JTR Exhibition in Docklands

[Chris George]

Hi all.

I went to the exhibition for myself today. Not in the least busy - probably only about twenty people there at the time. I made a lot of notes and I have a lot of things to say, both good and bad.

It's late now, however, and I need to get to bed. In advance, though, I will say that overall it is better than I was expecting but it is far from perfect. One thing that does stick in my mind, and did when I was there, was SPE's general rhetorical question about 'what else could you put in there?'

As far as RIPPER items go, I think we have almost everything we can possibly have. I need to address the presentation of the LVP items and how they have dealt with the victims too, though. Julia Hoffbrand actually recognised me and came up to have a chat - I'll be mentioning what we discussed too. Still, tomorrow...

PHILIP

Thanks, Philip. I will look forward to your follow-up impressions on your visit to the exhibition. I wish I could come over from the United States to see it. Meanwhile, I am grateful that you can be the knowledgeable chap with the "eyes" to report on it for us.

Best regards

Chris

[Jana Oliver]

I went to the exhibit on Wednesday. I liked how it was presented. I had only a few complaints but most of those were of a mechanical nature. It would have been nice to present a fuller overview of the victim's lives, but the exhibit cut out a large swath of territory for itself when it decided to cover both the murders and the East End. A display similar to what they had at the Wolvers conference depicting Kate Eddowes' clothes and possessions would have easily highlighted the desperation of the victims and their pitiful existence. It is one thing to say the women were homeless (which they do) but to show what the meant would have more impact.

For those only basically acquainted with the crimes the exhibit might spur them to do more research. For those of us immersed in the subject there probably won't be an exhibit that would cover everything we'd like to see.

Since I flew over to London in part just to see this exhibit I'm happy that I wasn't disappointed.

Jana

[George Hutchinson]

Aaaahhhh....

Bite the bullet time and I must get on and describe my opinions and what have you on the Docklands thingy-wotsit (all academic so far...)

I was doing a Ripper tour yesterday morning and had hours to kill before the evening one, so I thought it was an ideal time to get over to Docklands. I recommend travelling in the very front of any DLR train. You're looking out of the front window as it speeds along and it feels like you're driving it. Particularly good in the amazing Docklands area.

As I got off, I found I was walking alongside Jim from the WS1888. By complete coincidence, I found myself arriving at the venue ten minutes before one of the fortnightly lectures on the LVP / East End / JTR. The lecture was free and well worth going to. It was in an upstairs lecture theatre. I think the next youngest person there was about 90. The talk was on housing of the LVP and, apart from some howling errors (Annie Hardman running the shop at 29 Hanbury Street?) on names, it was a very good lecture and one I think the WS1888 might do well to obtain the speaker thereof (I forget his name offhand. Richard Dennis or something). As I was about to leave, a woman stopped me. It was Julia Hoffbrand (the curator of the exhibition) and asked me what I thought of it. I told her I had yet to see it.

She knows that opinion is very divided and is aware that most of the Ripper historians are annoyed at the lack of coverage on the victims. However, she did confirm to me that time was very limited (as many of you know, it was still being put together right up to the last minute) and that, as suspected, there's always someone higher up who has the final say. If anything, to my surprise she actually seemed to be embarrassed, apologetic and eager to please when she was speaking to me, as if my opinion had any real value. She is certainly well aware that Neal is very unhappy. She introduced me to her boss, who was standing nearby, and to another colleague of hers. Without going into detail, I have a feeling the other colleague she introduced me to was responsible for causing a lot of unnecessary bad feeling recently between several people, including myself, but I wasn't sure if the names tallied so I let it go.

I went back down to the lobby. Though I'd paid £7 admission the previous November and the ticket said that I was entitled to free admission for the following year (which I brought with me) it's not the case. The Ripper section is in an enclosed and ticketed area. Last year's ticket got me a discount and cost me £5 - not really what the ticket implies. However, £7 will get you into the whole building. Once you enter the Ripper section, you are not allowed readmission. Tickets are timed but when I went there was only about 20 people in the exhibition and you can stay as long as you like.

