Dr Barnardo is the killer...?

[Bob Hinton]

Auto etc

Nope you've lost me there!

[auspirograph]

Hint-on-isms

What is a Hintonism? A Hintonism is where someone states something as a ‘fact’ but is in reality nothing more than an opinion based on nothing.

Mr Hinton has again given us a classic example of a Hintonism by quoting the words of one poster's opinions to represent the theories of another unrelated poster.

Allow me to give an example.

Mr Hinton quotes Alex as saying:

Barnardo polarised opinion between love and loathing in his own time; which brings us nicely to your ‘Nunnerism’ jibe I believe.


and...


“fact that this arrogant, mean-spirited, obnoxious”


then proceeds to admonish the merged strawman persona with...

If you want people to take you seriously you must start quoting sources that back up your theories. It is not sufficient to say “Well my wife has been studying Barnardo for many years – but I don’t know what happened to all the research, but it said this honest!”

then we have the classic Hintonism with...

If you are trying to link the Ripper killings to the accident in which Diana died then you will just be holding yourself up to ridicule.


Can anyone really take Mr Hinton seriously when he proclaims to the Prophet of Barnardo's doom...


May I make a suggestion? If you have written a book about the Ripper, send me a copy and let me read it. I will give you an honest opinion of your work. The offers there.


But let us not be distracted by the entertaining value of Hintonisms and lose sight of the Hintonisms presented in spades by the The Prophet of Barnardo Ripper Revelations.

Can one really take an author seriously to request a copy of his forthcoming book when he repeatedly spells the name of a chief source as McCormack? Perhaps there is a conspiracy afoot to restore the House of Spencer to the throne of England. Whatever next?

I for one am grateful to the sterling and sustained work of Mr Evans on the Whitechapel murders as a reliable source and reference for without it, truly the inmates would be running the asylum at His Majesty's Pleasure.

[Steve S]

It's threads like this one that kept me away from the boards for a year.....plenty of heated debate on other boards I belong to..but it tends to be scholarly & you don't get the feeling some of it should be in green ink....
Steve

[Sox]

Yes I was aware of that…sad, mysterious…yet not surprising…thank god I’m 12,000 miles away from England or perhaps I might disappear…especially concerning the information I have

.........well, thats your credability shot.

[Suzi]

Hi all-

Like Magpie-I've got one of those 'Oh Gawd here we go again' feelings here....
A couple of pictures of the good Dr B-

Possibly the second one is where The Prophet's 'evidence' lies!




Suzi

[Bob Hinton]

Clarity - where art thou?

Barnardo polarised opinion between love and loathing in his own time; which brings us nicely to your ‘Nunnerism’ jibe I believe.


No you’ve misunderstood me completely. A Nunnerism is where someone states something as a ‘fact’ but is in reality nothing more than an opinion based on nothing. Your Nunnerism is in the statement:

“fact that this arrogant, mean-spirited, obnoxious”

This is not a fact, it is your opinion, based on some research that you can longer locate so you really can’t expect anyone to take it seriously.

You then launch into a long series of extracts from Wagners book. These are not facts either. They are the opinions of someone writing well after the time and not based on any information that can now be located. It is sheer whimsy.

If you want people to take you seriously you must start quoting sources that back up your theories. It is not sufficient to say “Well my wife has been studying Barnardo for many years – but I don’t know what happened to all the research, but it said this honest!”

If you are trying to link the Ripper killings to the accident in which Diana died then you will just be holding yourself up to ridicule.

May I make a suggestion? If you have written a book about the Ripper, send me a copy and let me read it. I will give you an honest opinion of your work. The offers there.

[George Hutchinson]

I'm finding quite a few current threads to which I was contributing I no longer wish to read, and I think I will no longer be doing so. This is one of them. It's a shame because there could have been something interesting. Not any revelations, of course, but perhaps a slow realisation of truth and a conclusion.

Like some other threads, this just ain't gonna happen. At least the originator of this thread isn't being abusive but I agree, this refusal to acknowledge reality and preference of inaccurate fantasy is winding me up.

I'm out of this thread. It's difficult to find any threads I'm interested in I want to read without going ballistic right now (or that I dare to comment on, given the bitching that's taking place).

PHILIP

[Magpie]

Oh dear.

This looks like it's turning into one of those "the lack of evidence is evidence " arguments.

It's only a matter of time before a baphomet makes an appearance.

[Limehouse]

I am sorry, I don't usually make extreme derogatory remarks about someone else's theories as expressed on these boards but that was the biggest load of hogwash I have read since Cornwell's attack on Sickert. It has so many holes in it, you could drive a fleet of Routemasters through them.

I don't have time to answer now and I apologise once again for my rudeness but I am just so angry right now so perhaps readers will forgive me.

[The Prophet]

Dr Barnardo is the killer?

Hello everyone,
I appreciate all your replies.

So, let's here some of this 'proof' then?

Little bits now…I think the world is not ready for the whole truth…

Vanessa Hayes was, I understand, taken extremely ill in 2007. She was due to speak at the Whitechapel Society 1888 and cancelled at fairly short notice. No one has heard anything of her since.

