Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[Stewart P Evans]

And so the Ripper bandwagon trundles into life again. Periodically Ripperworld falls into a state of semi-quietude with nothing much to discuss of a constructive nature.

At these times posters lapse into a state of boredom, eccentric theories and speculation are rife and move to the fore. The time is ripe for a new suspect theory to leap into the news and amaze the Ripper reading world. Such a theory, in presenting a name, gives the mass of online researchers the chance to get their teeth into something. A real name, a real person who actually figures (in some way) in the original investigation. No matter how unlikely he is - the mere claim (albeit with no factual basis) that he was Jack the Ripper is sufficient to ensure a TV programme based on the idea, and to sell enough books to make sure that a profit is made. A cynical view, surely, but after many years this scenario becomes very tiresome. The old hands (like me - a leading 'old fart') move in to condemn the theory for what it undoubtedly is - others, who perhaps know no better, move to defend the new theory and cry 'give it a chance'! It is all very predictable, and we all succumb and fall into our various roles. After all in the state of current boredom it's something to debate and do some research on.

Hype tells us that the author has used 'modern police forensic techniques including 'psychological and geographical profiling', and he has added two more victims (Tabram and McKenzie) to 'the confirmed five killings'. Really? I didn't know that there were 'five confirmed killings' in the first place - I thought they were all unsolved. But what do I know? Then, we are told, that a 'comprehensive personality profile' of the 'new' suspect fits the 'FBI profile' whatever that might be, and whatever relevance that might have.

Because the coroner in his summation declared that the 'new' suspect, Robert Mann, was 'subject to fits and neither his memory or statements are reliable' he may have 'dropped off the police radar'. Those poor old Victorian 'tecs, still if radar existed in those days it would have been in its mega-infancy so perhaps they may be excused for missing this one, despite the ultra-damning fact that he had stripped the body to 'admire his handiwork'. Apparently even a forensic psychologist has been produced to declare this poor pauper workhouse hand to be 'one of the most credible suspects from recent years' and provides a 'plausible psychological explanation' for the murders.

But what of evidence and facts? Well I don't expect any new facts on the murders to emerge nor do I expect anything remotely resembling evidence to suggest that Mann was the Ripper. There will be the usual brief flurry of interest and posts as Mann comes under the genealogical research microscope. His name will become emblazoned in Ripper-lore as a 'viable' suspect - I mean, he was there at the time - wasn't he? A previously little known and largely ignored Victorian pauper will get a dubious claim to fame (or should that be infamy?) and then the bandwagon will judder on to other things. To my mind any new Ripper book should contain new facts and, if presenting a 'new' suspect, then should justify that person with being so named by presenting some valid reason for even thinking he was a suspect (say some contemporary source naming him as such). However, I guess it will be a long time before the pool of potential suspects amongst the named people involved in the case is fished dry.

[Stewart P Evans]

By The Way

Oh, and by the way, before any wag tells me that there is already a thread on this 'suspect' - please don't. I have started this as a sort of personal 'bitching' area where I can get it off my chest. Others are welcome to join in if they wish.

[dixon9]

Mr Evans is this the programme which will be on The Discovery Channel sunday night,telling us all who Jack The Ripper was?

Dixon9
still learning

[Stewart P Evans]

'Tell'

Mr Evans is this the programme which will be on The Discovery Channel sunday night,telling us all who Jack The Ripper was?
Dixon9
still learning

I am not sure what the TV programme will 'tell' us. I expect the usual formulaic treatment, talking heads and all, but whether or not it will 'tell' us, or merely suggest, who Jack the Ripper was (i.e. in this case Mann) I do not know. But if it does tell us he was Jack the Ripper I doubt that many will be convinced by what they have seen. There you go - I'm sitting in judgement before I've even seen it - but I know that I don't need to see it to realise that it's just another unfounded theory.

[Monty]

Stewart,

I found myself agreeing with every word of your first post.

Realisation has now hit me....I have finally joined the OFB !


Monty...who is off for a cup of Earl Grey.

[Trevor Marriott]

Stewart I totally endorse everything you say

I think readers and researchers should also look closely at the differences between a "likely suspect" a "Suspect" and "A prime suspect" there are far to many names which have been put forward and continue to be put forward forward and close scrutiny of those individuals and the lack of any evidence probabaly does warrant them being in any of those catergories. It would seems Mr Mann may be one of those.

