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

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I love the way you guys huddle for cover.

Back as soon as possible.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Take yer time Simon,

Im looking forward to it.

Cheers

Monty

[Natalie Severn]

Sounds like your getting ready for another punch up Monty

[Stephen Thomas]

I love the way you guys huddle for cover.

What guys, Simon?

Who's huddling for cover?

Are you losing it in that California sun?

[Monty]

Not really Norma.

If Simon presents good evidence then Ive no issue.

It'll be one up on what AP has done.

Monty

[Cap'n Jack]

Cobbles, I said a year ago, and cobbles I say again.
There are no cobbles in this much vaunted illustration, and there should be, as indicated by the witness testimony of the time.
Load of old cobbles.

[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

[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

[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

[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]

AP,

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

[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

[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

[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]

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.