|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 242
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 3:18 pm: |       |
Hi Robert,
You’re absolutely right in saying that GH didn’t say he went back to the Victoria Home after his vigil. But his story contains quite a bit of detailed information and mentioning that the Victoria Home was closed at two a.m. seems quite an important detail, because it would have explained why he walked on, further north. Not mentioning the Victoria Home was closed at 2 and only mentioning that it was closed in combination with the fact that he walked about all night after he had left the court at about 3 a.m. has made me think that it was still open at two, which was a time that, to me at least, seems too early for such places to have closed.
This is only an explanation why I think GH’s story implied he had gone back to the Victoria Home after leaving Miller’s Court. But like you say, it's possible that it was closed when he walked past it around two o'clock.
All the best,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 497
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
Hutchinson saw Abberline.He told him he knew Mary Kelly and had seen her with a well dressed man.He told him he had followed them and that he waited 45 mins outside Mary"s room the night she was murdered[could have been while she was being murdered].
Abberline was a well regarded well liked detective
who has gone down as being
very thorough in all his work
tireless to the extent that he walked the streets the whole night sometimes during the height of the ripper scare
It is unlikely to be the case that he acted like a man who could be easily duped by the world"s most famous serial killer
He would undoubtedly have had Hutchinson"s room and lodging house searched and its inhabitents questioned about Hutchinson as well as the local pubs and clientele questioned etc.Abberline like us would no doubt have asked why he stood there for 45 mins on such a night and would have been satisfied with his replies.He would have checked him out that is certain.
Myself as I say above I can see Hutchinson simply hoping to catch Mary before she went off with another client and asking her if she could put him up til his lodging house opened.He probably hoped too that such a welldressed client payed well and that he could borrow a few pence from Mary.
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 243
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Tjena Glenn,
“Well, believable and believable ... apart from the fact that no one else saw or heard anything that corroborates Schwartz' story. I think that is still something to consider.”
I thought you might make some remark about Schwartz’ statement. Regarding your remark, I only said it was believable, I didn’t say that we have to believe it (without being critical about it).
“No it's not (completely illogical). Yeah right... like Mary Kelly would have appreciated him barging in on them and making her losing a client. I wouldn't think so! He would have been well aware of that that is exactly what he couldn't do. She had to do her business and he knew it, so therefore it is not illogical at all that he instead figured, that the best he could do is to follow them and keep a look-out.”
First of all, the ‘Completely illogical’ was a comment to Hutchinson’s whole story, not to him not doing anything if he feared for Mary’s wellbeing. Then, maybe you know more than me, Glenn, but as far as I can see it’s nonsense to say that he couldn't have tried to convince her out of the deal with the posh man, if he really thought the punter could have been Jack the Ripper or any other dangerous man. Certainly when they knew each other. Maybe she wouldn’t have appreciated it, but that would not have been a reason not to do anything.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Tjenixen, Frank!
Well firstly: we don't know how well they knew each other; as far as I know we mainly have Hutchinson's own words about that.
Secondly: I don't agree with you, unfortunately. We must look at the conditions these women were subjected to. If what you suggest would be reasonable, then she or any of her other comrades wouldn't get a single client. If this client existed, there is really nothing extraordinary enough about him that would cause Hutchinson to interfere and make Kelly loose a client. For me who has studied the lives of prostitutes, that would be totally unthinkable.
Regardless of the Ripper scare, there would be no reason whatsoever for Hutchinson or any other to meddle in the prostitutes' affairs for the sake of security. For the women this was a matter of survival -- characters like the Ripper didn't make any difference. And I don't believe any of the women would approve of it.
I think it is quite logical that the only thing Hutchinson could do was to follow them and then -- if something suspicious would happen or if things would look threatening -- he might but his nose in her business. That part of his testimony is in fact the only passage that sounds plausible to me.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 19
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:47 am: | |
Glenn,
I agree that the only word we have the GH and MJK knew each other is from GH. If you believe he lied in his description of the astrakan man, which I do, then he might have lied about knowing MJK. Just elaborating, not disagreeing with you.
Natalie,
You talk about Abberline being thorough and tireless and that he would not be easily duped, and because of that we should believe him that GH was honest and did not do, or intend to do, anything "wrong". That being said, wouldn't that count out most of the suspects. It is prolly likely that Abberline was fooled.
Vlad |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1333
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 7:05 am: | |
Vlad,
It's possible. Indeed.
I think Hutchinson lied about quite many things in his testimony. Knowing MJK that close could be one of them.
And I agree with you, that we should be careful about putting Abberline on a piedestal. He was probably quite efficient for his time, but it is a mistake to think that he couldn't do... eh... mistakes, like everyone else.
Only the fact that he, in retrospect, suggested Chapman as his main Ripper suspect, has made me loose faith in him a bit. I'd say he was a very good detective under the circumstances, but I also think his ability and his judgements are slightly over-rated.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 506
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Vlad and Glenn,You both make a lot of sense and you may be right that Hutchinson lied and Abberline was fooled by him.
My own view is that Abberline was an experienced detective ,on the scene at the time and working clocely with his colleagues and some in the East end community that he trusted.
I am not a detective ,I know one or two are on the boards and that you Glenn have profiling expertise none of which I would in any way diminish but
I just cant see Abberline trained and experienced as he was,face to face with the very man who had
dementedly skinned and dismembered Kelly not either searching his digs/neighbours etc for info on him
questioning him in a detailed way
and finally letting him go
unless he had been at ease in his mind that the man he had questioned and accompanied to Petticoat Lane was Jack the Ripper.
I sometimes get the impression that people think
the Victorian police didnt do a proper job-they did and they kept detailed accounts[which over a hundred years have got lost OK] just as they did in schools,hospitals and council offices.
Maybe they are more refined today about who and how they question and search but the idea that they spent there time in some kind of sloppy daydream doesnt ring true for me really
Best Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1338
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:42 am: | |
Hi Natalie.
(Thanks by the way for calling me a profiling expert, but that is to draw it too far, I think -- especially as I'm having a lot of doubts about the efficiency and accuracy of profiling on a larger scale -- much of it makes good common sense, while a lot of it is just psychological nonsense in my view.)
Well, I think the police did as best as they could in 1888 -- compared to the police here at home during the same time, I would consider them to be men of genius.
It is just as easy today for an investigator to be fooled by a criminal; everything is a matter of experience and personal judgement for the police officers in these situations, but it is quite evident that the police in 1888 had no real experience in these types of killers and in fact didn't know how to deal with it. They were used to house-to-house searches and catching people in the act. Their lack of understanding of what drives a killer of this kind (which is not that easy a task to grasp and determine even today) would most certainly have been a problem for them during the interviews and the evaluations of statements.
As I said, Abberline was probably as efficient and competent as can be expected for his time, but he did make a number of errors and strange judgements, so I'd say it's a big mistake to lean too heavily upon him on every occasion. He was a good police man, but he was also human and subjected to the limitations and lack of knowledge of these types of crimes, that was displayed in 1888. So I would take some of his judgements with a pinch of salt.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 511
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Hi Glenn Thanks for the reply,
I still think that Abberline would have been of average intelligence and therefore able to detect weakness in Hutchinson"s account of himself that night.
It beggars belief that at the time when the Victorians were lapping up detective stories like
the Sherlock Holmes ones , and he certainly had powers of deduction to rival our current detective and police powers of reasoning call it what you will, that the real detectives were just a bunch of nincompoops who didnt know their a*s*
from their elbow when it came to "spottin a bad un"-------come on Glenn this is getting silly!
Natalie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 899
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
Hi All,
I've not yet seen anything that disallows my speculation that GH could have had the job of finding suitable looking clients for MJK, in order to get her back rent to McCarthy as quickly as possible.
If such customers were seduced by GH's promises of a young and attractive prostitute with her own room, and were expected to fork out a little more than usual for the privilege of being 'vetted' by GH and considered 'safe' in these especially dark days when the women had to be so very wary of complete strangers, it would all have gone belly up if MJK had promptly spent the extra on herself, hence the need for GH to hang around and monitor the process - from the introduction of a specially selected client to MJK, to the coughing up of the fee and departure of same.
