THE JACK THE RIPPER LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS : Dutfield's Yard and the Whitby Collection

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom, fancy a conspiracy tonight?

Only if you bring the Dutton Diaries. The secret Cutbush files you showed me last time over Fine Spanish Brandy proved to be rather lackluster. And by the way, I'm told that the upcoming revised edition of A-Z, retitled Jack the Ripper: Anderson - Z, is in no way biased by Begg's personal views.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Hi

Ha ha. I always love how shared opinion must mean a concerted conspiracy to hide some evidence or put forth manufactured evidence. And yeah, when I think of the Casebook, I think of harmonious agreement amongst all.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Hi Tom, fancy a conspiracy tonight?

[Tom_Wescott]

I hope, Mark,that future users of this site will see and take note of my spirited challenge of cosy little sects on this site who always agree with one another regardless of the simple facts, or the simple truth.

Ha ha. I always love how shared opinion must mean a concerted conspiracy to hide some evidence or put forth manufactured evidence. And yeah, when I think of the Casebook, I think of harmonious agreement amongst all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jenni Shelden]

aww you guys are great.

I havent read the book - but i will do eventually. I think Philip to be a very proficient and entertaining writer and I have only heard good things about the Whitby photos from fellow ripperologists - thus far having missed Philips talks on the subject myself .

to be fair i know Philip himself has said he was not 100 percent happy with some of how it had been put together - earlier in this very thread but the photo being split across a page - or whatever it was - was probably done in order to make it as large as possible

simple

or not i mean its ripperology

Jenni

[Roy Corduroy]

Congratulations on your new book, Phil.

There is precedent, of course. The enigmatic Providence Place, Stepney photo (click) was presented as a two page spread in Victorian and Edwardian London from old photographs by John Betjeman, 1969. And it worked just fine.

Roy

[Ally]

I don't think it's that he dislikes having others views stated in the same vein he placed his own. I think he dislikes the fact that people are telling him that because Phil has the right to do with the photo what he wishes, his valid complaints are somehow the equivalent of sh*t stirring merely for the sake of commotion causing or somehow ungrateful because Philip wasn't required to share his find. Phil wasn't required to share his find, but once he chose to do so, the manner in which he chose to present it is relevant, especially if people paid money to view that find.

And implying that if you aren't satisfied with a product or feel you have been defrauded, just get your money back and shut up about it, is also barking mad, and probably one you would never subscribe to if not for the fact that you consider Phil a friend.

If it had been Patricia Cornwell who had done this, and people were crying foul (and somehow I get the feeling a lot more people WOULD be crying foul), I don't think people would have leaped to her defense claiming it was her photo and she could do what she wanted with it and we should all just be grateful she decided to share it with us.

[Monty]

If Im getting my money back Id be fine.

Theres being critical and theres being abusive.

The reason Philip cut the image is born out of advice from another who had a negative experience with a well known photo.

As you acknowledged earlier, Philip is entitled to present the image how he wishes. And John is entitled to complain if he had bought the book and it wasnt what he expected.

However if John forms his complaint provokatively then he has every right to expect the author to respond likewise. Especially as he is getting his money back.

Its not the fact he is displeased, nor how he chose to voice that displeasure, its the fact he dislikes being told others views in the same vein to which he originally place his own.

Monty

[Ally]

Tough crap. Phil is a published author and criticism of public figures and their works comes with the territory of being a public figure. And since Phil stated publicly why he chose to split the picture then people thinking it's egomaniacal and paranoid are not belittling, they are drawing conclusions based on the evidence presented.

And whether Phil gets huge money or barely any money, he is getting money from these people who paid him that money for the sole purpose of seeing the Dutfields photo. And they did not get to see the Dutfields photo, they saw two halves of the photo.

And if they are mad at the switcharoo, they have the absolute right to be mad and yes, even to belittle the person they feel defrauded them. Whether you agree with their assessment or not.

How nice would you be to someone you felt had tricked and defrauded you by pulling a switcharoo?

