channel five documentry!

[Lechmere]

With further reference to the Goulston Street brickwork...
Some of the bricks around the shop fronts may have a majolica glazed coating, similar to the bricks often found around pubs where they are often green. I haven’t tried but I suspect that wouldn’t take chalk well.
Just as a normal porous, dusty brick wouldn’t either.
The ‘normal’ dense black brick (which looks a bit shiny to me) would take it well almost like a blackboard.
I think they used these bricks up to the height of four feet as they are easy to wipe clean and would not absorb the filth and probably urine from the street or in the corners and alleys.

Anyway I can assure Caz that I have not raised this issue to be difficult or to be unduly negative or scornful about the programs as I enjoyed watching them. Nor am I seeking to ‘play’ Monty or Rob, as apart from reading their posts on here I have no idea who they are (although I see I have a book co-authored by Robert Clack on my shelf), still less have I any idea who or what ‘Giddy and Fell’ are.
However this is an aspect of the case that I am interested in, and I did notice that they had the graffiti written on a normal brick wall. The type of brick has some significance for the case – and the primary significance is that they weren’t ordinary bricks but certainly black, whether strictly gloss or not is a detail.

I am also interested in the lighting in Bucks Row (from the first episode) which seemed too bright to me. But the discussion that followed that has shown that there was a lamp nearly opposite the place where Nichols was found. If you read for example Donald Rumbelow’s latest book (sorry I had a look today, and can’t remember the title) he refers to one light down the far end (i.e. at Brady Street). These details are important to understand the circumstances of the case. By querying the lighting in Bucks Row as shown on the documentary, evidence was brought out showing extra lighting which challenged the received wisdom (i.e. that there was none).
By the same token, my assumption that the bricks were black and of a material that would easily take chalk could have been wide of the mark. Being over defensive on these matters doesn’t help in my opinon.

[Phil Carter]

Hello cerburusuk, Chris,

You are both correct...I didn't see any additional comments either, but as I said, perhaps I need a new TV.. yet it seems you both (cerburusuk and Chris) also have the same make of television I have...

Can anyone please explain these recent markings? And again I ask, this WAS presented to us as the ORIGINAL document was it not?

So the obvious question, to all who noticed, is... errm, let me put this as delicately as possible... in who's posession has the book been SINCE it was photographed by SPE at the Swanson family home... just the family, or the Black Museum under the jurisdiction of Scotland Yard? Or both? Or was it leant out during this time?

To those that didn't notice.. would someone please be so kind as to put a "still" of the said document from the program up on the boards? (by permission, of course)

What do you make of it Chris?

best wishes

Phil

[Busy Beaver]

Totally brilliant programme! I had often thought, if we could climb inside the world of JTR, then we could solve the case. Think we now have our murderer. I posted a comment about Kosminski a while ago and I said I did not think he was capable of murder due to his mental state. Well low and behold I had my thoughts and suspicions answered and one and one makes two!

Busy Beaver

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Phil,

i noted those markings instantly. I assumed at the time that they are not really there, and that some clever dick had cgied the photograph of the marginalia onto the page. And that somewhere the relevant passages had been marked on a computer as they did not look 'real' to me. Altough it was only a fleeting glimpse at times. The whole thing didnt look right to what i recollect it to be.

Last time I hearrd the document was safely locked away at the Black Musuem to where it had been either donated or loaned by the Swanson family. So maybe the documentary makers did not have access to film it?

As you say if someone has tampered with it this is highly problematic as it is a historical document that is already controversial. In my eyes it is in some ways as controversial as the diary. The validity of it is still disupted in our circles and its origin unclear in some regards. Without wishing to be controversial when i say that. Therefore in my mind it would seem that if it had been altered in anyway it would not only lessen its historical value and ruin it as an historical document it would also put serious doubt, into my mind at least, to the likelihood that what we saw in 1988 had not been tampered with. Anyway hence i expect it was not the orignal shown on the docu but i am sure they will confirm this.

Regards
Jenni

[cerburusuk]

My mistake.

Hi Phil.
Ah, the red lines. Yes I saw them. I misinterpreted your meaning of 'markings'.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Just a quick response before I dash... yes.. the red lines.

Hello cerburusuk,

Many thanks for your kind comments. As regards the "insertion", see answer to Chris, above.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Lastly, would someone be so kind as to explain to me the additional markings on the page of the Swanson marginalia that I believe I am correct in saying were seen in the documentary, yet, as far as I am aware, did not exist when I last saw a photograph of the page?

Just to clarify, I assume you're talking about the red vertical lines that have been drawn in the margins (not about additional annotations or anything like that).

[cerburusuk]

Well said.

Phil.
I applaud the courage you have shown in pointing out some of the many discrepancies that can be found in this documentary, and putting them into words.
I have never had access to Swansons book, and therefore cannot comment on anything
that might have been added to his handwritten remarks about Kosminski, but if, as you suspect, further entries have been inserted for whatever reasons, then questions must be asked ‘by who’ and ‘for what purpose’.
I cannot say what sort of reaction your post will receive from other members of this site, but I for one, am behind you 100%.

[Abby Normal]

I really want to see this. How can I see it-I live in the US?

[Phil Carter]

Just a personal, non-personal opinion.

Paul and I fought against TV company 'wisdom' to ensure that no suspect mentioned got put forward as a 'prime suspect'.

JB

Hello John, all,

John, the addition to my reply to your kind response to my earlier post must be, that sadly, the two of you (Paul Begg and yourself) failed in your efforts on this point.