GH could even have prearranged a red flag to show each of his chosen clients and MJK that all was well. MJK says she has lost her hankie, GH client produces a red one given him by GH for the purpose, hands it to MJK, who then leads him to her room. GH could even have supplied the lucky winner of the Whitechapel lottery with the 'missing' key to Kelly's door, by way of sealing the transaction - key to be left for safe return to GH!
If it happened this way, it would explain why GH felt compelled to come forward and give a description unlike the client (or any of the clients) that he himself had knowingly introduced to MJK. He didn't even have to know which client was MJK's last, or what he looked like, or if he was in fact one of GH's men and her killer, or someone who had crept in unseen by anyone after GH had left the court. He would not have needed to see the colour red either - if he knew the hankie drill.
How about it?
Love,
Caz
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 512
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
Caz HI!very persuasive.Its possible but he couldnt have been at it THAT long with Mary since Barnett would have had his guts for whatever!
Maybe he hung round hoping to cut a deal that night?
Best Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1339
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for your reply. Allow me to retort.
"I still think that Abberline would have been of average intelligence and therefore able to detect weakness in Hutchinson"s account of himself that night."
And still he accepted or failed to recognize the million holes and contradictions that infested Hutchinson's testimonies to the police and the press?
And still he considered Klosowski as the most possible suspect, because if "you were mean enough to poison your wives you must also be the Ripper"?
Hmmm....
He wouldn't be the first police officer anyway to miss the target during an interrogation, and he sure wasn't the last.
Besides, I have a feeling that the police early on had set out to look for a Jewish suspect, and Hutch surely provided one.
Although Hutchinson may not have been Jack the Ripper or Kelly's murderer, there was enough contradictions and punch holes in his stories in order to launch it as a new Swiss cheese.
Come on, Natalie! You are giving Abberline way too much credit.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1340
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Yes, I think at least it's possible that Hutchinson could have provided Kelly with clients.
The only problem, as I see it... wouldn't Barnett have known about it and then mentioned this details about Hutchinson to the police? Why keep quiet about it?
It's not that I think, that Barnett knew all of her acquaintances, but I would find it plausible that such an activity wouldn't have eluded Barnett, who obviously cared for her even though they had broken up. Surely Barnett would in that case have mentioned Hutchinson somewhere in his testimony?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 244
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Tjenixen to you too, Glenn,
First off, when I wrote my last few messages I was talking from the viewpoint where Hutchinson’s story was true, regardless of whether I believe it or not. I thought that was clear, but obviously not. That’s why I said Hutchinson could have tried to warn Mary, certainly as they knew each other.
Then, I was merely pointing at the possibility that he could have done something instead of just following and waiting rather than at the probability, but I admit that I didn’t do this very clearly. You don’t have to point out that you studied the lives of prostitutes - I know that, and that’s why I accept that it was probably an ‘unwritten law’ in the prostituting business not to interfere with prostitutes and their clients and I just leave it that, because it was a minor point really.
However, before I leave it, I still have some points, also minor points perhaps, but points nonetheless. Saying there is really nothing extraordinary enough about Mary’s client that would cause Hutchinson to interfere and make Kelly loose a client seems a bit too subjective to me. You might think so, but you don’t know what Hutchinson might have known or might have thought he knew. I mean, assuming his story was true, he certainly found the man extraordinary enough to stoop down and look the man in the face. Which brings me to a second point: when he stooped down he was interfering with Mary and her client, perhaps not verbally and in a direct way, but interfering nonetheless. Also, although you have said several times that the prostitutes were the ones who did the accosting, this wasn’t always the case, as Sarah Lewis’ statement shows us. And, again assuming for a moment Hutchinson’s story was true, so does his statement. So, uncommon doesn’t mean impossible or unthinkable.
As said, I accept that it was an ‘unwritten law’ not to interfere with prostitutes and their clients and that this law was most probably hardly ever broken, and leave it at that.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 1:59 pm: | |
Tjenahopp, Frank.
Well, my whole point is that the man Hutchinson saw, probably was a total fabrication. So therefore it becomes a bit problematic to indulge in what Hutchinson might have though about him. The Jew with the large gold chain was not spotted by anyone else. My belief is that GH delivered a fabricated suspect to the police in order to explain his own actions and whereabouts (whatever they were). And since the police seem to have been set for someone with a foreign appearance, they jumped for it.
