Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Finding more out about MJK - by MayBea 5 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ? - by John G 46 minutes ago.
Barnett, Joseph: First time spotted 1878 - by miss marple 1 hour and 20 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Freud - by Spotty 2 hours ago.
Ripperologist: Ripperologist 140: October 2014 - by AdamNeilWood 3 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ? - by Bridewell 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Catherine Eddowes: A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match - (15 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ? - (14 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Did he have anatomical knowledge? - (6 posts)
General Discussion: Freud - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: The 1961 Landscape - (4 posts)
Non-Fiction: What is the worst Ripper book you've ever read? - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Oct 25, 2014, 5:40 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm
Donald Swanson
Edit: Chris
Dec 9, 2012, 3:40 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.
Mike Covell: A Study in Red – The Secret Journal of Jack the Ripper
March 3, 2014, 3:42 am.
Mike Covell: Almost there….
January 24, 2014, 4:05 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper - Year in Review 2013
December 28, 2013, 7:31 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper At Last? - Review
December 9, 2013, 2:08 am.
Mike Covell: From Whitechapel to Whitefriargate
November 27, 2013, 4:15 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:25 AM
Premium Member
BTCG BTCG is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 109
Default Thank you for having me, and a theory

Hello,

My name is Bill, and I am a new member here. I am a software writer by trade, and come here 'hat in hand", so to speak. I am but a novice as to the case, with my experience limited to the watching of documentaries on the subject, as well as being somewhere near half-way through the reading of Patrica Cornwell's book.

Last night's reading of Cornwell provided a deja vu moment to me, and as I have already typed it out once today in an e-mail to the admin here, I will post the relevant portion now, so as not to have to 're-invent the wheel':

I have spent the last few days reading, and have come to some personal judgments, and (though not to set in concrete, if I may borrow a metaphor) conclusions.

On Patrica Cornwell (yes, I spelled it correctly this time): I agree with much of her reasoning. I am compelled by the "stationary" argument, to believe that W. R. Sickert was the author of many of the so-called "Ripper" letters.

However, it still remains a huge leap (for me, anyways) to conclude that this proves that Sickert was JTR, as Cornwell blatantly does throughout the book.

But... I am of two minds on this.

One, there is something unseemly about the way Cornwell presents her arguments, and especially so in light of the fact that Sickert is not here to defend himself. One wonders if the irony of Cornwell's slashing of Sickert's character in the dark and without warning, much like JTR and his (?) victims, is lost on Cornwell.

To paraphrase one Ripperologist (emphasis added): "You can sum up Cornwell's case quite easily: he did it, because I say so!"

And yet, having concluded that Sickert is indeed, the author of many of the JTR letters, I cannot help but apply the principle of Occam's razor: the simplest and most direct answer is that he did it. Serial killers commonly inject themselves into the investigations of their crimes.

Now, I do understand that I am but a novice into the world of Ripperology. As such, I would put a theory forth, not being sure that it's entirely original:

Cornwell states that drug addiction ran in Sickert's family, and openly claims W.R. Sickert was also a drug addict. If so, this might go to explain the wandering habits of Sickert and his father, and I'll elucidate.

During the late 1980's and through the mid 90's, I was involved in three automobile accidents (rear-ended at stoplights by three different drunken-drivers), as well as falling in a partially tiled bathroom and fracturing my spine. As a result, I've been forced to take opiates, in the form of different types of Hydrocodone for over the last twenty-five years. Over this course of time, one cannot help but become addicted, even taking as few as one to two pills per day. The body develops a tolerance, and a need for the drug. But the user, from time to time, will suffer from mood swings, erratic and in many cases violent (fortunately, my violence was restricted to verbiage) behavior while under the influence of the drug. As such, there have been many times when I needed a break from taking the drug. Once, I flushed a bottle of two hundred and fifty pills down the drain without a second thought. And, I learned the hard way; I became very sick; nearly to the point of hospitalization (thank God for Tramadol), and suffered other effects that came to mind when reading about the Sickert's bouts with opiates.

While taking the drug, and especially so when withdrawing, the inability to sleep at night is severely acute. One cannot lay still. I have found myself prowling the streets of our PUD (planned urban development) many a night, in an attempt to tire myself so I could sleep, in the same manner as Cornwell describes the Sickert's doing. And during withdrawal, these side-effects can continue for weeks. During these times, the withdrawal would render my daylight hours useless.
This put me in mind of Sickert's letter to an acquaintance, declining an invitation to a dinner party, with words similar to:

"I must decline, as I can rarely make it out during the daylight hours these days."

