Hammersmith Nude Murders (Stripper)

[Chris]

Yes an interesting suggestion. In 1964-65 its hard to believe that detailed photographs werent taken of each murder scene, yet I've never come across any evidence of there existence. Seabrooke certainly never mentions photographs and onlyuses the mug shots released at the time. Petty standard stuff used by the press.

I think photographs would certainly have been taken at the murder scenes. In files on other cases from the early 1950s which I looked at for comparison during my FOI request, there were always photographs present. Those were the DPP's files, not the police records, and they were prints rather than negatives. But it would make sense for the police to retain negatives in case they were needed in the event of a trial.

TNA have argued that releasing photographs showing the body would be distressing to the victim's family and therefore would be covered by the section 38 exemption. However, very many files on murders at least from the 1950s have been routinely opened by TNA, and these normally include photographs of the body. The viewpoint almost seems to be that it's fine for TNA to cause distress to the families of victims, so long as it's not the result of a Freedom of Information request.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

Isn't it possible they are just the negatives of crime scene photographs taken by the police?

.

Yes an interesting suggestion. In 1964-65 its hard to believe that detailed photographs werent taken of each murder scene, yet I've never come across any evidence of there existence. Seabrooke certainly never mentions photographs and onlyuses the mug shots released at the time. Petty standard stuff used by the press.

Tailfords coroners report, the only surviving one at city archive doesnt contain any photos of crime scene.

So yes its rather intriguing. One would think crime scene photos must have been taken at all the murder sites. There's film of detectives on scene in one of the old documentaries. But I've never heard mention of photographs before or come across discussion or mention.

Its certainly an avenue to consider when making the approach.

I just would have thought if they were location or morgue shots they would have been photographs rather than negatives?

Many thanks

Yours Jeff

[Chris]

Jeff

Isn't it possible they are just the negatives of crime scene photographs taken by the police?

If that's what you're really interested in you could just put that question to them as a FOI request. Saying "yes, they are negatives of crime scene photos" or "no they are negatives of some other photos" wouldn't be subject to any of the stated exemptions as far as I can see (though TNA seem to be very adept at thinking of reasons not to release information).

[Jeff Leahy]

John Burrows

Hi Chris

Many many thanks. This is exactly the sort of information I required. I will spend more time going over your suggests with my partner later on. You have given us hope it might be worth persuing.

The negatives are most interesting. As you say they may not have been found on the body. We know the police recovered Helens clutch bag containing a set of key, 3 lipsticks and a pot of proscribed pain killers. They also searched her flat thoroughly and at one time considered her man friend a suspect. (Finger prints)

The file you recommended to me contained largely clippings of Owen Summers News of the World article 1973 where he suggests the police suspected a policeman. This has driven rumours over the years like Tommy Butler. But I wonder if Summers new who the suspect was and could not publish, hoping to drive something out with his article into the open.

On these boards a few years back a well respected Ripperologist claimed the rumours at Hendon about the ID of the killer were common place and that he had fled to Australia.

In 1965 a bent copper called Herbert died with £50,000 in his bank account and his co-hort John Burrows...disappeared to Australia. They are significant in that in 1963 they were asked by the then government during the profumo scandal to get Steven Ward on whatever charges they could muster up on him.

Burrow and Herbert started putting the presure on various Prostitutes threatening them if they would not say they had been procured by Ward. One of the girls spoke out against them her name Francis Brown the seventh victim (There were actual eight if you include Figg). Rhona Rocardo also retracted her evidence against Ward claim the Police had threatened to take her children away. Vicky Pendleton was set up by Burrows and Wards solicitor claims she also retracted after his death.

And this leads me to Mungo Ireland. If he was not the killer why did his family not speak out against De Rose claims?

Well I think the answer is John Burrows new Elizabeth Irelend was a prostitute originally from Malta, and threatened to take her kids into care if she did not keep quite.

Corruption in the MET was rife at this time and didn't end until 1973 with the prosecution of FENWICK.

Whatever is on the negatives, for whatever reason has been held back for a long time. Even David Seabrooke doesn't mention there existence.

