Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[caz]

Hi All,

To be absolutely fair to Philip and to Mac, the former was clearly too tired to see that the latter was doing the opposite of questioning his find, but merely bemoaning the fact that if a researcher stumbles across a ripper letter at the PRO that nobody has ever mentioned before he becomes the recipient of vile emails accusing him of being the devil incarnate, even though he has committed no 'fraud' (in the UK that would imply an attempt to make money out of claiming the letter to be genuine when you know it isn't) and he is not even claiming the letter has any direct relevance to the murders.

In such a person's shoes we all might feel rather bitter, but it doesn't help to extend that bitterness to people who never doubted that the finder of the letter came across it in all innocence, just as Philip came across the photo. And it doesn't help for anyone to judge the finder in either case, because then things can only get personal. Each item must be judged on its own merits. Leave the finders alone.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kelly]

Rob,

You pointed out the angle of those warehouse roofs and provided another photo of them from a different angel didnt you?

I remember them matching the ones on Phils photo.

There is no one who knows the area and its buildings past and present like Rob, Phil, Jake, Colin and John. All have been consulted and all agree.

During his talk, Philip showed several other photos as reference so we could compare the details. The warehouse roofs clearly do match indeed.

[Ally]

To be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR:

To be 100% clear, I have no doubt it's genuine, and I have seen the photo, I just can't remember a damn thing about it....

I will say, sorry Phil, I was disappointed that most of the yard wasn't visible as it was crammed full of people. Think of a narrow alley, with scores of people lining the walls and strip up the middle. Seeing as that is really my only recollection of the photo: a whole lot of people standing in an alley, and you couldn't hardly see the yard, I didn't feel that comment was worthy of the discussion board, since I don't remember enough of it to make any kind of an EDUCATED and well-thought out conversation about it.

That is and remains solely my point: without a photo in front of people to really study, there can't be much genuine discussion. A five minute flash isn't enough to do diddly. Though the photo is no doubt genuine.

[Jewal]

I think most will be pleased when they do get to view the photo tomorrow (?). The composition is beautiful in itself. The clarity is great as I remarked many times to Philip when we were viewing the photo. The Murder site is clearly visible and is nearly centered in the picture. You can't see the rest of the yard as well, because of the people. But the murder site is clearly visible.

As a collector of 19th Century Images myself I appreciate the fact that the people in the picture are wearing clothing that is similar if not the same as what would have been worn 12 years earlier, so it makes it feel very contemporary to the time of the murders. As someone pointed out interestingly... some of the adults in the photo may well have been there at the time of the murder as well. So many of the pictures we have gotten to see have been much later... in the 60s for instance, so being from 1900 makes it that much more interesting to me.

It's quite haunting actually, to see the site so clearly, so few years after the murder... so easy to picture her there. It's amazing really, because of the clarity there are so many details you can see.
like the stop for the gate among the cobblestones for one.

The picture of the photographer is something else as well... Let me just say at least one person gasped when they saw her... quite a dramatic photo.

Congratulations Philip...

[sdreid]

I think I made my position clear - any questions?

[Brenda]

Well, he's getting ready to put the photo up after a nice hibernating sleep, and I for one can't wait. We are going to have honest-to-goodness-photos-don't-lie evidence of what the place looked liked, not an artist's rendition. Never again will we agonize over how many windows were there, how far the drain was from the door, etc. This is a major find.

I dont know Phil personally and I don't comment much, but I have followed these boards for at least 8 years now and through his posts he has proven himself many times over to be honorable. Its hilarious to me that some feel the need to try to stifle congratulations or attempt to minimize the importance of his find.

[Monty]

What interests me is the people in the photo. Obviously workers or locals, its highly possible some were around 12 years previous. Thats quite an odd feeling.

Kelly, thats one of the things that clarified the location, those roofs. To be honest though, its easily identifiable.

[Rob Clack]

Neil,

It was the April 1909 photo of Fairclough Street (taken from Berner Street junction). You can clearly see the Depot in the distance.

Rob

[Natalie Severn]

Hi All,

To be absolutely fair to Philip and to Mac, the former was clearly too tired to see that the latter was doing the opposite of questioning his find, but merely bemoaning the fact that if a researcher stumbles across a ripper letter at the PRO that nobody has ever mentioned before he becomes the recipient of vile emails accusing him of being the devil incarnate, even though he has committed no 'fraud' (in the UK that would imply an attempt to make money out of claiming the letter to be genuine when you know it isn't) and he is not even claiming the letter has any direct relevance to the murders.