The rooms are dark. Perhaps for atmosphere, perhaps for preservation of the objects. The first thing you see when you get inside, at first with a vague feeling that the Museum is just doing this to make money (a feeling that soon left me, to my surprise) is a large cyclorama showing clips from early Ripper movies. Bizarrely, in front of you, is a wax head from Madame Tussauds of the 1820s murderer John Thurtell (who I'd never heard of). His likeness was made in 1883 and was on display in The Chamber Of Horrors in 1888, apparently the only link. Next to that was something even more bizarre - the straw frame (headless) that Tussauds used for the body of William Burke at the same time. It looked rather grotesque but ultimately it seemed rather pointless.

Just past this is a list of the victims. Tellingly, the exact dates of death are printed but as far as births go, they've only put the year. That instantly said to me that their murders were important and their lives weren't. That grated.

Round the corner were strange items such as an automaton from a fairground at the time, items to do with Jekyll and Hyde (including an original fading CDV of the famous Mansfield publicity shot - curiously in a case all by itself), a few curious paintings from the time that seemed to have only a passing reference to anything relevant...

You then turn back on yourself and start seeing items used by artisans. Tailors kits, sewing equipment, knives, market barrows... that kind of thing. All were shown in a clinical Museum context as if they were rare and revered objects. This bored me. I would like to have seen them in a PROPER context - tableaux put together with scenic backdrops incorporating many of the items in one place.

There were several places throughout the exhibiton of projected images of the LVP running through slide shows. These were quite good, but by far the best was a loop of about two minutes of film from the BFI of Petticoat Lane in 1902. You see some of the locals speaking into the camera and wish someone would come forward to lip-read what they're saying (and what language they're using) in the same way they did for Hitler's home movies.

After this double-backed long corridor, you find yourself in a much bigger room that deals with other institutions of the time. Cases on the Salvation Army, housing projects, prostitution, dosshouses and occasionally - just occasionally - there would be a board up next to the case with words from news reports of Whitechapel victims (it deals with all of them, not just the Ripper ones). There's nothing really on show to do with the victims in any way. Items do not seem to be linked to the chronology (apart from the order in which the boards deal with the murders). It also annoyed me that not only do they not pinpoint the correct locations on the details from the Booth maps on the info boards about the murders, but they don't have a single image anywhere of any actual murder location! NOTHING! This, for me, was completely incomprehensible. There's not even an efficient diagram beyond the Foster sketch of Mitre Square. What you WILL find, though, is about half a dozen original Booth (and others) maps filling up blank space all over the walls time and again.

This leads me on to another issue - we are told there were space constraints which limited the use of items. This is nonsense. Some of the cases were half empty, and there's huge swathes of blank walls, especially in the early part of the exhibition. I'd prefer it if they'd just been honest and said they run out of time. That is seriously what I think is behind the shortcomings of the exhibition. They just weren't prepared.

Do not think this means there's nothing to see, though. When you hear it's three rooms, it is. But they're BIG rooms. I was in the Ripper exhibition, to my amazement, for two and a half hours.

There was an audio playback of residents from the Rothschild buildings made in the early 1970s speaking about life there and about JTR (one of them remembering his murder in Leman Street...?!). This lasted about five minutes and it would be very interesting to hear the lot, unedited. It didn't really provide any new info, but it was a nice connection with the past.

I felt the style adopted for the boards dealing with the murders did not work at all. It was supposed to look like a scrapbook, the text from newspaper reports cut oddly and overlaid on other pieces. It looked how it was meant to look - cheap. The display boards were otherwise excellent and included a lot of old and rare images of the LVP.

There were quite a few talking head sections on screens. I tired of these very quickly. Each was too long - about ten minutes. They weren't engaging to my mind. Eve Pollard theorising about the use of the press in 1888 being a typical example. Too much hot air. Too much subjective opinion from people not really involved in the case. I'd MUCH have preferred to see clips from SPE, PB, DR, MF, KS and the like. People who could comment on the social issues in the correct context and not guessing about how things were in 1888 because they know how they are in 2008.

