Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[Chris]

... 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, ...

That's extremely strange, considering that in the TV documentary he "reconstructed" the crime as follows:
"I believe that Robert Mann is out on the town that night as well, and he turns down George Yard Buildings and he comes across the body of Martha Tabram. He can see that she's dead, but this is his opportunity. He's carrying in his pocket a clasp knife and he takes it out. He rips up Martha's skirt, and he goes to work. He stabs and cuts in a frenzied manner 38 times."
[my emphasis]

[Chris]

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?

[scarletpimpernel]

As to the OP, you are, of course, entitled to your cynicism, and I can hardly blame you for it. Even as a mere layman, who perhaps dosen't know any better, I've often been turned off from the whole subject due to ill-founded and unsubstantiated claims, along with the petty professional rivalry that, IMO, hinders progress on the case. Indeed, I said as much in a post yesterday. In the same post, however, I also remarked that I was currently in my 'give em a chance' phase - a phrase I see you've kindly 'adopted' in your OP. As such, I am prepared to wait for the theory to be put forward before I cast judgement on its claims and findings. I am not expecting to be convinced that Mann was the Ripper (indeed, I don't know if Trow is making that claim), although I am hoping that he will offer a credible theory as to why Mann should be considered a viable suspect. I am also, as someone interested in the case, hoping to be entertained.

I notice you have doubts that the argument will provide facts/evidence to support any claim as to Mann's right to be caled JTR. I have to ask (because I genuinley don't know), has a lack of tangible, empirical evidence linking a suspect to the crimes ever prevented the publication of a book or transmission of a documentary before?

Something else that comes to mind is the strangeness in discussing/condeming/supporting a theory which hasn't even been put forward yet! Here we are, arguing 'what if he does' and 'if he dosen't'...when the bald truth is that we don't know what Trow is proposing. A good example of this comes from the other thread on the topic, in which (keeping in mind none of us know what arguements Trow will use to support his claims - whatever they may be) some posters argued that Mann's candicacy should be ruled out on the basis that he, as a workhouse inmate, would have been under strict supervision. A fair point, I thought, and one Trow would have to address. Then another poster (perhaps the poster I replied to) countered that, in fact, in some workhouses, inmates were allowed to come and go freely (I should stress that he also argued against his candicay, but on different grounds). Surely the debate is getting somewhat ahead of itself here, no?

I feel I must take issue with your objection to the suggestion put forward here (that, if nothing else, the documentary could serve to forward investigation into other, peripheral, aspects of the case) on two grounds: Firstly, you argue that this implies that current reseachers are somehow incompetent. I would argue that, whilst not lacking in competence (I personally believe you, SPE, to hold impeccable research qualifications - slurp, slurp, although I don't agree with all your conclusions - puts tongue back), many researchers are, as I've noted, very much wrapped up in their own theories, and thus, deliberatley or otherwise, ignore avenues that may detract from them. Also, I would argue (reasonaby I think) that the current batch of researchers won't live forever, and if programmes such as this bring in fresh blood, willing to look at the case with new eyes, and minus the prejudices and cynicism that many 'old hands' invariably have, then I'm all for it. I wonder, for example, how many of the current breed were inspired to research the case on the basis of a documentary/book whose arguments they may not have agreed with.

Oh and one last thing (as the great detective himself would say), you've put the word new, when referring to Mann's suspect status, in inverted commas, which seems to imply some doubt as to his 'new' status. Has Mann been proposed as a suspect before?

I like Joe's approach to the whole controversy before anyone even knows the arguments.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fisherman, thanks for that review. I'm not surprised to see such mistakes. I also doubt Trow dealt with the fact that the man James Brown saw hardly looked like an inmate escapee. Nor did the man Mrs. Long saw, or Lawende, you name it. Why? Because poor Mann was no murderer, of course.

Pimp,

I don't have a 'theory' per se on the organs, other than that the killer took them. Why did he take a kidney? Why not.

Trevor,

Many of your posts on this thread seem to be more 'head in ass' than 'tongue in cheek'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"I also doubt Trow dealt with the fact that the man James Brown saw hardly looked like an inmate escapee. "

Well, Tom, Trow actually states that the pauper inmate uniform was made up by a longish coat and a billycock hat, and Trow seems to think the match clothingwise would have been a good one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"That's extremely strange", writes Chris on the Tabram issue. But here is the text:

"Stumbling out of the near-darkness towards him, clutching her chest, was thirty-nine-year-old Martha Tabram. Her dark hair was swept up in a bun, but rather dishevelled now and for all her plumpness, she looked a lot older than she was. She wore a black bonnet and a long black jacket, the colour of mourning, the colour of death. What riveted Mann however was the blood trickling over her fingers from a gaping wound in her sternum. Perhaps she called out to him, shocked, losing blood, dying. If so, she was calling to the wrong man."

I have two things to say:

1. That was almost painful to copy, and
2. The last three words of it encompass it all fairly nicely. We are dealing with the wrong man in two cases here: author AND suspect.

As for your question about how many decades Mann was an inmate of the Whitechapel workhouse, I´m sure there´s a suggestion in the book. But after the above stuff you may not be all too inclined to lend it an ear...?

On your information about Londons escape, I fear there is a chance that the assertion that nobody gave chase could rest heavily on the fact that there is no mentioning of it. Makes for disastrous research, such things. Thanks for the addition!

The best, Chris!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dixon9 asks: "why do you think Meir Trow picked out Robert Mann and not the other mortuary attendent James Hatfield?"

Hatfield was, if I remember correctly, 64 years of age. And though Trow buys 52-53 as a possible age for a serialist, he seems to find 64 too much of a chunk to bite off.

The best,
Fisherman

[Scott Nelson]

Yes, it was a hard choice for Mr. Trow to make, but in the end Mann won out over the elder Hatfield. The latter was very fortuitous because his age likely prevented him from becoming the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Same thing as always; old age lets you down!

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

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.

Regarding the location of James Brown's couple, you'd be amazed at how many people think he witnessed them just outside the club gates, or that he somehow got his streets mixed up. As you said, it actually took place on the Fairclough side of the board school.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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".

[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!

[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

[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

[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