channel five documentry!

[DrHopper]

Hi Observer.

Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer in my description. I have always thought of them as shiny as a way of differentiating them from the more common brick - actually i have used a variety of descriptors for them depending on the amount of dripping that occurs

You are right in that they are not shiny per se, rather, as you say, they are more dense and waterproof. Certainly though, up north (Manchester way) they have a semi-lustrous sheen to their exterior. I would be very interested in seeing your photographs though.

[cerburusuk]

I am so sorry - I meant Defacement. I should have said no to that last drink. Please forgive my befuddled brain.

[Ally]

Any defecation made to the Swanson book

While I agree it's a shame if anyone's marked up the book, I don't think anyone's done THAT to it!

[Observer]

Hi Dr Hopper

As already stated

The bricks in question are not shiny. As mentioned earlier they are engineering bricks of a type that are denser then the ordinary facing bricks. They are a solid brick with no holes or soap in them. They are used for groundwork where a water resistant layer is needed, or where strength is paramount. In Goulston Street they were obviously used to strengthen the entrances to the building, and as they extended below ground level to act as a water resistant barrier. I have had a good look at similar bricks still in situ in Goulston Street, and they would readily take chalk as a medium for writing. I have photos of said bricks, and when I can locate them I will post them in this thread

Observer

[cerburusuk]

Any defecation made to the Swanson book – whether lately or at some time in the past – not only vandalises a valuable historic document pertaining to the Ripper era, it also, if Don is correct when he says: "on page 137 they appear to have gone over Swanson's pencil lining with fresh, ruled pencil lines.", would render the entire marginalia worthless as a corroborative piece of evidence against the theory that Kosminski was the person responsible for the killings.

[DrHopper]

Moving, very briefly, back to the question of the bricks whilst we all wait to see the results of the revelation of the possibly defaced marginalia.
In my mis-spent youth I was what you might term a, ahem, graffiti artist of the spraycan variety.
A lot of the work I did was on railway property - including victorian black shiny bricks. I can honestly state that:
1) They take chalk brilliantly - the outline of many of my artistic endeavours was done in chalk prior to their being coloured-in. This is in direct opposition to the more traditional brick that is not shiny and is quite coarse. The chalk breaks up and produces too much dust to legibly write anything in small letters (i.e. the GSG), though it's fine for large writing (a tip from the top there to any would-be graffiti artists).
2) The shiny brick is very difficult to spray on - it is not very porous, and if you are not very careful the paint will drip terribly. Regular brick is far too porous and needs an undercoat before being painted properly. I have always assumed that the lack of porosity was the purpose of the shiny bricks - traditional brick rot and erode very quickly, the shiny ones do not.

Sticking my hat on as an archaeological ceramics specialist (my current occupation - artist did not work out for me!), the shiny bricks are vitrified, that is fired at a higher temperature, and thus become glass like - hence the shiny surface. It is not a slip or a glaze applied during the process, just the surface changing at a molecular level.

Hope this helps in some way

[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.

[Supe]

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?

Don.

[Chris]

Don

Frankly, this kind of attitude makes me much less inclined to pass on the results of my research to others, not more so.

[Supe]

Bob,

It sounds like a perfect who dunnit for the Examiner.

We shall try.

Chris,

The reason I didn't mention them was because they had obviously been added in the last decade or so. Clearly they had nothing to do with the annotations themselves, which was what I was interested in.

Understood, but isn't this rather like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa? I am surprised and disappointed that clearly so many in the field were aware of the tampering and said nothing.

Don.

[Chris]

Chris Phillips, as meticulous a researcher as I know, says he noticed the red lines two years ago when he viewed the book--but never mentioned it.

The reason I didn't mention them was because they had obviously been added in the last decade or so. Clearly they had nothing to do with the annotations themselves, which was what I was interested in.

Moreover, I am told that in addition to the red felt tip pen markings (?) that "on page 137 they appear to have gone over Swanson's pencil lining with fresh, ruled pencil lines."

That wasn't evident to me when I saw the book. Obviously it would need to be determined by comparing the photos with the book in its present state.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

It sounds like a perfect who dunnit for the Examiner.

A major artifact in the field, the Swanson Marginalia, has been tampered with and no one seems to evince much interest. What is even more puzzling is that this defacement has been known for some time and no one has said anything.

Chris Phillips, as meticulous a researcher as I know, says he noticed the red lines two years ago when he viewed the book--but never mentioned it. Paul Begg and company, who were privileged to borrow the actual book for their recent documentary, obviously noticed the vandalism--but said nothing.

Moreover, I am told that in addition to the red felt tip pen markings (?) that "on page 137 they appear to have gone over Swanson's pencil lining with fresh, ruled pencil lines."

Why the silence by all those who knew of the tampering and never uttered a word, far less a cry of outrage?

As it is, whatever the merit of arguments that the book had been tampered with years ago, it certainly has been now--with all that implies.

Don.

[Natalie Severn]

Just as brilliant as I'd hoped! (Especially the STAR appearance in part 2 complete with green ribbon!!)

Excellent job all- I do agree about the credits though- pass the eye!)
Suz xx

Yes Suzi.That was such a sweet moment -and beautifully done!

[Jason]

I think people have said the version on the Channel Five website is not available outside the UK. If so, it may be worth trying these official uploads to YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXRWKNWxWJ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuBRb5XjcMM

thanks for that Chris, didnt realise that....i am an arse

[Supe]

A major artifact in the field, the Swanson Marginalia, has been tampered with and no one seems to evince much interest. What is even more puzzling is that this defacement has been known for some time and no one has said anything.

Chris Phillips, as meticulous a researcher as I know, says he noticed the red lines two years ago when he viewed the book--but never mentioned it. Paul Begg and company, who were privileged to borrow the actual book for their recent documentary, obviously noticed the vandalism--but said nothing.

Moreover, I am told that in addition to the red felt tip pen markings (?) that "on page 137 they appear to have gone over Swanson's pencil lining with fresh, ruled pencil lines."

Why the silence by all those who knew of the tampering and never uttered a word, far less a cry of outrage?

As it is, whatever the merit of arguments that the book had been tampered with years ago, it certainly has been now--with all that implies.

Don.