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

[Monty]

Hi Glenn,

Good to see you back.

I have one point of issue with your post.

And once again, AP is proudly pounding his chest like a brandy-intoxicated gorilla for releasing his book on the net for free (something he always comes back to and happily throws in the face of others, just like a real humble individual would do).
Well thank you Sir, but hey that was your own decision and you can't expect other authors to be as 'generous'. But thank you kindly for teaching all of us about moral.

Aps book was not originally issued free on the internet. It was published, as with any regular book, and sold in book stores.

I myself bought a copy.

And there lies the hypocrosy.

As for cliques, thats probably true. However they are many and no one truely stands alone in this field.

Doesnt mean they are 'evil' driven.

Monty

[Ally]

Yes, I never understood this accusation of 'closed ranks'.

I do understand the problem with the clique mindset that inhabits Ripperology. There are factions and people take up a side and they defend their chosen man regardless of fact or reason. I do believe that is a problem. When any criticism of a behavior, idea or theory is seen as an attack on a person, then loads jump in because people are not capable of separating criticism of action from criticism of person or even that criticism of person can be valid if it is based on a proven action or fact. It's the gang mentality: "don't mess with one of ours". This can be disadvantageous for truthful discussion or progress. Criticism, good and bad, reasoned and unreasoned is part of putting your ideas in the public and while people say that it's only unreasoned criticism that makes them upset, it is really ANY criticism at all that they cannot handle. Look at Glenn's post above he says "AP and others have chosen to use Phil as a punching bag". Who are the others? Who, other than AP, is making unreasoned criticism against Phil's book? No one. It's just criticism, but not unreasoned.

It's because, by and large, people are friends with other people in Ripperology and no one wants to upset their friends.

But this sort of clique-ish behavior also has positives as it happens when a group gets together to do something like validate the photo, form a new enterprise, research avenue or new venture.

So I don't agree that it's the main root of evil in Ripperology. The main root of evil is liars and people who have no respect or regard for the truth. You could call honesty my religion I suppose, because liars really make me mental. So if the choice is between an honest ego-maniacal drama queen or a witty, charming, amusing liar, I have to come down on the side of the truth, always.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Personally, I haven't ordered Philip's book yet - I am ashamed to say it - because I simply haven't had the money (so much for "money-making" published authors, for you, AP!), but I most certainly will as soon as possible.
GREAT cover! I don't know if Philip had something to do with it or that the idea is the work of some graphic designer at the publisher, but it works extremely well and is most certainly appealing.

Well well, I see that good 'ol AP still does his usual tirades against published authors.
First the complaints concerned that the dating of the Dutfield's Yard photo was incorrect, now the ravings are about an obviously very small piece of the photo landing on the opposite page.
It's so infantile that it goes beyond belief.
So what about the books on the subject where other pictures are divided between pages?

For some reasons, AP and a few others have chosen Philip as a punch bag and in doing so comes up with the most far-fetched, childish excuses. And the reason? Most definitely it's envy and mischief showing its dirty face. Philip found the photo, AP et al didn't, and there's the rub. Go figure.
So much for the friendly Ripper 'community'.

And once again, AP is proudly pounding his chest like a brandy-intoxicated gorilla for releasing his book on the net for free (something he always comes back to and happily throws in the face of others, just like a real humble individual would do).
Well thank you Sir, but hey that was your own decision and you can't expect other authors to be as 'generous'. But thank you kindly for teaching all of us about moral.

So once again we come back to the matter of authors and profit.
Firstly, I can't for the life of me understand what Philip or the publisher would benefit from handling a picture in a certain way. This just blows my mind.

Secondly, let's talk cash. My own Swedish Ripper factual book has sold about 30,000 copies in paperback in one year (2009). For each sold copy I get 2,45 Swedish crows (which is about 20 pence). After taxes I get to keep 1,00 Swedish crown per copy (since you pay almost two thirds in tax in Sweden if you're self-employed).
Which adds up to precisely 30 000 Swedish crowns = 6000 BG Pounds. For one years' sales.

