Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[Stewart P Evans]

Opinion

Sherlock's not such a bad guy. He and I made quite a splash at one time.
Fair point. I just get irritated when people who have made a good living out of this mystery (one which they are entitled to by dint of hard work) come on forums to disparage others who do the same.
Everybody alive who writes about this case is, in a sense, a "johnny come lately".

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.

[Radical Joe]

...and thanks for providing this, Dixon! I think it pretty much underlines my suspicion that workhouse inmate clothes would have been anything but something that "looked for all the world like a civilian suit". They would have been given away the second they stepped out through the workhouse gates. And that is only logical; reasonably, those who tried to escape were supposed to be easily identifiable by their clothes. The classical inmate clothing of the jails of old, with broad black and white stripes, had practical purposes ...!

The best,
Fisherman

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

Of course, even if he was, and it could be shown that he was wearing civilian clothing, it still leaves the question as to how he escaped (I don't find Trow's explanation, as noted in his book on here wholly convincing...), but, hey.

[Moriarty]

Hi there Moriarty,

Don't look back, Sherlock's on your tail...

The plural, the American quack Francis Tumblety, was not proposed "from nowhere" as you have suggested but "amongst the suspects" by no less a source as ex-Chief Inspector John George Littlechild. You appear to have missed that part.

Sherlock's not such a bad guy. He and I made quite a splash at one time.

Fair point. I just get irritated when people who have made a good living out of this mystery (one which they are entitled to by dint of hard work) come on forums to disparage others who do the same.

Everybody alive who writes about this case is, in a sense, a "johnny come lately".

[scarletpimpernel]

Hi there Moriarty,

Don't look back, Sherlock's on your tail...

The plural, the American quack Francis Tumblety, was not proposed "from nowhere" as you have suggested but "amongst the suspects" by no less a source as ex-Chief Inspector John George Littlechild. You appear to have missed that part.

But...if we want to explore analogies. The Dahmer case, is one case worth mentioning where no one suspected this aparently nice man until one of his victims escaped from his house ! Dahmer was a cannival who had been boiling and eating his victims and If his last victim hadn't escaped, the police today, wouldn't have EVER known what Dahmer was doing in the privacy of his home. Persons had disappeared yes, but no one had an inkling if they had simply disappeared or what. So the fact that some murderers are not even suspects, does not rule them out of being murderers.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Tom. I sense a career-change coming on

[Tom_Wescott]

Great parable, Sam. Unfortunately, it will be wasted on Trevor, due to his 30 years of experience and honed instincts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. You should try your hand at fiction writing. That was a pretty good story!

[Sam Flynn]

A parable...

Tom

You keep blabbing on about how you think the killer removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes yet you cannot produce anything positive to back that up, because simply there is nothing to back that theory up.

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."

[Tom_Wescott]

Because Adam just bought a whole bunch of rotten tomatoes and needs something to do with them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well, it is not only about the tv show, is it? The book is out, and I for one have read it.
Was it any good? Nope, it was not.

...

... the much debated opportunity to get out of the workhouse, is taken care of thusly:
"For Mann, the first problem would be actually getting out of the workhouse with its locked gates and gate-keepers. This was in fact surprisingly easy. As an inmate told Jack London in 1902, the Whitechapel Infirmary was ´the easiest spike going´, ans when London ran for it through the open gates, no one tried to stop him or gave chase."
Now, how convenient was that?

...

It would be interesting to hear other posters wiews on Trows book! I find it a huge disappointment myself.

For example, the much debated opportunity to get out of the workhouse, is taken care of thusly:
"For Mann, the first problem would be actually getting out of the workhouse with its locked gates and gate-keepers. This was in fact surprisingly easy. As an inmate told Jack London in 1902, the Whitechapel Infirmary was ´the easiest spike going´, ans when London ran for it through the open gates, no one tried to stop him or gave chase."

Actually the edition of People of the Abyss that I'm looking at now doesn't say anything about no one trying to stop him or giving chase. It just says "dodging out the gate, I sped down the street." But I suppose that's just a matter of detail:

http://www.online-literature.com/london/people-of-the-abyss/9/

Other details are that Jack London was in the casual ward rather than being an inmate of the workhouse proper, that a fellow inmate warned him he would be liable to 14 days' imprisonment if he were caught and that others pointed out if he left without permission he would never be able to return to the workhouse.