There are masses of items from the National Archives, mostly all relevant and familiar ones. However, there's also quite a few facsimiles - maybe up to half of them - and I can't work out why they haven't used the originals.

The mortuary cart (circa 1900) was indeed a star exhibit. To get right up to it was eerie indeed.

Customers around me were starting to theorise and it was difficult to blank them all out and not pass comment. Particularly so when a guy was speaking loudly behind me to someone he didn't know, showing him his folder full of familiar shots and paraphrasing the Lusk letter, claiming it 100% was written by the killer (and I saw the same guy later that evening - he's one of the other Ripper guides). I decided life was too short and no one would thank me for correcting him, or even reciting the CORRECT text of the Lusk letter.

I was noticing lots of items there on display that seemed to have only slight connections with the case. In fact, on a couple of occasions I felt that even with my OWN average collection I would be able to stage a passable Ripper exhibition, which is something I'd never thought of before. Not that I'll be doing it. It did also keep coming to mind the comment that SPE made on this thread, that though people might feel shortchanged about the relevant exhibits, what else IS there to show? He's right. What annoys me, and is a missed opportunity, is that they could have displayed the items with greater relevance. A case in point being one of the last things you see before you leave is a cabinet containing Victorian bonnets, including a black straw one. Why couldn't they have put this next to the info board on Polly Nichols? That's the kind of thing. They don't link the exhibits with the story and this leaves you wondering why X, Y and Z are on show at all.

Some passing thoughts as I entered the last room - great to finally see Fred's walking stick. Studying the face close up, it does indeed have a very Jewish look to it. Has there ever been a suitable answer as to what the cowled face represents, or is there still a strong supposition (unproven) that it's meant to represent JTR? Another thing - anyone have any ideas why Abberline's own scrapbook of his career has nothing on JTR? I noticed an annoying mistake just after this. Joseph Martin is mentioned, along with a comment that he 'might' have taken some of the victim photos! 'Might'?! There's a recording of a woman singing ONLY A VIOLET. They've done it with a bit of reverb to denote Millers Court (as if it would be echoing in that small space) and with a strong Irish accent, and with a fantastic trained voice. I wish they'd have done a more realistic one. MJK was very drunk at the time, was she not?

The last part of the final room dealt with the suspects. Though I have no interest in suspects, I was very impressed by their large illuminated timeline wall. They had images of each suspect along a timeline, showing when they were first named as being JTR. That was a very interesting angle.

Past this was a small corner with TINY reproductions of the familiar victim shots - those without known photos simply having a sepia photo of some flowers (why not use things from the IPN in that case?). They were placed inside the wall, which was painted white and the section was brightly lit. It seemed a bit mawkish and suggestive of some kind of purity, which was misplaced.

Another bizarre thing was a large display case filled with items of film and theatre memorabilia and, amongst the lot, with no preferential treatment - Don Rumbelow's knife! It's also been repaired and you can't even see where. Julia Hoffbrand said to me that was how Don gave it to them. There seems to be a strange rationale that will give a cabinet card of Richard Mansfield its own case and Don's (albeit highly unlikely) knife just put in a case with a load of fairly recent playbills!

The final comment on a board before you leave is a request to remember the victims. Hippocritical?

I left there feeling I had seen pretty much all anyone could want to see from what we know exists, but with a feeling is disappointment they negated the murder scenes and the victims and didn't present the actual items in a coherant and contextual sense.

I am very glad I went. I would strongly recommend anyone who can get to it to go. I have reservations which remain, but it was certainly better and more complete than I thought it would be, though I learnt nothing new. And they've got loads of copies of Rob's and mine's book which they tell me sell like hot cakes. Though there are others they should have had as well. There is no doubt they have let down the topography and especially the victims. But that doesn't mean the whole thing is therefore a failure. It's flawed, but you'll never see the like of this again.

