channel five documentry!

[Andrew Firth]

Lastly they said Swallow Gardens had been rural. When? In 1066?

I understand that prior to the building of the railway into Fenchurch Street in the 1840's it was rows of cottages and fields.

Andrew

[Monty]

Heh, so good you posted is twice Lechmere.

The latter isn't an error surely?

Monty.

[mrmajester]

Much better second part. Minor mistake right at the start, did you all spot it? Hearing Mary sing, 'Only A Violet...' sent real chills down the spine. Mitre Sq looked fantastic, very atmospheric.

No mention of stupid royal conspiracy theories either, very good, well done to all. As most of the general public think it was the Royal family involved this documentary really did it's job.

Some really good moments, of course the evening is now ruined by Channel 5 screening, From Hell!

[Sally]

Am I first for Part 2?
Again good...
But a few things wrong I think!
Goulston Street graffiti on wrong sort of wall – plain brick – should have been gloss black brick, more like a black board.
They had it bone dry on morning of 9th November. It should have been at lea wet. Also no mention of Lord Mayor’s Day!
Lastly they said Swallow Gardens had been rural. When? In 1066?

Picky.

I agree regarding the Lord Mayor's Day, however. A serious oversight.

[Lechmere]

Am I first for Part 2?
Again good...
But a few things wrong I think!
Goulston Street graffiti on wrong sort of wall – plain brick – should have been gloss black brick, more like a black board.
They had it bone dry on morning of 9th November. It should have been at least wet. Also no mention of Lord Mayor’s Day!
Lastly they said Swallow Gardens had been rural. When? In 1066?

[The Grave Maurice]

Does the location of the lamp really matter that much? Even if it were directly across the road, it would cast about as much light as a guy standing on a ladder with a couple of Bic lighters going.

From this thread, I've counted only four errors that appeared in the programme. (It might be five if the point about the date of the attack on Emma Smith is right---I haven't checked that yet.) Anyway, they're all minor errors. On the whole, damn well done, I'd say. This is still the best, and most accurate, documentary I've seen.

Oh, and I loved the acting.

[Lechmere]

Is it the picture in 'The London of Jack the Ripper Then and Now'. If so surely it is much later.

[Monty]

I think it is. At least the position of it. It's the position I marked and is the same position on the 1873 map. You and I both know how thorough Jake is, so I am ready to be corrected.

Rob

Indeed he is.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

The location of the lamp seemed ok to my Rob however I've only seen the doc once so I'm willing to be corrected.

Bearing in mind we aren't permitted to show William Stewarts photos here anymore, the shot looking towards Brady st shows a free standing lamp on the north side.

Is that contemporary in your view?

Monty

I think it is. At least the position of it. It's the position I marked and is the same position on the 1873 map. You and I both know how thorough Jake is, so I am ready to be corrected.

Rob

[Lechmere]

Are you sure of the date the picture was taken. A lot of gas lights were installed after 1890.

[Lechmere]

Bucks Row was an exceptionally well lit road then. I find it difficult to believe that all the accounts I have read emphasise the darkness of it.

[Monty]

The location of the lamp seemed ok to my Rob however I've only seen the doc once so I'm willing to be corrected.

Bearing in mind we aren't permitted to show William Stewarts photos here anymore, the shot looking towards Brady st shows a free standing lamp on the north side.

Is that contemporary in your view?

Monty

[Rob Clack]

I don't think there was a lamp by Essex Wharf as depicted in the program. I believe it was a short distance to the West just before Schneiders.

This is where I think it was, the same place marked in green by Monty.



Rob

[Observer]

40 yards??? If it was as dark as you suggest then Cross would not have detected Paul at 40 feet !

[Lechmere]

When they found Nichols, they didn't notice that her eyes were open nor her throat cut. Cross thought that the body was a tarpaulin and only noticed Paul when he was 40 yards away. None of this makes sense with a lamp only about ten yards away - even if the light given off was feeble.
Also I find it unlikley that such an unimportant by-way would be so well lit.