All,

I hate to say I told you so, but when this project first became public knowledge I said that for me personally, it would ultimately hang on whether Kosminski was the favoured and promoted suspect. I said this before any of us knew what the storyline would ultimately be, or how the TV company would act upon, or insist upon, the build up to an ending. However, that said, I have to say that my first reservation was because Jeff Leahy, whom I have met and had jovial conversation with, and despite our Ripperological differences, enjoyed each other's company, was the man behind the project. He being a Kosminski-orientated Ripperologist. I feared that Kosminski was the one who would be most put forward as "prime suspect" then, and those fears became reality.

Barlow and Watt's 6 part effort back in the early 70's still ranks, for me, as the best TV documentary on the subject, with the best acting and the best all-round entertainment value. And it is entertainment that TV produces for, not, sadly, just education. Therein, perhaps, lies the rub with JTR as a subject for media use.

I do not doubt the sincerity of the idea to be presented as near to the known facts as possible. I appreciate wholly the time and effort put in by all consultants, actors and production staff on the subject.
I would have liked to have seen an overall view that was more neutral in terms of emphasis upon suspects, but understand that the TV company wanted their input of opinion to be shown.
I would like to have seen a full cast of professional actors too, but understand that a limited budget caused this to be impossible.
I would like to have seen the editorial work changed because of things that I would like to have seen included, but realise that limited air-time severely restricted the amount of film to be shown (As was the case in another recent docmentary).

This opinion is not meant to be in any way derogatory to those individuals who used tremendous amounts of time in putting this together, writers, production staff, actors etc. However, looking from a distance, and trying to be as neutral as possible, knowing friends and very knowledgable and respected Ripperologists were involved in this production, I have to say that my overall view is of something that showed immense promise with a superb base to build upon, that didn't quite do it for me, for the reasons given above. Perhaps I was expecting too much?

Like I said, it isn't personal attack in any way towards any individual. But I had the great suspicion of Kosminski right at the start being the main attraction of suspects. Promoting a man for whom there is no evidence against unless you call an opinion of an ex-policeman from that time evidence, written down as jottings or comments in another policeman's written book who didn't name him, with an identitfication of that man that we have no proof nor secondary source for either, is in my mind just plain wrong. The words that in my view were missing were "doubt" and "tenuous"
towards the presentation of Aaron Kosminski.

So if this is the definitive documentary, then I ask what the definition of definitive is, as it certainly doesnt come across as the definitive overview. It was not an objective view with one suspect favoured... it presumed Isreal Schwartz to have positively identified Kosminski, and this alone can only be seen as being misleading to the general public.

Lastly, would someone be so kind as to explain to me the additional markings on the page of the Swanson marginalia that I believe I am correct in saying were seen in the documentary, yet, as far as I am aware, did not exist when I last saw a photograph of the page? This was the original document offered to us all for our perusal, was it not?
Perhaps I need new a new pair of spectacles....or a new TV?
I thought this was an historically important document. Just when did this additional marking occur? More to the point, by whom?

Nothing personal. Just my respectfully honest opinion. I am posting this on both this forum and JTR Forums. Sadly, and it isn't a cut n run, I will be away for a few days. I look forward to some comments and perhaps an answer or two.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

I thought the second part was also very good. It was particularly nice to see the City CID officers putting in an appearance.

Initially I was inclined to agree with Rob Clack's comment that Aaron Kozminski was pushed too hard as a suspect. But judging from the responses by Paul Begg and John Bennett, it does sound as though this was partly because of pressure from the TV company. However, I do feel it was a mistake to portray Schwartz explicitly as Anderson's witness, which is obviously a contentious point. (The eagle-eyed will also have noticed that it was Harry Cox who watched Aaron Kozminski at his brother's house in Whitechapel after his return from the Seaside Home!)

[Scorpio]

The second episode was very watchable, more so than the first i thought.
The Kelly's were great, being unexpectedly effecting, especially Kate Eddowes aka Kelly, the likeness being uncanny. Joe Barnett and Mary Kelly were a little dissapointing, as Barnett came across as the dominant personality in the relationship but i feel that this is innacurate. Having said that, the reconstruction of 13 Millers Court was convincing in its detail. The Kosminski performance was believable but sympathetic, i dont think i have seen this in a JtR doc before, and the bizarre merlinesque Tumblety made me laugh. I thought more could be made from the Hutchinson evidence; there was little to see but a shot of Surly mans back and all the strange vibes between him and Kelly were ignored. Maybe i am expecting to much, and a Victorian themed episode of crimewatch with CGI is all it was ever going to be.

[Sally]

Here, there and everywhere!

I'm having a day off today - and literally everywhere I've been today people are talking about part 2. The hairdressers were particularly entertaining 'Ooh, I love that Jack the Ripper, me! It's so morbid!'

I think it must have gone down pretty well.

[Suzi]

Congrats!

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

[Jason]

missed first one but watched it on the channel five website prior to last nights second part. For those who havent sky plus, it is also available to watch for 13 days post screening online. Thought they were both great but second one, and particular the millers court murder was amazingly well done. The horror of the scene was really encapsulated in my opinion. I am one of those persons who really gets something when it is evocatively portrayed in front of my eyes and the two programmed did just that. Thought the acting was pretty good in comparison to the more modern day east end soap on a different channel !! The guy who finds Annie Chapman in the yard and runs into the street was top quality !! he will never work again !!!!