Yes I was aware of that…sad, mysterious…yet not surprising…thank god I’m 12,000 miles away from England or perhaps I might disappear…especially concerning the information I have.

Whatever is the above supposed to mean? No, Barnardo's name was not 'listed among the suspects in the files at Scotland Yard'. Wherever does this come from? In her 1979 book, pp. 210-211, Wagner states - "...the list of suspects became increasingly long and it is hardly surprising that Barnardo's name should have been included among them."

To this statement she adds a footnote reference (13) and when you turn to her reference notes on page 325, hoping for a solid source for the information, all there is to read is - "13 Private information." which simply is not good enough. In fact, we know from researchers who went through the files in the early 1970s that Barnardo's name was not noted in the files.

All of which adds up to the fact that it is a gross misrepresentation of the actual facts to claim that Barnardo was any sort of official suspect.

Arrr…the great Ripper enthusiast Stewart P Evans? Umm…really? Kindly elaborate on what you mean ‘…Barnardo’s name was not listed among the suspects in the files at Scotland Yard.’ – how do you know?
Where is it printed in the 1970’s that researchers in the 70’s stated that his name [Barnardo] was not found in the files? I think you are confusing it with him not being named being taken as he must not be in the suspect files – that’s not fact – that’s your gross misrepresentation.
In fact Wagner states:

‘As murder succeeded murder the list of suspects became increasingly long and it is hardly surprising that Barnardo’s name should have been included among them.’

And

‘…the incisions…could only have been the work of someone who had knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations, and this view gave further weight to the theory that Barnardo could have been the murderer…”

And

‘Barnardo was probably totally unaware that his name was among the list of those suspected, for soon after the double murder of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes…he wrote to The Times…’

And

‘It could be that it was the letter itself that gave rise to the suspicions concerning Barnardo…’

It is here that it becomes obvious why Wagner listed the information as private, and that whoever (I have suspicions), gave her that information she seems certain that Barnardo was either in the files before the double murder, or due probably to the letter he wrote afterwards which put him under suspicion – remember she isn’t a Ripper expert, so whoever gave her that info she could only go by their authority, important enough, shady enough to be private – why?
As far as I am aware the suspect list was available for view to the public with honourable intentions of research, it was no secret even by 1976 where that suspect list was stored, yet Wagner doesn’t list it – why? One obvious reason is because she was given that information by someone who had seen it, and probably did not want to be named for whatever reasons (I suspect something fishy). Isn’t it interesting that the only book Wagner lists as sourcing any info about the Ripper history came from Rumbelow’s best-selling 1975 book ‘The Complete Jack the Ripper – he was then a current Police officer wasn’t he? Rumbelow reprints his book 8 years later (1987) with the info he supplied Wagner in the 70’s, in his new edition – thus officially reintroducing Barnardo to Ripperology (I already knew that info about McCormack in 1970, in fact I pointed that out here first on casebook years ago). But McCormack is very ambiguous as to how he obtained his info on Barnardo – but who suspected Barnardo prior to 1970? and had it put in print…ummm still looking!

Dr Barnardo was first introduced into Ripperology in Cullen’s 1965 ‘Autumn of Terror’, in eleven sentences of Chapter Six, section six, entitled ‘The Assassin Hunters’. But don’t look to this for the beginning of Barnardo as a suspect – this was quickly followed up by Odell’s revised paperback edition of September 1966, where Barnardo is simply summed up in a mere three sentences of being just ‘Another great social campaigner…’ of the time. Ripperologist’s didn’t get it then…seems like the same ignorance today…sadly.

So how is that not good enough Mr Evans? Luckily a prominent member of the Barnardo’s organisation decided to write a very thorough biography on its founder, right smack bang in the very decade that Ripperology was heating up. She was able to furnish details that Barnardo was on the list albeit as second-hand information, private information – there is the proof printed in 1979 – come now you own a copy of Wagner’s book Evans, read between the lines man – obviously someone was feeding her information – then within 4 years hundreds of files go missing (including over a hundred files on suspects) – obviously including any relevant information on Barnardo like who named him and interviewed him (something Barnardo was use to, in fact Barnardo was in court 88 times by the 1890’s) etc etc.

Wherever those files are, someone has seen the ones on Barnardo, and where I will find them I find the files…perhaps the Ipswich Ripper knows where they are? ( he he couldn’t help myself, you know what I mean).

Anyway seriously people, of course it would be hard to accept Dr Barnardo as the killer, but with that aside a genuine researcher has managed to obtain what must be considered as the last official citing of a suspect off the now missing suspects files – isn’t that important? Especially now the files are missing? Now correct me if I’m wrong what have I left out?

Perhaps one day Evans you will need to update your Chapter 38 in your Ripper Companion to include Dr Barnardo…one day very soon you will come to appreciate just how he fooled them then, like he is fooling you and almost everyone now…the Ripper was very clever I know.

Hope this clarifies a few things.

