PARENTS KILLED AMBER ALERT ISSUED FOR 13-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER
---
POLICE NEED PUBLIC'S HELP IN FINDING MISSING AND PREGNANT KIERRA COLES

Naked child victim's circus blaze pic removed

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by wfgodot, Jan 24, 2015.

  1. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,163
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The story at Daily Mail link:

    'I was worried her soul would never rest': Fire captain criticized for 'poor judgement' after
    removing naked photos of dead girl, 8, killed in a 1944 circus blaze from the walls of his firehouse


     
  2. crystalgenie

    crystalgenie New Member

    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Myself and some others have posted to the Hartford Fire Department Facebook page to show support for their retiring fire captain, Mr. William Pond. I believe it was a good and decent thing to do and I am glad that he had the intestinal fortitude to destroy that picture!

    I feel it hard to believe that a picture of a poor little naked girl should ever have been publicly displayed at a firehouse and how their new captain has a problem with the destruction of that photo is rather disturbing.

    This is their Facebook page if anyone is interested in posting something to show respect for Mr. Pond and the honorable and decent thing that he did.

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hartford-Fire-Department/190562870987552
     
  3. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,163
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree, crystalgenie, but great post.
     
  4. Trident

    Trident Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,783
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, it was a great post, on that we agree. However, why??? would the fire department want to keep a picture of a naked little girl up on the wall? It isn't as if she was unidentified. What WAS the purpose?
     
  5. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,163
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good question. First, I think it always a mistake to censor history, no matter the horror; and, here, the display was in an entirely appropriate setting -- the fire department, where, I suppose, it served as a striking momento mori, a grim reminder of what might be at stake at each fire call. I can see the other, "take it down," side, of course. But then to take it home and destroy the image? No, that's not appropriate -- fortunately it was not a lone copy of the photograph, as the guy evidently thought who (get ready) burned the image in a fire. Good grief, talk about tone deaf.
     
  6. crystalgenie

    crystalgenie New Member

    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0

    They have tons of other pictures of the fire,in fire department, and around Hartford but no one but them were displaying the child's body, I heard... (info from friends in Hartford) I realize it is history but I don't think a dead, naked body of a child or anyone should be on display, that is just me. I have problem with death and dead bodies. I do not attend funerals.

    I respect your opinion though and always like your posts.
     
  7. Crimson clover

    Crimson clover New Member

    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-girl-killed-1944-blaze-firehouse-walls.html
    I commend Mr. Pond.
    No firefighter, much less seasoned captain need the grim reminders. Their own personal visions are enough. How difficult his career in the service...to view the naked child's demise...each day at the station. Captain Pond made his own peace, in his own fireplace.

    Rest in peace, Eleanor Cook.
     
  8. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,163
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem with this sort of logic is -- when does it stop, this need to censor history and cut down fact to a size with which one individual is comfortable? At what expense? For instance, I have a small picture case, about 8" x 5", wood with a glass frame and, pasted at back, the piece's provenance -- a letter from the 1840s describing what it contains inside: a small charcoal ember from a structure burned in London's hellish conflagration in 1666: the Great Fire. It is a piece of history no one has a right to destroy regardless of where it is displayed -- publicly or privately; regardless of the great human suffering -- the deaths, the homelessness -- it caused as it raced north and destroyed St. Paul's and all other structures in its path along the Thames. Whether image or relic, one must not destroy the past. Let the dead bury the dead. We, the living, must always realize the delicacy of life, and thus its sanctity; the terrible cost of our shared history must never be contained.
     
  9. MsFacetious

    MsFacetious What a Kerfuffle...

    Messages:
    18,575
    Likes Received:
    6,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't want the pictures of the Holocaust destroyed.
    I have taught my 11 year old daughter's about the Holocaust.

    However, it doesn't mean they need to be displayed in public either.
    I have not shown my children PICTURES of the bodies in the Holocaust yet.
    I don't believe they are ready to see that and I should choose when they do.

    My friend just had her son's birthday party at a fire station.
    Kids tour the fire station for field trips quite frequently.
    What if a child had seen that picture? How traumatizing for that child. :twocents:
     
  10. Crimson clover

    Crimson clover New Member

    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All fine words...lest you place your thinking in Captain Pond's boots...along with the prayers he shared in the flames of the fireplace.
    http://www.statter911.com/2015/01/2...ung-victim-historic-1944-fire-can-rest-peace/
    It will be interesting to follow Chief Huertas' actions and questionable agenda according to Captain Pond.
     