Whether that implies that GH was the Ripper/Kelly murderer or not is too tough to answer, but I tried to give an alternative explanation to why he hung around in Miller's Court for some time. It may be wrong, it may be unlikely but it is a suggestion.
I don't think much in GH:s statements to the police and the press was true. He contradicts himself several times and his testimony dosen't hang together. I think it is rather obvious that there is something wrong with it.
I have never said (unless I've had too much brandy) that the prostitutes always made the accosting, but I have said that it was customary for them to choose the spot and lead their clients to it. There is a difference.
Cheers Frankie.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 514
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,thanks for your reply.On the prvious thread starting at post 491/2 Jeff Hamm takes up my points about how-because perhaps the police had some such suspect in mind-they may well have "fed him" with prompt-type questions.Jeff said studies had shown this type of questioning leads to unreliable responses.Its a very informative post.
Funny but I have always thought the description tallies with Druitt rather than any Jewish suspect.If you read how he was dressed when his body was found and read about his belongings which included a gold chain,kid leather gloves
tie pin etc you"ll see what I mean.Also the famous photograph of Druitt sitting on the ground [here with a peak cap of the type described by other witnesses]and lo and behold there is the "moustache".
Oh well dont start me on Druitt[my second choice]and this was around the time his friends and relatives are said to have got worried !
Cheers Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 755
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
Hi,
We really are speculating here, Hutchinson is becoming 'Jack' by the second.
What is wrong with the suggestion, that this man simply witnessed Kelly with a man around 2am in her locality, and reported the incident to the police, after telling people during the friday/saturday, of what he saw, and them saying 'you should report this'. And on the monday evening the 12th november 88, he did just that.
The statement that was made public, may have been fabricated by the police, and signed by Hutchinson, for the fee of one hundred guineas, in a desperate effort to catch the real person seen by him, which would explain his trips with police officers, trying to locate the person seen.
This may seem skulldudgery, but any trickery to apprehend the murderer would have been the whitechapels police first priority..
To sum up. I would be astounded if George Hutchinson, was implicated in the death of Mary Jane.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
Hi Natalie.
No I promise, I want start you on Druitt.
We can leave that for another time.
Yes, I saw that one about prompt questions, and it's an interesting thought. That can naturally not be ruled out. But Hutchinson's testimony is quite in a different league of its own. I find it hard to believe that his in may ways curious account was a result of the police's interrogation methods.
To me it's a more plausible theory that he for some reason made up a story about the customer in order to get himself off the suspicion, since he knew he had been spotted.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 515
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
Hi Again Glenn,
Well some of what he said must have benn true for example his name and his usual address.
Others in Whitechapel must have vouchsafed for him,or he would have been snitched on by those "in the know" and Abberline or one of the regular police in Whitechapel would have exposed him quite quickly.Afterall he gave interviews with the press and would have been quite a celebrity in Whitechapel as a result of "seeing Jack the Ripper"-probably sought after in fact.
I just cant see how with all the publicity and Abberline seeming to believe him that he could have made it all up.Someone would have cottoned on and told either the police[that he was actually a pimp,a known liar,a violent or odd scoundrel]as it is the press seem as credulous as the police etc and nobody around at the time seems to have thought to dispute it!
Oh I agree over Chapman.My own theory is that he was not really "one of the boys"[from Eton/Winchester wherever]and that they therefore didnt let him in on say the private information said to be had on Druitt and maybe the mess said to exist between the Met and the City Police caused rifts between Anderson and himself so that he both wanted to appear all knowing when he might not have been and to have wrongly imagined
that naming Chapman the ripper could convince a lot of people that Abberline was the smartest of all the detectives around because he had found the ripper at last!
Best Natalie
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2246
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
Hi Caz
Ingenious theory. As always, it depends just how much of GH's story one believes, and how much is put down to fabrication. For instance, if he really did return from Romford at 2 AM, then it seems strange to start pimping straight away - one would have expected him to be either pimping all night, or not pimping at all that night.
I suppose the part about going to Romford could have been a lie. So suppose he was pimping all night, for McCarthy. Wouldn't McCarthy have let GH use his shop as a place to keep an eye on the court from? GH would have known when someone left the court, by looking out of the window. Then he would have gone to 13 room to collect the money.
Warmer than standing around on the pavement opposite!
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 245
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 5:57 pm: | |
Well, dear ol' Glenn,
We seem to agree on the important thing regarding GH: I don’t think Hutchinson told the truth either. Although he probably stuck to the truth as much as possible in order to make his statement as credible as it could be, his story stinks, from whichever side you look at it.
As I’ve said before, his story fits nicely with the scenario where MJK was killed by an intruder who woke her up just before he struck, but doesn't mean GH actually was Jack the Ripper. If he were, he took a lot of risk by coming forward with his statement. And he seems to have been quite readily believed by the police, but a bit too readily if you ask me, considering the things he told them. So that smells, too. He comes forward, makes his statement, is officially believed by the police, is taken to the morgue to identify MJK’s remains and is guided around the neighbourhood a couple of times and then disappears. Forever. Very odd.
Your suggestion that he intended to mug MJK’s client is a possible one, but the fact that he described MJK’s client as obviously wealthy seems a stupid thing to have done. But like you have suggested before, maybe Hutchinson just wasn’t that smart.
All the best,
Frank
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
Hi all,
I dont think that Hutchinson was the ripper. IF he was then why did he stop killing and why did he introduce himself by comming forward as a witness. I believe that people who think that Hutchinson or Barnett were the ripper tend to want to center the case around Kelly.
Most people believe that the Kelly murder was the last ripper murder and for that reason alone I believe the Kelly murder to be important. If Kelly was the last ripper victim then something happend to the ripper either the night of the Kelly murder or shortly after to make him stop killing. I have posted this before but there is ontly three ways the murders stop.
1.The ripper dies
2.The ripper is locked up for some reason
3.The ripper moves away and his new murders are never connected to WC.
If you believe that the Kelly murder had something to do with the end of Jack's murder spree then what happend? If he died that would not have to be connected to the Kelly murder. If he was locked up for some reason again that may have nothing to do with the kelly murder. However if he fled that may be connected to the Kelly murder. There are in my opinion 4 reasons why the ripper would flee.
1.He was arested and jumped bail.
2.He felt the police were getting to close to him.
3.Someone got a good look at him with Kelly the night she was killed.
4.His job took him elswere.
It is reason number 3 that makes believe that George may have given an accurate describtion to the police or at least one that was close enough to lead the police to the killer or Jack may have thought that Hutchinson could identify him so he fled.
The fact that Hutchinson comming forward with his describtion and Tumblety's arrest were so close together is interesting.
I agree with Natalie about the police. I think they were alot smarter then they are often given credit.
your friend,CB |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:50 am: | |
Natalie wrote:
"It is unlikely to be the case that he acted like a man who could be easily duped by the world"s most famous serial killer "
Far better trained murder investigators than Abberline have been duped by serial killers during questioning. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
Dear Harry,
Hmm. So you think the fact that Hutch gave a statement was to his benefit...whatever that may have been.Your suggestion raises the possibility that Hutch had a 'hidden agenda' that night! Any further thoughts on this?
Rosey :-) |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 4:15 am: | |
Obviously Hutchinson had not been faced or questioned by the police before that monday evening,or his rooms searched.
Even if he was subjected to such a search afterwards,are we to expect that he would leave anything for the police to find.
He is said to have come from Breezers Hill,the same area where Kelly once resided,so his statement of knowing her for about eighteen months seems valid.
Aberlines undoubted talents and abilities as a detective are not in Question,but even the best can occasionally lapse.There is no doubt that after the Kelly killing,there was universal belief that when cornered the killer would show unmistakeable signs of lunacy.Hutchinson was described by one report as of military bearing,a description quite the opposite of lunacy.(Except for my sergeant major,but you know I,m only joking Charlie).Aberline could have been deceived.
Whether taken as a whole,or as several individual elements,there is very little that is believable in his statement,For instance consider the actions of the three individuals,after the stranger is supposed to have met Kelly,and the pair came back past Hutchinson standing by the Queens Arms.Better still try a reenactment.See if what he relates is feasible. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
