The new Wall Writing photo discovery – a joint statement

[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

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

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

Best wishes

Phil

[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 wìch 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 whìch 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 Whìtechapel 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

[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

[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.

[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

[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..

[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

[Monty]

I wouldn't know Sally.

Monty

[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 !

[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...

[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

[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.

[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

[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