Dr Barnardo is the killer...?

[Robert]

You could say the case against Barnardo is waifer-thin.

[George Hutchinson]

Personally, I can't see how any 20th century pioneer of open-heart surgery can be suspected.

PHILIP

[Sasha]

The alleged motive doesn't really work for me either, I'm afraid (but I'm open to counterpoints on this). My understanding is this. Barnardo was appalled at living conditions for children (and presumably others) in the East End. He thought prostitutes made poor mothers etc so sought out to kill them - presumably to make the East End a nicer place for kids? But here's the thing, four of the canonical five were in their forties. Not exactly in the peak of their child bearing years. Any children they had would have either been fully grown or close to. So what would be the point of killing them after the fact? And anyway, Barnardo was known for "rescuing" children he saw at being in danger. Against this motive, only MJK makes some sense ie she was young, in child bearing years and some allege that she was 3 months pregnant at the time she died (although how one could establish this with rudimentary forensic techniques at the time and after the ripper had finished with her certainly escapes me!).

Having said all that, Hayes book makes an interesting read. I wonder what Prophet has to add to her story so soon after it was published but I suppose if we want to know that, we'll have to buy his book! Good marketing technique!

Sasha

[alex]

East London Advertiser
AND
TOWER HAMLETS INDEPENDENT.
Conservative Journal for the East of London.
SATURDAY, MARCH 17, 1888.
(ONE PENNY.

Page 5

THE BARNARDO EMIGRATION AGENCY. – Alluding to this agency the Weekly Dispatch of last Sunday, says: - “This is an agency which endeavours, at considerable cost to the charitable public, to bury the poor children of London in the Siberian snows of Canada, so that their cries and their sores may no longer vex the eyes and ears of a society of pleasure. Sometimes one of the Barnardo exiles comes back to the agency like a veritable boomerang. On Wednesday a child 16 years of age was taxed before the Coroner of St. Pancras with suffocating her child. She had been sent by Dr. Barnardo to Canada. There she had been seduced – friendless emigrant girls at that age often are. When ruined the poor exile was brought back to hide her shame in London, and soon after being delivered of her baby it was found dead by her side in the workhouse lying-in ward. Very likely the Barnardo agency acted for the best in bringing this poor creature back to London, for it is possible that she might have met with still more brutal treatment in the cold and heartless colony to which they had exiled her. But what a satire the whole business is on the vaunting philanthropy of emigration agencies.”


The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. FRIDAY, 3 AUGUST, 1888.
ONE HALFPENNY
Page 2

Dr. Barnardo’s Case.
Mr. Whitbread writes, in reference to the case of Whitbread v. Barnardo, heard at the Thames Police-court: “The summonses were withdrawn against the wish of both myself and my two daughters. My counsel, Mr. Bray, did it wholly on his own responsibility, and in the face of our united protest against the withdrawal. I trust you will kindly insert this letter, to prevent the public concluding that the case has been hushed up, and to enable me to vindicate myself from the false impression that has been created. Mr. Barnardo, as usual, shields himself and his conduct behind that of his work.”

LLOYD’S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER
LARGEST CIRCULATION IN THE WORLD.
LONDON: SUNDAY, APRIL. 8, 1888.
ONE PENNY.
Page 12

YESTERDAY’S POLICE.

THAMES.

CHARGE OF ROBBING DR. BARNARDO. – Richard Eunice, 13, was charged with absconding from Dr. Barnardo’s home and stealing a suit of clothes belonging to Dr. Barnardo. – Ex-police-inspector William Bullock, employed at the home, said the prisoner was admitted in September last, and absconded with the clothes belonging to Dr. Barnardo. The accused had no father or mother, and they did not wish him severely punished. – John Phillips, in the prosecutor’s employ, said he found the accused near Wimbledon station on Friday, when he was wearing the uniform of the home, but not the boots. Witness brought him back, and charged him. Eunice had been working for a cabman in the Gladstone-road, Wimbledon. – The accused said he was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment for stealing brass at Wimbledon, and when he was released he went to the cabman. – Mr. Lushington did not think the prisoner could be convicted of stealing the clothes, and discharged him.


Evening All

The above are just a few extracts for the consideration of those who feel offended that the memory of Dr Barnardo should be maligned by having him considered as a suspect in this case.

My wife conducted extensive research into the good doctor many moons ago and, while I could not conclude from that research that he was JtR, there was sufficient evidence to recognise that he was not the angel he is now portrayed as.

An inferiority complex due to disability; a belief in his mission from God; a certainty that God spoke to him directly; the belief that kidnapping children from Catholic parents was carrying out God’s work; his frequenting of the East end, often in disguise, to ‘save’ fallen women or rescue their children from them; and his willingness to use force to get his own way, all point to a man more to be reviled than praised, in my opinion. The organisation established by him has undoubtedly carried out some splendid work in subsequent years but let’s not get deluded into believing that Barnardo himself was an unimpeachable character.

Best wishes
alex

[Limehouse]

There is no doubt that the Barnardo's policy of sending orphan children to far flung places abroad caused much distress and heartache. His organisation was not the only organisation to do this. Several 'ganecies' working on behalf of orphaned or distressed children had a similar policy and this practice continued until the late 1960s. We can only conlcude that attitudes towards such children and what was best for them were very different from what they are today. beleive me, as one who experienced the state care system from the age of ten, Barnardo's was an organisation I looked up to compared with how I was treated.

