Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[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,

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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 ... !

[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.

[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

[lynn cates]

fits

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

Cheers.
LC

[dixon9]

hi lynn,i see your point, Wynne Baxter did allude to that fact,while Hatfield only had a bad memory.lol

[Chris]

scarletpimpernel

The program I am talking about is the Discovery Channel documentary that was broadcast in the UK last Sunday. The one on Mei Trow's theory, as I said. The one we have been discussing on this thread.

The geographical profiling shown had nothing to do with the FBI - it was carried out by Spencer Chainey of University College, London.

[Fisherman]

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. It has a chapter that I like much though, devoted to describing a stroll through the East end of 1888, and that chapter gives a very vivid picture of the crammed conditions we are dealing with, and the small area where Jack worked. It´s all very much Ralph McTell-ish; you know, the guy who sang "Streets of London" back in the seventies: "Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of London..." - and so far it is all well. But then the tune goes on "...I´ll show you something to make you change your mind", and that is something Trow never comes close to doing.
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."
Now, how convenient was that?

As for the rest, in particular the passage on Liz Stride goes a long way to show that we are dealing with an author that has not done his research properly, resulting in quite a hash: Trow suggests Mann as the guy Stride turned down - "Not tonight, some other night..." - a turning down that Mann disliked, moving on to push her inside the gates and kill her. The small matter that Mann would have had to push Stride all the way from Fairclough Street does obviously not deter Trow - for Fairclough Street was where James Brown overheard this conversation. Then again, Trow has Marshalls couple walking NORTH instead of south, so maybe one should not be surprised...?

There is a whole lot more like this. The book is tragically pumped full of factual mistakes. Eddowes is killed a quarter of an hour after leaving her cell, Tabram receives the blow to the heart FIRST (!), and, regardless of the fact that we know that this blow would have killed her flat out, Trow has her running into Manns arms with the blood flowing from her chest, only to be finished of clasp-knifewise by Robert Mann, it is established that there can be little doubt that Berner Street was Liz Stride´s regular working path, etcetera. And on the cover, it is boldly stated that the book PROVES that the Ripper killed seven women - whereas the inside of the book, of course, offers no such proof at all.

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

The best, all!
Fisherman

[scarletpimpernel]

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

Search me, I don't know. It might be that Meir found more interesting things about Robert Mann than James Hatfield. Perhaps when I read his book, I will be able to gleen more, what made Mann a more viable suspect than Hatfield.

Chris,

Ok.

[dixon9]

cheers chris

i await your report on the book,as lynn said maybe it was due to the fact Robert Mann prone to having fits

dixon9
still learning