Ripperologist 112

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

It's a striped shirt alright with, I would venture to suggest, a detachable collar and cuffs [note the collar stud].

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Brown Norma....Brown.

True, Stewart has indeed stated such.

Monty

tiredness Monty---drove back from North Wales last night,got up at 6am-and am about to crash out!
Dr Brown ---
btw.....I was talking about your "new discovery" as such earlier---not meaning particularly that it was a newly discovered photograph---

[Stewart P Evans]

PC 964 Harvey

...
I am more than willing to apologise if you have indeed ascertained that the photo is indeed Harvey. The presentation of evidence is purely your choice (and I suspect I know the answer to the following but I gotta ask) but if you wish to share how you ascertained when the collar numbers were altered Id be grateful......yes, I am a cheeky b*stard.
I must question why you felt the need to let me dig a hole after I clearly stated I may be wrong on the above. You didnt address the issue at the time and Id like to know why if I may.
Also, I dont know if you remember, but I privately mailed you back in July 2009 regarding the issue of collar number changes. You were extremely helpful but gave no inclination you knew when the alterations happened.
...

I think that I should have exited this thread when I said I would.

I do not feel that I should have to justify the above as the Harvey question was obviously introduced by you in a tit-for-tat response to my questioning your identification of the aproned man as Brown. You, as much as anybody, should know the amount of material that I possess on this case, the large amount of bulky files, books and ephemera. I identified the photograph of Harvey years ago and I knew that I had confirmation, from more than one source, of his number but not where that was. As a result of this exchange I went through my files and found one of the references (see below, a press report of 23 April 1881). I found your raising of the Harvey issue to be particularly surprising as I had not reckoned you to be that sort of a person. Then the reference to 'double standards' I found particularly out of place and insulting. I don't know when the collar number changed as I wasn't aware of the previous number before you mentioned it. But I made sure it was Harvey before I used it.

As for a cook not appearing in such a photo, I have explained that. If it was a station house photo taken as a memento for that group of officers they may well have included the staff who worked with them. Many of the police course group photos I appeared in included civilian staff with whom we had worked. Of course it may not be a cook but some other functionary, but I think that a section house cook or similar fits the bill.

[Stewart P Evans]

Photo

Well I won't be making that mistake again. And actually I believe Neil e-mailed you the photo a few weeks prior to our visit to ask your opinion.

I first saw this photo years ago at the Guildhall but did not think that it was relevant to the research (for a book) that I was doing at the time. I have consistently stated that in my opinion it was not Brown but it looked more like a cook. As I have previously stated on this thread that is my opinion and that opinion has not changed.

[Stewart P Evans]

Striped Shirt

Now that I have seen Rob's enlargement of the photo I must say that it appears to be a striped shirt and not a check shirt.

[Rob Clack]

The photograph if anybody wants to see it, is at the London Metropolitan Archives. And anybody can go and look at it.
This is the box with reference number on it.

[Stewart P Evans]

Guildhall

The photograph if anybody wants to see it, is at the London Metropolitan Archives. And anybody can go and look at it.
This is the box with reference number on it.
[ATTACH]8609[/ATTACH]

I'm sure I saw it at the Guildhall, but didn't they transfer their City Police material to the LMA?

[Monty]

Stewart,

I would like to thank you for taking the time out to check your sources with regards Harveys collar number.

I apologise for my error and the wording I used. It was unfair and amiss. Another lesson learned.

As for introducing Harvey, its wasnt a tit for tat response, just the first comparison that came into my head. As it turns out a completely wrong one and illy considered.

Again, learning curve, and a bloody steep one at that.

Whatever your views are of me Stewart, Ive always held my hand up when Im wrong. As you state, no one is infallible and I certainly am not. I admit to my errors.

Ive certainly learnt a lot this week and have certainly questioned myself over the past few days.

