Dr B

[The Rookie Detective]

I like to try and look at things from different angles, just in case there's that minuscule chance something new arises from my efforts.

At the risk of sounding like I've lost the proverbial plot; I'd like to state that I've never been one for conspiracy theories, and I like to base my range of hypotheses on fact and statistical likelihood.

However, I read something new yesterday that I had never read before and it got me thinking...

I then checked the ocean of threads on the Casebook and was surprised to see only a handful of references to a particular individual that I now feel warrants further scrutiny...but not based on some kind of wacky conspiracy theory. It must be said that the mention of this particular individual received a very negative response and so I was hesitant to pursue my thoughts...

However, I like the challenge and so here goes...

This particular individual was...

43 in 1888
5ft 3" (up to 5ft 5" with shoes/boots)
Had a thick Moustache with no beard at the time
Had lived in East/North London for around 20 years.

Nothing exciting, so let's continue...

He was born in Ireland and his father was a German Jew.
He moved over to London from Dublin as a young man with the aim of becoming a doctor (with the aim of going to the Far East)
He had siblings but was known as the quiet child.
His mother was his father's second wife and his family situation was particularly complex...

But still...nothing stands out here, so let's continue...

When he arrived in London he joined The London Hospital in Whitechapel as a medical student. However, in a relatively short space of time, he changed tact from the medical side and focused on wanting to become a surgeon. He developed a fascination with anatomy and became focused on the surgical side of medicine and by 1871 he was training as a surgeon (based on census records)

He lived in and around the Mile End Road area (East of Whitechapel)

The move from Ireland to the East end of London appeared to have a profound effect on him, to the point when he felt compelled to help the local community.

At some point during his studies at the London Hospital, he chose to change his path entirely and he quit his training as a surgeon after finding God.

He then spent a lot of time going around the slums of the East End talking and preaching to the people who lived in and around those slums, including Whitechapel.

He became familiar with the area and spent time spreading the word so to speak.

Oh and he married in 1873 and moved to South Hackney.

Despite not having qualified as a surgeon, he still applied for his doctorate and it was accepted. He then could use the Dr as his prefix even though he wasn't a qualified doctor or surgeon.

SO... still nothing that really links or connects this man... however, let's continue...

Despite living in South Hackney he often visited and spent time in the slums of the East End and over time he became very successful in his chosen field. He seemingly went around like a man on a mission and actively helped the community the best way he could.

An upstanding member of the community..who really wanted to change the lives of the poor.

So...nothing alarming, if anything he sounds like a saint..so let's continue...


He was preaching in Whitechapel shortly before Stride was murdered.

This is evidenced by the fact that he identified Stride's body
This is because he spoke to Stride and others in the kitchen at the lodging house in which Stride was staying.
He recognized Stride as one of the women who was in the room at the time.

He therefore by his own admission took time to speak to prostitutes as part of his mission to help the poor.


Okay...so we have a tiny link with one of the victims but so what...well, let's continue...


He stayed in the local area for many years and finally in November 1889 he became an official member of the Freemasons. This organization included various other socially high-ranking members of the community, including high-ranking police officers.

The freemasons (unlike the Masons) were a much more secretive 'all men's' secret organization and it took a lot to become a member. The idea of ritual, order, and hierarchy forms an integral part of the system.

He remained a freemason until his death in 1905.


His wife states that he was often stressed by his job and that suffered bouts of ill mental health as a result...


So... to summarize...


An Irishman with German Jewish heritage moves over to the East End of London and commits his life to help and change the poor. He trains as a surgeon and even in 1871 he is still registered as a surgeon. He then becomes a DR without being qualified but at this point he has some anatomical knowledge. He then sees the state of the slums and wants to change it by stopping his training and becoming a man of God to spread the word. He becomes familiar with the area and all the backstreets and gives talks in lodging houses to get to the people.
He does great good for the community and becomes a freemason shortly before Frances Coles is murdered.

He is 43, has a distinct moustache and is 5ft 3" and with a German/Jewish appearance like his father.

He identifies Stride as one of the women he had spoken to in the lodging house shortly before her death.

He makes a link between him and a victim of the killings...