[Stewart P Evans]

Welcome

Stewart,
I found myself agreeing with every word of your first post.
Realisation has now hit me....I have finally joined the OFB !
Monty...who is off for a cup of Earl Grey.

Neil, welcome to the ranks of Ripperological 'old farts'. It's a heady status and one which brings great responsibility. You must ask yourself if you are cynical enough. Can you withstand the barbs of your knowledgeable critics and shrug them off. Do you wish to be viewed as a spoilsport?

Being an 'O.F.' can be a lonely occupation, you will be reviled by those who see every new 'suspect' as a shot in the arm for Ripperology. Are you made of stern enough stuff? Are you prepared to be a pariah? Do you wish to be shunned at Ripper gatherings? Please write with s.a.e., and a cheque (check for US readers) in the sum of £600 for your official Ripperological Old Farts entry pack.

[Stewart P Evans]

Prime Suspect

Stewart I totally endorse everything you say
I think readers and researchers should also look closely at the differences between a "likely suspect" a "Suspect" and "A prime suspect" there are far to many names which have been put forward and continue to be put forward forward and close scrutiny of those individuals and the lack of any evidence probabaly does warrant them being in any of those catergories. It would seems Mr Mann may be one of those.

Yes Trevor, it would seem that stripping the body is the act that makes him a prime suspect. But I thought that that was what mortuary attendants did - except when we (as police officers dealing) got the job!

[The Good Michael]

I think news suspects, regardless of vialility, encourage people to do a bit of nosing around. This snooping does (at times) uncover snippets of peripheral information that teach us new things about the LVP. Some of this peripheral and accidental uncovering may, somewhere down the road, lead us to real possibilities. Of course most suspects seem completely useless to the ernest ripperphile, yet new suspects, worthwhile or not, keep people interested and bring new folks onto the scene. That ain't a bad thing.

Cheers,

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Ripperology

I think news suspects, regardless of vialility, encourage people to do a bit of nosing around. This snooping does (at times) uncover snippets of peripheral information that teach us new things about the LVP. Some of this peripheral and accidental uncovering may, somewhere down the road, lead us to real possibilities. Of course most suspects seem completely useless to the ernest ripperphile, yet new suspects, worthwhile or not, keep people interested and bring new folks onto the scene. That ain't a bad thing.
Cheers,
Mike

And here we have the much needed support for this great 'shot in the arm for Ripperology'. Thank you for contributing the apologist's, sorry, no, ignore that, the alternative view.

This talk of 'encouraging' people to 'nose and snoop around', to 'uncover 'snippets of peripheral information' strikes me as vaguely insulting to the intellectual capabilities of the researchers and writers we already have in the field. It seems, to me, to suggest that without the boost of interest provided by a high-profile new suspect theory something will be missed or the researchers will lapse into inactivity.

Surely this is not true. Here we have another commercial Ripper venture - and I'm not condemning such a venture being commercial. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, such a new suspect theory should involve, somewhere, something to justify the person involved being named as a suspect in the first place. And the author's research should reveal some new facts about the case.

Indeed, to suggest that such a thing is needed by Ripperology is proved to be untrue when we look at who has found what in Ripper studies that is new and relevant to the case.

[Stewart P Evans]

Time Was

Time was I used to read every new Ripper book when it came out. Now I seldom bother - I don't even acquire them all. Some books are necessary, even essential, if you are a student of Ripper studies, but most can be safely ignored.

It's the Ripper bandwagon (and I have been a relatively happy passenger for years) but the wheels are getting increasingly creaky, the load increasingly burdensome, the hype increasingly tedious. I'm staying on board at present, assuming that I have a little to contribute, but those elbows prodding me from both sides will undoubtedly eject me from my precarious seat soon.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes Stewart I have sucked on a few polo mints in my time in mortuaries lol

[Radical Joe]

Yes Stewart I have sucked on a few polo mints in my time in mortuaries lol

Is that when the attendants have gone for a cuppa? I confess, I've never heard it called a Polo Mint before, although I can see the similarity - in shape if not taste. I jest, of course.

As to the OP, you are, of course, entitled to your cynicism, and I can hardly blame you for it. Even as a mere layman, who perhaps dosen't know any better, I've often been turned off from the whole subject due to ill-founded and unsubstantiated claims, along with the petty professional rivalry that, IMO, hinders progress on the case. Indeed, I said as much in a post yesterday. In the same post, however, I also remarked that I was currently in my 'give em a chance' phase - a phrase I see you've kindly 'adopted' in your OP. As such, I am prepared to wait for the theory to be put forward before I cast judgement on its claims and findings. I am not expecting to be convinced that Mann was the Ripper (indeed, I don't know if Trow is making that claim), although I am hoping that he will offer a credible theory as to why Mann should be considered a viable suspect. I am also, as someone interested in the case, hoping to be entertained.

I notice you have doubts that the argument will provide facts/evidence to support any claim as to Mann's right to be caled JTR. I have to ask (because I genuinley don't know), has a lack of tangible, empirical evidence linking a suspect to the crimes ever prevented the publication of a book or transmission of a documentary before?

Something else that comes to mind is the strangeness in discussing/condeming/supporting a theory which hasn't even been put forward yet! Here we are, arguing 'what if he does' and 'if he dosen't'...when the bald truth is that we don't know what Trow is proposing. A good example of this comes from the other thread on the topic, in which (keeping in mind none of us know what arguements Trow will use to support his claims - whatever they may be) some posters argued that Mann's candicacy should be ruled out on the basis that he, as a workhouse inmate, would have been under strict supervision. A fair point, I thought, and one Trow would have to address. Then another poster (perhaps the poster I replied to) countered that, in fact, in some workhouses, inmates were allowed to come and go freely (I should stress that he also argued against his candicay, but on different grounds). Surely the debate is getting somewhat ahead of itself here, no?

I feel I must take issue with your objection to the suggestion put forward here (that, if nothing else, the documentary could serve to forward investigation into other, peripheral, aspects of the case) on two grounds: Firstly, you argue that this implies that current reseachers are somehow incompetent. I would argue that, whilst not lacking in competence (I personally believe you, SPE, to hold impeccable research qualifications - slurp, slurp, although I don't agree with all your conclusions - puts tongue back), many researchers are, as I've noted, very much wrapped up in their own theories, and thus, deliberatley or otherwise, ignore avenues that may detract from them. Also, I would argue (reasonaby I think) that the current batch of researchers won't live forever, and if programmes such as this bring in fresh blood, willing to look at the case with new eyes, and minus the prejudices and cynicism that many 'old hands' invariably have, then I'm all for it. I wonder, for example, how many of the current breed were inspired to research the case on the basis of a documentary/book whose arguments they may not have agreed with.

Oh and one last thing (as the great detective himself would say), you've put the word new, when referring to Mann's suspect status, in inverted commas, which seems to imply some doubt as to his 'new' status. Has Mann been proposed as a suspect before?

[Monty]

Stewart

You must ask yourself if you are cynical enough?

Oh yes

Can you withstand the barbs of your knowledgeable critics and shrug them off?

Pah, of course

Do you wish to be viewed as a spoilsport?

Already am.



Where do I sign?

Monty

[Chris]

Here we are, arguing 'what if he does' and 'if he dosen't'...when the bald truth is that we don't know what Trow is proposing. A good example of this comes from the other thread on the topic, in which (keeping in mind none of us know what arguements Trow will use to support his claims - whatever they may be) some posters argued that Mann's candicacy should be ruled out on the basis that he, as a workhouse inmate, would have been under strict supervision. A fair point, I thought, and one Trow would have to address. Then another poster (perhaps the poster I replied to) countered that, in fact, in some workhouses, inmates were allowed to come and go freely (I should stress that he also argued against his candicay, but on different grounds). Surely the debate is getting somewhat ahead of itself here, no?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

We may not know precisely what claims Trow is making, but obviously Mann is being put forward at least as a plausible suspect. And clearly he was a workhouse inmate at the time of the murder of Nichols.

Surely it's entirely appropriate to point out that the inmates of workhouses weren't at liberty to wander the streets, even in the daytime, let alone in the early hours of the morning.

As to Trevor's claim that some inmates of some workhouses had freedom of movement, I'd be interested to see what evidence there is to support it. Here's what Peter Higginbotham has to say on his website, http://www.workhouses.org.uk/ :
While residing in a workhouse, paupers were not allowed out without permission. Short-term absence could be granted for various reasons, such as a parent attending their child's baptism, or to visit a sick or dying relative. Able-bodied inmates could also be allowed out to seek work. Although there was often little to physically prevent a pauper from walking out of the workhouse, to do so without permission would result in a charge of the theft of union property — his workhouse uniform. Any pauper could, however, on giving "reasonable notice" — typically three hours — discharge himself from the workhouse. His clothes would then be fetched from the store and more administrative paperwork would need to be completed. In the case of a man with a family, the whole family would have to leave if he left.