Walter Sickert's friends were said by Cornwell to remark that he "often slept short hours during the day."
One could but this down to nocturnal artistic habit, but if either Sickert was truly an opiate user, then I am compelled by experience to believe that the drug was at least partly responsible when it came to the Sickert's nightly wanderings.

Again, I make no claim as to whether this theory has been put forth, and unlike Cornwell, I put it forth as a theory... not a stated fact.


Lastly, I'd like to thank the administrator for approving my account, and I look forward to the reader's comments.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-28-2012, 05:12 AM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 12,357
Default welcome

Hello Bill. Welcome to the boards.

Good luck with your theory, and happy hunting.

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-28-2012, 11:03 AM
Limehouse Limehouse is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire, England.
Posts: 1,745
Default

Hello Bill,

Welcome to the site.

You make some interesting points, but I personally would not put too much reliance on some of Cornwell's research. For example, your line:

"Cornwell states that drug addiction ran in Sickert's family, and openly claims W.R. Sickert was also a drug addict. If so, this might go to explain the wandering habits of Sickert and his father, and I'll elucidate".

What evidence does Cornwell offer to support this claim? Even if Sickert's father WAS addicted to drugs, it doesn't follow that Walter Sickert was also addicted.

Again, to quote your post:

Walter Sickert's friends were said by Cornwell to remark that he "often slept short hours during the day."


Are Sickert's sleeping habits really solid evidence that he was likely to have been a serial murderer? There are many reasons why sleep patterns might be disturbed. Leaving aside medical conditions, people of an artisitc nature are often driven to get up and paint or write when the creative juices start flowing, day or night.

You mention your night-time roamings caused by the inability to sleep and the effect the drugs had on your behaviour. Could I ask you, when you were roaming around at night, do you think you would have had the motivation, strength and mental alertness to have done what Cornwell claims Sickert did? That may seem an inpertinent question, but respectfully, if you could not see yourself doing these things (and evidently, you did not!) why should it have been any different for Sickert?

Finally, Sickert was in France at the time of the murders!

Warmest regards.

Julie
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:57 PM
Cogidubnus Cogidubnus is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 3,043
Default Et enfin monsieur, iln'ya pas de canons...

Wonderful Julie...I love your "finally"

Welcome to Casebook Bill!

Dave
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-28-2012, 07:12 PM
Premium Member
BTCG BTCG is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limehouse View Post
Hello Bill,

Welcome to the site.

You make some interesting points, but I personally would not put too much reliance on some of Cornwell's research. For example, your line:

"Cornwell states that drug addiction ran in Sickert's family, and openly claims W.R. Sickert was also a drug addict. If so, this might go to explain the wandering habits of Sickert and his father, and I'll elucidate".

What evidence does Cornwell offer to support this claim? Even if Sickert's father WAS addicted to drugs, it doesn't follow that Walter Sickert was also addicted.

Again, to quote your post:

Walter Sickert's friends were said by Cornwell to remark that he "often slept short hours during the day."


Are Sickert's sleeping habits really solid evidence that he was likely to have been a serial murderer? There are many reasons why sleep patterns might be disturbed. Leaving aside medical conditions, people of an artisitc nature are often driven to get up and paint or write when the creative juices start flowing, day or night.

You mention your night-time roamings caused by the inability to sleep and the effect the drugs had on your behaviour. Could I ask you, when you were roaming around at night, do you think you would have had the motivation, strength and mental alertness to have done what Cornwell claims Sickert did? That may seem an inpertinent question, but respectfully, if you could not see yourself doing these things (and evidently, you did not!) why should it have been any different for Sickert?

Finally, Sickert was in France at the time of the murders!

Warmest regards.

Julie
Hi Julie,

I completely agree as to Cornwell's claims and a lack of documentation... with respect to the fact that (as I have been informed by Kindle) I am but 60% through the book: I keep hoping that I'll see a proverbial 'light at the end of the tunnel', and will stumble upon a page that will cite some sources. Without complete source disclosure, one wonders how she can claim using the 'scientific' method.


First, as to myself, as a closer reading of my post demonstrates, my mood swings as it pertains to wandering and potential violence was/is limited to verbiage.

Simply put: I will sometimes lose patience and raise my voice, which I later come to regret.

However, this, to me, is apples to oranges: certainly, opiate users have been known to have been driven to violence while under the influence of the drug.

