Dr Barnardo is the killer...?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[George Hutchinson]

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

PHILIP

[Robert]

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

[Sam Flynn]

I've orphan thought it might be him, but I've long since abandoned the idea.

...you couldn't waif to get that in, could you? I can just see you stray-ning at the leash...

[Vigilantee]

I've orphan thought it might be him, but I've long since abandoned the idea.

Sorry couldnt resist it....

[Victor]

Especially with all the knowledge we now know about how popular TV, video games and movies can have on children’s minds (or any sick/vulnerable individual), now imagine Barnardo running around loose in the East End…yikes!

"knowledge" more like ridiculous, unproven speculation by the PC brigade. For every report that "proves" such a link there's a reciprocal report showing that people vent their frustration on such things and reduces the incidence of violence.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sources and Suggestions

Dr. Barnardo ensured his name forever being connected with the Whitechapel murders when he wrote his letter to The Times, that was published on October 9, 1888, hard on the heels of the 'double event.' The letter 'The Children of the Common Lodging Houses' is well known and does not need repeating here.

In his 1943 book, Barnardo of Stepney, A. E. Williams devotes an extensive section to 'Jack the Ripper', the Whitechapel murders and addressing the problems, pages 137 et seq. Although this piece does not make the outrageous suggestion that Barnardo was the killer, it does chronicle his interest and supply the necessary 'connection' and suggestive source material.

[Mike Covell]

*Barnardo also took pictures of naked children, most are obviously too sensitive to be published in books today (or then), but the main reason Barnardo sanctioned this was to catalogue children with physical deformities, however the positions they were posed in could suggest an underlying sexual deviation.

Ever thought this was done to illustrate a point?
The Victorian Era was not a very nice place for children and perhaps DR. Barnardo was creating a picture of the conditions these children were in.

Your not Karen Trenouth are you?

[Stewart P Evans]

What About?

Dr Barnardo was no exception, and has been noted as a suspect first publicly in 1979, and then every year since 1987.

'First publicly in 1979...' What about our dear old friend and ace inventor of suspects, Donald McCormick? In his 1970 book The Identity of Jack the Ripper, page 170, he states, "...-while even so benevolent a character as Dr. Barnardo has been named on the grounds that he was devoted to waifs and strays and that most of the unwanted children in his district were the offspring of prostitutes."

[Stewart P Evans]

Dr. Barnardo and Violence

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.

The incident, an access dispute, occurred on Tuesday 17 July 1888 at the premises of the women's father, Mr. F. Whitbread, at 28 Stepney Causeway. A barrier had been erected at gates on the north side of the premises opening into Commercial Road. Mr. Whitbread was confronting Barnardo at these gates and standing on the barrier which had been taken down. Several person were raising Whitbread into the air by means of a crowbar. Eliza urged her father to get legal advice and he left. Her sister then came out and they were joined by some of their own people. Dr. Barnardo was accompanied by more than a hundred boys in uniform, 60 dock workers and all the boys from his labour house. He ordered them to clear the people off but they did not move. Barnardo then rushed at Eliza delivering a blow to her breast which knocked her back into a man's arms. Dora stated that Barnardo had taken her sister by the shoulders and thrown her violently away (omens for the attack on Stride!).

Dr. Barnardo's men put large gates into position against the Whitbreads' entrance to prevent access. Inspector Wakeford of H Division dealt with the case. Barnardo stated that his intention had been only to 'frighten them off', not for it to go so far. A full account of this dispute appeared in the court summary on page 3 of The Times of August 1, 1888.