Ripperologist 112

[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]

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.

[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---

[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

[Rob Clack]

1. The man in the photograph is not dressed as smartly as one would expect a police doctor posing for a station photograph to be.

Isn't he? Have you got some examples to show us then?

2. He is wearing a check shirt which would seem odd for a police doctor.

It's stripped and would it?

3. He looks considerably younger than Brown's age at that time.

Maybe, maybe not. Age perception is very difficult.

[DVV]

Nor has Stewart stated it certainly wasn't one of Brown, so the irony here is that you're both saying the same thing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

No, Neil was trying to say they were saying the same thing, but Stewart disagreed and said that Rob wasn't saying the same thing he - Stewart - was saying.
Tired to say that they were saying the same thing, Neil suddenly gave up and told Stewart that he was right saying that they were not saying the same thing.
But at this stage, SPE, who won't let anybody say so, replied that he never said anything that would ever be in agreement with anything Neil would ever say.

Hear what I'm saying.

[Rob Clack]

The checks or stripes on the shirt are almost certainly an artifact. The same pattern may also be discerned on parts of the apron and the foreheads of several of the policemen. On the other hand, might it be a trick of the light or is there a ring on bachelor Brown's wedding finger?

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Simply expand the image to 500% and you'll see that the checks follow the contours of the apron and policemen's foreheads. It's exactly the same pattern so is in all likelihood an imaging artifact.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

It's not. It's a stripped shirt. Which is clearly visible on the photograph.

[Rob Clack]

I did not realise that I was required to analyse the possibilities regarding the man in the photograph, nor that I was obliged to elaborate. It is interesting that you refer to it as a 'consultation', which almost sounds as if I was being paid for some sort of service. I thought that the occasion was the visit of two friends who share a mutual interest with me. This is the very reason that I shall not be giving any more such 'consultations.' As regards the census returns, a cook may not necessarily reside on the premises.

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.

[Monty]

Brown Norma....Brown.

True, Stewart has indeed stated such.

Monty

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Monty.Yes I can see your point of view here,just as I can understand why you think it could be Dr Brown. It is a pity if people have misunderstood what you and Rob intended.It does happen though.
I dont think Stewart was actually disagreeing was he?----its more the way it was presented on the front cover etc and the difference of interpretation of the pic that he has with you two .
Anyway,one thing nobody is disagreeing about is that you and Rob wrote a really excellent piece on Dr Bond and that was worth a lot to us all of itself.
Best
Norma

[Tom_Wescott]

I accept what you say however I must point out that Rob and I have never, at any stage whatsoever, stated the photo is certainly one of Brown.

Nor has Stewart stated it certainly wasn't one of Brown, so the irony here is that you're both saying the same thing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Well, Neil, since it's not a fake, the cook theory is...good to sell to Trevor.

Amitiés,
David

[Monty]

Well David,would you not agree that unfortunately,given that the ripper world has been dogged by fakes and misinformation , it is incumbent on us these days ,when presented with any new find to check out its likely authenticity?
Do we not have a certain amount of duty to question all claims regarding newly discovered materials about this 122 year old case?
Surely we are not expected to accept a premise about such new material, based on their and other"s " personal interpretations of that new material however valid or reasonable , however much we respect the finder"s honesty and integrity?

Its not new material Norma. Its been around since around 1899 and I know Stewart has seen it many years prior to Rob and I. The authenticity is not in question. The question is of the man in the apron.

I accept what you say however I must point out that Rob and I have never, at any stage whatsoever, stated the photo is certainly one of Brown.There seems to be misinformation doing the rounds in regards we are indeed claiming it to be Brown. God knows how many times I have to clarify we have done nothing of the sort.

The onus of responsibilty lays equally with ourselves as the writers and the readership with regards misinformation. You, and any other who reads the work or this thread, are just as calpable for the way the information is presented and passed on.

We could have held on to the photo and did more research, however we felt we had gone as far as we could and decided present our views in hopes someone else may be able to carry it on.....whichever way it goes.

Its there for all to see and decide upon, its also there for anyone who wishes to pick this baton up.

Monty

[DVV]

On the other hand David, I honestly have some difficulty matching up those images---re age of person in photo /different noses in the two drawings of Dr Brown but most of all I cant see a City Police Surgeon posing in his shirt sleeves and a cook"s apron for a fairly formal occasion such as a group photo of policemen.
I believe if he had had to put on an apron to examine a prisoner beforehand,he would,out of respect for the policemen he was posing for a photo with,have removed his apron and found the tie he had come to work in and his jacket.This is the sort of etiquette that still exists for lots of formal and semi formal occasions such as dinners to celebrate or honour colleagues a convention etc ----often "Black tie " is demanded for the semi formal occasions Dr Brown once attended .
Best
Norma

Hi Norma,

do you remember German writer Heinrich Böll ?

That reminds me of "Group portrait with Lady".
Good title, don't you think ?

Now we have "Group portrait with cook".

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hi Norma,

can't agree more, any new find should be checked out. Old finds also.
Now I'm unable to tell whether this pic is fake or not.
If it's not, the cook theory is hardly viable, imo.

Amitiés,
David