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.

[John Wheat]

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.

I agree with this Geddy2112 . The Lechmere documentary is a bias piece of crap.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Fair enough. What's the inaccuracy count for 'ADAF' and 'Definitive History'? For comparison purposes, of course.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Geddy2112]

Was Dr Norris a student of the case/ Ripperologist ? Or an expert who was given material to study ?

Depending on if you believe the documentary and the newspapers his quotes appeared in. I believe Holmgren also stated he was a student of the case and had been for many years, which if correct is astonishing considering the factual errors contained in his quotes.

[Geddy2112]

Fair enough. What's the inaccuracy count for 'ADAF' and 'Definitive History'? For comparison purposes, of course.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom, to be honest I do not know. I got rather bored, (sorry Steven) with the ADAF, found it rather heavy and the way it was filmed seemed rather monotonous for me. However for what I did see there did not seem to be any factual errors. Definitive History likewise it's been a very long time since I've watched it so would have to get back to you on that one. Regardless there is on average an error every 1.4 mins in the Missing Evidence which is actually quite shocking. I mean it's Pro-Lechmere for being Jack but actually gives Lechmere an alibi for Tabram, Nichols and Chapman. The following is an example of errors, it shows PC Neil finding Nichols before Cross and Paul for example. Sloppy to say the least... it's comedy gold

[rjpalmer]

What's the inaccuracy count for 'ADAF' and 'Definitive History'? For comparison purposes, of course.

Hi Tom,

Sorry for butting in, but one scene that annoyed the hell out of me in 'Definitive History' is when Lawende, Levy, and Harris are shown looking over at the entrance to Mitre Square and Kate Eddowes is facing them, her face clearly visible.

That's an obvious distortion of reality and it was used to up the ante on Kozminski, which the filmmaker obviously favored as a suspect. The documentary uses Swanson to incriminate Kozmsinki, but Swanson's own remarks on Lawende cast doubt on the value of the supposed identification.

I could ramble on for another ten paragraphs but that scene, in particularly, frosted my flakes.

RP