Mortuary photographs and sketches

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

Evidence in what?

Monty

The pics.

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

[Phil Carter]

I mentioned those specific photographers, because they had a connection to the east end.

I have not said of which of them took some of the pictures, I am making an assumption based on their connection to the east end.

The fact that these photos were in actual fact the property of the police, not the people who own them now (with exception to archives, crime museum etc), makes me wonder who is in possession of these pics.

If the photographer(s) who took the pics had possession of them, then passed them on to relatives, then I still think they had no right to keep these pics because they were evidence.

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

[Monty]

I hope so too. We could maybe learn alot more about the case if there are.

If the photographer's family have possession of it then I feel that the photographer should not have been allowed to keep pictures for themselves. The pics were evidence after all

Evidence in what?

Monty

[Monty]

and in what way am I assuming? Because I have been told the Stride photo is not in the National Archives together with the other victim photographs. I am sure you will tell me I have been misinformed if so and in what way then?

Phil

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

Monty

[Natasha]

Hello Natasha,

I was not referring to you when writing to Monty. :-)

I didnt assume the infnrmation to be made up either- I merely expressed the hope that you are correct that further photos exist in the families you mentioned. :-)

Apparently the information on the name of the Eddowes photographer is unable to be released as that information is, apparently, under ownership according to SPE who knows the photographer's name but cannot tell us.

Phil

I hope so too. We could maybe learn alot more about the case if there are.

If the photographer's family have possession of it then I feel that the photographer should not have been allowed to keep pictures for themselves. The pics were evidence after all

[Phil Carter]

The same.

However it is now you who is assuming.

Monty

and in what way am I assuming? Because I have been told the Stride photo is not in the National Archives together with the other victim photographs. I am sure you will tell me I have been misinformed if so and in what way then?

Phil

[Natasha]

I mentioned those specific photographers, because they had a connection to the east end.

I have not said of which of them took some of the pictures, I am making an assumption based on their connection to the east end.

The fact that these photos were in actual fact the property of the police, not the people who own them now (with exception to archives, crime museum etc), makes me wonder who is in possession of these pics.

If the photographer(s) who took the pics had possession of them, then passed them on to relatives, then I still think they had no right to keep these pics because they were evidence.

[Phil Carter]

The information aint made up.

Ownership issues. I don't think there are any restrictions on mentioning the photographers from back then.



I am a female by the way

Hello Natasha,

I was not referring to you when writing to Monty. :-)

I didnt assume the infnrmation to be made up either- I merely expressed the hope that you are correct that further photos exist in the families you mentioned. :-)

Apparently the information on the name of the Eddowes photographer is unable to be released as that information is, apparently, under ownership according to SPE who knows the photographer's name but cannot tell us.

Phil

[Monty]

You may be correct and you may not be.

I am referring to the Elizabeth Stride image that is not in the National Archives with all tie other victim photos in a nice little presentation album where it should be.

What specific image other than that are you referring to then?

Phil

The same.

However it is now you who is assuming.

Monty

[Natasha]

Hello Natasha,

I would like to think and hope you are correct :-) I fear the photo police may be a street ahead of you though. And such pearls are being kept hush hush due to "ownership of information " rights- whatever that is.

best wishes

Phil

The information aint made up.

Ownership issues. I don't think there are any restrictions on mentioning the photographers from back then.

Then you assume it to be a female. Well- you had a 50-50 chance there.

If the information I have been told- twice- is not correct are you telling me the person is in err or just deliaerately lying?


Phil

I am a female by the way