Ripperologist 112

[Stewart P Evans]

Required

Hi Stewart,
...When we first consulted you over the photograph, your opinion was that it was a photograph of a cook and you did not elaborate any further. If you had told us, you believed the photograph was of a section house cook and your thoughts about the photograph in general, than we would have added your thoughts to the article as a counter argument to our own. It would also have allowed us another avenue of enquiry... The rest is made up of Police Constables and prisoners.
...
Rob

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.

[Hamrammr]

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.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

[Hamrammr]

Stewart has an unwavering habit of identifying the facts. He misses nothing, which could be one reason for that medal. Anyway, as he rightly states:

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.

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

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

I would also like to add (facetiously I admit) that he looks very well fed...

Nevertheless, it has been stated several times by Neil and Rob that they were not categorically stating it WAS Brown, so I think they should be cut some Clack... Sorry, slack. :-)

[Rob Clack]

Hi Stewart,

As always thanks you for your thoughts and opinions.
When we first consulted you over the photograph, your opinion was that it was a photograph of a cook and you did not elaborate any further. If you had told us, you believed the photograph was of a section house cook and your thoughts about the photograph in general, than we would have added your thoughts to the article as a counter argument to our own. It would also have allowed us another avenue of enquiry. The census returns for one.

The 1891 and 1901, Census does not give much away into who was there when the photograph was taken though.

1891 Census
Joseph Thompson, Married, Constable City Police
Edith Thompson, Wife Housekeeper Police Station
Eliza A Padley, Niece, Domestic Servant
Mary Henneker, Servant, Domestic Servant

The rest is made up of Police Constables and prisoners.

1901 Census
Henry Andsley, Married, Police Constable City
Annie Andsley, Wife, Housekeeper
Elizabeth Boyles, Servant, General Servant Domestic

The rest was made up again of Police Constables and prisoners.


Both Neil and I were very careful to say it was a possible photograph of Frederick Gordon Brown, Unfortunately as you know people will make there own minds up and draw there own conclusions.

Rob

[Stewart P Evans]

Respect

Stewart
...
...Compared to yourself and other well established researchers here I am a novice and still learning the ins and outs of how to present supporting evidence as well as how to conduct myself. It has been a learning curve for me and I shall endeavour not to make the same mistake again.
As for your views, I feel that you have presented them extremely well. I had an issue with what I deemed as a suggestion we we not presenting the photo fairly, that is all.
I certainly do not feel you made a personal attack and think I have responded likewise. I would like to stress that I feel your points against the photo are valid ones . You have expressed those points from the very day we approached you for your opinion last year and we respect the honesty in which you have delivered them.
As Ive said, I have learnt a lot from this debate and take on board your words.
...
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.

[Monty]

Stewart

I did not obtain a copy of Harveys service record till around this time last year and it wasnt till some months later, when we were compling the Harvey article, that the date issue regarding Harveys photo and collar number occurred to me. As you say, given the date of the photo (1887) it is most likely the image is indeed Harvey. However this is not certain as we do not know the date of when Harveys collar number was altered.

The reason I raised the comparason was to show that Don and yourself based your deduction on logic, and this is how we came to our conclusions on Brown, however we made it clear it was indeed our opinion. In hindsight, maybe I should have raised this issue with yourself at the time and it was unfair of me to unleash here, for that I apologise. Compared to yourself and other well established researchers here I am a novice and still learning the ins and outs of how to present supporting evidence as well as how to conduct myself. It has been a learning curve for me and I shall endeavour not to make the same mistake again.

As for your views, I feel that you have presented them extremely well. I had an issue with what I deemed as a suggestion we we not presenting the photo fairly, that is all.

I certainly do not feel you made a personal attack and think I have responded likewise. I would like to stress that I feel your points against the photo are valid ones . You have expressed those points from the very day we approached you for your opinion last year and we respect the honesty in which you have delivered them.

As Ive said, I have learnt a lot from this debate and take on board your words.

And the shirt is pin striped I believe. It was not uncommon for Doctors to wear everyday attire under their aprons...and I suppose the same can be said for cooks.

Regards
Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Shirt

The man in the apron, in the photograph, appears to have a check patterned shirt on. Surely a doctor would have worn a white shirt.

[Stewart P Evans]

Opposition

Stewart,
...
So to say we haven’t given room for opposition is not true in my opinion, we have. That’s our bone of contention. We have been open and honest in our views on the photo and welcome any criticism by anyone. This has been pretty clear.
...
I I would like to think I can disagree with you without the insinuation of ‘School Playground’ behaviour. I have not, at any stage, questioned yours and have always been respectful in my messages to you.
...Cheers
Monty

It is not a case of giving room for opposition. My opinion is that you have overstated the case for it being a photo of Brown. People in Ripperworld are easily convinced at times and I felt that they might like to know my opinion as it differs from yours. It wasn't an insinuation of school playground behaviour, it was a statement of how I regard the sudden comparison with the photograph of 'PC Harvey' to the present debate being made.