[Monty]

Ally

I have to say that some of the pics in the book were great. It gives a great perspective of what it was like back then. Now of course we all purchased it for the Dutsfied Yard pic. To say the least I'm disappointed on how it was presented. You had the publisher split the pic. The given reason was to prevent scanning to the internet. Personally I think that is a little beyond paranoid as there is only a small portion of the population who gives a damn and out of those most would just give a cursory glance and say, eh, no big deal. But for those of us willing to fork over cash to study this pic, I would be the first to say thanks for screwing us over. Because of your paranoia we cannot judge distance between the gates, we cannot do any accurate measurements, and we can't get a true feel for the murder scene. This should've been the highlight of the book but it's not and that'll be the reason I return this. And if you think you stopped someone's plans from pilfering this to the internet you're wrong. The murder location against the wall is intact so that would be what most would've been interested in not the entire pic. Thanks for close to nothing.

Sorry my dear. You are right as ever. Johns post above didnt belittle Philip at all. His accusation of beyond paranoia was actually a complement. Sure Philip was over the moon to read that. It was absolutely non provokative at all.

Yes, he has the right to say whatever the hell he wants if he has spent his money and didnt get what he expects...just as I said a few posts after the original of the one above.

Just as others have the right to respond likewise to Johns post. Heck Ally, thats all you do here isnt it?

Monty


PS I personally think the text is far more interesting than the images...which is unusual for me.

[Ally]

You made your point, and how. Caused a commotion and belittled. So dont come back telling us to relax guys.

Monty

Hang on a minute. First of all it was Robert Clack and John Bennett who came on here first and caused a commotion belittling this man for stating his opinion that the book made him feel robbed. Robert Clack called him a fool and John Bennett said bollocks to you and basically told him he wasn't entitled to his opinion. (and I love you Rob and John, but you did).

Well bollocks to that. If people paid money expecting to see an uncorrupted version of the photo (and regardless of what Phil's friends are trying to say, everyone knows damn good and well what the selling feature of this book is) then they have the absolute right to be mad at the dupe.

Did Phil have the RIGHT to do what he did? Absolutely. It's his photo and he could have burned it if he wanted to. But having the RIGHT to do something doesn't mean other people don't have the RIGHT to have an opinion about what you do. And when people pay money for the sole purpose of seeing something and they find out they are NOT getting what they paid for, then they have the absolute RIGHT to say so.

[Monty]

John,

It seems to me you just purchased the book for its pictures. Does the text not interest you?

Or is it just a little too taxing? Maybe we can get Mummy to dumb it down for you.

You made your point, and how. Caused a commotion and belittled. So dont come back telling us to relax guys.

Either you like it or you dont. And if not get yer money back.

Monty

[John Winsett]

It's half of what the book is about, and is half of the title.

WHAAAAAA! OK it's half the title and half the book. Is that what you do on these threads? Just post to post? If someone has to be that clear to you then maybe you should stay at the children's table and let the adults speak. Everyone here knows the book was written specifically for the DFY pic so trying to nitpick to throw people off the subject is just ridiculous.

[Rob Clack]

That is what the book is about. It's in the title and takes up half the book. I agree the Whitby photos are great but nothing people would miss or else they too would've been split. Fool on you if you think otherwise.

It's half of what the book is about, and is half of the title.

[John Winsett]

I can't see what people are moaning about. The book isn't just about the Dutfields Yard there are loads of other never before seen photographs in the book, if people bought it just for the Dutfields Yard photo than more fool them. And considering Philip's experience with one of his Whitby photos it's not surprising he's being cautious with the Dutfields Yard one. And frankly even if the book didn't contain the Dutfields Yard photo it would have been worth the price just for the Whitby photos.

Rob

That is what the book is about. It's in the title and takes up half the book. I agree the Whitby photos are great but nothing people would miss or else they too would've been split. Fool on you if you think otherwise.

[robhouse]

"The camera used had not been invented or introduced in the year claimed for the illustration, the depth of field available in the illustration demonstrates this conclusively."

What the heck is this supposed to mean anyway?

RH