a gesture of distraction (unthinking) and automatic.
Phil |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 697
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 1:27 am: |
|
Hi,
As mentioned by others in earlier posts, it appears the apron piece was cut before the abdominal mutilations started. This may not be proven beyond doubt, but from what information we have this does appear to be the most likely situation.
That means, if Jack were scared away from the scene, he would not have to "pause" to cut away the apron piece (it's already cut). So, if as Monty points out, he appears to have fled just before Watkins shows up (possibly scared off by Harvey or Morris, take your pick), then I think there is very good reason to propose the following:
1) Jack's first concer is to obtain distance between himself and the crime scene
2) His next concern will be to remove any obvious evidence (clean up)
If he was disturbed by Harvy or Morris, then it would appear he already had secreted away the kidney and uterus. The descriptions we have of the stains on the apron include the interpretation by those who actually saw it, that the apron appeared to have been used to wipe hands or a knife. So, I think the bulk of the evidence suggests that this is what the apron piece was probably used for, despite how odd that may seem to us.
As such, Jack appears to have grabbed the apron piece, and flees the scene. He may simply have kept his hands in his pockts as he walked away until he put some distance between himself and the crime scene.
Next, at about Goulston Street, he spots Long on his patrol, perhaps seeing Long from behind (so Long does not see him). Long continues on, Jack realises he has a few moments before Long is likely to return. Knowing he now has a bit of time, he turns his attention to his next priority, and cleans his hands and/or knife, using the rag. Discards it where he is standing.
Whether or not he takes some additional time to compose the message is unknown, but if he does, then this may be done to give himself a bit more time before following after PC Long (let's him keep an eye on the cop to avoid a surprise encounter).
To more or less repeat the above, the delay between leaving the scene and wiping his hands could simply reflect opertunities. He needs to get away, so he does. Time estimates suggest that he gets to GS about the time Long would be patrolling it, so again, waiting for Long to move on would then make sense. Knowing that the cop has just passed, means Jack would know he has a window of oppertunity where he's unlikely to be spotted. He may even just be hearing whistles indicating the body has been found. So now that he's far enough away, it's time to clean up. So that's when (and where) he wipes his hands, gets rid of the cloth (but not his trophies), and then continues to move away from the crime scene and like the police of the time, we lose track of where he goes.
I find this scenerio to be "pleasing", if you will. It seems to fit the data we have (testimony about what appears to have caused the blood stains for example), it seems to fit the data we can estimate from known facts (estimated travel times; estimated position of Long on patrol), and includes plausible behaviours and decisions made by someone trying to avoid detection without making them Moriarty. I admit, it's only a theory and it's certainly not "proven beyond a doubt". It just seems to be a pretty good working hypothesis to me.
- Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 945
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 2:09 am: |
|
...it appears the apron piece was cut before the abdominal mutilations started.
I am not at all sure of this assumption, and i am pleased to see you add the words "This may not be proven beyond doubt..."
...he appears to have fled just before Watkins shows up...
We simply don't know how or when he made his way out of the square. "Fled" implies haste, even a measure of "panic". But "retreat" might be a better word - he may have stood in the deep shadows and watched, then quietly edged himself away; or simply have walked off when others approach. We can make no assumptions about this.
Jack's first concer is to obtain distance between himself and the crime scene...
Was it - some would contend (not me) that he was keen to leave a message somewhere.
His next concern will be to remove any obvious evidence (clean up)...
Would it be? He may not have been that visibly bloodstained and there is no evidence from the other murders that he did this. On the other hand, he may IN THIS SINGLE case have got faeces on his hands and wished (for obvious reasons) to remove it. But being slightly pedantic, that is NOT to me quite the same things as removing evidence.
...the stains on the apron include the interpretation by those who actually saw it, that the apron appeared to have been used to wipe hands or a knife. So, I think the bulk of the evidence suggests that this is what the apron piece was probably used for, despite how odd that may seem to us. [My emphasisi.]
Why should cleaning knife and hands seem odd to us?
Next, at about Goulston Street, he spots Long on his patrol, perhaps seeing Long from behind (so Long does not see him). Long continues on, Jack realises he has a few moments before Long is likely to return.
This is, of course, pure fantasy, with not a iota of supporting evidence.
I find this scenerio to be "pleasing", if you will.
Fine, that is your right. But be clear, it has no foundation and is so heavily mired in "assumptions" as to be worthless. I know you recognise this.
Sorry to be so critical, but we have to cling to the facts (such as they are here). Flights of fancy get us absolutely nowhere.
Phil |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:17 am: |
|
Walton,
Taking the section of apron for simply wiping his hands doesn't fit easily with carrying it so far away.
I agree.
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
