Robert Mann - A 'New' Suspect

[Stewart P Evans]

Ripperology

I think news suspects, regardless of vialility, encourage people to do a bit of nosing around. This snooping does (at times) uncover snippets of peripheral information that teach us new things about the LVP. Some of this peripheral and accidental uncovering may, somewhere down the road, lead us to real possibilities. Of course most suspects seem completely useless to the ernest ripperphile, yet new suspects, worthwhile or not, keep people interested and bring new folks onto the scene. That ain't a bad thing.
Cheers,
Mike

And here we have the much needed support for this great 'shot in the arm for Ripperology'. Thank you for contributing the apologist's, sorry, no, ignore that, the alternative view.

This talk of 'encouraging' people to 'nose and snoop around', to 'uncover 'snippets of peripheral information' strikes me as vaguely insulting to the intellectual capabilities of the researchers and writers we already have in the field. It seems, to me, to suggest that without the boost of interest provided by a high-profile new suspect theory something will be missed or the researchers will lapse into inactivity.

Surely this is not true. Here we have another commercial Ripper venture - and I'm not condemning such a venture being commercial. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, such a new suspect theory should involve, somewhere, something to justify the person involved being named as a suspect in the first place. And the author's research should reveal some new facts about the case.

Indeed, to suggest that such a thing is needed by Ripperology is proved to be untrue when we look at who has found what in Ripper studies that is new and relevant to the case.

[The Good Michael]

I think news suspects, regardless of vialility, encourage people to do a bit of nosing around. This snooping does (at times) uncover snippets of peripheral information that teach us new things about the LVP. Some of this peripheral and accidental uncovering may, somewhere down the road, lead us to real possibilities. Of course most suspects seem completely useless to the ernest ripperphile, yet new suspects, worthwhile or not, keep people interested and bring new folks onto the scene. That ain't a bad thing.

Cheers,

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Prime Suspect

Stewart I totally endorse everything you say
I think readers and researchers should also look closely at the differences between a "likely suspect" a "Suspect" and "A prime suspect" there are far to many names which have been put forward and continue to be put forward forward and close scrutiny of those individuals and the lack of any evidence probabaly does warrant them being in any of those catergories. It would seems Mr Mann may be one of those.

Yes Trevor, it would seem that stripping the body is the act that makes him a prime suspect. But I thought that that was what mortuary attendants did - except when we (as police officers dealing) got the job!

[Stewart P Evans]

Welcome

Stewart,
I found myself agreeing with every word of your first post.
Realisation has now hit me....I have finally joined the OFB !
Monty...who is off for a cup of Earl Grey.

Neil, welcome to the ranks of Ripperological 'old farts'. It's a heady status and one which brings great responsibility. You must ask yourself if you are cynical enough. Can you withstand the barbs of your knowledgeable critics and shrug them off. Do you wish to be viewed as a spoilsport?

Being an 'O.F.' can be a lonely occupation, you will be reviled by those who see every new 'suspect' as a shot in the arm for Ripperology. Are you made of stern enough stuff? Are you prepared to be a pariah? Do you wish to be shunned at Ripper gatherings? Please write with s.a.e., and a cheque (check for US readers) in the sum of £600 for your official Ripperological Old Farts entry pack.

[Trevor Marriott]

Stewart I totally endorse everything you say

I think readers and researchers should also look closely at the differences between a "likely suspect" a "Suspect" and "A prime suspect" there are far to many names which have been put forward and continue to be put forward forward and close scrutiny of those individuals and the lack of any evidence probabaly does warrant them being in any of those catergories. It would seems Mr Mann may be one of those.

[Monty]

Stewart,

I found myself agreeing with every word of your first post.

Realisation has now hit me....I have finally joined the OFB !


Monty...who is off for a cup of Earl Grey.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Tell'

Mr Evans is this the programme which will be on The Discovery Channel sunday night,telling us all who Jack The Ripper was?
Dixon9
still learning

I am not sure what the TV programme will 'tell' us. I expect the usual formulaic treatment, talking heads and all, but whether or not it will 'tell' us, or merely suggest, who Jack the Ripper was (i.e. in this case Mann) I do not know. But if it does tell us he was Jack the Ripper I doubt that many will be convinced by what they have seen. There you go - I'm sitting in judgement before I've even seen it - but I know that I don't need to see it to realise that it's just another unfounded theory.

[dixon9]

Mr Evans is this the programme which will be on The Discovery Channel sunday night,telling us all who Jack The Ripper was?

Dixon9
still learning

[Stewart P Evans]

By The Way

Oh, and by the way, before any wag tells me that there is already a thread on this 'suspect' - please don't. I have started this as a sort of personal 'bitching' area where I can get it off my chest. Others are welcome to join in if they wish.

[Stewart P Evans]

And so the Ripper bandwagon trundles into life again. Periodically Ripperworld falls into a state of semi-quietude with nothing much to discuss of a constructive nature.

At these times posters lapse into a state of boredom, eccentric theories and speculation are rife and move to the fore. The time is ripe for a new suspect theory to leap into the news and amaze the Ripper reading world. Such a theory, in presenting a name, gives the mass of online researchers the chance to get their teeth into something. A real name, a real person who actually figures (in some way) in the original investigation. No matter how unlikely he is - the mere claim (albeit with no factual basis) that he was Jack the Ripper is sufficient to ensure a TV programme based on the idea, and to sell enough books to make sure that a profit is made. A cynical view, surely, but after many years this scenario becomes very tiresome. The old hands (like me - a leading 'old fart') move in to condemn the theory for what it undoubtedly is - others, who perhaps know no better, move to defend the new theory and cry 'give it a chance'! It is all very predictable, and we all succumb and fall into our various roles. After all in the state of current boredom it's something to debate and do some research on.

Hype tells us that the author has used 'modern police forensic techniques including 'psychological and geographical profiling', and he has added two more victims (Tabram and McKenzie) to 'the confirmed five killings'. Really? I didn't know that there were 'five confirmed killings' in the first place - I thought they were all unsolved. But what do I know? Then, we are told, that a 'comprehensive personality profile' of the 'new' suspect fits the 'FBI profile' whatever that might be, and whatever relevance that might have.

Because the coroner in his summation declared that the 'new' suspect, Robert Mann, was 'subject to fits and neither his memory or statements are reliable' he may have 'dropped off the police radar'. Those poor old Victorian 'tecs, still if radar existed in those days it would have been in its mega-infancy so perhaps they may be excused for missing this one, despite the ultra-damning fact that he had stripped the body to 'admire his handiwork'. Apparently even a forensic psychologist has been produced to declare this poor pauper workhouse hand to be 'one of the most credible suspects from recent years' and provides a 'plausible psychological explanation' for the murders.

But what of evidence and facts? Well I don't expect any new facts on the murders to emerge nor do I expect anything remotely resembling evidence to suggest that Mann was the Ripper. There will be the usual brief flurry of interest and posts as Mann comes under the genealogical research microscope. His name will become emblazoned in Ripper-lore as a 'viable' suspect - I mean, he was there at the time - wasn't he? A previously little known and largely ignored Victorian pauper will get a dubious claim to fame (or should that be infamy?) and then the bandwagon will judder on to other things. To my mind any new Ripper book should contain new facts and, if presenting a 'new' suspect, then should justify that person with being so named by presenting some valid reason for even thinking he was a suspect (say some contemporary source naming him as such). However, I guess it will be a long time before the pool of potential suspects amongst the named people involved in the case is fished dry.