And yet who would suspect a man who did such good?

He helped so many children...


The man is... Thomas John Barnardo...and he has the means, method and opportunity to be the killer.


Thoughts and onslaught please?!

[Aethelwulf]

he has the means, method and opportunity to be the killer.

There is no evidence he was violent or a murderer or mutilator. Non starter for me. Another poor suspect IMO.

[Doctored Whatsit]

This man was proposed as a suspect in 1962, I think, but with very little backing from ripperologists. He was a pioneer philanthropist, a social worker who dedicated his life to providing homes for poor and deprived children. This resulted, of necessity in his being in the most deprived areas like Whitechapel. He really doesn't seem to be the sort of character we are looking for.

[The Rookie Detective]

There is no evidence he was violent or a murderer or mutilator. Non starter for me. Another poor suspect IMO.

I see your point and it's an extremely good and valid one which can't be disputed.

However, that logic can also be applied to many of the suspects.

I think a history of violence doesn't necessarily indicate someone capable of murder and mutilation.

I think it was the fact he can be connected to having spoken at a lodging house that Stride was staying at based on his own admission of identifying her after she was murdered.

The fact that he was present to identify Stride means he was physically there and so it should have been the case that the police should have questioned him once he had confirmed he had seen the victim at the lodging house prior to her death.
That's standard police protocol.

However, the police wouldn't have questioned a man who preaches and spreads the word of God, because who would suspect a man of religion to be capable of murder?
The fact that he had surgical knowledge but wasn't officially qualified, and yet still was accepted as a Doctor, shines a light into how much influence he had at the time.

He could essentially walk around with impunity.

All the victims had fallen from grace in some way and when you consider the almost ritualistic and repetitive cuts and mutilations, it could be considered with the realms of possibility that the killer was only outwardly aggressive when he was in the process of killing and mutilating.

In other words, having a history of violence doesn't always fit with every psychopath.

In fact, most modern-day psychopaths (non murderous) work in areas of power such as surgeons, clerics, bankers and CEO's.

It is about power, control and writing the social wrongs than it is about being openly violent.


What's interesting is that there was a certain modern-day sexual predatory pedophile and clinical psychopath, who was only ousted after their death... and yet they managed to fool the world by raising millions of pounds for charitable causes for children.
That person's name rhymed with 'Maville.'

I'm not making comparisons, because that person never murdered anyone literally, but I'm simply indicating that someone who appears to do so much good for the world, will always have their dark secrets.

It's therefore entirely possible that just because he never had a known history of violence doesn't mean he wasn't capable of being the killer.

If he pent up aggression and was a passive-aggressive, it may actually strengthen the case against him because if someone is openly aggressive and violent, they at least have an outlet and are known for violence and therefore stand out more.

I think your point is excellent but not a strong enough defense for me.

[Aethelwulf]

However, that logic can also be applied to many of the suspects.

Yes we here this from the Lechers often. My thoughts are though that if you take this line, you aren't going to get anywhere after 135 years. Any innocent looking person could have done it and there is nothing to say otherwise. I find it hard to believe JtR just went away, he would have kept on killing or attempting to, and so ultimately made a mistake and drawn attention to himself. In virtually all aspects we have the perfect suspect, for some reason considered the most unlikey suspect. I do read all new posts on suspects so carry on, you might find something interesting, even if he wasn't jtr.

[The Rookie Detective]

And the last line of the Dear Boss letter... "they say I'm a doctor now ha ha" ...could that be a literal reference? I.e. the author not being flippant, but literally meaning that they call him a doctor now?

[Dupin]

I find Dr B very unlikely:

Keeping an open mind, what evidence would there be:
1) alive at the time (sometimes that's enough to be a suspect)
2) about the right age to morph into a serial killer
3) fits various descriptions, especially white collar and cuffs, whiskers.
4) height unknown to me although the 'life-size' cut-out at the ragged school when I visited it suggests he was of short stature.
5) trained briefly as a doctor, at the London Hospital no less
6) worked among the poor of the east end
7) would have been a feature of the east end and unlikely to arouse suspicion (true today)
8) an embroiderer of his title of doctor: some self aggrandisement perhaps? Is this a trait of serial killers?
9) accused of effectively kidnapping children. His justification allegedly that the end justifies the means. Ie maybe slightly lawless(*).
10) father in law to Henry Wellcome, a collector of note, said collection including postmortem implements and foreign daggers. Although his relationship with Henry was poor.

Against which:
1) major philanthropist,
2) respected Victorian man,
3) lived long after the end of the Autumn of Terror,
4) no known allegations of viciousness or moral turpitude
/

(*) I think it was Shaw that suggested whatever the ripper wanted, his actions brought the plight of unfortunates to the attention of the general public and generated concern and empathy. But I doubt the ripper had such motives!

Dupin

[The Rookie Detective]

Yes we here this from the Lechers often. My thoughts are though that if you take this line, you aren't going to get anywhere after 135 years. Any innocent looking person could have done it and there is nothing to say otherwise. I find it hard to believe JtR just went away, he would have kept on killing or attempting to, and so ultimately made a mistake and drawn attention to himself. In virtually all aspects we have the perfect suspect, for some reason considered the most unlikey suspect. I do read all new posts on suspects so carry on, you might find something interesting, even if he wasn't jtr.

I agree with you in principle, although I would say that by becoming a full-fledged member of the Freemasons in November 1889, he would have received a level of protection and anonymity by being part of the fraternal order.

It may not be a case of him stopping, it may have been more a case of his further crimes being less apparent in the press.

But that's pure conjecture of course and there's no proof of that whatsoever.

The reason why I have only just been drawn to Barnardo is the fact that he did indeed visit various lodging houses to spread the word and he became very familiar with the slums of the East End.
In terms of motive, the killer may have had a hatred for prostitutes because of the proximal association with a broken home and a woman's perceived fall from grace.

The only thing that connects Lechmere was that he was seen by a victim close to the time she had been murdered...but that's it, literally nothing else.
However, with Barnardo, he had surgical knowledge and a fascination with anatomy. He became a doctor although he wasn't officially qualified. He also visited lodging houses and spoke to prostitutes and like Lechmere can be connected to Nichols; so too can Barnardo be linked to Stride. He identified her and confirmed by his own admission that she was present in the kitchen of the lodging house.

So Barnardo has anatomical and surgical skills, is known to have visited the slum areas to spread the word and can be placed in the same room as Stride was, meaning that he visited her lodgings. He came forward and identified her but because he was a man of God, he was never questioned by the police. Not forgetting of course that Stride was a botched job by all accounts and so it may have been too much of a temptation to at least see what he managed to achieve in the few seconds he had with her before he had to flee.

For me, he is a much stronger suspect than anyone has given him credit for.

He was in Whitechapel
He spoke to prostitutes
He had surgical and anatomical knowledge from his days as a student at the London Hospital
He fits the description of many of the witnesses who claim to have seen the killer
He was obsessed with trying to save the children and saving them from a life of destitution, subjectively perpetuated by middle-aged women who broke their family and abandoned their children for a life of drink and sex (perception from the killer and not fact)
He becomes a Freemason in November 1889, which wasn't something that he could just walk into without having powerful connections.
He suffered from anxiety and stress and bouts of mental illness due to his job (according to his wife)

The way i see it is this...

If you're at church and someone has clearly broken wind...you'd never dare accuse the priest.


And that's the reason why he's so easily dismissed as a suspect.


Apart from a few other suspects like Lechmere, Barnett and Kidney, he's one of the only other suspects (to my knowledge) that can be linked to a victim in some way. Remember that he identified Stride in person and confirmed she had been in the room during his visit to the lodging house.


He may not have had any known episodes of violence, but that by proxy would imply that he was a rather quiet and passive man. I would say that he is EXACTLY the kind of person we are looking for; because one thing we can be sure of is that all the victims trusted him enough to not be concerned to go off with him. The more unassuming the easier it would have been for the killer.

I think he warrants further investigation at the very least.

