All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Fiver]

Hi Lewis. for the sake of contrast, can you name a Ripper documentary that isn't (by your personal definition) propaganda?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

It go with Lemmino's The Enduring Mystery of Jack the Ripper.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom, I can. It's called 'The enduring mystery of Jack the Ripper' by LEMMiNO

I would also add any documentaries by Mr Jones on his Jack The Ripper Tour channel.

Thanks, Geddy. Are you Lewis' spokesperson?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

It go with Lemmino's The Enduring Mystery of Jack the Ripper.

Thanks for posting this link, Fiver. I hadn't seen this. I generally avoid docs produced on laptops, but the map visuals of this one are great so far (I'm on chapter 2 at the moment).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lewis C]

Thanks, Geddy. Are you Lewis' spokesperson?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

He's not, but I agree with his choices. I also think that Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Story (link below) is a good, balanced video. The recent Definitely Ascertained Fact has a point of view, but I think presents that point of view in an objective way. Then there are other Youtube videos that I think aren't very good, but aren't really propaganda. They're just made by people that don't know the subject very well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8VF4WKmccc&t=1883s

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lewis. You've named two Kosminski docs, from which I infer that you don't consider suspect-focused documentaries in general to be propaganda. Coming at this from another direction, what documentary other than Missing Evidence would fit your definition of 'propaganda'?
And a side note question: Is it possible to label as 'balanced' a suspect documentary that calls itself 'A Definitely Ascertained Fact' and speaks only to proponents of the core theory it's promoting?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Geddy2112]

Is it possible to label as 'balanced' a suspect documentary that calls itself 'A Definitely Ascertained Fact' and speaks only to proponents of the core theory it's promoting?

Hi Tom, Alt-Lewis here. Surely it's balanced if the things it speaks about within the documentary are ACTUALLY a definitely ascertained fact no matter who it is promoting as a suspect. For me there is nothing wrong with a pro-Kosminski documentary if what it is telling the audience is actually true.
The problem with the Missing Evidence is it appears the evidence is still missing because it made over 30 factual errors in a 42 minute show, including lying to an expert to get the desired opinion. That is the huge difference here.