I do think that it's important to note: Cornwell's assertion of opiate use/abuse as to W.R. Sickert is incidental as to his (as she claims) violent psychopathic behavior, not central.

As to whether W.R. Sickert's father's alleged behavior is relevant to his son, while I'd like some proofs, I don't find that to be a huge leap. A wise man once noted that apples rarely fall far from the tree.

As to Sickert's whereabouts during the period in question, I believe Cornwell acknowledges (I have the latest version of her book) Sickert's time in France.
She simply points out, that making that argument is pretty much a "nothing burger" (my term). The trek from France to Whitechapel is at least, 4-6 hours, and would have been easily made via fast steamer or by rail. And Sickert was known to disappear for days at a time (as was his father), which would not have been considered to be unusual or worthy of mention to/by his mother, hence, no inclusion in her letters sent during this time.

Lastly, Cornwell's notation as to Sickert's behavior during the time in France you cite is a bit understated as opposed to other blanket statements she makes, and thus, hit home more, with me. His behavior (and yes, this includes the title of his October sun painting) can be seen easily as a 'man on the run attempting to establish an alibi'.
And this would be typical behavior one would expect from a sociopath.

May I pose a question? I am deeply troubled by Cornwell's sweeping generalizations, and constant begging questions as she sets up her assertions. Watching her behavior on YouTube clips about the book reveals an extremely pompous and 'know-it-all' type personality, in my opinion.

Like me, could this aspect of her be influencing you and some of your conclusions?

I'll admit this: if I was not being careful to avoid it, it would color my judgments, and I am trying to avoid this, at least, while I am reading her book.

Thank you for your reply, and I look forward to your answer.

-Bill
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-28-2012, 07:26 PM
Premium Member
BTCG BTCG is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogidubnus View Post
Wonderful Julie...I love your "finally"

Welcome to Casebook Bill!

Dave
Thank you Dave!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-28-2012, 07:27 PM
Premium Member
BTCG BTCG is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynn cates View Post
Hello Bill. Welcome to the boards.

Good luck with your theory, and happy hunting.

Cheers.
LC
Thank you Lynn!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-29-2012, 10:16 AM
Limehouse Limehouse is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire, England.
Posts: 1,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTCG View Post
Hi Julie,

I completely agree as to Cornwell's claims and a lack of documentation... with respect to the fact that (as I have been informed by Kindle) I am but 60% through the book: I keep hoping that I'll see a proverbial 'light at the end of the tunnel', and will stumble upon a page that will cite some sources. Without complete source disclosure, one wonders how she can claim using the 'scientific' method.


First, as to myself, as a closer reading of my post demonstrates, my mood swings as it pertains to wandering and potential violence was/is limited to verbiage.

Simply put: I will sometimes lose patience and raise my voice, which I later come to regret.

However, this, to me, is apples to oranges: certainly, opiate users have been known to have been driven to violence while under the influence of the drug.

I do think that it's important to note: Cornwell's assertion of opiate use/abuse as to W.R. Sickert is incidental as to his (as she claims) violent psychopathic behavior, not central.

As to whether W.R. Sickert's father's alleged behavior is relevant to his son, while I'd like some proofs, I don't find that to be a huge leap. A wise man once noted that apples rarely fall far from the tree.

As to Sickert's whereabouts during the period in question, I believe Cornwell acknowledges (I have the latest version of her book) Sickert's time in France.
She simply points out, that making that argument is pretty much a "nothing burger" (my term). The trek from France to Whitechapel is at least, 4-6 hours, and would have been easily made via fast steamer or by rail. And Sickert was known to disappear for days at a time (as was his father), which would not have been considered to be unusual or worthy of mention to/by his mother, hence, no inclusion in her letters sent during this time.

Lastly, Cornwell's notation as to Sickert's behavior during the time in France you cite is a bit understated as opposed to other blanket statements she makes, and thus, hit home more, with me. His behavior (and yes, this includes the title of his October sun painting) can be seen easily as a 'man on the run attempting to establish an alibi'.
And this would be typical behavior one would expect from a sociopath.

May I pose a question? I am deeply troubled by Cornwell's sweeping generalizations, and constant begging questions as she sets up her assertions. Watching her behavior on YouTube clips about the book reveals an extremely pompous and 'know-it-all' type personality, in my opinion.

Like me, could this aspect of her be influencing you and some of your conclusions?

I'll admit this: if I was not being careful to avoid it, it would color my judgments, and I am trying to avoid this, at least, while I am reading her book.

Thank you for your reply, and I look forward to your answer.

