Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[Radical Joe]

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.

Hi,

What I'm getting at is that, various posters have taken issue with the validity of Mann as a viable candidate on issues (such as his workhouse status), whilst not having seen how (or if) Trow intends to counter those objections, or even, as Trevor noted regards workhouses, if they are valid objections in the first instance. As to Trevors claim, perhaps you need to take this up wth him, as I dont claim to possess any real knowledge of the practices in the various workhouses of the period. All I'm suggesting is that we wait for the damned programme to air first before discussing the validity of any claims Trow makes. But that's just my opinion.

[Fisherman]

The unescapable fact is that we are dealing with an anomaly here:

-It is undecent not to listen to people who put forward a theory.
-More often than not, when we answer that call, we are subjected to intellectual indecency, since many an author has never aspired to more than earning a quick buck or two.

He who sleepeth, sinneth not. He who sinneth, sleepeth not.
How does one do?

Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

I cant find the specific website which stated these facts now. I do recall the article described these people who came and went at leisure were called "In and Outs"

From reading up it would appear that some workhouses operated a more relaxed regime than others.

Buy hey ho does it make any difference to Mann being a name mentioned in the long running Whitechapel murders mystery, notice I specifically avoided any mention of "Supect" in any catergory

[Chris]

Joe

But surely the question is simple enough. Were the inmates of the workhouse at liberty to wander the streets of Whitechapel at night?

Everything I have read points to the answer being "No". If anyone (including Trow) can present any evidence to the contrary, that will be interesting. But to suggest that we should wait until someone does before discussing the matter is, frankly, a bit silly.

[Radical Joe]

The unescapable fact is that we are dealing with an anomaly here:

-It is undecent not to listen to people who put forward a theory.
-More often than not, when we answer that call, we are subjected to intellectual indecency, since many an author has never aspired to more than earning a quick buck or two.

He who sleepeth, sinneth not. He who sinneth, sleepeth not.
How does one do?

Fisherman

Hi, it is indeed a paradox. I liken it to gold mining: you have to sift through an awful lot of dirt in the hope of finding a golden nugget. Thus, the question is, are we prepared to sift through the dirt or not? Another question might be: is the golden nugget worth sifting through the dirt for? They're questions that we can only answer as individuals.

Having noticed my contributions to this topic, I would like to make it clear (as I did in my first post on the subject) that I have no reason to believe Mann was the Ripper. Thus, I am not supporting any claims that he was, just as I am not dismissing (at this point) any claims that he was. All I have ever said on the subject is that I intend to watch the programme with an open mind. If (IMO) the programme turns out to be shite, I will not hesitate to say so.

[Chris]

I cant find the specific website which stated these facts now. I do recall the article described these people who came and went at leisure were called "In and Outs"

Thanks for that information.

There is actually something about "in-and-outs" on the same web page I quoted above:
Despite the lengthy admission and discharge procedures, some paupers treated the workhouse as a free lodging, leaving and departing as the fancy took them. It was not unknown for a pauper to discharge himself in the morning and then return demanding re-admission the same evening, possibly the worse for wear from drink. In 1901, one 81-year-old woman named Julia Blumsun recorded 163 separate admissions to the City of London workhouse, while a 40-year-old man in the Poplar workhouse had been in and out 593 times over the period since 1884. These were the most extreme examples of what became known as the "ins-and-outs". Because of the amount of time they took to deal with, became the bane of the workhouse staff's life. Eventually, in the early 1900s, new regulations were introduced to lengthen the amount of notice required depending on how recently an inmate had previously discharged himself.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/life/entry.shtml

This is a question of actually discharging oneself and then being readmitted, which would be recorded in the workhouse register. In contrast, Robert Mann was evidently a long-term inmate, and we know for sure that he was an inmate at the time of the murder of Nichols.

[Stewart P Evans]

'New Thoeries'

...
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...
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?

If anyone has a real and enduring interest in this subject then there should be very little that would 'turn off' that interest. If the interest is that easily 'turned off' then I would suggest that the person involved had no great interest in the first place and certainly not enough to rise off his rear end, abandon the computer keyboard and get out there and do some real searching.

That said, I recognise that statement applies to those whose interests extend to research and, possibly, writing on the subject. The greater part of those with an interest in the Whitechapel murders really want to only read about the subject. That is great and as it should be. Indeed all authors should be grateful for that. But that does not mean that every book and half-cocked theory should be welcomed as a wonderful thing. If entertainment is all that is required then perhaps fiction is the area in which the reader should be interesting himself. After all, there's plenty of Ripper fiction about.

Apropos of the question "has a lack of tangible, empirical evidence linking the suspect to the crimes ever prevented the publication of a book or transmission of a documentary before?" the answer is, obviously, no it hasn't. In fact it can be positively stated that there is no hard evidence suggesting that any named person was the Ripper. But there are degrees of evidence and I am not sure what you look upon as evidence. After all the mere fact that Mann was there at the time and had dealings with at least two of the bodies links him, historically, with the victims.

But this is all subjective and, as I previously stated, a prerequisite for any named suspect should be something historically suggesting him as a suspect - such as Cutbush, Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog (Macnaghten); Tumblety (Littlechild); Chapman (Abberline), etc. Or, failing that, some new piece of historical information that justifies such a contention.

