Ripperologist 112

[Monty]

Paralysed begger

Stewart,

Here is the Times of 9th November 1904 of the very same story.

It seem he was a begger, cheeky one at that.

[Tom_Wescott]

Your ever loving significant other

That is SOOOOOOO gay. Explains that pic of Freddie Mercury you're passing off as Dr. Brown.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Brown photo

Chris,

I think I can speak for Rob on this in welcoming Stewarts caution. Its an extremely wise approach.

However, we are pretty strong in our views it is Brown because, as you can see, he is pretty distinctive. The period matches, location, attire, sketches, theres a fair few positives.

Below is the complete image taken at Moor Lane Police Station.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Monty

Yes the man in the white apron does make a very distinctive statement, as you say. Indeed, his pose says a lot about the character of the man. I also accept the argument that Rob and you make that given that this photograph was taken to celebrate City of London Police at the time of Queen Victoria's Jubilee -- some of the coppers after all wearing medals -- that this was an important photograph that would be unlikely to have featured a cook, which the man with the apron could been. On the other hand, maybe they wanted to celebrate the chef's luscious Beef Wellington served last evening??? Just a thought you might think about.

All the best

Chris

[Stewart P Evans]

A Point

Chris,
I think I can speak for Rob on this in welcoming Stewarts caution. Its an extremely wise approach.
However, we are pretty strong in our views it is Brown because, as you can see, he is pretty distinctive. The period matches, location, attire, sketches, theres a fair few positives.
Below is the complete image taken at Moor Lane Police Station.

Whilst noting the obvious similarities between the person in the photograph and the 1888 sketches of Brown I still think that definite confirmation that it is Brown is necessary before presenting it as the actual article.

A point that I would make is that this is a definitely posed police group photograph and, as such, why would Brown appear in it with no tie, wearing an apron and with his sleeves rolled up? Surely he would have wished to have been preserved for posterity wearing his normal dress attire and with his top hat. I appreciate that the argument is advanced that Brown may have been so attired as he was examining a prisoner in the cells (or victim) at that time. But a police surgeon would not normally garb himself in apron with tie removed and sleeves rolled up to examine a detained prisoner, or a victim and, again, if he was posing in an important group photograph of some sort surely he would have dressed back in his formal clothing before the photograph was taken.

So, as I see it, the person in the photograph does resemble Brown as depicted in drawings of over 10 years earlier but the jury must remain out as to any definite identification.

[Stewart P Evans]

Speculate

Although I am never too keen to speculate I do have certain ideas on this photograph that I haven't mentioned. The reason for this is that it is sheer speculation on my part but it is why I suggested that a cook may be the explanation for the aproned person in this photo. Anyway, here I go.

The Metropolitan police had section houses to accommodate their single, usually younger, officers. The only staff of the section house consisted of a sergeant, the cook and an instructor. Similarly the City Police had lodgings for their unmarried officers at their various police stations (they were charged 1/6 per week for this accommodation). Obviously the cook provided all the meals for these officers and was an important figure in the section house. So, regarding it in this light, let's take another look at this photograph.

The first thing to note is that all the uniformed police officers in the photograph appear to be very young (try to imagine them without the moustaches). That leaves the two men in plain clothes in the front row and the man in the apron. This could well translate to be a photograph of the unmarried officers occupying the Moor Lane single-men's lodgings, together with their cook, sergeant and instructor (drawing a parallel with the Metropolitan police staff of a section house).

So, in my humble opinion, this does present a rather stronger argument for this being a photograph of the Moor Lane Police Station 'section house' officers and staff.

[Stewart P Evans]

And Another Thing...

And another thing, I note in the article that this photograph is described as 'an important commemorative photograph for the City Police force'. But why?

Group photographs are quite common in the police force, I have a few in which I appear in full uniform. It is the norm in these photographs, often taken for those on a special course of some sort, or working or living together. When uniform is worn in these group photo's those entitled to medals wear them. Again, in this light, let's look at this photograph.

