Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Sam Flynn]

I'd go with that, Limehouse - in fact, I see not so much a "blurred" background as a "washed-out" one. This could have been due to over-exposure or subsequent bleaching of what was already a light part of the photograph.

[Cap'n Jack]

This is the essential problem with research when it is led by an income based motive to actually make money from that research. One hands around the said material to a few close friends to be investigated and researched with a view to validation... god forbid that anyone gets their hands on it who might say 'hang on a minute, boys, this ain't quite Kosher'.
Working in a strictly limited environment these friends can reach no other conclusion other than the one they want to reach. And they don't much like it when someone intrudes into their select and private little world with some serious objections to their shared beliefs.
This is what we have seen happen on this thread; and many have sprung to the defence of George's personality, integrity and character... but we discuss an image here, not a person.
Trust me, when this image is subjected to the intensive study of a limitless and free thinking peer group, it will not hold water.

[Suzi]

This is quite bizarre isn't it- people who HAVE seen and people who HAVEN'T.... As one who HAS seen- all else aside- it's a GREAT picture with no apparant 'blurring' of any shape or form!
.......... Who would this limitless and free thinking peer group be though AP ?

[m_w_r]

This is the essential problem with research when it is led by an income based motive to actually make money from that research. ...
Trust me, when this image is subjected to the intensive study of a limitless and free thinking peer group, it will not hold water.

Give it a rest, AP. Of those people I know who have actually seen the photo, or at the very least a significantly better copy than the low-res internet one, precisely none has anything to gain from knowingly perpetrating or perpetuating a hoax at the expense of the community, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

I had promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in this, but it seems to me that you're making a damn fool of yourself now, and it'd probably be humane if you gave up wasting bandwidth on this specious campaign of yours.

Regards,

Mark

[Cap'n Jack]

It is dinosaurs that I want put to rest.
I'm not suggesting a hoax of any nature, I'm merely stating that I find the image implausible for a variety of reasons.
Some of which are:
The surfacing of the yard itself does not fit any known circumstance of the yard. It is wrong.
The clothing of the sitters shows far too much flesh for the year.
The girl in white appears to have been transported from another age or time. She doesn't fit the image.
The buildings in the background can not possibly be in Gower Walk.
The focus of the image does not appear to fit a camera of the time.
The image is supposed to be of a murder site, but people are obscuring that murder site.

The first time I saw this image my instant reaction was:
'No way, Jose'.

[John Bennett]

This is the essential problem with research when it is led by an income based motive to actually make money from that research.

Well, I don't believe for a minute that Philip's intention to bring this find to light was a move to make money.

One hands around the said material to a few close friends to be investigated and researched with a view to validation... god forbid that anyone gets their hands on it who might say 'hang on a minute, boys, this ain't quite Kosher'.

I think you're wrong again. I'm sure that if any of those individuals who saw the original had misgivings about it, they would have said so, straight up.

Working in a strictly limited environment these friends can reach no other conclusion other than the one they want to reach. And they don't much like it when someone intrudes into their select and private little world with some serious objections to their shared beliefs.

Mmm. Considering we're all working around a series of events that took place over a century ago, I'd say we're ALL working in a strictly limited environment. And that includes your good self, AP.

Trust me, when this image is subjected to the intensive study of a limitless and free thinking peer group, it will not hold water.

Trust me, I think it will.

[Monty]

It has been validated by an open minded group John. We know Rob, if he thinks youre talking bullocks he would tell you, and straight. What AP is failing to grasp is that Philip has approached certain independant individuals who have no ties to the case, his cronies or himself, and taken their opinion.

[John Bennett]

It has been validated by an open minded group John. We know Rob, if he thinks youre talking bullocks he would tell you, and straight.

He certainly would.

AP just said that "I'm not suggesting a hoax of any nature", so why all the crap about 'photoshop' earlier on?

This guy twists and turns like a twisty-turny thing.

[Ally]

Sorry but I need to jump in again. In fact the photo has NOT been validated. It is the opinion of those who have seen it that it is of Dutfield's yard, but the opinion that something is genuine is not enough to make it a fact.

And while Philip may well have approached independent individuals to confirm details, until we know the credentials of these individuals, their actual findings, etc, all of it is again mere speculation and opinion.

We are talking about a photograph. While Rob might definitely say balls if he didn't think it was of Dutfield's court, his opinion that it is of Dutfield's is merely an opinion.

Until the photo and the evidence is presented, it is not validated at all. It is merely opinions of people who have seen it, making their opinions known.

Why precisely are we expected to take on faith that this is Dutfield's yard, when the person who possesses the photograph refuses to make it public, refuses to open it up to scrutiny and is guarding the "knowns" tightly to his chest?

We constantly have people come on the boards and say that they have this and that evidence related to Mary Kelly or some other aspect of the case, and when they fail to present the evidence in a timely manner for public scrutiny they are ridiculed and mocked off the boards.

If it were a newbie doing this, they would be soundly castigated for the "tease" that has gone on with regards to this photo and no one would be taking the claim at all seriously, with only low-res and shoddy glimpses available for scrutiny. The behavior is the behavior regardless of the person doing it.

I accept that Monty, Rob, Phil and whomever else fervently believe this is the genuine article and it most probably is exactly what it is claimed to be. But until it is open to public scrutiny, with the evidence presented, no, it has not been validated anymore than any other claim of evidence that the possessor refuses to present to the public. And people are right to doubt it.

