Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[lynn cates]

ante mortem

Hello Maurice. I was given to understand that the consensus is all 38 of Martha's smaller wounds were administered ante mortem.

Cheers.
LC

[The Grave Maurice]

Yep, that's what I understood him to say. He also says that Martha's soldier companion stabbed her once with his bayonet, then Mann came along shortly afterward and stabbed her 38 times with his pocket knife.

[chrisjd]

In that preview, is Trow really saying that the Wentworth Str. Arch is "all that's left of George Yard builings?"
If so: Ouch

C

[The Grave Maurice]

Several previews of the programme can be seen here.

[ChrisGeorge]

Alternatively, it might be viewed as a prudently sceptical response to the suggestion that a long-term workhouse inmate in his 50s was the Whitechapel murderer.

Agreed.

C

[Chris]

There is bound to be some carping and resistance to any new suspect ...

Alternatively, it might be viewed as a prudently sceptical response to the suggestion that a long-term workhouse inmate in his 50s was the Whitechapel murderer.

[ChrisGeorge]

I just knew I should have avoided this and the other forum site recently, having heard there was a book and TV show coming, because I was looking forward to Trow's book. Just sitting down, reading it, seeing how it unfolds. Enjoying the pleasure of a new book, whether it be this subject or whatever. But the cat is out of the bag.

I read Trow's previous book and liked it. He was also on the US TV show with Phil, Don and others. It was a good show.

One more thing. How many posters and article writers and serious researchers chant the mantra of the poor local man? Well, here you are.

But now the horse has left the barn. And the bloom is off the rose. And Hi-ho the merry-o, cause that's just how it goes.

Roy

Hello Roy

Well, looking at the situation in regard to the book objectively, the book will rise or fall on its own arguments not on what anyone says on these internet boards. There is bound to be some carping and resistance to any new suspect and an expectancy that the writer will not have made his or her case. As Stewart says, we have been down this road before in regard to suspect after suspect.... great expectations hyped by publisher or television media but, in the end, no real movement toward answering the riddle of the murders.

I should think, as Stewart remarked, it might be expected that Mr. Trow will have make some fresh contributions to the study of the murders, but whether his case for Robert Mann is persuasive that Mann was the killer is another thing entirely.

I anticipate that it will turn out to be an interesting book about a minor suspect, much like Bruce Paley's Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth about Joe Barnett or Bob Hinton's From Hell: The Jack the Ripper Mystery about George Hutchinson.

Many such suspect books depend upon whether the reader will accept the author's argument, but usually such theories also hinge on acceptance of a number of leaps of faith, big and small.

Best regards

Chris George

[Roy Corduroy]

I just knew I should have avoided this and the other forum site recently, having heard there was a book and TV show coming, because I was looking forward to Trow's book. Just sitting down, reading it, seeing how it unfolds. Enjoying the pleasure of a new book, whether it be this subject or whatever. But the cat is out of the bag.

I read Trow's previous book and liked it. He was also on the US TV show with Phil, Don and others. It was a good show.

One more thing. How many posters and article writers and serious researchers chant the mantra of the poor local man? Well, here you are.

But now the horse has left the barn. And the bloom is off the rose. And Hi-ho the merry-o, cause that's just how it goes.

Roy

[Radical Joe]

To answer the points you raise in order. I did point out that this was a 'bitching' thread for me and I am going through one of my disillusionment phases at the moment. And having been interested in the case since 1961 I have seen many changes, especially with the appearance of the Internet. It is, however, refreshing to see your genuine interest based on valid grounds.

I can list a good many names that appear in the 1888 historical record that I would regard as a 'half-cocked theory' if anyone suggested they were 'Jack the Ripper' - and Mann is one of them. I shall be very interested to hear, as you have a genuine interest, what you think of the TV documentary when you have seen it.

I should think that the last thing on Mei Trow's mind when he wrote this book was that he was doing it to encourage others to research his theory in order to dismiss it.

(Ok, this is my last post on here!)

Hi,

Firstly, I apologise for the 'silly debate' remark. It was meant somewhat tongue in cheek to emphasise my analogy (as is hopefully evident by the fact that I have contributed qute a few posts on this topic over various threads). That said, as the OP of the debate, I apologise if you were put out at all by that remark.

And it's good to hear you acknowledge that you're going through a 'disillusionment' phase, just as I'm coming out of mine. Who knows, another place, another time, and we might have been arguing on opposite sides of he fence!

As noted above, I do appreciate your cynicism, I share it both in respect of this case (all things JTR) and in other respects - I am currently taking an MA in British Medieval History, and have read more than enough half-baked and deliberatley sensationalist theories to turn me off the subject for life.

A year ago I would likely have taken the same view as you regarding this theory (without, of course, the expertise to back it up). Perhaps, in a years time, I'll be laughing at the idea that I ever considered waiting for this programme to air. But, right now I feel refreshed and await the programme with anticipation. You can't deny a guy the right to get exicted (however misguided he may be), can you?!

[Chris]

Why is it impossible to have a reasonable discussion on here?

Well, I think it does make things difficult when someone appears on a discussion board and says - in essence - "you shouldn't be discussing this".

