The new Wall Writing photo discovery – a joint statement

[toynbee]

I'm wondering if this photograph has anything to do with the photo discovered in Dec 2010? (Scene of the first Whitechapel Horror)

It seems improbable, but chalk graffiti is just visible on this one also, though unreadable, it is believed to have been taken in 1892.

Probably way off the mark here but the timing seems to coincide as this was first revealed to a couple of people in Feb 2011.

Anyway I look forward to the release of your book.

Kindest regards.

Edit. Sorry I hadn't read all the thread properly, it clearly isn't. Wow sounds very exiting!

Thank you Monty for answering this with your PM.

Cheers.

[Observer]

Hi Toynbee

Has the photo to which you refer been published? If not where can it be viewed?

Regards

Observer

[toynbee]

Hi Toynbee

Has the photo to which you refer been published? If not where can it be viewed?

Regards

Observer

Hi,

No and no it can't.

Regards

[Observer]

Hi

Thanks for that. So there is at least one other very interesting photo out there not on general view to the public. I wonder how many more there are ?

Regards

Observer

Observer

[Cogidubnus]

Well that's an interesting admission isn't it?

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Not sure why an 1892 pic of the site of the "first Whitechapel horror" (Smith? Tabram? Nichols?) would need to be so hush, hush. It's four years after the murder and could have no relevance to the 1888 investigation.

Is it just me or do the newbies know a hell of lot more about what's going on in the Ripper case than the rest of us?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

I have the feeling that whatever all this is about, we may have to take a step back on viewing to take in the scenario behind this discovery.

You see, I am really confused by something here, namely the mention of 'ownership' of at least one of these items. Apparently the City of London police have rights of ownership. Now I may be totally naive, but I would have thought that ANY evidential item relating to a criminal case was NOT subject of 2nd party ownership, but part of the case evidence itself, and therefore subject to the same conditions as any other crime case evidence piece, those artifacts that pertain to a CLOSED case file should have been deposited with the rest of the relevant material. In other words, what ownership rights exist if the artifact pertains to a care long closed? As I said, I may be naive here on this point and would be delighted to hear the explanation regarding the legal ownership of evidential closed case items.

All I am personally aware of is that all items are normally handed over to the main National Archives after 30, 50, or 70 years unless political intervention occurs and items are ordered destroyed or witheld in perpetuity. The Whitechapel Murder case papers etc were ordered to be sent to the NA many many years ago.

Now it is, I understand, the case that these items have been known of for a long time (along with a kidney piece in a jar since thrown away). So why were these items NOT handed back all those years ago when all the Whitechapel murder papers were ordered sent to the NA? And how does that make the CoL POLICE the legal owners?

Please forgive my legal ownership ignorance. I just dont see how the CoL police legally own a closed case artifact and/or document once the transfer order to the NA has been made- in this case many years ago.
At what point do crime scene photos (if that is what these relate to) become museum artifacts owned by the museum owners and not, as with other case evidence, filed away at the NA?

Best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

Phil, sources like that are not all bundled up together. They can be located separately. Recently an Italian archivist in Palermo located 3 important Rossini autograph pieces from a comic opera (Il Turco in Italia). They have been lying in a basement for a couple centuries, and were "discovered" during a routine "clean up". For the most part these things happen rather chaotically/serendipitously. It's not nesessarily a bad intention.

[Monty]

The photo, which I suspect Toynebee refers to, is the 1890s shot of George yard (Gunthorpe St) which appears is Richard Jones Uncovering Jack the Ripper and on his website.

Its not hush hush.

Also it has nothing to do with the new wall writing photo.

And its not about ownership, again, its about doing things properly.

Monty

[Sally]

Its not hush hush.

Also it has nothing to do with the new wall writing photo.

And its not about ownership, again, its about doing things properly.

Monty

Oh come now Monty - people in secret cabal-like societies always say things like that...

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh come now Monty - people in secret cabal-like societies always say things like that...

and I never put Sally up to saying that !

[Monty]

I wouldn't know Sally.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Hello Tom,

I have the feeling that whatever all this is about, we may have to take a step back on viewing to take in the scenario behind this discovery.

You see, I am really confused by something here, namely the mention of 'ownership' of at least one of these items. Apparently the City of London police have rights of ownership. Now I may be totally naive, but I would have thought that ANY evidential item relating to a criminal case was NOT subject of 2nd party ownership, but part of the case evidence itself, and therefore subject to the same conditions as any other crime case evidence piece, those artifacts that pertain to a CLOSED case file should have been deposited with the rest of the relevant material. In other words, what ownership rights exist if the artifact pertains to a care long closed? As I said, I may be naive here on this point and would be delighted to hear the explanation regarding the legal ownership of evidential closed case items.

All I am personally aware of is that all items are normally handed over to the main National Archives after 30, 50, or 70 years unless political intervention occurs and items are ordered destroyed or witheld in perpetuity. The Whitechapel Murder case papers etc were ordered to be sent to the NA many many years ago.

Now it is, I understand, the case that these items have been known of for a long time (along with a kidney piece in a jar since thrown away). So why were these items NOT handed back all those years ago when all the Whitechapel murder papers were ordered sent to the NA? And how does that make the CoL POLICE the legal owners?

Please forgive my legal ownership ignorance. I just dont see how the CoL police legally own a closed case artifact and/or document once the transfer order to the NA has been made- in this case many years ago.
At what point do crime scene photos (if that is what these relate to) become museum artifacts owned by the museum owners and not, as with other case evidence, filed away at the NA?

Best wishes

Phil

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

[Sally]

and I never put Sally up to saying that !

That's what you say, Trevor.

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

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

[Trevor Marriott]

That's what you say, Trevor.

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

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

Yes but you missed out the most importnat part re The X Files where they say "The truth is out there" never a more truer word spoken