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

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Hi RJ, this is a public thread open to all, so no one who posts is butting in. Was Definitive History not the one direct by Jeff Leahy? There's little debate to be had as to who the Seaside Home witness was. Lawende was the only witness used by police and the only one referenced by Smith in his memoirs (which rebutted Anderson's claims). Both Smith and Swanson cast doubt on the value of Lawende's evidence, though not, of course, on his integrity and honesty. What's fascinating to me is how many modern commentators put all sorts of faith into Lawende's description but write off James Brown in Berner Street simply because Brown was honest enough to say he was only 'almost certain' that the woman he saw was Stride. Brown got a better look at Stride than Lawende did Eddowes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Geddy,

Yes, the 'ADAF' definitely runs like a rough first edit. I understand it was the documentarian's first film and he therefore generously posted it free to the public. I enjoyed the stuff about McKenzie in it. Was genuinely shocked she got any screen time at all. Totally glossed over Coles (for obvious reasons) but it's what I expected. I don't believe it addressed the shawl at all, did it? Interesting that. As for the errors in Missing Evidence, I'm sure there are some but perhaps not as many as you perceive. Every documentary I've ever seen is a collection of errors to some extent. Lord knows I've made some whoppers in interviews I've given because I'm going off memory. Books are a bit better, but I doubt there is one discursive Ripper book that doesn't have errors. What I'm trying to get to the bottom of here is why/how Missing Evidence is singled out as 'propaganda' by several of you whereas documentaries that are equally and openly as biased are called 'balanced'. It honestly makes no sense to me. The irony of it all is that this is the very definition of 'propaganda'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lewis C]

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

Hi Tom. I don’t remember The Definitive Story as being a Kosminski doc, but I’ll go back and watch it again, because I could be mis-remembering it.

The title of 'A Definitely Ascertained Fact' has a question mark at the end of it, so the title is implying that maybe Kosminski wasn’t really the killer, despite what Anderson and Swanson said. And I don’t agree that it only spoke to proponents of their theory, because I really am not. I think Kosminski is a reasonable suspect, but Bury is my #1 suspect, and I think that your man La Grande is about as good a suspect as Kosminski.

Definitive History showing Eddowes facing Lawende is certainly a flaw, but I don’t see how it makes it appear more likely that Kosminski was the killer. If Eddowes had been facing Lawende, then the man would have been facing away from him, meaning that Lawende would only have gotten a good look at the back of his head, and therefore not the man that supposedly was the only one to get a good look at the Ripper. Unless the film showed them side by side. Again, I’ll have to watch it again to refresh my memory.

I think that a big part of why some commentators write off Brown seeing Stride is that he didn’t see a flower on the woman that he saw. I don’t write him off; I think he very well may have seen Stride.

The answer to your last question is that I haven’t seen evidence of many errors, distortions, and other ways of misleading in the other videos we’ve mentioned. Also relevant is whether that appears to be done to promote a particular narrative, or is it just an error that doesn’t really matter.

I’ll get back to you on the question of other videos that I would consider propaganda.

[Tom_Wescott]

I haven't seen the Definitive Story in many years but I recall it as being pro-Kosminski, but in that roundabout way Kosminskians tend to take. It was also directed by one of only two people on this earth who think the Tilly letter is legit, so....

'I think that your man La Grande is about as good a suspect as Kosminski.' I'll make an effort not to feel insulted.

'I think that a big part of why some commentators write off Brown seeing Stride is that he didn’t see a flower on the woman that he saw. I don’t write him off; I think he very well may have seen Stride.' Yes, I've seen that argument about Brown countless times. But the man was blocking most of her body so I'm not sure why it's expected he'd notice a flower. He was probably only looking to see the woman.

Having seen more than my fair share of documentaries, Ripper and otherwise, I must say I have little use for them now. It's fun to see people I know appear in them and it's fun to appear in them myself. But it's rare I get anything new from one. The map graphics in 'Enduring Mystery' were awesome and I'm glad it was recommended to me. Usually these produced for Youtube docs are the worst of the worst, but clearly this was an exception. Very well written and put together. However, most have a suspect or theory agenda, so I find it hard to separate out Missing Evidence from the rest, except that it had superior production values to most and was quite impactful when it came out in 2009. Still is to those seeing it for the first time. Is that perhaps why it's so hated?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Please excuse the fact that I felt too lazy to use the quote feature this time.