channel five documentry!

[The Grave Maurice]

Drat. This is what I hate about living in the sticks. Now I'll have to wait until some clever chap tells me how to access the second part. (Howard---hint, hint).

Lech, it was called Swallow Gardens, not Completely Paved Smog Lane. It must have been rural at some point.

[sbfightfan]

Dvd of the documentary?

Any chance this documentary will be sold on dvd?I live in the states so I hope an ntsc version would be available.I'm looking forward to seeing this someday.

[Lechmere]

Swallow Gardens is about 200 yards as the crow (or swallow) flies from the old London Wall City boundary.
John Rocque’s 1746 map of London shows that area as being well and truly built over, as does the 1720 map by John Strype, and even in the 1642-43 map showing Civil War defences. The first map I can find showing that area as being semi rural is dated 1572, assumed to be by George Hoefnagel.

As for the gloss black dado bricks at Wentworth Model Dwellings, I did assumed them to be painted but I have recently been examining those buildings closely and they are not painted. They are black gloss bricks. However, I think gloss painted bricks would take chalk almost as well – but we will see!
Here are some shots...

[cerburusuk]

Mary Kelly's mutilations.

I have left any viewpoints I have on this doc until the second part was aired.
All in all I found it interesting, nothing new to add to the historical facts, but a fairly accurate comprehensive retelling of the well known facts.
The one questionable part was the discription of the mutilations performed on Mary Kelly's face. I don't recall, in Dr Bonds list of injuries to her, the fact that her chin had been removed or her eyelids being sliced off? Its been a while since I have visited this site, so perhaps some new documentation has come to light showing these things were done to her.

[Monty]

Lechmere,

Are we talking gloss here or smooth finish?

To clarify, the bricks were not painted.

The bricks are actually Engineering Bricks, black in colour because they were baked at a high temperature and used in the base layers of a building because they are impenetrable to water. They were the densest of building brick and were basically used as damp proof bricks. These are a smooth finish however I wouldn’t say they were ‘glossed’.

I conducted an experiment, what?, could be 10 years ago now with chalk upon the various brickwork in and around the dwellings (though not the rear – I did not write the ‘3 Juwes’). The engineering brick took the chalk reasonably well however you must bare in mind that chalk compound today differs from 1888. Its more oily today with less residue.

The glazed sepia brickwork (that is what I would call glossed and assumed it was that you were referring to) a few doors toward Wentorth Street did not take the chalk well. It was poor and bitty, not clear at all.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Just to add to what Monty said. On one occasion while studying the bricks at the front of Wentworth Model Dwellings, we got up close (to the bricks not together) and had a good look at the black bricks and they were not gloss and not painted and looked to be an ideal surface for chalk writing.

Rob

[Bob Hinton]

One thing that really irritated me about these two episodes was at the end when the credits were going up they did a 'Sky shrink' that made them unreadable.

Would it be too much to ask for someone to post the credits so the actors and actresses may be given their well deserved applause!

[caz]

I agree, Bob. What's the point of credits that can't be read? I played them back and kept pausing them but could only make out a couple of names.

And Rob and Monty, I think you are being played again, as Giddy and Fell did. As I said elsewhere, I wouldn't take seriously any criticism, constructive or otherwise, posted under daft pseudonyms. Makes me 'Cross' and wish that 'Giddy' would hurry up and fall over. Like twins those two are.

Of course, everything was simply superb. That's what happens when you get the best people for the job on the job.

Monty, I take it all back - I can see now what you mean about all that graffiti!!

Love,

Caz
XX

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Call me old fashioned, but I am not into all this reconstruction mania, however it was brilliantly done, and would give an insight to viewers that were not familiar with the case.
I guess I have seen too many Ripper docs over the years, and the number of times , I have seen a knife being wiped are countless, factual errors were present, according to Barnett the window was broken when Kelly pushed him in it, and not as shown .
However it was a good effort, even though Kosminsky is not my idea of JTR.
Regards Richard.

[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 !!!!

[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

[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.

[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.

[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!)

[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