-Bill
Hello Bill, thank you for your detailed reply.

I think your observations about opiate use are interesting, and I realised from your first post that you had not resorted to violence but had experienced periods during which you were 'verbally strong' if I may describe it that way.

It is well documented that some opiate users have become violent, often I believe as a result of withdrawal. I personally do not believe that the Whitechapel killer could have been one of these people. This is because the person responsible for those killings had sufficient control over their actions to engage the trust and cooperation of the women he killed. He had the strength to act swiftly when the opportunity to kill arose and he had the strength in cut through skin, muscle and other tissue to carry out mutilations. In doing these things, he also had the presence to be sufficiently aware of his surroundings and what was happening in those surroundings to effect a swift and successful escape.

An opiate user who is experiencing a violent episode linked to opiate use would be much less controlled and more impulsive. I do not think they would plan, in advance, a long trip from one country to the other in order to carry out random killings on street women. More likely, they would lash out at those around them or storm out of the house and pick a fight with someone.

Concerning the possibility that Sickert could have travelled from France to London unnoticed, why would he do so? Why not select prostitutes in any of the French cities nearby? Also, Cornwell produces a time frame for the period of travel, but she herself could not possibly have tested this time period in 1888. You have to allow for travelling both ways, and time spent in London inbetween, resting, feeding and watering oneself, looking for a victim, cleaning up afterwards, possibly having to wait around for a train to return (for how can one be sure of getting a planned train if one does not know if a victim will be found and dispatched in time for catching that train?)

We also have to think about a motive. Your motive is much more sensible than Cornwell's but it does not necessitate visits to London. Cornwell's is vague and shifting but seems to revolve around a fissue that Cornwell claims made it difficult for Sickert to 'perform' and therefore made him angry. This says a lot about Cornwell's ignorance of the way people deal with deficiencies in their own bodies. It also begs the question, why did Sickert need to travel to London to express this anger? Could he not have expressed it in France? What happened when he actually lived in London? Didn't he feel angry then?

Finally Bill, you ask me if Cornwell's attitude colours my acceptance of her theory. Well, not really, because I hadn't read anything of hers before the Sickert book, and I haven't seen her on You Tube. However, I thought her ideas were silly and ill-researched. I thought her conclusions were daft too. I have made this observations on other threads, but I will make it here again.:

If Cornwell believes Sickert was the killer because he painted pictures about Jack the Ripper, if she believes an artist who paints about murder, must be a murderer, using the same logic, couldn't we conclude that a writer who writes DOZENS of books about murder - be a murderer?

Could I aks Bill, if you are familiar with Sickert's work and/or those of the post-impressionists?

Best wishes.

Julie
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-30-2012, 06:23 AM
Premium Member
BTCG BTCG is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 109
Default

Hi Julie,

I've copied and pasted your post, and will embolden it. I'll answer under it, as it'll be easier to follow that way.


I think your observations about opiate use are interesting, and I realised from your first post that you had not resorted to violence but had experienced periods during which you were 'verbally strong' if I may describe it that way.

It is well documented that some opiate users have become violent, often I believe as a result of withdrawal. I personally do not believe that the Whitechapel killer could have been one of these people. This is because the person responsible for those killings had sufficient control over their actions to engage the trust and cooperation of the women he killed. He had the strength to act swiftly when the opportunity to kill arose and he had the strength in cut through skin, muscle and other tissue to carry out mutilations. In doing these things, he also had the presence to be sufficiently aware of his surroundings and what was happening in those surroundings to affect a swift and successful escape.

An opiate user who is experiencing a violent episode linked to opiate use would be much less controlled and more impulsive. I do not think they would plan, in advance, a long trip from one country to the other in order to carry out random killings on street women. More likely, they would lash out at those around them or storm out of the house and pick a fight with someone.



To start, I think it's important to note that drugs such as opiates tend to lessen inhibition, and thus, are known to serve as a trigger to the psychopath. In addition, prolonged use lends itself to high tolerance, which allows the user to fully function both physically and mentally, and at high levels.

I can tell you from experience that while seeing a new doctor once for the very first time, this doctor had no idea that I was under the influence of the drug. It was only after I explained to him about my back specialist prescribed that he became aware. Someone who has used the drug regularly could be standing right next to you, and there's a very high likelihood that you would never know.

As a quick aside: I'm not a doctor, but I do have a certificate in counseling.