What we do know is a number of the victims were involved in making porn films and in the book Found Naked and Dead its mentioned photographic equipment being confiscated during a raid, usually connected with Tailford, but not mentioned in Seabrooks book.

Of course this is all largely speculative but perhaps those negatives might help fill in some gaps. So again many thanks for your help.

Yours Jeff

[Chris]

During recent research we discovered new information on Helen Barthelemy. She was apparently found with negatives. We dont know what or where.

We applied to the archive to view the file but have been turned down.

We find that surprising given the files have already been opened to David Seabrooke some years ago. We would welcome any advice from anyone who has experience dealing with the National Archive and how best to respond/Appeal against the decision.

That's interesting.

The description of the file is not very clearly written, but I suspect it's meant to say that the file contains photographic negatives, not that negatives were found with the body.

I have been investigating another case for which TNA initially withheld the whole file on the basis of the section 38 and 40 exemptions.

Section 40 makes the Stripper case very difficult, because it prohibits the release of information relating to people's sexual lives or allegations of criminal activity. By the nature of the case, much of the evidence concerns people's sexual lives. Unfortunately it's no help legally regarding section 40 that much of the information has been published. The only way around the exemption is to provide evidence that people are dead (or that they were born more than 100 years ago). Although you'll be able to identify some people of interest from what's been published, the catch is that you won't know who many of the people are so it won't be possible to provide proof of death for them, even if they are dead.

Otherwise you can argue that the section 40 information should be redacted and the remainder released. They are obliged to release the non-exempt information provided there is sufficient of it to make some sense.

On Section 38:
(1) I think there is a strong legal argument that "distress" doesn't amount to harm to "mental and/or physical health or safety". But as both TNA and the Information Commissioner have argued that it does (despite the guidance on the Commissioner's website stating the opposite), it would probably be necessary to go as far as the Tribunal to make any progress with that argument. (Unfortunately the Tribunal didn't have to decide that point in my case.)
(2) You can argue that a number of books have been written on the case and that the MEPO files including this one were made available to David Seabrook, who published a lot of very detailed information from them. So the substance of the information is in the public domain, and it is not likely that releasing the file will cause distress to anyone. (This is the reason the Tribunal ruled that section 38 didn't apply in my case.)
(3) You can also argue that even if some information is exempt for this reason, it can be redacted and there is no need to withhold the whole file.

On Section 31, fortunately I haven't had to research that one so far, but obviously the Met has seriously weakened any argument along these lines by giving an author access to the files and allowing him to publish the information in them! The Met police's own guidance says this can't be applied as a blanket exemption and that every case must be considered on its own merits:
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/po...i_guidance.pdf

On that basis, TNA needs some arguments specific to this case, which I don't see in the email. They also need to establish that there is a significant likelihood of an investigation being prejudiced, not just a possibility.

As the email says, you'll be expected to request an internal review by TNA before you can go to the next stage, which is a complaint to the Information Commissioner. If they don't know that the file has already been made available to an author by the Met and that very detailed information from it has been published, it may make a difference if you point that out to them.

[sdreid]

Well they say 7 murdered women so at least we can be pretty sure they are including Rees as an official victim.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi everyone

During recent research we discovered new information on Helen Barthelemy. She was apparently found with negatives. We dont know what or where.

We applied to the archive to view the file but have been turned down.

We find that surprising given the files have already been opened to David Seabrooke some years ago. We would welcome any advice from anyone who has experience dealing with the National Archive and how best to respond/Appeal against the decision.

