channel five documentry!

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Chris,

I would be interested to know when they were added and why

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

CLARIFICATION

It has come to my attention that people have misinterpreted my previous post about the marginalia. I would like to make it clear that was not, nor would i ever, accuse /accusing any memeber of the production company or its associates of tampering with the original mariginalia. In fact quite the opposite. When seeing the red lines on the documentary, i assumed that the production company had not had access to the original document because as far as i was aware it is in the Black Museum. I assumed that they had an image of the marginalia they had cgied onto an image of Macnaughtens book using artistic license and that somehow in this process a red line that had been put on the said photograph to highlight the relveant bits of informationhad not been removed in the rendering process. hence I was offering this theory to Phil.

This is because clearly if the orignal document was filmed the production company would have come accross it and realised as they are Ripperologists. In no way was any subsequent comment meant to imply that the production company, Paul Begg, Jeff Leahy or John Bennett et al had/or would even try to doctor the original document. That anyone would even think I meant this did not enter my brain. As tught my meaning in the oppostie direction was quite clear. Therefore, I can only apologise if that was what was thought I meant and if that caused the production company any distress.

However, my knowledge of technical wizardy is not what it could be. Maybe the above scenerio is in fact not even possible. Maybe the production filmed the original document as it was in 2010. In which case the production company have, inadvertently, stumbled accross a blantant scandal in that the image /the document is defaced to the images we have of it when it was first made public in 1988. One would like to know an explanation for how this came about, who had access to it in this time, and when this change with red ink was made. That, if they indeed filmed the orignal and didnt use thier cgi magic, this has been possible in the last 22 years it a blanatant SCANDAL. It throws into question, the authenticty of the whole document. That no one seems to have commented too much since Phil first mentioned it when if it is altered blows open the whole validty of the entire document, is perplexing.

Anyway, it may well be the case that my original assumption was correct and in either case, I am in no way getting at or having a go at the production company or its associates. I would in no way hold them as the culprit. In fact as i say i meant quite the opposite. they should be congratulated for highlighting it.


Jenni
Best wishes

[Chris]

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

[Jason]

http://www.five.tv/shows/jack-the-ripper-the-definitive-story

Here is the link for the show on-line

[Jason]

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

go to the channel five uk website Abby, you can watch it on there, both episodes are avaiulable up to 13 days after screening so be quick, especially with the first one. Hope its not restricted for you in the US !! good luck, its brilliant and well worth watching. Let me know if it works because my sister in australia was asking me about it.

Jason

[Monty]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;162003]On the gas lights I am looking into it as it raises a whole series of other questions that I don’t know the answers to.
Such as who paid for the lights?
Did they put each one on every night or did they economise.
How closely supervised were the people who lit the lamps.
QUOTE]

Gas lamps were paid for and maintained by the Board of Works. There is no record I can find where lamps were not lit for economy measures. 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.

The responsibilty for monitoring the lamps fell to the Beat Bobbies. It was their responsibility to report lamps which were either broken or not fully functioning. This was reported to their Beat Sergeant who, inturn, reported it to the Board of Works. If any lamps were not working in Bucks Row it was PC Neils job to report it.

Monty


PS No worries Sally

[Rob Clack]

Black Engineering Brick with white lime motar.

How very Victorian Rob.

Monty

I hope so, or we are both in trouble

Rob

[Sally]

It would be interesting to know the answer to the brick question.

There is no question, I've already answered it.

Monty

Yes, sorry Monty, I rather stupidly missed that

Lechmere distracted me.

[Monty]

Black Engineering Brick with white lime motar.

How very Victorian Rob.

Monty

[Lechmere]

“I doubt that having the 'wrong' brick in the documentary matters a whit in terms of how good it was”
Speak for yourself, I haven’t been able to sleep since.

On the gas lights I am looking into it as it raises a whole series of other questions that I don’t know the answers to.
Such as who paid for the lights?
Did they put each one on every night or did they economise.
How closely supervised were the people who lit the lamps.

I think Donald Rumbelow said far end and that it was very dark- which I took to mean Brady Street.

[Rob Clack]

I don't know why I am bothering but here's a photograph of the bricks. These are from the next doorway to the South. Note they are not gloss.



As for the lamp in Bucks Row. Don doesn't specify which end of Bucks Row but it is fairly clear he is referring to the Board School end of Bucks Row.

Rob

[Chris]

What do you make of it Chris?

Well, I can say the red lines were there when I saw the book at the Crime Museum nearly two years ago. I can't really see that they have any relevance to the discussion about the authenticity and accuracy of the annotations, as they were obviously added relatively recently - after the photos we know of had been taken.

[Monty]

It would be interesting to know the answer to the brick question.

There is no question, I've already answered it.

Monty

[Sally]

With further reference to the Goulston Street brickwork...

Not the 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.

Lechmere. You are broadly correct. I don't entirely agree regarding a 'normal porous dusty brick'. It would be interesting to know the answer to the brick question. I think you are probably right, and they were black - probably ceramic glazed, but not necessarily 'strictly gloss'. A black glazed brick would of course make the graffiti more visible.

Still, this is a discussion for brick nerds (amongst whom I am happy to include myself) and I doubt that having the 'wrong' brick in the documentary matters a whit in terms of how good it was.

I think it was great.

[Monty]

Lechemere,

Don't worry about not knowing me, I'm a nobody.

I think we may disagree about the trivial (gloss or not gloss) but agree on the important, the black brick would have been ideal to write on and, essitially, they were written on and clearly too.

As for the lighting, with all due repsect to Don and others that have followed, they workl of witness testimony. This is fine however its not without error at times. Jake, Rob et al have worked with various maps dating from before 1888 and after. Their work is maticulous.

The lights were there, the testimony contradicts. There may be reasons for this not noted. It is a condundrum.

Monty