John Bennett Photo discussion (moved thread)

[Guest]

Anyone else notice that all of the people who find the uproar over the split photo to be ridiculous also happen to be the ones to whom Phil sent a complete and unsplit photo? Do you think there's a connection? By any chance?

"Do you think there's a connection?"

No! Not in my case!

It is a photo of Dutfield yard.

Philip kindly e-mailed me a copy of the original photograph, on 3 December 2007. I knew then, that it was almost certainly a picture of Dutfield's Yard.

But, thanks for your opinion!

My point, was that Jeff was in no position to give me a matter-of-fact 'one-liner', regarding the location depicted in Philip's photograph.

---

If you must know; I believe that Philip has presented his discovery, in a very childish manner!

By tomorrow evening, US time, I will have something quite nice to tell you, I think.

I'm debating whether or not to let you all know now what it was that I spoke about for most of the talk (giving a talk on The Whitby Collection was about 40 minutes, the second bit was about an hour).

Shall I tell you? Shall I?

I have a photo. A very, very, very special photo.

I suspect a thread might indeed be in order, Mr Bell. Just wondering when and where to do it and to prepare myself for all those people demanding to see it who are going to have to wait until I'm ready, and then put up with all their comments about how it's not really 'mine' to keep to myself and how I 'owe it to the Ripper community' to share it.

I shall pre-empt those comments : I've shared everything I get. This is one for me.

I'll slowly lift the lid off the box by saying this image is one of the biggest finds in Ripperology since the return of the Mortuary Photographs to Scotland Yard in 1987. It is, firstly, the first known tourist photograph of a Ripper murder site.

Secondly is more exciting. But I shall enjoy playing the teasing game.

It is so odd now discussing this after going spare trying to keep it from becoming public for almost a year!

Ten minutes before the first talk starts. Not enough time now to go public. Later today, my pretties. Later...

OK, another clue.

It's a photo of a place that has never been seen photographically before.

I thank those of you that know for keeping mum.

I'm just teasing you others. You'll all know before the week is out, but I'm afraid you are going to have to wait some time to see it. I'll be happy to show it to people face to face, but I'm not putting it online where it can be used and abused. The reason? What happened to Neal and his work on the Annie wedding photo. I'm keeping a close rein on this one.

---

And then; … after all sorts of complaints, Philip condescended to presenting a vastly reduced, blurred and mangled version of the photograph, for twenty four hours.

Here's a photograph that I took of Dutfield's Yard, looking the other way (i.e. from within the yard, out into the street).



Philip's original was not black-and-white; rather it had an 'antique' sort of tint.



Now, I realize hind-sight is 20/20, …

But, Philip could have, and in my opinion, ... should have presented a slightly reduced, black-and-white version, with an unimposing 'water-mark'.



Instead, he presented a vastly reduced, purposely blurred, 'antique' version that was covered with bold black lettering, and several randomly placed diagonal lines.



---

And then; there's the issue of the split presentation, in Philip's book.

If Philip had wanted to present the photograph in the largest possible format, then the split lay-out would have been the best way to do so!

But, somewhere on these boards, Philip stated quite candidly that no one would be able to lift his photo, for their own purposes, because of the tactic he had employed (or words to that effect).

Philip should not have said that! Period!

I am very fond of Philip, but I think that he has gone about his business, in this particular instance, … in a misguided and childish manner.

---

Here, we have a discovery, which I consider to be more significant than Philip's:

Try this for size.

Anybody think they know where/what this is?

While Philip's discovery verifies much of what we already knew about Dutfield's Yard; John's discovery, which was presented with humility and dignity, has indicated something that none of us ever realized: That Martha Tabram was, in all likelihood, murdered on an outdoor landing.

The two manners of presentation were quite different, indeed; but then, so too were the personalities involved.

Should any of us begrudge Philip or think any less of him, because of all of this? Absolutely not!

Again; I am very fond of Philip, and have a tremendous sense of admiration for the contributions that he has made to this field. I have taken his tour twice; and I would eagerly go along with him again, were I to have the opportunity to do so!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Septic, wasn't it decided though that Tabram was, in fact, killed on an indoor landing?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Septic Blue]

Hi Septic, wasn't it decided though that Tabram was, in fact, killed on an indoor landing?

If you are referring to Jane Coram's 'Ripperologist' article, …

… then the answer is an emphatic "No"!

[John Winsett]

So I take it that's the back of George Yard? Do you have an idea of where she was found in this photo?

[Septic Blue]

So I take it that's the back of George Yard? Do you have an idea of where she was found in this photo?

I'll have to try to answer this, and expound on my answer to Tom's question, ...

... wasn't it decided though that Tabram was, in fact, killed on an indoor landing?

… later tonight.

[Tom_Wescott]

Be careful with the suspense, Septic...wouldn't want someone calling you 'childish'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

So I take it that's the back of George Yard? Do you have an idea of where she was found in this photo?

Yes, I think it was agreed on that it was the back of George Yard Buildings - or at least it was then. I am still, however, not 100% sure of which stair landing seen on the picture we're dealing with here but I think someone suggested that it might be the one seen on the first floor just visible to the right of the extension of the building.

But I think Septic Blue might be able to expand on this and clarify.

Just to note: I don't think, judging from the debate at the time, that it was absolutely 100% proven that Tabram was killed on one of those outdoor landings since it was impossible to rule out that there also existed landings inside the buildings. And as far as I know, no interior plans have been found of the building in question that fully clears this up (or maybe that has changed?). My personal stance is, though, that she was killed and found on one of those outdoor landings seen on the photo.

