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:
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - by David Orsam 1 minute ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - by Elamarna 1 minute ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - by David Orsam 2 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - by kjab3112 17 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - by David Orsam 20 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - by kjab3112 23 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - (36 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (12 posts)
General Discussion: New claims Jack the Ripper was noted poet who studied as a priest in the North East - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (5 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Dorset Street Photo - (3 posts)
Letters and Communications: An experiment - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 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

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Cutbush, Thomas

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-13-2015, 06:16 PM
Errata Errata is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tennessee, U.S.
Posts: 2,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hello Eratta,

I would agree that JtR wasn't a sadist- espeically if your definition of sadism is an interest in pain, rather than, say, domination- but I don't believe that any definition of picquerism necessarily implies any such thing. Thus, Dr Anil Aggrawani, in his book Necrophilia: Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects, 2011, gives us this definition of lust murders:

"Lust murders are homicides in which the offender stabs, cuts, pierces, or mutilates the sexual regions or organs of the victim's body. The sexual mutilation of the victim may include evisceration, picquerism...it also includes activities such as posing and propping of the body, the insertion of objects into the body cavities..."

Now this definition clearly corresponds to Keppel's. Moreover, Dr Aggrawani has specifically defined picquerism as: "sexual gratification through penetration of another person, most commonly by stabbing or cutting the body with sharp objects": see Aggrawani, 2009. It is submitted that this definition is also consistent with Keppel.

However, it must be conceded that "picquerism is currently an ill-defined concept. The DSM, for example, doesn't codify the "condition" but lists it under "paraphilia NOS (Not Otherwise Specified), whereas the ICD doesn't recognize the condition at all.

Unfortunately, as Batman has pointed out, psychology is not a "hard" science. There is no bio-medical proof for the existence of the vast majority of psychological conditions, which is why labelling theory is such an attractive proposition for many, including myself.

Even schizophrenia is an ill-defined condition, and the DSM V has now removed all sub-categories for schizophrenia because of "their limited diagnostic stability, low reliability and poor validity". In fact, I prefer the social defeat hypothesis myself.

As for the clinical concept of paraphilia, perhaps that also needs to be thrown into the nearest waste paper basket: see Ogas, 2012: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...s-do-not-exist
Well that's a vasty can of worms. Firstly never quote a non psychiatrist about an all around admittedly psychiatric condition. I mean, Ogas is good for almost nothing except for parlaying his PhD as a way to get on TV game shows. The article you referred to was written for the sole purpose of promoting a book about a bunch of things he knows nothing about. I mean, if I was to write a book about sexual proclivities, kink, paraphilias, etc. I would want to know the definitions of those things. He doesn't. Apparently he couldn't find a DSM any younger than the late 60s, so... it's bad. In fact it's legendary bad. It gets referred to in conferences and classes as to how NOT to do a study. And he says he deliberately did not use any scientific method or information specific to any discipline in order to stay the bad boy outsider with street cred or whatever. Hello? Science. He calls it pop psychology but it isn't, it's just really really wrong. But people like reading about other people's turn-ons so it sells. The guy is actually a colossal douchebag, though I suppose that wouldn't be relevant if he was right. Bad reference. No biscuit. Also I gotta say there are very few time you want to reference Psychology Today: The Only Psych Publication No Psychologist Reads. It not that they aren't capable of publishing a consequential paper, they just haven't done it as yet. It's like referencing Readers Digest in a History textbook. Even if for some reason it was right an accurate, you still would never choose to write the way they write.

And there is no tear to go on with Dr. Aggrawal. He is one of the foremost pathologists in the world, and recognized everywhere as a forensic expert. So having him talk about psych is a little like asking a mechanic for stock tips, but for all I know your mechanic is phenomenal at playing the market. Dr. Aggrawal did a psych rotation in med school. Everyone has to. But thats the last time he practiced psychology or psychiatry. As is evident by the laundry list of shrinks he quotes and thanks in his publications. And he hasn't treated a living patient since 1989. The terms forensic scientists use are criminological, not clinical. Which he acknowledges. Mostly because they never treat anyone ever. So, fair enough. But no shrink gave him this definition of picquerism. So where did he get it? Who knows? It wasn't used before 1995. It was not anyone's standard definition before 2002. It really picked up around 2008. Why? In the "I kid you not" category, because the criminology definition appeared on a Law and Order SVU episode in it's first round of syndication in 2007. It shows up a couple times before that episode aired in syndication, it gets used every few months after. So... there's that.