As for Brown, I still stand by our arguements in the article. As ever I welcome peoples opinions not matter what they are and, contrary to the insinuation we are desperate for it to be Brown, the matter really is insignificant as it brings nothing to the case other than possibily a face to a name.

And I have nothing further to add to the matter.

Cheers

Monty

[Rob Clack]

I'm sure I saw it at the Guildhall, but didn't they transfer their City Police material to the LMA?

You probably did. Two boxes of photographs were transferred from the Guildhall to the LMA around October last year. Whether there is anymore I don't know. The City Police Museum was closed when I went to Wood Street and it may be permanent. There may be other photos there.

Most of the surviving City Police personnel records are at the LMA. Some may still be at the Guildhall.

[Chris]

You probably did. Two boxes of photographs were transferred from the Guildhall to the LMA around October last year. Whether there is anymore I don't know. The City Police Museum was closed when I went to Wood Street and it may be permanent. There may be other photos there.

Most of the surviving City Police personnel records are at the LMA. Some may still be at the Guildhall.

If I understand correctly all the manuscripts formerly at the Guildhall are being relocated to the LMA:

http://www.history.ac.uk/gh/Archive%20Services.pdf

[Stewart P Evans]

Opinion

Well I won't be making that mistake again. And actually I believe Neil e-mailed you the photo a few weeks prior to our visit to ask your opinion.

Yes, the image was emailed to me on 13 October 2009. At that time it was stated that you found it at the Guildhall.

I did give my opinion at that time that I felt it might be a cook in a group shot taken at the 'section' house. It appears to be an informal uniformed shot as helmets/hats are not being worn and it is a small group of 12 constables (out of a strength of around 800) of which only 6 appear to be entitled to the medal; there are two men in plain clothes and the aproned man. The Snow Hill shot shows a much larger group, all wearing headgear and with several more senior officers present. It is also of earlier vintage.

I believe that Neil's first thought had also been that it was a cook or chef and that the idea it might be Brown was yours. It's pointless to say that we haven't seen another photo with a cook in it as I don't recall a group photo with a doctor in it. I appreciate that there was an idea that the top hatted man in the Leman Street photo might be Bagster Phillips but that is unconfirmed. Group shots were commonplace and varied in their nature.

I have already explained my thoughts of what the photograph shows and all the indicators, to my mind, point to that. I have not studied the structure of the City Police single men's quartering but the indicators are that as well as a sergeant in charge, there was a cook employed, who may have had the official title of 'mess manager' and was a very important part of the single men's life at the house. Any constable awarded a medal was entitled to wear that medal if in uniform. This wasn't done in normal everyday duty but when posing for a photograph it would be commonplace to proudly display any medal you were entitled to.

[Rob Clack]

If I understand correctly all the manuscripts formerly at the Guildhall are being relocated to the LMA:
http://www.history.ac.uk/gh/Archive%20Services.pdf

Thank you Chris, that's was what Don Rumbelow was telling me about the City Police records and also what the staff at the LMA were telling me.
The photographs that were held at the Guildhall (not just the City Police photographs) are now at the LMA. Most of the Guildhall items are still being integrated into the LMA catalogued, and if anybody needs anything they need to speak to a member of staff.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Yes, the image was emailed to me on 13 October 2009. At that time it was stated that you found it at the Guildhall.
.

That was wrong. You should have been told it was found at the London Metropolitan Archives.

[Stewart P Evans]

Explanation

That was wrong. You should have been told it was found at the London Metropolitan Archives.

Right, I think the explanation is in the fact that the material has now migrated from the Guildhall to the LMA. I copied photographs at both locations but was sure it was at the Guildhall where I saw the City Police group photographs.

[Monty]

Yes, the image was emailed to me on 13 October 2009. At that time it was stated that you found it at the Guildhall.

That was my impression, upon the advice of Don.

I believe that Neil's first thought had also been that it was a cook or chef....

That was indeed my first glance reaction.


Monty