Ripperologist 112

[Natalie Severn]

re : a doctor"s dresscode according to his rank

Monty,
There is a very great difference,rightly or wrongly in the status and rank that society accords to the professions of doctors and surgeons.
If this is Dr Brown then its all very bizarre indeed since he would outrank everybody else in the photo.
How come he is marginalised---on the sidelines?
Also you haven"t yet answered my points above about the well known importance,in terms of rank that governs a doctors dress code----to this day, certainly in hospitals.

But for a cook in particular,to have worn a white apron,that is an entirely different matter,as I understand it, and their professional status may be significant in terms of a photo such as this. It could,for example mean,that in this particular section house, say [if it is a section house photo as Stewart has suggested] a cook can be afforded---as opposed to an unskilled or not so skilled general housekeeper.That would then be a mark of prestige to these policemen,in that their section house could afford such a luxury,so yes,the cook may well have been persuaded to leave his apron on for the photo in this case.
Regarding the artists drawings of Dr Brown.Well there are two of them are there not? In one Dr Brown looks quite like the man in the photo,in the other he doesnt at all! What do you make of that? Which artist could draw a true likeness?

[Jenni Shelden]

N.B. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here!

Just some points from what has been said, to consider, if you will indulge such thoughts.

Firstly, Monty, you state in your article that it is pictures of the men in their jubilee medals (as stated on the back of the photo), cool, I can see some medals, however, I can see several people including the white apron guy, and the other non uniformed people, not wearing any medals, to my eye (of course my eyesight is not necesarily relaible you have seen the orignal etc, etc). What, do you know, had one done to get a medal, why would you have a picture of people wearing said medal with some not wearingthe medal etc.

Has anyone looked to see who was living at Moor Lane Police Station in 1901 - was there a cook, a doctor, etc?

Thanks for induluging this little side bar

Jenni

[Stewart P Evans]

Cheap Shots

The fact that Rob and I have decided to keep our voices down on this whole 'is it?' or 'isnt it?' debate, to respect others views when they have presented their own arguements whilst acknowledging the fact people have the ability to decide for themselves rather than continually repeating arguements and letting the evidencies speak for themselves one way or the other...kinda indicates where our colours lay.
However, I will say that an assessment of age is a personal judgement. Surely, as a former Police Officer Stewart you are aware age cannot be pinpointed exactly. Therefore it cannot be taken as read this man is not 57 years of age. Youve never met him or seen a contemporary image of a 57 year old Brown. What are you basing the age on?
There is a lot of assumption going on here, not just on our side.
You state that Brown would not appear in apron without a tie. You also mention that....
So the cook, in this photo, so keen to project a decent image, leaves HIS apron on. The same arguement you lay for Brown can just as easily be presented for a Cook.
And? The location has already been identified. I fail to see how this supports your arguement it is not Brown. Moor Lane comes under City of London Police, therefore Brown, if indeed it is him, would not be out of place at that location.
The photo is strikingly similar to the Penny Illustrated News image of October 1888. Its not as if there are any obvious differences.
Either the artist produced a false image that just happened to look a heck of a lot like the man in the photograph, or he asked the Moor Lane cook to pose for him and labelled him as the Divisional Surgeon.
That or, God forbid, it actually is Brown*.
Monty...awaiting the inevitable

I hadn't noticed that you were 'keeping your voice down' on this debate - in fact quite the opposite.

Yes, as a police officer I became pretty good at estimating age and in my opinion, and nobody's talking exact, the man in the apron looks nowhere near 57 years of age. But that is only part of a cumulative assessment leading to a certain conclusion. That is a personal assessment of his apparent age and you obviously disagree - fine. However, the view of those who have stated it is that the man in the photo does not appear to be that old.

It's not assumption that is going on here, it is reasoned and informed argument. You make the invalid comparison of what a cook would wear as opposed to a doctor. But the man in the apron is wearing exactly what you would think a section house cook would wear - his everyday working clothes. It is not what a doctor would wear every day.

The fact that it is a City Police Station is one of the reasons that you decided it may be a photo of Brown, just as others in the case of the Leman Street photo decided the man in the top hat might be Philips. It doesn't make it him but if a doctor were in the photo it would most likely be the one that operated for that Division or Force.

Although there are facial similarities between the 1888 PIP image and the aproned man these are mainly a moustache and a plump face - but I would hardly call them 'striking'. Your artist/photographer scenario is a nonsense, they are not that alike. But, you have very obviously made up your mind and nothing I say will change it. As I said before - you overstated the argument and it was published almost as a breakthrough photograph. Those who are not so informed, and don't care to be, probably appreciate what has appeared on this thread to balance the argument out.