There are only twelve uniformed officers in the group and only half of them can be seen to be wearing medals. The other six don't have medals, probably because they were newer recruits and did not serve at the time entitlement to the medals was valid.

So, again, the small number of officers appearing in the photograph together with the fact that only half are wearing medals argues for the fact that this is a group photograph of some officers who work the same shift and reside together at the section house as single men. Here's a shot of me wearing the only medal I shall ever be entitled to - the police long service and good conduct medal

[The Good Michael]

Great photo, Stewart! Let's hope that good conduct medal portends similar things on these boards. (joke)

Back to the group photo: The man's shows and trousers seem quite nice from what I can tell in an old photo. Would a cook have worn similar things? I realize that variety in those days was slim, but I'd imagine some disrepair on the shoes and trousers, unless a cook's salary was decent.

Cheers,

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Decent Image

Great photo, Stewart! Let's hope that good conduct medal portends similar things on these boards. (joke)
Back to the group photo: The man's shows and trousers seem quite nice from what I can tell in an old photo. Would a cook have worn similar things? I realize that variety in those days was slim, but I'd imagine some disrepair on the shoes and trousers, unless a cook's salary was decent.
Cheers,
Mike

I don't think that you can see anything more than the fact that he is wearing dark trousers (the quality and cut of which cannot be seen) and shiny leather shoes.

In Victorian days such a job as a police cook running a section house would be seen as secure, steady and respectable employment with a decent wage. As a City Police employee I am sure that he would be required to wear respectable clothing and not shabby attire. Also if he knew he was to appear in a group photograph that day I am sure he would be keen to project a decent image.

So, much as I should like to endorse this as a probable photograph of Frederick Gordon Brown, I am afraid that I have to say my own opinion is that it is not the good doctor. However, I stand to be proved wrong and I shall be the first to admit it if I am.

[Monty]

Hi Stewart,

Firstly, and importantly, I would like to make it clear that Rob and I have always been appreciative of your valued input. Its the reason why you were one of the very first people we contacted when we saw the photo.

I would like to point out that we have explained why we could not say for certain the man in the photo is Brown. We both (Rob and I) know its not an ascertained fact and have made this very clear in the article. However it is our opinion it is, and like yourself, we would gladly hold our hands up if proven wrong.

Whilst your views and reasoning are extremely valid and should be considered by all viewing the photo, there are a few points Id like to address if I may.

I see your point over the attire however if you expect a Divisional Surgeon to dressed more smartly then why not the cook in a possible important photograph? A sense of pride would be equally evident in both. As you stated in you latest post, In Victorian days such a job as a police cook running a section house would be seen as secure, steady and respectable employment with a decent wage. Surely he would be just as obliged to wear a tie at least.

Im really trying to recall seeing a Police group photo in which a Cook appears. I cannot recall one. Ive seen quite a few but cannot recall seeing a cook in any instant at all. That said, its possible Im wrong but until now I cannot state Ive ever seen such a photo like it.

Also, as we've stated in the article, if the Cook appears why not the cleaner?

Im also trying to recall if Moor Lane was indeed a station house. Its something Im currently working on so it would be amiss of me to state one way or tother.

The bottom line is you are quiet correct, definite confirmation is required before stating with certainty it is Brown. However, just as you (or Don) did with the probable Harvey photo, the analysis of the evidence leads us to believe it is highly possible the photo is Brown....

....however, as stated clearly in the article, we cannot be certain.

Respectfully, as ever

Monty


PS That photo was taken last week surely, youve hardly changed.

[Monty]

Metropolitan Police Surgeons Association

British Medical Journal report 10th November 1888

Thanks to Mark Ripper for his help on this.

[Monty]

Stewart, all,

After doing a little research, a reliable source informs me that Moor Lane was indeed a station house upon its completion in 1840, this thanks to Don Rumbelows 'I spy blue'.

If it still was in the 1890s Im not sure however theres a possibilty it was indeed.

Its only fair and correct that this is mentioned

Cheers
Monty

[Rob Clack]

Stewart, all,

After doing a little research, a reliable source informs me that Moor Lane was indeed a station house upon its completion in 1840, this thanks to Don Rumbelows 'I spy blue'.

