Mortuary photographs and sketches

[Defective Detective]

How confident are we that we have all the photographs which exist of the victims? The emergence of a third Kelly photograph would seem to suggest there may have been others which were taken and then lost to time.

[Phil Carter]

The owner does not want his identity revealed and the images are his to do with what he will. Attitudes such as witnessed on this thread would do nothing but alienate a person who might otherwise have shown them.

Hello Stewart,

Thank you for that.

Believe it or not I can respect privacy. No problem here. However, unless said owner reads these boards, or is informed of them, said owner will not know of any such attitudes. Therefore it is up to each and every person in contact with the owner, who may be privy to the conversations here, to encourage said owner to share with the world, if he or she so wish, to show said photographs to the waiting public.

I understand that the items were sold a long long time ago from Eric Barton's shop. In which case the person in question has perhaps had ample time in which to consider his or her possibilities, no? (20 years or so?)

Having seen these never before seen images, it would be of great help to the field if they were to be seen, would they not, through perhaps your good self, and the owner can safely remain anonymous in perpetuity if that be his or her wish.



regards

Phil

[Brenda]

.

Hi Stewart,
Can you say whether the Kelly image is the original MJK1 image or is it another shot entirely, never seen before?

Thanks

[Stewart P Evans]

Do people actually read...?

Do people actually read and understand what appears on these boards? For it appears not.

It is patently clear, and is a matter of record, that several original victim photographs were given to George R Sims by Melville Macnaghten and these were, patently, not stolen. In the early sixties these originals were bought by antiquarian dealer Eric Barton as part of the Sims collection. Thus they had entered the public domain quite legitimately. These are now in private hands and it is up to the owners what they do with them. I am fortunate enough to have seen the newly located Kelly image and it is the best quality of all I have seen.

The owner does not want his identity revealed and the images are his to do with what he will. Attitudes such as witnessed on this thread would do nothing but alienate a person who might otherwise have shown them.

[Monty]

I was going to respond to each individual post of yours Phil, however time and interest does not permit.

Copies of the photo exist, not originals, and these are in private hands. They are not the nations to do with as demanded, any more than any photo you have obtained is mine to demand a viewing.

I'm afraid that the reason why the Stride photo is not at Kew shall not be revealed by me. I am not prepared to break of confidence just to pander to your demands. The reason, in my opinion, is valid and is NOT sinister, but more to do with moral decency unconnected to the case.

Now I'm fully aware that this response shall draw your ridicule, however I simply do not care.

A photo of Stride is easily obtainable, end of.

Monty

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

If you had read my post without pre-judgement, you will CLEARLY see that I used the two worded descriptions above as EXAMPLES. NOT any SPECIFIC photos.
Try re readrng it with another attitude.

Take a step backwards Monty. On this occasion nobody is out to personally point fingers at anyone imparticular.

Phil

Then these 'plates' and 'originals' are merely in existence in your hypotheses.

So irrelevant.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

A photo of Elisabeth Stride is already in the public domain. What more do you want?

Monty

Hello Monty,

I do not WANT anything re these photos.

I WOULD LIKE to see every original photo or 1st known copy held in the National Archives where they belong.

It is a hope that it happens.

Likewise ANY original paperwork in private hands.

A hope that it will happen isnt a demand. Nor an expectation for that matter!


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Rather than establish the full facts, which you clearly are not party to, and which, as I've stated, runs deeper than money, or a 'need to know' basis for that matter, you decide to come on a public forum, stamp your feet, and tell others how they should conduct their business.

Monty

Hello Monty,

You do not know what I am party to and am not.
Your concentration on the "money" argument has already been dismissed as being of false assumption and shown to be so in my previous post.
Are you dismissing the right of the general public the "need to know" the whereabouts of things that actually should be able to be seen, LEGALLY, by the general public? I do hope not. I sincerely do hope not.
As far as the last comment is concerned, you are totally in err and my attitude has none of those traits you are so inclined to read from my words.

Now- why dont you do the whole world a favour and state here- one by one- all the facts, whys and wherefores of the information only you and a selective few are aware of so that NOBODY who dares to ask questions of this nature do it again because we will ALL be in posession of those facts?
Tell us all exactly "how deep it goes" so we can all understand eh?

OR is it just the chosen few allowed to know?
Monty, this is 2014. Not the dark ages of secrecy for "the public good".... dont know if you noticed but the "lets keep it amongst ourselves" attitude has not worked. Ask all those MP's and policemen about Rotherham, Cyril Smith, Jimmy Savile, Hillsborough, the Birmingham 6 etc etc.

Nudge nudge wink wink doesnt work anymore in today's society. Even Freemasonary has learned that one!

Open knowledge does work. Sorry



Phil

[Phil Carter]

Obviously you prefer to tackle this from a judgmental position, and assume its about profiteering, a telling stance. There is more to this than money, it is about decency and respect for other people and their lives.

Monty

Hello Monty,

I gave an opinion on what I would prefer to see done with the photos in private hands. That isnt judgemental, it was a hope. I mentioned only ONE thing about finance and stated that for me it would be better the photos were in the NA where they rightfully belong and not run the risk of any photo ever being sold off to a buyer from outside the UK. Nothing wrong wit that healthy opinion. Who mentioned "profiteering"?? Not I- nor was it alluded to. The "outside the UK" was my point.

Do tell me how decency and respect for other people and their lives comes into it if photographs of the most famous crime in history have been "permanently borrowed for private use" from the original owners? Where is the decency in that Monty?

You cannot defend anyone- from Commander Millen down on this or anything akin to it. Ok it happened- times and a culture may have been different- but times have changed. People dont accept serving or ex policemen doing untoward things anymore. People dont accept others turning a blind eye.

Thats the way times have changed. In many ways that is a good thing. For us all- in many ways.

That isnt preaching- its how society TODAY looks upon the misdemeanours of the past.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

What plates?

What originals?

Monty

Hello Monty,

If you had read my post without pre-judgement, you will CLEARLY see that I used the two worded descriptions above as EXAMPLES. NOT any SPECIFIC photos.
Try re readrng it with another attitude.

Take a step backwards Monty. On this occasion nobody is out to personally point fingers at anyone imparticular.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

If you took time to read my words, you'd realise I was trying to help you.
Monty

Hello Monty,

I did take the time and I did take note.
Thank you. :-)

You assume I take a stance with an attacking attitude. You assume wrong....sorry!

As for the rest of the post... It will be dealt with below.

Phil

[Monty]

Monty,

We both know that as things stand, I wish I did know better.
Know better than to HAVE to find out for myself because certain people only are hanging on to information that really does not matter one iota in the long run.

If-for the sake of argument- a glass plate original is in private hands, and cannot be transferred "home" to The National Archives for reason of, say, fragility or condition, or the current owner to be in poor health-vald reasons both- it doesnt matter if that persons name is known. At least EVERYONE knows it is safe and not sold abroad for massive sums.
Yes- I'd like to see EVERY ORIGINAL in the National Archives where they belong-not locked in a safe somewhere or in some collectors posession.

But the problems arise with secrecy. They do not belong to anyone except the NA- because the general public have the right- with permission to see them under the appropriate conditions of course.

They dont belong in the Crime Museums of the Met or City Police either. Available to only a select group of people to see. There is and should be no secrecy towards nor unavailability to anyone. That is no longer the right of the police- as OFFICIALLY-from 1960- the photos should have been turned over to the NA anyway- thats on record.

So all these silly "I know but Im not telling" games could be avoided with openess and not least honesty. And given the information that high ranking polceman Millen himself apparently stole a few photo albums and kept them long after he retired- I reckon a change in attitude across the board would be refreshing for us all. Then we wouldnt have the "posessors" and "non posessors" of information and material,


Phil

If you took time to read my words, you'd realise I was trying to help you. However, you would sooner preach than take note. So be it.

What plates?

What originals?

Obviously you prefer to tackle this from a judgmental position, and assume its about profiteering, a telling stance. There is more to this than money, it is about decency and respect for other people and their lives.

Rather than establish the full facts, which you clearly are not party to, and which, as I've stated, runs deeper than money, or a 'need to know' basis for that matter, you decide to come on a public forum, stamp your feet, and tell others how they should conduct their business.

A photo of Elisabeth Stride is already in the public domain. What more do you want?

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Ok Phil, have it your way.

Clearly you know better.

Monty

Monty,

We both know that as things stand, I wish I did know better.
Know better than to HAVE to find out for myself because certain people only are hanging on to information that really does not matter one iota in the long run.

If-for the sake of argument- a glass plate original is in private hands, and cannot be transferred "home" to The National Archives for reason of, say, fragility or condition, or the current owner to be in poor health-vald reasons both- it doesnt matter if that persons name is known. At least EVERYONE knows it is safe and not sold abroad for massive sums.
Yes- I'd like to see EVERY ORIGINAL in the National Archives where they belong-not locked in a safe somewhere or in some collectors posession.

But the problems arise with secrecy. They do not belong to anyone except the NA- because the general public have the right- with permission to see them under the appropriate conditions of course.

They dont belong in the Crime Museums of the Met or City Police either. Available to only a select group of people to see. There is and should be no secrecy towards nor unavailability to anyone. That is no longer the right of the police- as OFFICIALLY-from 1960- the photos should have been turned over to the NA anyway- thats on record.

So all these silly "I know but Im not telling" games could be avoided with openess and not least honesty. And given the information that high ranking polceman Millen himself apparently stole a few photo albums and kept them long after he retired- I reckon a change in attitude across the board would be refreshing for us all. Then we wouldnt have the "posessors" and "non posessors" of information and material,


Phil

[Monty]

Oh but Monty my dear fellow- let me assure you I am reading them correctly.

I am deliberately avoiding answering with ALL of the exact information I posess
Which is why permission is needed.
I know what lies where.

Phil

Ok Phil, have it your way.

Clearly you know better.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

No, you have not. A copy of Strides photo is not at Kew.

However, you are not reading my posts correctly.

Monty

Oh but Monty my dear fellow- let me assure you I am reading them correctly.

I am deliberately avoiding answering with ALL of the exact information I posess
Which is why permission is needed.
I know what lies where.

Phil