[Stewart P Evans]

To Answer

...
First things first, I've never claimed to have a 'real and enduring interest' in the case - as I acknowledged when noting that I regularly get 'turned off' by the stream of garbage that purports to offer the definitive answer as to the Ripper's identity (as may well be the case here). Instead, as someone with an interest in history in general, and someone who grew up and lives close to Whitechapel, I have a laymans interest in the case which is regularly tested.
And I agree that not every 'half-cocked theory should be welcomed as a wonderful thing'. Indeed, as I've noted, this is primarily the reason for my 'turning off' from 'Ripperology'. That said, I'm not the one claiming that a documentary I've yet to see, who's arguments I've yet to hear in context, will necessarily offer this 'half-cocked theory'. Instead, as you suggested yourself is the desirable course, I will be watching objectively.
As to your point that we needn't worry about the tendency of some researchers to ignore other avenues (in order to pursue their own theories), because others will come along to pursue those lines of enquiry and 'blow those theories out of the water - couldn't it be said that this is exactly what Trow (for example) is attempting to do?

To answer the points you raise in order. I did point out that this was a 'bitching' thread for me and I am going through one of my disillusionment phases at the moment. And having been interested in the case since 1961 I have seen many changes, especially with the appearance of the Internet. It is, however, refreshing to see your genuine interest based on valid grounds.

I can list a good many names that appear in the 1888 historical record that I would regard as a 'half-cocked theory' if anyone suggested they were 'Jack the Ripper' - and Mann is one of them. I shall be very interested to hear, as you have a genuine interest, what you think of the TV documentary when you have seen it.

I should think that the last thing on Mei Trow's mind when he wrote this book was that he was doing it to encourage others to research his theory in order to dismiss it.

[Radical Joe]

Joe

Please do me the courtesy of reading what I have actually written, and please don't put words into my mouth.

I am not "ridiculing" the theory. I am simply pointing out what is apparently a serious difficulty with it.

At the risk of repeating myself - if Trow or anyone else can suggest a way around the difficulty, that will be interesting, but you can't expect people to pretend the difficulty doesn't exist in the meantime.

As for Trevor's observation, if you look at the posts above, you will see that it refers to something different - to people who were free to leave the workhouse because they had been discharged. We know that was certainly not the case for Mann on the night of the murder of Nichols.

OK, my last post on here.

If you actually read my last reponse to you, you would have noted that, in fact, I did not refer to you at all, much less put words in your mouth. All I suggested was that it is silly to ridicule a theory that we haven't heard in context. At no point did I accuse you of doing this.

Why is it impossible to have a reasonable discussion on here?

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry to see...

But surely not as silly as ridiculing a theory on the basis of objections that, firstly, we don't know are objections (as at least one eminent writer here -Trevor - argues) and, secondly, when we haven't even waited to see if the writer (Trow) who proposed the theory proposes to counter those objections.
It's like a press release, in my name, claiming that Tim the Enchanter was the Ripper, and others, on the strengh of that limited info, scoffing and arguing that the guy was a fictional character who lived in the Medieval era - but before waiting for me to offer my theory in context which might prove that Tim was, in fact, a real person who can be shown to have been in London in 1888. A silly analogy (for a silly debate), I agree, and perhaps Trow can't show that Mann was at liberty during the period in question. All I can say is what I've said before, I at least, will wait for the whole argument to be put forward.

If an informed person objects to a theory, before it has appeared in print, he does so on the basis of his own knowledge and experience. It is also worth bearing in mind that we have all seen this sort of thing before - more than once.

I am sorry to see that you think this is a 'silly debate' (which does make me wonder why you have appeared here in the first place). I do not regard it as a 'silly debate' (I would say that - wouldn't I?) as I believe it to be quite enlightening on people's perceptions of the subject and the emergence of new books and documentaries. It also gives an interesting psychological insight. But if you feel it's silly, please bail out.

For the less well informed and experienced I would agree when you say 'wait for the whole argument to be put forward.' Indeed, us detractors will all look a bit silly when we see conclusive evidence that Mann was looked upon as a serious suspect at the time. I shall be the first to apologise and retract (I'm serious). And think of the great pleasure that you will derive from that.

I still return to one of my original points that we should at least expect some new, and relevant, fact or information to be presented in the book and documentary. New ideas and theories alone are insufficient.

Lastly, I would recommend you read (if you do not already have a copy) The Many Faces of Jack the Ripper by M. J. Trow, Chichester, Summersdale Publishers, 1997, which contains a look at the various suspects and the sort of man the killer was.

[Robert]

How about if Mann had an accomplice on the outside? Then we could get in PAV.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think you are all becoming embroiled on matters surrounding Mann.

If it could be proved beyond a resasonable doubt that Mann could not have been in a position to come and go as he pleased then he surely would be elminated from any further suspicion. Although if that happened there will be those who would say he could have got out at night un be known to staff.

However the issues are not whether he could come and go or not, even if he was able to come and go we are still back to any finding any "evidence" to suggest he should be looked at as a suspect.

Stewart already and rightly pointed out that Trows theory is partly based on Mann having contact with the bodies at the mortuary. Another part is based on him living in Whirechapel and fits the FBI profile.

I would suggest the latter two parts would fit more than half the male population of Whitechapel and beyond at the time.

So unless Mr Trow has something else up his sleeve then his theory will drift into total obscurity fairly rapidly.

I dont know to much about Mr Trow but I beleive he is a fiction writer of good standing and writes in similar fashion to Ms Cornwell having a principle character in his books. I guess the question must be with these type of writers, where does non fiction end and fiction begin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I.e this is hypothetical as I dont know whats in the documentary, but lets say Trow states Mann would be out on the streets of Whitechapel at night. Then we must ask where did that information come from is it "fact or fiction" I rest my case