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

[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

[Monty]

Rob,

Cant he say your name then?

Beetlejuice
Beetlejuice
Beetle....

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Neil,

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

Rob

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP has taught me well.

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]

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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.

[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.