How many decades was Robert Mann an inmate of the workhouse?

Mr. Trow's sophomoric attempt to sweep the issue of Robert Mann's probable confinement to the Whitechapel Union Infirmary under the rug, is an insult to anyone who has ever put forth an honest effort, to uncover something factually pertinent to the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper'.

Again; an insult!

Why is he speaking at this year's Conference?

[Fisherman]

...and thanks for providing this, Dixon! I think it pretty much underlines my suspicion that workhouse inmate clothes would have been anything but something that "looked for all the world like a civilian suit". They would have been given away the second they stepped out through the workhouse gates. And that is only logical; reasonably, those who tried to escape were supposed to be easily identifiable by their clothes. The classical inmate clothing of the jails of old, with broad black and white stripes, had practical purposes ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[dixon9]

The Workhouse Uniform

The women wore shapeless, waist less dresses reaching their ankles, with a pattern of broad, vertical stripes in a rather washed out blue on an off-white background. Beneath such exterior garments, at least during the 19th Century, the women wore under-draws, a shift and long stockings, with a poke bonnet on their heads.

The men wore shirts of a similar pattern, and ill-fitting trousers, tied with cord below the knee. The men wore thick vests, woollen draws and socks, with a neckerchief around their throats, and, in cold weather, a coarse jacket.
I found that on a website(institutions.org.uk)was wondering did the uniform change from workhouse to workhouse?

Btw thanks fisherman and scott for Hatfield's age

Dixon9
still learning

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"I have real trouble believing that every man walking through the workhouse doors was handed a long coat and billycock hat. Perhaps I should get the book. It's not fair to badger you with questions."

I had a renewed look at the book, and it seems I may have jumped the gun slightly here. This is what it says about the clothing, on page 86:
"Mann would have put on his jacket and billycock hat, the workhouse uniform that looked for all the world like a civilian suit..."

Now, I seem to remember that the jacket is described as a coat somewhere in the book, but cannot find that spot. Any which way, it is evident that Trow thinks that Mann and Browns guy could have been mistaken for each other just as Mann and Liz Longs guy (who was described as wearing a dark coat). The truth of the matter is that anybody who wanted to have themselves mistaken for Browns man, would have had to wear a coat that reached close to the ground, and if Mann wore an ordinary jacket, it makes the suggestion so much the sillier.

I also think we need to expand a little bit on Trows assertion that the pauper inmate uniform looked for all the world like a civilian suit. This argument, of course, is a necessary one for Trow to make, if he needs to put Mann on the streets in clothing that was unsuspicious. But my feeling is that this so called uniform, no matter how it was designed, would have been very well known to the people on the streets. It would doubtlessly had been spotted and recognized for what it was in a split second. And those who did not have to suffer the life and hardships of being a pauper inmate, would never have clothed themselves in a fashion that even remotely resembled that uniform. That is how people function.
In accordance with this, if a uniformed pauper inmate had been present at a crime scene, it would probably have been picked up and witnessed about. At least, that is how I see things.
Moreover, the prostitutes of the streets would have been very much aware that guys in clothes like that were no good prospects, and they would have looked for business elsewhere.

A word of advice, Tom: save your money for something better than this book! If you are curious about any detail, I´m happy to oblige. My money has gone down the drain already.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Chris writes:

"Perhaps the best thing will be to leave Mr Trow in the TV documentary to fight it out with Mr Trow in the book, and see who comes out on top!"

Interesting idea! But since I suspect that there may be a third and a fourth Mr Trow involved in the near future, I think we may be in for a lenthy fight.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Fisherman

Thanks for putting yourself through the (almost) painful experience of typing that out.

Perhaps the best thing will be to leave Mr Trow in the TV documentary to fight it out with Mr Trow in the book, and see who comes out on top!

[Trevor Marriott]

Tom

You keep blabbing on about how you think the killer removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes yet you cannot produce anything positive to back that up, because simply there is nothing to back that theory up.

The only thing there is to suggest the killer did that is that when the post mortems were carrried out some 12 hours later, the organs were found to be missing.

As i have said and will continue to say I beleive there is more to suggest the killer didnt take them that there is to say he did "end of".