Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Suzi]

These were!!!!!!!!!!! 1900

Actually in THE pic there's no women with anything unseemly aka an ankle- those who may show something of that kind are children

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Suzi for the confirmation that these people in George's photo must have been on some kind of stage set.

[Suzi]

Hi AP-Those lovelies were in the USA of course! BUT I don't have a problem with the pic aside from the fact that the photographer whould have been sat low in the road to get that angle- but that isn't a problem is it...well aside from rogue pony and cart drivers!

[Sam Flynn]

Going back to my unchallenged point about the bare legs of the ladies in George's photo. It is unlikely that the photograph was taken before 1930 because of this important social factor. In 1900 it was unimaginable that a well to do woman would have been photographed with bare legs up to the knees.

All the people in the photograph appeared distinctly working-class, AP, and if my beady old eyes don't deceive me, there were apparently one or two Jews there too. All in all, it seems a fairly representative image of ordinary East End folk at the turn of the 20th Century.

Anyhow, (a) The people in the photo weren't well-to-do by any stretch of the imagination; and (b) The women's skirts weren't up to their knees by any stretch of the cloth.

[Suzi]

Exactly!!

All the people in the photograph appeared distinctly working-class, AP, and if my beady old eyes don't deceive me, there were apparently one or two Jews there too. All in all, it seems a fairly representative image of ordinary East End folk at the turn of the 20th Century.

Anyhow, (a) The people in the photo weren't well-to-do by any stretch of the imagination; and (b) The women's skirts weren't up to their knees by any stretch of the cloth.

What's a bit of ankle here and there Gawd that was the last thing they were thinking of! Something to eat,maybe- if they were lucky sleep- and to look 'alf decent was a main priority 'eh

[Dan Norder]

Going back to my unchallenged point about the bare legs of the ladies in George's photo. It is unlikely that the photograph was taken before 1930 because of this important social factor.

Philip contacted experts in historical clothing styles and had them estimate a date before they knew what year the photos in the album were taken. They certainly didn't say it had to be taken after the 1930s, so I'm not sure why you expect us to take your word over theirs.

[Suzi]

Talkin' of sleep- I've got mi 4d! Off to Crossinghams me! Catch up tomorrow- if I'm spared!

[anna]

Captain Jack.....IMHO,those were not wimmin.....those,were "Young ladies"!!!

Probably about 14years old,I'd say..

They had the typical"black dress with white apron over" outfit,that is depicted for children of that era in storybooks.

My fathers sister Hetty (who was killed from falling from a hayloft while they were playing,as children)was 14 years old in the only picture we have of her just before she died..and she looks almost identical to these two girls.

The two older women in the photo...one amongst the group on the left which included these two young ladies..and the lady at the back of the photo,both have long dresses with long coats over.

I would like to point out this is from memory,so if there are more females in the picture..blame it on my years,and the fact that it was a bit difficult to view all the assembled characters.

I also have a photograph of people on an outing to the seaside,circa 1900.(and there are people of all ages,standing in a large group).
ANNA.

[Cap'n Jack]

Well folks we were obviously looking at different photos, and the lady I saw on the left in a flimsy white frock up to her knees was just a figment of my imagination.
But you know what? When I go back to the original thread in which this photo was introduced - the US conference thread - I feel like throwing up when I read the crass comments of people who had already seen the photo pretending that they hadn't seen the photo, and yes Monty I mean you, and others, and I do wonder whether you really believe that the ordinary users of this site are so ******* stupid as you appear to imagine?
I don't like this kind of co-ordinated bullshit, and comfortable bullying, that you lot employ; and I aim to send it back to you.
What a load of ******* shite and twaddle this photo is.

[Natalie Severn]

re: the cobbles or sets

Ap,
I was quite interested in the issue of cobbles or sets you raised.It would be interesting to know the detail of when Dutfields Yard was "recobbled" or "re-setted".I think the date Philip gave when major buildings work was going on - 1892-sounds a likely possibilty.
However, English road surfacing by the council or the Government was mainly confined to main roads and often did not include minor roads let alone a small passage way such as Dutfields Yard.So if the passage and yard were recobbled/re-setted in 1892 it would most likely have been paid for by the landlord who probably owned the whole of Dutfields Yard and let various sections off.It would have been unlikely to have been done collectively because few of those who used it could have afforded it.England still has many "unadopted" small access roads which are rutted and muddy in wet weather and the reason is due to the significant expense entailed .
It would probably be very easy to get the information about when re-cobbling took place from the Public Records Offices.It may even have been connected to the "renaming" of the road from Berner to Henriques Street, because of the murder happening there and the murder site itself may have generated similar attention from the local authority

[Cap'n Jack]

Actually Natalie, I found the reports in the press - some years ago and now lost, or lost in the archives - about the resurfacing of Berner Street, and it did not include the private dwellings at all.
As you would expect.
Like as the local council is resurfacing the road outside your house, and you ask them to do your driveway while they are at it?

