Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[lynn cates]

fits

Hello Dixon. I wonder if it's possible that the allegation of "fits" moved him in that direction?

Cheers.
LC

[dixon9]

Scarlet,why do you think Meir Trow picked out Robert Mann and not the other mortuary attendent James Hatfield?
Just seems to me if Mann was a viable supect then surely Hatfield was,or am i missing something?

Dixon9
still learning

[scarletpimpernel]

Chris

You saw the previous show, where geographical profilers from the FBI were called in, to pick their brains and their expertice of modern methods such as this, for an explanation or solution to this unsolved century old serial killer.

Now, Meir Trow listened carefully to this other programme (that you are describing) and Meir thought to himself, yes, I do remember reading that an assistant mortician was called in to testify. He looked up for his name and came up with Robert Mann's, the more he looked at this man, the more he became convinced in Mann as a strong suspect for these hideous murders.

The second show, I believe, its not available yet in the U.S. until later, when its broadcasted there. So I suppose you will have to wait until then.

[Chris]

I've now finally seen the documentary on Mei Trow's theory. Thanks to Howard Brown for providing a link to a downloadable version.

What surprised me me most - apart from the lack of any discussion of the fact that Robert Mann would not have been at liberty to commit any of the murders - was that the geographical profiler was apparently incapable of locating a single one of the murders correctly, even within the right block. The site of Nichols's murder seemed to be more than 200 yards adrift! The application of modern geographical profiling models - with their parameters derived by comparison with modern serial killers who travelled over much larger distances by car - to the Whitechapel Murders is dubious enough, but if the "experts" can't even get the location of the murders even approximately right ... !

[harry]

Would not the ability to remove the uterus without first moving the intestines,depend on the knowledge and expertise of the person doing so,plus having to contend with other factors,such as lighting for instance.
Concedeing that Kelly might not have been a Ripper killing,though I believe it to be so,it seems the fashion to exclude her when faced with the apparant dificulty of connecting her killer to the crime location,and to the victim herself.Mann's inclusion as a suspect certainly seems in that category.

[Trevor Marriott]

Before i finally leave this thread having presented the facts and evidence to support my belief. One other important fact i forgot to mention is the fact that to remove a uterus it is not necessary to have to take out the intestines. So surley this rules out the suggestion that the killer took out the intestines to be able to remove the uterus.

Another argumental issue would be that if the killer had taken the uterus from Chapman, then why did he want another from Eddowes ?

Scarlett asks the question "why a kidney" its a valid question because the kidney is a very difficult organ to firstly locate and secondly remove carefully. It is contained in renal fat and our tests proved that you cannot access the area where the kidney is located or remove it with a 6 inch knife.

[scarletpimpernel]

Hi Lynn. I'm wildly speculating here, but I'm gonna say he wasn't looking for anything in particular in the case of Chapman, was looking for a kidney with Eddowes, and a heart with Kelly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom

Can you elaborate on that theory of yours. I would say... stealing hearts would be significant if he had done the same with all the victim's hearts but a kidney ? Why a kidney ?

[Trevor Marriott]

My beyond a reasonable doubt was tongue in cheek for the benefit of Tom Wescott and his earlier post.

Its not unreasonable to make that statement in any event because if we were judging the evidence in both scenarios. I in my own mind would be happy to vote in favour of my theory and thats not being biased. I have tried to asses and evaluate all of the facts and evidence in an impartial way as a professional investigator should.

When it comes down to it there is almost no evidence to say the killer removed the organs and many relevant facts and evidence to show he didnt.

[Monty]

Trevor,

I respect your intention.

Having read your book and listened to the podcast, Im fully aware of your investigations and admire the fact you have conducted, or had conducted on your behalf, experiments regarding mutilations. Anyone who puts the effort in holds my respect.

However beyond reasonable doubt is a rather bold statement to make when its just as reasonable to suppose the organs were removed at the scene and by the killer.

We both know either scenario cannot be proven beyond doubt as the evidence neither confirms nor denies either scenario.

I cannot disregard your views completely however the probabilty and evidence interpretation leans to a scene of crime removal in my opinion. And thats all it is, my opinion.

Like I say, I respect your descision not to discuss this any further.

Regards
Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Monty
I just wanted to raise this as another plausible explanation. One cannot also discount the fact that the killer as part of his frenzied attack having ripped open the abdomen manually pulled them out.

Certainly in my opinion there are major significant differences in these two murders which must cast a major doubt about the removal of the organs.

i came into the Ripper mystery with an open mind I had no suspects or an agenda. Having studied all the facts which there were at that time and having conducted my own long and protracted investigation gathering more facts and evidence and using a number of highy qualified experts who conducted tests and experiments which were documented and photographed, and taking into account more new facts which have emerged since. i am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman at the crime scene.

I do not intend to become further embroiled in this discussion.

[Monty]

Trevor,

Recoiling as far as the shoulder?

The Eddowes SOC sketch shows tge intestines piled off her shoulder with a long straight piece leading to her abdomen. This isnt condusive to a uniform recoil is it?

Im aware of you lack of medical knowledge, and mine isnt great either, however logic is telling me that the recoil would be gradual and not like a spring, for the want of a better phrase.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Monty
I am not a medical expert but having regard to how i have explained it, it is a distinct possibility. A small stab wound would be enough to allow a small quantity of intestine to come out through that wound. I know this is fact as I once dealt with such a case and the weapon used was a very small knife.

So imagine the results when someone ripped fully open an abdomen. The law of physics surely must suggest that 7 metres of intestine coiled tightly in the abdomen isnt just going to sit there when the abdomen subjected to major trauma its going to come out how far it can recoil I cannot say.

But again i guess the "killer removing the organs brigade" will do their level best to try to negate this. It is an issue no to be discarded outright.

As to how the intestines were described can anyone positively say if they recoiled outwards and finsihed up in a certain position or they were placed in that position. i would be very surprised if these doctors etc had ever come across this type of murder scene before or any bodies mutilated in such a way.

The report from the Chapman crime scene regarding his issue "The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the "ground" above the right shoulder, but attached. " This clearly illustates my point, no evidence to show intestines had been laid out by the killer in any way. The small intestine is also located on the right side of the body.

I am sure someone will correct me if i am wrong but no report of Eddowes intestines being laid out if that be the case its again another factor which adds even more weight to the removal of the organs at the mortuary, because those organs and in particular he kidney would have been almost impossibe to remove under those conditions.

[Monty]

Trevor,

Is recoiling common?

I cannot remember which victim, Eddowes or Chapman, but the Doctor at the scence claims the intestines were 'placed'.

Certainly Brown states a portion of Eddowes small intestine was placed between her arm and abdomen.

Are they in error?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Tom
I as stated previoulsy deliberately left kelly out of the equation as i like many others do not beleive she was killed by the same hand as Eddowes and Chapman.

As far as her heart being taken away I think the report states the heart was missing from the pericardium. It was never confirmed that it was missing from the room. So i htink it is your reply that falls flat like a house of cards.

As to your other points you seek to argue i think you should have read my previous posts more clearly,as your repiles are nonsensical.

There is another plausible explantion for the intestines being laid out. It is a fact that the killer subjected the victims bodies to a horrific frenzied mutilation. Part of that was ripping open the abdomens. You may not be aware that a human abdomen contains a large and small intestine. The small intestine measure 7 metres in length. The large measures 1.5 metres. Both of these organs are coiled tightly in the abdomen. There is every likelihood that when the abdomens were ripped open piercing the abdominal linings the intestines recoiled outwards making it look like they had been removed.

I seem to recall reading that Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper used a knife on one of his victims which caused the intestines to recoil outwards.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn. I'm wildly speculating here, but I'm gonna say he wasn't looking for anything in particular in the case of Chapman, was looking for a kidney with Eddowes, and a heart with Kelly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott