channel five documentry!

[mariab]

The discussion is ongoing in the There's something wrong with the Swanson marginalia thread, but I took the liberty to comment once here, very briefly:

isn't this rather like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa?

No, this is rather like someone drawing a red line on the margins of the Mona Lisa.

Chris Phillips wrote:
If someone has gone over Swanson's underlining on p. 137 I find that of more concern. I wonder if anyone is in a position to provide "Before" and "After" pictures, so that we can see what exactly has happened.
Completely agree. The red line in the margins is not significant damage in any sense whatsoever, but the second underlying of the printed text on p. 137 tampers with important evidence (i.e.: Swanson's original underlying) on the document. Luckily, we have the “before“ photos from 2000 by SPE (which I hope that they contain p. 137, which lacks marginalia, and consists solely of printed text).

Originally Posted by cerburusuk
Any defecation made to the Swanson book
Loved that quote. Totally cracked me up. Bless you, cerburusuk.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,that what I think Bob and GM.
Best Norma

[The Grave Maurice]

I'm not absolutely sure what all the fuss is about concerning the red lines. As far as I could see the lines were on the same page but not actually going through the marginalia.

If this is correct then it does not effect the marginalia in any way. It's a shame that someone did that - but certainly not the disaster some would have us believe.

I agree completely, Bob. Certainly it was a very odd thing to do, but I can't see why so many knickers have been twisted.

[Monty]

Bob,

I have come across WBOW reports, only a few years after the murders, where the state damaged mantles ( I incorrectly stated cracked-apologies) were replaced.

I agree that the lighting was poor and not as shown in the documentary. However to show the scene as it truely was means you would see virtually nothing. That said, as you've mentioned, the reality was that the lamps were mere markers along the street and not as of the same quality in the more affluent areas.

Though Leadenhall street had electric lighting in 1888.

Monty

[Bob Hinton]

Tampering?

I'm not absolutely sure what all the fuss is about concerning the red lines. As far as I could see the lines were on the same page but not actually going through the marginalia.

If this is correct then it does not effect the marginalia in any way. It's a shame that someone did that - but certainly not the disaster some would have us believe.

[Bob Hinton]

Gas Lamps

. There are reports of broken and poorly maintained lamps, especially in the Whitechapel area, such as cracked mantles or deficient gas. In fact deficient gas (which means the quality of gas was of a poor grade) was the reason the free standing lamp in Mitre Square was not working.


Monty


[/QUOTE]

Very few gas lamps in the East End had mantles at this time, they were just plain gas jets, which gave off a very poor light. You cannot have a cracked mantle - if it is damaged it just disintegrates.

The illumination shown in the programme was more than it would have been at the time. The lamps were designed to give a pool of light at the base of the lamp-post, not to light up the surrounding area. The idea was you walked from light patch to light patch.

Since it was one of the very few sources of light, prostitutes would stand in this pool of light a la Lily Marlene.

[John Bennett]

I feel the need to comment on some of the nonsense I have just read re: the Marginalia - after some sleep, it's nearly 1am.

Tomorrow.

On the other thread...

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

I have transfered the question of the marginalia and it's condition to the thread pertaining to such.. "There's something wrong with the Marginalia"

thank you kindly for your reply to my question, by the way

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

I have considerable respect for you, as a researcher and person, so I am truly confused and hurt by your latest comment. Is an attitude that deplores tampering with an important artifact and wonders why it went unreported wrong?

It's more the attitude of someone who says they are "surprised and disappointed" by my conduct, even after I have explained it. But it may be that I am somewhat over-sensitive after the other recent accusations that I have been "sitting on information" (when in fact I had been to some lengths to try to get information to publish it).

When all's said and done, my Ripper research is done in my own time and at my own expense. It is normally made freely available to everyone on Casebook, but I don't see that anyone would have the right to complain if I didn't reveal a word of it.

Regarding the drawing of the red lines, I actually think Ally's response is the most appropriate. It's a shame that someone has added red lines in the margin. But when it's compared to drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa I think there's obviously a danger that people are getting things out of proportion. As I've said, since it is clearly a relatively recent addition and could not be confused with the annotations, I don't see how it bears at all on the question of their authenticity and accuracy.

If someone has gone over Swanson's underlining on p. 137 I find that of more concern. I wonder if anyone is in a position to provide "Before" and "After" pictures, so that we can see what exactly has happened.

[Monty]

There were a few other errors I noted.

The wind direction on the night of the Stride murder was slightly more westerly than shown.

The actor playing Anderson was clearly two inches too short for the part.

Eddowes went hopping yet she was shown to be in a field of wheat.

All the policemen had their helmets too high, above the 'half thumb' rule.

Eddowes was found on a Sunday yet they clearly filmed it on a Tuesday.

Cox was shown to be right handed when he was.

John Bennet was clearly Mr Astrakhan when it is ovbious he isn't classy enough to be him and.....

....I think my points been made.

Monty


PS surely we are in agreement about the bricks,no?

PPS Observer, I'm in complete agreement re the set up in the stairwell, spot on IMHO.

[Stephen Thomas]

I love this documentary, the best ever JTR one bar none, especially as it was made under harsh time and financial restraints. Big up to Jeff and Paul and John and Jake and everybody else involved. However, the graffiti was written on shiny black bricks in inch high letters.

[Lechmere]

Check page 14 post 138 for a variety of pics - some do look a bit shiny to me!

[Observer]

No problem Dr Hopper. Warren spoke of the graffiti thus

"The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once....."

Halse stated

' I saw some chalk writing on the black facing of the wall' and as recorded in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, 'The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white'

So obviously written on those self same black engineering bricks. As to the height of the writing, I can't remember off hand who stated the following, (I'm sure someone will enlighten me,) but one of the decective's stated that the writing was at shoulder length, that is if one passed it one's shoulder would brush against it. Five feet from ground level I would say.

Observer

[DrHopper]

Hi Observer

Thanks. Yup, those are the ones - not as 'shiny' as the proper brown, truly horrible, Victorian bricks that are impossible to paint on, but much less porous than the regular type.
Ha! It's difficult to type what i mean by my description in a way that anyone else can understand, but yes, I have experience with those type of bricks.

[Observer]

Hi Dr Hopper

Rob Clack has posted photos of the same black bricks in post 164 here in this thread. They'll give you some idea as to the type of bricks used.

Observer