Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Sam Flynn]

This is not an image of a murder site. It is an image of people in a yard.

There's a definitive way of photographing the scene of a tragedy, is there? I wasn't aware of that, AP. The next time I visit a historic site, I'll keep an eye out for tourists who pose in front of the camera and tell them that what they should be doing is taking a photo of an empty field.

As far as I can recall, the purported Dutfield's Yard photograph was taken more as a souvenir to be included in a private album, rather than for police purposes, nor as an illustration intended for a book or magazine.

True crime-scene photographs are a different kettle of fish. It wouldn't have been the done thing to have had McCarthy, Barnett, Bowyer and others grinning into the camera as it captured Dew falling flat on his arse in 13 Miller's Court.

[Ally]

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...

Alleged? You mean like the allegation that he has a photo of Dutfield's without it being open to public scrutiny? Why isn't Philip being held to the burden of proof?

Is there any proof that the photographer WASN'T led to the wrong place? The street over? One street across, whatever? We don't know what has determined the dating, so no way of knowing this. Have you met the seller to determine whether he was a hoaxer or not? Do we even know who he is? How he got the album? Have you seen a photo of the album Philip claims to possess? Or the album itself?


If this were ANY new poster, would we just swallow that the album was in existence? Why are you doing it because it's Phil? Why do you say oh well that's fine, we'll just believe him? Why are the questioners under scrutiny here rather than the person making the claim? It is up to Philip to prove that what he has is genuine just as it would be for anyone else who came on these boards and made a claim. When did questioning someone who makes claims of evidence and refuses to provide any documentation or open his find up to scrutiny become a bad thing?

Who died and made Philip immune from the burden of proof? Once again, we chase newbies off these boards at least 4 times a year for doing EXACTLY what Philip is doing--making claims of evidence without providing it. I don't really care if it is Stewart Evans, Phil Hutchinson or Stephen Ryder...if you make a claim and refuse to provide evidence or open your find to the burden of public scrutiny, then no, people are not required to believe you or just take you at your word.

[jmenges]

Philip can do whatever the hell he wants with his photo. He can claim it contains the face of Jesus. But when one is publicly accused of perpetrating a hoax, it becomes a tort. Libel.

Therefore, I bow out of this discussion.

JM

[Ally]

Nice dodge. But the fact is that not even AP has claimed anyone has perpetuated a hoax ( although of course he is alluding to it). But that's because AP is a moron and likes to make wild and outlandish claims.

But since you were responding to my post, not APs I'll say the photo not being a hoax doesn't preclude it not being of Dutfield's yard. And until the photo is up for public scrutiny and investigation, people are free to speculate about whatever they wish. Including the possibility that it is a hoax.

Where was the outrage when several dozen newbies were accused of perpetuating hoaxes for doing exactly what Phil has done? No one wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to them or try to scare off questions of their validity by bringing up the possibility of lawsuits over the "libeling" of their good name.

[Sam Flynn]

Philip is going to publish this photograph in a booklet, is he not? If and when he does, we will be in a better position to comment upon it.

[The Grave Maurice]

Sigh. New year, but the same old pointless debates. Wait for the book, for heaven's sake.

[George Hutchinson]

I would like to direct Ally Ryder to the podcast in which she actually took part for a discussion as to the evidence behind this album, provenance, dating et al. I am not making further comment as I have clarified things again and again and again. I am certainly not responding to individuals who have dug their own graves.

PHILIP

[Ally]

Hiya Phil,

I don't remember any names or any facts that could be checked and verified being mentioned in the podcast, but I will accept I may be wrong on that and go listen again for any names or actual facts or details that can be independently verified.

But the bottom line is still: until the photo and the evidence is presented for ALL to publicly scrutinize and come to a conclusion, then no one's opinion, even my own matters to those who haven't had the "rare fortune" of being among the chosen to view it.

[Cap'n Jack]

Ah, 'tis a 'booklet' now is it?
Well shiver me old timbers.
I war 'specting a book.
Meantime I'll just dig the grave and wait for someone to fall in.
I've made it portly.

[Suzi]

Ah, 'tis a 'booklet' now is it?
Well shiver me old timbers.
I war 'specting a book.
Meantime I'll just dig the grave and wait for someone to fall in.
I've made it portly.

.....or spit in it maybe........................

[steje73]

I've not seen the photo in question, but I think on the whole it's more likely to be genuine. I'm withholding judgement until the book comes out.
Is there a release date yet?

[Cap'n Jack]

Was it JM who made the simply marvelous suggestion that George should throw a few of the other photos from the album up here on site, so that a fair comparison could be made of the images?
Sterling idea I reckon.
I'm sure that the album contains a lot more images from around the streets of London than just this one vexatious item, so if George popped 'em up here one would be able to compare the dress of the folks; the focus of the images and... well, much much more besides.
I'm agog.

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm not very sure of the rights and wrongs here...however I think that whatever your feelings we should give Philip the benefit of the doubt ( Not that I doubt philip) but I simply see know reason why he should miss-lead, he is after all a master of facts and Photos.

Using technology may on occassion create discreponcy but accussing honset people of wrong doing is not my style, and it worries me how much pain such accusations may course.

Pirate

[Monty]

AP

Scrutiny by whom?

[Stephen Thomas]

I think that whatever your feelings we should give Philip the benefit of the doubt ( Not that I doubt philip) but I simply see know reason why he should miss-lead, he is after all a master of facts and Photos.

Hi Pirate

And other experts in old photos and maps like Rob, John, Jake, RJM and Monty would, I'm sure, have been all too happy to demonstrate that the photo is not genuine but they didn't. Philip showed me the photo recently and it matches the old illustrations perfectly, so much so that it could probably have been identified as Dutfields Yard even without the 'Scene of Whitechapel Murder' title. The distinctive workshop with the wooden steps at the back of the yard can be clearly seen, as can that grated cellar window that the body was found in front of.

Stephen