Dr Barnardo is the killer...?

[joelhall]

People,this "person" whoever they be, now has TWO threads running on the subject.....unbelievable.

*Spoken in my best telephone voice...
One thinks he has just achieved his aim at pubicity(?) for his mini-series of books.
I thank you.

steve... hows your server space coping?

bet youre glad for the crash now

[anna]

People,this "person" whoever they be, now has TWO threads running on the subject.....unbelievable.

*Spoken in my best telephone voice...
One thinks he has just achieved his aim at pubicity(?) for his mini-series of books.
I thank you.

[anna]

rather brave of you Suz to call "The Prophet" by his earthly name.
He's got colleagues you know....oh yes,..the Brothers Grimm...

Anyone noticed that during his Post 46 he seems to have plenty of thoughts on what goes on around here for someone who has achieved very few posts.....and a duel personality!!!!!Hmmmm

[Suzi]

Just look under the heading "Fairy stories" Bob,sure you'll be able to locate this authors efforts there...infact I predict best seller status.
Might have to wrangle with PC for pole position though!!!

Tony Williams is growing in credibility as I type!!!

BALL'S in your court Alex.................

[Suzi]

Fact!

Even La T's 'offerings' are available by checking the ISBN numbers.....!! We wait to see if this facility is available to us poor souls slavering for 'enlightenment'!!!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
As the quote goes from Alexander The GREAT:- 'If I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes'...........(or Barnardo!) The bit in parenthesis was obviously lost in translation!!!

[anna]

Just look under the heading "Fairy stories" Bob,sure you'll be able to locate this authors efforts there...infact I predict best seller status.
Might have to wrangle with PC for pole position though!!!

[Bob Hinton]

Ice Cold with Alex!

Alex,

I’m sorry I’m understanding very little of your post here. You say:

“If you read my post again you might realise that I did not state that it was a fact that Barnardo was arrogant, mean-spirited, etc. The whole meaning of the sentence relates to the fact that Barnardo was not ‘the paragon of virtue he is often portrayed as.’

And yet in post number 22 you say:

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.

Perhaps you can explain how stating something is a ‘fact’ is not actually ummm stating something is a fact.

You actually do it again by saying:

“The whole meaning of the sentence relates to the fact that Barnardo was not ‘the paragon of virtue he is often portrayed as.’”

Again I point out this is not a fact but merely your opinion.

As for your comment:

“Perhaps you are unacquainted with honestly admitting the truth, or are simply unable to appropriately interpret sources.”

If it is your opinion that I am dishonest, that’s fine. That’s your opinion and you are welcome to it. I certainly wouldn’t dignify such a statement with a response – I’m quite sure there are a few people who actually know me who could offer their own opinions as to my honesty and my ability to ‘interpret sources’.

I was unaware you have compiled a couple of books. Perhaps if you can give me their titles and ISBN numbers I can get them from Amazon. I would love to read them.

[alex]

Hi Bob

I have not misunderstood you at all. I am fully aware of what Nunnerism is. In fact, it seems to me that it is you who are labouring under some misunderstanding. If you read my post again you might realise that I did not state that it was a fact that Barnardo was arrogant, mean-spirited, etc. The whole meaning of the sentence relates to the fact that Barnardo was not ‘the paragon of virtue he is often portrayed as.’

As for the rest of your post, I have to admit that I am at a complete loss to understand your rationale. In my last post I openly accepted that without the ‘lost’ research I could not expect anyone to accept my opinion, and deferred to your good self. Perhaps you are unacquainted with honestly admitting the truth, or are simply unable to appropriately interpret sources.

Nowhere, in any of my posts on this subject, did I launch into a long series of extracts from Wagner’s book. And in no post did I write: “Well my wife has been studying Barnardo form many years – but I don’t know what happened to all the research, but it said it was honest!”

And never have I tried to link the accident in which Diana died to Ripper killings. If this is truly an example of your interpretive skills, then, it seems to me, Bob, that the only thing that holds anyone up to ridicule is the last post of yours on this forum and, honestly, that saddens me. I have always respected you as a Ripperologist and, to my knowledge, have never been abusive towards you or denigrated your work. I was, therefore, mystified by your evident abrasive tone towards me in these exchanges. Perhaps that is now a requirement of Casebook forums that I have failed to realise since I’ve been away for so long. If that is the case then, I’m afraid, I have better things to do with my time.

As it happens I have compiled a couple of books, with colleagues, which relate in some degree to JtR but, if you haven’t read them by now, it’s probably a bit late to get your ‘honest’ opinion, don’t you think, Bob?

