channel five documentry!

[Monty]

Black Engineering Brick with white lime motar.

How very Victorian Rob.

Monty

[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.

[Rob Clack]

Black Engineering Brick with white lime motar.

How very Victorian Rob.

Monty

I hope so, or we are both in trouble

Rob

[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

[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

[Jason]

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

Here is the link for the show on-line

[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

[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

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Chris,

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

Jenni

[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.

[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

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.