Needless to say Dr. Barnardo's appearance at the Thames Police Court at the end of July 1888 for assaulting one Eliza Whitbread and her sister Dora will be cited as a manifestation of Barnardo's guilt.

I am very aware of this particular case, and it does feature as part of Barnardo’s rapid decline towards murder. I’m not completely saying that the Ripper began his campaign due to his squabbles with the next-door neighbours, but it gives insight to Barnardo’s current temperament in the weeks before and then with the court verdict only days before Tabram is found stabbed to death (I do not subscribe to the short-minded canonical 5 theory). Also the gates in question were not situated on Commercial Road; they were on the other side of the Railway arch that separated 28 from 26. Barnardo had erected walls and gates, and did this with great zeal trying to stop them from crossing his boys playground (picture is featured in Barnardo’s book “Something Attempted, Something Done!”), which could be exited out onto Commercial Road.
Unfortunately Barnardo lost the case, and the assault charges were dropped only if Barnardo restrained himself from preventing the Whitbread’s from crossing his premises! In other words if he did, they would bring the charges back, and he would most certainly go to jail – history would not have had the Ripper then – perhaps until he got out…?

Of course 8 months after Kelly’s murder, there is the after midnight murder of Alice McKenzie on 17th July 1889, because earlier that day not only had a frustrated Barnardo just narrowly escaped prison (he got bail, on a trumped up accuse), it was the one year anniversary since he publicly attacked his neighbours! Mmmm…think about it? Every component here relates back to the previous year – remember the Ripper just like any other man had an active life outside of killing, and this is it…well some of it so far.

Mmm…maybe just abit more for the folks at home.

Less than two months after the McKenzie murder, Barnardo was elected as a Freemason, and days later the Pinchin Street affair began.

Five months after the Pinchin Street affair, and now Barnardo a fully fledged Freemason (as far as 1st degree is concerned), wrote his ‘magnum opus’ “Something Attempted, Something Done!”, where he outlines his involvement with Elizabeth Stride, producing an original picture of her and her residence – aren’t serial killers obsessed with this stuff? For gods sake he went to the mortuary to see her body (gloating no doubt, trying to work out how to make her an example), remember the killer was disturbed etc etc – he never got to leave his trademark savagery on her bar the slit throat.
So on the day of her funeral, he penned off that letter and used Stride as his mascot for a cause arguably better than any other victim…inevitably today there are some who believe her not to be the Ripper’s victim…and why? Just because the Ripper got sloppy? Perhaps…but remember he wasn’t perfect, we all have bad days.

And finally Frances Coles was murdered in February 1891, less than a year after Barnardo published his book detailing his involvement with Stride, under a Railway arch…Mmm…ring any bells? If not then perhaps it should be noted here that just down the street on the corner of Dock & Lemon there had opened a Dr Barnardo Boys Home back in November 1888! Yes that’s right, days after Barnardo killed Kelly, and possibly after he attempted suicide and had been released from hospital, he opened a girls home on Flower & Dean Street, and the boys home as mentioned above. Didn’t the police hear a man running away from the scene?…well Barnardo had premises nearby to feel safe in until the heat died down…Mmmm ingest that one!

Regards,
AJ.

[joelhall]

this is all well and good, but im just still waiting for some evidence to connect bernardo to the whitechapel killings.

anyone going to shock me

[alex]

Hi Bob

I sense we’re never going to see eye to eye on the interpretation of these extracts, so I won’t labour the point. Suffice to say I’m glad, for the sake of young Richard Eunice that Mr. Lushington seems to have leaned more to my point of view in reaching his decision.

Now, as touched upon by Limehouse, I am aware of the dangers of judging past figures by today’s standards and I believe I have tried to limit such influence as much as possible. Indeed, as I recall from previous research, Barnardo polarised opinion between love and loathing in his own time; which brings us nicely to your ‘Nunnerism’ jibe I believe.

My opinion of Barnardo was informed by pretty extensive research conducted over a decade ago. Since entering into this debate I have tried to lay hands on that research, without success. Therefore, as I would never expect anyone to accept my opinion of Barnardo, or anoyone or anything else, without considerable evidence and as, at present, I can offer no examples which informed that opinion, I have to defer to you for the time being.


Best wishes
alex

[George Hutchinson]

^ Simple and effective, Robert. No comment needed.

PHILIP

[Robert]

A photo of Barnardo from "Chums."

[Limehouse]

Bob,

Well done. a fantastic post. It says everything I wanted to say but ten times better than I could have said it.

The prevailing theory about how abandoned children should be cared for was, perhaps, sometimes misguided at the time but the truth is that many thousands of children benefited from Barnardo's good work, many children were fed, sheltered and taught a trade who would otherwise have perished from cold and hunger and even into the 20th century, many children have reason to thank the Barnardo Organisation for their upbringing. Barnardo's objectives were to care for children and to bring them to God because he cared about them and their souls. That may sound quaint and patronising in this day and age but it was a quest born out of a love of humanity. It was a quality sadly lacking in many Victorians charged with looking after the poor.