Ripperologist 112

[Rob Clack]

I am not quite sure what you are inferring here Rob.

However, the caption you have shown is not Don's, nor is it remotely like his writing. Below you may see the reverse of Don's copy of the said photograph bearing his own handwritten inscription, which is worded as I stated above.

[ATTACH]10019[/ATTACH]

Hi Stewart,

The caption I posted was on the back of the original print of the rear of Moor Lane photo. And I believed (wrongly now) that it was written by Don.

Rob

[Stewart P Evans]

Many Thanks

Hi Stewart,
The caption I posted was on the back of the original print of the rear of Moor Lane photo. And I believed (wrongly now) that it was written by Don.
Rob

Rob, many thanks for the quick response. The caption was probably written by Guildhall staff after they acquired the print from Don.

[Rob Clack]

Rob, many thanks for the quick response. The caption was probably written by Guildhall staff after they acquired the print from Don.

Thank you Stewart.

Rob

[Ally]

I'm sorry, excuse my denseness but I must have missed something. Where precisely has the man's identity been established? The question has always been is he a cook or a surgeon. Don says cook...based on what, exactly?

I am sure he's correct, but what is the basis for that determination if we are taking it as the final word? Or is it merely his opinion?

[Robert]

Stewart, were these kitchen jobs permanent, stuck-in-rut jobs? I mean, suppose an ambitious young policeman who has the misfortune to be a good cook : he's hardly going to make Sergeant on the strength of his spotted dick.

[Monty]

Unfortunately Don doesn't have the names of the men in the photograph but his caption reads - "Presumed rear of Moor Lane Police Stn City of London, found with photo of front of No. 1 Police Stn, Moor Lane, which has posters dated 1899. Men are wearing Jubilee medals." From this Don believes the date of the photo to be 1899.

Hi Stewart,

Ally has beaten me to the question which Im sure you are anticipating.

To clarify, Don has not positively identified the man in the apron?

If this is the case then surely we cannot state for certain the man is not Brown, and therefore, this is not the final word on the matter.

I must add that I am not doubting Dons views, which is what they are, but rather trying to ascertain the there has been no naming of the man in the apron, is that a fair assessement?

Also, the dating of 1899 and Jubilee medals. The Queens diamond jubilee was 1897, not 1899. Wouldnt 1897 be a closer date? I believe only ribbons and clasps were issued during the Diamond jubilee and only to those who attended the silver jubilee parade back in 87.

I ask these questions for fairness, I do hope you understand that.

Many thanks

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Silly Me

Silly me, I should have realised, there is no such thing as the final word on these boards. My mistake, apologies to all.

[Monty]

Stewart,

Come on now, there is no need for that.

Surely its only right and proper I pose the question.

Im not trying to be awkward. If there is a name to the man, and its not Brown, then that would be great. Its another line closed.

There is no need to take to sarcasm, I feel thats unjust.

Monty

[Natalie Severn]

There seems to be a bit of nit picking here mind Monty and Ally.To me it seems clear here that Stewart Evans has discovered a bit more about police practices --the two of them, Stewart and Don Rumbelow being ex policemen no less ,and have learned from their old trade or profession or whatever , how it was a regular practice for a policeman with a cook"s credentials to become the cook for the police!---ie if he proved sufficiently good a cook!And here we have a picture with an unknown man standing with his shirt sleeves rolled up and tieless with a huge cook"s apron on.It seems pretty obvious he is likely to be one of the "chosen"!
Why does he need to be named? Do we know the names of all the other policemen in the picture?

[Stewart P Evans]

Please

Stewart,
Come on now, there is no need for that.
Surely its only right and proper I pose the question.
Im not trying to be awkward. If there is a name to the man, and its not Brown, then that would be great. Its another line closed.
There is no need to take to sarcasm, I feel thats unjust.
Monty

Please do not be patronising. I suggest that you speak with Don.

[Ally]

There seems to be a bit of nit picking here mind Monty and Ally.To me it seems clear here that Stewart Evans has discovered a bit more about police practices --the two of them, Stewart and Don Rumbelow being ex policemen no less ,and have learned from their old trade or profession or whatever , how it was a regular practice for a policeman with a cook"s credentials to become the cook for the police!---ie if he proved sufficiently good a cook!And here we have a picture with an unknown man standing with his shirt sleeves rolled up and tieless with a huge cook"s apron on.It seems pretty obvious he is likely to be one of the "chosen"!
Why does he need to be named? Do we know the names of all the other policemen in the picture?

This is a five months dead thread that Stewart has revived to tell us he has the final word on it. When someone does that, one expects that there has been some new evidence that has come to light. The argument was always based on pure opinion: group A thinks it's a cook, group B thinks it's a surgeon. When you revive a long dead thread to say there is a final word, there needs to be something more than one more persons opinion that it is a cook in order for it to be taken as "final word".

Really, I don't care what anyone's opinion is, an opinion isn't worth more than evidence. My opinion is that it is most probably the cook. But my opinion doesn't mean diddly to people who believe differently, and no opinion is going to get counted as the final word.

To suggest that someone's opinion is law, and that any refusal to accept another's opinion is just the blind obstinate nature of an intransigent board is not a valid argument.

Does the law of probability come down on it being a cook? Yes. But that doesn't mean that the truth always falls on the side of the most probable.

[Natalie Severn]

Fair enough.The point is taken,Ally,
Best
Norma

[Monty]

Stewart,

Ive been courteous and asked a legitimate question.

In return I received a sarcastic reply. Its obvious to me thats what you feel I deserve. I think thats grossly unfair, especially as my questioning was not unreasonable.

Its really like treading on eggshells.

Nats,

Thats fine to think that, however to dismiss the man as not being Brown purely based on a conversation and not conclusive evidence is fine also, just not the final word in my most humblest of opinions.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Wrong

This is a five months dead thread that Stewart has revived to tell us he has the final word on it. When someone does that, one expects that there has been some new evidence that has come to light. The argument was always based on pure opinion: group A thinks it's a cook, group B thinks it's a surgeon. When you revive a long dead thread to say there is a final word, there needs to be something more than one more persons opinion that it is a cook in order for it to be taken as "final word".
Really, I don't care what anyone's opinion is, an opinion isn't worth more than evidence. My opinion is that it is most probably the cook. But my opinion doesn't mean diddly to people who believe differently, and no opinion is going to get counted as the final word.
To suggest that someone's opinion is law, and that any refusal to accept another's opinion is just the blind obstinate nature of an intransigent board is not a valid argument.
Does the law of probability come down on it being a cook? Yes. But that doesn't mean that the truth always falls on the side of the most probable.

Well, for me when Don stated that the man in the apron was a constable and the station cook that was good enough for me and, as far as I am concerned, the final word on this vexed matter.

However, I was absolutely wrong to think it the final word and nothing that is obvious, even blindingly so, should be taken as the final answer. Thus Ripperworld rolls on - a world where nothing is as it seems, all is opinion and unresolved. After all, that is what this subject is all about. I merely 'revived' the thread because I have only just received new information, from Don, regarding the photograph he himself supplied. But don't worry, I shan't be doing any such thing again.

[KatBradshaw]

Sorry if I'm being thick, I can't find where you say where Don's identification comes from? The issue over the jubilee medals is pretty strong. Why would they be wearing them 2 years later? Just hoped for some clarification.