Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Sam Flynn]

I'm still flicking rubber bands at that distant sun, Sam.

They seldom reach, though, do they, AP?

[Natalie Severn]

AP - you've provided opinion to that effect, but no evidence that it wasn't resurfaced. I, likewise, have only provided opinion that I believe it could well have been.

The differentiator between our two opinions is how difficult one imagines (or perhaps I should say, "how difficult one would like to imagine") it would have been to get a barrowfull of cobblestones, and patch any holes or ruts in the yard, during the vasty span of 12 or 13 years. I don't see that possibility as difficult at all.

Then you have never see cobbles being put down---you need to come over to Notting Hill, Sam ,you"ll see plenty there -in the roads where people can afford to have it done - which doesnt include our small road which once had cobbles but which now run too expensive to replace so ordinary tarmac has been used instead with just the edges of the road cobbled----its quite an art cobble laying.
enjoyed your joke about Jack!

[Chris]

Chris psst! whatever floats your boat!

No, but seriously. If you're going to get hostile and defensive whenever I disagree with your opinion even quite mildly, I think it might be best.

Some time ago I came to the conclusion that life was too short for the stuff on the Maybrick boards. I'm coming to the conclusion that the same is true of most of the other stuff that's posted here.

[Natalie Severn]

Well seriously Chris,I would be really sorry if you didnt respond to my posts .I very much appreciate your fair mindedness and knowledge.
Best Wishes
Norma

[Sam Flynn]

Then you have never see cobbles being put down---its quite an art cobble laying.

Not so much of an art that it would take more than 12 years for someone to patch up the entranceway to Dutfield's Yard, Nats

[Natalie Severn]

Not so much of an art that it would take more than 12 years for someone to patch up the entranceway to Dutfield's Yard, Nats

OK maybe not. Anyway, at least it was worth the laugh at another of your jokes , Sam.

[Chris]

Well seriously Chris,I would be really sorry if you didnt respond to my posts .I very much appreciate your fair mindedness and knowledge.

Ok. I'm sorry if I've taken some of your comments the wrong way, but I've found this thread as a whole very depressing. I simply don't understand why some people (not you) take pleasure in sniping at new discoveries and stirring up spurious argumentation.

[Brenda]

Tis almost Halloween - maybe we can hold a seance and summon up old Mr. Dutfield for an explanation.

[mac-the-kipper]

I simply don't understand why some people (not you) take pleasure in sniping at new discoveries and stirring up spurious argumentation.

Here here, hear hear, 'ere 'ere.

[Chris]

Here here, hear hear, 'ere 'ere.

You were the one who started the nonsense about this photograph being a fake in the first place!

[mac-the-kipper]

You were the one who started the nonsense about this photograph being a fake in the first place!

Whoooooooooshhh!!!

What was that?

That was Mac's initial post going straight over Chris's head.

[Chris]

Whoooooooooshhh!!!

What was that?

That was Mac's initial post going straight over Chris's head.

Which implies, I suppose, that you didn't mean what you wrote.

I suppose we should be used to that by now.

[Cap'n Jack]

I believe I have posted persuasive information on this thread, concerning the surface of the yard, and passage, at 40 Berner Street, that appears to contradict that what we see in George's photo; in that the surface of the yard appears to have been resurfaced sometime prior to 1900.
This I agree is not an impossibility, and I would welcome information that confirms this possibility.
However I do think it highly unlikely that the yard and passage were resurfaced prior to 1900; chiefly because the entire property, owned by Dutfield, was split into various rentals centred around the yard and passage, and any resurfacing work would have had to be at the financial burden at the disparate tenants... or Dutfield.
The situation at 40 Berner Street - from 1888 until 1900 - was anything but harmonious between the tenants, and the landlord, resulting in the protracted legal dispute over rentals and ownership that I briefly discussed in a previous post. With Dutfield himself facing financial ruin I cannot envisage a situation prior to 1900 where resurfacing might have taken place.
The 'East London Advertiser' of the 27th April 1889 sort of confirms my suspicions when they discuss the riot that took place at 40 Berner Street:
'After it was over there was a great disturbance outside the International Working Men's Club. The people were throwing stones and creating a great disturbance.'
They would not have found those stones to throw in a newly resurfaced yard, but rather in a worn out old yard that had been cobbled together to save money.

[Monty]

AP

I dont think your information is persuasive however I do commend you for actually taking time to research.

For me, everyone is too hung up on the cobbles, the photo is inconclusive with regards this matter and one mistake being made is comparing 88 with 1900. Other visible features in the photo match with the maps provided and contemporary illustrations.

Look at the whole picture please.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

I have no axe to grind regarding Philip's photograph. It's not a pivotal piece of evidence in the WM; simply an interesting glimpse into what may, or may not be, Dutfields Yard.

You say that "Other visible features in the photo match with the maps provided and contemporary illustrations."

I say [and admittedly I have only seen the lo-res version plastered with copyright wording] that, cobblestones aside, there are sufficient discrepancies between the photograph and my understanding of the murder scene [based on contemporary illustrations, OS and Goad maps] to suggest that (a) it was taken somewhere else, or (b) we have to rethink our topography of Dutfields Yard.

It's an intriguing photograph. What interests me more than the location is the occasion, which appears to be focused on the two children standing in the centre middle-ground.

I find it hard to believe that, 12 or 13 years after the event, all these people turned out just to showcase a murder scene for the benefit of a photographer. It's bizarre, to say the least.

Regards,

Simon