channel five documentry!

[Abby Normal]

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

[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%.

[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).

[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

[cerburusuk]

My mistake.

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

[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As you say if someone has tampered with it this is highly problematic as it is a historical document that is already controversial.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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

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

Monty

[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.

[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

[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.