Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Ally]

I don't have to justify anything I did and I have no regrets about the way it was done whatsoever and I do actually resent the suggestion that this thread is all about 'me'. I can hardly be held responsible for other people choosing to say 'well done' (and yes, it was quite obvious that some of your posts were trying to defer that).

Hiya Phil,

You are absolutely right, you don't have to justify what you did. But you are here doing that. I realize you may resent the suggestion that this thread is all about you, but in the last two weeks or so, every time the photograph comes up, in chat, in PMs in email, the conversation is all about you and how the photo was presented and not about the photo at all. As for people saying well done, and me trying to "defer" that, you may think whatever you like, but if you don't know by now that people say one thing to your face and quite another behind your back in this business, then you don't know Ripperology.

Because I say to your face exactly what I say behind your back, you may well see it as trying to defer your well wishes. So be it. You say that my way isn't necessarily the "right" way. True. There is no "right" way in something like this, but let's look at the results of your way. You made it about you and your ego so whacks like AP, who like nothing better than deflating the egos of pompous Ripperologists, has now made it his mission to prove its a fraud whether it is or not. Anyone who has questioned the photo has been roundly insulted by you. And the method of the photo presentation is what's being discussed, and your actions, NOT the photo itself. So yep, my way may not have been the right way, but I stand by my original point: it is useless to attempt to have a meaningful conversation about a photograph that no one has seen. Of course, pretty soon, everyone will have seen it regardless, so, that'll be resolved.

[Robert]

"I have made it clear from the outset - and I repeated it last night - that I was just lucky to have been in the right place at the right time."

Not quite true, Philip. A spectator once told Gary Player that he was lucky to have made a certain shot, to which the answer was, "Yes, and funny thing is, the more I practice, the luckier I get."

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Ally

If you didn't want to reveal the photo, then you shouldn't have started a thread.

As I've said again and again, someone else would have done. Better from the horse's mouth. If you don't agree on this, there's an impasse.

Peer pressure isn’t an excusable reason for doing anything.

Quite, but within the context of this issue I disagree. Maybe if someone is pushing smack it might be a different situation, but researchers who I know on this site and largely get on with, who are disgruntled they can't see it, is more an indication of placation rather than weakness.

...you would have been perfectly within your rights to draw your line, say, “I have no wish to discuss this publicly at this time as I am not in a position to reveal the photo to the general public”.

I was certainly within my rights to say I won't discuss it, to which people would say "Why?" but I most certainly could not lie and say I am not in a position to reveal it. I could have done so at any time if I'd felt like it, but I wanted to save it for Knoxville.

...when you are doing your “I have a very special photo and no you can’t see it schtick”, it comes off badly.

People could have seen it if they'd gone to Knoxville. People did see it there. People on this site had seen it. I never, ever said you can't see it - I said it wouldn't be YET. Some people have interpreted this as trying to give a big show build-up. I don't see it that way. The build-up way would have been announcing all over the place before it was revealed that I had something, or setting up websites. I don't NEED to self-promote. Plenty of decent people on here do it for me, though God knows why.

Now if you had a book that would be published in the next month and you were teasing for a brief time to get excitement up pre-launch, a month away, that would be annoying, but excusable. But when there is no book even close to publication and you are still saying I have it and you'll just have to wait...bad form.

That's fair enough, but in the event that is not how it ended and I would be surprised if anyone would suggest I should rush the book to get it out to placate people. I also deem the point you're making irrelevant because, as I keep saying, someone would have mentioned the fact it exists anyway. By mentioning the fact I'll be doing a book I am explaining both WHY it's not freely available and WHY there will be a wait.

I wouldn't blame others for "pressuring" you to post. No one held a gun to your head. In the end it was your choice, both to start the thread and to post the photo. If you hadn't posted the photo, for the reasons explained above, you were of course going to come off looking like a total kak. But you still could have made the choice not to.

So damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I would have thought it over and if I decided my rights were what was most vital to me in the presentation of this photo...

Did that.

