Ripperologist 112

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[Monty]

At the end of the day there is no way, as I see it, that this is Brown. Take into account the apparent age of the man in the photo (not 57 years old in my opinion) and dress (no doctor would dress like this for a posed group photo). But you have nailed your colours to the mast and are obviously sticking with it to the bitter end.

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....

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 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.

I also repeat that there are only 12 uniformed officers in this photo and if you examine the original they all look very young with not one older officer (as in the Harvey Jubilee photograph) present. This argues for a group photo taken at the section house. The four officers in the front row have their left hands visible and not one is wearing a wedding ring - again indicating younger, unmarried, officers

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

[Stewart P Evans]

Repeat

I also repeat that there are only 12 uniformed officers in this photo and if you examine the original they all look very young with not one older officer (as in the Harvey Jubilee photograph) present. This argues for a group photo taken at the section house. The four officers in the front row have their left hands visible and not one is wearing a wedding ring - again indicating younger, unmarried, officers

[Natalie Severn]

It depends on the exact nature of the examination and the Doctor concerned.

Monty

But Monty, even if Dr Brown had had to put a white apron on, to examine a prisoner,he was doing a distinguished job as the City Police surgeon and would surely to goodness have been encouraged to have taken it off for the group photo and take up a more central place in this police group than allowing himself to be photographed in his working apron,and in his shirt sleeves, without even a tie on ,standing on the sidelines?
Being photographed was quite a grand and formal occasion in those days.I can"t imagine a situation,even today,where a doctor would agree to be photographed with his police colleagues, in work overalls.Even today,how a doctor dresses in a hospital is of great significance for example.A surgeon ,when doing his rounds does not usually wear any overalls ,just his suit or a blazer and formal trousers.The other staff,junior doctors etc do wear white coats etc but not the senior doctors.It is an important distinguishing mark----just as a consultant is called Mr not Dr etc.
But for their cook to wear an apron would surely be quite a different matter .Ok ,he hasnt got his cook"s hat on,which might have looked a tad over the top even then,but he does have his professional apron on which marks him out as the cook and not a cleaner .
Best
Norma

[Stewart P Evans]

Really?

It depends on the exact nature of the examination and the Doctor concerned.
Monty

Really? Please cite an example. I worked with modern day police surgeons for nearly 30 years (not so different from their Victorian counterparts in what they dealt with) mainly examining detained prisoners and I never saw them dress in any such protective clothing.

I have also never seen an example of this in Victorian cases I have studied but perhaps you can prove me wrong. At the end of the day there is no way, as I see it, that this is Brown. Take into account the apparent age of the man in the photo (not 57 years old in my opinion) and dress (no doctor would dress like this for a posed group photo). But you have nailed your colours to the mast and are obviously sticking with it to the bitter end.

[Monty]

This has already been mentioned on this thread. Doctors would not dress up like this to do such an examination at a station.

It depends on the exact nature of the examination and the Doctor concerned.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Already Mentioned

Examinations of both prisoners and Policemen were sometimes undertaken at Stations. Brown did more than just post mortem work.
Monty

This has already been mentioned on this thread. Doctors would not dress up like this to do such an examination at a station.

[Monty]

Examinations of both prisoners and Policemen were sometimes undertaken at Stations. Brown did more than just post mortem work.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Objective

Thanks, Nats. It does occur to me that if the man in the photograph is Dr Brown, he might be dressed to carry out a postmortem at a nearby mortuary, possibly. Your point is well made, however.
How eccentric was Dr Brown? He appears to be a bit of a natty guy in those 1888 sketches, with the upturned and probably waxed moustache.
I agree that most surgeons would probably want to be dressed in their best clothes for such a photograph but if Dr Brown had a bit of an eccentric bent perhaps he would not have minded being dressed this way. The coppers were wearing their work clothes, he was wearing his.
Chris

Put your objective hat on.

The mortuary was not 'nearby' to Moor Lane Police Station. And who would have walked to the station dressed like that for a photograph? The cook, mess manager or similar, is, to my mind, the only logical explanation.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris,
I dont really think it to be a case of whether or not the surgeons wore aprons like a cook"s.
To me the issue is whether ,when such a surgeon was clearly not engaged in carrying out a surgical procedure,he would have worn it for a group police photo.Why would he do that? Surely he would have taken it off and put a jacket and tie on for a photo that included himself? Also would a police surgeon have been happy to pose "on the sidelines"?
I suppose if this was a very informal photo , they could have just caught him "on the hoof" ,but even then I rather think he would have removed his apron.
Talking of hooves maybe this chap was their regular vet and had popped in to tend a sick police horse in the stables? If he was down in the hay when they called him, maybe he rushed out half dressed and got nabbed for this photo call.

Thanks, Nats. It does occur to me that if the man in the photograph is Dr Brown, he might be dressed to carry out a postmortem at a nearby mortuary, possibly. Your point is well made, however.

How eccentric was Dr Brown? He appears to be a bit of a natty guy in those 1888 sketches, with the upturned and probably waxed moustache.

I agree that most surgeons would probably want to be dressed in their best clothes for such a photograph but if Dr Brown had a bit of an eccentric bent perhaps he would not have minded being dressed this way. The coppers were wearing their work clothes, he was wearing his.

Chris

[harry]

A closer observation of the apron type garment worn over the shirt,reveals it to be,if my sight is to be trusted,similar to the top portion of todays bib and brace overall.It appears to end about the midriff.Having seen similar style of outer covering,I too lean toward a cook.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi all

Further to my earlier post as to what a Victorian surgeon would have worn, I would point to another painting by American medical artist Thomas Eakins (1844-1916). Unlike Eakins' painting, The Gross Clinic, 1875, where the surgeons appear to be all wearing their regular street clothes, including frock coats and ties, in this later painting, The Agnew Clinic, 1889, the surgeons all appear to be wearing specialized white garb more like the scrubs we would expect for modern surgeons. Please note also that none of the men who are operating appear to be wearing ties, in contrast to the doctors or residents watching the procedure. The man at left clad in white is retiring professor of surgery Dr. D. Hayes Agnew of University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and students at the school commissioned Eakins to do the painting of the retiring professor. He might or might not be wearing a white apron or it could be a white smock. See also this portrait of Prof. Agnew in isolation which gives another perhaps clearer view of his attire. I am seeking some advice from a medical historian into this matter of what Dr. Brown likely would have worn when operating or in performing a postmortem.

Best regards

Chris George

Hi Chris,
I dont really think it to be a case of whether or not the surgeons wore aprons like a cook"s.
To me the issue is whether ,when such a surgeon was clearly not engaged in carrying out a surgical procedure,he would have worn it for a group police photo.Why would he do that? Surely he would have taken it off and put a jacket and tie on for a photo that included himself? Also would a police surgeon have been happy to pose "on the sidelines"?
I suppose if this was a very informal photo , they could have just caught him "on the hoof" ,but even then I rather think he would have removed his apron.
Talking of hooves maybe this chap was their regular vet and had popped in to tend a sick police horse in the stables? If he was down in the hay when they called him, maybe he rushed out half dressed and got nabbed for this photo call.