Concerning the possibility that Sickert could have travelled from France to London unnoticed, why would he do so? Why not select prostitutes in any of the French cities nearby? Also, Cornwell produces a time frame for the period of travel, but she herself could not possibly have tested this time period in 1888. You have to allow for travelling both ways, and time spent in London inbetween, resting, feeding and watering oneself, looking for a victim, cleaning up afterwards, possibly having to wait around for a train to return (for how can one be sure of getting a planned train if one does not know if a victim will be found and dispatched in time for catching that train?)

A sociopath capable enough to inject himself into the investigation, as we know Sickert did via the Ripper letters he wrote (the only evidence Cornwell has proven) would likely not stop after establishing an alibi. He'd want to be close enough to observe, under the guise of helping, perhaps. He'd also have a need to send additional letters, which could not be sent from France; they'd need to be postmarked somewhat locally. The stalking man would have a wide field of prey: Cornwell tells us that there were 30,000 prostitutes in the East End during that time period. Not much waiting around would be required.

How much time would be required? Cornwell tells us that the trip took four hours each way, and ran twice a day (the earliest being 10:40 AM - 2:40 PM, from memory). Thus, in my other post to you, I factored two additional hours for travel to the station. That seems reasonable, and makes the trip quite doable.


We also have to think about a motive. Your motive is much more sensible than Cornwell's but it does not necessitate visits to London. Cornwell's is vague and shifting but seems to revolve around a fissue that Cornwell claims made it difficult for Sickert to 'perform' and therefore made him angry. This says a lot about Cornwell's ignorance of the way people deal with deficiencies in their own bodies. It also begs the question, why did Sickert need to travel to London to express this anger? Could he not have expressed it in France? What happened when he actually lived in London? Didn't he feel angry then?

As to Cornwell's claim as to the 'fistula", I'd agree; It's pretty sketchy, and speculative. But it should be noted: A psychopath needs no motive; crossing them is often enough to unleash rage. Could Sickert have committed murders in France? Sure. But if he set the France trip up to establish an alibi, it's highly unlikely that he'd commit murders while in France. That would invite comparisons to the Ripper crimes, and questions might be asked. Sociopaths are not stupid. And Sickert would be well aware of this.

Lastly, the center of a sociopath's world is their own script. The Ripper investigation would have consumed him. France was a vehicle, not the destination.


Finally Bill, you ask me if Cornwell's attitude colours my acceptance of her theory. Well, not really, because I hadn't read anything of hers before the Sickert book, and I haven't seen her on You Tube. However, I thought her ideas were silly and ill-researched. I thought her conclusions were daft too. I have made this observations on other threads, but I will make it here again.:

If Cornwell believes Sickert was the killer because he painted pictures about Jack the Ripper, if she believes an artist who paints about murder, must be a murderer, using the same logic, couldn't we conclude that a writer who writes DOZENS of books about murder - be a murderer?



I'd say, no, as to your comparison. Sickert went well beyond painting and sketching the murders. He physically injected himself into the investigation by sending 'Ripper" letters. The hand cuts of the stationary paper proves that at least two letters match letters Sickert sent to others.

It's the one thing I find quite true that Cornwell states as fact, even without any other evidence: this alone, could have convicted him.



Could I aks Bill, if you are familiar with Sickert's work and/or those of the post-impressionists?


Yes, in fact, as I read, I've found the internet a great tool, as I often Google, and pause and study the works closely. I find his work (some, anyways) to be amazing. Some, I find average. But, as a wise man once observed:

'Only the mediocre are always at their best."

I look forward to your reply.

-Bill
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-30-2012, 09:09 AM
Limehouse Limehouse is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire, England.
Posts: 1,745
Default

Hi Bill,

This has to be a quick reply for now, as it's just after 6.30am and I'm off to work soon.

I accept your knowledge of the effect of opiates. My experience of these drugs is limited.

I note that you have made up your mind that Sickert was a sociopath. You have also accepted as fact that Sickert sent some of the Ripper letters to the police and others.

If Sickert did send some of the letters, that does not make him guilty of the murders. The hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper was disrupted for years when police were distracted by a tape and letter sent to them by 'the killer' who turned out, years later, to be unconnected to the case.

I do not accept that a lot of Sickert's painting was connected to the murders. The one exception is the painting 'Jack the Ripper's Bedroom' which came about after Sickert had heard a tale about a young man who had lodged with a couple who believed he was the killer because of his nightime ramblings. None of the claims that Cornwell makes about some of Sickert's other work are fair or accurate.

Have a nice day Bill.

Julie
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.