Well, personally I don't despise or look down on 6000 GBP and I am quite pleased with the result, but it won't make me rich or the effort very profitable.
And when it all comes down to it, that's not really why you go through the trouble in the first place - you do it because you want to make a contribution and make your own mark or because there is a gap to fill (in my caee, that there actually existed no factual and objective Ripper book in Swedish).
Anyone who thinks that they can make big bucks from writing non-fiction - unless your a well known, household name - are deluding themselves. if you want to make money and be commercial: write novels or crime fiction - NOT true crime or factual crime history. So why this issue continues to come up never stop to amaze me.

Judging from comments from some of the characters on these Boards, I am just happy that my own book hasn't been transalted into English (I would most likely refuse to go along with it if the publisher put forward the suggestion) so that it can be scrutinized by malicious pecky asylum inmates as the likes of AP. Serious and intelligent feedback - yes - but not the silliness displayed here.
And it certainly illustrates why I rarely visit these boards anymore (although I still consider Casebook to be the prime research tool and the net's most complete archive concerning the Ripper).

As for myself, I can't wait to order Philip's book. I have no doubt it is amazing and judging from what he's done so far, he should be acknowledged for his efforts.

[John Bennett]

You believe it's the closed ranks that are the problem in Ripperology. You are wrong.

Yes, I never understood this accusation of 'closed ranks'.

Ripperology is full of little independent areas of research, in that different people or groups of people at least, enjoy researching certain aspects of the case, whether that be the life of a certain suspect, the ins and outs of a certain theory, or even the events around a particular murder. The list is endless.

The people who looked at this photo early on are the ones who are particularly interested in East End locations and known for that interest. And because of that interest, they all know each other and get on rather well - but nobody decided to put together an 'exclusive clique', so these accusations of 'back scratching' etc, do gall somewhat.

If I wanted to get an opinion on new info about Druitt before I went public, for example, there are people here I would certainly consult and it wouldn't be the East End buffs just because they're 'mates'. Horses for courses.

JB

[Ally]

I'm here, Natalie, and as I've just demonstrated conclusively,with Ally's full support, I have never accused anyone of 'forging' this image..

AP, you are such a complete liar that I think you are that special breed who pathologically believes his lies to be truth and cannot tell the difference.

You stated that the image was faked and said Phil did it. You are pathetic and the worst kind of disgrace to research and the advancement of truth in the case. You lie, and you lie and you lie and with people like you lying their asses off every chance they get and refusing to EVER acknowledge their errors, it is no wonder no one ever gets anywhere.

You believe it's the closed ranks that are the problem in Ripperology. You are wrong. It is people like you, who have absolutely NO regard for the truth who lie and invent things that are the true problem.

All you had to do was admit it and apologize. And that would be that but you are too damn arrogant and dishonest to just say you screwed up and make amends.

You say you wanted to help those who come after find the truth. And again I say how can a liar ever lead anyone else to the truth?

[robhouse]

"You see no problem because you have no solution.
But you are here."

uhh.... ? ok.

[Cap'n Jack]

You, Rob, are not wrong, and I am not 'right'.
You see no problem because you have no solution.
But you are here.

[robhouse]

OK, I asked this same question before and no one answered it..

AP, you said the image "could only have been produced after 1920 because of the focus range available in the images."

What exactly do you mean by this?

I am no photography expert, but as far as I know, there are no technical limitations on focal length in old (pre-1920) cameras or lenses, provided that a small aperture is used. A pinhole camera, for example, is very primitive, but has almost infinite focal length. My assumption is that the photo was taken in bright daylight with a small aperture... I don't see the problem.

But then again, I am not an expert so please tell me why I am wrong.

RH

[Cap'n Jack]

Mark, you can paint the picture with whatever colour you like; and you can give it whatever title you like... but the original location was two streets out, and I'm being generous there.
There are hordes of unaswered questions in regard to this image which we have been asked to take on faith simply because the person who found it is a good friend of many here. Not good enough for me, I'm afraid.
If I wanted friends I'd join a dating agency.
This is casebook, and I come here for the cutting edge in modern research and dissemination of that research.
Instead I have seen a closing of ranks to protect an image that nobody can say is genuine or not.
I stand by my original misgivings about this image, and many support me.

[Monty]

The fact that the good honest researchers are not clambering to support your accusations AP speaks volumes.