[Stewart P Evans]

Criticism?

Stewart,
...
If you are to criticise us for leaving little room for opposition, when we have clearly stated we are not certain, then surely we can lay the same point at your door with regard the Harvey photo (which, incidentally I think is indeed the PC). Its not a case of ‘tit for tat’, it’s a case of playing by the same rules. I found your quoted statement above a tad unfair, especially when we take on board your very much respected and valued position in the field. When you publish a photo stating its Harvey then people are going to take that as Harvey. This due to the rightful high esteem you hold. 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.
...Monty

It was not a criticism of you - it was my opinion on the photograph which appears on the cover of Ripperologist, and in your article, and gives a misleading initial impression that a photograph of Brown has been found. I doubt that you had much to do with the layout of the magazine.

If it is not a case of tit-for-tat why even mention the Harvey photo? And if you have felt that way about the Harvey photo it has taken you a long time to comment on it as this was published years ago and this is the first time I have read this comment of yours. Also it is a bad parallel to draw as the police officer in the photo has his collar number clearly showing and it was taken a mere year before the Ripper murders. That's a bit different to comparing an unknown person in civilian clothes with a drawing made over ten years earlier. I really cannot see any other reason as to why you might make this comment about the 'Harvey photo' on this thread.

I am happy to acknowledge errors when I make them and I accept constructive criticism. I also accept that people have differing opinions. The trouble is as soon as anyone publishes something they feel is something important woe betide anyone who does not share their views. If my opinion differs from yours and you feel that my opinion is criticism of you then there is little I can do about that.

[Monty]

Stewart,

Firstly Id like to apologise if Ive offended you in anyway. That was not my intention.

My intention was in response to the following.

I appreciate that you have not said that it is definitely Brown but you have certainly made a very, very strong case for this, a huge picture of his face forms the cover of the latest Ripperologist and you leave very little room for opposition in your reasoning in the article.

If you are to criticise us for leaving little room for opposition, when we have clearly stated we are not certain, then surely we can lay the same point at your door with regard the Harvey photo (which, incidentally I think is indeed the PC). Its not a case of ‘tit for tat’, it’s a case of playing by the same rules. I found your quoted statement above a tad unfair, especially when we take on board your very much respected and valued position in the field. When you publish a photo stating its Harvey then people are going to take that as Harvey. This due to the rightful high esteem you hold. 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.

So to say we haven’t given room for opposition is not true in my opinion, we have. That’s our bone of contention. We have been open and honest in our views on the photo and welcome any criticism by anyone. This has been pretty clear.

Your opinion on the photo has been and always will be respected by myself, I certainly have said many, many times in this thread (and in the article) that your views are highly valid and should be considered. I would like to think I can disagree with you without the insinuation of ‘School Playground’ behaviour. I have not, at any stage, questioned yours and have always been respectful in my messages to you.

Finally, I have always valued and respected your opinions on any matter we have discussed. I am very grateful for the time, hospitality and knowledge you have shared with me. As Ive said, Id like to think we can disagree whilst respecting the others opinion and Id like to think our relationship can continue in the same vein. I will always try to seek your opinion on the case and if you should decline then I will respect that also.

I have enjoyed your company immensely and hope that it continues.

Cheers
Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

A Matter of Opinion

And a vey valid opinion it is too Stewart, one you are entitled to...
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?
If prior to the 87 photo then obviously then man is indeed Harvey, if after the 87 photo then we cannot say for certain it was. And until this change has been dated then we do not know for certain it is Harveys photo.
For what its worth, I personally feel it is a picture of Harvey yet as it stands at the moment, as far as Im aware, we do not know this as fact.
...Monty

I have stated that in my opinion the balance of factors pointed out indicates that it is not Gordon Brown in the photograph. That is my opinion, and I have given my reasons. Naturally I might be wrong as I am not infallible.

Now we have the Harvey photograph (a totally different case altogether) being called into question as, it appears to me, some sort of 'tit-for-tat' response. These boards get ever more like the school playground. Now the obvious way for me to avoid this situation is not to venture my opinion and not to respond if I am asked for my opinion in the future. So I would appreciate it if people refrain from asking me again.

It is interesting to see how 'precious' people become over an idea, theory or hypothesis once they have committed themselves to print. Again, I would appreciate it if anyone writing an article refrains from asking my opinion.

[Suzi]

C. Arthur Pearson

Is this the same one ?
(1866-1921)
...who also founded The Daily Express (!!!)

Suz x

[Suzi]

Hi all-

Off work with a dread disease so am having a toodle here. Just come across this...'The Diary of a Police Surgeon'- Robert Bruce-Chwatt published by C.Arthur Pearson (!!!) Ltd. London 1920. Having a trawl for images etc now.

Suz x

[The Grave Maurice]

I've been away for the weekend but, when I saw this photo last week, the first thing that occurred to me was that he was probably a cook. Anyway, I very much like the civilized tone of this debate. I await further developments.