Skill or no Skill, that is the question

[The Rookie Detective]

It appears that he was seen as a person of interest early on, due to him being a local "DR" (albeit self proclaimed and officially unqualified)

One of the very first people (not sure if he was the first) to shine a light on Barnardo and claim he should be considered a "Suspect," was a man called McCormick (Not sure of first name, possibly Donald or Ronald?) circa 1970.

In more recent times another man guy called Gary Rowlands reignited the fire so to speak and did some work in trying to highlight the argument to include him as a key suspect. That was around 20 years ago I believe.

Another Casebook member told me recently that a woman called Vanessa Hayes wrote a book about him being a suspect, but she apparently was taken ill shortly before about to speak at a convention of some kind and then just disappeared?!


There are of course other points that could be added to that list of 22 that I wrote in my previous post.

So let's continue....

DR Barnardo was alleged to have been responsible for kidnapping children from their parents/mothers in a bid to get them away from their destitute life in the slums.
Now by itself those acts may be seen as somewhat honourable in their intentions, and that it was simply his methods and application that were highly dubious and unorthodox.

However, when you consider the fact that he appeared in court on no fewer than 88 separate occasions on charges relating to kidnapping and falsifying photographs of the children he had taken/rescued, then you begin to wonder why he didn't ring more alarm bells.

Some of the photos were alleged to have been fabricated to make the changes in the children POST rescue seem more dramatic and successful. than really was the case.

He also took photos of EVERY child for his records. Photos of them BEFORE they were rescued and photos AFTER they had been taken in to one of his homes.

He was also accused of neglecting some of the children's basic care needs in terms of lack of hygiene.

It has been suggested more recently that some of those photos are particularly questionable in terms of the way the children are posed... but that's an area which I've not researched at all and so I can't comment more on that.

The key thing to note here is that Barnardos OPENLY ADMITTED in court to kidnapping children from the slums, calling it "Philanthropic abduction."
In court he used the the idea that the ends justified the means as his defence and despite 88 court appearances, he was never convicted despite admitting his actions himself.

He was a popular public figure and known for his charisma and the fact he was never charged speaks volumes of just how untouchable he must have felt.
I defy any man to walk free from court without being convicted DESPITE ADMITTING GUILT, and not feel a sense of power flow through their veins.

It's no exaggeration when I state that he got away with so much because he was popular, confident, charming and felt that no-one could touch him, certainly not the law.

And he spent most of his adult life pretending to be a qualified doctor and that in itself demonstrates his inherent capacity for public deception.

Now why exactly he turned up and identified the body of Stride is rather intriguing. He wasn't a witness at the scene and so it makes me wonder why a man of his stature would bother to take the time to go and identify Stride.
It may be that one of the other women at the lodging house mentioned him having visited, but apart from that I see no reason why he turned up to see Stride?

It may have been a genuine concern of his and he had benign intent, but it could also be that he had to see her again because he had to leave her earlier than he wanted and he needed a sense of closure.


Now as I say, despite all this, I am actively trying to prove myself wrong about him... but I can't find anything to put me off him as a potential suspect.

I guess for the sake of balance it would be fair to say that he would be more recognizable than the average man on the street and so that could help to rule him out. But I think that works both ways.
If his victims recognized him as the caring doctor who was charming and helped children, maybe that actually was his way in, to breach their psychological defences?

What's frustrating is that this is the first time I've tried to disprove a hypothesis about a person of interest and potential suspect and it's had the opposite effect.


Thoughts on this please?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Thank you for your post.

I have only added him to my top 5 suspects (or "person of interest") relatively recently.

Based on some of the responses I've received, he was first suggested as a potential suspect back in 1962 but in recent times has been somewhat overshadowed; presumably due to his extensive work as a social philanthropist and the legacy he created for what is now known as "Barnardos."

My focus was drawn to him after I wanted to address the question of whether any of the murders could be linked in any way.

It is often commonplace and logical to focus on the murder scenes themselves and the witnesses that were present at the scene at the time.

An example is Lechmere; who despite being the man who found Nichols, he had (to my knowledge) no known connection to any of the other murder sites or victims.

I then realized that there really is NO suspect who can be linked to multiple murder sites and/or victims.

It then got me thinking that perhaps the murder sites were not the primary focus and perhaps a better way to approach it would be to focus not on the places the women died, but the places they were known to have lived...and hope to find a connection that way.