[The Rookie Detective]

I find Dr B very unlikely:

Keeping an open mind, what evidence would there be:
1) alive at the time (sometimes that's enough to be a suspect)
2) about the right age to morph into a serial killer
3) fits various descriptions, especially white collar and cuffs, whiskers.
4) height unknown to me although the 'life-size' cut-out at the ragged school when I visited it suggests he was of short stature.
5) trained briefly as a doctor, at the London Hospital no less
6) worked among the poor of the east end
7) would have been a feature of the east end and unlikely to arouse suspicion (true today)
8) an embroiderer of his title of doctor: some self aggrandisement perhaps? Is this a trait of serial killers?
9) accused of effectively kidnapping children. His justification allegedly that the end justifies the means. Ie maybe slightly lawless(*).
10) father in law to Henry Wellcome, a collector of note, said collection including postmortem implements and foreign daggers. Although his relationship with Henry was poor.

Against which:
1) major philanthropist,
2) respected Victorian man,
3) lived long after the end of the Autumn of Terror,
4) no known allegations of viciousness or moral turpitude
/

(*) I think it was Shaw that suggested whatever the ripper wanted, his actions brought the plight of unfortunates to the attention of the general public and generated concern and empathy. But I doubt the ripper had such motives!

Dupin

A brilliant post and it's good to highlight the pros and cons.

What i would say is that your points against...

Those 4 points could also be loosely applied to a recent case of a certain man whose name rhymes with 'Maville'

Let's not forget that at his height of fame, he was respected and loved by the masses and was a social philanthropist of sorts and had no 'known to the public' bouts of viciousness or immorality.
And yet a man who raised awareness and raised millions of pounds for charitable causes which helped children turned out to be one of the most evil and vile leech of a man, who spent years abusing those he claimed to be protecting.

I'm not making direct comparisons, I'm merely stating that just because a person who has been socially deemed as a proper Victorian gent, still has the capacity for evil.
Men with power rarely bode well.

I am also going to out on a limb here and suggest that there may be a link with the Torso killings.

There's no proof of that of course, but it takes a very confident person to place a torso under the new police headquarters. Someone who felt they were untouchable perhaps.

[Aethelwulf]

I agree with you in principle, although I would say that by becoming a full-fledged member of the Freemasons in November 1889, he would have received a level of protection and anonymity by being part of the fraternal order.

Don't go there. Ridiculous.

It may not be a case of him stopping, it may have been more a case of his further crimes being less apparent in the press.

But that's pure conjecture of course and there's no proof of that whatsoever.

The reason why I have only just been drawn to Barnardo is the fact that he did indeed visit various lodging houses to spread the word and he became very familiar with the slums of the East End.
In terms of motive, the killer may have had a hatred for prostitutes because of the proximal association with a broken home and a woman's perceived fall from grace.

It's not a hatred of prostitues though, it was a hatred of women. To meet that hatred he needed vulnerable women. The investiagtion into the Yorkshire Ripper made the same mistake of an assumption of hatred of prostitues. When the red light areas got too hot he just moved to the next most vulnerable - lone woment, students, walking home at night. Check out what he was wearing when arrested. There is his motivation - a lust murderer.

The only thing that connects Lechmere was that he was seen by a victim close to the time she had been murdered...but that's it, literally nothing else.

We agree Lechmere is very poor farr, although I would rate him higher than Dr B

However, with Barnardo, he had surgical knowledge and a fascination with anatomy. He became a doctor although he wasn't officially qualified. He also visited lodging houses and spoke to prostitutes and like Lechmere can be connected to Nichols; so too can Barnardo be linked to Stride. He identified her and confirmed by his own admission that she was present in the kitchen of the lodging house.

So Barnardo has anatomical and surgical skills, is known to have visited the slum areas to spread the word and can be placed in the same room as Stride was, meaning that he visited her lodgings. He came forward and identified her but because he was a man of God, he was never questioned by the police. Not forgetting of course that Stride was a botched job by all accounts and so it may have been too much of a temptation to at least see what he managed to achieve in the few seconds he had with her before he had to flee.

There is no consensus on surgical skill. That says a lot on its own.

imply that he was a rather quiet and passive man.

I'm less and less convinced this was the case.

I would say that he is EXACTLY the kind of person we are looking for

As a circumstantial case goes, what is there of any substance to suggest he was the killer? Zero. Poor as Lech is, I think the circumstantial case is better, even if I rate his chances of being the ripper as tiny.

above

[The Rookie Detective]

above

Another brilliant and measured response and there's a lot to pick out there. (bearing in mind that i'm only sharing a hypothesis and not a theory)


What I would say regarding the hatred for prostitutes versus the hatred for women argument, is that while all of the victims were indeed women first and foremost, they were also all prostitutes. Bearing in mind that I'm not just talking about the canonical 5, as i believe there's at least another 4 victims to add to that list.

The fact they were all prostitutes has to mean something more than just they were easier pickings and accessible for slaughter.

I think it was a case of BOTH

The way that he cut and mutilated them, he was making a display, a statement to expose his victims and show the world how he saw them. His primary area of focus was the womb and so the idea that they were all (not including Kelly) approaching the end of their capacity to have children, was also a reflection of how he was disgusted by their actions; the act associated with having lots of different men within a relatively short period of time.

The placement of the intestines over the right shoulder represented the killer wanting to show that the women were a burden unto themselves by being prostitutes, a social and moral statement.

With Kelly it was different though. He was given time to create his own masterpiece of expression and what he displayed with Kelly is a mirror to his mind. The fact that MJK came into prostitution late on relative to the other victims, is also rather telling. It wasn't a case of killing her because she was a woman, he was punishing her for choosing a life of prostitution at such a young age. She was young and fertile compared to the others and that's the reason why he dehumanized her completely.

SO i agree with you in part, but i think we can't just dismiss the fact that every victim was a prostitute.

By dismissing the prostitute angle, we take away part of the killer's motive and thought processes. If it was just about killing women, he would have killed his wife, his mother, his daughters and the local barmaids etc...
By targeting prostitutes it's more of a social statement and also fits in more with written correspondences to Mr Lusk etc...

I do see your point though but i think that eradicating the idea he killed prostitutes, because they were prostitutes, when they were all prostitutes, is somewhat regressive.

And i also take your point about the Freemasons... Having him become part of a secret fraternal organization that included high-ranking police and officials wouldn't be a reasonable line of inquiry and wouldn't explain at all why Barnardo wasn't ever questioned.

But i digress...


At least we can all agree that MJK didn't commit suicide.

[The Rookie Detective]

And in terms of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge.

Let's take Eddowes...

It would be practically impossible to inflict the sheer number of cuts, stabs and wounds to the degree at which the killer managed, within a 4-minute window, in the dark with adrenaline pumping, police everywhere and a limited number of escape routes.

The fact he managed to inflict those wounds on Eddowes the way he did and within a time frame that couldn't have exceeded 5 minutes, it is folly to say that the killer had no anatomical knowledge and didn't possess any skills with a knife.

Even a top senior modern surgeon would find it a struggle to achieve what JTR achieved in such a short time frame.

Of course, opinion was divided at the time, but once doubt was raised, it helped the killer evade further scrutiny as having had surgical knowledge.

The killer had some knowledge, but wouldn't want the world to think he was a surgeon because it would have been too obvious.


Let's take Les Dawson for example.
He was an amazing piano player and he brought comedy to proceedings by playing a few dodgy notes.
But you wouldn't assume he couldn't play the piano because he made a few comedic and deliberate mistakes.

The same applies to JTR. If anything he needed to hide that he had anatomical and surgical knowledge. There's no way he would have inflicted those wounds in the way he did without having any knowledge.

At the time, those who claimed the killer didn't have any anatomical or surgical knowledge had their own agenda and it only served to murky the waters.


Has anyone ever reconstructed a test where they get a surgeon to inflict wounds on a mock-up human-like doll in the pitch black in under 4 minutes and then run off without getting blood on them or raising an alarm?

The killer was methodical, knowledgeable and knew his way around the inside of the female anatomy.

Or we can say he didn't and then not work on the percentage of probability.


The piece of cloth cut from Eddowes had his own blood on it, hence why it was discarded. He cut himself and so maybe he didn't know how to use a knife after all?

Nonsense.

He mastered the use of his knives and that has to be considered when looking for evidence.

[Aethelwulf]

What I would say regarding the hatred for prostitutes versus the hatred for women argument, is that while all of the victims were indeed women first and foremost, they were also all prostitutes. Bearing in mind that I'm not just talking about the canonical 5, as i believe there's at least another 4 victims to add to that list.

The fact they were all prostitutes has to mean something more than just they were easier pickings and accessible for slaughter.

I think it was a case of BOTH

Just my opinion but I think you're wrong on this. Looking at the history of male serial killers who kill women - it's vulnerable women, prostitutes, hitch hikers, women out and about alone and vulnerable to being either attacked by surprise or picked up. In the ripper's case all he wanted was to get women into secluded locations to attack and mutilate them. Logically, the only women that would fit this bill are prostitutes. There is a reason serial killers target known red light areas - vulnerable women.

how he was disgusted by their actions; the act associated with having lots of different men within a relatively short period of time.

The placement of the intestines over the right shoulder represented the killer wanting to show that the women were a burden unto themselves by being prostitutes, a social and moral statement.

Just my opinion but I think you're over complicating things. He hated women, he killed and mutilated women.

With Kelly it was different though. He was given time to create his own masterpiece of expression and what he displayed with Kelly is a mirror to his mind. The fact that MJK came into prostitution late on relative to the other victims, is also rather telling. It wasn't a case of killing her because she was a woman, he was punishing her for choosing a life of prostitution at such a young age. She was young and fertile compared to the others and that's the reason why he dehumanized her completely.

Again, too much. He hated women, Kelly was young and attractive and had friends and no doubt a prime target to take his hatred out on. I strongly suspect he had his eye on her for a while, perhaps from a distance lusting after her, or perhaps he wormed his way into her circle of friends. Perhaps he managed to get her alone for the first time that night. Having got her alone and undisturbed, well we know the rest. Perhaps his get-up that night was to try and hook his ultimate prize by showing himself as more affluent and prosperous than he was.

If it was just about killing women, he would have killed his wife, his mother, his daughters and the local barmaids etc...

As I said, it's about vulnerable women he can get alone. Who was the most vulnerable and ill used woman in this story? A point I made earlier, I think he went on killing and trying to kill until he made a mistake, drawing attention to himself and thus we know about him and his movements.

Final point on attacking vulnerable people. After women he can get alone, who is next? Who is implicitly trusting? Although yes they may be unrelated, don't write off the child murders of Gill and Searle. If he was having trouble getting women alone as it'd got too hot for him, he may have looked elsewhere and at another vulnerable class. Serial killers often move their activity elsewhere.

above

[FriedKidne]

Vanessa A. Hayes' book 'Revelations of the True Ripper' is the one for Dr B. theorists.

PS: Although he claimed to be a doctor when he dropped out of his medical studies n London, he did later complete his training in Edinburgh.

[The Rookie Detective]

I find Dr B very unlikely:

Keeping an open mind, what evidence would there be:
1) alive at the time (sometimes that's enough to be a suspect)
2) about the right age to morph into a serial killer
3) fits various descriptions, especially white collar and cuffs, whiskers.
4) height unknown to me although the 'life-size' cut-out at the ragged school when I visited it suggests he was of short stature.
5) trained briefly as a doctor, at the London Hospital no less
6) worked among the poor of the east end
7) would have been a feature of the east end and unlikely to arouse suspicion (true today)
8) an embroiderer of his title of doctor: some self aggrandisement perhaps? Is this a trait of serial killers?
9) accused of effectively kidnapping children. His justification allegedly that the end justifies the means. Ie maybe slightly lawless(*).
10) father in law to Henry Wellcome, a collector of note, said collection including postmortem implements and foreign daggers. Although his relationship with Henry was poor.

Against which:
1) major philanthropist,
2) respected Victorian man,
3) lived long after the end of the Autumn of Terror,
4) no known allegations of viciousness or moral turpitude
/

(*) I think it was Shaw that suggested whatever the ripper wanted, his actions brought the plight of unfortunates to the attention of the general public and generated concern and empathy. But I doubt the ripper had such motives!

