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:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 1 minute ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Sam Flynn 3 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Sam Flynn 25 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 37 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 42 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 42 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (28 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A 20th Century Word Processor - (10 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring a Life - (7 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (6 posts)
Visual Media: HLN's Unmasking a killer-The Golden State killer - (4 posts)
General Police Discussion: Death From The Frog’s March - (2 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 Media > Periodicals > Ripperologist

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-06-2018, 06:57 PM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,140
Default Ripperologist 159

Nobody reads this stuff anymore?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-07-2018, 05:27 AM
Wyatt Earp Wyatt Earp is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tombstone
Posts: 353
Default

While I was pleased to see Adam Wood address William Bury’s retrial, I need to correct a mistake he made in his editorial. Adam suggests that the evidence against Bury (for the Ripper murders) isn’t “firm.” Signature evidence, which is the key evidence linking Bury to the murders, is firm enough to be admissible in court, and so it’s reasonable to suggest that it should be firm enough for Adam and others in the Ripper community. Also, the information being used to map the Ellen Bury murder to Jack the Ripper’s signature is coming from police records, medical records and court records—all firm sources. People shouldn’t have any illusions about what’s been going on with Bury. The evidence against him is the real deal.

In general, I thought this was a strong issue of Ripperologist, the best I’ve seen in a long time. The article about Hendrik de Jong was a gem, well-researched and well-written.
__________________
William Bury, Victorian Murderer
http://www.williambury.org

Last edited by Wyatt Earp : 03-07-2018 at 05:32 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-07-2018, 10:08 AM
ChrisGeorge ChrisGeorge is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
While I was pleased to see Adam Wood address William Bury’s retrial, I need to correct a mistake he made in his editorial. Adam suggests that the evidence against Bury (for the Ripper murders) isn’t “firm.” Signature evidence, which is the key evidence linking Bury to the murders, is firm enough to be admissible in court, and so it’s reasonable to suggest that it should be firm enough for Adam and others in the Ripper community. Also, the information being used to map the Ellen Bury murder to Jack the Ripper’s signature is coming from police records, medical records and court records—all firm sources. People shouldn’t have any illusions about what’s been going on with Bury. The evidence against him is the real deal.

In general, I thought this was a strong issue of Ripperologist, the best I’ve seen in a long time. The article about Hendrik de Jong was a gem, well-researched and well-written.
Hello Wyatt

Presumably by "signature" you mean the use of the knife to mutilate rather than handwriting. Well, yes, William Bury did use a knife on his wife, and some have compared the abdominal mutilations done to his wife in Dundee in 1889 to those done to Mary Ann Nichols in late August 1888 in Whitechapel. But does that make him Jack the Ripper, absent any other evidence that might tie him to the Whitechapel crimes? I would say not. Yes Bury is in the queue as a possible suspect to have committed the murders in the East End of London but he is hardly at the head of the queue.

Cheers

Chris
__________________
Christopher T. George,
Organizer, RipperCon Jack the Ripper-True Crime biennial conference series.
For information on RipperCon held in Baltimore
April 7-8, 2018, go to http://rippercon.com/.
Look for talks from RipperCon to appear on #Rippercast!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-07-2018, 10:48 AM
Wyatt Earp Wyatt Earp is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tombstone
Posts: 353
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
Hello Wyatt

Presumably by "signature" you mean the use of the knife to mutilate rather than handwriting. Well, yes, William Bury did use a knife on his wife, and some have compared the abdominal mutilations done to his wife in Dundee in 1889 to those done to Mary Ann Nichols in late August 1888 in Whitechapel. But does that make him Jack the Ripper, absent any other evidence that might tie him to the Whitechapel crimes? I would say not. Yes Bury is in the queue as a possible suspect to have committed the murders in the East End of London but he is hardly at the head of the queue.

Cheers

Chris
Chris, the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al (Keppel has the credentials and standing within his field to go before a jury and provide expert testimony on this point) is a complex and multifaceted signature that appears to have been unique in the history of murder in Victorian Britain. Even a murder like the Alice McKenzie murder, which superficially resembles a Ripper murder, can’t be linked to it, per the analysis of Keppel and his team. When you account for the specific circumstances of the Ellen Bury murder, which you have to do when conducting signature analysis, the Ellen Bury murder is a match. This is remarkable evidence linking Bury to the main Whitechapel murders.

A signature match by itself is not of course sufficient to conclude that Bury was the Ripper. We have to be able to reasonably rule out the possibility that the Ellen Bury murder was a copycat or Ripper-inspired murder, which we can do, and we have to be able to reasonably rule out the possibility that the close signature match was a coincidence, which we can also do. I deal with both of these concerns in my article, “The Bury ID,” which is available on the Bury website. The handwriting links are of course inconclusive, but they’re also not part of the signature analysis.
__________________
William Bury, Victorian Murderer
http://www.williambury.org
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-07-2018, 02:05 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
While I was pleased to see Adam Wood address William Bury’s retrial, I need to correct a mistake he made in his editorial. Adam suggests that the evidence against Bury (for the Ripper murders) isn’t “firm.” Signature evidence, which is the key evidence linking Bury to the murders, is firm enough to be admissible in court, and so it’s reasonable to suggest that it should be firm enough for Adam and others in the Ripper community. Also, the information being used to map the Ellen Bury murder to Jack the Ripper’s signature is coming from police records, medical records and court records—all firm sources. People shouldn’t have any illusions about what’s been going on with Bury. The evidence against him is the real deal.
I'm sorry to have to break it to you that your argument is completely flawed. The fact that evidence might be admissible in a court of law does not in any way mean it is conclusive of guilt. Adam is perfectly entitled to conclude - just as any notional jury would have been entitled to conclude - that the evidence against Bury, even if admissible, isn't firm. You are not entitled to say, therefore, that he has made a "mistake" which requires correction, because he has expressed a valid opinion.

I have read your article and I note that the authority for your claim that "Signature evidence is admissible in court" is a 2005 article by four American academics who say, "Signature analysis is a widely used crime scene assessment practice in the United States, and is the only crime scene assessment technique that is accepted in court testimony and appellate decisions". They refer to a number of US decisions in support of this but what about the legal position in the relevant jurisdiction of the criminal courts of England?

In any event, it is clear that Bury's actions did not match all the 11 signature characteristics listed by the authors of the 2005 article. The authors of that article claim that those 11 characteristics created a "unique signature" by which, they say, it is possible to link "the six victims of one killer". Amongst these were (no. 5) that "the victims’ bodies were left open and on display" but this was certainly not the case with Ellen Bury whose body was placed in a trunk. Then we have this (no.7): "the victims were left in sexually degrading positions with their legs spread and genitalia exposed to illustrate their vulnerability after death and the killer’s". This does not apply to Ellen Bury. Then (no. 8) "the killer mutilated his victims and showed increased postmortem mutilation from one victim to the next". Yet, you accept in your article that the mutilations in the case of Ellen Bury were "relatively minor". And we have (no. 9):"the killer evolved to the removal of their organs and body parts, and removed some of them from the crime scenes". Once again this does not apply to Ellen Bury (and I don't accept that all the rest apply either).

Furthermore the authors of the 2005 article state: "murderers who stab and kill female prostitutes, leave their bodies in unusual positions, and probe, explore, or mutilate body cavities are extremely rare. It would be extremely unusual to find more than one of these killers, exhibiting that combination of signature characteristics, operating in the same area at the same time." Ellen Bury was not a prostitute and was not murdered in or around the Whitechapel area of London. One might add that her throat was not cut like a number of the victims of the Whitechapel murderer.

I am aware that you have an answer for the fact that the Ellen Bury murder does not display the same "unique signature" comprising the 11 "signature characteristics" because you say that Bury "needed to modify his behavior as a murderer in order to conceal his identity as Jack the Ripper" and you point out that Modus Operandi can change from crime to crime and signature characteristics can be "reduced". While this may be so, you fail to consider what a devastating impact this has on your argument about admissibility. Once characteristics from one murder to another do not match perfectly, and there are, on the contrary, significant differences, then there is no chance, either in the USA or the UK, or in any proper criminal court of law, that any signature, or similar fact, evidence is going to be admissible evidence to prove a connection between those murders. It's just not going to happen.

Even worse is that you tell us that the signature evidence is the "key evidence" against Bury. Given the admitted differences between the signatures, I fail to see how you think it would be possible to secure a conviction on the basis of the signature evidence.

In short, your argument seems to amount to a claim that because there were some relatively minor mutilations to the body of Ellen Bury and/or some cuts and stabs in the abdominal and genital areas, that she had been strangled and that in your view her body was posed inside the trunk (something which is really only argument and by no means established fact) that these similarities with the Ripper murders are so strong that the case against Bury is so compelling that no-one could plausibly describe that case as anything less then firm. I suggest, however, that Adam and others in the Ripper community would be perfectly entitled to conclude that the case against Bury is not firm and the admissibility or otherwise of signature evidence is neither here nor there and makes no difference to that conclusion whatsoever.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-08-2018, 07:11 AM
Wyatt Earp Wyatt Earp is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tombstone
Posts: 353
Default

David, when I say that signature evidence is firm enough to be admissible in court, it should be clear to you that I am referencing the reliability status of this class of evidence and not suggesting that because the evidence is admissible that this makes it conclusive of guilt. As I’ve already pointed out, signature evidence by itself is insufficient to establish guilt. My stance is based not only on the position of signature evidence within the U.S. legal system, but also on its position within the legal systems of other countries, such as the U.K., Australia and South Africa (see the 2015 book by Woodhams, Crime Linkage: Theory, Research and Practice, pp.200-1). If Adam Wood is using the word “firm” in some other sense, that would be for him to clarify.

You spend a good deal of time questioning the legitimacy of the mapping of the Ellen Bury murder to Jack the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al. The substance of your critique is that certain signature characteristics vary in how they’re expressed, vary in the degree of their expression or are entirely absent at the Ellen Bury crime scene. However, as I noted in my article, the research on serial killers informs us that a given signature characteristic can vary in how it’s expressed, vary in the degree of its expression or be entirely absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of that murder, and as I have explained, we do indeed possess a ready and obvious explanation for why we should observe variation at the Ellen Bury crime scene. All you’ve produced, then, is a set of irrational objections to the mapping. You compound your mistake by declaring that a court would exclude signature evidence on the basis of variation, when this is actually an established characteristic of this type of evidence.

Bury was living in the East End throughout the period of the Whitechapel murders. It is ridiculous to suggest that because he committed another murder shortly after he moved from the area, that this should discount him as being the author of the Whitechapel murders.

You seem to be confident that Bury could never be convicted of the Ripper murders, however William Beadle spoke to an attorney in Dundee who offered a very different assessment of the evidence against him: “Based on the evidence presented here, a Crown Prosecution of William Bury for the Ripper murders would have had every chance of success” (see “Where We Are With Bury,” available through a link on the Bury website). This attorney’s assessment was made prior to the publication of my article, and so the case against Bury has only strengthened since he delivered his opinion. We now possess forensic evidence placing William Bury at the crime scenes in the case, and I maintain that this would go a long way toward securing his conviction.
__________________
William Bury, Victorian Murderer
http://www.williambury.org
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-08-2018, 08:50 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
David, when I say that signature evidence is firm enough to be admissible in court, it should be clear to you that I am referencing the reliability status of this class of evidence and not suggesting that because the evidence is admissible that this makes it conclusive of guilt. As I’ve already pointed out, signature evidence by itself is insufficient to establish guilt. My stance is based not only on the position of signature evidence within the U.S. legal system, but also on its position within the legal systems of other countries, such as the U.K., Australia and South Africa (see the 2015 book by Woodhams, Crime Linkage: Theory, Research and Practice, pp.200-1). If Adam Wood is using the word “firm” in some other sense, that would be for him to clarify.

You spend a good deal of time questioning the legitimacy of the mapping of the Ellen Bury murder to Jack the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al. The substance of your critique is that certain signature characteristics vary in how they’re expressed, vary in the degree of their expression or are entirely absent at the Ellen Bury crime scene. However, as I noted in my article, the research on serial killers informs us that a given signature characteristic can vary in how it’s expressed, vary in the degree of its expression or be entirely absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of that murder, and as I have explained, we do indeed possess a ready and obvious explanation for why we should observe variation at the Ellen Bury crime scene. All you’ve produced, then, is a set of irrational objections to the mapping. You compound your mistake by declaring that a court would exclude signature evidence on the basis of variation, when this is actually an established characteristic of this type of evidence.

Bury was living in the East End throughout the period of the Whitechapel murders. It is ridiculous to suggest that because he committed another murder shortly after he moved from the area, that this should discount him as being the author of the Whitechapel murders.

You seem to be confident that Bury could never be convicted of the Ripper murders, however William Beadle spoke to an attorney in Dundee who offered a very different assessment of the evidence against him: “Based on the evidence presented here, a Crown Prosecution of William Bury for the Ripper murders would have had every chance of success” (see “Where We Are With Bury,” available through a link on the Bury website). This attorney’s assessment was made prior to the publication of my article, and so the case against Bury has only strengthened since he delivered his opinion. We now possess forensic evidence placing William Bury at the crime scenes in the case, and I maintain that this would go a long way toward securing his conviction.
Hi Wyatt
I see bury as a credible suspect as you know. I see that hes a known murderer of a woman with knife involved and the post mortem mutilation as a significant similarity.
I also find that he was in the area at the time important also.

But what is this forensic evidence placing him at crime scenes?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-08-2018, 10:59 AM
Wyatt Earp Wyatt Earp is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tombstone
Posts: 353
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi Wyatt
I see bury as a credible suspect as you know. I see that hes a known murderer of a woman with knife involved and the post mortem mutilation as a significant similarity.
I also find that he was in the area at the time important also.

But what is this forensic evidence placing him at crime scenes?
Signature evidence.
__________________
William Bury, Victorian Murderer
http://www.williambury.org
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-08-2018, 12:37 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
But what is this forensic evidence placing him at crime scenes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
Signature evidence.
Oh dear.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-08-2018, 01:13 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
David, when I say that signature evidence is firm enough to be admissible in court, it should be clear to you that I am referencing the reliability status of this class of evidence and not suggesting that because the evidence is admissible that this makes it conclusive of guilt.
No, that's exactly what you WERE suggesting. Look, just look at your own words:

"I need to correct a mistake he made in his editorial. Adam suggests that the evidence against Bury (for the Ripper murders) isn’t “firm.” Signature evidence, which is the key evidence linking Bury to the murders, is firm enough to be admissible in court, and so it’s reasonable to suggest that it should be firm enough for Adam and others in the Ripper community."

You were saying that because signature evidence is admissible in court then it was a "mistake" for Adam Wood to say that the evidence against Bury isn't firm.

It's a pure non-sequitur. The admissibility or otherwise of signature evidence does not affect whether the evidence against Bury is firm or not.

As I said, it is perfectly possible and reasonable for Adam Wood to conclude that Bury was not guilty despite the signature evidence. It's a reasonable view to hold. Yet you call it a "mistake" as if Adam has made some kind of error of fact.

That Bury was Jack the Ripper is no more than an opinion. To disagree with that opinion cannot properly be described as a "mistake".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
As I’ve already pointed out, signature evidence by itself is insufficient to establish guilt. My stance is based not only on the position of signature evidence within the U.S. legal system, but also on its position within the legal systems of other countries, such as the U.K., Australia and South Africa (see the 2015 book by Woodhams, Crime Linkage: Theory, Research and Practice, pp.200-1).
It may surprise you to learn that I do not possess a copy of the 2015 book by Woodhams but I can see that pages 200-1 are part of an article by a South African academic called Gerard Labuschagne entitled "The Use of Linkage Analysis Evidence in Serial Offense Trials". If he has cited some UK authorities for the admissibility of signature evidence I cannot fathom why you haven't cited the cases, rather than the book. Just tell us what the cases are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
If Adam Wood is using the word “firm” in some other sense, that would be for him to clarify.
Are you seriously suggesting that when Adam Wood referred to the "lack of firm evidence" against Bury he specifically meant the lack of admissible evidence? He was just saying that he doesn't think the evidence against Bury is strong enough to conclude he was Jack the Ripper. That's an opinion. You may disagree with it but it's ridiculous to categorize it as a mistake on the basis that signature evidence is admissible evidence in some jurisdictions in some historical periods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
You spend a good deal of time questioning the legitimacy of the mapping of the Ellen Bury murder to Jack the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al.
Not true. I have simply been looking at the issue from the angle of whether the "signature evidence" against Bury would have been admissible had he been charged with the Ripper murders (assuming that he was charged in a time period and jurisdiction in which such evidence was admissible). I was saying that the fact that signature evidence may be admissible in general does not mean it is admissible in every case. My simple point was that where there are significant differences between signatures in different murders a prosecutor will have literally no chance of getting the signature evidence admitted. A defence lawyer would tear the argument to shreds. You don't even consider this. It doesn't matter how many reasons you put forward as to why there might be significant differences, those differences kill any admissibility argument. At the very least, one cannot say that signature evidence will be admissible in every single case and, therefore, you cannot say for certain that signature evidence would be admissible in a case against Bury for the JTR murders. So your whole point about admissibility of signature evidence gets you nowhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
The substance of your critique is that certain signature characteristics vary in how they’re expressed, vary in the degree of their expression or are entirely absent at the Ellen Bury crime scene. However, as I noted in my article, the research on serial killers informs us that a given signature characteristic can vary in how it’s expressed, vary in the degree of its expression or be entirely absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of that murder, and as I have explained, we do indeed possess a ready and obvious explanation for why we should observe variation at the Ellen Bury crime scene.
I haven't even begun to dispute that your explanation for the variations might be correct. I have expressed no opinion on that subject. But unless you can show that the courts are happy to admit signature evidence in one murder which varies from signature evidence in another murder as evidence that the same person carried out both murders then you are sunk.

If you look at the US authorities that were cited in the 2005 article you will see that the signature evidence needs to be virtually identical for it to be admitted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
All you’ve produced, then, is a set of irrational objections to the mapping.
I haven't offered any objections to the mapping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
You compound your mistake by declaring that a court would exclude signature evidence on the basis of variation, when this is actually an established characteristic of this type of evidence.
This is the bit you need to prove. You haven't offered any evidence to support it.

Firstly, where is your authority that variation is an established characteristic of signature evidence? It will make a nonsense of the word "signature" if that's true.

Secondly, and far more importantly, do you have even one example of a legal case where signature evidence has been admitted in evidence in a murder case (or even another serious crime) where there are significant variations between the signatures in different crimes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
Bury was living in the East End throughout the period of the Whitechapel murders. It is ridiculous to suggest that because he committed another murder shortly after he moved from the area, that this should discount him as being the author of the Whitechapel murders.
I haven't said that at all. I haven't been arguing whether Bury is or is not guilty. My point is that a defence barrister would argue that aspects of the supposed signature of JTR are not present in the Ellen Bury murder and would therefore move to exclude signature evidence from being admitted in a case against Bury for the JTR murders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
You seem to be confident that Bury could never be convicted of the Ripper murders
I have said or suggested nothing of the sort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
however William Beadle spoke to an attorney in Dundee who offered a very different assessment of the evidence against him: “Based on the evidence presented here, a Crown Prosecution of William Bury for the Ripper murders would have had every chance of success”
Good for him. But that's just an opinion isn't it? Same as Adam Wood if he said that such a prosecution would not have a chance of success. My point is that he can't be making a "mistake", even if you disagree with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
We now possess forensic evidence placing William Bury at the crime scenes in the case
Don't be silly.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
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 08:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.