Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dr Alfred Pearson.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dr Alfred Pearson.

    Well, okay, so none of us seriously think he dunnit, but I thought I'd pass on some of what I learned.

    According to one theorist, Dr Alfred Pearson was a brilliant and eminent surgeon who was trained at the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in Edinborough.

    Unfortunately there are a few problems with this description, namely
    • He was not a surgeon, eminent or otherwise. He was a physician
    • There is no such Institution in Edinborough. It's Glasgow that has the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons--Edinborough has two seperate Colleges.
    • It doesn't matter because Pearson was granted his Licentiate from the Royal College of Physicians in London.


    More info later
    "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

  • #2
    Here's something that didn't make it into AS's book--a photo of Dr Alfred Pearson!
    Attached Files
    "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

    Comment


    • #3
      Even when she's right, she's wrong.

      I see Karen's touting my first post as a campaign to deceive, so I may as well revisit it.

      Here's what Karen says I said:

      Magpie tried to deceive people on JTR Forums by stating that Dr. Alfred William Pearson was not a Surgeon and attended the Royal College of Surgeons in London.
      To which I reply, she's half-right. I said that he practiced as a physician, because at that time the only biographical info I had listed his qualifications as LRCP. If that's wrong, then I'm wrong.
      I didn't, however, claim that he went anywhere near the Royal College of Surgeons in London. I said that he'd received his licenciate from the Royal College of Physicians. Since there that's the only body that would issue a LRCP, that was reasonable deduction.

      The second point remains absolutely correct. There is no such institution as the Royal College of Surgeons and Physicians in Edinborough. So what Karen claims in her book, and most recently on her blog:

      I have documentation from Scotland which conclusively proves that Dr. Pearson went to the Royal College of Surgeons in Edinburgh. He received his double licentiate, which means that he became both a physician and a surgeon. So, why did Magpie lie?
      Is still a crock even though she's changed her claim to the even more laughable one that the Royal College of Surgeons in Edinborough also hands out licenses for physicians. However, it would be interesting to see the documentation. Sadly with Karen, when she does get around to showing the documention, it seldom shows what she claims it does. However in this case I don't doubt that she's likely right--at least about Dr. Pearson being qualified by the RCS (Edin.).

      There are two seperate bodies, The Royal College of Surgeons, and the Royal College of Physicians. As stated before, Glasgow is the only Royal College in the world who can hand out both qualifications.

      This aside from Karen's apparent lack of understanding of just what the purposes of the Royal Colleges of Surgery are for.


      As for Karen's rather ominous postscript:

      Do you not find it a little bit creepy that Magpie lives in Kingston, which is the exact same place that Mary Jane O'Brien lived with her daughter?
      My reply is: only an idiot truly desperate to smear someone could possibly find that creepy. Everyone's gotta live somewhere, and besides, I've just proven pretty conclusively that Mary O'brien didn't live here with her daughter
      "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Magpie,

        The one thing she got right then was the spelling of Edinburgh...

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

        Comment


        • #5
          Good point, Caz
          "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

          Comment


          • #6
            Update.

            I recieved an email this morning. Here are the salient parts:

            Dear Mr. ************
            Thank you for your email regarding Alfred William Pearson. Although never a Fellow of The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, I am aware of a Licentiate by that name.


            Kind regards
            ****** ****
            Assistant Librarian
            The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh

            I guess Dr. Pearson was not quite as eminent as someone believed. Also enclosed was the request form for a formal search for Dr. Pearson. If I decide to shell out the cash I'll post the results.
            "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

            Comment


            • #7
              Another update.

              While I was laid low, an email from the Royal College of Physicians (Edin.) arrived for me. They said that there is precious little info about Dr. Pearson in their records (despite claims of his eminence) but that they would happily email me photocopies of what info they do possess.
              "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

              Comment


              • #8
                More info!

                I received the information from the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh today (talk about fast). There was not a lot of info, but what was there is quiet illuminating. I will post a summary later this evening
                "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh sent me a copy of Dr. Pearson's entry in the Medical Directory for 1915 (for free). According to them it was the only information about Dr. Pearson in their possession.

                  Here's what it says:

                  PEARSON, Alfred Wm., Townsend House, Kingswinford, Dudley, Staffs.--L.R.C.P., L.R.C.S. Ed. & L.M. 1876; (Qu. Coll. Birm. & Ed); Med. Off. Kingswinford No. 3 Dist. Stourbridge Union; Surg. Police & P.O.; Med. Ref. Pruden, & other Assur. Socs.; Mem. BMA

                  Observations to follow.
                  "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    So Karen claims that Dr Pearson was "brilliant", "eminent", "Edinburgh trained", etc. So does his listing in the Medical Directory confirm these?


                    The first comment to be made is that Dr. Pearson has a conspicuous lack of any university degree. Not so much as a Bachelor of Arts. An LRCS and LRCP means that he obtained his medical training largely through apprenticeship--six years being the minimum requirement.

