Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I guess it's unsurprising that the people who most strongly believe a certain conclusion without anything like real evidence would fool themselves into thinking any new evidence somehow supports whatever they wanted to believe in the first place. The people with great emotional attachment to their own beliefs care more about trying to convince people they are right than actually having anything to back themselves up in the first place.

The photo certainly shows the exact locations of specific details at the scene, but it does not change the overall dimensions of the yard or the lighting and sound conditions present at the time of the murder, all of which have been known for many, many years. There's no more or less support for the Ripper having committed Stride's murder now than there was before Philip found this photo. Anyone who says otherwise is just fooling themselves.

Can't say I agree with that. Although the photo hasn't changed any facts regarding the measurements or any circumstances concerning the crime scene, a photo still is quite a different thing compared to looking at a sketch or reading about the facts in written terms.
That the passage in Dutfield's Yard was narrow can actually be seen already on the 1909 Berner Street photo, but Philip's photo simply displays it better and much clearer. To me there certainly is a difference seeing it on a photo, even though the facts has been common knowledge for a long time.

I'll say it again, looking at the picture it becomes evident to me that the whole idea of the Ripper being interrupted and hiding in the dark or behind the gates seems unlikely, if not unbelievable. I certainly don't subscribe to this silly idea.
And if the killer weren't interrupted, then it means the murder might have happened some time before Diemschutz's arrival or at least after 00:45. Which means the Ripper would have had time enough to do his mutilations if he was the perpetrator.

It's not a new idea and it's an idea I have supported for a long time. But Philip's photo - whether you like it or not - depicted the environment in a clearer way that even further convinced me on the matter.

I have no idea what you mean by 'people with emotional attachments' because the Stride murder has never been of that much interest to me, compared to some of the others and I really don't care that much if Stride would be proven to be a Ripper victim or not. But I guess it's just one of those delusional statements you deliver from time to time where you twist people's words and puts them out of context.

All the best

[Cap'n Jack]

'It's odd how A.P. tries to argue at the same time that Philip both didn't look into it very well and also that it was wrong for him to have shown it to other people in the field for their thoughts before making a public announcement.'

That's not my beef, Dan, my beef is that these people in the 'field' pretended that they had not seen the photo. I can post their childish and tawdry comments if you like... but you better be near a bucket.

[Monty]

[QUOTE]As I've stated already, my ire with this farce began with a farce, the one acted out on the thread devoted to the American conference where supposedly serious researchers in this case were acting like a bunch of primary school bully boys... heaping praise on George for a discovery which they were waiting for with bated breath, although they had seen it a full year before, and then rushing to his defence once they all realised that nobody has seriously done any work on this photograph to authenticate it, apart from going into a huddle in the playground and slapping eack other's backs.[/QUOTE]

As you were not party to the authentication of the photo, and it is authentic, I find it extremely confusing why you state those words I have highlighted in bold.

You were not involved in any stage of the process so that statement is not only erronous but also smacks of childish spitefulness. How the hell do you know that no serious study has been done on this photo? That is plainly incorrect. To dimiss these people whom Philip consulted based on no knowledge of what they did just goes to show that you are completely ignorant to the quest for the truth. It seems you would rather plot a course of disruption based on mis-information or, even worse, no information at all...as you have done above.

I know for a fact that most of these people Phil consutled over a year ago are not only upmostly respected but are also extremely knowledgeable in this field and others.

I also know that some of these Bully Boys are respected by yourself AP, though I assume you have since changed your views of them.

I would take the opinion of those who have exhustively studied the area, history and the case over those who would rather dimiss for the sake of dimissal, behind a bottle of brandy, whilst conducting their reseach at a keyboard.

Yours

Bully Beef Monty

[Cap'n Jack]

Monty, old boy:

'Phil,

I dont want to know how it went, cos itll go well.

What I do want is the reaction, and you know exactly what I mean.

Monty.'

You posted that on the 10-11-2008 on the conference thread.
Were you worried about the 'reaction'?
'Cos you should have been.
And I'm quite sure 'Phil' knew exactly what you meant.
Dip a toe in before you dive, why don't ya?

[Monty]

AP

I should be worried?

Why? you got something I should be worried about? Are you going to present it or just bang on about wheel ruts and ladies ankles?

I only dive in when Im certain old boy. Whereas you should invest in some water wings, you seem to be floundering.

[Cap'n Jack]

From Monty, a full year after he had seen the photograph:

' Prey, do tell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philip,

Do you mean to tell us that a particular photo exsists?

I suspect a thread is in order.

Monty'

This is worse than Watch with Mother.

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

To be fair, I read it as Monty being ironic.

Regards,

Simon

[Cap'n Jack]

To be fair, Simon, I read Monty as ionic.

[Monty]

Simon

I was indeed being ironic. Its obvious to you.

AP, thats your beef? Thats what I should be worried about? Simon has aired his view, lets throw it open to the rest of the membership, should I be worried? Wonder if theyll back thee or me, lets see.

Another smokescreen AP, you are becoming adept at avoiding the point, and that is there is no valid arguement against this photo.

[Monty]

And how are you viewed AP?

[Sam Flynn]

To be fair, Simon, I read Monty as ionic.

...that's iconic, surely, AP?

[Monty]

Gareth

I think he means idiotic.

Isotonic Monty.

[Ally]

Oh for fukk's sake. While I don't think there's any doubt at all that I think Phil went about doing this the entire wrong way, and what my opinion is of the entire game only a) a drunk or b) a moron would not have understood that Monty was being sarcastic when he said that....

Oh wait. Right. Option C: both a and b

[Captain Hook]

Blind Man´s Buff

...Its a bit like being asked to play "Blind Man"s Buff" when some of the players arent blindfolded!

Hello Natalie,

May I ask: Is there a version of Blind Man's Buff where all the players are blindfolded?

Cheers
Hook

[Sam Flynn]

May I ask: Is there a version of Blind Man's Buff where all the players are blindfolded?

That'd be the popular Irish parlour-game, rivalled in popularity only by "Give us a Word" and "Wrap the Parcel".