Many thanks Jeff

> Subject: Freedom of Information request: Call Reference F0038325
> From: foienquiry@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk
> To: catrin63@live.co.uk
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 10:40:48 +0100
>
> Dear Mrs Rees-Hannibal
>
> Thank you for your enquiry of 17 April regarding a review of:
>
> MEPO 2/10301 – The 'Nude Murders'. Unsolved murder of Helen Catherine BARTHELEMY, found dead at Brentford on 24 April 1964 with photographic negatives
>
>
> Unfortunately we have decided that this information should be withheld. I regret to say this means we cannot make this document open to you or to the public in general.
>
> This is because all of the information in the document is covered by sections 31(1) (a-c) and 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
>
> Section 31(1)(a-c) This exempts information if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—
>
> (a) the prevention or detection of crime,
> (b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
> (c) the administration of justice,
>
> Section 38 exempts information if its disclosure under the Act would or would be likely to harm the mental and/or physical health or safety of any individual.
>
> We are required to conduct a public interest test in relation to the application of sections 31(1) (a-c) and section 38 of the Act; when these exemptions apply we are required to consider whether it is in the public interest to release the information. On this occasion it was decided that the public interest was best served by withholding the information.
> Please find below the arguments made in favour of and against the release of the information requested and the outcome of the public interest test:
>
> Arguments made in favour of the release of the information requested
>
> Disclosure of the information contained within this record would demonstrate how the police go about investigating serious crime, in this instance the murder of seven young women in West London during the mid 1960s, attributed to one serial killer.
>
> The police service is accountable to the public it serves and it is in the common interest that information that demonstrates how it performs across the range of its duties is made available. However, this comes with the following caveats; such disclosures of information must not impede the police from discharging their lawful duties to detect and prevent crime, and identify, apprehend and bring offenders to justice; nor should disclosure infringe the rights of individuals.
>
> The murder of seven women apparently by the same perpetrator would have been the source of considerable public anxiety. Disclosure of information which indicates the efforts of the authorities to identify the individual(s) responsible, even if the case ultimately remains unsolved, could act to reassure the public and engender a sense confidence in the police, which would be in the public interest.
>
> Arguments made against the release of the information requested
>
>
> Outcome of the public interest test
>
> The information contained in this record is directly relevant to the investigation of a series of murders as yet unsolved. As such the Metropolitan Police Service would desire that the details of the investigation remain confidential until any hypothetical suspect reaches the age of 85 years, after which point, in common with CPS policy, a prosecution is unlikely to be pursued. This closure period would be based on an assumption that the suspect(s) would have been at least 16 years old at the material time. The rationale for this is that there remains a possibility that these murders could still be investigated and that a suspect could be identified, charged, brought to trial and convicted.
>
> It is not possible to identify particular information that might be released into the public domain without the risk of compromising any future police actions; information that appears innocuous may have significance to an experienced investigator that is not immediately obvious to the lay reader; or may assume a new significance in the light of newly discovered evidence or developments in forensic or investigative techniques. The evolution of new scientific techniques, especially the technology of DNA, means that cases hitherto considered unsolvable, are being examined afresh. Increasingly police services throughout the country are setting up ‘cold case’ teams to review their case files on unsolved murders; in some instances these unsolved murders date back to the 1940s.
> The premature release of this record into the public domain might, therefore, be detrimental to any future investigation and subsequent prosecution.
>
> Within the last four years this record, along with those that relate to the other murders attributed to the same offender, has been reviewed by a ‘cold case’ team. The gravity of this and the related offences is such that its significance to police is likely remain until any prospect of identifying the perpetrator is no longer viable.
>
> This record should remain closed citing s.31. This is because disclosure of the information contained therein could be prejudicial a future investigation and prosecution with the result that a suspect may evade apprehension. Such an outcome would not be in the public interest.
>
> This record comprises of a report that links together a series of prostitute murders in West London in 1960s. The report contains information a graphic and disturbing nature the disclosure of which is likely to cause substantial distress to the victims’ surviving, immediate families to the point where their welfare could be significantly harmed.
>
> Most of the information in this file is also exempt under section 40 (2) (by virtue of section 40 (3) (a) (i)) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
>
> Section 40 exempts personal information about a ‘third party’ (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would breach the terms of the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998. The DPA prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress.
>
> In this document the exemption applies to because the file contains detailed accounts of aspects of the personal sexual and family lives, as well as a number of unproven allegations made against, a number of identified individuals who can be assumed to still be living. These individuals would have no expectation that this information would be released into the public domain during their lifetime and to do so would be likely to cause them considerable distress. Furthermore, it would contravene the first data protection principle which is concerned with the fair and lawful processing of information of this nature.
>
>
> If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request or the decision which has been reached, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests must be submitted within two months of the date of this response and should be addressed to:
>
> Quality Manager
> Public Services Development Unit
> The National Archives
> Kew
> Richmond
> Surrey
> TW9 4DU
> complaints@nationalarchives.gov.uk
>
> Please mark your complaint clearly. You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning his investigation.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Poppy Groves
>
> Freedom of Information Assessor
> Freedom of Information Centre
> Information Management and Practice Department
>
> If you would like to contact us again regarding
> this request, please contact the helpdesk:
>
> via e-mail: By replying to this e-mail
> or (020 8876 3444)
> Remember to quote your call reference number: F0038325 in any
> correspondence, as this will assist us in providing you with a
> quick response.
>
> www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
>
> Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> National Archives Disclaimer
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the
> individual(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and
> have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email.
> Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do
> not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff:

