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

[Ally]

Thank you for your considered opinion, Tom, but thanks I'll stick to what my free and organised mind tells me. Not Dutfield's Yard, and not LVP.

Oh that's a hoot.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thank you for your considered opinion, Tom, but thanks I'll stick to what my free and organised mind tells me. Not Dutfield's Yard, and not LVP.

[Tom_Wescott]

Piss off, AP. You're jealous of Philip, his reputation, and his success. I've yet to see you go after someone on these boards who wasn't enjoying some measure of notoriety. That's why you're always paling around with the perrymasons and such.

To anyone reading this thread who doesn't already know, there is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION that the photograph discovered and published by Philip Hutchinson is Dutfield's Yard. And it's a great photo.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

I have for some considerable time now cast honest and genuine doubts of this being either a photograph of Dutfield's Yard, or even a photograph of the Late Victorian Period. What has been said on this thread has reinforced those honest and genuine doubts.

[Mike Covell]

However, for the few who have made me hang my head in shame at my unmitigated evil in having a publisher that placed a tiny section from a photo right up to the spine so I can make a fortune and show the photo filling up a double page instead of half a page, daring to make details visible, here's your little extra. Don't all wet yourselves.

PHILIP

Is that Baphomet?

[John Bennett]

here's your little extra. Don't all wet yourselves.

Hurrumph. It's not wide enough

[longliz1888]

Some people are never satisfied

I really don't understand why someone would make so much of a flack about a very interesting and well written and researched book.
I think the book is great and I, for one, appreciate all the fine work and research Philip has put into this book.
Buying the photo and going through what he did to authenticate the area in question was a labour of love in itself and Philip should be commended not villified for all of his hard work.
I was very happy with the content of his book and went on to purchase a second copy of it for a friend who is himself an author and could appreciate everything that went into it.
He also thought the book was well done and well researched and thought the photographs were presented in the best possible way.
Well done, Philip. Take no notice of people who have no appreciation for all the work you have done.

[Tom_Wescott]

One out of three John's agree - Philip's book rocks!

Regarding AP Wolf...well, I don't regard AP Wolf.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Bennett]

It's been out of print for years, ... but I'm surprised you don't own a copy!

Misspelled title, and all!

The 1981 Star paperback of Don's book has the MJK photo split across the pages. It never bothered me, it still had the same effect.

[Robert]

After seeing post number 81 I conclude we're looking for a very tall, thin man.

No wonder they called her Long Liz.

[Ally]

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, ...... 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

If the Whitby photos were of such great importance and of equal value, why weren't they all split down the middle as well?

[John Bennett]

No wonder I'm visiting these boards less and less.

Phil fortuitously came into the posession of the photo (as he did with the Whitby collection). After being very guarded and doing tons of research to make sure he had the real deal (with flak in the meantime), he puts it out in a format HE feels apropriate. i.e. a book.

Now it's in a book, people are bemoaning the fact that it hasn't been done in a way that suits them. Have these people ever shared anything with the rest of the field, or are they these f**king 'I want it on a plate' idiots?

That's what I think. Bollocks - it's now in the public domain and if you don't like the way it was presented then tough. YOU didn't discover it, but there it is. Get over it.

(Sorry, my tablets are beginning to wear off).

[Rob Clack]

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

[John Winsett]

Well that's OK. Apparently the point was lost on both of you. Too bad. I'll make due I guess but I'll know who is upright and honest when it comes to this site now. Yeah that's a dig so live with it.

Just as you couldn't experience the horror of MJK's pic if it was split paged, you can't experience your pic because of what you did.

It's been out of print for years, ... but I'm surprised you don't own a copy!



Misspelled title, and all!