Ripperologist 112

[KatBradshaw]

Thanks for that! Cleared up where the ID came from! I'm easily confused I guess!

[Stewart P Evans]

Unforgivable

Sorry, still confused. Does Don recognise him from other pics then? Or is there something which indicates who he is on the picture?

I am sorry that you are confused. When I was asked to give an opinion on this photograph I said that my view was that it was not Dr F. Gordon Brown in the photograph and that the man with the apron was probably a cook.

Having recently spent a few days with Don Rumbelow I mentioned the photograph. He stated that there was no way that the man with the apron was Brown, but that the man would have been the station cook, as described above. I suppose that this will be viewed as merely Don's opinion. But in this instance it is expert opinion, which I why I quoted Don's credentials above, and why I (for my part) am willing to regard it as the final word.

I have already admitted that I was abjectly wrong to state that this was the final word on this subject and such an error is, of course, unforgivable (especially here). I am now at the stage that I really do not give a monkey's toss about how anyone regards this photograph and I wish to leave it at that.

I would now appreciate people not asking for my opinion on anything at all.

[KatBradshaw]

Sorry, still confused. Does Don recognise him from other pics then? Or is there something which indicates who he is on the picture?

[Stewart P Evans]

Photograph

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.

The dating of the photograph has nothing to do with the identification of the man in the apron as the constable/cook. The date of the photograph has relevance only as a matter of interest and the possible estimation of the age of the man claimed to possibly be Brown, i.e. it was eleven years on from 1888, the date of the drawn portraits of Brown.

There is no issue over the Jubilee medals as far as I am aware. Officers who had been awarded medals were entitled to wear them when in uniform for posed photographs or special occasions (thus not all of the men in the photograph are wearing medals). After I was awarded my police long service and good conduct medal I was entitled to wear it on formal or special occasions, or on parades at any time, right up to my retirement. The date of 1899 for the photograph was presumed by the fact that it accompanied another photograph, of Moor Lane Police Station, which showed posters dated 1899.

As regards Don's identification of the man as a constable/cook, this is a result of the fact that he was a serving City of London Police Officer for over thirty years, he is the author of the City Police history I Spy Blue, he was for many years curator of the City Police Museum, he found and rescued this photograph and many others and told me that the permanent constable/cook position survived until his time in the job.

This is my last word on this as I now wish that I hadn't posted anything in the first place.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Natalie Severn]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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]

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

[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.