JTR Exhibition in Docklands

[Chris George]

Again, I am speaking out of total ignorance, not having seen the exhibition, but isn't this just what I have been saying... that the curators seem to have more of a sociological focus than on the case itself? That's shocking that there is no real focus on the victims. So again it is what I am contending: that the curators are more interested in focusing on the rest of the East End than on the individual victims.

Chris

Then why call it Jack the Ripper at all, it seems to give away their intention to fill the tills rather than educate.

Hi Neal

I don't know the Docklands Museum and I have not, as I said, seen the exhibit, but I think we might begin to understand why the exhibition is the way it is.

I would agree with Stewart's remarks that the academic world at large and the museum community does not know that much about Jack the Ripper. The powers that be at the Docklands Museum probably thought this was a good idea for an exhibition, but given where they were coming from in terms of their own interests and orientation plus the scholarly research interests of most of the academics that they enlisted to talk (see my prior post giving the list of lunchtime talks), the exhibition ended up being as it is -- on the dry side.

But it is, I am certain, conceivably better than it might been if the curators had made other choices. For example, surely it is better than a London Dungeon or Madame Tussaud's Chamber of Horrors style of presentation -- we might consider they could have gone for a more penny dreadful garish approach. The exhibit sounds solid even if the approach is not quite what as some of us, and you particularly, Neal, being focused as you are, commendably, on the victims, would have preferred.

Chris

[Monty]

Neal,

Exactly.

I fail to understand how the victims and their lives have been all but missed when they represent a good fraction of life in the area, a fraction this exhibition is supposedly about.

Monty

[Neal Shelden]

Again, I am speaking out of total ignorance, not having seen the exhibition, but isn't this just what I have been saying... that the curators seem to have more of a sociological focus than on the case itself? That's shocking that there is no real focus on the victims. So again it is what I am contending: that the curators are more interested in focusing on the rest of the East End than on the individual victims.

Chris

Then why call it Jack the Ripper at all, it seems to give away their intention to fill the tills rather than educate.

[Chris George]

I have to give an honest opinion that many would probably think "well he would say that" being a researcher on the victims, but the problem is that the victims are badly let down by this exhibition. It's almost like an exhibition that belongs in the 1980's, despite claims by the curators that there was no room for information about the victims or room for the Annie Chapman picture, there appeared to be empty spaces all over the exhibition walls.
I couldn't quite get to the real reason for why the curators decided to ignore the victims in this exhibition, Julia told me nothing. I suggested it was because the victims didn't come from the East End but I was told this wasn't the case. Julia did say that I would not be able to get the original photograph of Annie Chapman for the exhibition and in so many words a facsimile wouldn't be good enough, but I saw many facsimiles of documents in this exhibition. . . .

Hi Neal

It looks to me as if the curators dropped the ball on this because here, with the photograph of Annie Chapman in life, they would have been showing the general public something that they had never seen before, an image that could have made one of the victims come to life.

Sure we Ripperologists have seen the picture, but for people who have just read the better known and older books on the case and have not visited this site, they would not have seen that photograph.

But once again as I said in my prior post, the lack of detailed focus on the individual victims shows something about the direction the curators wanted to go in.

I have toured plenty of museums both in the United Kingdom and in the United States, and have seen that the curators of exhibits generally use a mix of authentic documents and artifacts and facsimiles or photographs. It is sometimes the case, for example, that the original of an object is lost, so a photo or facsimile has to be used. This is the case with the Lusk "From Hell" letter. I bet the photograph of that is in the exhibition isn't it? So in other words, a copy of the photograph of Annie Chapman could have been included.

Chris

[Chris George]

Neal,

Surely the inclusion of the victims and their lives is essential.

Given that their lives epitomises the hard times the struggling women of the area endured. How Chapman ended up in Spitalfields is a tragic story as was her fight to survive.

I find that an odd decision.

Monty

Again, I am speaking out of total ignorance, not having seen the exhibition, but isn't this just what I have been saying... that the curators seem to have more of a sociological focus than on the case itself? That's shocking that there is no real focus on the victims. So again it is what I am contending: that the curators are more interested in focusing on the rest of the East End than on the individual victims.

Chris

[chrisjd]

Monty
I will, but it's much more likely that I'll go in July (I'll be in London 8.-15.) than August (2.-6., basically just for the WS meeting). Would that be ok as well?

Jenny
So, no photos. Shame. What about the other question:just turning up there?

Have you all had pre-booked tickets or did you just pop by?
Hm. must email them after my return from holiday.

C

[Jenni Shelden]

i think im right in saying it was no photography

[Monty]

More than welcome Norma.

Monty

[Natalie Severn]

If you two are going in August it should be a lot of fun.I will definitely go.

[Monty]

Chris,

If you are going in August, gimmie a shout.

Monty

[chrisjd]

Hi all,
I envy you for being able to go there at this early stage and even meet fellow "old gits". I'll only be able to visit it in July or August but it's a Must on my list.

Two questions: Is it allowed to take photos?
And: Booking in advance seems to be inconvenient to do from Germany. Is it possible just to go there at the opening time in the morning, any queues?

From a rainy Italy

Christian

[Jeff Leahy]

Not having seen the exhibition, I wouldn't want to pass judgment on it. But I understand Sir John Williams is included as a "suspect".

Given the clearly spurious nature of the evidence against him, I think that's quite wrong.

For all I know, it may have been made clear that the evidence was spurious. Perhaps he was included only as an example of the excesses of "Ripperology". But even if so, I think it would have been better not to involve him at all.

Chris Phillips

Yep that is correct..they also didn't include Aaron Kosminski on the suspect board. I gather because they didnt have a photo of him?

Wouldn't it be great if someone eventually finds one...

Jeff

PS sorry I missed you today..me.. a hammers fan.. and I got lost..great to see Rob however...hope we can meet at some point.

[Natalie Severn]

In fact, what this exhibition does have of the victims is the mortuary pictures and the simple fact mentioned that these women were prostitutes, which I and other researchers have spent the best part of two decades attempting to change the way people think about them. They were surely more than just prostitutes and corpses, but this exhibition will leave the uninformed observer thinking that thats all they were!

Neil,you are right on there.That is absolutely shameful.They were all resilient feisty characters in lots of respects, despite having such a raw deal, and Annie,as Monty said ,had tried so hard to overcome her drinking problem.I read some of Tom Cullen"s book today,which I got from the library.Its interesting,some parts are very well researched and well written but its quite offensive in its representation of the women who according to him had only one tooth between them etc.I couldnt take too much of it at one go it was so condescending.
Night All
Norma

[Neal Shelden]

Neal,

Do you know if any of the relatives are aware of this exhibition?

I wonder if they would attend.

Monty

Yeah, I've told Tracey who's one of the Eddowes line, to be honest the descendants of all the victims tend to do things without always telling me, I know that the Chapman lady has been on a Ripper walk and to Manor Park Cemetery but told me afterwards. So there's always a chance that some of the descedants could be walking around the exhibition in Docklands when you're there, but I'm just going to be honest about it to them so they don't get their hopes up about what they might see of their ancestors.

[Chris]

Not having seen the exhibition, I wouldn't want to pass judgment on it. But I understand Sir John Williams is included as a "suspect".

Given the clearly spurious nature of the evidence against him, I think that's quite wrong.

For all I know, it may have been made clear that the evidence was spurious. Perhaps he was included only as an example of the excesses of "Ripperology". But even if so, I think it would have been better not to involve him at all.

Chris Phillips