Ripperologist 112

[Natalie Severn]

I know, Neil,

I've read his arguments and give them value.
Now the cook theory doesn't make sense, imo.

To me, it could well be Brown.

As to my previous post, you know what I mean, with all due respect to everybody.
But I mean it.

Amitiés,
David

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

[Natalie Severn]

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 just accept without question ,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?

[DVV]

I know, Neil,

I've read his arguments and give them value.
Now the cook theory doesn't make sense, imo.

To me, it could well be Brown.

As to my previous post, you know what I mean, with all due respect to everybody.
But I mean it.

Amitiés,
David

[Monty]

David,

I must say, I think Stewart has been very honest and I welcome that.

Monty

[DVV]

I can't believe in what predicament Neil seems to be here... Is that because his article is dishonest ?
Certainly not.
Is that because he has stated, together with Rob, that it WAS what they suggest it could be...?

The posts that SPE and Neil have just exchanged tell a lot about the ripper-world.

Now, if the pic is not fake, the cook theory is just...caugh caugh...

Can't we be easy, cool and honest ?

Amitiés,
David

[Monty]

The one that grates the most is the accusation of double standards. I did, of course, ascertain that Harvey's collar number was 964 many years before 1888 - but I wondered how deep a hole you were going to dig for yourself.

Posted by me

It is pretty similar to the Harvey photo. This photo, as far as Im aware (and apologies if I am incorrect), is not an ascertained picture of Harvey and I suspect identity leaned heavily on Harveys collar number. For our sketch of Brown place Harveys collar number. In 1888 it was 964. The Snow Hill group photo from which the possible image of Harvey is taken from was an 1887 group photo (incidently, a commemorative photo). However Harvey previously had a collar number of 878. Now, this collar number must gave been altered at some stage to 964, question is when?

and

However, as far as Im aware (and humble apologies if I am incorrect) this photo is not ascertained as the City Constable. Yet in Don and your book the picture is labelled as that. Which, as Ive stated, it most likely is

.

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.

Regards
Monty


PS I do not know why the thumbs down symbol has appeared, I certainly did not put it there

[Garry Wroe]

I have to disagree about the pattern being 'almost certainly' an artifact. The check pattern changes on each part of the collar to follow the shape of the material. As for its presence on the rest of the apron or on the uniforms of the police officers - I cannot comment as I don't have a good enough quality copy of the photograph to analyse.

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.

[Ally]

Go to your room and don't come out til I tell you to and just wait til your father comes home!

[Stewart P Evans]

Hole

If only I had.
Monty

The one that grates the most is the accusation of double standards. I did, of course, ascertain that Harvey's collar number was 964 many years before 1888 - but I wondered how deep a hole you were going to dig for yourself.

[Monty]

Time to get out of here before I write something that I later regret.

If only I had.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Time...

...
...Also, I think you give the readership little credit. We have been clear, in the article, by saying we are not certain the photo is Brown. This is unlike your presentation of the Harvey photo. Im sorry to say this but in my humble opinion this smacks of double standards.
...
You are presenting personal assumption as fact, no?
...
You make it sound that comparing the photo with the sketch is an error...
...Monty

Time to get out of here before I write something that I later regret.

[Monty]

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.

Stewart,

As far as Im concerned our visit was as you thought. Friends with a mutual interest. It was, as ever, thoroughly enjoyable and memorable. I can only thank Rosie and yourself for the company and generous hospitality.

You were not obilged to elaborate in detail which is why we did not press you for that detail. Whilst we saw it as an opportunity to ascertain your stance on the image it was not the reason why we visited you. If memory serves we spent only a few minutes upon the topic before moving on to more fascinating matters.

Monty

[Monty]

Neil, I have great respect for you and Rob and I admire the work you both do - you know that. You also know that I would never be less than honest with you and I am sure that is what you would want. It's odd, I don't really consider myself 'a well established researcher' nor any great expert. I am merely someone who has a very long-standing interest in the case and my thinking on it is tempered by both my police experience and the vast amount of material that I have read. I am never out to personally put anyone down nor to minimise their contributions. That said, I do not like the ego chasing and self aggrandisement that sometimes goes on here on these boards. The subject is one long learning curve and others would do well to remember that. Anyone who sticks their head above the parapet and publishes on the subject must expect critical comment upon their work - be it correct or not.

Standing back objectively and looking at the latest issue of Ripperologist, which is what this thread is doing, you have to say that its main 'selling-point', as evidenced by the cover, is the possible 'discovery' of a photograph of F. Gordon Brown. Indeed, anyone seeing just the cover is likely to think that 'Brown has been found', as exampled by How Brown's first post in his thread on the issue. In the article, which is very good by the way, the 'climax' is four pages arguing that the photograph shows Brown. You use such phrases as 'an important Police group photograph' (why important?); 'the identity of the person was most likely established'; 'this person 'had to hold a position of importance'; 'a Jubilee photo' (really, is it?); 'The only Doctor [a doctor, really?]...who had reason to be at Moor Lane Police Station, who was important enough to appear on a group photo commemorating the Jubilee of Queen Victoria...' (there is no evidence to suggest this is such a photo and, in fact, the opposite is suggested as half the officers are not wearing a medal).

The two images are compared side-by-side (photo and 1888 sketch) and comparisons drawn. I have to say that the man in the photograph does not look to be 57 years old. It almost reads as if you are convincing yourselves of the fact that it is Brown. Your excuse for his attire is that 'he is prepared for work' but what important surgeon would dress in work clothes, sans tie, to pose for a photograph that would probably survive for posterity? And I have never heard of a doctor dressing up like this to examine a prisoner. There is good reason that the 'various knowledgeable Ripperologists' you consulted were puzzled, and that is because there is no clue as to who this man is. And here you admit that the connection was made for them because of certain similarities between the facial features of the men in the images.

So, I feel, there is very good reason for my extreme caution, and if I had to bet a large amount of money on it I would firmly come down on the side of it not being Brown. Your final sentence states, "...we are of the strong opinion that the gentleman you see in this photo, wearing the large white apron, is Dr Frederick Gordon Brown." And you will convince (and have) a lot of 'Ripperologists' that you are right.

Thank you and yes, I expect little else other than honesty. Youre right, we all should expect critical comments and take them in the manner they were expressed...if valid.

Again, I am not responsible for the Ripperologists descision to put the photo on the cover. Its a matter you should present to them. However the covers wording states clearly we are presenting evidence. Also, I think you give the readership little credit. We have been clear, in the article, by saying we are not certain the photo is Brown. This is unlike your presentation of the Harvey photo. Im sorry to say this but in my humble opinion this smacks of double standards.

My evaluation of the importance photo may have been erronous. I was unaware that Constables wore medals on any photo they appeared in. The comments on the back lead me to believe this was a unique occasion. This obviously questions the value on why the men were gathered but really doesnt add to your arguement it is not Brown. In fact it does make me wonder if the picture was indeed ad hoc, with the man deciding not to wear a tie because of this. You yourself declared that Cooks held a respectable position within a station house so it is equally questionable why a cook was not wearing a neck piece, seeing a etiquette dictated those in a position of responsibilty should wear one.

Again, and maybe you can help, Ive not come across any Police Group Photo where the Cook is shown.

Your opinion on age is based on personal judgement. Your friend Johnny Depp looks half his, so do you, whereas I look twice as mine. My own age has been assessed from 33 to 45 (its my birthday today so I asked). Also, personal attention such as hair colouring may give a false idea of age. You are presenting personal assumption as fact, no?

Certain Ripperologists, respected ones I add, were indeed puzzled when they were first confronted with the photo. This because they just had an image thrust infront of then and were asked if they could identify it. I would react the same way.

You make it sound that comparing the photo with the sketch is an error. The sketch is labelled clearly as Brown and it holds an extremely uncanny likeness (even you admit the image and sketch resemble each other) to the man in the photo. We hold no excuses for pointing this out as we feel it is valid to do so.

We have laid our opinions open and hold no responibility for those who have not read nor understood the fact that we have never stated the photo is Brown, that we have always said we are not certain it is Brown but more think it is the man himself.

I fail to see how we can be clearer

Regards

Monty


The shirt is striped, the type of shirt is immaterial as Doctors of the period tended to wear such patterned clothing.

And Brown was married in 1869.

[robhouse]

I think the photo may be a fake actually. If you look carefully, you will notice that there is a suspicious looking character in the back row. I am not sure why, but he is the only one smiling. Also, I do not think his costume looks quite right for the period.

RH

[ChrisGeorge]

. . . The two images are compared side-by-side (photo and 1888 sketch) and comparisons drawn. I have to say that the man in the photograph does not look to be 57 years old. It almost reads as if you are convincing yourselves of the fact that it is Brown. Your excuse for his attire is that 'he is prepared for work' but what important surgeon would dress in work clothes, sans tie, to pose for a photograph that would probably survive for posterity? And I have never heard of a doctor dressing up like this to examine a prisoner. There is good reason that the 'various knowledgeable Ripperologists' you consulted were puzzled, and that is because there is no clue as to who this man is. And here you admit that the connection was made for them because of certain similarities between the facial features of the men in the images.

So, I feel, there is very good reason for my extreme caution, and if I had to bet a large amount of money on it I would firmly come down on the side of it not being Brown. Your final sentence states, "...we are of the strong opinion that the gentleman you see in this photo, wearing the large white apron, is Dr Frederick Gordon Brown." And you will convince (and have) a lot of 'Ripperologists' that you are right.

Hello Stewart and everyone

To my eye, facially, the known sketches showing Dr Brown's facial features, moustache, and hair and the man in the photograph appear similar. The man in the photograph even has the same wavy hair as the sketches of Brown, albeit the man in the photo is holding his head back and/or the hair is receding more than it appears to be in the sketches, which also makes sense since the photograph, per the marking on the back of the photo is thought to be from 1899, eleven years after the The Penny Illustrated Paper and Lloyds Weekly sketches of Dr Brown were published. To my mind, the authors make a very good argument that it could be Dr Brown. I wonder if the dating to 1899 could be off and the photo is in fact earlier, maybe 1897 if the group shot was taken at the time of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee.

Stewart, you made a very good point about the apparel that the man is wearing. Our modern conception of a surgeon is that he dresses for work in scrub clothes or maybe back then in Victorian times in an apron the way this man is clothed. But did doctors dress that way back in order to do their surgery or post mortems? I don't know.

Here is a sketch by American medical artist Thomas Eakins (1844-1916), The Gross Clinic, 1875. All of the doctors in the image are wearing frock coats. Is that how doctors regularly dressed when they operated or did they dress that way specifically for the artist's portrait of the scene?

Some years ago I wrote an article for the Rip, "D. G. Halsted and the London Hospital during the Autumn of Terror," Ripperologist 22, April 1999, 23-26 and in that article I mentioned that one of Dennis Gratwick Halsted's colleagues at the London Hospital while Halsted was serving as an intern in the institution was the medical missionary and social reformer Sir Wilfred Grenfell (1865–1940). The following quote is from Grenfell's autobiography:

"The first operations which I saw performed at our hospitals were before Lord Lister's teaching was practised; though even in my boyhood I remember getting leave to run up from Marlborough to London to see my brother, on whom Sir Joseph Lister had operated for osteomyelitis of the leg. Our most famous surgeon in 1880 was Sir Walter Rivington; and to-day there rises in memory the picture of him removing a leg at the thigh, clad in a blood-stained, black velvet coat [emphasis mine], and without any attempt at or idea of asepsis. The main thing was speed, although the patient was under ether, and in quickly turning round the tip of the sword-like amputation knife, he made a gash in the patient's other leg. The whole thing seemed horrible enough to us students, but the surgeon smiled, saying, 'Fortunately it is of no importance, gentlemen. The man will not live.'"

From A Labrador Doctor: The Autobiography of Wilfred Thomason Grenfell, M.D., C.M.G., Boston, Houghton Mifflin, Chapter 4, "At the London Hospital," p. 70. (The book is available from Project Gutenberg).

For what it's worth....!

I do think authors Bell and Clack's search to find photographic images of the key City Police figures in the case is a fascinating one, and that the authors' speculation that this could in fact be an image of Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown is valuable and intriguing, adding to their solid research into Dr. Brown's career.

Best regards

Chris