Dr Barnardo is the killer...?

[joelhall]

Sam,
Quite true, but there have been a few popes (you cant get much "holier" than that) who were guilty of of some pretty nasty things through the ages.
Im not saying "barney" was the ripper, merely saying his campaigning doesnt mean he couldnt have been.Any more than being a policeman means you couldnt have committed a crime.Having said that It be nice to hear some evidence ...if it exists.
"you cant always judge a book by its cover"....who said that ?....first?
regards

exactly. if it does exist. i really hate theories which begin with presumed guilt challenging us to prove someone didnt do something. this theory is just another of those.

theres some awful people who have done good, good people whove made mistakes. everyone suffers from the human condition.

but to label people as murderers willy nilly is both ludicrous and idiotic.

its been said before and i think it should be repeated in light of this thread...

although it was 120 years ago, this is not a nice open-ended story that we should just have fun with to make a name for ourselves at someone elses expense. not just the 'suspects' but also the victims... the one fact we know is that a number of women were murdered and mutilated in a most horrific way, which whatever their faults they did not deserve. indeed it is still as brutal and dreadful now as it was at the time.

in a civilised society, it is disrespectful to their memories, and to the terrible events which occurred, to trivialise those events, and use them as the basis for pure entertainment or any other totally self-serving reasons. these were real people who were treated in a thoroughly sickening way, and that is something that we should not forget should we choose to examine the case, no matter how much time has lapsed.

[dougie]

I quite agree Joel.....But maybe if Alex could state categorically (without giving too much detail away in advance of his book) that he has ,or can show that there is physical evidence that connects barnardo to the crimes,then people could consider whether or not to accept him as a credible suspect.Merely showing a motive ,means and opportunity has never been considered as evidence on its own.I for one have an open mind.
Sam,
The Borgias were a pretty tough lot,I liked the "pogo the clown" quip ,but im not sure that being an "over acheiver" or "under acheiver" qualifies or disqualifies one as being a serial killer.
kind regards

[Graham]

In all the very many years that I've been interested in the Ripper Case, one aspect of it that has always seriously pissed me off is the apparently willy-nilly suggestion of someone's guilt merely because his name is known to posterity and he lived at the right time. I don't know if this is down to ignorance or for a mischeivous reason. I'm fully aware that this is by no means a modern phenomenon - a previous post mentioned Donald McCormick who apparently originally suggested Dr Barnardo as the Ripper, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. At least, those who once supported a Royal Ripper could at least put forward some sort of supportive argument.

I'm a great admirer of W S Gilbert (of Gilbert & Sullivan fame) and it's a FACT that he walked the streets of London alone on the first nights of many G&S operettas; this was because of nerves, pure and simple. But I could extend this by suggesting that as he was known as a loner with very few close friends, something of a misogynist and a tyrant whose outbursts of anger could be volcanic, he must therefore have stood a good chance of knocking off all those East End whores. Given all this nonsense, he's still a better damn suspect than many famous names that have been put forward over the years.

Cheers,

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

The Borgias were a pretty tough lot

True, but not particularly so by the standards of their day.

im not sure that being an "over acheiver" or "under acheiver" qualifies or disqualifies one as being a serial killer.

...I'm finding myself hard pressed to find an example of an achiever who was a serial killer, or even a non-serial one. Small-beer doctors like Shipman don't count, by the way. I mean real achievers, those who were already famous or who went on to achieve a degree of fame based on something other than notoriety - like Barnardo, Lewis Carroll, Prince Eddie, JK Stephen, William Gull and Walter Sickert. To highlight the absurdity, travel through time and consider some modern equivalents - Bob Geldof, Terry Pratchett, Prince William, Seamus Heaney, Christaan Barnard and Damien Hirst. Doesn't really work, does it?

[Graham]

Hi Sam,

How about Dr Mengele? Idi Amin? Papa Doc Duvalier? The last two were heads of state, and you normally don't acheive higher than that in the average lifetime. Notorious they certainly were, but as politicians they were actually taken quite seriously at some time or another.

Cheers,

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Graham,

How about Dr Mengele? Idi Amin? Papa Doc Duvalier? The last two were heads of state, and you normally don't acheive higher than that in the average lifetime.

