Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For what reason do we include Stride?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If Stride's killer was in fact Jack and he didn't mutilate her because of paranoia (whatever the cause) how could that paranoia be quantified in any way?

    It seems extremely simplistic to say the Ripper rips. Stride wasn't ripped. Therefore her killer was not the Ripper.

    c.d.

    Comment


    • Who is to say that Jack just hated prostitutes and wanted just to kill them? More likely he was a misogynist who hated women in general. If Liz wasn't a prostitute she could just as well have been an easy target in that particular moment, much like his other victims.
      Regards Darryl

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Your insecurities are showing when you need to resort to insults. I was merely being polite. C.D. according to you is part of a ‘peanut gallery’ for simply agreeing with my post. As you feel the need to stress that you don’t need affirmation why the sulk when you are disagreed with? You have nothing concrete to justify the unfeasibly high regard you have for your own interpretation of events surrounding Stride’s murder.



        Im sorry but this is patently biased nonsense. No one is changing the killers habits. It is entirely possible though that events of that night might have forced the killer to have changed them. The possibility that the killer might have been disturbed is a real one. I’m not ideologically wedded to the idea of multiple killers so it makes not one jot of difference to me whether she was killed by the ripper or not. Preconceptions distort. If it’s possible that the killer was disturbed - and it absolutely is possible - then any absolute confidence that she wasn’t a ripper victim falls way short of honest evaluation.



        ? What would constitute evidence that she was soliciting? Some kind of badge saying ““I’m soliciting”” perhaps? How desperate is this as an argument when you can use the fact that she was reasonably dressed and did occasional char work to prove that a known prostitute loitering around outside a club at 1am wasn’t soliciting. I’m afraid that you will need much more than that.
        I cant keep reminding you of the fact that there is nothing upon which to found a theory that includes an interruption, although I realize how structurally important it must be to the current Canonical proposition, so I see why it keeps inserting itself into rebuttal. Im not proposing anything that is not fully supported by the evidence, which is why I take offense at having to argue these facts against something purely speculative. Which an interruption is.

        That aside, without too much disagreement one would imagine, I suggest that the first 2 victims matched in almost every category that would be relevant in an investigation...Victimology, Methodology, Skill Sets, Targets, Signatures,... They, being rather unique and eerily similar and within a 2 week span, can be pretty safely assumed to have been committed by the same person or persons. If that's Jack, there is a wealth of information about him in those 2 murders. To then accept Stride means that any information gathered from those first murders should be presumed to have been a result of a specific situation, and only coincidentally similar.

        I have never seen the value of trading off what is learned from the first 2 murders so that Stride can then be accommodated within a C5 framework. The first 2 acts gave us lots to use, I suggest using that data rather than insisting I, or anyone else, accept a proposed scenario that is not founded by evidence, but rather by imagination.

        As to a diss to cd, since first coming here he has taken offense to my largely black and white and sometimes brusque posts, my post reflected that history more than anything else. He likes the traditional scenario. I don't.
        Michael Richards

        Comment




        • I can’t keep reminding you of the fact that there is nothing upon which to found a theory that includes an interruption, although I realize how structurally important it must be to the current Canonical proposition, so I see why it keeps inserting itself into rebuttal. Im not proposing anything that is not fully supported by the evidence, which is why I take offense at having to argue these facts against something purely speculative. Which an interruption is.
          Its certainly not because it’s ‘structurally important.’ The question is whether Stride might have been a victim of the ripper or not? The question is asked for very obvious reasons of course - we have a known prostitute, killed on the street by having her throat cut in the early hours during a period of throat cutting prostitute murders within the same small area. Of course we have differences too (the throat cutting and lack of mutilations for eg) and so it’s reasonable to ask if circumstances might account for the differences? The answer to that is a pretty resounding ‘yes.’ The killer might have been disturbed by Diemschutz or someone unknown. Of course we can’t prove this as we have no one seeing the killer fleeing the scene. You’re correct of course when you say that the idea of an interruption is speculation but speculation can’t be taboo in a case where so much is unknown.

          Therefore I can’t understand why you complain when you state things like ‘...I take offence at having to argue these facts against something purely speculative.’ The suggestion of an interruption is beyond all doubt a reasonable, if unproven, one. Far more reasonable I’d suggest than the notion of more than one throat cutting prostitute murderer operating within a few streets of each other at the same time and targeting the same type of victim.


