channel five documentry!

[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?

It's more the attitude of someone who says they are "surprised and disappointed" by my conduct, even after I have explained it. But it may be that I am somewhat over-sensitive after the other recent accusations that I have been "sitting on information" (when in fact I had been to some lengths to try to get information to publish it).

When all's said and done, my Ripper research is done in my own time and at my own expense. It is normally made freely available to everyone on Casebook, but I don't see that anyone would have the right to complain if I didn't reveal a word of it.

Regarding the drawing of the red lines, I actually think Ally's response is the most appropriate. It's a shame that someone has added red lines in the margin. But when it's compared to drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa I think there's obviously a danger that people are getting things out of proportion. As I've said, since it is clearly a relatively recent addition and could not be confused with the annotations, I don't see how it bears at all on the question of their authenticity and accuracy.

If someone has gone over Swanson's underlining on p. 137 I find that of more concern. I wonder if anyone is in a position to provide "Before" and "After" pictures, so that we can see what exactly has happened.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

I have transfered the question of the marginalia and it's condition to the thread pertaining to such.. "There's something wrong with the Marginalia"

thank you kindly for your reply to my question, by the way

best wishes

Phil

[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.

On the other thread...

[Bob Hinton]

Gas Lamps

. 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.


Monty


[/QUOTE]

Very few gas lamps in the East End had mantles at this time, they were just plain gas jets, which gave off a very poor light. You cannot have a cracked mantle - if it is damaged it just disintegrates.

The illumination shown in the programme was more than it would have been at the time. The lamps were designed to give a pool of light at the base of the lamp-post, not to light up the surrounding area. The idea was you walked from light patch to light patch.

Since it was one of the very few sources of light, prostitutes would stand in this pool of light a la Lily Marlene.

[Bob Hinton]

Tampering?

I'm not absolutely sure what all the fuss is about concerning the red lines. As far as I could see the lines were on the same page but not actually going through the marginalia.

If this is correct then it does not effect the marginalia in any way. It's a shame that someone did that - but certainly not the disaster some would have us believe.

[Monty]

Bob,

I have come across WBOW reports, only a few years after the murders, where the state damaged mantles ( I incorrectly stated cracked-apologies) were replaced.

I agree that the lighting was poor and not as shown in the documentary. However to show the scene as it truely was means you would see virtually nothing. That said, as you've mentioned, the reality was that the lamps were mere markers along the street and not as of the same quality in the more affluent areas.

Though Leadenhall street had electric lighting in 1888.

Monty

[The Grave Maurice]

I'm not absolutely sure what all the fuss is about concerning the red lines. As far as I could see the lines were on the same page but not actually going through the marginalia.

If this is correct then it does not effect the marginalia in any way. It's a shame that someone did that - but certainly not the disaster some would have us believe.

I agree completely, Bob. Certainly it was a very odd thing to do, but I can't see why so many knickers have been twisted.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,that what I think Bob and GM.
Best Norma

[mariab]

The discussion is ongoing in the There's something wrong with the Swanson marginalia thread, but I took the liberty to comment once here, very briefly:

isn't this rather like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa?

No, this is rather like someone drawing a red line on the margins of the Mona Lisa.

Chris Phillips wrote:
If someone has gone over Swanson's underlining on p. 137 I find that of more concern. I wonder if anyone is in a position to provide "Before" and "After" pictures, so that we can see what exactly has happened.
Completely agree. The red line in the margins is not significant damage in any sense whatsoever, but the second underlying of the printed text on p. 137 tampers with important evidence (i.e.: Swanson's original underlying) on the document. Luckily, we have the “before“ photos from 2000 by SPE (which I hope that they contain p. 137, which lacks marginalia, and consists solely of printed text).

Originally Posted by cerburusuk
Any defecation made to the Swanson book
Loved that quote. Totally cracked me up. Bless you, cerburusuk.

[The Grave Maurice]

The discussion is ongoing in the There's something wrong with the Swanson marginalia thread....

Thanks, Maria, we know that; but the discussion started on this thread and, besides, it's much quieter here.

[mariab]

besides, it's much quieter here.

He he, most definitely.
(Still, I wish to significantly reduce my contribution to highjacking threads. As my sole New Year's resolution. ;-))

[Chris]

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!)

Just to correct the point about the witness - it's been pointed out on jtrforums.com that as well as Schwartz, Lawende also appeared in the reconstruction accompanying the extract from Anderson's book.

[The Grave Maurice]

I've finally seen the second half of the documentary and I thought it was brilliant. I especially liked the re-creation of Mitre Square.

I hope that a DVD or Blu-ray will be available soon, and that it will play in North America and have lots of extras. (I'd like to buy a bunch as presents for my friends and relatives who know little about JtR: it would be the best possible introduction for them.)

I don't think we have sufficiently acknowledged the exceptional writing by John Bennett and Paul Begg. And I thought Begg's voice-over work was perfect. It set exactly the right tone.

[Abby Normal]

Does anyone know when and what channel this will be on in the US? I really want to see this!

[belinda]

I've just seen it I hope it will be out on DVD here