Touching upon other posts on this subject, I have to offer my opinion (not Nunnerism) that what Stewart Evans does not know about Whitechapel murder and related topics isn’t worth knowing. Despite this, he never presents himself as the ‘great I am,’ and is ever willing to help anyone who wants to know more about this subject. He is (fact) a true gentleman and never deserves the hassle he seems to receive whenever he ventures onto these forums. Perhaps, if others were as truly knowledgeable and generous as Stewart, these forums might be a more amiable place to broaden one’s knowledge

Best Wishes
alex

[joelhall]

ahem... not being one whos afraid to say what he really thinks..

aj....

this really has been the worst sales pitch i have ever seen. i suggest youre yet another hack writer who is trying to make some cash out of sensationalism. so far you are yet to convince anyone to even take bernados name as a possible suspect seriously, not least to try and have us believe he actually committed the murders.

im sure the odd layman with a passing interest may think its an exciting read, particularly after your somewhat ott advertisement on the other thread, but its liable to end up on cornwells route here - picked mercilessly to pieces.

you seem to have no regard for proper investigative procedures, nor the sense to realise alot of members here are not those who are in it for the spookiness or conspiracy but serious scholars of the ripper murders and criminal history. your failure to take heed of certain opinions works against you.

if you honestly do have some new or swaying evidence then discuss it here (and i dont mean 'bernado joined the freemasons').

otherwise i wish you the best of luck with your work. youre going to need it!

joel

[Sam Flynn]

How about the Jekyll and Hyde syndrome? The public face wouldnt neccessarilly discount the possibility.Wasnt the BTK killer a church official in some capacity or other?

He may have been, Dougie, but then he wasn't a nationally renowned campaigner for charity, with connections to the English establishment. In addition, his subsequent international fame was built upon something other than killing innocent people - not something that Dennis Rader or similar "serial pillars of the community" like Thomas 'Akela' Hamilton, Reg 'Policeman' Christie or John Wayne 'Jaycee' Gacy were ever destined to boast.

[dougie]

The Prophet, hello,

Of all the suspects paraded as the 'true ripper' this is the one I find most distasteful.

Here is a man who used his own money (and other people's admittedly) and influence to do something positive for the abandoned children of the east end. He worked tirelessly to ensure cold, hungry, homeless children had somewhere to lay their heads. Inevitabley, when someone works with children, a murky motive is always suspected and articulated and of course, mud sticks.

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

Regards

Limehouse

How about the Jekyll and Hyde syndrome? The public face wouldnt neccessarilly discount the possibility.Wasnt the BTK killer a church official in some capacity or other?
And of course a lot of paedophiles Do work in the school teaching and connected proffessions. Though quite what taking "indecent " pictures of children has to do with slashing adult prostitutes Im not certain. My vote would be barnardo is probabley innocent..but there again who knows?

[Suzi]

Little seen shot of Dr Barnardo's boots!

I want those!!!!!!
And WHY Oh WHY are there two threads on this??? One on Gen Disc and one on Suspects........Lets's not encourage him!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Suzi]

Hi Ally- I wondered/worried for Vanessa too!!!
I for once- am staggered too!!! As soon as someone comes on giving us 'a little bit ' of some sort of spurious information as to 'case closed 'I want to crack out the 12 bore and vomit!!!! Isn't there a picture of Dr B bearing Bapho somewhere??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm that's as likely as our 'Prophet 'coming up with anything sensible............. This all sounds VERRRRRRRY familiar!!!...Anyone seen the ghost of Mary in Mitre Sq recently????

Suz x

[Ally]

Did I read that wrong or did Prophet imply in his last post that someone has mysteriously "done away with" Vanessa Hayes? And imply that he would likewise be "done away with" for solving the mystery? Which means two things really.

One, Vanessa Hayes, in order to have been "done away with" must have already solved the case before Prophet, therefore all of his endeavors are useless and pointless.

Two, he's an arrogant berk prone to delusions of grandeur and persecution. Just the sort we need around here. I agree with Magpie, Baphomet will appear next.

[Limehouse]

Hello everyone,
I appreciate all your replies.



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



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.



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.



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.

OK Prophet, I have a little more time now so I am going to answer a few of your points, but not all of them because i don't have [B]that[B] much time.

You wrote (quoting Wagner)
‘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.’

Well, actually, it IS rather surprising that Barnardo's name was added. It is rather surprising also, that the list of suspects was getting longer. What criteria was being used to compose this list?

Next, you quote Wagner again:

‘…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…”

Why Barnardo particularly? Why not any other doctor living and working in the East End? This comment also assumes that the Ripper had anotomical knowledge. There is no firm agreement that he did.

Commenting on Barnardo's letter to The Times in which he mentions the murder of Stride you quote Wagner again:

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

Again, why? Why should he be held in suspicion because he wrote a letter about homelessness and prostitution in which he mentions having met Stride shortly before her murder? Surely if the authorities were alarmed by this letter they would have questioned Barnardo about the killing? Were all men who wrote to the newspapers about the murders suspects?


Now we have some of your own comments:

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?

I have underlined the comment that particularly struck me. Barnardo was propably in the files before the double murder? And they didn't apprehend him or question him or watch him in any way - so that he was free to go on killing?

You ask us to remember that Wagner is not a Ripper expert but we are asked to take her research seriously? She is not a Ripper expert but she writes a book speculating on the person responsible?

Finally, you feel there are some files tucked away somewhere that will name Barnardo as a suspect and perhaps offer some evidence. I think it is more likely that if the police at the time of the murders EVER had any tiny suspicion that Barnardo might be responsible, they would have made enquiries and found out exactly where Barnardo was when even one of the murders was carried out. he was a workaholic who spent a great deal of time at meetings and fundraising events at all times of the day and night and when he wasn't doing that he could usually be found at his pitch outside the London Hospital with a massive crowd around him more than willing to testify where he was.

Regards

Limehouse