One thing I think we can all agree on about a diagnosis is that whatever it is, it's the same thing every time. My chicken pox looks like your chicken pox. If someone turns purple and sings incessantly, not chicken pox. Because every disease has diagnostic criteria right? Okay. This is where I whip out my own psychology today article. I have no idea who the author is or what his expertise is, doesn't matter. He's not the important thing here. The stories that he has collected and dutifully referenced are. You'll note that the Law and Order episode is in there, and a more wrong summary of an illness cannot be found. It' on par with babies coming from storks. But read the article, and see how the definition changes. Not just little changes, but really big changes. Everyone attached to psychology or psychiatry will give you the same definition. No two criminologists will. That's a problem. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ife-knife-edge

Let me tell you what sucks the most about my life. Being Bipolar is no picnic, I must confess. But somehow in this day and age being bipolar is the second worst thing that has happened to me. The most worse thing? People. People and bipolar. So I got some guy nattering on at me about how his girlfriend can never order off a menu in a timely manner and he says "God she's just soo bipolar I can't stand it." What I SAY is "You mean she is indecisive, not bipolar". What I THINK is "How ******* dare you compare your little ******* twit of a girlfriend and her general faults to having a disease that I have to deal with every ******* hour of every ******* day for the rest of my ******* life you ignorant piece of ****." And sometimes I imagine beating this guy with a stick to make myself feel better. Nine time out of ten, that guy is being an insensitive douche, and when I correct his language he feels bad about it. But one guy in ten, that's not what happens. Some of these guys think that indecisiveness IS being bipolar, and they are telling me to get advice. Some other of these guys think the same thing, but they don't want advice, they are about to tell me that they dumped her for it and boy did they dodge a bullet. Some of these guys think bipolar is made up so what am I bitching about, some of them somehow thought that I was kidding for all this time, and this is where they figure out that I meant what I said, and the wheels fall off. And when I say the wheels fall off they take several steps back, check their exits, and start talking to me like I'm a toddler mixed with a growling pitbull. Definitions are important. The inability to add to a definition without peer reviewed study with oversight is important. Here's why. I'm bipolar. That has a definition. It is a malfunction in the synthesis absorption or reuptake of seratonin, dopamine, or a combination of both that elicits periods of depression mixed with periods of mania, hypomania, or mixed episodes. That's not hard right? Except that a bunch of people (and I mean a bunch) think that being bipolar makes you unable to exercise self control. And it's hard with mania, I'm not going to lie. Then again most people with Bipolar don't experience full mania ever. A lot of people think that being bipolar means you can't be trusted. Not with money, not with possessions, not with people. And state governments are listening to those people now. A lot of people think that Bipolar people are violent. Almost none of us are. But they "can't take that chance, surely you understand" except I don't, because really it's a lie. But if I say that I'm being unreasonable, and that makes me more scary and sometimes people weep and beg me not to hurt them when I tell them they are offensive or full of ****. SERIOUSLY??? When it comes to declaring people incompetent, judges now listen to psychiatrists less than any other time going back to the early 60s. They don't think they have the luxury of trust. But it's about facts, not trust. But all the facts in the world won't sway you when you are convinced that mentally ill people are dangerous because you saw that one Oprah episode.

And I'm not championing the right of the picquerists here. But the lion's share of picquerists are self harming. Not violent. So while they desperately need help, they don't need to go to jail for having the wrong label. So now this paraphilia is associated with knives and knife murderers. At least according to criminologists. But read that article again. It's not just pins and knives. Now teeth is included. And now it doesn't have to be a sadistic act. It can be about seeing blood (which already has it's own thing thanks.) And if it's about all those things, maybe it doesn't even need blood. Maybe bruising is okay. So beating someone to death is now the same thing. But here's the real problem. It's about blood and it can be teeth so one day in the moment, perhaps startled by something, you accidentally bite down on your SO, and you guys go to the ER because human bites are nasty. Doesn't happen often, but there's a couple hundred cases a year. Except now there's a body in the morgue with the complete works of Shakespeare carved into it, and suddenly you are a suspect because your accidental bite is considered part of this very rare disease. Biting is the same as cutting is the same as blood letting is the same as sadism, and when sadism you always have to throw in dominance for those who didn't get that memo. It has to be specific, and it has to have the same definition every time or that happens. And it does happen. We've only just stop outright arresting dominants within the last 10 years. And we've known they were not clinical sadists since the early 80s. Picquerism is not kink, and is in fact readily separated from kink, except that now it's not. Now it could be kink, it could be something clinical. Which helps no one. It doesn't help law enforcement, it doesn't help the mental health field, it certainly doesn't help anyone with a not quite vanilla sex life, the only people it helps are criminologists, because now they have a word for something and they didn't have to go through the trouble of making one up for themselves. Everyone else, this kind of clinical hijacking hurts.