PHILIP

PS : I took quite a few covert photos of the galleries which I'll be uploading in due course)

[John Bennett]

I took quite a few covert photos of the galleries which I'll be uploading in due course)

You cheeky bugger. I'm going on Sunday for the second time and I was going to ask/grovel like a crawler.

But - interesting critique Phil. I'll look forward to taking it all in again. I missed Abberline's cane first time round. Oh dear.

JB

[Dan Norder]

Hey Philip,

Thanks for that info on the exhibition.

Regarding Abberline's cane, I believe it's been established that the image on the top is a representation of the Mad Monk from the Curse Upon Mitre Square in which Eddowes' murder is blamed on the ghost of that monk. I think it's meant to represent Jack the Ripper in much the same way that a photo of Ian Holmes in a top hat and carrying a Gladstone bag is an image of the Ripper -- intended to be seen as an obviously fictional version and not as an accurate image of the actual killer. I also believe such canes were marketed by the street hawkers selling the penny dreadful and that Abberline's compatriots probably had one of those and didn't custom order this one other than the personalized engraving.

Of course, like a lot of things in this case, what some consider as established often isn't accepted by everyone. Nick Warren argued that it was supposed to be a symbolic representation of a baby born in a caul, which in folklore meant good luck, especially against drowning, and which Nick believes was a way of referring to Druitt (who certainly wasn't lucky when it came to drowning). And of course a few people in the past have tried to argue that it was meant to be an accurate depiction of the actual killer and that they thus obviously knew who he was and isn't it amazing how much it looks like (name of silly suspect here).

[Jana Oliver]

Excellent recap, Philip. Far more thorough than mine. I got to thinking after the fact that they could have scrapped most of the talking head videos and made a 5-8 min video that gave an overview of the setting, the crimes, the victims, the crime scenes, etc., and shown it right up front. Set the stage sorta stuff. Then perhaps walk us through each murder with the relevant police information, newspaper accounts, eyewitness statements. And definitely they should have had interviews of the top Ripperologists. I was rather sad to see those missing.

Abberline's cane was sorta creepy but I loved his press clippings scrapbook. I got to wondering if he'd collected all the clippings from the Ripper murders with the intention of putting them in the book and then burnt them when the case wasn't solved. Hummm....

Jana

[Jenni Shelden]

Philip,

I hope I don't see the likes agian, as apparently I am forward thinking! I dread the thoguht

Jenni

[Rob Clack]

I'll be going in a couple of weeks and I'm looking forward to it. Is there a sign saying your not allowed to take photos then?

Rob

[Jenni Shelden]

Yes Rob,

there is a sign saying no photos

Jenni

ps i have said this like 2 times!

[Stephen Thomas]

Abberline's cane was sorta creepy but I loved his press clippings scrapbook. I got to wondering if he'd collected all the clippings from the Ripper murders with the intention of putting them in the book and then burnt them when the case wasn't solved. Hummm....

More likely he burned them because the case WAS solved, I'd say.

[Monty]

Rob,

Doesnt matter that you cant take photos in the museum, you leave the lens cap on anyway.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Jennifer, I only remember the post where you said you thought no photography was allowed.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Rob,

Doesnt matter that you cant take photos in the museum, you leave the lens cap on anyway.

Monty

b'stard

[Stephen Thomas]

I'll be going in a couple of weeks and I'm looking forward to it. Is there a sign saying your not allowed to take photos then?

Rob

Yes there is, Rob, but if you can figure out how to disable the flash on your camera you'll be able to get away with it. The exhibition is quite wonderful, by the way, dripping with Ripperological riches like the actual 'Maybrick Diary' and Abberline's press cutting book and loads of actual contemporary documents and artifacts, and great slide shows of old East End photos. You're right to be looking forward to this. Believe me, you won't be disappointed.

[Jenni Shelden]

Rob,

yeah fair enough

i dont imagine i got that info from anythnig i read on the floor, lol

im kidding

im running off - no one wants to play anymore!!! lol