[jmenges]

Sorry but I need to jump in again. In fact the photo has NOT been validated. It is the opinion of those who have seen it that it is of Dutfield's yard, but the opinion that something is genuine is not enough to make it a fact.

But it was the opinion of the photographer herself that she was taking a photograph of a Whitechapel murder site. She captioned it as such in her album. Along with captioning other sites she visited in London.

So either the photographer was led to the wrong place, the dating of the photograph is wrong (despite strong evidence to the contrary), the seller was a hoaxer, or the album that Philip claims to possess does not exist. What else is there?

Let's get down to brass tacks about what is being alleged here...

JM

Edit- not that Ally is alleging anything, but the possibilities in general need expression for this discussion to even make sense.

[Sam Flynn]

It is dinosaurs that I want put to rest.

I thought some already had, AP. Namely:

"The surfacing of the yard itself does not fit any known circumstance of the yard. It is wrong." -- Any known circumstance of the yard... when? The photo was apparently taken over a decade after 1888, during which time it could have been resurfaced two or three times over. Alternatively, the surface might have been there in 1888, but covered over with mud and horse-manure. Either way, one can't criticise the image on the basis of the surface being "wrong", when we don't really know what the "right" surface looked like in 1888.

"The clothing of the sitters shows far too much flesh for the year." -- As I recall, there was only one participant in the photograph with a skirt above ankle-level (even then, not by much) and that was a young girl. As others have suggested, on several occasions, there's nothing in the attire of the subjects that would be incongruous with a date of c. 1900 (nor even out of place in 1888 as far as I'm aware).

"The girl in white appears to have been transported from another age or time. She doesn't fit the image." -- Really? (See previous answer.)

"The focus of the image does not appear to fit a camera of the time." -- In your view, AP. However others have disagreed, and have given plausible reasons for their stance.

"The image is supposed to be of a murder site, but people are obscuring that murder site." -- The participants, whether accidentally or on purpose, appeared to have been standing well clear of the area where the body would have been found. Besides, it's a narrow passageway - so where else were they supposed to have stood?

"The first time I saw this image my instant reaction was: 'No way, Jose'." -- That's fair enough, and possibly the only legitimate reason you've advanced so far. Bearing this in mind, it would rather appear that the only thing that you need to put to sleep is a dinosaur of your own making.

Now putting a dinosaur to sleep requires a large amount of Horlick's, so give us a shout if you need any help in stirring it. Even someone with stirring skills as formidable as yours might find it a bit of a struggle, AP

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam
I advice you to take a tour of the Photo Archive here on site, click on 'murder sites', and then see the trouble that photographers have taken since 1888 to make sure that there are no people obscuring murder sites which they have travelled to in an effort to present an image of that murder site. I think Rob and John would be able to help you here.
This is not an image of a murder site. It is an image of people in a yard.
I have yet to hear of one evidential piece of material that detracts from my misgivings about this image, and I await such with pleasure.
In regard to the resufacing of the yard I have shown good and clean purpose up to the date claimed for this image why such would not have taken place.
I stand by my guns.

Surely, JM, George has already admitted that the image has taken a turn through Photoshop to smarten it up?

[jmenges]

Surely, JM, George has already admitted that the image has taken a turn through Photoshop to smarten it up?

I believe he said that the area around the edges of the photo were damaged due to contact with the photo on the opposite page in the album, and he repaired those damages. Nothing more.

You may deny it, but to me it is plain that you are insinuating that Philip Hutchinson has perpetrated a hoax, and I will have no part of a discussion that goes in that direction. It is shameful for you to make those accusations with zero evidence to back them up.

Each time I believe that you have hit rock bottom, you find ways of sinking even lower.

Happy New Year,

JM

[Cap'n Jack]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limehouse
I don't know what my opinion is worth as I am not a very gifted photographer or even very technically minded but to me, the blurring of the buildings in the background could be due to sunlight pouring through a gap in the buildings and hitting the buildings that seem to face into the court, or could possibly be due to smoke from a bonfire or chimmney - or even mist.

This post gave John the opportunity to confirm that there was indeed and in fact a blurring or even bleaching of the background in the image, but he chose instead to deny and dismiss it... little knowing, I suspect, that such confirmation of bleaching could be the essential key to identifying the image as genuine, or not.
But John has stated that there is absolutely no blurring or bleaching of the image in its background. Shame, that was the last train outta 'ere.

[John Bennett]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limehouse
I don't know what my opinion is worth as I am not a very gifted photographer or even very technically minded but to me, the blurring of the buildings in the background could be due to sunlight pouring through a gap in the buildings and hitting the buildings that seem to face into the court, or could possibly be due to smoke from a bonfire or chimmney - or even mist.

This post gave John the opportunity to confirm that there was indeed and in fact a blurring or even bleaching of the background in the image, but he chose instead to deny and dismiss it... little knowing, I suspect, that such confirmation of bleaching could be the essential key to identifying the image as genuine, or not.
But John has stated that there is absolutely no blurring or bleaching of the image in its background. Shame, that was the last train outta 'ere.

That's because there isn't any blurring or bleaching of the background of the image. I'm looking at it now.

You obviously have this idea in your head how the picture looks (or looked when you saw the little lo-res version). And it seems very different from what I'm looking at.