Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[Phil Carter]

Robert Mann, according to Mei Trow, historian, is the latest documentary offering as a JTR suspect for our small screens.
The recently announced Discovery Channel programme, clips of which are available on the web, reveals a new suspect... One whom the programme claims researchers have somehow missed over the years of trawling through archive after archive. The mortuary attendant, "a sufferer of fits" whose testimony is "unreliable" according to Coroner Wynne Baxter, after instructing the jurers of the Nichols inquest to disregard Mann's testimony, apparently fits the "type" of person that could have comitted these crimes.
This discrepancy regarding Mann's instructions as to what to do, or not, was raised in connection with James Hatfield, a witness at the Nichols inquest, who assisted Mann in stripping the body ready for laying out. It seems, to cut a long story short, that Wynne Baxter was far happier with Hatfield's testimony than Mann's, even though Hatfield, in balancing the "weaknesses" of the two mortuary attendants, said that Hatfield had already admitted to having a poor memory.... yet better that than having fits and being unreliable when giving testimony at an inquest it seems.
The documentary also claims that Martha Tabram was certainly Mann's first victim.
As to conclusions, proof etc etc, the researchers amongst us will no doubt either prove or disprove this new theory in a very short time, within days of all having seen the programme. Am uncertain here, but I believe it is to be screened on Nov 7th.

As for me, I am left with two very strong feelings.
1) I have the feeling that here we have the never ending "trying to fit the theory to the fact" situation, without significant solid proof.
2) The weight leaning on the fact that according to Trow, all the "experts" have missed this suspect, tastes, I am sorry to say, as if anyone could flick through the pages of the "A-Z", and pick a name not yet investigated. Almost challenge like, in fact.
One might as well point the finger at George Morris.
If that sounds rude, I apologise, but let's be honest here... we ALL would love to FINALLY put the definitive name to JTR, and find out all the reasons, all the background the Modus Operandi... we all want to get this sorted once and for all with certainty.
I really WOULD like to see the solution totally revealed and all other theories quashed once and for all...and should it be that Mann is proven with evidence to have actually been there, done it and bought the t-shirt, I will bow greatly in deep debt of honour to Mr. Trow, of whom, I may add, I respect. but Robert Mann?...hmmmm seems to me to be a case of.. we haven't looked into this one, what can we fit into HIS profile? Or does his profile fit? Perhaps I have become TOO cynical, after all these years.

Mr. Evans, again, you have hit the nail on the head... and I am tempted to add that the way back to the feeling of Sooty the gloved puppet being given the label of suspect, comes ever nearer. Surely we don't have to go back to those days again? I thought we were seriously past this.

General bitching agreed with. Old Farts dept, Norway. (1 member)

[scarletpimpernel]

Thank you Chris. Does it say how does the uniform look like ?

[Chris]

" Sick patients, because they were not subject to the deterrent rules, were not always put into:
WORKHOUSE UNIFORM

So if they were not put into workhouse uniform this means they could go out into the community and not have the tell-tale striped lines and this way, go un-noticed as any member of the public. That is interesting too.

We know that Mann wore workhouse uniform, because that is stated in press reports of his inquest testimony.

[scarletpimpernel]

Radical Joe,

I find your comments and findings very interesting.

" Sick patients, because they were not subject to the deterrent rules, were not always put into:
WORKHOUSE UNIFORM

So if they were not put into workhouse uniform this means they could go out into the community and not have the tell-tale striped lines and this way, go un-noticed as any member of the public. That is interesting too.

[Sam Flynn]

A mortuary attendandt would remove a kidney from the rear, the easiest way.

That's assuming the mortuary attendant actually "knew" that it was the easiest way, Brad, and further assumes that mortuary attendants are uniformly knowledgeable or even "skilled" in such things. However, I see no reason why any of these assumptions should be true. For one thing, it seems that the likes of Mann were given rather menial duties to get on with, e.g. divesting/washing corpses, fetching and carrying for the surgeon etc. For another, I doubt that Mann and co would have seen too many "operations" where the kidney would have been carefully removed from the side - such an approach would appear somewhat redundant if the "patient" were lying opened up on a mortuary slab at the time.

[Brad]

Even thoughI'm listed asa newbie, Ive been here for 10 years. I greatly respect SPE even though we have disagreed in the old chat room about Dr. T . I agree with him that profiling is crap. As far as Man being JTR forget it. A mortuary attendandt would remove a kidney from the rear, the easiest way. A docter would go in from the front, so as not to sever any spinal nerves. Even today cancerous kidney removal and spinal disk replacement is done from the front, displacing the intestines and other organs. Since we're the same age Stewart, and both got intteresred in 1961, do I get a discount in joining thje old farts club?

[John Bennett]

Just thought I'd pop this one in, post-conference, noticing that some posts had gone from 'theory-bashing' (fair enough) to perhaps a bit 'personal'.

Although Mei was not giving a talk about his recent theory/book/documentary, I think anybody who went to the conference will agree that he gave a good account of himself with the few questions that were put his way regarding it.

