The new Wall Writing photo discovery – a joint statement

[PaulB]

Phil,

You don't know who took the photo. When, where or why. So it is pretty much pointless to speculate on something you know nothing about isn't it?
Permission to release the photo will hopefully be given soon.

Rob

Hi Rob,
Aren't the CoLP subject to a different set of rules to the Met, much as are all the country forces, and their historical materials are not placed with the National Archives. And as far as I can recall from when I was loaned the 'Dear Boss' letter, ownership of the Mat's material was retained by the Met, not the NA. I may be wrong.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob,
Aren't the CoLP subject to a different set of rules to the Met, much as are all the country forces, and their historical materials are not placed with the National Archives. And as far as I can recall from when I was loaned the 'Dear Boss' letter, ownership of the Mat's material was retained by the Met, not the NA. I may be wrong.

Hi Paul,

Yes that's right. What CoLP stuff that is at the NA has come from a third party usually the Met.
What City Police files that have been kept are either at the museum or were transferred to the Guildhall or the London Metropolitan Archives. They was a plan last year to take back from the LMA the City Police files and bring them back to the museum which is on hold at the moment.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

You don't know who took the photo. When, where or why. So it is pretty much pointless to speculate on something you know nothing about isn't it?
Permission to release the photo will hopefully be given soon.

Rob

Hello Rob,

(Edit, please note thread crossed whilst writing)

As almost EVERYONE on this or the other thread know nothing about any of this, then it is pointless anyone saying anything about this. On the other hand, we have been invited to ask questions which those involved can or cannot answer accordingly, so therefore there is bound to be speculation from all.

i did not ask specifics about this (these) new item(s). The mention of ownership has been made in explanation by those behind this find. "Permission to use the photo wil hopefully be given soon" which is excellent.

No, I do not know who took the photo, when or why. None of us do. Are we to gather you do? In ẃch case are we allowed to ask for those answers in an effort to avoid more speculation? Surely the subject of origin isnt bound, timewise, by ownership or permission?

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not in any way attacking your stance in this and DO realise that to a certain extent your hands are tied.
It should be pointed out that any policeman or woman, in any department or force, is accountabke to the public for their actions in any situation. In wh́ch case the witholding of something that may be (and it seems it is) photographic closed case evidence AFTER a decision was made by a higher authority many years previously pertaining to such items is under question.

The questions therefore, to avoid such speculation is whether the photo, or any additional item for that matter, are

1) "Does the item specifically pertain to the Wh́techapel Murder Case/City Murder Case Police investigation or not?
2) Is the item therefore part of Case evidence or not?

That is why I brought up the question of aforementioned ownership, and the legal situation surrounding it. The speculation will die on THIS particular subject when the (in my naive view) answer to these innocent questions, which reveals nothing about specific content, is forthcoming.

If anyone invites questions, and we ask them, it is very reasonable to answer "we have not been given permission to answer at this time". You did not answer in that manner in conjunction with my point on this occasion, therefore I repeat my questions.

"Does the item pertain to the Whitechapel Murder Case/City Murder Case police investigation or not?
"Is the item therefore part of Case evidence or not?"

Further speculation as to "who took the photo, when and why" is something you can choose to expand upon or wait with as you so wish of course, I realise there is an article in composition, and a book. I heartedly applaud the open stance and attitude you are both showing to the best of your abilities. I believe my questions are innocent enough, and can be answered withov endangering any publication permission.

If you feel answering them pre-empts the article or book content, then I will understand any unwillingness to answer. That I also respect. But you invited questions. Please dont jump to conclusions that you are under attack. You are not.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

Do those differing rules pertain to two police areas involved in the same police investigation?

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

Case files at a museum? At what point do investigative case files become museum property and therefore open to exhibit? I cannot quite equate the logic here. Do you mean to say that when the Met Police case files were ordered to be sent to the NA, the City of London same case files were not, or were not included in that order?

Best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

"Records of other police forces [than the Met], except the Royal Irish Constabulary, are not public records. Those which survive are held either by the appropriate local record office or the force itself."

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/metropolitan-police.htm

[Ally]

Hello Rob,

(Edit, please note thread crossed whilst writing)

As almost EVERYONE on this or the other thread know nothing about any of this, then it is pointless anyone saying anything about this. On the other hand, we have been invited to ask questions which those involved can or cannot answer accordingly, so therefore there is bound to be speculation from all.


Phil

No, actually you weren't invited to ask questions. You took it upon yourself to do so. In fact, you were specifically asked not to ask questions until the photo was available for all to see.

I personally led the charge when Phil Hutchinson created a thread that basically stated "I have a photo and you can't see it nyah, nyah, discuss my awesomeness". Because it was sheer idiocy.

Monty and Rob did not do that. They were outed, by a third party, entirely not of their doing and were afraid that the leak would have been seen to come from them when they'd been asked not to disclose, and then created a thread merely to put to be a couple of rumors and then asked that you hold your questions until they were able to publish it fully.


Once again this is the conspiracy sets reading what they want to see, and proceeding as if it were fact, rather than reading what is actually there.

As stated, the full account of this discovery will be released to the community, and as it stands at the moment we will not be answering any questions you may have regarding this matter......Once the matter is out for all to see, Rob and I will gladly answer any queries you have, should you wish to address them to us. We are trying to do this correctly.

[Rob Clack]

Hello Rob,

(Edit, please note thread crossed whilst writing)

As almost EVERYONE on this or the other thread know nothing about any of this, then it is pointless anyone saying anything about this. On the other hand, we have been invited to ask questions which those involved can or cannot answer accordingly, so therefore there is bound to be speculation from all.

i did not ask specifics about this (these) new item(s). The mention of ownership has been made in explanation by those behind this find. "Permission to use the photo wil hopefully be given soon" which is excellent.

