Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[Chris]

Couldn't it be possible that Robert Mann on those occassions was wearing his mortuary attire rather than the workhouse's ?

This is getting a bit tedious. As has already been pointed out several times, we know from press reports of the Nichols inquest that Mann did wear workhouse uniform.

But really the issue of workhouse uniform is a side issue. The point is that workhouse inmates simply were not allowed to roam the streets at will - let alone in the early hours of the morning.

As far as I've seen, Mei Trow's only response to this difficulty is to point out that Jack London, when he was an inmate of the casual ward, was able to run out of the workhouse gates and evade recapture one day about 15 years later. Unless someone can come up with a suggestion as to how Mann could have escaped from the workhouse at night without being detected - not just once but repeatedly - he should not be considered a suspect at all.

[scarletpimpernel]

Chris,

Sick patients, because they were not subject to the deterrent rules, were not ALWAYS put into workhouse uniform. Mann had fits, therefore; there were times when he did not use his workhouse uniform.

Chris, there are reports that the Whitechapel workhouse was one of the easiest spikes to go in and out unnoticed. The thing is, that for reasons of your own, you refuse to see the evidence. In fact, there are many in here like you who were already dismissing this suspect without even having bothered to look at the documentary much less read the book.

[dixon9]

In regard to the Nichols murder,if we say time of death was around 3.30am,it is reported that the police had to go and get Mann from the workhouse(he arrived at montuary with the keys in between 5.00am-5.20am).
So obviously if Mann is 'Jack' we are to believe he returned to be let into the workhouse say 4.00am,then police came to get him before five,surely someone in the workhouse would have noted his coming and goings?
Sorry Mann imo is not a viable suspect.

Dixon9
still learning

[Chris]

Sick patients, because they were not subject to the deterrent rules, were not ALWAYS put into workhouse uniform. Mann had fits, therefore; there were times when he did not use his workhouse uniform.

That's almost a textbook example of a logical fallacy. I repeat, we know that Mann did wear workhouse uniform, because it is stated in the reports of the Nichols inquest.

Chris, there are reports that the Whitechapel workhouse was one of the easiest spikes to go in and out unnoticed.

Is this a reference to the comment that Jack London quotes? Because there's nothing in that remark about going out of the workhouse unnoticed, let alone going back in. It just relates to the rigour with which the inmates were searched on admission. And in any case it all relates to people in the casual ward, not the workhouse proper.

[Sam Flynn]

I repeat, we know that Mann did wear workhouse uniform, because it is stated in the reports of the Nichols inquest.

Strictly speaking, doesn't that only demonstrate that Mann wore his workhouse uniform to the inquest, Chris?

[Chris]

Strictly speaking, doesn't that only demonstrate that Mann wore his workhouse uniform to the inquest, Chris?

Of course, but it's clear from that that he wasn't excused workhouse uniform because of illness, which is what scarletpimpernel is apparently trying to suggest.

[Septic Blue]

Sick patients, because they were not subject to the deterrent rules, were not ALWAYS put into workhouse uniform. Mann had fits, therefore; there were times when he did not use his workhouse uniform.

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

"The People's Health: 1830-1910"; Francis Barrymore Smith

"Sick patients, because they were not subject to the deterrence rules, were not always put into workhouse uniform."

This is clearly in reference to those paupers, who were admitted as 'patients' to Poor Law infirmaries, specifically on the basis of infirmity, rather than destitution. All able-bodied paupers, who were admitted as 'inmates' to Poor Law facilities, on the basis of destitution, were put into uniform.

In accordance with the Metropolitan Poor Act 1867, the Whitechapel Poor Law Union …

- The Liberty of Norton Folgate
- The Old Artillery Ground
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
- The Parish of Holy Trinity ('Minories')
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (portion within the County of Middlesex)
- The Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London
--- [The Liberty of the Tower]
--- [The Precinct of Old Tower Without]
--- [The Tower]
- The Precinct of St. Katharine
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (portion within the County of Middlesex)

… separated its workhouse and infirmary facilities, by constructing a new Union Workhouse in South Grove, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town; whilst converting its existing workhouse/infirmary in Charles Street, Hamlet of Mile End New Town, into its Union Infirmary, in ~1872.

This would surely have enhanced the distinction between non-uniformed patients of the Union Infirmary, and uniformed able-bodied inmates of the Union Workhouse; in as much as they were physically separated by a distance of ~1.50 miles.

But Robert Mann was a nearly life-long resident of specifically the Whitechapel Union's Charles Street facility - even following its conversion to Union Infirmary. So why would he have worn a workhouse uniform, if in fact he resided in the Whitechapel Union Infirmary - as opposed to the Whitechapel Union Workhouse - , in 1888?

The beginnning of this section of the registers is unusual in that it starts with approximately 550 records which are arranged alphabetically rather than by date and some of the admission dates for these alpha records go back in to the 1870s. But for completeness I am including them.
I will post in sections of 100 records to keep these sections manageable.
The first of the alpha records is below
Chris


"Whitechapel Infirmary Admission and Discharge Register 1885-1887",,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,
"Date","Surname","Forename(s)","Age","Admitted From","Married/Single","Calling","Cause","Discharged","Remarks"

The third instalment:-
05/03/1873,"Mann","Robert",37,"No home","Single","Labourer","Destitute",,

The actual register can be seen by clicking "here", downloading File Ref. "1/20", and scrolling down to #285.

Robert Mann was admitted to the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, in March 1873 - in all likelihood, never to be discharged, until his death, in 1896.

My guess, is that he was discharged from the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, Charles Street, Hamlet of Mile End New Town, upon its relocation to South Grove, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, in ~1872; and that as a result of his continued state of destitution, he was re-admitted to the facility, from which he had been discharged, upon its conversion to Whitechapel Union Infirmary.

But, why would an able-bodied pauper be admitted to the Union Infirmary, rather than the Union Workhouse, on the basis of his being "Destitute"? Perhaps, so that he could fulfill certain infirmary-based responsibilities: e.g. that of 'Mortuary Attendant'.

So, apart from his workhouse uniform; what clothing does anyone actually believe Robert Mann would have owned, in 1888?

And if anyone thinks that Mann might have changed into 'civilian clothing', on those occasions, during which he was suffering from 'fits'; then think again.

[Fisherman]

Scarletpimpernel writes:

"In fact, there are many in here like you who were already dismissing this suspect without even having bothered to look at the documentary much less read the book."

Perhaps so, Scarlet. But then again, there are those who DID read the book - like me - and found that it presents no viable case at all in relation to Mann and his comings and goings in clothing that "could not be told from the ordinary mans clothes" or however it was put - it´s along these general lines at any rate.
This is what Trow suggests with no - NO! -tangible backing up at all but for the "if London could do it, then so could Mann". After that reflection, Trow simply writes on each occasion that Mann simply "slipped into" the mortuary to choose a knife and then hit the streets.
I think Tommy Cooper would have offered the best comment on these suggestions on Trow´s behalf, and with an equal amount of research weight added to it: "Just like that!"

I´m sure that Trow is a very likeable fellow, just as I am sure that the publishers of the book went a few paces too far advertising it before it hit the market. The combination, though, has not resulted in a very good book, I´m afraid - and it´s choice of suspect is even worse. George Chapman is an infinitely better suspect in my opinion - and for those out there that know what I think of Chapmans overall viability as a suspect, well ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Septic Blue]

But Robert Mann was a nearly life-long resident of specifically the Whitechapel Union's Charles Street facility - even following its conversion to Union Infirmary. So why would he have worn a workhouse uniform, if in fact he resided in the Whitechapel Union Infirmary - as opposed to the Whitechapel Union Workhouse - , in 1888?

…

My guess, is that he was discharged from the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, Charles Street, Hamlet of Mile End New Town, upon its relocation to South Grove, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, in ~1872; and that as a result of his continued state of destitution, he was re-admitted to the facility, from which he had been discharged, upon its conversion to Whitechapel Union Infirmary.

But, why would an able-bodied pauper be admitted to the Union Infirmary, rather than the Union Workhouse, on the basis of his being "Destitute"? Perhaps, so that he could fulfill certain infirmary-based responsibilities: e.g. that of 'Mortuary Attendant'.

Point of Clarification:

I am suggesting that Robert Mann was 'technically' a uniformed inmate of the Whitechapel Union Workhouse - in any case, he was a uniformed ward of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union - , even though he actually resided in the Whitechapel Union Infirmary.

Robert Mann is an outright non-starter!

And by the way ...

Anyone who is not insulted by Mr. Trow's suggestion that a uniformed Robert Mann was able to come-and-go as he damn well pleased, from the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, in 1888 - purely on the basis that a non-uniformed Jack London done a bunk ("a"; as in 'one', i.e. 'once') from the Whitechapel Union Casual Ward, in 1902 - ; should think about what he/she is being asked to believe.

[scarletpimpernel]

Strictly speaking, doesn't that only demonstrate that Mann wore his workhouse uniform to the inquest, Chris?

Sam, correct.

That only demonstrates that Mann wore his workhouse uniform to the inquest whilst in another report we are told that this workhouse uniform was not always worn by sick patients. Mann was a sick person. Chris is only trying to put words into my mouth or trying to interpret what he wants to understand I said, instead of what I'm really saying.

The mortuary assistants also had their own uniform as shown in the photos of mortuary attendants in another thread so this means that Robert Mann had two uniforms 1) The mortuary Uniform 2 ) The workhouse uniform and there were times, that he didn't wear a uniform at all according to that report about sick people at the workhouse.

He lived at the workhouse for 10 years and the distance between the scenes of the crimes from the workhouse were very close, so its entirely possible that he could have sneaked back into the workhouse unnoticed.

[Chris]

Chris is only trying to put words into my mouth or trying to interpret what he wants to understand I said, instead of what I'm really saying.

What remains of my patience is going to evaporate very quickly if you're going to start making accusations of that sort.

I put no words into your mouth. I did not "interpret" what you had said. I simply pointed out that what you had said was a logical fallacy of a type we're all familiar with:

1. Some mammals are baboons.
2. John Smith is a mammal.
3. Therefore John Smith is a baboon.

Now before you launch off in a fresh direction with stuff about "mortuary uniforms", please will you answer my question about your previous post? Are you really claiming there are "reports" saying it was easy to "go in and out" of Whitechapel workhouse unnoticed? If so, where are they?

Let's at least try to get the facts straight, otherwise this really is a waste of time.

[Chris]

Incidentally, looking back at the source of this statement about "sick patients" in the workhouse infirmary not always being put into workhouse uniform - Francis Barrymore Smith, The people's health, 1830-1910, p. 391 (1979) (http://books.google.com/books?id=Ob0OAAAAQAAJ) - as Colin points out, Mann wasn't a patient and therefore it doesn't apply to him in any case.

But in addition to that, clearly what Smith is talking about is whether patients were put into uniform on admission to the infirmary. He's not saying that some patients wore uniform at some times but not others. He's saying that some patients kept their own clothes when they were admitted, rather than being put into uniform at all.

In contrast, inmates of the workhouse such as Mann had their clothes taken away from them when they were admitted, and wore workhouse uniform instead.

[scarletpimpernel]

Radical Joe,

In reference to your question Robert Mann also suffered from tuberculosis but I'm not sure whether he was admitted there for that reason as well or if it was initially for his fits. I would imagine, fits in that era was what we now describe as, Epilepsy and the tuberculosis probably developed later.

Chris,

If you are bored and impatient with this, I suggest you go to the many other hundreds of threads there are here. Perhaps you do not care to discuss this suspect but I do, I would like to do so with people who would like to explore this suspect without you telling others what I mean to say or what I'm thinking. I'm able to do that by myself given half a chance, of course. It is not my intention to pick-up quarrels with you or anyone else for that matter. I just want to explore this avenue of investigation with its merits or faults but without this annoying and unpleasant harping from your part. Its really not helpful. I'm I hope asking you nicely.

Fisherman

Good for you. Most people like to arrive to their own conclusions, at least I do, thank you. You cannot do the reading for me.

[DeltaXi65]

I'm watching the Discovery Channel show on this new suspect right now, and I have to say that I'm exceedingly cynical, as Stewart is.

One of the things that really bothers me is when I see these shows and they spend plenty of time talking to modern experts, like the profiler they talk to and the current coroner for Whitechapel, but I have yet to see an expert on the case here. Trow wrote one book, but that does not an expert make.

It's frustrating that the decades of serious study and legitimate scholarship done on the case is ignored every time someone wants to trot out a new suspect and get a documentary made. It happened with the Cornwell idiocy, and it's happening now.

I can see why Stewart is getting tired of dealing with this nonsense.

[Fisherman]

Scarletpimpernel states:

"You cannot do the reading for me."

As far as I can see, I never suggested such a thing either. You claimed that people who had not even read the book had not earned the right to criticize Trows theory, and I pointed out that reading the book had in fact - at least on my behalf - more or less cemented my previous guess that Mann is a very bad contender for the Ripper title.

If anybody else reaches a differing stance, then that is fine by me. If they can support a belief that Mann is a good candidate with new evidence, then so much the better. If they can actually prove that Mann was the Ripper, I would be the first to congratulate. But anybody venturing to reach these goals must do so entirely on their own - since I will not do the reading for them.

The best,
Fisherman