Dear Sir or Madam,

The Imperial War Museum (IWM) have concealed the significance of a
major historical artefact in their possession for over 40 years. An
iron 1st issue Lusitania medallion that carries the signature of
the artist ; K. Goetz (1875-1950). The IWM have been reluctant to
publicise the objects importance. This is because other marks and
features are present on the medallion. The medallion was the
property of Milton Wright, a coalminer, from Cannock in
Staffordshire. He knew of the marks and features but little about
the medallions importance. Unfortunately, he was never told. After
his death in January 2002,the authorities assumed the visible
surface features on the object had been forgotten. In January
2004,in an attempt to obtain moral restitution four relations from
the Wright family forwarded testimonials to the IWM. These
validated the legal owner of the medallion as Milton Wright. As a
consequence the IWM gave a series of provenances for the object. In
the same period the Museum’s curators got fabrics confused,
particularly those involving bronze and magnetic iron Lusitania
medallions. In 1968 Milton Wright had allowed the medallion to be
loaned. A close relation who was a historian wanted to do research
on the artefact. The medallion was never returned. The IWM’ s
muddled response to our testimonials was therefore not completely
unexpected but was nevertheless irrational. Details of the case and
requests for disclosure have been posted previously on this
website. Between March 2005 and July 2007 the IWM gave disclosures
that were inconsistent with the code of practise specified for PA’s
under the statutory right of access. To be precise, very little
information in the disclosures they gave is correct. Two of the
Museum’s Director Generals (DG ) have supplied details that have
been misleading and confused. After a meeting of 6 members of
Museum staff in mid August 2004,photographs of the medallion were
sent to us by IWM DG Sir Robert Crawford. These photographs
supplied exclusively by Sir Robert Crawford are reproduced in a
REPLY document (January 2008) by RGW and MGW, the two sons of
Milton Wright. Detailed enlargements of the DG’ s photographs
included in this document show a defaced, discoloured and damaged
medallion. A carbon copy of the marked medallion that belonged to
Milton Wright all those years ago. Recently, Ms D. Lees the current
IWM DG and two IWM Trustees Sir Miles Irving (MI) and Sir Francis
Richards (FR), considered the medallion to be “mint”. However,
evidence in the REPLY document (Jan 2008) cites a disclosure of 22
April 2005.The disclosure by the IWM F o I Officer Sarah Henning
categorically states with regard to medallion restoration: “no
record of any work done on MED 937”. In August 2008 an examination
of a number of Lusitania medallions at the IWM resulted in one of
Milton Wright’s sons (MGW) positively identifying his fathers
property. The property was medallion MED 937. MGW, a car re-spray
specialist indicated that the medallion had been “blown in”
;treated and made significantly darker. This alteration was pointed
out to the staff present, as was the Goetz signature and other
marks still present beneath the blackened surface. The IWM’ s F o I
oversight regarding restoration of the medallion is one of many
such errors by the Imperial War Museum and places them in an
untenable position.
The Prime Minister delegated responsibility for this case to the
DCMS( Sponsorship Unit). Since 2006,the DCMS and specifically Ms E.
Foxell have been shadowing this case involving the IWM and are
familiarised with the details. The REPLY document (Jan 2008) was
sent to the PM’s Office in correspondence dated 6 February 2008.A
further copy was sent to the IWM DG about the same time. A second
copy of the REPLY document (Jan 2008) was subsequently forwarded to
Ms Foxell in November 2008,since the original copy sent to Number
10 had been lost. The IWM and the two IWM Trustees MI/FR have made
serious omissions and errors in documentation supplied to us,
whilst attempting to explain the issues of the case. The
authorities would prefer this case to be given a period of “cooling
down”. However the IWM cannot be permitted to stall this case and
keep a family heirloom through deception and consequently default.
Assurances given by Ms Foxell that none of our family are involved
in the provenance of the medallion appear to be rather confused. I
would ask the DCMS under the Act, since this is clearly Milton
Wright’s medallion ,by whose authority the IWM legally hold the
medallion. Perhaps an exclusion under the Data Protection Act
conceals the person involved with the IWM in this needless act of
conspiracy. Copies of the REPLY document (January 2008) including
detailed images of the medallion are available for interested
parties to examine.

Yours faithfully,

R.G.Wright (Dr)