          .
          That aside, without too much disagreement one would imagine, I suggest that the first 2 victims matched in almost every category that would be relevant in an investigation...Victimology, Methodology, Skill Sets, Targets, Signatures,... They, being rather unique and eerily similar and within a 2 week span, can be pretty safely assumed to have been committed by the same person or persons. If that's Jack, there is a wealth of information about him in those 2 murders. To then accept Stride means that any information gathered from those first murders should be presumed to have been a result of a specific situation, and only coincidentally similar.

          I have never seen the value of trading off what is learned from the first 2 murders so that Stride can then be accommodated within a C5 framework. The first 2 acts gave us lots to use, I suggest using that data rather than insisting I, or anyone else, accept a proposed scenario that is not founded by evidence, but rather by imagination.
          We shouldn’t discard information but I think that we should be wary of thinking that there is some kind of serial killer handbook. That killers follow a rigid, unalterable method. If there are differences then it’s quite reasonable to ask ‘can we possibly account for these differences by looking at circumstantial changes?’ It’s not a ‘trade-off’ it’s an ‘evaluation’ which surely has to take place when we are faced with a series of throat-cutting prostitution murders within a small area and tight time frame. It’s not done so that we can fit Stride into the series it’s done so that we can evaluate whether she was or wasn’t. Objectively I’d say that we cannot come down with any certainty on either side. You could be absolutely correct in your view. Stride could well have been killed by an acquaintance, a rejected suitor or an angry punter. Equally, she could have been killed by Jack the Ripper who was disturbed by Diemschutz and fled after he’d gone into the club. Then unsatisfied and raging angry he went and found Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square.

          .
          As to a diss to cd, since first coming here he has taken offense to my largely black and white and sometimes brusque posts, my post reflected that history more than anything else. He likes the traditional scenario. I don't.

          This case is rarely black and white I’d say.
          Im not disputing the value of your opinion that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim. As I’ve said, you might be absolutely right but I’m afraid that we’ll never know for certain. The only thing that I can’t understand is your level of confidence on this issue when there is obviously room for doubt.

          Regards

          Herlock






          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

          Comment


          • I can see we will never get agreement on my main point here that when there is no known cause for speculating about an interruption that it isnt something we should be wasting time speculating about. You don't agree, I get it. As to what serial killers do regularly, as you said there are no rules to follow, but Im saying when 2 consecutive murders match each other in virtually every relevant category then you like have preferences and methods evidence. The differences between those 2 murders are minute, and the differences in those 2 to Strides murder are significant.

            Without an interruption you will not be able to persuade anyone that someone who has an established pattern that includes pm mutilations for some unknown reason changes those preferences.

            Look at the Berner evidence....there is no need to assume he was caught over the woman by someone, the very least he has over the woman after the single cut is around 5 minutes, IF Louis didn't lie. 3 peoples statements tell us he did..but that's another disputed point, and again, Im tired of offering the known evidence over and over again to counter only speculation. The evidence says she was cut once, left untouched from that point, and that the elapsed time from cut to discovery is far more than mere seconds.

            Remember, Morris Eagle and Lave said at around 12:45 they were at the gates to the passageway. Theye didn't see each other, or Liz, or BSM, or Pipeman, or anyone in the alley. yet we know from Fanny that Liz is definitely not in the street by 12:50. Ergo, she entered that passageway before 12:50. Her cut could have been made at around 12:55-:56, which has her inside the gates for at least 5 minutes, and there 5-6 minutes before Louis says her arrived. Now, remember that Kate may have been led from just outside Mitre at around 1:35 to the spot where she is killed,... killed, gutted, had her face cut, the apron cut and ripped, her colon section cut and placed beside her body, and had fled unseen by Watkins entering around 12:44. That's around 8 minutes total. For all that activity and movement. But you ask me to believe that the same killer had maybe 10 minutes with a woman in the dark and only managed to cut her throat once? Not even roll her onto her back, shove her skirts up...nothing.

            I hope you see by those facts why interruption is not only unwarranted theory, it is in contrast to the timing evidence of what could be done in that span.

