JtR Documentaries- Complete the List

[Bailey]

I know and this is true even after months of preparation, piles of notes and questions. The work that goes into each and every episode.

Seriously, as many have I'm sure noticed, we leave most of the mistakes to float out there, uncorrected. The show tries to serve a purpose, albeit different from the documentaries, but even with us mistakes will be made. And more often than we'd like.

Hopefully that, in spite of the occasional error, on the whole the podcast serves it's listeners well.

JM

Oh bollocks, have I put my foot in it again?

My only complaint about Rippercast at this junction is that after a few weeks of solid listening I've just about caught up with the backlog and I'm going to be reduced to once a week... My point was of course that we have some of the top names in the field involved in the podcast, and any one of them can have a slip now and then, and nobody should care. It's good that they usually have someone equally knowledgable there to be their safety net on those occasions.

All going to plan, JM, I'll be hitting the library on Monday...

Cheers,
B.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hey Pirate
Post-production fact checking should certainly be and essential stage in producing a doco, but even tho, is a producer going to know if someone said June 3rd instead of June 4th unless they query every word out of every contributor?

All the best!

Cheers,
Bailey

Well its been a point of contention with me for a long time. I pitched my first Jack the Ripper Documentary in 2001. And I've been pitching on a regular basis, with various ideas, since then.

But yes, I think a Producer should get it right, god knows I've spent enough time checking 'Me' facts...I know what needs to be made..and I'm trying me best to get it done...

At least 1hr per victim..(six victims) and some modern forensenic psychology on the killer's, Druit and Kosminski (Chapman/Tumbelty).

That would sit good for me...still no commission..

However I have a small commission to make a doc on 'Jack the Rippers Kent'..for Kent TV.. So expect...finally..a production without error

No doubt casebook will try a execute me...I just dont think I can do worse than the doc's on offer so far

Yours Jeff

PS. My first taste of JtR was Barlow and Watts, when I was a kid..I wonty to do better than that...Thats the aim..

Cheers Bailey, Good night

[Sam Flynn]

Hopefully that, in spite of the occasional error, on the whole the podcast serves it's listeners well.

Decidedly so, Jon - the podcast is one of the best things to have happened in this field in recent years. I'm sure Bailey thinks so too.

[jmenges]

- just listen to Rippercast! Those guys are constantly correctng each other, reminding each other of names or dates that one or other can't remember, etc.

I know and this is true even after months of preparation, piles of notes and questions. The work that goes into each and every episode.

Seriously, as many have I'm sure noticed, we leave most of the mistakes to float out there, uncorrected. The show tries to serve a purpose, albeit different from the documentaries, but even with us mistakes will be made. And more often than we'd like.

Hopefully that, in spite of the occasional error, on the whole the podcast serves it's listeners well.

JM

[Bailey]

Hi Bailey

I wasn't having a go, sorry if my post sounded like that, thats the problem with chat rooms, you cant gage the tone of peoples voice.

My observation was ment generally. The control of what goes into a program is the Producers not the Contributers. Stewart is correct that everyone errs...However the Producer can and should check his factual information before broadcast..very few do.

However many thanks for raising your question, I also learned something, so many thanks to you and Stewart.

Pirate

Hey Pirate

Yeah, this internet thingy can be a minefield, can't it? I was probably quite ill-advised to use the term "glaring errors" so early in my post as well - sounds far more accusing than I'd intended.

It's that thing where you know what you mean and how you mean it, but even after reading before posting, which I always do, it isn't until you see someone else's response that you realise how easily it can be read in another way.

And of course, as you say, and Mr Evans did as well, there's so much info out there in this field that it's ridiculous to expect anyone to have a comprehensive working knowledge all off the top of their head, and so certainly it's hardly surprising things come out wrong now and then - just listen to Rippercast! Those guys are constantly correctng each other, reminding each other of names or dates that one or other can't remember, etc.

Post-production fact checking should certainly be and essential stage in producing a doco, but even tho, is a producer going to know if someone said June 3rd instead of June 4th unless they query every word out of every contributor?

All the best!

Cheers,
Bailey

[Monty]

You are too kind Neil, there's nothing wrong with using notes, but when I tried it, long ago, it completely threw me and I gave a disjointed talk. Your own talk was fascinating and no less interesting than any of the others.

I was aware of a disjointed talk myself. Especailly as the images had to be timed alongside my talk. Thats why Adam also had a copy of his own notes to work inconjuction with mine.

Thank you for the kind words also, from you they are meaningful.

This is true. It was a solid and engaging presentation and totally professional and slick. The only thing that was odd was hearing Monty speaking with a sense of terror when in real life he inspires it.

Thank you Philip, I think.

Again, words from such a good public speaker as yourself flatter me. Rest assured, that will be the final time I shall speak in public so you can put the cotton wool away.

Monty


Sense of terror? First thing in my head was those shorts !

[Jeff Leahy]

Wooo, hold up! Sorry if it at all came across otherwise, but in no way whatsoever was I intending to have a go at either Mr Evans or Mr Fido, both of whom I believe are justifiably respected in this field.

You'll note, Pirate, that I said that I even checked for any indication of tricky editing - my feeling was that if there was anything dodgy, it was on behalf of an editor or producer trying to spice things up.

My query was more directed at finding out if this was a misquote, a slip of memory or, as it seems is the case from Mr Evans' response below, me learning something I didn't know. As I said in my post, I even went so far as to check the Chapman victim page on Casebook before posting my query to be sure I wasn't a victim of my own faulty memory.