No, I do not know who took the photo, when or why. None of us do. Are we to gather you do? In ẃch case are we allowed to ask for those answers in an effort to avoid more speculation? Surely the subject of origin isnt bound, timewise, by ownership or permission?

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not in any way attacking your stance in this and DO realise that to a certain extent your hands are tied.
It should be pointed out that any policeman or woman, in any department or force, is accountabke to the public for their actions in any situation. In wh́ch case the witholding of something that may be (and it seems it is) photographic closed case evidence AFTER a decision was made by a higher authority many years previously pertaining to such items is under question.

The questions therefore, to avoid such speculation is whether the photo, or any additional item for that matter, are

1) "Does the item specifically pertain to the Wh́techapel Murder Case/City Murder Case Police investigation or not?
2) Is the item therefore part of Case evidence or not?

That is why I brought up the question of aforementioned ownership, and the legal situation surrounding it. The speculation will die on THIS particular subject when the (in my naive view) answer to these innocent questions, which reveals nothing about specific content, is forthcoming.

If anyone invites questions, and we ask them, it is very reasonable to answer "we have not been given permission to answer at this time". You did not answer in that manner in conjunction with my point on this occasion, therefore I repeat my questions.

"Does the item pertain to the Whitechapel Murder Case/City Murder Case police investigation or not?
"Is the item therefore part of Case evidence or not?"

Further speculation as to "who took the photo, when and why" is something you can choose to expand upon or wait with as you so wish of course, I realise there is an article in composition, and a book. I heartedly applaud the open stance and attitude you are both showing to the best of your abilities. I believe my questions are innocent enough, and can be answered withov endangering any publication permission.

If you feel answering them pre-empts the article or book content, then I will understand any unwillingness to answer. That I also respect. But you invited questions. Please dont jump to conclusions that you are under attack. You are not.

Best wishes

Phil

Phil. I draw your attention to a comment we made in the first post "as it stands at the moment we will not be answering any questions you may have regarding this matter. "

There is already wrong information about this find posted already. Unnecessary speculation only adds to it.
Rob

[Monty]

That's what you say, Trevor.

Trust no-one. Just like in the X Files.

P.S. Monty - I wasn't serious, y'know..

I know Sally, however someone else....

Monty

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Do those differing rules pertain to two police areas involved in the same police investigation?

Best wishes

Phil

Insofar as I understand your question, the answer is yes. The Met is directly accountable to the Home Office, the CoLP is not. In both cases the paperwork lodged with a record repository remains the property of the originating force, hence the CoLP being able, should they wish, to recall their material for storage at their museum. Within reason, and for all I know, without reason, the CoLP can do whatever it likes with their material.

[PaulB]

Hello Rob,

Case files at a museum? At what point do investigative case files become museum property and therefore open to exhibit? I cannot quite equate the logic here. Do you mean to say that when the Met Police case files were ordered to be sent to the NA, the City of London same case files were not, or were not included in that order?

Best wishes

Phil

As far as I am aware, yes.

[Rob Clack]

Hello Rob,

Case files at a museum? At what point do investigative case files become museum property and therefore open to exhibit? I cannot quite equate the logic here. Do you mean to say that when the Met Police case files were ordered to be sent to the NA, the City of London same case files were not, or were not included in that order?

Best wishes

Phil

Usually at the 100 year mark but you knew that already.
Now the most recent police file I have seen at the ColP museum is from 1911 and that or any of them is on display.
There are VERY few police files at the CoLP. The majority of files are at the LMA. I would say at least 99% of the City files are there.

Rob

[Monty]

We can do this one of numerous ways.

1) Release without the consent of the City of London Police. This may result in a lack of co-operation, out of wariness, from the said force for future generations of researchers. Believe me, our collective reputation, thanks to the actions of others, isnt too great as it stands today.

2) Demand the City of London Police give their consent and now. Again, this will result in the above and damage any possible future research,

or

3) We talk, arrange and come to a mutual agreement of release which pleases all concerned and enables us (and those that will follow us) to progress this case if we can.

We have a responsibility to the field. Impatient demanding, unreasonable expectation or unbased speculation will only damage.

If this happens then I will tell you this, it wont be Rob and I who is responsible.

So again, lets please keep our heads and quit the speculating till all is out.

And ALL will be out.

Cheers
Monty

[Phil Carter]

No, actually you weren't invited to ask questions. You took it upon yourself to do so. In fact, you were specifically asked not to ask questions until the photo was available for all to see.

I personally led the charge when Phil Hutchinson created a thread that basically stated "I have a photo and you can't see it nyah, nyah, discuss my awesomeness". Because it was sheer idiocy.

Monty and Rob did not do that. They were outed, by a third party, entirely not of their doing and were afraid that the leak would have been seen to come from them when they'd been asked not to disclose, and then created a thread merely to put to be a couple of rumors and then asked that you hold your questions until they were able to publish it fully.


Once again this is the conspiracy sets reading what they want to see, and proceeding as if it were fact, rather than reading what is actually there.

Actually, all questions I asked have sweet fanny Adams to do with "conspiracy" or anything like it. Re Philip Hutćnsons thread, I dont make comparisons either way.

You will note that neither Chris (thank you), Paul (thank you) Neil (thank you) nor Rob (thank you) have taken my questions in any other light and attitude that was given.
Which was exactly correct.

Those who deliberately go looking for an argument with verbal attacks or wind ups- I just calmly pass. Find someone else.

Phil

[Ally]

And yet the one post you took the time to reply to was my own and only thanked those who were calm and helpful in passing and as a total aside to your attempt to set me straight?

Gee, noble. And hypocritical.