All the best

[Septic Blue]

So I take it that's the back of George Yard? Do you have an idea of where she was found in this photo?

I'll have to try to answer this, and expound on my answer to Tom's question, ...

... wasn't it decided though that Tabram was, in fact, killed on an indoor landing?

… later tonight.

I was 'stood-up', so I'm back earlier than I thought I would be.

About a year after his discovery of the photograph depicting the back of George Yard Buildings, John discovered this …

In recent visits to the LMA, I have tried to find material on the layout of George Yard Buildings, with no luck.

However, last week I found a slum clearance file on St. George's House, next door to GYB which was demolished in January 1973. This is the surveyor's drawing of the layout of St. George's House, made in the mid 1960s.

If the floor-plan of the adjacent St. George's House was designed with that of the older George Yard Buildings in mind, …

… then each of the doors in John's photograph, opened into a suite of three or four apartments: Some being in the back of the structure, … others being in the front, and overlooking George Yard, itself.

Such a floor plan would neither require, nor accommodate and additional stairway, in a building, which had a depth of ~24 feet.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Glenn,

I've only ever been moderately offended, and shouldn't even be that, as I've never really been a 'friend' of Philip's, per se, although I admire him, like him, and am glad it was he found this photo and not someone who would have treated the issue with less care. I was taking a hiatus from the Casebook at the time he created his thread and only knew about it because I received e-mails from people who wanted to know more about the photo and assumed that I was one of the unnamed people Philip had sent it to. I guess they thought I would show it to them. LOL. I posted on the thread to let everyone know that I had not seen the photo but had full faith in Philip. At some point after this, he e-mailed me his photo, and I was grateful he had done so. I wasn't aware until THIS thread that he'd literally sent it to everyone BUT me a year or two before this though. I was probably on the list just after Karen Trenouth and just before Felicity. LOL. Anyway, whatever, it's over and done with and I like the book, although I don't believe I ever wrote that Berner Street was 9 1/2 feet wide. Ha ha.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Colin, you are one of the most exceptional persons I have ever met on this planet. I congratulate you on your awesome sense and grasp of reality. It shines in the dark room.

[Septic Blue]

If the floor-plan of the adjacent St. George's House was designed with that of the older George Yard Buildings in mind, …

… then each of the doors in John's photograph, opened into a suite of three-to-four apartments: Some being in the back of the structure, … others being in the front, and overlooking George Yard, itself.

Such a floor plan would neither require, nor accommodate and additional stairway, in a building, which had a depth of ~24 feet.

Because Tabram's body was discovered by John Reeves, as he descended the stairway; it is reasonably safe to assume that she was on an actual landing, as opposed to having been some distance along the first-floor ('second-floor' in North America) balcony.

But, which landing?

'First-Floor'; being an outdoor landing?

Or …

'Half-Floor'; being a sort of indoor/outdoor landing?

I would venture to guess the former; … because of the fact that Francis Hewitt described the body as having been twelve feet from his door.

[Cap'n Jack]

And not to forget that the Hewitts, when they gave their very important testimony to the inquest, described their observations as being made from an outside balcony or landing.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Because Tabram's body was discovered by John Reeves, as he descended the stairway; it is reasonably safe to assume that she was on an actual landing, as opposed to having been some distance along the first-floor ('second-floor' in North America) balcony.

But, which landing?

'First-Floor'; being an outdoor landing?

Or …

'Half-Floor'; being a sort of indoor/outdoor landing?

I would venture to guess the former; … because of the fact that Francis Hewitt described the body as having been twelve feet from his door.

I agree with that observation. Sounds reasonable.

All the best

[Stephen Thomas]

And not to forget that the Hewitts, when they gave their very important testimony to the inquest, described their observations as being made from an outside balcony or landing.

Hi AP

Could you please elaborate? And this ain't a trick question for your good self.

[Monty]

Stephen,

I think AP is refering to this Eastern Post report of August 18 1888.



NUMBER OF FIGHTS TOOK PLACE

in Wentworth Street and George Street, which thoroughfares can be seen from George Yard Buildings. These streets contain a number of common lodging-houses, and are not far from a house which the woman "Pearly Poll" states that she and the deceased visited that night.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Reeves have pointed out the spot where they allege these disturbances commenced, which they state to be the dead wall of Leterworth Buildings, in George Street.

The first row commenced about 11:30, followed by another at 12:20 when both Mr. and Mrs. Reeves assert they heard cries of "Police!" "Help!" and terrible screaming.

Shortly after one o'clock in the morning they were again disturbed with terrible screams, apparently coming from the same neighbourhood. They went on to the balcony of their dwelling, and found that there was not only one, but two separate rows going on. That in George Street this time was not many doors from the house where the murdered woman and her companion, "Pearly Poll," sometimes lodged, whilst the row in Wentworth Street was not from a house in Angel Alley, which the woman "Pearly Poll" is said to have admitted that she visited that evening.

These two rows, Mr. and Mrs. Reeves say, were of a very noisy and quarrelsome character. The crowds round surged backwards and forwards a great deal. At last the police came and dispersed the crowd. This did not conclude the riotous proceedings of the night. About 2 o'clock Mr. and Mrs. Reeves heard more screams, they were this time very piercing. Only a few roughs seemed to constitute this crowd, which seemed to be moving in the direction of George Yard. However, the noise soon lessened in volume, and Mr. and Mrs. Reeves then retired for the night. "

It supports the photo.

Monty