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

[Natalie Severn]

Quite a few of us like and enjoy Ap.His wit and turn of phrase can be a lot of fun.And just for the record I have had at least 6 emails saying just that and others saying how people would miss him if he were forced off the site , plus 3 pms on t"othersite and 4 pm"s on this site---these just in last few days.I wish some of these folk would speak out now actually. So if you above think that somehow Ap is universally disliked/despised you are so wrong!

That is not to say I want to go on and on with this Berner Street battle.I have seen the picture now,think it looks authentic and of the period and actually is a great picture!
Also for the record I never have thought Philip had doctored the picture for goodness sake!---well apart from what he said he had to do to make it presentable which is completely reasonable in my opinion.Its a great addition,as is the Whitby collection.

[Monty]

I wouldnt be allowed in then Ally.

Im not criticising casebook or the way its run. Im very aware that its the contributors responsibilty to debate correctly and uphold standards.

Theres to many who see this place as theirs instead of Stephens. We forget we are guests.

Anyway, thats for a different thread.

Philips book is very good, its up to the reader to analyse the data and the attempts to undermind the photo is down to pure ego. Not for the cause of truth. For if it were the evidence would have been presented and the accusations wouldnt have been needed.

End of.

Monty


PS My eyes would mezmerise you. They did Adam and his leather pants.

[Ally]

Thats why Im so vemonous Ally.

The insinuation we are part of a conspiracy in a hoax.

Baseless accusations.

Well against Rob anyway. He's an angel...you could be a hoaxer. I've always said you have shifty eyes. I've never actually SEEN your eyes myself of course, but since when do we actually need to have first hand knowledge of something before making an accusation.

Believe me, there is research out there which will not find its way here. This because of people like AP who accuse rather than debate.

So in a way, the main reason why his utopia of free shared information will never see the light of day is because of the man himself and senseless idiots like him.

I agree with you to some extent but I also know the flip side. Casebook tends to be fairly hands off when it comes to freedom of speech and then the minute they decide something has gone too far and step in, asshats like Leahy jump in whining about freedom of speech. Casebook is in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. The thing that really pisses me off is that people think I am the one in charge of the boards and believe me if I were, dickheads who make unwarranted accusations would be banned right out of the gate. But again, I am not paying the bill so I don't get to make the call. I also know that Casebook relies on its members to tell it when something has crossed a line, and for the most part, no one reports anything. If the members won't use the tools available to help police themselves, then busy people will assume everything is okay.

I have no problem with rigorous, even vicious debate, but dammit if you make a claim you better have the evidence to back it up.

I would love to make a special board that only people who have proven intellect and reason would be able to post on, that merit (not academic credentials or NAME recognition, but actual debate merit) would be the key in....maybe I should pitch it to admin.

[Monty]

Thats why Im so vemonous Ally.

The insinuation we are part of a conspiracy in a hoax.

Baseless accusations.

If he said youre wrong, here is why, and presented evidence then hey, Id be the first to say Im wrong and say yep, youre right AP. I have done before.

However is accusation is baseless, its pure poison. Which seems to be, to me anyway, pretty much everything he touches.

Believe me, there is research out there which will not find its way here. This because of people like AP who accuse rather than debate.

So in a way, the main reason why his utopia of free shared information will never see the light of day is because of the man himself and senseless idiots like him.

Its the reason SPE doesnt post regularly, the reason Philip Sugden walked from the case and why Don Rumbelow has never shown his face here.

Its just not worth the hassle and bollocks that comes with it.

Its a shame but hey, aint my fault.

Monty

[Ally]

Hi All,

Research appears to be demonstrating that AP is not quite so far off the mark as first imagined.

Simon

Actually there is no amount of research that would demonstrate that. Even on the off chance that research somehow shows the photo is not Dutfield's, AP is not just claiming that it is not Dutfield's, he's also implying and has stated publicly that Phil deliberately hoaxed it and Rob, et. al. are in collusion. Which is flat out BS and completely off the mark by a distance of several miles.

[Monty]

Ok John,

Fair enough.

Monty

[John Winsett]

Jesus John,

Paragraphs.

Ill type slo and fo-net-ik-ally. Just so you can follow.

You have every right to voice your opinion, and you have every right to voice them as you deem fit. The fact you chose to provoke seems to reflect your personality.

As for your Mumsy insult, believe me, Ive been skinned by bigger and better. Have a word with Ally, she will give you tips on how to insult in style, rather than the bog standard 'yo momma' and 'I meant it as it sound' crap.

Like I give a diddle.

Amateurs.

