Mortuary photographs and sketches

[Natasha]

Evidence in what?

Monty

The pics.

They were taken as evidence as well as for id purposes. Well I think so anyway

[Phil Carter]

You have been told a copy is at Scotland Yard, yes?

Monty

I have been told what I have previously written Monty. The National Archives do not posess the Stride photo. It is not with the other victim photos.
Now tell me I have been misinformed.

Phil

[Natasha]

Hello Natasha,

I could not agree with you more- about who owns what and where.

IMHO NONE of any of the said photos should be in the posession of any private individual. However the hope that any further or original plates or other- additional photos emerge via photographers families would be interesting.

Phil

Hi Phil

It would be very interesting. I suspect that if an individual does have them, and had them directly passed to them from someone important on the case or if the pics were nicked, then they probably would be subject to questioning. I think that is why the info handed back in 1988 was done so anonymously.

I would like to think there are pics still out there.

[Monty]

The pics.

They were taken as evidence as well as for id purposes. Well I think so anyway

Yes and no.

The photos were taken for I D purposes, that is true. However only one would be suitable for evidence at a trial.

Now as there was no trial, we have no idea what would be used as evidence, therefore these photos are not evidence items.

Monty

[Monty]

I have been told what I wrote Monty. The National Archives do not posess the Stride photo. It is not with the other victim photos.
Now tell me I have been misinformed.

Phil

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

However, you are not reading my posts correctly.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil

It would be very interesting. I suspect that if an individual does have them, and had them directly passed to them from someone important on the case or if the pics were nicked, then they probably would be subject to questioning. I think that is why the info handed back in 1988 was done so anonymously.

I would like to think there are pics still out there.

Hello Natasha,

Being a long in the tooth cynic and sceptic- I suspect that any KNOWN original plates in existance ARE in private hands. I FEAR they will never be handed over.

Unknown original plates or photos would not be a problem if handed in as the families cannot be realistically prosecuted for being in posession of photos of an entire collection if they have either never known the jtr connection nor have attempted in 126 years to make any profit out of them.

Phil

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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]

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]

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]

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