Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • harry
    replied
    Looking at Mann from another perspective,one has to consider how he came to be in Kelly's room in order to do what was done there.Now there are several means by which he could have accomplished the entry,(this of course applies to any other suspect),but whichever one adopts, there should be a reasonable attempt to show that means.Despite the fact that both Mann and Kelly were at the time of the lower social order,there would appear no firm indication of their paths ever crossing,and certainly nothing to suggest a client customer relationship,unless it was that of a genteel,Jewish looking stranger,in an astrakan coat, who accosted her at 2AM that morning?Of course,theoretically,it could be said the killer went tapping at her door crying,"Mary,it's Robert.I have a nice kidney I want to share".Or a hand through the broken window with,"it only George,sorry Robert,a little cold in the mortuary tonight,can I stay here?A bit flippant you might say,but that goes with the subject.One of the worst so far put forward.A preponderence of evidence,that puts the suspect guilty beyond reasonable doubt?I doubt it.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    suggestion

    Hello Scarlet. Permit me to offer a suggestion about the kidney.

    I have read somewhere or other that the "From Hell" letter bears some resemblance to Dr. Tumblety's handwriting. If so, it is known that he kept some organs preserved in jars.

    (Does this make him the ripper? Not a bit of it. It would, however, be in keeping with his eccentric nature.)

    The best.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • The Grave Maurice
    replied
    Originally posted by scarletpimpernel View Post
    I do not, for a moment think that a rat could have done that and then write the letter as well.
    Har. Very witty, scarlet.

    Leave a comment:


  • scarletpimpernel
    replied
    How does anyone account for the kidney that was sent to the police? It must have been preserved somewhere first and a mortuary would have had the necessary liquids for that. I do not, for a moment think that a rat could have done that and then write the letter as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Supe
    replied
    Trev,

    If you ever sit on a jury be sure and look up what is "beyond a reasonable doubt"

    To save Tom and everyone else the effort, the reasonable doubt dictum is interpreted as meaning "no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts." Do you seriously suggest that no other logical explanation can account for the missing oregans than your theory?

    Don.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Grave Maurice
    replied
    Bob Hinton's dog/cat/rat theory never seemed that outlandish to me. Footprints in the blood? Yeah, sure. Anyway, giant rats exist only in Sumatra. I have that on good authority.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    Hi Trevor. I don't think I called your theory ridiculous, merely unlikely, which it is. It's certainly not as 'out there' as Bob's giant rat theory, bless his bones.
    Have you considered the possibility that giant rats took the organs while the bodies were in the mortuary?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Well i have been assessing and evaluating evidence for more than 30 years.

    It would seem that what you deem to be evidence and my interpretaion are worlds apart.

    The facts are quite simple to comprehend.

    No one exmained the bodies at the crime scenes to the extent that the organs were found to be missing.

    Both bodies were left for a long time before pm

    The organs were removed differently from both Eddowes and Chapman the abdomens were also opened differently to effect the removals.

    It is fact that the bodies of Chapman and eddowes were taken to different mortuaries so it suggests to me that two diferent people removed the organs. by difefrent methods. Had it been the killer sureley he would have used the same MO. So you cannot discount the likelihod that the organs were removed at the mortuaries.

    Organs were freely available from mortuaries to bona fide medical personel

    I could go on with other facts to negate the removal by the killer but I dont want to be repetitive.

    Now you show me your "evidence" to suggest the killer took them.

    i have purposely left out any reference to Kelly as i like others have issues regarding her murder and her killer

    PS
    If you ever sit on a jury be sure and look up what is "beyond a reasonable doubt"
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-16-2009, 01:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Hi Trevor. I don't think I called your theory ridiculous, merely unlikely, which it is. It's certainly not as 'out there' as Bob's giant rat theory, bless his bones. What's my wildly speculative theory? That the killer took the organs? I guess I'm just cutting edge like that. There's enough evidence for us to safely conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the organs were taken by the killer(s) of these women.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Tom
    I dont want to keep going over this because this issue has been openly and widely discussed.

    You obvioulsy read my earlier post, yet all you can do is reply with a short curt statement stating that the theory is ridiculous I guess you were forced to make that statement because the content of my previous post is based on fact most of which are correct and you are one who seems not to want to accept facts but rely totally on your own wild speculative uncorroborated theory.

    The point is that firstly no one can positively say the killer took the organs,likewise no one can positively say they were taken at the mortuary.

    However weighing up the many issues surrounding each theory. The removal at the mortuary theory based on the facts both past and present far outweighs the theory surrounding the killer removing them IMHO and more and more people who subscribed to the same theory as you are now having second thoughts.

    I keep saying this, it is for each individual to assess and evaluate the facts surrounding both theories and make their own judgment.
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-16-2009, 01:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Well, it seems unbelievable because Eddowes' body was not left alone for long, no one reported rat activity in or near her (they leave footprints in blood too), and there's no reason to think the Ripper went to the trouble of removing a part of her kidney to toss it handily aside for a rat to pick it up and go. While it's not beyond the realm of possibility (what is?), the idea just doesn't work and there's absolutely zero evidence to assume the Ripper didn't take Eddowes' kidney like he did Chapman's uterus and Kelly's heart...and Eddowes' uterus, for that matter.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Hinton
    replied
    Not really...

    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    Lynn,
    Bob Hinton suggested a dog or giant rat might have carried them off from the murder scenes.
    Tom Wescott
    No, I suggested a rat may have made off with the missing part of Eddowe's kidney. Not a giant rat, just an ordinary size one would have sufficed.

    I base this on my observations of rats doing similar things during my time stationed abroad. I can assure you a rat has no fear of humans and would quite happily dash out and grab a bit of food in broad daylight. In fact I witnessed this happening the other day outside the railway station in Llanelli. A child in a pushchair dropped a bit of pasty he was eating and it just hit the ground when a rat ran out of a hole in the wall, grabbed it and ran back in. Why people find the idea of rats eating bits of bodies so unbelievable I have no idea. Rats eat food and a body is just food to a rat.

    A tasty bit of kidney in a darkened Mitre Square would be a real temptation. There are many contemporary accounts of rats taking food from tables etc in the East End.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    thanks

    Hello Tom. Thanks for the clarification.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Septic Blue
    Guest replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	17.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	46.8 KB
ID:	657803
    Whitechapel Union Infirmary / Infirmary Mortuary (Click to View in flickr)
    Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
    Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

    Blue: The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
    Green: The Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green
    Yellow: The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel

    According to Google Earth:

    From the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, Baker's Row, Hamlet of Mile End New Town …

    - South-Southeast along Baker's Row, Hamlet of Mile End New Town: 136.32 Yards
    - Southwest along Old Montague Street, Hamlet of Mile End New Town: 101.49 Yards
    - South-Southeast along Eagle Place, Old Montague Street, Hamlet of Mile End New Town: 35.65 Yards
    - Southwest across cul-de-sac at southern end of Eagle Place, Old Montague Street, Hamlet of Mile End New Town: 11.47 Yards

    - Total Distance: 284.93 Yards

    Perhaps, a three-minute walk! ...

    Originally posted by scarletpimpernel View Post
    In this instance, the mortuary and the work-house where Mann lived are only 5 minutes walk and THIS is the real find.
    I guess that just about proves that Robert Mann was 'Jack the Ripper'!

    Leave a comment:


  • The Grave Maurice
    replied
    And, whatever you do, don't ask how Marriott explains the bloody piece of apron found in Goulston Street.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X