It is not peculiar to the field of Ripper studies that a new book or TV documentary on a subject that has not yet appeared is critically assessed before its appearance. It happens all the time, the critics usually being those in a position to make a valid point. I do not know the entirety of what the book will propose but I do know, and have commented upon, the preceding media hype. I also know Mei Trow, and a very nice guy he is too, and I do know some of his previous work. Once these things appear as pre-publicity they are going to be the subject of speculation and debate ahead of time. Indeed, the idea of the publicity is to stimulate interest and cause comment and debate in anticipation of the work.

I'm not sure to whom you refer when you say that there is an implication that 'current researchers are somehow incompetent'. In fact what I said was that they do not need the encouragement of a 'new suspect' theory for incentive, as witness the good work they are doing. Any researchers or writers 'wrapped up in their own theories' may (but not always) 'ignore avenues that may detract from them'. But those ignored avenues will soon be picked up by others who are set to blow that theory out of the water.

It cannot be argued that any new TV documentary, or new book for that matter, will create some new interest in the case. But that is hardly justification for presenting a flimsy 'new suspect' theory. Much better that an objective view is taken and that a serious suspect is examined. The subject isn't simply going to go away if a 'new suspect' theory doesn't emerge every so often. And do we really need some of the media dross that this inevitably brings in?

Yes, I see I put the word 'new' in inverted commas when it should have been 'new suspect'. My mistake, but search hard enough and I expect you will find Mann suggested as a suspect in some archived thread somewhere in the past. Most of the names have been proposed in the past, seriously or otherwise.

(Damn - I misspelt 'Theories' in the header).

[Radical Joe]

Joe

But surely the question is simple enough. Were the inmates of the workhouse at liberty to wander the streets of Whitechapel at night?

Everything I have read points to the answer being "No". If anyone (including Trow) can present any evidence to the contrary, that will be interesting. But to suggest that we should wait until someone does before discussing the matter is, frankly, a bit silly.

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.

[Chris]

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.

[Radical Joe]

If anyone has a real and enduring interest in this subject then there should be very little that would 'turn off' that interest. If the interest is that easily 'turned off' then I would suggest that the person involved had no great interest in the first place and certainly not enough to rise off his rear end, abandon the computer keyboard and get out there and do some real searching.

That said, I recognise that statement applies to those whose interests extend to research and, possibly, writing on the subject. The greater part of those with an interest in the Whitechapel murders really want to only read about the subject. That is great and as it should be. Indeed all authors should be grateful for that. But that does not mean that every book and half-cocked theory should be welcomed as a wonderful thing. If entertainment is all that is required then perhaps fiction is the area in which the reader should be interesting himself. After all, there's plenty of Ripper fiction about.

Apropos of the question "has a lack of tangible, empirical evidence linking the suspect to the crimes ever prevented the publication of a book or transmission of a documentary before?" the answer is, obviously, no it hasn't. In fact it can be positively stated that there is no hard evidence suggesting that any named person was the Ripper. But there are degrees of evidence and I am not sure what you look upon as evidence. After all the mere fact that Mann was there at the time and had dealings with at least two of the bodies links him, historically, with the victims.

But this is all subjective and, as I previously stated, a prerequisite for any named suspect should be something historically suggesting him as a suspect - such as Cutbush, Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog (Macnaghten); Tumblety (Littlechild); Chapman (Abberline), etc. Or, failing that, some new piece of historical information that justifies such a contention.

It is not peculiar to the field of Ripper studies that a new book or TV documentary on a subject that has not yet appeared is critically assessed before its appearance. It happens all the time, the critics usually being those in a position to make a valid point. I do not know the entirety of what the book will propose but I do know, and have commented upon, the preceding media hype. I also know Mei Trow, and a very nice guy he is too, and I do know some of his previous work. Once these things appear as pre-publicity they are going to be the subject of speculation and debate ahead of time. Indeed, the idea of the publicity is to stimulate interest and cause comment and debate in anticipation of the work.

I'm not sure to whom you refer when you say that there is an implication that 'current researchers are somehow incompetent'. In fact what I said was that they do not need the encouragement of a 'new suspect' theory for incentive, as witness the good work they are doing. Any researchers or writers 'wrapped up in their own theories' may (but not always) 'ignore avenues that may detract from them'. But those ignored avenues will soon be picked up by others who are set to blow that theory out of the water.

It cannot be argued that any new TV documentary, or new book for that matter, will create some new interest in the case. But that is hardly justification for presenting a flimsy 'new suspect' theory. Much better that an objective view is taken and that a serious suspect is examined. The subject isn't simply going to go away if a 'new suspect' theory doesn't emerge every so often. And do we really need some of the media dross that this inevitably brings in?

Yes, I see I put the word 'new' in inverted commas when it should have been 'new suspect'. My mistake, but search hard enough and I expect you will find Mann suggested as a suspect in some archived thread somewhere in the past. Most of the names have been proposed in the past, seriously or otherwise.

(Damn - I misspelt 'Theories' in the header).

Hi,

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?

[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

[Robert]

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

[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.

[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]

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.