            Nothing personal, but Ive repeated what is on this website many times without any luck selling on you what is real and what is guesswork. Ill pass on a continued head against the wall practice. Best of luck with your theory.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • .
              Nothing personal, but Ive repeated what is on this website many times without any luck selling on you what is real and what is guesswork. Ill pass on a continued head against the wall practice. Best of luck with your theory.
              If you are absolutely, inarguably correct in everything you postulate on this issue. And it really is so obvious. Would you consider it stupidity or dishonesty that causes most people to disagree with you?
              Regards

              Herlock






              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

              Comment


              • "I hope you see by those facts why interruption is not only unwarranted theory, it is in contrast to the timing evidence of what could be done in that span."

                Hello Michael,

                Here is the problem. An interruption does not have to be physical as in being done by some other person. If Jack is caught and convicted he gets hanged. If we assume for the sake of argument that he does not want that to happen (which seems to be a reasonable assumption) it is therefore not unreasonable to assume that virtually anything could have spooked him. As for the timing evidence, you are assuming that he was alone with Stride that entire time. But what if he got spooked by something and ducked into the shadows to make sure everything was ok? His paranoia gets the better of him and he gives it up as a bad business. In that scenario, the timing argument falls apart.

                A killer (or any criminal) getting spooked is commonplace. You seem to want to put it on a par with aliens landing and handing out Bible tracks. I think it was the Yorkshire Ripper who stated that he bolted on a couple of occasions for no reason other than his own paranoia.

                You state that there is no evidence for this happening. But what evidence would there be? Do you think that he would write a note saying that he was about to mutilate Stride but got scared off before he could begin?

                You are right that the interruption theory can't be proven but to me (and certainly others on these boards) it seems quite reasonable.

                c.d.

                Comment


                • Hi,

                  I want to present first the inquest testimony that describes the throat cutting injuries for Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes. Then present a brief discussion on my readings of these.

                  Nichols:
                  Testimony of Mr. Henry Llewelly, surgeon, of 152, Whitechapel-road
                  “On the left side of the neck, about 1in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertegrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8in. in length.” (Evans and Skinner, 2000; pg 35).

                  Chapman:
                  Testimony of Mr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of police, 2, Spital-square
                  “He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply; that the incisions through the skin were jagged, and reached right round the neck.” (Evans and Skinner, 2000; pg 86).
                  “There were two distinct, clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel from each other and separated by about half an inch.” (Evans and Skinner, 2000; pg 87)

                  Stride:
                  Testimony of Mr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of police, 2, Spital-square
                  “There was a clean-cut incision on the neck. It was 6in. in length and commenced 2½in. in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, ¾in. (note ½ in. is stated in Begg, Fido, and Skinner, 1996; Pg 351, but in all other respects the quote is identical) over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper, dividing the sheath. The cut was very clean and deviated a little downwards. The artery and other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through. The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about 2in. below the right angle of the jaw. The deep vessels on that side were uninjured.” (Evans and Skinner, 2000; pg 158).

                  Eddowes:
                  Testimony of Frederick Gordon Brown, 17 Finsbury Circus, Surgeon of City of London Police Force:
                  “The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and ½ below the lobe and about 2½ inches behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear. The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side – the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed – the larynx was severed below the vocal chords. All the deep structures were severed to the bone the knife marking intervertebral cartilages – the sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. The carotid artery hand a fine hole opening. The internal jugular vein was opened an inch and a half not divided. The blood vessels contained clot. ”(Evans and Skinner, 2000; pg 205/206)

                  Ok, that’s the testimony from the inquests that I have available to me.

                  Briefly, we have more details with regards to the wounds for Stride and Eddowes. Nichols has two cuts, one smaller (4 inches) than the other (encircled the neck). I would suggest the smaller was probably done first, and would direct the initial blood away from the killer on her right side. This is the important one for comparison between the cases.

                  With Chapman, there were fewer details, but the description reads to me like two circular cuts, rather than one smaller one and one that circles the entire neck. They are, however, located in similar locations as the two described on Nichols, and the presentation is minimal enough that we should be cautious about accepting my reading as an accurate description of both incisions. But if that is considered, then this is different from the 1 small 1 large wound to Nichols.