...watermarked the puppy...

Did that.

...with my name in big letters...

Hmm - slight contradiction from your whole gist?

...once I was done presenting at the conference, gone online and said, Hey just got done with my lecture, it was on my find of the dutfield’s yard photo, here’s the photo, and posted it.

But I didn't want it seen until the book was done. The watermarking idea and lo-res placing on a site that could only be saved as a screen shot was the result of several people's ideas - including Stephen - after it was all over and there was a stink starting. All this suggests is that you would have done what I eventually did immediately and not have waited a whole few days. Maybe I am less worldy-wise than I thought for thinking all the people here would respect my choice. My fault for not having a reputation for fighting with everyone and consequently assuming that no one had issues when it came to this.

...none of the game playing that made the story for days about you and not about what was actually important: The photo.

There you go again trying to construct some self-promotion case that did not exist. If I've spoken about myself on this thread, it's been answering questions or allegations like yours. Sorry that I can't just let things like this go.

The whole “show it and withdraw it” is ludicrous. And pointless. People have copied it, people will pass it back and forth.

But less than would have done otherwise by a constantly placed downloadable jpeg. The idea to make it 24 hours wasn't mine but when I heard it I thought it was a great one. It would please the people who'd been asking to see it and were getting irksome and would then allow me to keep it under wraps again until I had finished my research. My choice. No apologies.

I know of people who have gotten copies of the GOOD version of the photo from various people and of course, they have all been told not to tell anyone and not to pass it on.

Yep, but that's a risk you take when getting help from people to authenticate it. I can think of someone right now who saw it and wasn't supposed to, but I would have been foolish indeed to have thought it wouldn't have happened in that case. My shortfalling here was that I sent it to a few people who I class as close friends as an e-gift of some sort besides just those to research it. Again, it's in the balance if that was right or wrong because I wouldn't like to have been thought of badly for not including them.

You can’t keep a lid on something you sent to a dozen people in the year leading up to its release.

And yet we did.

Everyone knows you showed it to half the world of Ripperology...

My, I had no idea it was such a small circle.

...so they feel quite comfortable passing it along, especially now that the news is out, secure in the knowledge that you can’t really track back who got it from whom.

My faith in friendship is a little stronger than yours.

There are a few people who have something to lose if they break trust with people in the community, so they won’t pass it on, but most people don’t really have anything to lose.

This reads more like a slap to the people I showed it to than a slight towards me.

If they passed along the photo, what would happen to them? You’d be mad at them. That’s about it. That’s not really going to keep the vast majority of people from passing it around. And the further it gets from the source, you, the less reticent people will be about passing it on. It’s only a matter of time til someone posts the image somewhere. It’s going to happen. And with the amount of good copies circulating out there, there’s no guarantee it will have your name watermarked on it.

Judging from the reception some of the comments on here have had from those who were privy to it before Knoxville, I have a feeling that ranks have been closed more than they now feel happy to let everyone see it.

You are absolutely right, you don't have to justify what you did. But you are here doing that.

Yep. Your point being? Now it's wrong to answer allegations?

I realize you may resent the suggestion that this thread is all about you, but in the last two weeks or so, every time the photograph comes up, in chat, in PMs in email, the conversation is all about you and how the photo was presented and not about the photo at all.

But you're making out like it's me that's doing it! If someone asked me a sensible question about the bleeding thing then I answered it. I didn't put a post up every time someone came up and said 'Well done'. Yeah, I like positive attention - you'd have to be a bit dysfunctional not to - but I don't like the idea of trying to obtain it rather than it just coming to you.

As for people saying well done, and me trying to "defer" that, you may think whatever you like, but if you don't know by now that people say one thing to your face and quite another behind your back in this business, then you don't know Ripperology.

Again, this sounds like a slight on the people I've told. I would expect a few to sometimes moan about some things I do, but I would not expect people in this field I regard as friends to be badmouthing me as a person. You and I have different opinions on how people treat other people. I wonder why that is?

You made it about you and your ego...

