Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[Trevor Marriott]

Tom
I dont want to keep going over this because this issue has been openly and widely discussed.

You obvioulsy read my earlier post, yet all you can do is reply with a short curt statement stating that the theory is ridiculous I guess you were forced to make that statement because the content of my previous post is based on fact most of which are correct and you are one who seems not to want to accept facts but rely totally on your own wild speculative uncorroborated theory.

The point is that firstly no one can positively say the killer took the organs,likewise no one can positively say they were taken at the mortuary.

However weighing up the many issues surrounding each theory. The removal at the mortuary theory based on the facts both past and present far outweighs the theory surrounding the killer removing them IMHO and more and more people who subscribed to the same theory as you are now having second thoughts.

I keep saying this, it is for each individual to assess and evaluate the facts surrounding both theories and make their own judgment.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Trevor. I don't think I called your theory ridiculous, merely unlikely, which it is. It's certainly not as 'out there' as Bob's giant rat theory, bless his bones. What's my wildly speculative theory? That the killer took the organs? I guess I'm just cutting edge like that. There's enough evidence for us to safely conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the organs were taken by the killer(s) of these women.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Well i have been assessing and evaluating evidence for more than 30 years.

It would seem that what you deem to be evidence and my interpretaion are worlds apart.

The facts are quite simple to comprehend.

No one exmained the bodies at the crime scenes to the extent that the organs were found to be missing.

Both bodies were left for a long time before pm

The organs were removed differently from both Eddowes and Chapman the abdomens were also opened differently to effect the removals.

It is fact that the bodies of Chapman and eddowes were taken to different mortuaries so it suggests to me that two diferent people removed the organs. by difefrent methods. Had it been the killer sureley he would have used the same MO. So you cannot discount the likelihod that the organs were removed at the mortuaries.

Organs were freely available from mortuaries to bona fide medical personel

I could go on with other facts to negate the removal by the killer but I dont want to be repetitive.

Now you show me your "evidence" to suggest the killer took them.

i have purposely left out any reference to Kelly as i like others have issues regarding her murder and her killer

PS
If you ever sit on a jury be sure and look up what is "beyond a reasonable doubt"

[Chris]

Hi Trevor. I don't think I called your theory ridiculous, merely unlikely, which it is. It's certainly not as 'out there' as Bob's giant rat theory, bless his bones.

Have you considered the possibility that giant rats took the organs while the bodies were in the mortuary?

[The Grave Maurice]

Bob Hinton's dog/cat/rat theory never seemed that outlandish to me. Footprints in the blood? Yeah, sure. Anyway, giant rats exist only in Sumatra. I have that on good authority.

[Supe]

Trev,

If you ever sit on a jury be sure and look up what is "beyond a reasonable doubt"

To save Tom and everyone else the effort, the reasonable doubt dictum is interpreted as meaning "no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts." Do you seriously suggest that no other logical explanation can account for the missing oregans than your theory?

Don.

[scarletpimpernel]

How does anyone account for the kidney that was sent to the police? It must have been preserved somewhere first and a mortuary would have had the necessary liquids for that. I do not, for a moment think that a rat could have done that and then write the letter as well.

[The Grave Maurice]

I do not, for a moment think that a rat could have done that and then write the letter as well.

Har. Very witty, scarlet.

[lynn cates]

suggestion

Hello Scarlet. Permit me to offer a suggestion about the kidney.

I have read somewhere or other that the "From Hell" letter bears some resemblance to Dr. Tumblety's handwriting. If so, it is known that he kept some organs preserved in jars.

(Does this make him the ripper? Not a bit of it. It would, however, be in keeping with his eccentric nature.)

The best.
LC

[harry]

Looking at Mann from another perspective,one has to consider how he came to be in Kelly's room in order to do what was done there.Now there are several means by which he could have accomplished the entry,(this of course applies to any other suspect),but whichever one adopts, there should be a reasonable attempt to show that means.Despite the fact that both Mann and Kelly were at the time of the lower social order,there would appear no firm indication of their paths ever crossing,and certainly nothing to suggest a client customer relationship,unless it was that of a genteel,Jewish looking stranger,in an astrakan coat, who accosted her at 2AM that morning?Of course,theoretically,it could be said the killer went tapping at her door crying,"Mary,it's Robert.I have a nice kidney I want to share".Or a hand through the broken window with,"it only George,sorry Robert,a little cold in the mortuary tonight,can I stay here?A bit flippant you might say,but that goes with the subject.One of the worst so far put forward.A preponderence of evidence,that puts the suspect guilty beyond reasonable doubt?I doubt it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trev,

If you ever sit on a jury be sure and look up what is "beyond a reasonable doubt"

To save Tom and everyone else the effort, the reasonable doubt dictum is interpreted as meaning "no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts." Do you seriously suggest that no other logical explanation can account for the missing oregans than your theory?
Don.

The point is that Tom went out on a limb stating that he was certain beyond a reasonable doubt that in his opinion the organs were removed by the killer, not me you should read the posts correctly before rushing to reply

The interpretation you stated clearly shows that Tom is one of a small minority who look at the Ripper case through rose tinted spectacles and for whatever reason are not even prepared to consider alternatives. Clearly there is another explanation for the removal of the organs which as i have stated contains many relevevant facts to suggest this is more than a wild speculative theory and should not be dismised lightly.

Everything is not set in stone !!!!!!!!!!

[Jon Guy]

The organs were removed differently from both Eddowes and Chapman the abdomens were also opened differently to effect the removals.

It is fact that the bodies of Chapman and eddowes were taken to different mortuaries so it suggests to me that two diferent people removed the organs. by difefrent methods. Had it been the killer sureley he would have used the same MO. So you cannot discount the likelihod that the organs were removed at the mortuaries.

Hi Trevor

Regarding the undoubted differences in the opening of the abdomens, isn`t this simply due to the ambient light available to the killer?

P.C. Watkins had to shine his torch on Eddowes, whereas John Richardson could already see around the yard.

Hence Eddowes was ripped open, and Chapman and Kelly had panels removed.

[Monty]

Jon,

The position of the killer in relation to the bodies may have had a bearing to.

I was always taught 'beyond reasonable doubt' was simply translated as what the average Joe Public felt was plausible.

Monty

[dixon9]

Mr Marriott

in the case of Annie Chapman i thought two nurses stayed with the body(Mary Simonds and Frances Wright).When they arrived at the mortuary the body was on the ambulance,they stripped and washed the body(on the say so of Inspector Chandler)
Chandler at the inquest said he had not told the nurses to strip and wash the body.
I know my summing up is a bit long winded,but i cant see who could have took the organs unless the nurses were working together

Dixon9

[Trevor Marriott]

Monty

You are totally correct.

Jon Guy

Ambient light or not the uteri of Eddowes and Chapman were removed differenty. Two different methods two different people. ?

If Pc Watkins had to shine his light on the body. So how could the killer performed major organ removal in the dark. i am sorry people in my opinion and that of modern day experts it just didnt happen.

Forget about Kelly as stated there are mnay issues with her murder which have been documented by other on here.