Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[Fisherman]

...and thanks for providing this, Dixon! I think it pretty much underlines my suspicion that workhouse inmate clothes would have been anything but something that "looked for all the world like a civilian suit". They would have been given away the second they stepped out through the workhouse gates. And that is only logical; reasonably, those who tried to escape were supposed to be easily identifiable by their clothes. The classical inmate clothing of the jails of old, with broad black and white stripes, had practical purposes ...!

The best,
Fisherman

Originally Posted by Fisherman

Well, it is not only about the tv show, is it? The book is out, and I for one have read it.
Was it any good? Nope, it was not.

...

... the much debated opportunity to get out of the workhouse, is taken care of thusly:
"For Mann, the first problem would be actually getting out of the workhouse with its locked gates and gate-keepers. This was in fact surprisingly easy. As an inmate told Jack London in 1902, the Whitechapel Infirmary was ´the easiest spike going´, ans when London ran for it through the open gates, no one tried to stop him or gave chase."
Now, how convenient was that?

...

It would be interesting to hear other posters wiews on Trows book! I find it a huge disappointment myself.

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually the edition of People of the Abyss that I'm looking at now doesn't say anything about no one trying to stop him or giving chase. It just says "dodging out the gate, I sped down the street." But I suppose that's just a matter of detail:
http://www.online-literature.com/lon...f-the-abyss/9/

Other details are that Jack London was in the casual ward rather than being an inmate of the workhouse proper, that a fellow inmate warned him he would be liable to 14 days' imprisonment if he were caught and that others pointed out if he left without permission he would never be able to return to the workhouse.

How many decades was Robert Mann an inmate of the workhouse?

Mr. Trow's sophomoric attempt to sweep the issue of Robert Mann's probable confinement to the Whitechapel Union Infirmary under the rug, is an insult to anyone who has ever put forth an honest effort, to uncover something factually pertinent to the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper'.

Again; an insult!

Why is he speaking at this year's Conference?

[Tom_Wescott]

Because Adam just bought a whole bunch of rotten tomatoes and needs something to do with them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott

Tom

You keep blabbing on about how you think the killer removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes yet you cannot produce anything positive to back that up, because simply there is nothing to back that theory up.

There has been a robbery at a bungalow, and two detectives are examining the scene of the crime. The first detective notices immediately that there is glass all over the carpet under the window-sill, and that the windows have been completely smashed in. The first detective says to his colleague, "Obviously, the burglar climbed in via the windows - just look at all that broken glass". The second detective smiles knowingly, before replying, "You might think so, but have you noticed that the hole in the windows is much too big than it needs to be for a man to climb through? No, it's far more likely that the burglar entered by some other means, and that the windows were smashed in later by somebody else."

[Tom_Wescott]

Great parable, Sam. Unfortunately, it will be wasted on Trevor, due to his 30 years of experience and honed instincts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. You should try your hand at fiction writing. That was a pretty good story!

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Tom. I sense a career-change coming on

[scarletpimpernel]

Originally Posted by auspirograph

Hi there Moriarty,

Don't look back, Sherlock's on your tail...

The plural, the American quack Francis Tumblety, was not proposed "from nowhere" as you have suggested but "amongst the suspects" by no less a source as ex-Chief Inspector John George Littlechild. You appear to have missed that part.

But...if we want to explore analogies. The Dahmer case, is one case worth mentioning where no one suspected this aparently nice man until one of his victims escaped from his house ! Dahmer was a cannival who had been boiling and eating his victims and If his last victim hadn't escaped, the police today, wouldn't have EVER known what Dahmer was doing in the privacy of his home. Persons had disappeared yes, but no one had an inkling if they had simply disappeared or what. So the fact that some murderers are not even suspects, does not rule them out of being murderers.

[Moriarty]

Originally Posted by auspirograph

Hi there Moriarty,

Don't look back, Sherlock's on your tail...

The plural, the American quack Francis Tumblety, was not proposed "from nowhere" as you have suggested but "amongst the suspects" by no less a source as ex-Chief Inspector John George Littlechild. You appear to have missed that part.

Sherlock's not such a bad guy. He and I made quite a splash at one time.

Fair point. I just get irritated when people who have made a good living out of this mystery (one which they are entitled to by dint of hard work) come on forums to disparage others who do the same.

Everybody alive who writes about this case is, in a sense, a "johnny come lately".

[Radical Joe]

Originally Posted by Fisherman

...and thanks for providing this, Dixon! I think it pretty much underlines my suspicion that workhouse inmate clothes would have been anything but something that "looked for all the world like a civilian suit". They would have been given away the second they stepped out through the workhouse gates. And that is only logical; reasonably, those who tried to escape were supposed to be easily identifiable by their clothes. The classical inmate clothing of the jails of old, with broad black and white stripes, had practical purposes ...!

The best,
Fisherman

Does anyone know if Mann was (due to his 'fits') diagosed with Epilepsy, or another illness, and listed as a sick patient? Only, I came across this...http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O...0green&f=false

Of course, even if he was, and it could be shown that he was wearing civilian clothing, it still leaves the question as to how he escaped (I don't find Trow's explanation, as noted in his book on here wholly convincing...), but, hey.

[Stewart P Evans]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

Sherlock's not such a bad guy. He and I made quite a splash at one time.
Fair point. I just get irritated when people who have made a good living out of this mystery (one which they are entitled to by dint of hard work) come on forums to disparage others who do the same.
Everybody alive who writes about this case is, in a sense, a "johnny come lately".

You are not Mei Trow - are you? As Mei, a schoolteacher (when we met), knows we have met a couple of times and, as I have stated, there is nothing personal in what I have written as I think he is a pleasant person.

However, personally I have not made 'a good living out of this mystery', which is a fact that most people should be aware of. I did make a reasonable living out of being a police officer for nearly 30 years and I do have a reasonable police pension. As the authors' share of the books sold runs at only £1 (one pound GBP) for each copy sold, and you can half that to 50 pence per author as I have co-authors, no one has got rich.

I have not 'come on forums to disparage others who do the same', and I shall explain why. First I merely gave my own opinion and in the event, on release of the TV documentary and the book, what I originally posted has been proved to be correct. The grandiose claims of the hype that preceded this effort signally failed to be fulfilled.

I predicted that there would be no new facts on the murders and that prediction was proved to be correct. I also predicted that there would be no evidence to suggest that Mann was the Ripper, that also was correct. So, am I not allowed to have my own opinions and to voice them here, as everyone else seems to? And I do give my name, I'm not anonymous.

I should further like to point out that I stated that in my opinion any new book on the case should contain new and relevant information on the murders and add something constructive to the story. Every book I have written about this case has done that - and added considerably to the knowledge of the facts of the case and make useful reference works. So the phrase above 'disparage others who do the same' is incorrect, as the work involved does not 'do the same' as I have because it adds nothing factual to the case that was previously unknown.