My apologies if anyone has taken offence at my post - it was most certainly not my intention for this to be anything more than a comment / query on a couple of points in the documentary, not an attack on two men whom I hold in high esteem.

Cheers,
Bailey.

Hi Bailey

I wasn't having a go, sorry if my post sounded like that, thats the problem with chat rooms, you cant gage the tone of peoples voice.

My observation was ment generally. The control of what goes into a program is the Producers not the Contributers. Stewart is correct that everyone errs...However the Producer can and should check his factual information before broadcast..very few do.

However many thanks for raising your question, I also learned something, so many thanks to you and Stewart.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank You

Mr Evans,
Many thanks for the clarification above. As I said in reply to Pirate Jack above, it was certainly not my intention to impune you in any way! It simply struck me that I had no recall of anything other than Chapman's intestines being placed over her shoulder, and so your comment in the doco took me by surprise.
As it was the following day that I posted my comment simply because the same programme was mentioned here, I regretfully did no more than take a look at Casebook's Chapman victim page to see if I was mistaken. As you say, it always pays to check one's facts carefully (before inserting foot in mouth!). I can say with great assurance that I shall not rapidly forget the details of Chapman's mutilations, especially as they've led to a somewhat embarassing first contact with your good self!
Again, my apologies for any offence caused to you or anyone else reading this thread. And also for the rather dodgy bit of grammar I used, "there was only intestines over her shoulder."
Cheers,
Bailey

Thank you very much for the considered and honest reply, much appreciated and no offence taken. Stewart

[Bailey]

To back up this statement I would refer you to Chief Inspector Swanson's overall report, of 19 October 1888, on the Chapman murder, HO 144/221/A49301C, f 137. Here he clearly states - "Removed from but attached to body, & placed above right shoulder were a flap of the wall of belly, the whole of the small intestines & attachments Two other portions of wall of belly & "Pubes" were placed above left shoulder in a large quantity of blood."

Mr Evans,

Many thanks for the clarification above. As I said in reply to Pirate Jack above, it was certainly not my intention to impune you in any way! It simply struck me that I had no recall of anything other than Chapman's intestines being placed over her shoulder, and so your comment in the doco took me by surprise.

As it was the following day that I posted my comment simply because the same programme was mentioned here, I regretfully did no more than take a look at Casebook's Chapman victim page to see if I was mistaken. As you say, it always pays to check one's facts carefully (before inserting foot in mouth!). I can say with great assurance that I shall not rapidly forget the details of Chapman's mutilations, especially as they've led to a somewhat embarassing first contact with your good self!

Again, my apologies for any offence caused to you or anyone else reading this thread. And also for the rather dodgy bit of grammar I used, "there was only intestines over her shoulder."



Cheers,
Bailey

[Bailey]

Hi Bailey

Your not really being serious are you?

<SNIP>

DO NOT BLAME THE CONTIBUTOR...BLAME THE PRODUCER

Pirate

Wooo, hold up! Sorry if it at all came across otherwise, but in no way whatsoever was I intending to have a go at either Mr Evans or Mr Fido, both of whom I believe are justifiably respected in this field.

You'll note, Pirate, that I said that I even checked for any indication of tricky editing - my feeling was that if there was anything dodgy, it was on behalf of an editor or producer trying to spice things up.

My query was more directed at finding out if this was a misquote, a slip of memory or, as it seems is the case from Mr Evans' response below, me learning something I didn't know. As I said in my post, I even went so far as to check the Chapman victim page on Casebook before posting my query to be sure I wasn't a victim of my own faulty memory.

My apologies if anyone has taken offence at my post - it was most certainly not my intention for this to be anything more than a comment / query on a couple of points in the documentary, not an attack on two men whom I hold in high esteem.

Cheers,
Bailey.

[George Hutchinson]

This is true. It was a solid and engaging presentation and totally professional and slick. The only thing that was odd was hearing Monty speaking with a sense of terror when in real life he inspires it.

PHILIP

[Stewart P Evans]

Too Kind

I can remember asking Stewart if he was using notes for his conference talk. I also remember feeling a prat as soon as I finished asking!
His talk, along with Neal Stubbings sheldon (who also didnt use notes) were the two of the best talks I heard that weekend.
Awesome, I wish I had the knowledge and courage to have done the same.
Monty

You are too kind Neil, there's nothing wrong with using notes, but when I tried it, long ago, it completely threw me and I gave a disjointed talk. Your own talk was fascinating and no less interesting than any of the others.

[Monty]

I can remember asking Stewart if he was using notes for his conference talk. I also remember feeling a prat as soon as I finished asking!

His talk, along with Neal Stubbings sheldon (who also didnt use notes) were the two of the best talks I heard that weekend.

Awesome, I wish I had the knowledge and courage to have done the same.

Monty

[John Bennett]

I made a short film about 'personal identity' at university in the days of video. I took HOURS of footage. The editing took DAYS.

The final film lasted 5 MINUTES.

A case in point.

[Mike Covell]

In the late 90's I did some work with the BBC, which involved me holding the "Boom" at press confrences, interviews and in the street for soundbites. I spent many long hours stood holding the thing and listening to what everyone had to say. Only to return home and find my hours of travel, hours of stood holding the thing, and hours waiting for the Newscaster in the editing room, to watch a 3 minute clip!

I was told by one newsreader, "Give them what you think they want, it doesn't have to be right!"