  11. SwampMama

    SwampMama Insomniac Extraordinaire

    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry but the image of a naked child is not comparable to a charcoal ember. A naked child is not appropriate for display, not even if she was a victim of a fire. Perhaps, a medical text, a reference book or historical documentation or some other ethical type of use is appropriate and not really objectionable. Those are educational and reasonable uses of the pic.

    On display in a firehouse is not the place for that pic. After all, naked children are not appropriate for display (except for the bare bottomed babies whose genitals are not showing). If I were to take naked pics of a 4 year old girl and send them to you, I could be arrested for child porn. It is the "naked child" aspect of this pic that is really the most objectionable, along with the fact that nudity and severe injuries in pic usually have a "graphic" warning so that people who don't want to see such things can avoid them.

    I speak as a wife of a former ass't chief. I have just spoke with him (not even telling him the story of the cap't who removed the pic). He said " It is NOT appropriate. It is disrespectful to the child and her family. It is against policy to display or distribute images (or info) of patients. Naked pics on display in a firehouse are simply not appropriate. We have children who tour the firehouse and should not be subjected to that. This shouldn't even be a question. Just NO!"

    Pretty much the entire reason that this picture exists is because she was an unidentified victim of a famous, huge fire with many causalities. She has long since been identified and is laid to rest with a tombstone bearing her name. This pic should have been laid to rest long ago too (and really never publicly displayed like that at all).
     
  12. wendybtn

    wendybtn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    358
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So who voted him the one to decide? And if he was going to remove it, the proper thing to do would be donate it to a museum or a collector who has other pictures and perhaps artefacts of the tragedy? This reminds me more of a tenant of a building being told when the lease is up and removing the copper and appliances before leaving. "I will show you. My emotion is more important than anyone else's opinion or input."
     
  13. ninij9

    ninij9 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What a sad tragedy. After reading this thread I was lost for days on the internet and read everything I could. So, How do we know he actually burned it? Why take it all the way home to destroy it? No shredder in the office? I hope he wasn't "attached" to the photo. My mind does go there.
     
  14. Bluejay_Young

    Bluejay_Young New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    3
    According to Fire Chief Huertas the photo Pond burned was just a copy. All the original pictures of Little Miss 1565 are safe. His statement is given here (with the actual picture included) and there are follow-up articles.
    There's just a little bit of a problem with this story. I've been reading some posts on a blog from Hartford newsman Kevin Brookman, and comments being made by others who appear to know the situation.
    The photo of Little Miss 1565 that was on display at Station 14 does not show her naked. It is the famous shot of just her face. There is another picture I have seen which is full length and she has a sleeveless white gown. I don't know how anyone could possibly interpret these pictures as "naked". I am sure nude shots were taken at the morgue for ID, but those would never be made part of a memorial display.
    Apparently, William Pond was a known troublemaker and this was something he did out of spite after a failed attempt to collect workmen's comp for a non-work-related injury.
    I would love to get verification of this. I "adopted" this kid (along with Elsie Paroubek) years ago, my fellow Websleuths will know what I mean -- and whether or not she is Eleanor Cook, I have a "jury's still out" attitude; I think the truth will someday be known.

    And I just have to say... ye gods, the kid died in a fire and he burned her effigy? I mean instead of burying it?, or... I have no words.
     
  15. Trident

    Trident Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,783
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now I have to go back and read more. This is "tent girl", right? I always wondered if her ID was correct or not also. At any rate, you've reignited my interest. Thanks, I think, LOL
     
  16. Ragamuffin

    Ragamuffin New Member

    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believed this case was an accident and Eleanor was positively identified. I'm honestly surprised that neither may be true. I, too, am off to read more. Thanks!

    BTW WRT Mr Pond, axe to grind or morbid obsession, it was not his call to make. JMO.
     
  17. Bluejay_Young

    Bluejay_Young New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    3
    "Tent Girl" was identified as Barbara Hackmann Taylor. She was much older and that was in 1967-68.
    The one we're talking about here is Little Miss 1565/possibly Eleanor Emily Cook, from the Hartford, CT Ringling Bros - Barnum & Bailey Circus fire July 6, 1944.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice