Tweet
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?
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?
Comment