Did you know that spankers used to get talked to in all sadistic murders? There's an old dominant in New York who kept a list of every investigation he was called in for, and I think the last one was in 1989. So either they figured out that it was two different things, or he got too old to be a suspect. He's like 100.
__________________
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-14-2015, 06:44 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,539
Default

Hello Errata,

Yes, I must say that I struggle with the concept of "lust murders". However, do you see any similarities between and JtR and Jeffrey Dahmer? Of course, Dahmer was clinically diagnosed with paraphilia and several experts testifying at his trial concluded that he was not a sexual sadist. Even Dr Dietz for the prosecution testified: "He [Dahmer ] did not torture and took steps to prevent suffering."

Dahmer, despite his diagnosis, murdered 17 victims over a 13 year period. Therefore, although issues of dominance and control seemed to be prevalent in his thoughts he was still, presumably, able to exercise a high level of self control over his murderous impulses.

However, after conducting further research I have to agree that your criticisms of the criminological approach are well founded. Thus, what exactly is paraphilia? The ICD10, for instance, doesn't even give a definition. The DSM has attempted to define the "disorder", but not without controversy: "Paraphilia as a concept is vulnerable to societal pressures rather than advances in science, and so diagnosis may be grounded more in societal norms than in psychiatric health. Keenan in her criticism suggests the inclusion of "paraphilic disorders" in DSM-5 as redundant, unscientific, and stigmatizing..." ( McManus et al, 2013) see: http://f1000.com/prime/reports/m/5/36/#bib-016.

An even more serious difficulty is that picquerism, for example, is categorized as a condition that is NOS (Not otherwise specified). And this as resulted in serious criticisms of the criminological interpretation: "Not otherwise specified disorders are meant to be no more than residual wastepaper baskets provided by DSM- IV to encourage research and for the convenience of clinicians when coding patients who do not fit within one of the specific DSM-1V categories.. The problem is that paraphilia NOS has been widely misapplied in SVP hearings to criminals who have no mental disorder by evaluators who have misinterpreted the DSM- IV...By virtue of their residual and idiosyncratic nature, cases given the label NOS are by definition outside of what is generally accepted by the field as a reliable and valid psychiatric disorder." (Frances and First, 2011) see: http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/4/555.long.

I am therefore beginning to wonder if much of Keppel's report should be confined to the "wastepaper basket"! In fact, to be honest I'm not a huge fan of the DSM either, although I understand the practical need to have a codified approach to mental health. The difficulty is that the biomedical model, which could be regarded as reductionist, underpins much of the DSM, despite the lack of scientific support for such an approach: see Deacon, 2013
http://jonabram.web.unc.edu/files/20...model_2013.pdf
By the way, I'm a great admirer of Allen Frances, the chair of the DSM- 1V task force.: here's another of his reports, which gives an objective and unbiased view of the limitations of the DSM: http://psych.colorado.edu/~willcutt/...ances_2012.pdf.

Last edited by John G : 04-14-2015 at 07:08 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-14-2015, 07:46 PM
Errata Errata is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tennessee, U.S.
Posts: 2,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hello Errata,

Yes, I must say that I struggle with the concept of "lust murders". However, do you see any similarities between and JtR and Jeffrey Dahmer? Of course, Dahmer was clinically diagnosed with paraphilia and several experts testifying at his trial concluded that he was not a sexual sadist. Even Dr Dietz for the prosecution testified: "He [Dahmer ] did not torture and took steps to prevent suffering."

Dahmer, despite his diagnosis, murdered 17 victims over a 13 year period. Therefore, although issues of dominance and control seemed to be prevalent in his thoughts he was still, presumably, able to exercise a high level of self control over his murderous impulses.

However, after conducting further research I have to agree that your criticisms of the criminological approach are well founded. Thus, what exactly is paraphilia? The ICD10, for instance, doesn't even give a definition. The DSM has attempted to define the "disorder", but not without controversy: "Paraphilia as a concept is vulnerable to societal pressures rather than advances in science, and so diagnosis may be grounded more in societal norms than in psychiatric health. Keenan in her criticism suggests the inclusion of "paraphilic disorders" in DSM-5 as redundant, unscientific, and stigmatizing..." ( McManus et al, 2013) see: http://f1000.com/prime/reports/m/5/36/#bib-016.

An even more serious difficulty is that picquerism, for example, is categorized as a condition that is NOS (Not otherwise specified). And this as resulted in serious criticisms of the criminological interpretation: "Not otherwise specified disorders are meant to be no more than residual wastepaper baskets provided by DSM- IV to encourage research and for the convenience of clinicians when coding patients who do not fit within one of the specific DSM-1V categories.. The problem is that paraphilia NOS has been widely misapplied in SVP hearings to criminals who have no mental disorder by evaluators who have misinterpreted the DSM- IV...By virtue of their residual and idiosyncratic nature, cases given the label NOS are by definition outside of what is generally accepted by the field as a reliable and valid psychiatric disorder." (Frances and First, 2011) see: http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/4/555.long.

I am therefore beginning to wonder if much of Keppel's report should be confined to the "wastepaper basket"! In fact, to be honest I'm not a huge fan of the DSM either, although I understand the practical need to have a codified approach to mental health. The difficulty is that the biomedical model, which could be regarded as reductionist, underpins much of the DSM, despite the lack of scientific support for such an approach: see Deacon, 2013
http://jonabram.web.unc.edu/files/20...model_2013.pdf
By the way, I'm a great admirer of Allen Frances, the chair of the DSM- 1V task force.: here's another of his reports, which gives an objective and unbiased view of the limitations of the DSM: http://psych.colorado.edu/~willcutt/...ances_2012.pdf.
I'm not on board with Keppel. And I think the running definition of sexual sadism is stupid. The only possible reason for anyone to mark or mutilate sex organs is sexual sadism. What? Of COURSE Dahmer wasn't a sexual sadist. Neither was Gein. Nor technically was Bundy because he was a straight sadist.No need to specialize. And I hate I hate I HATE people diagnosing people they never met, and have no intention of treating.
__________________
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-15-2015, 10:10 AM
Errata Errata is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tennessee, U.S.
Posts: 2,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hello Errata,

Yes, I must say that I struggle with the concept of "lust murders". However, do you see any similarities between and JtR and Jeffrey Dahmer? Of course, Dahmer was clinically diagnosed with paraphilia and several experts testifying at his trial concluded that he was not a sexual sadist. Even Dr Dietz for the prosecution testified: "He [Dahmer ] did not torture and took steps to prevent suffering."

Dahmer, despite his diagnosis, murdered 17 victims over a 13 year period. Therefore, although issues of dominance and control seemed to be prevalent in his thoughts he was still, presumably, able to exercise a high level of self control over his murderous impulses.

However, after conducting further research I have to agree that your criticisms of the criminological approach are well founded. Thus, what exactly is paraphilia? The ICD10, for instance, doesn't even give a definition. The DSM has attempted to define the "disorder", but not without controversy: "Paraphilia as a concept is vulnerable to societal pressures rather than advances in science, and so diagnosis may be grounded more in societal norms than in psychiatric health. Keenan in her criticism suggests the inclusion of "paraphilic disorders" in DSM-5 as redundant, unscientific, and stigmatizing..." ( McManus et al, 2013) see: http://f1000.com/prime/reports/m/5/36/#bib-016.

An even more serious difficulty is that picquerism, for example, is categorized as a condition that is NOS (Not otherwise specified). And this as resulted in serious criticisms of the criminological interpretation: "Not otherwise specified disorders are meant to be no more than residual wastepaper baskets provided by DSM- IV to encourage research and for the convenience of clinicians when coding patients who do not fit within one of the specific DSM-1V categories.. The problem is that paraphilia NOS has been widely misapplied in SVP hearings to criminals who have no mental disorder by evaluators who have misinterpreted the DSM- IV...By virtue of their residual and idiosyncratic nature, cases given the label NOS are by definition outside of what is generally accepted by the field as a reliable and valid psychiatric disorder." (Frances and First, 2011) see: http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/4/555.long.