As Stewart has said, he is a smashing fellow and that came across in his good-humoured approach to the Mann theory on Saturday afternoon. But what was important was that he stated that he doesn't believe he has found JTR. It is just another theory (and doubtless there will be many others to follow).

He also made a point of highlighting the differences inherent in the content of a book and tie-in TV documentary and although the TV show was well made, it cannot do the subject justice in one hour, plus adverts, plus recaps, plus eye-catching visuals, Tom cobbly and all. Mei also mentioned that the promo material said that he had discovered new victims when he (and everybody sitting in front of him) knew that wasn't so.

Mei's theory has been criticised by many on the two main forums (and that is the way of things in suspect-based Ripperology as I guess it will always be) - he knew that was going to happen, 'cos he ain't that daft!

It's a funny old world!

[Stewart P Evans]

Asked

Mei Trow has contacted Casebook and said that he is NOT Moriarty.
Posters are reminded once again to not make accusations against other posters that you cannot substantiate.
Thank you.

For my part I only asked, "You are not Mei Trow - are you?", followed by the remark that Mei was a schoolteacher. In his reply 'Moriarty' stated he was an ex-policeman which, I would have thought, answered my question in the negative.

[Admin]

Mei Trow has contacted Casebook and said that he is NOT Moriarty.

Posters are reminded once again to not make accusations against other posters that you cannot substantiate.



Thank you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
On a more serious note the comparision you have tried to use with regards to the removal of the organs for Chapman and Eddowes is a non starter.

The example of the burglary and the different scenarios is not even applicable. The house is an immovable object for a start. It cannot be disputed that whoever broke the window did so at that location. Furthermore if property was stolen it cannot be disputed that it was stolen from that house. So all in all it is fair to say whatever happened was at that location and couldnt have been anywhere else

In relation to the removal of the organs the bodies were moveable objects so anyhting removed from them could have occurred anywhere !

[Trevor Marriott]

There has been a robbery at a bungalow, and two detectives are examining the scene of the crime. The first detective notices immediately that there is glass all over the carpet under the window-sill, and that the windows have been completely smashed in. The first detective says to his colleague, "Obviously, the burglar climbed in via the windows - just look at all that broken glass". The second detective smiles knowingly, before replying, "You might think so, but have you noticed that the hole in the windows is much too big than it needs to be for a man to climb through? No, it's far more likely that the burglar entered by some other means, and that the windows were smashed in later by somebody else."

Then along comes an experienced Sgt with 30 years service who examines the scene and can find no other means of an entry. He might suggest that the burglar intended to gain entry right from the outset through the window but only intended to maka a small break near to the catch in order for him to reach through release the catch and climb in, but when he made this attempt the whole window shattered, and he climbed in anyway.

maybe the other means you suggesr was by finding a door open committing the crime leaving by the same means but locking the door behind him and taking the key away,Hmmmmmmmmmmm sounds familiar

Maybe you should write a book "The life and times of Billy Burglar "

[c.d.]

This may be far fetched but I am just playing devil's advocate here. With regards to the clothes issue -- could Mann have been able to take clothes off of a body in the mortuary and simply stash them somewhere and use the mortuary as a place where he could change clothes undisturbed?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

So Mei Trow has been trolling around here as 'Moriarty'? Interested choice of names. Indicitive of a guilty conscience perhaps?

I believe you owe Fisherman an apology, Mei.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

"And I speak as one ex-policeman to another."

"Moriarty"? A "policeman"?? Come off it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Moriarty]

You are not Mei Trow - are you? As Mei, a schoolteacher (when we met), knows we have met a couple of times and, as I have stated, there is nothing personal in what I have written as I think he is a pleasant person.

However, personally I have not made 'a good living out of this mystery', which is a fact that most people should be aware of. I did make a reasonable living out of being a police officer for nearly 30 years and I do have a reasonable police pension. As the authors' share of the books sold runs at only £1 (one pound GBP) for each copy sold, and you can half that to 50 pence per author as I have co-authors, no one has got rich.

I have not 'come on forums to disparage others who do the same', and I shall explain why. First I merely gave my own opinion and in the event, on release of the TV documentary and the book, what I originally posted has been proved to be correct. The grandiose claims of the hype that preceded this effort signally failed to be fulfilled.

I predicted that there would be no new facts on the murders and that prediction was proved to be correct. I also predicted that there would be no evidence to suggest that Mann was the Ripper, that also was correct. So, am I not allowed to have my own opinions and to voice them here, as everyone else seems to? And I do give my name, I'm not anonymous.

I should further like to point out that I stated that in my opinion any new book on the case should contain new and relevant information on the murders and add something constructive to the story. Every book I have written about this case has done that - and added considerably to the knowledge of the facts of the case and make useful reference works. So the phrase above 'disparage others who do the same' is incorrect, as the work involved does not 'do the same' as I have because it adds nothing factual to the case that was previously unknown.

No problem. For what it's worth I enjoyed your book. And I speak as one ex-policeman to another.