Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Sam Flynn]

Barring a William Stewart-esque "Potty Time" reconstruction, it's hard to see how a "fake" Dutfield's Yard could be mocked up, and harder still to see what stood to be gained from such an enterprise. It's not as if it would subvert anything to the extent than an artefact purporting to belong to the killer would, or prompt a rewriting of history such as would a letter that laid claim to have been the first of its kind.

I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone should even entertain the idea that a photo of some manky East End yard should be a viable target for fakery - especially if it were taken after the event, and is (presumably) bereft of a corpse.

[Rob Clack]

No, Rob, it should be easy for you to explain to me why you originally suggested that the background buildings in the photo were in Back Church Lane, but then later changed that to Gower Walk.
That is not what I expect from a researcher of your caliber.
Just talk me through that sudden swerve.

It's Perfectly simple. My initial impression was that the tall building behind Dutfields Yard was on Back Church Lane. But after researching further, looking at photographs of the surrounding area examining in detail Goads Fire Insurance Maps and specifically a 1920 aerial photo of Whitechapel, I was able to identify the building as the Commercial Road Goods Depot. And there isn't a doubt in my mind about it. And this all happened within a few days of me seeing the photo last year.

Rob

[Monty]

Phil,

Not one jot of doubt, its so clear as to what it is.

I remember you being very cautious when you showed us the photo for the 1st time, your intial question was is it what I think it is? You have verified, consulted and researched (even down to the tour info). Whilst obviously excited, you have acted correctly and taken your time in confirming the photo.

[Suzi]

Good Philip-

Post it on Thom's link with all the copyright stuff and then the unbelievers (!) will at least get to see it (As well as us believers!) and then HOPEFULLY we can stop all of this kerfuffle and then start nagging you to get your Conf pics up!!!!

Seriously though- I dont like to see people who quite obviously,-to those who know them,-have a vast amount of knowledge/research behind them on the ins (inns) and
outs of streets/byways/courts/lodging houses/public lavvies or whatever, being slagged off for no apparent reason or relevance here!

(Don't know why the paragraphs went odd there!)

Sorry just felt a rant coming on- it's passed now!!

Have a SERIOUSLY good ( AND WELL deserved!)zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Philip


Suz 'n Dids xx

[Cap'n Jack]

So, Rob, it's agreed you made a mistake, which was later corrected by your goodself when more information became available?
So you were wrong first time, and you could be wrong this time.
This is not what I would describe as good historical evidence provided by an expert in the field. In fact I would describe it as haphazard and at best guesswork.
Your mate, Monty said:
'Rob pinpointed the location and date due to the warehouse buildings in Back Church Lane.'

I would suggest your 'pinpointing' leaves something to be desired.

[Stewart P Evans]

Wind-up Merchant

So, Rob, it's agreed you made a mistake, which was later corrected by your goodself when more information became available?
So you were wrong first time, and you could be wrong this time.
This is not what I would describe as good historical evidence provided by an expert in the field. In fact I would describe it as haphazard and at best guesswork.
Your mate, Monty said:
'Rob pinpointed the location and date due to the warehouse buildings in Back Church Lane.'
I would suggest your 'pinpointing' leaves something to be desired.

You are just an old wind-up merchant AP.

[George Hutchinson]

It's such a shame. I, and many, used to think highly of AP. I don't know what went wrong in your life, AP, but few take you seriously any more. Why are you so bitter? You seem to exist these days on nothing but malevolence. It's the overwhelming factor of everything you do on Casebook that isn't based around research from The Times. I wish things were different. You are clearly on your own on this one. I'm sure you couldn't care less about that.

PHILIP

[Rob Clack]

So, Rob, it's agreed you made a mistake, which was later corrected by your goodself when more information became available?
So you were wrong first time, and you could be wrong this time.
This is not what I would describe as good historical evidence provided by an expert in the field. In fact I would describe it as haphazard and at best guesswork.
Your mate, Monty said:
'Rob pinpointed the location and date due to the warehouse buildings in Back Church Lane.'

I would suggest your 'pinpointing' leaves something to be desired.

My initial impression was wrong and I have done enough research on this to say that I believe I am 100% right. And I think your confusing me with someone who cares what you think.

[Sam Flynn]

Here's one I found. I believe it might show the moment when Mr Hindley and Mr Dutfield argued about which carriage-wheel they should mount on the wall:



...but I may be wrong

[George Hutchinson]

Thanks, Sam. Needed that. Seriously.

Anyone else seeing a kind of Lord of the Rings responsibility going on here?

Votes for Gollum?

PHILIP

[Suzi]

Heaven! Gareth!!! Thank Gawd for you!!!

[George Hutchinson]

OK, then. Here we are everyone. Massive thanks to Thomas who added some lines across it and is hosting it for me.

This is viewable only via this link for the next day, then it will be like Brigadoon. This is more than I wanted to do, so if anyone comes back now with wanting more, you can stick it where the sun don't shine.

It's a similar size to the original, overprinted, with lines added and at a small dpi, but you can finally see it for yourselves.

Click away.

http://www.jacktheripper.de/dutfields/

Robert, sorry I haven't answered your questions yet. I need a proper night's sleep but will do a rough overview when I'm back to normal, probably tomorrow afternoon. This woman went on a three month vacation to Europe and it cost the equivalent of $25,000 in today's money. The full story will be in the finished book. I'm planning one similar to Neal's last with Inklings. It will be a small softback, of course, as there's not enough to make a proper monster out of it but enough to talk about the album, the research, what the image teaches us and especially the woman. I've got all the other answers now. I just need to know who she was, and we're getting closer. She was very probably a writer. Loads of work on this count yielded a strong contender who now appears unlikely. However, very rich single women taking trips to Europe in 1900, with photos of themselves, are in a better position to be found than the average Jane Doe. Paricularly as she left the US on the day after the 1900 Census began, so is probably missing off it - meaning that will make her easier to find on a lifespan overview of Census Returns.

PHILIP

[jmenges]

I was able to identify the building as the Commercial Road Goods Depot.

Could we please see a photo of the Goods Depot, or the aerial photo, either now or when the Dutfields Yard photo is made public (crossed posts with above), that shows the rooftop? Although I have no doubt whatsoever, I'd like to see the roof of the building that lies behind it anyway.

Thanks Philip,

And Rob,

JM

[Sam Flynn]

If I'm not mistaken, the last chappie standing in the alleyway against the open gate is a young Howard Brown, which definitely dates the picture to the early 1900s.

Seriously, though - that's a great find, Phil. Thanks for sharing it with us, and to Thomas for his help also.

[auspirograph]

Just seen your photo Philip, thanks for sharing it and to all concerned. Congratulations on an excellent find and for all your hard work.

The background to the picture is just as important in my view and for an Australian with sore eyes trying to get a better visual grasp on the locations, it is a welcomed treat.

Best wishes
Spiro