                    Both the LRCS and the LRCP are the lowest on the ladder of qualifications--the bare minimum required to be published in the Medical Registry and therefore be allowed to practice medicine in the U.K. An LRCP/S gave the recipient no special privileges or association with the institution that granted it.

                    If Pearson was as "brilliant" or "eminent" as claimed, he would surely have been a "Fellow" of the respective Royal Colleges.

                    As far as his L.M. (Licentiate of Midwifery), Pearson would have required a single summer of lectures at Queen's College in Birmingham to qualify. Again, this is a non-university qualification, although it did require some actual, albeit part-time, study at the institution that granted it.
                    "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The second thing challenging claims to "eminence" or "brilliance" is that Dr. Alfred Pearson, even in this late stage of his career (1915) is not known to have published anything--not a lecture, monograph or article. The Medical Directory lists publications by a Doctor, and Dr. Pearson's entry contains nary a one. Surely such an "eminent" surgeon would have written or lectured about something. But apparently not.
                      "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        So here we have a village doctor, with plenty of experience but no formal education to speak of. He has the bare minimum required to practice those medical skills that would be most useful to a country Doctor. He serves as the Medical Officer for the local workhouse, is the Police Surgeon and the Post Office Doctor for the area, as well as offering his services to various local insurance companies. He has no publications to his credit, belongs to no professional bodies except the British Medical Association, and no titles or honours attached to his name. He doesn't appear to be associated or attached to any hospital or teaching facility (although without seeing the Medical Directories for the preceding years it's impossible to claim absolutely that this was always the case).

                        In short, there is nothing in his qualifications to suggest that he was anything other than a competent, well-respected rural doctor who served his community well. All of which is admirable, but none of which even hints at brilliance or eminence.
                        "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Magpie View Post
                          He doesn't appear to be associated or attached to any hospital or teaching facility (although without seeing the Medical Directories for the preceding years it's impossible to claim absolutely that this was always the case).

                          .
                          Thank you to Karen, who boasts of having the entries for other years, but who didn't offer any evidence to counter this suggestion, which she surely would have if the Directories had any info that did so.
                          "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Reply to Karen, part 1.

                            Karen has manage to cram so much misinformation into one blog entry that it's easier to deal with in small chunks.

                            After the traditional salutation of name-calling, Karen gets down to business.

                            After admitting that the Medical Directory entry I posted for Dr. Pearson is entirely correct, she claims that I then "twisted" the abbreviations in some devilish manner:

                            As for the Directory information that he posted up on Jack The Ripper Forums, that is correct. However, his "observations", whereupon he twists the abbreviations are not correct. Let us break this down correctly, shall we?
                            She then posts Dr. Pearson's entry from the Medical Directory from 1917 which is--wait for it--exactly the same as the one from 1915!

                            She proceeds to post a short glossary of abbreviations used in the entry--presumably as a prelude to unravelling my web of fiendish deception.

                            And then....what?

                            With the single exception of mistaking P.O. for Post Office, rather than Public Officer, the abbreviations she lists are precisely the same ones I used*. With the possible exception of Dr. Pearson's Midwifery education (which I'll save for another post), Karen offers not a jot of evidence that my observations on Dr. Pearson's biography were substantively incorrect, let alone deliberate falsehoods.

                            More to follow.


                            *okay, for the sake of splitting hairs, Karen says that LRCS means "Licensed Royal College Surgeon" and "LRCP" means "Licensed Royal College Physician" when the actually mean "Licentiate, Royal College of Surgeons" and "Licentiate, Royal College Physicians". She got the essential meaning right, if not the words, but then she's the one accusing others of having "taken the abbreviations and twisted them to suit his own devious means." People in glass houses and all that stuff...
                            "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              A difference in approaches...

                              Here's a perfect opportunity to compare two approaches to research. See if you can identify which approach is that of a "liar"

                              In my observations, I said that Dr. Pearson was a surgeon for the Post Office. Karen has since claimed that "P.O." stands for "Public Officer". I concede that she is likely correct (although oddly it doesn't specify what Dr. Pearson was the Public Officer of), and my original post and my concession both remain for all to see.

                              In her rebuttal, Karen makes the completely and utterly false assertion that I claimed that "L.M." stood for "License in Medicine" rather than "Licentiate in Midwifery". I never made that assertion, as is clear from my post. There's nothing in my post that could be possibly construed as making that assertion. It is 100% fabrication. Rather than acknowledge that, Karen instead edited her blog to remove all reference to her error.

                              The reason for this becomes clear--Karen wanted to post some information about Dr. Alfred's midwifery training that would have made her deception obvious--Even Karen can't simultaneously assert that I'd claimed Dr. Pearson didn't recieve a Licentiate in Midwifery and that I was wrong about how long it took Dr. Pearson to earn his Licentiate.
                              "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X