channel five documentry!

[Chris]

Don

Frankly, this kind of attitude makes me much less inclined to pass on the results of my research to others, not more so.

[Supe]

Chris,

I have considerable respect for you, as a researcher and person, so I am truly confused and hurt by your latest comment. Is an attitude that deplores tampering with an important artifact and wonders why it went unreported wrong?

Don.

[John Bennett]

I feel the need to comment on some of the nonsense I have just read re: the Marginalia - after some sleep, it's nearly 1am.

Tomorrow.

[DrHopper]

Moving, very briefly, back to the question of the bricks whilst we all wait to see the results of the revelation of the possibly defaced marginalia.
In my mis-spent youth I was what you might term a, ahem, graffiti artist of the spraycan variety.
A lot of the work I did was on railway property - including victorian black shiny bricks. I can honestly state that:
1) They take chalk brilliantly - the outline of many of my artistic endeavours was done in chalk prior to their being coloured-in. This is in direct opposition to the more traditional brick that is not shiny and is quite coarse. The chalk breaks up and produces too much dust to legibly write anything in small letters (i.e. the GSG), though it's fine for large writing (a tip from the top there to any would-be graffiti artists).
2) The shiny brick is very difficult to spray on - it is not very porous, and if you are not very careful the paint will drip terribly. Regular brick is far too porous and needs an undercoat before being painted properly. I have always assumed that the lack of porosity was the purpose of the shiny bricks - traditional brick rot and erode very quickly, the shiny ones do not.

Sticking my hat on as an archaeological ceramics specialist (my current occupation - artist did not work out for me!), the shiny bricks are vitrified, that is fired at a higher temperature, and thus become glass like - hence the shiny surface. It is not a slip or a glaze applied during the process, just the surface changing at a molecular level.

Hope this helps in some way

[cerburusuk]

Any defecation made to the Swanson book – whether lately or at some time in the past – not only vandalises a valuable historic document pertaining to the Ripper era, it also, if Don is correct when he says: "on page 137 they appear to have gone over Swanson's pencil lining with fresh, ruled pencil lines.", would render the entire marginalia worthless as a corroborative piece of evidence against the theory that Kosminski was the person responsible for the killings.

[Observer]

Hi Dr Hopper

As already stated

The bricks in question are not shiny. As mentioned earlier they are engineering bricks of a type that are denser then the ordinary facing bricks. They are a solid brick with no holes or soap in them. They are used for groundwork where a water resistant layer is needed, or where strength is paramount. In Goulston Street they were obviously used to strengthen the entrances to the building, and as they extended below ground level to act as a water resistant barrier. I have had a good look at similar bricks still in situ in Goulston Street, and they would readily take chalk as a medium for writing. I have photos of said bricks, and when I can locate them I will post them in this thread

Observer

[Ally]

Any defecation made to the Swanson book

While I agree it's a shame if anyone's marked up the book, I don't think anyone's done THAT to it!

[cerburusuk]

I am so sorry - I meant Defacement. I should have said no to that last drink. Please forgive my befuddled brain.

[DrHopper]

Hi Observer.

Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer in my description. I have always thought of them as shiny as a way of differentiating them from the more common brick - actually i have used a variety of descriptors for them depending on the amount of dripping that occurs

You are right in that they are not shiny per se, rather, as you say, they are more dense and waterproof. Certainly though, up north (Manchester way) they have a semi-lustrous sheen to their exterior. I would be very interested in seeing your photographs though.

[Observer]

Hi Dr Hopper

Rob Clack has posted photos of the same black bricks in post 164 here in this thread. They'll give you some idea as to the type of bricks used.

Observer

[DrHopper]

Hi Observer

Thanks. Yup, those are the ones - not as 'shiny' as the proper brown, truly horrible, Victorian bricks that are impossible to paint on, but much less porous than the regular type.
Ha! It's difficult to type what i mean by my description in a way that anyone else can understand, but yes, I have experience with those type of bricks.

[Observer]

No problem Dr Hopper. Warren spoke of the graffiti thus

"The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once....."

Halse stated

' I saw some chalk writing on the black facing of the wall' and as recorded in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, 'The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white'

So obviously written on those self same black engineering bricks. As to the height of the writing, I can't remember off hand who stated the following, (I'm sure someone will enlighten me,) but one of the decective's stated that the writing was at shoulder length, that is if one passed it one's shoulder would brush against it. Five feet from ground level I would say.

Observer

[Lechmere]

Check page 14 post 138 for a variety of pics - some do look a bit shiny to me!

[Stephen Thomas]

I love this documentary, the best ever JTR one bar none, especially as it was made under harsh time and financial restraints. Big up to Jeff and Paul and John and Jake and everybody else involved. However, the graffiti was written on shiny black bricks in inch high letters.

[Monty]

There were a few other errors I noted.

The wind direction on the night of the Stride murder was slightly more westerly than shown.

The actor playing Anderson was clearly two inches too short for the part.

Eddowes went hopping yet she was shown to be in a field of wheat.

All the policemen had their helmets too high, above the 'half thumb' rule.

Eddowes was found on a Sunday yet they clearly filmed it on a Tuesday.

Cox was shown to be right handed when he was.

John Bennet was clearly Mr Astrakhan when it is ovbious he isn't classy enough to be him and.....

....I think my points been made.

Monty


PS surely we are in agreement about the bricks,no?

PPS Observer, I'm in complete agreement re the set up in the stairwell, spot on IMHO.