[Natalie Severn]

Well....exactly.
No Ap,I am with you on this one----and as you may know I have been just as appalled as you by all this ghastly ----and you are right----bullying type behaviour.Others have noted it.Lots don"t post anymore---maybe thats the idea-----Oh well -----!
no big deal!

[Cap'n Jack]

Here is another photo of one of the murder sites, Dorset Street, taken in the same year as George's photo, 1900.
Anyone see the difference?

[George Hutchinson]

Ha! AP has finally cracked and is crying into his brandy - still, after three requests, refusing to answer my question about his psyche.

Keep on keepin' on, AP. The more you scream the more everyone tuts. You have lost it, man. Totally. All you do is show everyone what you are.

On the left, there are two little girls in smock dresses, maybe about 12. One nearest the camera is eating something. Both their skirts are knee-length and they are wearing dark stockings underneath. Further up on that side, one woman is looking up the yard. Her skirt is ankle length. The Jewish woman smiling at the camera has an ankle length skirt. There's half a woman visible at the back. Her skirt virtually touches the floor. There are three skirts in this photo that are not full length, and they are all worn by children.

Now, I wonder how I knew that? Oh hang on - it must be because I have a huge and sharp blow up of the photo in front of me and have been studying this image for eleven months. Still, AP, pissed as a newt as always and screaming crap for the sake of getting attention, knows better than everyone else because he saw a small 4 x 3 inch low-res pixelated image on a screen with overprints and lines added for a minute or so.

Tom - there is absolutely no reason why you weren't shown the picture as such and I'm glad you have seen this to be the case. As a matter of fact, I did make enquiries with some people once it was authenticated if I should let you know about it because of all your work on it (and I recommended and quoted from your Dutfields Yard piece in RN #27 in my talk) and the reply was not to. Not because it was you, but because no one else should know. It was authenticated and enough people knew about it already, and you were not the only one who I felt might have a vested interest in knowing and didn't know. The whole purpose of keeping it hush-hush was simply so it would have a fine old impact at the Conference, which it did.

Feel free to PM me - you know I have no issues with you.

Hell of a lot of troll spam on this thread. Adults? Not really. Dysfunctional and maladjusted social misfits are certainly making themselves known, however.

AP and Trevor - let me make something clear to you. Impossible, I know. I couldn't give a **** what either of you think because you're both wrong. No ideas, no theories, no convictions. You're just wrong. All you are doing is wasting bandwidth. Still, if it keeps you from cooking up more bizarre concepts for the academic fraternity to laugh at in Trevor's case, or stops the unwarranted and incessant bullying of others in AP's case, then what care I?

Oh, Trevor - quick question. You had all these autopsies conducted to show the difficulty in obtaining body parts. Fair enough. Your answer is that the mortuary attendant stole those body parts at the mortuary to sell on to medical schools. Two little issues there... medical specimens were available for FREE in such cases and you are referring to bodies taken to THREE different mortuarys; Annie Chapman's remains went to Whitechapel, Catherine Eddowes to Golden Lane and Mary Kelly to Shoreditch.

Quite a conspiracy you uncovered there! Three unrelated mortuary attendants stole body parts JUST from Ripper victims at three different mortuarys and no one else so they could sell on things that could be obtained for nothing.

Trevor strikes gold again, goes off on the lecture circuit, updates his website with more wonderful information about himself, publishes yet another book of the same stuff (three lots of updates, wasn't it, Trevor, if you include your latest effort) and rolls in the money. Just the kind of person AP would loathe were it not for the fact one is as barking mad as the other.

PHILIP

[Natalie Severn]

God this guy gets his knickers in such a twist.We"ll have to rename him Hysterical Horace Hutchinson!