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

[Stephen Thomas]

But what to do now?

Try to persuade our friend that he's talking total bollocks I suppose.

Isn't it sad to see such a person self-destruct?

[John Winsett]

He won't show the original because the original isn't subject to copyright laws. Since he "retouched" the photo, I believe by law that he can claim copyright on it and prevent anyone from using it, however if he publishes the original it would be freely available for all to use as they will.

Of course I am wondering if someone can take the two halves, scan them and by virtue of splicing them together claim copyright on their own creation and be able to publish it freely?

That makes perfect sense, but we're still talking about a picture of a yard. Phillip in the ripper community will always be known as the one who brought the picture to light. Beyond that, why would he care? No one other than the ripper community gives a crap about it, that's why we've got this thread going. If he were to visit france right now and go up to anyone on the street and show them this pic and explain what it was they wouldn't care at all. It's just a 5$ pic of a yard that someone may or may not have been murdered in.
On copyright, I don't believe it's enforced worldwide so I think you're right. Anyone can take what he has and make there own.

[Ally]

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.

[Natalie Severn]

Ally?
How could anyone know what exactly was what , when, not only was it half hidden from view by a thick black cross over it and we were only allowed to view it for 24 hours and whilst all this was going on we were in the middle of a great damn row with accusations being thrown around at anyone who as much as dared question ,in ANY shape or form the picture"s authenticity?

[Ally]

If the above is true and any inserting or strengthening or anything considered beyond normal photographic repair happened, then it would've been in phillip's best interest to show the original un-touched photo. I'm not saying it is or isn't a fake, but this is exactly how photographic hoaxes have been started and exposed. Again I'm not calling anything fake, forged etc. I'm just saying this could explain why 1. The picture is split and 2. why the original was not included in the book. Food for thought.

He won't show the original because the original isn't subject to copyright laws. Since he "retouched" the photo, I believe by law that he can claim copyright on it and prevent anyone from using it, however if he publishes the original it would be freely available for all to use as they will.

Of course I am wondering if someone can take the two halves, scan them and by virtue of splicing them together claim copyright on their own creation and be able to publish it freely?

[Monty]

His credibility problem grows with every post.

So wonderfully understated Ally that you could almost be English.

Monty

[Ally]

Oh and of course, the part AP left out....Here's my full quote:

Nice dodge. But the fact is that not even AP has claimed anyone has perpetuated a hoax ( although of course he is alluding to it). But that's because AP is a moron and likes to make wild and outlandish claims.

So it was well known at the time, even though you had not yet outright claimed Phil had done it, exactly what you were alluding to. I notice you left that "though of course he is alluding to it" out of your carefully edited quote, placing a period there to make it seem like a complete sentence. Didn't you? And of course, two weeks later you stopped alluding and made the direct statement.

Once again, pure deceitful lying BS.

[John Winsett]

Ally,
I do remember Ap saying the picture had been photoshopped .However,this was discussed,with Philip as I recall and
Philip explained he had had to photoshop bits of it as some bits had faded and presumably he had had to "insert" or "strengthen" bits [probably a better word], to present an image that was not tatty and therefore easier on the eye.To me,this is totally acceptable.

If the above is true and any inserting or strengthening or anything considered beyond normal photographic repair happened, then it would've been in phillip's best interest to show the original un-touched photo. I'm not saying it is or isn't a fake, but this is exactly how photographic hoaxes have been started and exposed. Again I'm not calling anything fake, forged etc. I'm just saying this could explain why 1. The picture is split and 2. why the original was not included in the book. Food for thought.

[Ally]

AP,

You are full of crap. You said the background of the Dutfield's photo was fake and then a couple of weeks later you said Phil had screwed up when he had inserted the background. At the time I said that, you hadn't accused Phil and your comment could have been taken as Phil himself had been duped. That supposition was destroyed a week later when you said Phil had inserted the background. You were allowed to speculate right up until the time you accused Phil of having been the one to fake the background. The post was deleted when you refused to provide any evidence for you claim that Phil had inserted the fake background. It was what got you your vacation and you know it.