I am therefore beginning to wonder if much of Keppel's report should be confined to the "wastepaper basket"! In fact, to be honest I'm not a huge fan of the DSM either, although I understand the practical need to have a codified approach to mental health. The difficulty is that the biomedical model, which could be regarded as reductionist, underpins much of the DSM, despite the lack of scientific support for such an approach: see Deacon, 2013
http://jonabram.web.unc.edu/files/20...model_2013.pdf
By the way, I'm a great admirer of Allen Frances, the chair of the DSM- 1V task force.: here's another of his reports, which gives an objective and unbiased view of the limitations of the DSM: http://psych.colorado.edu/~willcutt/...ances_2012.pdf.
Well that was weird. There was more to that post. In case it seemed somewhat blunt.

So here's the thing about Picquerism. It is categorized as a Paraphilia NOS. Thats actually not correct. It is a kind of sadism. Which is it's own broad category. Branding is sadism, breath control leading to death is sadism (it's also something else, but that happens), boneplay is sadism, picquerism is sadism. So it is Sadism NOS if you want to be specific, just sadism if you don't. Which sounds confusing and disorganized and not DSM worthy.

So we all know the problems with the DSM. Every edition reflects the current psychological theory and results from research and of course, those get reversed every five years or so. DSM III to DSM V in thirty years is... not good. We don't get a new version everytime we learn something. That gets put in new printings, not new editions. No, new editions come from when the current DSM is so wrong that it just needs to be scrapped.

But here is the beauty of the DSM. It tells mental health professional how to build a diagnostic procedure, how to categorize and identify the basic kind of problem, and in some cases tells you the best way to treat it. And there is so much neuropsychologists have done in the past 10 years. PET scans can isolate motives for behavior, it can identify the exact chemical malfunction some people experience. We can use pupil dilation and constriction. We can use electrical fields, we can use effing magnets now.. and we can take those results, plug it in to the DSM format and come out with a not only a very detailed description of the behavior, but a solid treatment plan. Te value of the DSM is not that it's complete catalog. It's not. The value is that it tells us how to identify a disorder, distinguish it from a quirk, and figure out if the disorder is chemical or behavioral. People think the Statistical part is the important part. It's not. It's the Diagnostic part. Not just whats in there, but the structure so you can do it yourself when you see something potentially new. The DSM knows it's not complete,and it knows that new stuff happens. It's set up for that.
__________________
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-23-2015, 08:07 PM
Ausgirl Ausgirl is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 556
Default

The guy who attacked Annie Millwood could have gotten off on the act of stabbing. Or maybe she just got away before he could he could finish her off.

Whoever attacked Tabram targetted vital organ regions and hit a few. I'm inclined to call that one a rage attack, and he did not have any intention of her surviving it, obviously.

I'm pretty convinced Emma Smith was attacked by a gang, with one or possibly more members possibly being a true sadist (some sadists just like to watch).

I don't see much evidence for JtR being into piquerism. He was a mutilator, sure, but his victims were likely dead or close to it and unconscious. If he had any "interim" behaviours, I believe he'd try to get access to corpses to mutilate. But somehow, I think he preferred the warm ones.

Last edited by Ausgirl : 04-23-2015 at 08:20 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-23-2015, 08:17 PM
Ausgirl Ausgirl is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 556
Default

As for spanking... this is an area in which I have some expertise. Though it's not a fetish I have, personally, I'd like to add.

Spanking's often nothing to do with S&M, or necessarily even the dom/sub thing. It can just be about a pleasurable feeling caused by "heat" of the spanking in the nethers. Sometimes it's about reliving a pleasurable feeling experienced while being spanked as a child. I knew a couple of really old guys who never quite got over the thrill of being spanked by their nanny.

Of course, it can be a part of S&M and dom/sub play. But not always.

Also, a person can be a sexual sadist without feeling driven to kill a person, or seek unwilling victims. Some just can't fully feel satisfied without inflicting pain on someone. Lucky for (most of) them, there's people who are aroused by having pain inflicted by somebody else. But that's not to say that if there wasn't willing 'victims', a majority of sadists (even some who go to extremes) would go hunting for unwilling ones.

The sexual sadists who do go hunting for unwilling victims are most often also sociopaths with gods know what other comorbid issues. Being a sadist doesn't necessarily mean you're a sociopath. But a sadistic fetish/compulsion combined with sociopathy is really bad news.

Last edited by Ausgirl : 04-23-2015 at 08:27 PM.
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 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.