If it still was in the 1890s Im not sure however theres a possibilty it was indeed.

Its only fair and correct that this is mentioned

Cheers
Monty

according to Don's 'I Spy Blue', building work was begun in November 1840 and completed on the 22 June 1841. And housed 40 men. Presumably that means it was a section house as well. That building stood till about 1902, so it would more then likely been a section house when the photo was taken.

Rob

[Chadwick]

Copycat

Stewart,

Here is the Times of 9th November 1904 of the very same story.

It seem he was a begger, cheeky one at that.

I recognized this story, but the idea wasn't from Ripper lore. It is from the pen of Arthur Conan Doyle. "Adventure Vl, The Man With The Twisted Lip" is the tale of a well respected business man who seemed to have a secret habit of going off for a few days to an opium den, periodically -- and he did.

Truth be told, he didn't have a real job. He would seem to go to work as a stock broker but he really was as a notorious beggar, in heavy disguise, who quoted the classics to people. He made off like a bandit until his wife saw him in the window of where he would change into his disguise. She went in and found his clothes but not him. She thought he had been kidnapped and called Sherlock Holmes. Homes uncovered this man's method to his fortune -- begging. The policeman's complaint was, when he found out what he made, "But that's a gentleman's wages!"

Probably where he got his idea...

Best to you,

~Chadwick

[Stewart P Evans]

Group Photographs

Hi Stewart,
I would like to point out that we have explained why we could not say for certain the man in the photo is Brown. We both (Rob and I) know its not an ascertained fact and have made this very clear in the article. However it is our opinion it is, and like yourself, we would gladly hold our hands up if proven wrong.
Whilst your views and reasoning are extremely valid and should be considered by all viewing the photo, there are a few points Id like to address if I may.
I see your point over the attire however if you expect a Divisional Surgeon to dressed more smartly then why not the cook in a possible important photograph? A sense of pride would be equally evident in both. As you stated in you latest post, In Victorian days such a job as a police cook running a section house would be seen as secure, steady and respectable employment with a decent wage. Surely he would be just as obliged to wear a tie at least.
Im really trying to recall seeing a Police group photo in which a Cook appears. I cannot recall one. Ive seen quite a few but cannot recall seeing a cook in any instant at all. That said, its possible Im wrong but until now I cannot state Ive ever seen such a photo like it.
...
The bottom line is you are quiet correct, definite confirmation is required before stating with certainty it is Brown. However, just as you (or Don) did with the probable Harvey photo, the analysis of the evidence leads us to believe it is highly possible the photo is Brown....
....however, as stated clearly in the article, we cannot be certain.
Respectfully, as ever
Monty

PS That photo was taken last week surely, youve hardly changed.

As I have stated, in my opinion this is more likely to be a section house cook than a police surgeon. Police group photographs were taken for all sorts of reasons and there is an argument for this being a group of single men living in the section house.

A cook was one of only three staff at a section house, as I pointed out in a previous post. That being the case this could well be the three staff of the section house, including the cook dressed as he was for his daily duties (note the apron is at least clean!). I do not see that wearing a tie would come into it, and it would be unlikely that he did in a hot kitchen. It would be unlikely for a police surgeon to appear like this without a tie. To the men in a section house the cook would be part of the 'family' at the house. These group photographs were often taken for the men as a memento of their colleagues and where they lived.

I appreciate that you have not said that it is definitely Brown but you have certainly made a very, very strong case for this, a huge picture of his face forms the cover of the latest Ripperologist and you leave very little room for opposition in your reasoning in the article. Indeed I've already had someone say to me 'I see Neil and Rob have found a photo of Dr Brown now.'

Around the time of this photograph Brown would have been, I believe, around 56 years old and the man in the photo appears younger than that to me. I do not agree with you that it is 'highly possible' that this is a photograph of Brown and I feel that the case for that may have been somewhat overstated. Basically the main 'evidence' for your argument is the similarity of the man in the photo with a drawing(s) done many years earlier.