Hardly examples of the "marauding suburban creep" type killer, though, were they? They carried out their killings - or had others do it for them, as often as not - within impersonal ideological or political frameworks that were in themselves "supported" by the state at the time. I wouldn't class Hitler, Stalin, Henry VIII or Herod as "serial killers" by the same token. The abuse of power is as old as humankind, and this is largely what we're talking about with these guys - in contrast with rage against one's own impotence and mediocrity, which I suspect may well be a feature in the makeup of many "conventional" serial murderers.

[Graham]

I bow to your knowledge, Sam, but note that we are both agreed that the random selection of well-known names from the LVP as Ripper suspects is a rather idiotic pastime.

Like suggesting Johnny Cash as the assassin of JFK, merely because he happened to be in Dallas on the same day.

Cheers,

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Like suggesting Johnny Cash as the assassin of JFK, merely because he happened to be in Dallas on the same day.

...well, Cash was renowned for kitting himself out in sinister black, Graham! That, incidentally, illustrates the level of "corroboration" with which some of the more fanciful suspect-based books are content.

[Robert]

Hi all

D'Arcy Sato knew who JTR was. Unfortunately, the last page is missing from my copy, and just as I was about to learn the killer's identity, I got "Men, are you skinny?" instead.

But maybe if we all read the book, we can work out who did it?

[Graham]

...well, Cash was renowned for kitting himself out in sinister black, Graham! That, incidentally, illustrates the level of "corroboration" with which some of the more fanciful suspect-based books are content.

I know, Sam, I know.

By the way, I haven't got the faintest idea if Johnny Cash was in Dallas the day JFK was shot....

Cheers,

Graham

[dougie]

True, but not particularly so by the standards of their day....I'm finding myself hard pressed to find an example of an achiever who was a serial killer, or even a non-serial one. Small-beer doctors like Shipman don't count, by the way. I mean real achievers, those who were already famous or who went on to achieve a degree of fame based on something other than notoriety - like Barnardo, Lewis Carroll, Prince Eddie, JK Stephen, William Gull and Walter Sickert. To highlight the absurdity, travel through time and consider some modern equivalents - Bob Geldof, Terry Pratchett, Prince William, Seamus Heaney, Christaan Barnard and Damien Hirst. Doesn't really work, does it?

Why wouldnt Shipman count? becoming a doctor is no mean acheivement... is there a "cut off" level as regards acheivement, which is a barrier to becoming a killer?.the fact that bob geldof, terry who? prince william etc arent known to be serial killers is neither here nor there. All im saying is give the guy a chance, if he is as convinced as he appears to be ,give him a hearing.
regards

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Dougie,

Why wouldnt Shipman count? becoming a doctor is no mean acheivement...

Barnardo had already achieved being a doctor - like tens of thousands of others manage to do, by the way - but he had achieved much more than that in his campaigning for child welfare, and he was already a famous public figure. Shipman was about as "public" or "famous" as any one of my local GPs or town councillors.

As to giving authors a hearing - fair enough. But that shouldn't stop us from discussing the likelihood or otherwise of a VIP being the Ripper. I find the general concept inherently unlikely for several reasons, some of which I've given above.

[joelhall]

i think the point being made is that those who become famous personalities through their own means, i.e. not due to notoriety or profession, but extra-curricula if you will, have not as far as records go, gone on to become sadistic killers, as their personality type does not match those who do.

e.g. they choose to express themselves and allow their ambitious streak to come out by doing good not evil.

correct?

[Natalie Severn]

Why wouldnt Shipman count? becoming a doctor is no mean acheivement... is there a "cut off" level as regards acheivement, which is a barrier to becoming a killer?.the fact that bob geldof, terry who? prince william etc arent known to be serial killers is neither here nor there. All im saying is give the guy a chance, if he is as convinced as he appears to be ,give him a hearing.
regards

Henry 8th was a serial killer and quite a few of his ancestors bumped people off without blinking!

[joelhall]

Henry 8th was a serial killer and quite a few of his ancestors bumped people off without blinking!

not quite.