Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 112

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stewart P Evans
    replied
    Still At It

    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    So why doesnt the cook were a tie?
    Monty
    You are still at it!!! A cook would not, I should think, normally wear a tie when working and cooking, a collar, fastened with a collar stud, as in the photograph would be the norm. I can see that you are going to hang onto this one forever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    So why doesnt the cook were a tie?

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Natalie Severn
    replied
    Thanks for the reply.It may be "ad hoc" but its a tad unlikely since hiring a photographer would have cost a fortune in those days! It still does in schools.
    Its why the school photos can cost so much.
    So for a doctor of his rank to be posing in his overalls, [virtually], for a fairly formal occasion... I doubt it.

    Its a bit like seeing a photo of the Queen posing in her curlers with some off duty junior guards.It wouldnt happen.

    psst *sigh*

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    *sigh*

    Youve waited long enough.

    If this is Dr Brown then its all very bizarre indeed since he would outrank everybody else in the photo.
    Note the position of the Inspectors, who outrank the constables.

    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.
    Governance? In a photo? A possible ad hoc one at that?

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    And you have an infra-red photo of him.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisGeorge
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Natalie Severn
    replied
    Monty,
    Rather than say please,I will let you off the hook.

    Leave a comment:


  • Natalie Severn
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    I may answer Norma......if you say please

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Natalie Severn
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Natalie Severn
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X