JtR Documentaries- Complete the List

[Bailey]

is the 'historys mysteries: the hunt for jcak the ripper' the same as 'historys mysteries: jack the ripper' (history channel)?
joel

Coincidentally, I watched this one yesterday, probably for the first time since buying it a few years ago, and noticed two rather glaring errors from a couple of our more prominent Ripperologists.

Martin Fido referred to Tabram as having "over 40" stab wounds - it's 39, isn't it?

The other, which really threw me, was Stewart Evans declaring that Chapman's genitals were placed above her shoulder. From memory (which I backed up by a quick look at the victim page so as to avoid embarassing myself) there was only intestines over her shoulder. That one I even cued back to listen carefully, as he was in voice-over at that point rather than on-screen, but it didn't sound like a bit of tricky editing. Mr Evans, if you're out there, any comments?

Pretty good doco overall, tho nothing special. Had a couple of fun tidbits to offer, like Reid once being notable as the shortest cop in the Met

Cheers,
B.

[Ash]

I filmed an interview for a doc while in the States for the last conference. I'm afraid I don't remember the name of the guy who filmed it, and I never heard anything more about it or saw the finished product (which I was a bit annoyed about) so can't be more helpful than that. But Judy Stock should know more details, as she set the interview up.

[Jeff Leahy]

C
Martin Fido referred to Tabram as having "over 40" stab wounds - it's 39, isn't it?

The other, which really threw me, was Stewart Evans declaring that Chapman's genitals were placed above her shoulder. From memory (which I backed up by a quick look at the victim page so as to avoid embarassing myself) there was only intestines over her shoulder. That one I even cued back to listen carefully, as he was in voice-over at that point rather than on-screen, but it didn't sound like a bit of tricky editing. Mr Evans, if you're out there, any comments?

Pretty good doco overall, tho nothing special. Had a couple of fun tidbits to offer, like Reid once being notable as the shortest cop in the Met

Cheers,
B.

Hi Bailey

Your not really being serious are you?

I'm afraid I'm not an expert on JtR history. But I do know a little about making TV. (thats what I do for a living)

If you wish to critisize Producers/directors thats fair enough. But contributors have little say about the final input into any program.

A contributor can only give his comments and hope the editor/producer gets it right.

On very rare occations the experts have got it wrong..I believe the Great Don Rumblow made a mistake in a recent documentary..well a name slip..

However its up to the production company to check their footage..Don made a genuine slip..the production company could very easily have made an edit if they were bothered to check..

Martin Fido and Stewart Evans need no appologuise from me..they have earned their own reputations..

However at any piont the production companies could have checked their programs with these experts..they simply choose not to..because they dont care..

I know because its what I do for a living..I would be discusted with this lack of regard for my audiance...

DO NOT BLAME THE CONTIBUTOR...BLAME THE PRODUCER

enough said

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Official Reports

The other, which really threw me, was Stewart Evans declaring that Chapman's genitals were placed above her shoulder. From memory (which I backed up by a quick look at the victim page so as to avoid embarassing myself) there was only intestines over her shoulder. That one I even cued back to listen carefully, as he was in voice-over at that point rather than on-screen, but it didn't sound like a bit of tricky editing. Mr Evans, if you're out there, any comments? B.

One of the great drawbacks of writing and broadcasting is that comments made, often years ago, are likely to pop back at any time to bite you in the rear end. None of us is perfect and, as we all should admit, it is human to err. Those who know me are aware that I never talk or conduct interviews from prepared notes and many of the documentary interviews are made without prior knowledge of exactly what the questions will be.

That said, it is thus necessary to have a pretty good working knowledge of the case and the official reports. I usually feel fairly secure with my general knowledge of these reports as I transcribed them all many years ago. On this occasion I must disagree with the above poster and say that the official reports should always take precedence over secondary sources; on this occasion I do not think that I am in error. I do not agree that 'there was only intestines over her shoulder.'

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."

[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!"

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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 !

[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