Many people disagreed with Barnardo's work during his lifetime. They would rather have seen the children crawl away to die quietly rather than be acknowledged and properly cared for. It was widely believed that poverty was the fault of the poor, that their lack of moral fibre casued their own problems. Helping them just encouraged fecklessness and reaulted in more children being born into poverty. This was the prevailing theory but Barnardo went right ahead and helped these women and children.

Taking children from catholic parents was wicked and cruel, but once again, ithis was a practice bound up with the times. t was a common belief among the more fervant protestant Christians that catholicism was a dangerous practice. This was for two reasons. The first was the doctrine that a catholic priest should be an intermediatry between the sinner and God goes against the protestant doctrine that a Christian can talk directly to God. Secondly, it was thought that catholics idolised saints and the blessed virgin.

It is easy to look at the policies and practices of the time and judge them by our own modern standards. In that light some of Barnardo's ideas seem corrupt and suspect. However, the prevailing result of his work was well-cared for, nourished children who were found a trade if at all possible. This contuned well into the 20th century.

Barnardo was not a saint, but making foolish decisions and carrying out sometimes headstrong actions does not add up to Jack the Ripper.

[Bob Hinton]

Don't understand.

The above are just a few extracts for the consideration of those who feel offended that the memory of Dr Barnardo should be maligned by having him considered as a suspect in this case.


alex

I must be missing something here. I don’t see how the above examples show that Bernardo was in some way a wrongdoer.

The first extract tells of an admittedly failed policy regarding sending orphan children abroad, something the government of Britain was still doing well into the 20th century.

The second extract is a letter written by a man who had a grievance against Barnardo, hardly an unbiased witness, and the third is an account of a lad stealing from Barnardo.

How do any of these besmirch or lessen his character?

Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying the man was a saint, I know very little about him, I’m just trying to see the relevance of the examples posted.

[alex]

Hi Bob

The fact that the British government continued a policy well into the twentieth century does not diminish the despair and distress caused to those Barnardo separated from their families and shipped to a far-flung country, often to be abused and misused. And these were not only children of destitute or feckless parents, but oftentimes they were children taken from reasonably respectable, loving families who just happened to be of the wrong religion as Barnardo saw it.

As for the second extract, I don’t believe any account of any event can be unbiased. However, I do see that this extract could seem a little bland. Perhaps I should have included the full account of the case in question, where Barnardo is accused of assaulting the daughter of Mr. Whitbread, from whom he rented a property, and of employing 80 dock labourers to intimidate the Whitebreads over an access dispute.

The third extract refers to a 13 year old who ran away from a Barnardo home, wearing the clothes he was provided with when he entered the home. Yes, technically, I suppose this could be considered stealing but it has to be one grasping, heartless individual who actually considers it so. Was the young lad supposed to run away naked to ensure he was not pursued and prosecuted by Barnardo?

Now, none of this casts Dr Barnardo as Jack the Ripper but, as I see it, it should open eyes to the fact that this arrogant, mean-spirited, obnoxious little man was not the paragon of virtue he is often portrayed as.

All the best
alex

[Bob Hinton]

A long way to go.

“does not diminish the despair and distress caused to those Barnardo separated from their families and shipped to a far-flung country, often to be abused and misused”

I’m not saying it does. What I am saying is Barnardo applied a method of dealing with orphan children that was employed by the Government long after he was dead and buried. The point is he didn’t do anything that was contrary to thinking at the time and long after. Now if he was treating them in that way and everyone else was treating them to cream cakes and muffins then you would have a point. All you are doing here is saying ‘Ooh look Barnardo behaved in exactly the same way a lot of other people behaved”

“Perhaps I should have included the full account of the case in question, where Barnardo is accused of assaulting the daughter of Mr. Whitbread”

That’s not necessary I’ve read it. The point here is that Mr Whitbread withdrew the accusation and Barnardo was not convicted of assault. In the eyes of the law and the public he was completely innocent of any wrongdoing. I think it’s a bit rich of Whitbread to withdraw the accusation therefore denying Barnardo the right to answer the charge, and then write a whiny letter to the newspaper virtually saying that Barnardo is guilty.

“The third extract refers to a 13 year old who ran away from a Barnardo home, wearing the clothes he was provided with when he entered the home. Yes, technically, I suppose this could be considered stealing”

This is ridiculous. A boy is taken in by Barnardos. He then absconds with a suit of clothes. This is theft – not technical theft, whatever that is, but theft. And don’t forget this is not the first charge of theft this boy has faced. He had also been convicted of theft once before.


“as I see it, it should open eyes to the fact that this arrogant, mean-spirited, obnoxious little man was not the paragon of virtue he is often portrayed as.”


Now you’re resorting to Nunnerisms. It is not a fact that Barnardo was “arrogant, mean-spirited and obnoxious”. It is only your opinion and if you want anyone else to accept this as fact you really ought to come up with a lot better examples than you have already posted.

[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.

[Robert]

A photo of Barnardo from "Chums."

[George Hutchinson]

^ Simple and effective, Robert. No comment needed.

PHILIP

[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

[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

[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.

[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.