JTR Exhibition in Docklands

[DrPL]

My wife and I visited this on my birthday, two days before it closed. We enjoyed it, and didn't find anything to fault. Well, nothing major, except for
the over inflated list of JTR victims! Most fascinating were the maps of old
London. Interesting how much of it survived and how much has gone (that huge
penetentiary near Vauxhall bridge for instance!). I liked that map showing the pubs in London. I wonder what a similar map would show today!

Best wishes

Paul

[Bulldog]

If anyone is planning to take in the exhibition, they might not want to wait too much longer.

Last night I took another look at the 8-page handout I received when I visited the exhibition last month. At the bottom of the last page, in rather small print, I came across this interesting statement:

"The original material supplied by the National Archives is extremely rare and fragile. As such, we are only able to display certain documents for a 3 month period. All fascimile documents are identified on their captions."

It looks like those who visit after mid-August may see some 'fascimile documents' instead of the genuine articles.

Bulldog

[Robert]

Wasn't there a sign somewhere saying "Keep off the grass," but which necessitated that you walk across 200 yds of grass before you were near enough to be able to read it?

[Sam Flynn]

There used to be a sign on Hampstead Heath which read—

"Do Not Throw Stones At This Notice".

There was another famous (genuine) sign which bore the legend "This is not a sign".

Shades of Magritte?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

There used to be a sign on Hampstead Heath which read—

"Do Not Throw Stones At This Notice".

And guess what . . ?

Regards,

Simon

[AdamWalsh]

Rob, if you see a sign saying "no photographs," take a photo of it.

[Robert]

Rob, if you see a sign saying "no photographs," take a photo of it.

[Debra A]

All those signs passed me by too!

[George Hutchinson]

And on a post before you actually go in.

Once inside it says 'no lithographs'.

PHILIP

[AdamWalsh]

Funnily enough I did, just a couple of the maps and P.C. Watkins joining document to save me writing the stuff down but they all came out a bit blurred which is a bit of a bugger. And do you know I didn't see one sign that said no photography is allowed. I'm not saying there wasn't one, just that I didn't notice.

Rob

it says it on the ticket.

[Rob Clack]

Rob Clack, any pictures?




just kidding.

Funnily enough I did, just a couple of the maps and P.C. Watkins joining document to save me writing the stuff down but they all came out a bit blurred which is a bit of a bugger. And do you know I didn't see one sign that said no photography is allowed. I'm not saying there wasn't one, just that I didn't notice.

Rob

[AdamWalsh]

Rob Clack, any pictures?






















just kidding.

[caz]

The fact that it was shoved into a corner was somewhat disappointing and maybe more should have been made of it.

Agreed, John. Hubby was surprised that 'Dear Boss' was not given a more prominent position. It is, after all is said and done, just about the most famous artefact in the case, if not in the entire history of crime.

But as I was trying to get across to Dan with my remark about one man's 'significant' being the next man's 'totally irrelevant', many people on these very boards (the majority I would think) are quick to dismiss this letter as an early attempt to gull the public, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the real killer or the murders. While that may very well be true, it makes the point for me that the whole subject of significance is highly - well - subjective.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thanks Rob.

Hi Dan,

Your last post to me was really not necessary. I got the point you were making the first time about your 'significant' items in the public domain, that have already been photographed time and time again.

My point about the public judging the relative significance of everything on display (not just the public domain stuff which you already know is there) was separate from the issue of posting photos here. I'm sorry I did not make that clearer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rob Clack]

I visited the Exhibition on Saturday with Debs and my opinion of it is slightly mixed. I enjoyed it, but I came away with the feeling there could have been more that could be done. And yes they could have gone into more details about the victims lives but that is true of the Police Officials and the Suspects, in fact I came away with the impression more was said about the victims then any of the other people involved. Personally I felt a bit sorry for some of the suspects on display, they all couldn’t have been Jack the Ripper and having there name slandered for little or no reason in a public exhibition wouldn’t be very nice for there descendents. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the victims deserved what they got, some of them were certainly no angels, I’m just saying we should be a bit more sympathetic to some of the suspects as most of these are innocent victims as well.
The best way to describe the exhibition is that it was all very basic and you were just given the basic facts of the tale, it would be like Sugden’s book condensed to about 10 pages.
It was interesting seeing some of the original documents and the Dear Boss letter. I wasn’t as thrilled as I thought I would have been maybe because they were behind glass cabinets and while they were close they were still out of reach if you understand what I mean. The most interesting items I saw were Abberline’s scrapbook and cane and P.C. Watkins joining paper.
The disappointing thing for me was that there were no photographs of the murder site, there was very little in the way of photographs or drawings of the area so the people who visited the exhibition couldn’t visualise the area. There were plenty of maps to see which helped a little. And maps were used to indicate where a victim’s body was found, and the spot was indicated by an arrow. These were way out in some cases and it was very sloppy research by the organisers. The Pinchin Street torso was a prime example as the map used was the 1873 O.S. Map with the colour codes used by Booth in 1887(as were all the victim‘s maps). The archway where the torso was found wasn’t even built when the map was done.
Also I thought some of the lighting was very poor, some of the displays were quite dark and you had trouble reading the documents, in other cases some of the framed pictures were hard to see because of the reflections of the lights, Sickert’s painting of ‘Jack the Ripper’s bedroom’ being a prime example.
I can’t comment on the visual displays as the screens were giving me serious eyestrain. I don’t think anyone else has mentioned it so it was probably just me.
There was quite a lot of Victoriania which over shadowed the entire Jack the Ripper related stuff. I came away with the impression that the organisers only wanted to do an East End exhibition and they used the ‘Jack the Ripper’ to get the public in. And I think the book that accompanies the exhibition bares this out ‘Jack the Ripper and the East End’ is a great book but it’s not a Jack the Ripper book, it is a book about the East End. This is a shame really as it could be sold as a book on the East End on its own merits.
While I was there I visited the main Museum in Docklands (in the same building) and I would recommend people seeing that. Two things I noticed there which the Jack the Ripper Exhibition could have benefited from. One was the recreation of old docklands itself in models. Some of the Murder sites could have been done this way and there was a recreation of the narrow alleys as they would have appeared several hundred years ago. A recreation of Victorian Street would I think have been a superb addition to the exhibition. I suppose the problem with the last two suggestions would be one of costs and the limited time in which they would be used and so they wouldn’t be cost effective anyway.
In summing up, it was nice to see the exhibition and the original documents, but I didn’t (nor did I expect to) learn anything new. I felt there could have been more done at least visualising the East End and I think the organisers rather rushed it and they could have made better use of the experts out there. On the whole a missed opportunity in my opinion.
On the plus side they did have copies of mine and Philips book. And they also had a comments board at the end of the exhibition which people can use if they want to, I certainly made good use of it.

Hi Caz,

Looking at the alleged Maybrick Diary again, I can’t see any difference in the ink now as I did 10 years ago. There are still very dark areas where the ink had just been dipped in the inkwell and this fades as the writing continues and then it starts all over again when the nib is dipped in the ink again. The pages I looked at now and the page I looked at 10 years back are different but the ink looks the same.

Rob