                  I’ll skip to Eddowes first:
                  The cut is described as 6-7 inches in length. There’s a superficial cut mentioned as well. It’s not entirely clear to me if this part of the description is providing details with regards to the 6-7 inch cut, or if this is a 2nd cut. If it is details, then Eddowes only had her throat cut once, if it is a 2nd, then this is unlike either Nichols or Chapman, as both cuts there were anything but superficial. The larger of the two, if there were two, did not damage the structures on the right side to any great extent (only a small hole in the right carotid artery is mentioned). This injury corresponds in many respects with the smaller, 4in. cut, performed on Nichols. If the superficial cut is a 2nd injury, given the injuries also inflicted upon Eddowes’ eyelids, etc, this 2nd injury may not have been inflicted until some other stage of the attack rather than at the point where JtR was cutting the throat to ensure death. I base that on its description of being superficial, but it possible that is a description of the beginnings of a a single injury to the throat, which eventually extends 6-7 inches.

                  Now, with regards to Stride. The injury to her throat is, within the levels of variation of the other throat injuries. It is, in many respects, a near re-telling of the slightly more severe injury inflicted upon Eddowes. Both are in the range of 6 inches, though Eddowes’s may be as long as 7. Nichols, however, had the smaller injury described as 4 inches. With both Stride and Eddowes the vessels on the right side are either uninjured (Stride) or only slightly so (Eddowes). A smaller initial throat cut, appears to be the initial attack JtR followed with both Nichols and Eddowes. The details for Chapman are insufficiently supplied to know for sure if this was followed, although it tends to read in a way that suggests it was not, and that both injuries were the deep encircling cuts. JtR, therefore, shows some variability. However, the commonalities between the overall mutilation pattern between Eddowes and Chapman in particular, link these two cases. The injuries to Nichols also links her to Chapman and Eddowes. The only wound inflicted upon Stride reads so much like that of Eddowes, that to discount Stride as a Ripper victim is unwarranted. There is enough evidence in that injury to warrant her consideration, particularly when combined with other aspects (similarly public locations, lack of noted disturbances, time of the attack, similar descriptions of people seen, victimology, and so forth). At the same time, the lack of the attack escalating into mutilations, the lack of a second throat injury, deep or superficial, and the possibility that the injury inflicted could be extremely common – it may be that most throat cuttings produce a description as per Stride and Eddowes. That is something I do not know. If this injury description is highly common, and it’s just what throat cutting tends to look like, then that similarity is of little value with regards to linkage. But if the similarity of description between Stride and Eddowes injury is far more similar than the description one would have when comparing two random throat cutting murders, then that would point towards a common hand. Noting the difference between Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes, all of whom are generally considered well linked, we see that the variability between wounds by what is considered the same hand, but on different nights, seems greater than that shown between two separate injuries committed on the same night.

                  So, I do think there is more than enough physical evidence available to warrant considering Stride a possible victim of JtR. It may not be enough to rule out the alternative, that she is not part of the series. But I think it is unsafe to suggest one or the other of those conclusions must be right.

                  That means, when we consider the possibility that she is a victim of JtR, an explanation for the lack of escalation seems required. The times given (elsewhere) for various sightings and discovery of her body, do not preclude Deimshutz arriving at a time that might have caused JtR to leave. It's not definitive, but it can't be ruled out. Also, BS was seen in a confrontation with Stride shortly before she was found murdered in that location. Descriptions of BS are similar to that of a man seen with Eddowes shortly after (again, consistent, but not definitive). That would suggest the pushing of Stride was the beginnings of a murderous assault, that JtR was not going to stop, but now knowing he had been spotted as well in a physical confrontation, may have been enough by itself to spook him. We can never know why he left for sure, nor does it matter, if the above physical evidence is deemed sufficient to warrant including Stride as a victim of JtR. If it is, then any plausible explanation for why JtR leaves that scene is good enough to fill in the gaps of the story even if we could tell it different ways and never know which, if any, were true. Why he left could be considered "irrelevant" if the above were sufficient to inform us that JtR was there, and for some reason, he left.

                  Anyway, that's just me.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                    "I hope you see by those facts why interruption is not only unwarranted theory, it is in contrast to the timing evidence of what could be done in that span."

                    Hello Michael,

                    Here is the problem. An interruption does not have to be physical as in being done by some other person. If Jack is caught and convicted he gets hanged. If we assume for the sake of argument that he does not want that to happen (which seems to be a reasonable assumption) it is therefore not unreasonable to assume that virtually anything could have spooked him. As for the timing evidence, you are assuming that he was alone with Stride that entire time. But what if he got spooked by something and ducked into the shadows to make sure everything was ok? His paranoia gets the better of him and he gives it up as a bad business. In that scenario, the timing argument falls apart.

                    A killer (or any criminal) getting spooked is commonplace. You seem to want to put it on a par with aliens landing and handing out Bible tracks. I think it was the Yorkshire Ripper who stated that he bolted on a couple of occasions for no reason other than his own paranoia.

                    You state that there is no evidence for this happening. But what evidence would there be? Do you think that he would write a note saying that he was about to mutilate Stride but got scared off before he could begin?

                    You are right that the interruption theory can't be proven but to me (and certainly others on these boards) it seems quite reasonable.

                    c.d.
                    Exactly C.D Who is to say it was Deimshutz who interrupted the killer? A noise from the club or street may have stopped him in his tracks. Then Deimshutz comes along while he is hiding in the shadows or already bolted we simply don't know, but considering the club and Berner St seem to have been busy that evening it is by no means beyond the realms of possibility.

                    Regarding the Yorkshire ripper I think it is important to remember that he attacked at least two women because he thought they where prostitutes even though they weren't

                    Comment


                    • Apologies to Herlock, but the possible interruption isn't a modern theory, but has been around since the moment the body was discovered. Diemschutz thought it, and it was the contemporary police and press opinion too. Even Michael's favourite witness Fanny Mortimer said "my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart​​​​​​."

                      This report from the Daily News 1 Oct is illlustrative, not just of the theory but also the possible timing;

                      "A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband. Thus, presuming that the body did not lay in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door, it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap. If this be a correct surmise, it is easy to understand that the criminal may have been interrupted at his work. The man who drove the cart says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it, having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                        Apologies to Herlock, but the possible interruption isn't a modern theory, but has been around since the moment the body was discovered. Diemschutz thought it, and it was the contemporary police and press opinion too. Even Michael's favourite witness Fanny Mortimer said "my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart​​​​​​."

                        This report from the Daily News 1 Oct is illlustrative, not just of the theory but also the possible timing;

                        "A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband. Thus, presuming that the body did not lay in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door, it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap. If this be a correct surmise, it is easy to understand that the criminal may have been interrupted at his work. The man who drove the cart says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it, having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived."
                        Hello Joshua,

                        Thanks but I’ve never believed that the interruption theory was a modern one.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Hello Joshua,

                          Thanks but I’ve never believed that the interruption theory was a modern one.
                          No, my comment was slightly tongue in cheek, as it seemed Michael was attributing it to you.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                            Exactly C.D Who is to say it was Deimshutz who interrupted the killer? A noise from the club or street may have stopped him in his tracks. Then Deimshutz comes along while he is hiding in the shadows or already bolted we simply don't know, but considering the club and Berner St seem to have been busy that evening it is by no means beyond the realms of possibility.

                            Regarding the Yorkshire ripper I think it is important to remember that he attacked at least two women because he thought they where prostitutes even though they weren't
                            Exactly Darryl,

                            i mentioned in an an earlier post about the possibility of someone from the club opening the side door so that he could stand in the doorway to get some fresh air. The suggestion that the ripper couldn’t have been disturbed is simply wish-thinking I’m afraid.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Exactly Darryl,

                              i mentioned in an an earlier post about the possibility of someone from the club opening the side door so that he could stand in the doorway to get some fresh air. The suggestion that the ripper couldn’t have been disturbed is simply wish-thinking I’m afraid.
                              totally agree. while possible diemshitz disturbed him-it would mean that the ripper was hiding somewhere in the square and only made his escape when diemshitz went in the club-I find it somewhat hard to accept.
                              In more probability he was spooked by something and bolted before diemshitz even arrived.
                              and with the commotion in the street and being seen by Schwartz, I think he may have bolted earlier and didn't even enter the yard.
                              "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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                                No, my comment was slightly tongue in cheek, as it seemed Michael was attributing it to you.
                                Sorry Joshua I misunderstood you.

                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X