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

[Cap'n Jack]

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.
These 'experts' then swiftly backtracked, and changed their minds.
I don't like the way this image was presented to us back then; I don't like the way this image is being presented to us now; and I certainly do not like sheep who graze on a stranger's hill.

[John Bennett]

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.

AP,

I know what you are referring to, but the 'expert' in this case acknowledged his mistake and then proved conclusively that the line of sight of the photo was indeed correct. And produced evidence to prove it. Unlike yourself. Where's yours?

So come on, where is it?

[Monty]

No back tracking was made by me AP, and if thats what you are stating then thats a down right lie.

The location matches contemporary descriptions, some illustrations and certainly the OS and Goads maps.

The location is as solid as it can be. Other than a bloody great street sign it cannot be more certain.

The fact you have failed yet again to provide the evidence, you merely point us in the direction of a thread thats some hundreds of posts long, kinda indicates the old mouth has been fuelled by the sherry again.

Put up or shut up.

Monty


PS John, can you point out this error to me?

[Rob Clack]

Neil,

He's talking about me. As if I care what he thinks.

Rob

[Monty]

Rob,

Cant he say your name then?

Beetlejuice
Beetlejuice
Beetle....

Monty

[m_w_r]

Monty,

AP's talking about this ...

And I have no doubts whatsoever about the photos authenticity or that it is Dutfields Yard. The warehouses Neil mentioned are the Commercial Road Goods Depot. and Warehouse, on the Gower Walk side and not as I first thought buildings in Back Church Lane.

... which he wilfully misinterpreted once, and is now wilfully misinterpreting again, although it's manifestly clear what is meant here.

Regards,

Mark

[Rob Clack]

He's probably forgotten it.

[Monty]

Thats it?!

Feck me, thats his evidence?

Oh lord, oh lordy lord lord.

Cheers Mark.

When he sobers up we really should point it out. It'll save him making even more of an arse of himself.

Serves you right for being honest Rob.

Monty

[Cap'n Jack]

Ho hum, venom does not equal veracity.
There is no doubt in my mind that if I had not challenged the original line of sight location as being two streets off location, it would still remain unchallenged today. My challenge back then led to a more reasonable and rational line of sight location.
This added credibility to the suggested location of the illustration.
My challenges to the other issues I raise have not been met in a similar and fair fashion, but instead have been dismissed.
The illustration lacks credibility because of its slavish defence.

[Rob Clack]

There is no doubt in my mind that if I had not challenged the original line of sight location as being two streets off location, it would still remain unchallenged today.

Bollocks.

My challenge back then led to a more reasonable and rational line of sight location.
This added credibility to the suggested location of the illustration.

So you think it's genuine now???

[Chris]

There is no doubt in my mind that if I had not challenged the original line of sight location as being two streets off location, it would still remain unchallenged today. My challenge back then led to a more reasonable and rational line of sight location.

Absolutely breathtaking!

As a matter of fact:
(1) Rob's clarification, quoted above by Mark, was posted before you had said anything whatsoever about the matter, and
(2) when you did comment, it was to dispute the correctness of the revised identification, not the original one!

[Monty]

AP

Again, name the location you believe it is.

As I have mentioned. The maps, contemporary reports and illustrations support the location. If you are stating the location is incorrect then you are stating all of those sources are incorrect.

It that what you are doing?

Veracity, your ignorance shows.

I suggest you buy the book and get up to speed with the work thats been undertaken. Far more intensive research than googling a the Kodak vintage camera site or picking up a Puffin book on Victorian Clothing.

I hope others will make up their own minds based on the facts and evidence, rather than trying to fit New York skylines into East end photographs.

And believe me, utter contempt should not bee mistaken for venom.

Monty

[m_w_r]

There is no doubt in my mind that if I had not challenged the original line of sight location as being two streets off location, it would still remain unchallenged today. My challenge back then led to a more reasonable and rational line of sight location.

AP,

This is very peculiar, because, if you actually refer to the original thread, Rob said:

And I have no doubts whatsoever about the photos authenticity or that it is Dutfields Yard. The warehouses Neil mentioned are the Commercial Road Goods Depot. and Warehouse, on the Gower Walk side and not as I first thought buildings in Back Church Lane.

And then you, as you put it, "challenged" his interpretation:

I'd certainly like to know from the bevy of experts - gathered here tonight to pronounce on the immortal soul of George's photo - just how the devil one would be able to photograph or view a warehouse or other commercial building in 1900 in Gower Walk side, or the Commercial Road, from Dutfield's Yard when there is a bloody great street full of bloody great warehouses called Back Church Lane in the way?

And then Rob defended the same interpretation he had given in his first post.

If you do a little research yourself instead of spitting out words to see where they land you would come to the conclusion that the tallest building between Dutfields Yard and Gowers Walk was three storeys high and there were no warehouses just shops and dwellings. And also on the West side of Back Church Lane, two houses past Mundys Place there are no buildings at all. The Buildings on the West side from Fairclough Street were three storeyed until you get to the London General Omnibus Co. Depot which is only one. The East side of Gowers Walk were two and three storey dwellings and a tailors shop.
The six storeyed Commercial Road Goods Depot towered over these buildings and you can clearly see it in this 1909 photo from the Berner Street junction of Fairclough Street.

So your "challenge" didn't result in what you are now calling a more reasonable and rational line of sight location. Actually, it just prompted a little more explanation - patiently given, in the circumstances - of the material credentials of the original opinion. Without your "challenge" ... nothing would have changed. If you'll take a little advice, it's probably better not to believe your own publicity; and if you will insist on doing so, it's probably better to check what your own publicity actually consisted of before launching in a second time.

Neither Rob nor Philip nor anybody else connected with this photo and the errant farrago of your "challenge" to it needs me to chirp up in their defence. But I do fear for some users - perhaps users of the future - who may mistake your provocations for the truth. It would be a pity if they were to be so misled.

Regards,

Mark

[Monty]

Crunching tackle if ever I saw one Mark.


Monty

[Cap'n Jack]

Okay then, they, the 'experts' were wrong, by two streets, now they are right by two streets, and I was wrong to point the two street dilemma out to them, after which they changed their minds, and not before.
After all what are two streets between friends?
I believe this illustration to be closer to the Gizah Pyramid than Berner Street.