In such a person's shoes we all might feel rather bitter, but it doesn't help to extend that bitterness to people who never doubted that the finder of the letter came across it in all innocence, just as Philip came across the photo. And it doesn't help for anyone to judge the finder in either case, because then things can only get personal. Each item must be judged on its own merits. Leave the finders alone.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks Caz for such a fair minded and clearly expressed post. Ofcourse anybody who has ever met and talked with Philip,as I have, knows that he is as honest and decent a person as you could ever meet and a lot of fun too .But some of us have noted that whenever Mac comes on the boards he is treated to really unfair and unpleasant personal attacks by a few people---not Philip I hasten to add.OK people may well be right ,the letter may be a modern hoax, but just trashing the Sept 17th letter,which is after all held in safe keeping by our National Archives,and has been seen by very few people , seems prejudicial and biased.I take note that Stewart Evans agrees with Dan about the letter but Stewart argues his case without unpleasant personal remarks.The real need surely is to have it fair tested now,before reaching any definite conclusion one way or another .

[Suzi]

Fascinating

Hi chaps-
To be honest -do you think that Philipi,Rob,Monty,Jake and Stewart et al would put their names to an obvious fraud/copy with the obvious fall-out!??

NO way!!! Come on!

-These are respected 'Ripperologists' who seriously know their stuff and to put themselves up to the charge of being called 'E-bay Sucker' -Just doesn't work!!!- AND there's a year or more involved here not just a quick 'Look what I got on e-bay for $4'!!! Blimey that just ISN'T the case I'm sure!

Let's wait till we see the pic (With all the safeguards in place I hope) tomorrow before casting stones-or worse 'eh !

Enough of the Let's wait and see- I for one am very interested to see it (Despite my Not Liz feelings which I'll sssssssh about now)


Cheers Frip- Good Luck for the tour tonight! and after that- GET SOME ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZS!!!!!

Suz xxx

[Suzi]

Good Luck!

Good Luck!!!!!

[Cap'n Jack]

I certainly do not deny or question the integrity or honesty of our George, but at the same time I can identify with Mac's beef... in that Mac is always roasted whilst folk like George get a quick flip on the griddle and everyone screams for more rare.
I'd certainly like to know from the bevy of experts - gathered here tonight to pronounce on the immortal soul of George's photo - just how the devil one would be able to photograph or view a warehouse or other commercial building in 1900 in Gower Walk side, or the Commercial Road, from Dutfield's Yard when there is a bloody great street full of bloody great warehouses called Back Church Lane in the way?

[George Hutchinson]

If you care to sit on your hands until tomorrow, AP, you will be able to see. I know it's always great fun ripping the wrapping paper off the Christmas presents on December 24th but that leaves little for Christmas.

Much more of this and I might not bother.

PHILIP

[John Bennett]

Hello all.

'Tis such a shame that something like this should generate such bickering.

Fair enough, I was one of those who saw it last year (including the original) and gave it the thumbs up, however we should get this into perspective - it is a photograph of one of the murder sites that has never appeared photographically before. It does not claim to be Mary Kelly's retina, or a missing photo of the GSG or what have you. It's a place!

Obviously everybody's going to see it soon. Believe me, once this is in the public domain and Phil has declared his ownership of it in whatever way one does, this image will be appearing in many Ripper books of the future. It'll be like J Connor's Bucks Row, the Millers Court shot or Whiffin's Mitre Square - it will be a desirable (if not essential) addition to any tome that dares illustrate the murder sites, no matter how casually.

The Berner St shot with the cartwheel is going to have to take a back seat methinks.

Keep cool dudes

[Rob Clack]

I'd certainly like to know from the bevy of experts - gathered here tonight to pronounce on the immortal soul of George's photo - just how the devil one would be able to photograph or view a warehouse or other commercial building in 1900 in Gower Walk side, or the Commercial Road, from Dutfield's Yard when there is a bloody great street full of bloody great warehouses called Back Church Lane in the way?

I suppose that was a dig at me. If you do a little research yourself instead of spitting out words to see where they land you would come to the conclusion that the tallest building between Dutfields Yard and Gowers Walk was three storeys high and there were no warehouses just shops and dwellings. And also on the West side of Back Church Lane, two houses past Mundys Place there are no buildings at all. The Buildings on the West side from Fairclough Street were three storeyed until you get to the London General Omnibus Co. Depot which is only one. The East side of Gowers Walk were two and three storey dwellings and a tailors shop.
The six storeyed Commercial Road Goods Depot towered over these buildings and you can clearly see it in this 1909 photo from the Berner Street junction of Fairclough Street.



Rob