"...God forbid, it actually is Brown" and "...awaiting the inevitable" are cheap shots and you really have reached an all time low in my estimation. You know that when you do good work (which you often do) and when you make a good find (which you also do) I am the first to sing your praises. Sadly this does not apply here.

[Stewart P Evans]

Odd

...
That or, God forbid, it actually is Brown*.
Monty...awaiting the inevitable

These extraordinarily odd and confrontational remarks lead me to make a further post in response.

I have absolutely no problem with you and Rob publishing a photograph of F. Gordon Brown if you locate one. As I say, I should be the first to congratulate you. I admire the work that you both do, I regard you both as 'dear old boys' (albeit you are both considerably younger than I am), and, I hope, in the past I have been of some small help to you both.

However, without bias of any sort in this case I honestly, genuinely, impartially, without fear or favour do not think that this is a photograph of the said gentleman, or even that it is probably him. Contact I have had from informed sources agree with me and they, too, are amazed at the high-profile treatment this photograph has been given.

I do not argue for the sake of it, I am jealous of neither of you (nor anyone else in Ripperworld for that matter), and I have no problem with you being right when you are right. For that matter I have no problem with you thinking that this is a photograph of Brown, I just don't agree.

[Monty]

Stewart,

With reference to 'keeping our voices down' I should have stated from now on. Obviously Rob is doing a better job than I.

My parting paragraph and sign off was very much tongue in cheek and was not meant as a slur. I didnt mean it in an agressive sense but more in the knowledge that you would respond with more valid arguements and trying to make light of some previous posts on this thread.

And your points are indeed valid. As Ive always stated, including your reasoning regarding the photo seen above. I too have had messages of agreement and evidences have also been present as support. However I will not present them as it is not my research and Im not certain they are valid.

Obviously I have erred a few times on this thread, have held my hands up and apologised to you when I have. The respect we hold for you, and the gratitude for your assisstance will never waver. You have always helped us and never turned us away despite the fact we must have bugged you numerous times.
You have been and will remain our first port of call because of your honesty, which can be brutal you must agree (and yes, nothing wrong in that), and the fact your company is second to none.

The photo is out there. We think, as some others do, it is Brown but know we cannot state for certain and it would be wrong of us to do so. You respect that and hearing you brings some peace. And we respect your considered views it is not, and do honestly see the validity in them.

If others wish to take the baton on, lead us away or to, then we would welcome that. If they do then we strongly urge them to consider your experienced views.

As for dear old boys comment, that made me laugh, as you are aware that phrase has always amused me.

I think its time for me to retreat to our next piece which, and I think Rob will agree, will not be so controversial or a fraught as our last one was.

Respectfully

Dear old Monty

[Natalie Severn]

Get this; I found a picture of a man in a "costermonger"s" apron standing near Spitalfield"s market in 1888.The man closely resembled the sketch made of Joe Barnett at the Inquest. Upon discussing this with a small group of experts, we came to the conclusion it was none other than Joe Barnett.

[Monty]

Sure its not George Chapman Norma?

Or could it be some Feinan activist dressed as George Chapman dressed as Joseph Barnett?

Or could it be youre simply stoking the flames again rather than adding something constructive to this this thread?

Hmmm, I wonder which?

This is why I welcome your views Stewart....you have a tad more grace than others.

Monty

[Natalie Severn]

Now Monty,be fair,my next to last post is NOT stoking any flames but rather posing some questions about a doctor"s rank and usual dress code which you dont seem to want to answer! I am being perfectly serious now.
Best
Norma

[Monty]

I may answer Norma......if you say please

Monty

[Natalie Severn]

[Natalie Severn]

Monty,
Rather than say please,I will let you off the hook.

[Tom_Wescott]

I think its time for me to retreat to our next piece which, and I think Rob will agree, will not be so controversial or a fraught as our last one was.

Surely that's to be regretted?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Thats very gracious of you Norma. Suffice to say it wasnt necessesary. Your query kinda speaks for itself.

Tom,

Well, the next guy has a more darker career than Brown.

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

Tom,

Well, the next guy has a more darker career than Brown.

Monty

Then the guy you must be covering next must be City of London Policeman P.C. Black.

Chris

[Robert]

And you have an infra-red photo of him.