This is just crap.

Anyone who has questioned the photo has been roundly insulted by you.

Anyone who denied its authenticity and suggested that all the researchers who have studied the original and untampered large scans at length are less-well placed than themselves to comment on a short-placed, lo-res, overprinted view has had... ooh, let's see... pretty much everyone on this site telling them they're an arse. Yep, that includes me. I don't think you're really on a moral high ground to be speaking about insulting people at ANY time, Ally, seeing as 95% of your posts are simply there to pull people down. This is why I was so taken aback when you sent me a PM when I was rushed into hospital earlier this year - I was amazed that you could be nice when you wanted to be.

And the method of the photo presentation is what's being discussed, and your actions, NOT the photo itself.

And who's doing that?

...it is useless to attempt to have a meaningful conversation about a photograph that no one has seen.

Nope, no one has seen it. No one at all. If you meant that people cannot see it now to discuss it, well you've contradicted your earlier issue about people having made screen shots. There's also the Conference delegates and the people who DO have copies and the point of the thread was, as I put up at the very start, for people to ask about how it turned up, where it's from, research done on it and what can be seen in it.

That's it. I am absolutely not going to answer any more allegations put my way about this image, or what I've done since Knoxville. It's provenance is beyond reproach and I don't think I would have done anything differently if it happened all over again. If people want to ask about the research or the image, ask away. I've answered every question that's been put about it as far as I know and, for my part, the carnival ends here. The grief this thing has given me has virtually eclipsed the pleasure it brought. I hope to God the next person who finds something like this is someone else.

PHILIP

[The Grave Maurice]

My, how you do go on. Take it easy or you're going to blow a gasket. Just forget about all this and go work on your book.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=George Hutchinson;50836]Hi Ally

I was certainly within my rights to say I won't discuss it, to which people would say "Why?" but I most certainly could not lie and say I am not in a position to reveal it. I could have done so at any time if I'd felt like it, but I wanted to save it for Knoxville.

I am not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or missed my point entirely. If you didn't want to release it til your book, then you shouldn't have started speaking about it until the book was ready to be published. A limited release at the conference is fine, but coming on the boards, saying that you have it but you won't show it, is petty.

Hmm - slight contradiction from your whole gist?

again, not entirely sure if you are deliberately and willfully misreading what I write. I said IF I decided my name was the most important thing, that's what I would have done: as an attempt to see if from your perspective, your perspective being that having your name go down with this, for the sake of your ego, was vital to you in the showing of this photo.

But I didn't want it seen until the book was done.

'

Then again, shouldn't have gone on a public forum saying you had it.

There you go again trying to construct some self-promotion case that did not exist. If I've spoken about myself on this thread, it's been answering questions or allegations like yours. Sorry that I can't just let things like this go.

So let me get this straight. You say flat out, over and over, that having your name go down with this photo is vital to you, and that it's all for the sake of your ego, but you have a problem with me saying that there is a case for self-promotion. You don't see that as being at all contradictory? Maybe we have dynamically different ideas of what constitutes self-promotion.

And yet we did.

Er...no you didn't. The only people who didn't know about it were minor players and some people on the boards. Every single major player in Ripperology already knew about it, and the rest probably don't even really care. I heard about if from at least 2 people long before the conference. And neither of them were in the immediate circle.

My faith in friendship is a little stronger than yours.

My recognition and acceptance of human nature is more reality based than yours.

This reads more like a slap to the people I showed it to than a slight towards me.

And that may be. But it's also the truth. And they know it.

This is just crap.

An insightful and fact based rebuttal.

I don't think you're really on a moral high ground to be speaking about insulting people at ANY time, Ally, seeing as 95% of your posts are simply there to pull people down. This is why I was so taken aback when you sent me a PM when I was rushed into hospital earlier this year - I was amazed that you could be nice when you wanted to be.

I can be nice. It's just unfortunate that people nowadays think being nice means saying one thing to a person's face and saving their bitching for behind their back.

And who's doing that?

Honestly, I think you'd be surprised. You should ask around. Maybe they'll even answer you honestly. You don't have to apologize for how you did this, there's nothing really to apologize for. You didn't kill anyone and no one but you has been harmed in this process. But that's not going to prevent people from having opinions about the whole thing. But of course, because people like you think expressing those opinions makes you a bitch, you'll get nothing but praise and well dones to your face. Sorry, I can't do that. You asked me straight out about my opinion on this process so I told you. Ask a few more straight out what they think. Like I said, maybe they'll answer you honestly.

The grief this thing has given me has virtually eclipsed the pleasure it brought. I hope to God the next person who finds something like this is someone else.

Gosh I hope that cross you've got yourself on isn't getting uncomfortable.

[Roy Corduroy]

then you don't know Ripperology.

And I don't care about Ripperology. You want it straight up you got it.

I study the case, thanks to the authors who put in the hard research, the forum members here, and the folks who operate Casebook. That's it. Any fun had is gravy.

Roy

ps Ally, if you want controversy, try opening a casino at Gettysburg.

[Monty]

Ally

Er...no you didn't. The only people who didn't know about it were minor players and some people on the boards. Every single major player in Ripperology already knew about it, and the rest probably don't even really care. I heard about if from at least 2 people long before the conference. And neither of them were in the immediate circle

.

Who are these major players in Ripperology?

And do you care to name those 2 or more people?

Seeing as you have no fear of speaking honestly that is.

Monty says....reaching for his tin titfer.

[Ally]

No, I won't name names and I realize that will just make it look like I am lying. Which is fine; I have nothing real to prove. But I do keep in confidence what is told to me in confidence and the reason I do that is that I am starkly aware of how few people actually do that, usually while telling me, don't tell anyone what I am going to tell you because I am not supposed to tell anyone..

Telling my honest opinion when asked is not the same as ratting someone else out. And off the top of my head with two minutes of thought, I came up with 20 people I KNOW knew about it before the conference and I am pretty sure I read a post about it a while back on the actual boards....so it's not like it was a secret.

[Monty]

So do you condone those that told you?

Youre honest when it comes to your opinion yet refuse to give it straight when asked to reveal the tell tales.

You have little right to that moral high ground you stand on.

[Ally]

Ah, I see. So if I condone people who tell confidences, then I have no right to the moral high ground and to express my condemnation of those who tell confidences, I should myself tell confidences and thereby prove I don't like people who tell confidences. Gee. Morality is so interesting. Which is why I never claim to be moral. There's a difference between morals and ethics and I choose to abide ethically rather than morally.

I can't help what other people choose to do. I can help what I choose to do. And I don't tell confidences.

The fact is moot: I have confirmed that a post did go out on the boards about the photo months ago. So this whole tattletale thing is irrelevant. It wasn't a secret.

[Monty]

I say the tattletale aspect is very relevant to Phil.

Im just quering your judgement of Philip whilst dealing with those that have betrayed him.

Morals are very interesting.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

May I respectfully point out that the horse is dead.

There's no need to flog it anymore.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Simon,
This may be the moment when Robert Anderson and Dr Bond, aka Batman and Robin,put in a [posthumous] appearance and claim the horse is not dead but just pretending to be dead.

[Robert]

Nats, I see Bond more as the Penguin (a flightless bird as Bond's suicide proved) and Anderson as the Riddler (as his remarks on the Polish Jew confirm).

[robhouse]

I havent read this entire thread (at all) but just to clarify...

I was the one who accidentally posted an innocent question re: the dutfields yard photo on the boards a while back. (Something like "Has anyone heard about a new photo of Dutfields Yard?")

This was not at all because I was "In the know"... (apparently in fact I am clearly NOT "In the know"), but rather because I saw another reference to the photo on the message boards... so I asked a simple question about it.

I had no idea that the whole thing was a secret. Phillip PM'ed me, and told me it was, so I emailed Stephen and asked him if he could remove my post, which he did, discreetly.

Rob H