Dupin

It appears that Dr Thomas Barnardo was charged with an alleged assault on Eliza Whitbread after an altercation on the 28th July 1888.
While it's nowhere near the level of violence that the ripper exerted, it does however show that he DID have the capacity for violence against women who didn't do as they were told.

If he was the sort of man who could physically assault a woman by attacking her breast/chest, then he is the kind of man who is capable of physical violence to a greater degree.

It means that your list AGAINST Dr Barnardo having a chance of being the killer now only includes (based on your list) that he was a...

Major philanthropist
Respected Victorian gentleman

Your point number 3 is arguable because if we include the murders of 1889 into the mix of victims, then there may have been other victims after which have yet to be considered and so his death in 1905 isn't too late after the end of the potential list of victims.

In other words, the common 'canonical 5' argument that the killings needed to have stopped after MJK because she was the pinicle of his work, is very misleading and then shuts out the wider investigation into future victims like McKenzie and Coles.


So based on your against list...

his defense is that he was a respected gent and did good work through his philanthropy.

However, there are also reports that he quite an overpowering character and based on him wanting people to refer to him as "Dr Barnardo," he wasn't actually a qualified doctor because he quit early to follow his community work. He may have subsequently qualified in Edinburgh years after the murders, but at the time he claimed to be a 'DR' and clearly wasn't.
This choice shows deceit by proxy and indicates he had the capacity for social deceit by claiming to be someone he wasn't.
Wanting to be called by a different first name or surname (like Lechnere) is not as deceitful as wanting everyone to refer to you as a "DR"

Furthermore, being known as an upstanding gentleman who does a lot of community work is NOT a good enough reason to dismiss Barnardo as a suspect.
Take Jimmy Savile for example...
He raised awareness to the plight of children
He raised millions of pounds for charities and good causes.
He was a much loved public personality...

And yet he was one of the most evil men to have walked this earth, a man who abused innocent children and pulled the wool over the public's eyes.

Just because a person is known or remembered for having done something good (like Barnardo's saving children) doesn't mean that they are above scrutiny.

The reality is that Barnardo is automatically dismissed because he helped children and did a lot of good work in the community... But that shouldn't automatically mean he can't be taken seriously as a suspect.


When you have a man who

Had medical and surgical knowledge
Had anatomical knowledge
Had a fascination with anatomy
Claimed to be a doctor when he wasn't qualified (technically a charlatan)
Lived in the area of East and North London the entire time the murders took place
Studied and worked at the London Hospital in Whitechapel before he quit medicine for community work
Found 'God' - became a preacher, and then toured the area becoming familiar with the slums
FIt the physical description of the ripper based on multiple witness accounts
Wanted to change the slums at a community level by showing the people the error of their ways (prostitutes)
Was Irish (ripper letter) with German Jewish ancestry (GSG/ripper letters)
43 years old at time of murders
Charged with alleged assault
Known for being overbearing
Visited multiple common lodging houses on a regular basis to talk to prostitutes.
Spoke to Stride and other at the lodging house she was staying at shortly before she died
Visited Stride post mortem to identify her body as one of the women he saw during his visit
Became a member of the Freemasons in London in November 1889 shortly before Coles (arguably the last victim)
Could walk around the slums with impunity as a so called man of God.
Gained an amount of social protection from becoming a Freemason as it included high ranking public officials
Accused of effectively kidnapping (allegedly) children for the sake of giving them a better life (away from their destitute/prostitute mother's)
Had a secluded upbringing and known for being the quiet child amongst his family unit
Suffered from bouts of mental ill health as stated by his wife.

All of the above act at the very least as a validation to consider him as a suspect

Whether it's unpopular or inconvenient to have him on the list of suspects, to disregard him is to pursue a subjective and regressive agenda

Helping children and doing good in the community is NOT a good enough reason to discount him.

He had the means, method and opportunity and should be scrutinized in more detail.

I'm NOT stating he was the ripper, but I am stating that.I have yet to see a valid reason to disregard him or a valid reason against him being the ripper.

So...thoughts and inevitable onslaught please?...