Yes, I had the 7 named suspects in your first 8 plus Michael de Freitas who was, if I recall correctly, the main guy in AP's theory.

Yes your quite correct.

If I remember correctly the police looked at a number of Black Yardie type characters...I've heard names mentioned like Michael X.

But I've no more specifics..

I believe Helen Barthelemy's boy friend was considered who was another black gangster sort of character.

Lynch was also bought in and considered

Yours Jeff

[sdreid]

Hi Jeff:

Yes, I had the 7 named suspects in your first 8 plus Michael de Freitas who was, if I recall correctly, the main guy in AP's theory.

[Jeff Leahy]

PS of course there is another possibility Stan.

If Burrows was a bent copper who went 'off track' much like the William Gull Theory.. Then he could have been working for more seniour members of the arostocracy or Government..

So anyone in the Thursday Club..Lord Astor, Mount Battan

What about Prince Philip?

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Do we have 8 named persons of interest now? That's what I posted over on Websleuths.

1. Harold Jones

2. John Burrows (Copper)

3. Mungo Ireland

4 Cushway (Copper)

5. Freddie Mills

6. Tommy Butler (Copper)

7. The Solicitor (Name unknown)

8. Kennith Archibald

9. Various Gangsters including Whitehead (The Kray's were questioned)

There has been some others suggested. Someone on the boards a few years back claimed it was someone working at the BBC (I presume not jimmy Saville )

Thats all I've got off the top of my head.

Yours Jeff

[sdreid]

Do we have 8 named persons of interest now? That's what I posted over on Websleuths.

[Jeff Leahy]

I read this entire 50 page thread and have become fascinated by this case. I was vaguely familiar with it but had little interest because I believed that the police had identified a suspect who killed himself and there was little debate over his guilt. Clearly, this is incorrect.

I also recently watched the youtube documentary. What is the fastest way to become more familiar with the case? Should I read the books in chronological order, or should I pick a more recent one that summarizes the older books?

The most modern and complete book is Neil Milkin's 'Who was Jack the Stripper' where he puts forward Harold Jones as the Killer.

I'm working on a Post that proposes John Burrows.

I think Mungo Ireland and Cushway (Put forward by Seabrook in Jack of Jumps, have been largely discounted.

But its an on going case that has never been solved with more variation than the JtR murders.

The more interest the case has the more likely we are to have an opening of the files. Its my belief that John Burrows blackmailed Elizabeth Ireland into staying quiet

Yours Jeff

[Barnaby]

Fascinated

I read this entire 50 page thread and have become fascinated by this case. I was vaguely familiar with it but had little interest because I believed that the police had identified a suspect who killed himself and there was little debate over his guilt. Clearly, this is incorrect.

I also recently watched the youtube documentary. What is the fastest way to become more familiar with the case? Should I read the books in chronological order, or should I pick a more recent one that summarizes the older books?

[Jeff Leahy]

This coming Thursday, the 24th, is the 50th anniversary of the discovery of Helen Bartelemy's remains.

Helen was the first body to be stored. Presumably the killer was waiting for Regormortis to end which takes around 48 hrs.

Interestingly she was posed and placed in an ally way. Reminisent of the first murder committed by Harold Jones.

Her top four front teeth were absent

Yours Jeff