Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[scarletpimpernel]

John,

Can you tell me from the programme if I remember correctly that the distance between the workhouse and the mortuary were about 3 to 5 minutes walk from the scene of the crimes ?

[scarletpimpernel]

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

.

Chris,

I believe that is your own quote about it.

Fisherman

I'm overwhelmed by your kindness.

[John Bennett]

The workhouse was a separate place from the mortuary if you look at the map John Benett has provided here, you will see that Robert Mann had to get out of the workhouse to go to the mortuary.

Scarlet -

Which map do you mean? Are you referring to the one used in the documentary?

The workhouse was a separate place from the mortuary if you look at the map John Benett has provided here, you will see that Robert Mann had to get out of the workhouse to go to the mortuary. The mortuary assistants had their own uniform too. Look at the thread about mortuary assistant uniforms that Cappuchina has provided, it is a gentleman's jacket with a round hat. So all this nonsense about "It couldn't be Mann because he couldn't get out of the workhouse" is false.

Robert Mann's Wardrobe:

- Civilian Attire: The clothes that Mann was wearing when admitted to the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, in March 1873 (never to be discharged, until his death in 1896). Whenever Mann felt that he was on the verge of having another 'fit', he would quickly change into this same set of attire, which the Guardians of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union had kindly allowed him to retain, all those years.

- Workhouse Uniform: Worn by Mann whenever he was in the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, excepting those occasions, during which he suffered from 'fits'. Also worn on certain 'special' occasions, such as when giving inquest testimony, at the Working Lad's Institute.

- Mortuary Assistant Uniform: See Above.

- 'Jack the Ripper' Uniform: See Below (Top-Hat, Cape and Gladstone Bag). Worn on at least six occasions (including one 'double event') - as 'proven' by Mr. Trow (i.e. Mr. Trow has 'proved' that 'Jack the Ripper' committed seven murders).

[Fisherman]

Scarletpimpernel writes:

"I beg to differ from you."

Please do - that is what a debate is all about! My wiew of the matter remains steadfast, though. As I have stated before, it is not just about Mann being a poor suspect, but also about the fact that the book boasts a variety of factual errors. Such things do not encourage too strong a belief in a suspect against whom no evidence at all can be presented.

The geographical proximities you speak of should of course be regarded - but if geographical proximity is something to go by, we are faced with an almighty number of suspects on that count alone, and I dare say that very many of them would make far better suspects than Mann, an aging workhouse inmate who apparently became something of a laughing stock together with his friend Hatfield.

This, however, is my take on it, and you do not need to touch it with a pair of pliers, Scarlet. You are quite welcome to see Mann as a viable suspect should you want to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Look at the thread about mortuary assistant uniforms that Cappuchina has provided, it is a gentleman's jacket with a round hat.

What cappuccina posted was simply a photo of unknown date taken at an unknown location showing a group of variously dressed men present at a post mortem . One is wearing a white coat, half the others are wearing aprons. The rest appear to be wearing ordinary clothes. Seven have hats, four don't.

To claim on this basis that Whitechapel workhouse in 1888 had a "mortuary uniform", which Mann would have sometimes worn, is a breathtaking leap.

[Chris]

scarletpimpernel

I have asked you twice to clarify the claim you made above, and I'll ask you a third time. 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?

[dixon9]

scarlet

As i have said regarding the Polly Nichols murder,Mann had to be got from the workhouse(by the police) to go and open the mortuary as Polly's body was still outside on the ambulance.The police must have gone for him before five as his time of arrival(at mortuary) was between 5-5.20 am.Now are you saying he could have done the deed say at 3.30.am went back to the workhouse and be let in,without arousing any suspicion whatsoever?

Dixon9
still learning

[scarletpimpernel]

Hello Fisherman and Michael

Well, I beg to differ from you. The workhouse was a separate place from the mortuary if you look at the map John Benett has provided here, you will see that Robert Mann had to get out of the workhouse to go to the mortuary. The mortuary assistants had their own uniform too. Look at the thread about mortuary assistant uniforms that Cappuchina has provided, it is a gentleman's jacket with a round hat. So all this nonsense about "It couldn't be Mann because he couldn't get out of the workhouse" is false. He had to get out of the workhouse to go to the mortuary to work. Now then, both places were close to each other. Some of the dead women ended up at Mann's place of work because the deaths happened in the perimeter where he worked.

This case very much reminds me of the Norwich serial killer of prostitutes some two years ago. The geographical profilers plotted the area in a map where the murders had taken place and deduced from that that it had to be a local man. The case was finally clinched when the last prostitute was seen getting into a blue car, later thanks to the cameras that are in place all around the red district of that area, the camera kept on spotting this blue car with the exact model stated by the witness to see the last victim and low and behold, the murderer lived just behind the light district where he was picking up his victims. If we draw parallels, I would say that geographical profiling is a valuable tool in detecting murders and this is why it is used around the world. Why there is so much scepticism about expert opinions here ? In this programme appeared a respected pathologist, Dr. Peter Dean, Professor Laurence Alison of the university of Liverpool whose opinions I certainly won't disregard off hand. Specially against people who have already made up their minds without any basis other than looking at a book's jacket. Which opinion has more merit for me ? The one of trusted professionals in their field or some amateur ripperologists ? or worse, authors who have written books about other suspects and do not wish to have their own work overshadowed by a more interesting suspect than theirs.

[The Good Michael]

Sometimes... many times, the subject matter of a book makes it unworthy of reading. The idea of what was written can be dismissed offhand without reading it based upon a simple jacket paragraph. Often all one gets out of speculative books is a load of nonsense to purge oneself of. I'm still distraught over reading The Book of Mormon, for example, and anyone just reading about Joseph Smith's life can understand why he made up such a thing without ever having to read it.

That doesn't mean this book is in the same ballpark, but I'm not reading it anyway.

Mike

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.