It then astounded me to realize that all of the Canonical 5 and a few other potential victims can ALL be linked to just 3 (or 4) common lodging houses in just 2 roads.

Due to the often transient nature of common lodging houses, it wouldn't be possible at this juncture to make a link between the victims, ergo, trying to prove they knew each other.

BUT I did feel that the common lodging houses themselves; may have been more significant.

So then I wondered if there were any potential suspects or persons of interest that could be linked to the places at which the victims resided shortly before their respective deaths.

I then stumbled across Barnardo; who at first glance I dismissed because I thought "There's no way that Dr Barnardo can be the ripper!"


But then I slowly began to unravel some more details regarding his life.

And every detail I looked at seemed to fit more than I'd anticipated.

I then worked to DISPROVE and reject my own hypothesis, but as I delved deeper, it became clearer that it would be harder to find a valid reason to reject him as an option for being the killer.
I prefer to disprove an idea by looking for evidence that confirms I'm wrong, as opposed to looking for ways to prove I'm right by manipulating the facts and creating my own narrative. Not being able to find a way to reject him became frustrating and intriguing in equal me

I received a post on another link from someone who said that a woman called Vanessa Hayes had written a book about Barnardo and that it was worth a read...but that she had fallen ill and had disappeared.

The overall impression I get is that only a handful of people have ever really looked at him seriously, but my question is WHY?


That list of 22 points that I made is a composition of facts that I've collated together, from my own research AND from others sharing their knowledge. I cannot claim credit for others' work.

My aim is to try and encourage other researchers (who like yourself; are infinitely more learned on this case than I am) to look a little closer at him.

I believe that the combination of the fact that...

He visited the lodging houses of Whitechapel and knew the area well.
He wanted to be addressed as "Dr Barnardo." despite not being qualified at the time (but qualifying as a Doctor until later life in Scotland,
Having anatomical knowledge and a degree of surgical experience as a student at the London Hospital,
Identifying the body of Stride and by his own admission, her being one of the women in the room he was speaking in shortly before her death
Having the capacity for violence against women; having been charged with assaulting a young woman over a dispute over communal access; after she failed to comply with his demands. (He pushed her violently twice in the chest/right breast and she fell backward.
(A policeman commented to her at the time that she looked hurt)
He fits the age, height and appearance of the killer... Age 43, 5Ft 3" (up to 5ft 5" in boots) a distinct mustache with no beard
His apparent obsession with trying to get he children out of the slums by talking to prostitutes in a bid to educate them and change their ways.

That all must count for something and can't be simply dismissed.

I also wondered if the victims all knew of Barnardo from his visits to their respective lodging houses and so went with him willingly because they already had that initial level of trust towards him?

In other words, they may have been acquainted with him on a basic level.



I think that he absolutely warrants a much closer look.


Regarding Stride, it could be perceived that she was the only Canonical 5 victim who based on her injuries, the killer had to leave in a hurry in order to evade capture. Visiting Stride post-mortem and identifying her as a woman who he had seen and spoken to at the lodging house prior to her death, may also be a way for him to see what he had done and to confirm she was dead because he never got a chance to check his work on Stride after leaving her prematurely.

But again I digress...


I believe that when you put all of those 22 pros together, they make for a compelling need to look at him more closely.


I welcome anyone who can tell me a genuine reason why he shouldn't be considered. I'm actively looking for valid reasons against, so that I can go back to more conventional suspects, but until I do, then he will stay firmly in my top 5 suspects.

Barnardos work in the community to help children get out of the slums etc... should not give him a free pass.

hi rd
of course not. and thanks for the response. do you know why he was first suspected?

[The Rookie Detective]

hi rd
interesting post. ive heard of him being suspect before but dont know much about him. when was he first named as a suspect and why?
were off topic, so if you want to start a new thread on him to respond thats fine.

Hi Abby

Thank you for your post.

I have only added him to my top 5 suspects (or "person of interest") relatively recently.

Based on some of the responses I've received, he was first suggested as a potential suspect back in 1962 but in recent times has been somewhat overshadowed; presumably due to his extensive work as a social philanthropist and the legacy he created for what is now known as "Barnardos."

My focus was drawn to him after I wanted to address the question of whether any of the murders could be linked in any way.

It is often commonplace and logical to focus on the murder scenes themselves and the witnesses that were present at the scene at the time.

An example is Lechmere; who despite being the man who found Nichols, he had (to my knowledge) no known connection to any of the other murder sites or victims.

I then realized that there really is NO suspect who can be linked to multiple murder sites and/or victims.

It then got me thinking that perhaps the murder sites were not the primary focus and perhaps a better way to approach it would be to focus not on the places the women died, but the places they were known to have lived...and hope to find a connection that way.

It then astounded me to realize that all of the Canonical 5 and a few other potential victims can ALL be linked to just 3 (or 4) common lodging houses in just 2 roads.

Due to the often transient nature of common lodging houses, it wouldn't be possible at this juncture to make a link between the victims, ergo, trying to prove they knew each other.

BUT I did feel that the common lodging houses themselves; may have been more significant.

So then I wondered if there were any potential suspects or persons of interest that could be linked to the places at which the victims resided shortly before their respective deaths.

I then stumbled across Barnardo; who at first glance I dismissed because I thought "There's no way that Dr Barnardo can be the ripper!"


But then I slowly began to unravel some more details regarding his life.

And every detail I looked at seemed to fit more than I'd anticipated.

I then worked to DISPROVE and reject my own hypothesis, but as I delved deeper, it became clearer that it would be harder to find a valid reason to reject him as an option for being the killer.
I prefer to disprove an idea by looking for evidence that confirms I'm wrong, as opposed to looking for ways to prove I'm right by manipulating the facts and creating my own narrative. Not being able to find a way to reject him became frustrating and intriguing in equal me

I received a post on another link from someone who said that a woman called Vanessa Hayes had written a book about Barnardo and that it was worth a read...but that she had fallen ill and had disappeared.

The overall impression I get is that only a handful of people have ever really looked at him seriously, but my question is WHY?


That list of 22 points that I made is a composition of facts that I've collated together, from my own research AND from others sharing their knowledge. I cannot claim credit for others' work.

My aim is to try and encourage other researchers (who like yourself; are infinitely more learned on this case than I am) to look a little closer at him.

I believe that the combination of the fact that...

He visited the lodging houses of Whitechapel and knew the area well.
He wanted to be addressed as "Dr Barnardo." despite not being qualified at the time (but qualifying as a Doctor until later life in Scotland,
Having anatomical knowledge and a degree of surgical experience as a student at the London Hospital,
Identifying the body of Stride and by his own admission, her being one of the women in the room he was speaking in shortly before her death
Having the capacity for violence against women; having been charged with assaulting a young woman over a dispute over communal access; after she failed to comply with his demands. (He pushed her violently twice in the chest/right breast and she fell backward.
(A policeman commented to her at the time that she looked hurt)
He fits the age, height and appearance of the killer... Age 43, 5Ft 3" (up to 5ft 5" in boots) a distinct mustache with no beard
His apparent obsession with trying to get he children out of the slums by talking to prostitutes in a bid to educate them and change their ways.

That all must count for something and can't be simply dismissed.

I also wondered if the victims all knew of Barnardo from his visits to their respective lodging houses and so went with him willingly because they already had that initial level of trust towards him?

In other words, they may have been acquainted with him on a basic level.



I think that he absolutely warrants a much closer look.


Regarding Stride, it could be perceived that she was the only Canonical 5 victim who based on her injuries, the killer had to leave in a hurry in order to evade capture. Visiting Stride post-mortem and identifying her as a woman who he had seen and spoken to at the lodging house prior to her death, may also be a way for him to see what he had done and to confirm she was dead because he never got a chance to check his work on Stride after leaving her prematurely.

But again I digress...


I believe that when you put all of those 22 pros together, they make for a compelling need to look at him more closely.


I welcome anyone who can tell me a genuine reason why he shouldn't be considered. I'm actively looking for valid reasons against, so that I can go back to more conventional suspects, but until I do, then he will stay firmly in my top 5 suspects.

Barnardos work in the community to help children get out of the slums etc... should not give him a free pass.

[Abby Normal]

A very valid point too Michael.

The one thing I like about researching the case on this forum, is that we can all have valid points, but those particular viewpoints may not necessarily agree and they are always usually different or contrasting in some way shape or form.

Aside from the fact there's NO evidence to suggest MJK committed suicide; or was murdered by a person identifying as a deranged Wolverine who used quantum mechanics to travel through time and cross the multiverse...
...then virtually all other points are valid in some way and hold some kind of credence no matter how unpopular they may be.

I find it interesting how some viewpoints receive stark criticism when they still fall within the realms of possibility.

I have no particular favored suspect at present and so I think it's good to keep an open mind.

I do find it interesting that one of my top 5 suspects has been written off by everyone else... on the basis they did good in the community...

Despite the facts that include...

Had means, opportunity, and a potential motive
Had anatomical knowledge
Had surgical experience
Worked as a medical student at the London Hospital
Claimed to be Dr...when he wasn't fully qualified
Insisted on being addressed as a "DR"
Found God and went on a mission to change things on a community level
Lived in the area the entire time
Fit multiple witness descriptions in terms of age, height, and appearance
Was charged with ASSAULT on a young WOMAN who stood her ground and defied him.
Was known to be overbearing
Was known as the quiet child
Visited all of the lodging houses in and around the area to talk to people, including prostitutes
Identified Stride Post-Mortem and confirmed she was one of the women who were present when he visited the lodging house she was staying at.
Knew Whitechapel well geographically, from walking around and preaching to those he wanted to 'help.'
Was Irish but of German Jewish descent (Ripper letters and GSG)
Disliked the slums and wanted to take all the children away to give them a chance of a better life.
Was accused (alleged) to have kidnapped children, in his bid to get them away from the slums.
Had a position of power and being a man of God, he could walk around with impunity.
Became a Freemason shortly before the murder of Coles, the organization consisting of men in positions of power and at the exclusion of all women.
Suffered from bouts of mental ill health, according to his wife.
Is the only suspect that had a connection to all the lodging houses which all the victims had frequented.

And yet...he's dismissed by everyone because he did a lot of community work and helped a lot of children.


THAT is his only valid defense and yet others favor ridiculous suspects who just because they had a history of violence, suddenly become a key focal point.


The next time someone says that Dr Barnardo is NOT a valid suspect, I'd ask them to tell me WHY?

I've given 22 reasons FOR him just to be taken seriously as a suspect.

And he's only in my top 5!

Stating that he was a philanthropist who helped children and did a lot of good community work is NOT a good enough reason to dismiss 22 points for him being just CONSIDERED.
There was a man more recently who did a lot of good work for children, raising millions for good causes and charity and raising awareness of the plight of the poor...and his surname rhymes with MAVILLE.
An example of how pure evil can hide in plain sight and just because a person is deemed by the public to have done a lot of good for the community, they can also be the devil incarnate.

But I digress...


My point is that I respect all viewpoints because despite contrasting viewpoints and heated debates, ultimately, we all have one thing in common; we all care about this case.

hi rd
interesting post. ive heard of him being suspect before but dont know much about him. when was he first named as a suspect and why?
were off topic, so if you want to start a new thread on him to respond thats fine.

[FrankO]

I appreciate your sincere post Franko.

I guess that’s part of who I am and what I’m about. And, of course, my name isn’t Frank for nothing.

Let me return the favour. I have nothing personal against you, I do however take it personally when a well crafted, knowledgeable, logical and reasonable post is summarily dismissed. cd does this with every post Ive made over the years, despite the fact that people with greater credibility in this study than him or I, publicly, or privately, consider my thoughts and want to discuss them further. Beacuse of that he has become irrelevant to me as a result of that history, I believe he wouldnt know a reasonable, logical suggestion if it slapped him in the face. Sorry to say that, but its years of this..not a few posts.

Thanks for explaining.

The arrogance you see, and Im not denying it comes out that way, is based on that premise. Lets take one specific point from your post and see what happens....Motivation. I dont know what motivated the killer or killers in any of these murders, but I do take seriously Dr Phillips statement that he felt Annies injuries were a result of specifically seeking to obtain her uterus. Thats a motive. In Liz Strides case the hard evidence suggests her killer wanted to mortally wound her, to kill her. In Marys case it seems highly probable that the damage he inflicted on her had to do with some imagined or real grievance with her, or women in general. It was monstrous and cruel. In just those 3 cases we see a variety of actions, but only Annies resulted in the inference of medical skills. Saying Liz was also skilfully cut is not correct, unlike Polly then Annie, Liz had only 1 major artery completely severed and it seems a single stroke was used. In both the priors a double cut was inflicted. Better to subdue the woman quickly and drain the blood quickly if you had other intentions. And there is zero evidence.....(other than sheer speculation about interruptions which are not indicated in the evidence at all)....that the killer intended to do more. Not so in the case of the 4 others grouped under JtR.

Although we’re not going to see eye to eye on the subject of the motivation/motive in Chapman’s case, I’m on the fence when it comes to Stride for the reasons you mention, among others.

As to who you are Franko and what youre about, I can say that you participate in a forum, like I do, that is about discussing some terrible crimes with knowledgeable people. Im sure you are trying to figure out what went on there. So am I. So whatever differences we might have we have that in common.

That’s true, Michael, so let’s keep in mind that we’re all - with our own basic ideas, curiosities, senses of logic and personalities etc. - are trying to figure this out. It’s funny to realize sometimes that each & everyone of us is looking at the very same material, but everyone may come out with a different ‘conclusion’, be that for one victim or another or the case as a whole (series – or not).

Cheers,
Frank

[Michael W Richards]

A very valid point too Michael.

The one thing I like about researching the case on this forum, is that we can all have valid points, but those particular viewpoints may not necessarily agree and they are always usually different or contrasting in some way shape or form.

Aside from the fact there's NO evidence to suggest MJK committed suicide; or was murdered by a person identifying as a deranged Wolverine who used quantum mechanics to travel through time and cross the multiverse...
...then virtually all other points are valid in some way and hold some kind of credence no matter how unpopular they may be.

I find it interesting how some viewpoints receive stark criticism when they still fall within the realms of possibility.

I have no particular favored suspect at present and so I think it's good to keep an open mind.

I do find it interesting that one of my top 5 suspects has been written off by everyone else... on the basis they did good in the community...

Despite the facts that include...

Had means, opportunity, and a potential motive
Had anatomical knowledge
Had surgical experience
Worked as a medical student at the London Hospital
Claimed to be Dr...when he wasn't fully qualified
Insisted on being addressed as a "DR"
Found God and went on a mission to change things on a community level
Lived in the area the entire time
Fit multiple witness descriptions in terms of age, height, and appearance
Was charged with ASSAULT on a young WOMAN who stood her ground and defied him.
Was known to be overbearing
Was known as the quiet child
Visited all of the lodging houses in and around the area to talk to people, including prostitutes
Identified Stride Post-Mortem and confirmed she was one of the women who were present when he visited the lodging house she was staying at.
Knew Whitechapel well geographically, from walking around and preaching to those he wanted to 'help.'
Was Irish but of German Jewish descent (Ripper letters and GSG)
Disliked the slums and wanted to take all the children away to give them a chance of a better life.
Was accused (alleged) to have kidnapped children, in his bid to get them away from the slums.
Had a position of power and being a man of God, he could walk around with impunity.
Became a Freemason shortly before the murder of Coles, the organization consisting of men in positions of power and at the exclusion of all women.
Suffered from bouts of mental ill health, according to his wife.
Is the only suspect that had a connection to all the lodging houses which all the victims had frequented.

And yet...he's dismissed by everyone because he did a lot of community work and helped a lot of children.


THAT is his only valid defense and yet others favor ridiculous suspects who just because they had a history of violence, suddenly become a key focal point.


The next time someone says that Dr Barnardo is NOT a valid suspect, I'd ask them to tell me WHY?

I've given 22 reasons FOR him just to be taken seriously as a suspect.

And he's only in my top 5!

Stating that he was a philanthropist who helped children and did a lot of good community work is NOT a good enough reason to dismiss 22 points for him being just CONSIDERED.
There was a man more recently who did a lot of good work for children, raising millions for good causes and charity and raising awareness of the plight of the poor...and his surname rhymes with MAVILLE.
An example of how pure evil can hide in plain sight and just because a person is deemed by the public to have done a lot of good for the community, they can also be the devil incarnate.

But I digress...


My point is that I respect all viewpoints because despite contrasting viewpoints and heated debates, ultimately, we all have one thing in common; we all care about this case.

I think that as a Person Of Interest he qualifies no problem. In this study too often are we referring to people as Suspects, its maybe why some people push back on the idea. Unless there is evidence linking them circumstantially to one of these murders the Suspect tag isnt really appropriate. Take for example Tumblety. He WAS questioned about these murders. Other circumstantial evidence is also interesting. Id call him a legitimate Suspect, since the police seemed to feel that way about him. Now the Memorandum cites 3 men as probables, or Suspects, and 1 was in jail at the time and 1 was a homosexual who committed suicide. Neither have any links to any of the murders. So...go figure.

One thing you said is my personal concern with some rebuttals to some posts of mine..."I find it interesting how some viewpoints receive stark criticism when they still fall within the realms of possibility." Im not sure why that happens.

[Michael W Richards]

So you agree that based on what Phillips saw that he reasonably concluded that the ultimate objective was to access just what he took?

Yes. I never said or implied otherwise. That was never the issue.

Would you agree that although it was a reasonable conclusion that for it to be a 100% proven metaphysical fact that it would require Phillips to either have been the killer or to somehow be able to read the mind of the killer?

If you answer yes, then we can wrap that particular issue up.

c.d.

...you see, this is where I have trouble. I think based on his training, his experience and the review of the wounds made, that we can accept his evaluation of why the cuts were made. Is it then a fact? No. But is it a reasonable and logical interpretation based on the previous factors? I think yes.

And I can see that the investigators accepted it the same way...thats why the story about the american doctor trying to buy uteri from a teaching hospital the previous year comes up. Its why they started seeking out medical students. They thought that the obtaining of a uterus was likely the Motive for killing Annie. At least in September they did. When you add a partial uterus from Kate, you have to wonder whether it may have been a correct evaluation.

[The Rookie Detective]

As for whether Mary may have been killed by someone she knew well and possibly very well, I know Ive seen information on many murders where the murderer, who knew the victim well.. even as a romantic partner, vented on the deceased in the process of committing the murder. Dismemberment, whatever. The reason Ive suggested this may be a possibility in Marys case is because she herself admitted to being in a love triangle at the time she is killed. She also admitted that the other "Joe" treated her badly at times, which can be assumed to have been some form of physical and/or emotional abuse. She was involved with a Joe before Barnett, and apparently he cared for her deeply and would have married her. But for some reason her and Fleming parted ways. Maybe because he treated her badly?

Its the nature of Marys injuries, not just the cuts themselves that seem to be attempts to ruin her physical form. Many, many things were done to Mary that served no purpose other than to ruin her. Then we have the heart missing. We have anger displayed in the facial slashes. We have the fact that the killer didnt break in, he was likely let in, or let himself in and was allowed to stay. We have the intimacy of the environment, the angry wounds, and the fact he is in the room without having to break or sneak into it. Cumulatively the evidence suggests Mary knew her killer. So, a change from attacking street walking women who he was not known by. The fact that she is killed indoors itself is a huge change from prior victims.

Whether you agree with my suggestion isnt important, it IS important to recognize that some of these factors suggest someone known to Mary and not simply a man intent on abdominal mutilation and organ excision on strangers. Which I suggest based on Polly, Annie and Kate, is a deviation in the Motivation.

A very valid point too Michael.

The one thing I like about researching the case on this forum, is that we can all have valid points, but those particular viewpoints may not necessarily agree and they are always usually different or contrasting in some way shape or form.

Aside from the fact there's NO evidence to suggest MJK committed suicide; or was murdered by a person identifying as a deranged Wolverine who used quantum mechanics to travel through time and cross the multiverse...
...then virtually all other points are valid in some way and hold some kind of credence no matter how unpopular they may be.

I find it interesting how some viewpoints receive stark criticism when they still fall within the realms of possibility.

I have no particular favored suspect at present and so I think it's good to keep an open mind.

I do find it interesting that one of my top 5 suspects has been written off by everyone else... on the basis they did good in the community...

Despite the facts that include...

Had means, opportunity, and a potential motive
Had anatomical knowledge
Had surgical experience
Worked as a medical student at the London Hospital
Claimed to be Dr...when he wasn't fully qualified
Insisted on being addressed as a "DR"
Found God and went on a mission to change things on a community level
Lived in the area the entire time
Fit multiple witness descriptions in terms of age, height, and appearance
Was charged with ASSAULT on a young WOMAN who stood her ground and defied him.
Was known to be overbearing
Was known as the quiet child
Visited all of the lodging houses in and around the area to talk to people, including prostitutes
Identified Stride Post-Mortem and confirmed she was one of the women who were present when he visited the lodging house she was staying at.
Knew Whitechapel well geographically, from walking around and preaching to those he wanted to 'help.'
Was Irish but of German Jewish descent (Ripper letters and GSG)
Disliked the slums and wanted to take all the children away to give them a chance of a better life.
Was accused (alleged) to have kidnapped children, in his bid to get them away from the slums.
Had a position of power and being a man of God, he could walk around with impunity.
Became a Freemason shortly before the murder of Coles, the organization consisting of men in positions of power and at the exclusion of all women.
Suffered from bouts of mental ill health, according to his wife.
Is the only suspect that had a connection to all the lodging houses which all the victims had frequented.

And yet...he's dismissed by everyone because he did a lot of community work and helped a lot of children.


THAT is his only valid defense and yet others favor ridiculous suspects who just because they had a history of violence, suddenly become a key focal point.


The next time someone says that Dr Barnardo is NOT a valid suspect, I'd ask them to tell me WHY?

I've given 22 reasons FOR him just to be taken seriously as a suspect.

And he's only in my top 5!

Stating that he was a philanthropist who helped children and did a lot of good community work is NOT a good enough reason to dismiss 22 points for him being just CONSIDERED.
There was a man more recently who did a lot of good work for children, raising millions for good causes and charity and raising awareness of the plight of the poor...and his surname rhymes with MAVILLE.
An example of how pure evil can hide in plain sight and just because a person is deemed by the public to have done a lot of good for the community, they can also be the devil incarnate.

But I digress...


My point is that I respect all viewpoints because despite contrasting viewpoints and heated debates, ultimately, we all have one thing in common; we all care about this case.

[c.d.]

So you agree that based on what Phillips saw that he reasonably concluded that the ultimate objective was to access just what he took?

Yes. I never said or implied otherwise. That was never the issue.

Would you agree that although it was a reasonable conclusion that for it to be a 100% proven metaphysical fact that it would require Phillips to either have been the killer or to somehow be able to read the mind of the killer?

If you answer yes, then we can wrap that particular issue up.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

As for whether Mary may have been killed by someone she knew well and possibly very well, I know Ive seen information on many murders where the murderer, who knew the victim well.. even as a romantic partner, vented on the deceased in the process of committing the murder. Dismemberment, whatever. The reason Ive suggested this may be a possibility in Marys case is because she herself admitted to being in a love triangle at the time she is killed. She also admitted that the other "Joe" treated her badly at times, which can be assumed to have been some form of physical and/or emotional abuse. She was involved with a Joe before Barnett, and apparently he cared for her deeply and would have married her. But for some reason her and Fleming parted ways. Maybe because he treated her badly?

Its the nature of Marys injuries, not just the cuts themselves that seem to be attempts to ruin her physical form. Many, many things were done to Mary that served no purpose other than to ruin her. Then we have the heart missing. We have anger displayed in the facial slashes. We have the fact that the killer didnt break in, he was likely let in, or let himself in and was allowed to stay. We have the intimacy of the environment, the angry wounds, and the fact he is in the room without having to break or sneak into it. Cumulatively the evidence suggests Mary knew her killer. So, a change from attacking street walking women who he was not known by. The fact that she is killed indoors itself is a huge change from prior victims.

Whether you agree with my suggestion isnt important, it IS important to recognize that some of these factors suggest someone known to Mary and not simply a man intent on abdominal mutilation and organ excision on strangers. Which I suggest based on Polly, Annie and Kate, is a deviation in the Motivation.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm surprised you are giving it another try as well. I thought I had made my point quite clear but apparently not.

As for your example, I would agree that would be a reasonable conclusion for the mechanic to make. But what if the intention of the person opening the hood was to take the distributor cap off and either couldn't find it or couldn't get it off and then thought hey, I can always use another spark plug. So in that instance, the mechanic would have been wrong would he have not?

So the mechanic could have been correct but we can't say with absolute certainty that he was. Why? Because he couldn't read the mind of the person opening the hood. So he only thought he knew.

Hope that helps.

c.d.

So you agree that based on what Phillips saw that he reasonably concluded that the ultimate objective was to access just what he took? Just checking.

[The Rookie Detective]

I find it hard to believe that Mary Kelly was killed by a jealous or even spurned lover.
The degree of ritual mutilation, after her death, goes well beyond passion.

You can include deranged & unstable in the mix if you like; I highly doubt she would have been juggling such a person with her other lover.
She was self supporting herself through her profession .... she didn't need to depend on any deranged creep.

I tend to agree Newbie

The injuries inflicted on her were far too extensive and severe for them to be committed by someone who had an ounce of feeling for her.

I also believe there were multiple reasons why MJK's injuries were significantly worse than any other victim.

The obvious ones

being indoors
having more time

...but I've always felt it was more than that.

HOW did he know he had TIME?

Based on the extent of her injuries and the location, her attack feels more personalized, but I feel that's misleading.

I believe a more likely scenario is thus...

MJK wasn't his first choice of victim and the choice to kill her was more impromptu based on how they met.

Based on previous victims, it could be said that JTR approached his victims, convincing them with his charm to go off with him and see what he had for them in his concealed parcel that they would like...

But with MJK, I feel that it was the other way around.

MJK was actively asking around and I believe she met JTR inadvertently.

She was much younger than he liked them and potentially her youth could be translated into putting up more of a fight.

And so what would have convinced him?

Based on her recent personal situation, it would seem apparent that prostitution was a relatively new experience for her and so all ti would take would be for her to make him aware she was touting for business.

But he would have asked her to go off with him somewhere, just like he did with all the others,as a way to control the parameters of his ritual.

However, it is likely that MJK told him that she had a room nearby and they would be more comfy there.

At this stage, JTR had a choice and to all intents and purposes it is likely he had never killed inside a bedroom.

So i believe the conversation went a little like this...

MJK - "Could you spare a few coins?"

JTR - "What can you give me in return?"

MJK - "What would you like in return?"

JTR - "Would you like to go somewhere with me? I have a nice red neckerchief that you might like"

MJK - "I have a room nearby"

JTR hesitates

MJK - "We won't be disturbed"


The key here is that JTR needed to have KNOWN that he had TIME with MJK and that they would be alone. Now of course, Barnett probably would have known, but all it would take would be for MJK to tell her killer that they had her bed for the night.

This then gave JTR a green light to take as much time as he wanted.

In other words, JTR wouldn't have chosen to kill MJK if he thought he might be disturbed.

It's obvious that JTR didn't like women, BUT I also think he murdered and mutilated prostitutes because he hated what they represented.

We cannot dismiss the fact that all his victims were prostitutes.

That has to mean something.

And so I believe the main underlying reason why MJK suffered the most in terms of her injuries was because he saw a YOUNGER woman who had chosen to give her body away and it disgusted him more than the others.

Why would she throw away her life so recklessly when she was young, fertile and relatively healthy compared to Eddowes, Chapman and Nichols?

It enraged him that she had given up and chosen prostitution and THAT is why he obliterated her entirely. He was punishing her harder than others because her youth and recent choice to turn to prostitution warranted greater punishment.

But this would have had an impact on him, not emotionally because psychopaths lack the capacity for empathy or emotion.

BUT it DID effect him in other ways.

Hence why he took a break from killing and fulfilling his hunger to kill and mutilate after MJK

He couldn't match the level of rage again and that's why after MJK he began to revert back to what he knew and remain within the parameters he had been so used to with previous kills.

Hence why McKenzie's murder bears similar hallmarks to Nichols.

He had come full circle and was in effect born again as a killer AFTER his slaying of MJK.

Just my hypothesis of course.

[Newbie]

I find it hard to believe that Mary Kelly was killed by a jealous or even spurned lover.
The degree of ritual mutilation, after her death, goes well beyond passion.

You can include deranged & unstable in the mix if you like; I highly doubt she would have been juggling such a person with her other lover.
She was self supporting herself through her profession .... she didn't need to depend on any deranged creep.

[c.d.]

Im surprised Im giving this another try...if someone opens the hood of your car, does nothing else, locates a spark plug and takes it, could a mechanic say that the reason he opened the hood was to get the spark plug? I guess you dont have to read minds after all huh?

I'm surprised you are giving it another try as well. I thought I had made my point quite clear but apparently not.

As for your example, I would agree that would be a reasonable conclusion for the mechanic to make. But what if the intention of the person opening the hood was to take the distributor cap off and either couldn't find it or couldn't get it off and then thought hey, I can always use another spark plug. So in that instance, the mechanic would have been wrong would he have not?

So the mechanic could have been correct but we can't say with absolute certainty that he was. Why? Because he couldn't read the mind of the person opening the hood. So he only thought he knew.

Hope that helps.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Until you can demonstrate, Michael that the good doctor grew up with Gypsies or studied with North American Shamans or Indian Mystics or was capable of doing a Vulcan mind melt HE CANNOT READ MINDS. That is simply all I am saying. In no way shape or form am I implying he lacked training or expertise or that he pulled his conclusion out of a hat. His conclusion may be correct. Yes, it should be given weight. But ultimately, it is an opinion not a fact. You keep trying to make an argument where no argument exists.

Try reading again and absorbing before you post.

c.d

Im surprised Im giving this another try...if someone opens the hood of your car, does nothing else, locates a spark plug and takes it, could a mechanic say that the reason he opened the hood was to get the spark plug? I guess you dont have to read minds after all huh?