Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Ash]

Simon, the IWEC is not jutting out. This must be something you are seeing in a lo-res small copy. It is absolutely flush with the rest of the building in the original and hi-res enlargements

I think I can clear ths one up, because I thought the same thing the first time I saw the photo. It is because on the wall, below the cross-beam, there is a distinct black line running directly downwards. Just back from this the wall is plastered rather than bare brick, again the line running directly downwards. This can, initially, have the illusion of making the wall appear to jut out at right angles where the first line is, and then turn in again where the plaster begins. However, it is clear from the fact that the black line does not extend all the way down, and there is no change in the line of the brickwork, that this is merely an illusion and not actually the case.

[Sam Flynn]

How do you get a wheel rut in cobbles?

How do you get cobbles on a patch of uncobbled yard, though, AP? 12 years or so, and a few fresh cobbles, might do the trick.

Alternatively:

How to restore the cobbled splendour that lies beneath a veneer of mud? 12 years or so, and a sturdy brush, might do the trick.

[Natalie Severn]

Dear Ap,
Do you mean Philip landed himself in some great elephant trap then?

[Cap'n Jack]

Cobbles, George, cobbles, that's all I've got to say to you.
How do you get a wheel rut in cobbles?
The clothing is also definitely not period, women with bare legs an' all; and at best I would say this is one of those Berlin photos that have been featured on this site before, at worst a bad montage, or even a film set.
I think you been done, boy.

[Ash]

Hi Monty,

Blackwell, Lamb, Eagle all verify each other?

Please see my post #197.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon (and Trevor except he's sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING)

Actually no, they do verify each other. When Blackwell arrived at the yard, the gates were closed, hence his description of the feet being around three yards from the gate (estimated) as opposed to just a few feet from the swing of the gate.

[Monty]

AP,

Barmy geographical nonsense?

Robs initial, and logical, reaction was Backchurch Lane. However, like any good researcher he reviewed and ascertained his first thougths were wrong and revised his conclusion.

The yard matches given descriptions, the rooftops tie in with contemporary maps and photos, yet you question without presenting any fact contradicting Robs work.

Put up time.

[George Hutchinson]

A sweet meadow of hay, sometimes blighted by huge great piles of cow crap, AP. And I don't mean Rob.

PHILIP

[Cap'n Jack]

Speaking as an old woman, I must say that I am still not happy with Rob's abrupt swerve in skylining the background of this image as firstly Back Church Lane, and then later as Gower Walk.
This appears to show some wishful thinking.
These massive warehouses that dominated the skyline of this particular part of the East End of London were all much of a muchness; and I think it slightly dodgy to claim that any particular warehouse could justify the claim that this image originated from a specific location, and not any other.
Rob has already demonstrated the fragile nature of such identification, when applied to a specific location.
I have no problem with the image, but I do have a problem with the vague and irregular efforts to justify the image through barmy geographical nonsense.
I also think we choke on hay when there is a whole sweet meadow of grass out there.
So choke away, but just keep the noise down.

[Dan Norder]

What I meant by my post is that the people who are having a go at this are also amongst the people who were against this other site.

Well, I think most everyone here was against that other site (some of it being a bit over the top, although the site owner remaining mysteriously anonymous for so long didn't help things any). On the other hand, certainly the people attacking you in this thread do seem to make a habit of criticizing most everything that they are not involved in and were probably among the most worked up of those complaining about Spiro's boards.

It was in no way a slight on people who were not invited onto this other site.

Well, of course I didn't think you intended it that way, but I'd hate to think anyone would associate the kind of behavior you were complaining about with everyone who was not asked to join that site.

[Dan Norder]

More to the point, you are breaking the rules;

4. Don't deliberately stray off topic

For crying out loud, you were the one who posted here solely to try to advance your own agenda in favor of the Sept. 17th letter instead of what the thread was about. Don't try to blame me for what you did. You're like the guy who killed his parents and then asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan. I was the one saying people should get back on topic, and I was only clarifying what you were up to for people who couldn't tell so they wouldn't waste more time wondering what it had to do with this thread.

[George Hutchinson]

Richard, I am in regular contact with the seller. He is an old man in the US who knew nothing about the Ripper. He took the image out of an album from 1900 and, along with others, listed what it said underneath the photograph.

I'm not wasting any more of my time on this. When people have serious questions, ask me. Caz, I think, put it perfectly above.

Dan, I was not intending to offend any innocent party. I was invited to join this exclusive site and I never did so. I asked Spiro why certain people, such as Rob, whom I class as better researchers than I, hadn't been invited as well and didn't get a sufficient answer. What I meant by my post is that the people who are having a go at this are also amongst the people who were against this other site. I was commenting that these people may well be making comments out of jealousy and nothing more. It was in no way a slight on people who were not invited onto this other site.

As for Trevor, those viewpoints won't wash. He is forever squirming his way out of questions of a pertinant nature by saying 'It's just my opinion'. I had felt it, although frustrating, slightly endearing when concerning theory. When it comes to refuting ascertained fact, it is just worthless.

I have spent far too much time on this today when I've only just got home and am out of the UK again for a week from Saturday. The mindset of some people here has shown me why we are, as an entire community, seen as oddballs because of the actions of the few.

PHILIP

[richardnunweek]

Hello Suzi,
Did not many influencial people initially believe in the 'Hitler Diarys',?
Did not many influencial people initially accept that 'Maybricks Diary' could be authentic?
We therefore should we not, accept that many people on site, will have some reservations at least initially, on its authenticity especially because of the way that Philip obtained it.?
Regards Richard.

[Suzi]

We've been through all this Richard!!! I'm going with the guys who know here- a lucky strike that's my view- and Thank Gawd we've got the guys who can sort the proverbial chaff - and have the good sense to roll with the punches!!!! (AND there's been the odd one or two of them!)

Suzi x

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
There is aweful lot of bullets flying around on this thread, my initial reaction was to give a personal opinion why Philip should post the picture on site rather then keep it under wraps, I had no need to concern myself as he intended to do just that.
Thanks Philip.
As to its originality, I along with the majority of Casebook have to rely on the more gifted researchers, I will therefore trust their judgement.
However I remember glancing at a alleged photo of Millers court , and convincing myself it was the real mcCoy, only for it to be rejected after much discussion.
My only doubt is the photograph being advertised on E-bay, stating that this was a location of a murder spot, and the owner allowing such a find to go for such a ludricous sum....talk about sale of the century.
Surely any person of sound mind realizing they had a picture of a 'Ripper' murder spot would have rubbed his hands of possible 'Rich pickins', and gone for substancially more?.
Unless of course its another clever hoaxer who wanted to come across as some dumbo, and is now sitting back and enjoying all this bickering,ie 'Is it or isnt it?.
Best Regards
Richard.

[Natalie Severn]

For a moment I thought I was going to see three quite different names on the next line!

Sorry,no such luck Chris! Have"nt finished with them yet!