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

[John Bennett]

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

Hurrumph. It's not wide enough

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[John Bennett]

Strange how this Dutfield's Yard photograph has attracted so much hoo-hah over the last 18 months.

What about this one of George Yard Buildings that was posted ages ago? It started people questioning the position of the 'landing/balcony' that Tabram was murdered on, but nobody started banging on about whether this was ACTUALLY George Yard Buildings or not.

[Monty]

Here we go again.

Tiresome and erronous AP.

The 'evidence' you provided to discredit the photo was swiftly shot down in flames. The supporting evidence is really conclusive.

Im afraid your subborness is eating what little credability you have left in the field.

The photo is of Dutfields Yard.

Monty

PS John, Thats no George Yard....thats the serangeti.

[Tom_Wescott]

There's no way that's George Yard Buildings. And it's clear the photograph was taken in 2006.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Bennett]

There's no way that's George Yard Buildings. And it's clear the photograph was taken in 2006.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

God, you know your stuff, Tom!!

[Tom_Wescott]

AP has taught me well.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

I've seen the supporting evidence, I found it a weak and facile exercise that was feeding a need rather than providing factual detail concerning location, events and the people surrounding those events.
The 'experts' originally provided a sight line and location that was out by two streets. I showed this and proved this.
The fashions in the illustration are not compatible with the year in which it is claimed to have been made.
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.
These have been my concerns over the last 18 months.

[Monty]

I've seen the supporting evidence, I found it a weak and facile exercise that was feeding a need rather than providing factual detail concerning location, events and the people surrounding those events.
The 'experts' originally provided a sight line and location that was out by two streets. I showed this and proved this.
The fashions in the illustration are not compatible with the year in which it is claimed to have been made.
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.
These have been my concerns over the last 18 months.

Out by two streets? You showed this? You proved this?

Where?

Monty

[m_w_r]

I've seen the supporting evidence, I found it a weak and facile exercise that was feeding a need rather than providing factual detail concerning location, events and the people surrounding those events.
The 'experts' originally provided a sight line and location that was out by two streets. I showed this and proved this.
The fashions in the illustration are not compatible with the year in which it is claimed to have been made.
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.

AP,

These are not facts. You are not fond of "supporting evidence" because you find that it limits your repertoire for improvisation and invention. I get the feeling that you haven't got the book, and you haven't seen the dvd of Philip's presentation at last year's conference. If you had, you might find that the evidence for the location being what it was claimed to be by the photographer herself is beyond conclusive. Besides, are you really suggesting that the picture is of a different yard, two streets up, and if so, which one? Apparently, you have "proved" that the "experts'" location is out by exactly this margin.

Regards,

Mark

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

Do you have Philip's book that outlines the research into the photograph? If not, how can you comment on the research? I don't believe for a moment that you're being genuine with us, AP, but let's pretend for a moment that you're being real. Does it at all concern you that your opinion is a lone one and that far more knowledgeable and qualified individuals than yourself, such as John Bennett and Monty, have examined more evidence regarding the photo than you have, and reached the opposite conclusion to you? Does that make you step back - even for a second - and consider that you might be missing something?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott