| Author |
Message |
    
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 3:56 am: | 
|
I don't think any one has asked this question, but why would someone hold onto a photo for 100 years, then return it anonomously? It's pretty obvious whoever returned it, didn't take it in the first place, so they don't have to fear getting in trouble. Likewise, they would get their 15 minutes of fame for being the one to "discover" it.
The only theory I could come up with for this being returned anonomously and so long after the murders would be that JTR was a policeman involved in the murders and he took evidence and passed it down through his family. Maybe MJK's heart is sitting in a jar somewhere in a decendent's basement. Maybe someone really does know who JTR is. Their great grandfather!!! |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 295
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 9:21 am: |
|
One thing I want to know is, how on earth did the person who handed it in know what it was?
I don't think this means that JTR was a policeman, although a policeman may have taken home his own little souvenir.
Sarah |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 292
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 10:33 am: |
|
I think the return of this photo and other items to SY is one of the most important developments in the case -- not for the content so much, but for what it tells us. It tells us that the data available is not necessarily static, but that there exists the real possibility of "new" information being introduced.
It is quite possible even 100+ years on that a "souvenir" might be found in "grandfather's" old trunk, or that a policeman's case notes might turn up, or that a lock of victim's hair might be found, or even that a "diary" or written confession could turn up.
Of course, any such discoveries would have to be viewed with the utmost skepticism since the chances of being a hoax are much greater than those of being genuine.
Andy S.
|
Lisa Jane Turner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 8:18 am: |
|
How do we know this photograph actually was taken in Millers Court? What accompanied the photograph when it was returned? Who immediately linked this anonymous black and white photograph with the Ripper case? |
Angelina Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Eric,
I think you may have something there. My crazy guess to what you brought up would be that if the picture was indeed handed down through somebody's family, it makes sense that they would not want their 15 minutes of fame. If this person came foth it would only state the obvious. Either this person did not want the world to know that he/she was related to JTR or he/she was not wanting to blow the cover of their descendent out of fear of retaliation or out of pride~~Could be that this is something to be prooud of in this twisted family, also loving that nobody was caught. It is almost as if the peron was laughing in the world's face as the picture was returned.
Angelina |
Edward David Anton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 9:38 am: |
|
Hi,
I think it highly unlikely that whoever returned the photo was a either a descendant of JTR or had some murky reason behind giving it back. The fact is, if JTR's descendants had evidence and new who he was - they'd hardly be handing it in to the police if they were trying to protect the family name. I would suspect the theory of it belonging to a police officers family is probably correct. As for the 15 minutes of fame thing - imagine your Great Grandfather was a well respected policeman with an unblemished record. Would you really drag his name through the mud by suggesting that he removed evidence from one of the most publicised murder cases in history? I think what bothers me most is why someone would want the photo in the first place. It's not exactly something to pull out with the holiday snaps is it? I think it most likely that it was 'borrowed' by someone who had access to it in order to do their own investigation, but never returned - for whatever reason. |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 2:34 am: |
|
Maybe if the London authorities made a search of the homes of all the decedents of the police officers and detectives involved in the case, more photos and information could be found.
Someone could at least ask the decendents to look through their belongings and see if anything turns up. |
Lisa Jane
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 8:05 am: |
|
Hi Eric
I'm sure a 116 year old historical case though fascinating to all of us is nowhere near any 'London authorities' police included, list of priorities. A search simply couldn't happen.
I doubt even a request with the stamp of some authority would be feasible with hard pressed workloads, targets etc in a crime ridden city like London. It's a nice thought, though I think any chances would lie with private researchers.
I don't think the reasons for the return are necessarily suspicious. A copper finds something related to the Ripper case and takes home his 'souvenir', shows a few fellas down the pub, don't forget the case wasn't enjoying the popularity it does now back anywhere between the 1900's - 1970's. It would have all been forgotten. The family returned them as historical artifacts anonymously because they simply aren't interested.
I again reiterate my points from a few posts back (Dec 17th) which haven't been addressed.
We all live in hope however that something does turn up...I'd better start going to boot sales, you never know...
Regards
Lisa |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 671
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Folks,
Re Lisa's post.
Who verifys these documents that have suddenly appeared ? I know this is Kellys 2nd photo thread but Id like to add the Marginalia to Ms Lisa's enquiry, its a valid point.
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 506
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:39 am: |
|
"The family returned them as historical artifacts anonymously because they simply aren't interested."
Yes but imagine if you had no interest in the Ripper case and you came across this photo somewhere in your attic. How would you know what it was at all?
That is a good question Monty, who does verify these items? Anyone?
Sarah |
Louis van Dompselaar
Sergeant
Username: Etaoin
Post Number: 14
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 9:41 am: |
|
Re: how did anyone know what this photograph was?
Wasn't it included in the larger package that was returned to Scotland Yard, also containing the original Dear Boss letter and some items relating to the Crippen case?
Louis |
Kris Law
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 88
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:18 am: |
|
Louis,
That's what I remember reading. I don't remember where, but I seem to recall that the police were farily sure who the "unidentified" person was, a reletive of a high standing police official who had recently passed away.
I seem to recall that he had used the items in question in lectures on Criminology he gave. Which is a slightly less creepy reason for wanting to keep them. Only slightly, mind you. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 8:59 am: |
|
As I recall, several items, including photos of the victims, were returned to Scotland Yard in 1988 at the time of the "Centenary". Can anyone confirm this?
I believe that at that time the view was that items had been purloined from official files as "souvenirs" many years ago. This, of course, in part explains (innocently) why material is missing from the files.
Why this pic should have been returned at a particular moment, I cannot say. maybe it had just be found (or recognised) for what it was. Or the thief, now ageing, has decided to return it as no longer had value to him. The "owner" could hardly auction it without making their identity known, and opening themselves or relatives to prosecution or post-mortem loss of reputation.
Am I right in thinking that Melville Macnagten used to keep the photographs in the safe in his office? Could this have been one of those?
We can only hope that more material emerges as time goes on - the authenticity springs from internal evidence as much as definite evidence. The marginalia, for instance, tells us new things (I don't think the Seaside Home was mentioned in this context before) which have been, at least partially verified.
Phil
|
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 3:17 am: |
|
Hello,
Have you ever considered the real possibility that the person who handed in the photo did it to be of assisstance to the public and ripper enthusiasts. Would you also consider that this person didnt want 15 minutes of fame.They were probably retired and did not want to be molested by the press, the way the royal family is.
Dale the snail
|
Candy Morgan
Police Constable
Username: Candy
Post Number: 8
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:28 am: |
|
I'm not implying anyone in particular, but....
Has anyone given a thought as to maybe the person who took it being an archivist or researcher? Didn't whole files go missing between the 50's and today? Has anyone gone over the old lists that were compiled regarding what was in the files, to see if an extra Kelly photo was mentioned at any time.
NOT that I'm saying a researcher would do anything like this...
Ok, at least none of us here...
Ok, at least not most of us here...
I keed, I keed. But just think how tempting it would be if you had the From Hell letter in your hand, right now. Wouldn't you at least give a thought to keeping it? Framing it? Something like that.
Phear my 1337 HTML skillz!
(does anybody know how to do italics in sig files?)
|
YSKT
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
The photograph album containing the victim photographs was returned to New Scotland Yard in 1988 by the family of a retired senior Metropolitan Police Officer who had recently died. He had kept the album to use in talks that he did after his retirement.
The previous year the 'Dear Boss' letter, Dr. Bond's report on Kelly and other papers had been anonymously returned to the Yard from a different source. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
This is why the EBay Watch thread is so important. Someday somebody may find something of significance in the attic. |
