Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mortuary photographs and sketches

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    Go for it.

    However I'm not sure you will, and for valid reasons.

    Monty
    Why thank you Monty :-)

    What if I told you that someone has made an apparently innocent faux pas already?


    Phil
    Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


    Justice for the 96 = achieved
    Accountability? ....

    Comment


    • #17
      I'm not sure she has Phil.

      Monty
      Monty

      https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

      Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

      Comment


      • #18
        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
        Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


        Justice for the 96 = achieved
        Accountability? ....

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Monty View Post
          I'm not sure she has Phil.

          Monty
          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
          Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


          Justice for the 96 = achieved
          Accountability? ....

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
            Then you assume it to be a female. Well- you had a 50-50 chance there.

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


            Phil
            I do assume, am I incorrect?

            The information is neither. Then again it depends on what speific image you are referring to.

            Monty
            Monty

            https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

            Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Monty View Post
              I do assume, am I incorrect?

              The information is neither. Then again it depends on what speific image you are referring to.

              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
              Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


              Justice for the 96 = achieved
              Accountability? ....

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                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.

                Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                  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
                  Monty

                  https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                  Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                  http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Natasha View Post
                    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
                    Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                    Justice for the 96 = achieved
                    Accountability? ....

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Monty View Post
                        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
                        Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                        Justice for the 96 = achieved
                        Accountability? ....

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                            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
                            Monty

                            https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                            Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Natasha View Post
                              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

                              https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                              Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                              http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Natasha View Post
                                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
                                Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                                Justice for the 96 = achieved
                                Accountability? ....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X