Monty

Well, no sense in pulling out the big guns on this topic right?
I really didn't mean to provoke, and I have nothing but respect for Phillip's work but as proven by his responses as long as it's on his playground and his ball we play by his rules. Let's be real about something. This is a century+ old murder. What exactly was accomplished by splitting the page of a 5$ pic found on ebay? It's not the first clear photo of the Loch Ness Monster. It's not undeniable proof of ghosts. It's not a picture of Oswald shooting Kennedy. It's the pic of a 20 year old(at that time)murder site, and even that's being questioned.
My point that I'm laboring towards is that it's only mildly important to ripperologists. His clear intention when he discovered it was to make money off it. Ok, no problem. But honestly it's a 5$ pic that is not going to appear on the nightly news as a grand discovery, it's not going to get any press recognition. He might sell it to the next documentary maker if they think it's usable. Beyond that that it's just a 5$ pic of a yard in 1909. I would've paid 10 bucks for it and he could've doubled his money.
So what happens now? He's published it. Someone may scan it and put it on the net. So what? Is it truly such an important find to treat it like this? To hold it over our heads and piece it out just enough as to keep us tantalized and jealous that we don't get to see it in it's entirety? This is not the holy grail of ripperology. A Picture of MJK would be much more important than this.
Not to belittle it, but also remember Phillip didn't "discover" it. That was done by the person he bought it from, who knew exactly what it was but wasn't interested in exploiting it other than getting 5$ for his beagles.

[Monty]

Jesus John,

Paragraphs.

Ill type slo and fo-net-ik-ally. Just so you can follow.

You have every right to voice your opinion, and you have every right to voice them as you deem fit. The fact you chose to provoke seems to reflect your personality.

As for your Mumsy insult, believe me, Ive been skinned by bigger and better. Have a word with Ally, she will give you tips on how to insult in style, rather than the bog standard 'yo momma' and 'I meant it as it sound' crap.

Like I give a diddle.

Amateurs.

Monty

[John Winsett]

John,

It seems to me you just purchased the book for its pictures. Does the text not interest you?

Or is it just a little too taxing? Maybe we can get Mummy to dumb it down for you.

You made your point, and how. Caused a commotion and belittled. So dont come back telling us to relax guys.

Either you like it or you dont. And if not get yer money back.

Monty

Wow Monty! Thanks for opening my eyes! Actually I did read the text and found it very entertaining and enjoyed alot of the pics. What I don't like and still don't like is the fact that the picture is split and more so the reasons that it was done. Let's say the splitting was decided to give the viewer a better look. OK most books that do so also provide a complete version albeit a little smaller so that the viewer can take in the whole scene. But this was not the case. Phillip specifically said it was done to prevent un-authorized postings or scans to the internet (if I get to many big words let me know and I'll break it down easier for you)This is obviously a misguided mistake or a huge ego boost for him because he's the only one with a full copy so he's one up on everyone who bought it. That's my opinion and if you disagree that's OK. Maybe I should have been more polite so as not to offend your sense of decency but I would like to point out that I am not the only one who has voiced disgust with this action. I'm also not the one who is constantly arguing about the pic being genuine, etc. I think it is so that's good enough for me. So please give credit where credit is due. If my voicing my distaste to actions I deem idiotic caused all this then you need to get a hobby or have mummy buy you a new toy. Try getting out a little, or have mumsy take you to the park for some playtime. Yes that was belittling and I meant it that way.

AMF

[Phil Carter]

Simon,
According to Wikipedia...
The English yard could be considered to be a type of cubit, measuring 12 palms, ~90 cm, or 36 inches (3.00 ft). This is the measure from the middle of a man's body to his fingers, always with outstretched arm.

best wishes

Phil

[Jenni Shelden]

AP,

as thats not actually your real name - how do I know you are not really JK Rowling?

[Cap'n Jack]

Cubits are water closets where close male friends take the piss, Simon, it is measured by the stains left on the floor.

[Jenni Shelden]

I don't know - I don't think the big yellow ears on the front look anything like 1888



If any one wants my opinion - this is all getting silly

Jenni

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

California sun?

It's 3.02 pm Friday 22nd January 2010 and pissing down with the worst storms California has seen for a lifetime.

Can anyone out there measure in cubits?

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

That was addressed AP,

There is a period of time between the murder and the date of the photo, nearly 20 years.

As with any location in such a period minor alteration of road surfaces occur. This is no indication the photo is false. Only that surface work happened, and I believe such work happened in Berner Street itself in 1890s.

Besides, the surface described in 1888 is little different from the photo, if you study it correctly.

Monty