Now I cant figure if its the fact your opinion on the photo is flawed or if they simply have had enough of you.

I hope for your sake its the former. Even I wouldnt wish the latter on you...though Id understand why.

Those who havent studied the phot or read the book I implore you to do so with an open mind.

Mark,

Outstanding processing there. Remind me not to pi$$ you off.

Monty

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Mark,
I have said what I wanted to say,having heard all the different points of view.
Best Wishes
Norma

[m_w_r]

I honestly cannot recall Ap suggesting Philip had forged it although he jested,as he does, as soon as Philip told us about phtoshopping it.But so would a lot of people have pulled his leg about that.It surely doesnt mean that he really and truly thought Philip had forged it.At least I hope to hell he didnt!

Hi Norma,

Your devotion to the cause is quite touching, but AP did, in fact, suggest that the image was a fake. The offending post was removed from the original thread, according, I suppose, to the policy of the site, although I remember seeing it at the time. Besides, the meat of the accusation is still there - if we must use Photoshop as a verb, then it's clear that, yes, the image was tidied up, or repaired, or however you might like to put it, using that software. But this is a long way from "creating" an image for the purposes of deceiving a buying public. AP argued that one could "buy" what he described as "fake" backgrounds from Photoshop. When he mentioned this, he made it obvious that he believed that the photograph had been fabricated from discrete components. Plainly, this is not just "jesting".

I refer you back to Ally's post (# 186 in this thread) for further details regarding this. I also refer you back to Chris's post (#116 in this thread) for a tidy synopsis of the sequence of events regarding the identification of the location of the photograph, a process which AP is now imagining that his objections influenced. Plainly, they did not, so his line of reasoning is, here as before, quite fallacious. Lastly, I refer you back to AP's post (#106 in this thread), in which he says this:

If you boys care to go back to the original thread, the one that got me banned yet again, you'll find the experts who helped locate the site seen in the illustration sat on their arses when I carefully explained to them that they were two streets out on their line of sight identification of the location.

Naturally, it was not the thread which got AP banned, but his behaviour and remarks on the thread, along with, I understand, his attitude to the strictures of Admin. I would have thought that anyone examining AP's conduct now with detachment and poise ought to be able to take a view on his need to attribute his banning to anything apart from his own actions. Supposing one does, I think the whole house of cards comes down rather, don't you?

Regards,

Mark

[Rob Clack]

A small section of the photo is shown in the book before Philip had cleaned it up, to give an idea of the type of damage in the photo. And if you look closely at the full picture you can see parts of the photo that had been cleaned up.
If I had done it, it would be seamless but then I'd claim copyright on it.

Rob

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm here, Natalie, and as I've just demonstrated conclusively,with Ally's full support, I have never accused anyone of 'forging' this image.
I have expressed my sincere doubts about allowing the image to be altered using modern computer techniques; and I have expressed my doubts concerning the true location of this image, for a variety of good and valid reasons.
I should, and would hope, that any normal researcher would not stand in the way of honest research in an endeavour to secure the ultimate accuracy of a historical artifact. Or otherwise.

[Natalie Severn]

I am not sure what you are asking Natalie. People might not know what was what in regards to the photo, having not seen it, but no matter what, they surely know that accusing someone of creating a forgery with no evidence is not kosher. And the fact that no one HAD yet seen it is even more cause to be temperate with claims.

At the time all this was going on, I was getting more stick than AP simply because I refused to accept it as genuine before I got a chance to examine it and the evidence with my own eyes and yet even then I would hardly make a claim that Philip had forged it or was involved in faking it.

Yes, Ally,you were getting more stick then than AP and quite rightly,you never accused Philip of forging it.
But what I am trying to explain is that there was a huge amount of dust kicked up,all of a sudden, because of questions that were "perceived" as accusations of forgery.All this as a backdrop to the glimpse we had of a picture that had had big black lines on it due to copyright issues.So it got like two or three camps arguing the toss about different things.And it grew very heated. I honestly cannot recall Ap suggesting Philip had forged it although he jested,as he does, as soon as Philip told us about phtoshopping it.But so would a lot of people have pulled his leg about that.It surely doesnt mean that he really and truly thought Philip had forged it.At least I hope to hell he didnt!Are you there Ap?