I think it's clear to everyone now, that AP is not telling the truth. His credibility problem grows with every post.

[Cap'n Jack]

But what to do now? You ask, Natalie.
Have a reasonable discussion I would have thought.

Way back then, after posting some well known fake photos of various 'murder sites' supposedly of Whitechapel, but actually made in the 1930's in Germany, I simply said this:

'my opinion is that both photos, one a known fake, the other up for discussion, could only have been produced after 1920 because of the focus range available in the images.
Anyways I'm not prepared to discuss the images from a technical aspect until the image becomes available for study.'

Ally followed this in post number 619 by saying:

'But the fact is that not even AP has claimed anyone has perpetuated a hoax.'

I'll let Ally speak for herself. If she can.

[Natalie Severn]

Ap,
Maybe you did say Philip had "inserted" the background? If you did,don"t you think people are right to assume you meant more.That it can sound like you are accusing them of some "hanky panky"?
I must say it didnt come across to me like you were accusing Philip of a hoax.
But maybe the whole thing has been somewhat "derailed" by using word like "inserted" that can be seen to infer,by connotation, an intention to falsify?
I never,at the time or since though, thought you were accusing Philip of "hoaxing" the picture but rather that you were , at that stage, suggesting to him that he may have been duped.
Moreover,it has to be said that it was extremely difficult at the time to judge whether that picture wasnt just another example of someone outside ripperology having made a false claim[ie the original owner] to a prospective buyer[ie Philip] by selling a bogus picture to someone on the internet---as can and does happen.It was made difficult because Philip had been advised to be cautious about copyright and therefore didnt post the image in full, but behind a sort of black lined stencil, making it difficult to discern several components of the image accurately.
All this was happening, as I recall it ,while the image was still under discussion, a discussion that grew a bit heated it has to be admitted.

But what to do now?

[Monty]

No, Ally, I said that his 'experts' had misinterpretated the geographical and line of sight data available in the background of the illustration.
They had, and they later adjusted that to better fit the background, and line of sight placement.
The only thing I accused anyone of around here was wishful thinking... and I still do.

There is no misinterpretation AP. And no adjustment.

Im waiting for you to provide the evidence supporting this false accusation.

Will you?

No...thought not.

Monty

[Ally]

I have quoted you exactly AP and proven, once again, that you are lying.

[Cap'n Jack]

No, Ally, I said that his 'experts' had misinterpretated the geographical and line of sight data available in the background of the illustration.
They had, and they later adjusted that to better fit the background, and line of sight placement.
The only thing I accused anyone of around here was wishful thinking... and I still do.

[Monty]

Ally, I never accused anyone of anything, I simply said that photoshop had been employed in the final image we are shown -it has been employed thus - and that the background did not match the geographical location of Dutfield's Yard according to the line of sight placement originally given by the 'experts' engaged by the author to do so.
I am right on both counts.

Incorrect statement. The background (rooftops of the depot) conclusively support the location as Dutfields Yard. This has been explained here on Casebook (See the relative thread) and in the book.

The photo presented in the book is exactly the same photo as the one shown to us in 2007, ergo the photo has not been altered and there has been no final image.

This means you are quite simply incorrect on all counts.

The yard matches the OS, Goads maps and witness statements. The background, as I have stated, would have been the background a photographer would have seen if taking a photo in that period on that same spot.

The club doors and windows are in alignment. The stones are in alignment. The bam is in alignment.

The building at the back of the yard is the same as those there in 1888 except the stairs differ. They differ from the Furniss drawings. However other images Furniss drew are slightly incorrect as well indicating the artist employed artistic license.

I could go on but the photo really needs no defending.

As for the accusations, they're there for all to read. AP alluded to forgery.

Still, it AP...its what he does.

Monty