Dr B

[Lewis C]

Hi Abby,

I essentially agree with what you said about motive, but that's one of the very reasons why I think Barnardo is a longshot. RD did give a motive for him, and I doubt that the motive he gave was JtR's motive, which I believe was sexual.

Barnardo's age fits with the witness descriptions given by Long and Marshall, but if you take all of the witness descriptions, I'd say early 30's is what is most typical.

I don't think that "You'd say anything but your prayers" is really a religious comment. To me it sounds more like an amusing way of telling Stride that she was full of baloney.

So I have doubts about these parts of the theory, but I wouldn't rule him out, and anyone that's a reasonable possibility is worth looking into.

yeah possibly not really needs to be overtly religious, but maybe. i think the conversation probably went as such:

stride: your not the ripper are you. (half joking)
man: you never know.(also half joking)
stride: well id better say my prayers.
man: you would say anything than your prayers.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I think that's plausible.

[Aethelwulf]

Exceptional and completely brilliant post because it's all based on factual evidence that can be verified.

With the woman he pushed, it was an open palmed two handed shove to her breasts which made her fall backwards.
A witness remarked to the woman about being hurt

And Barnardo attempted the same thing again, only the 2nd time he hardly made contact, despite the intent to harm her being there.

He was a narcissistic overpowering bully who always wanted to get his own way and had no real compassion for the women of the slums because he admitted to abducting their children in a bid to rescue them from their life in the slums as some form of religious evangelical quest.
And as you say he DID fit the description of the man seen with Stride who made the comment ...

"You'd say anything but your prayers"

Barnardo is absolutely a person of interest and I admire and appreciate Abby for stating fact despite how the idea of claiming Barnardo as a person of interest may seem inappropriate because he helped save/abduct children


RD[/QUOTE/]

Fair play Rookie I think Dr B was certainly an odd bod and has some interesting background. Not someone I'd heard of before so interesting to read. I'm fairly sure he wasn't the ripper - you know where my thoughts are on that.

[Lewis C]

Hi RD,

I found something on pp. 142 & 143 of Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper The Facts that might interest you. First, he quotes (I think in full) Barnardo's letter to The Times of October 6, 1888. I'm guessing that you've already seen that. It's Begg's paragraph after quoting the letter that I thought would be more likely to be of interest. It reads:

If Dr Barnardo was correct and Stride was among the women in the kitchen then she had gone to 32 Flower and Dean Street on 26 September, but the deputy there said specifically that Stride had stayed there 'only on Thursday and Friday nights', so it remains to be seen whether Dr Barnardo was mistaken or not.

The citation for that paragraph is Daily Telegraph, 4 October 1888.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

I found something on pp. 142 & 143 of Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper The Facts that might interest you. First, he quotes (I think in full) Barnardo's letter to The Times of October 6, 1888. I'm guessing that you've already seen that. It's Begg's paragraph after quoting the letter that I thought would be more likely to be of interest. It reads:

If Dr Barnardo was correct and Stride was among the women in the kitchen then she had gone to 32 Flower and Dean Street on 26 September, but the deputy there said specifically that Stride had stayed there 'only on Thursday and Friday nights', so it remains to be seen whether Dr Barnardo was mistaken or not.

The citation for that paragraph is Daily Telegraph, 4 October 1888.

Thank you for that, that's a brilliant find!

That does suggest that Barnardo could have been mistaken about his identification of Stride.

In a way though, it does make the idea of him going to see the body at the mortuary; presumably to see if she was one of the unfortunates he had spoken with recently, a little more questionable than I'd initially thought.

I say that because there would be less mystery if he simply visited the mortuary and then correctly identified her as one of the women present in the kitchen at 32 Flower and Dean Street on the Wednesday 26th, because it would make more sense if he said she was there and Stride was in fact there and he was correct in his identification, ergo, why potentially implicate himself by creating a link between him and the victim?

However, for him to have claimed that Stride was there on Wednesday night, but for him to have been mistaken and she wasn't actually there on the night he visited, (but she HAD STAYED there on the following 2 nights on Thursday 27th and Friday 28th) then it could be perceived as though HE ALREADY KNEW before visiting the mortuary that Stride had stayed at 32 Flower and Dean Street AFTER he had visited, and so had also assumed she was there on the night he visited (Wednesday) because he had some knowledge of her having stayed at the lodging house BETWEEN him visiting on Wednesday and her murder a few days later.

So my question is; if he WAS mistaken, then how did he know that Stride HAD stayed there at 32 Flower and Dean Street IF she wasn't there on the Wednesday night he visited?

He either...
...identifies her correctly and she was there during his visit - the smallest mystery
...he doesn't identify her because she wasn't there when he visited - no mystery

Or... he visits the mortuary and recognizes her, identifying her as one of the 'unfortunates' present at the time he visits 32 Flower and Dean Street...but he is mistaken because Stride wasn't there until the following 2 nights when he wasn't there... meaning there's a very big coincidence that he incorrectly identifies a woman who he claims was at the lodging house he visited, but she actually ends up staying at the SAME lodging house the following 2 nights leading up to her murder.

Now that is rather suspicious.



thoughts?


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Lewis/ RD,

I have Morley’s book which contains a sizeable 5 page entry on Barnado. By comparison Joseph Barnett gets 7½ pages. Cross gets only 3 pages (which is a bit surprising given the current interest) as does Levy. Weirdly Macnaghten gets nearly 4 pages!

I’ll give a summary of what’s written on Barnado for those that don’t have the book.


First suggested by McCormick in 1962 (first point against him being the ripper) then Rowland in 1999 and Hayes in 2006.

Rowland suggests TB’s lonely childhood and religious zeal as motives and that he only stopped because of a swimming pool accident which left him totally deaf.

Hayes points are - he had medical training, he was familiar with the area, he’d been in America which might explain Americanisms like “Boss.” He was a recognisable figure known for his charity work, visited doss houses urging prostitutes to place their children in his care.

Then close to two whole pages are taken up with a letter that he wrote to The Times on October 6th regarding his visit to 32 Flower And Dean Street. When he saw Stride at the mortuary he recognised her as one of the women that he’d seen there.

Then there’s a paragraph on his birth, family etc. it’s suggested that he was an ‘unattractive child’ unlike his ‘cherubic’ and talented younger brother Henry Lionel. It’s suggests that Thomas was kept hidden away whilst his brother was shown off. After leaving school he became a clerk and joined various Christian associations including becoming a Sunday school teacher.

Living in Dublin he trawled the backstreets and pubs Bible in hand despite the abuse that he received. Often being mobbed and pelted with refuse..so he didn’t lack courage. He left to go to London to train as a missionary lodging at 30, Coburn Street in the East End. In Nov 1867 he registered as a student at the London Hospital where it was said that he had a keen interest in anatomy. He never actually qualified though and went back to religion and when his attempt to start a mission in the East End failed he had the first of several nervous breakdowns. March 1868 he founded his East End juvenile mission in two cottages in Limehouse. In 1870 he opened his home for underprivileged boys at 18 Stepney Causeway where boys were trained in a trade. He would also go out at night, lantern in hand, rescuing children sleeping rough. He next built a home for girls. In 1874 he opened a photographic department in his Stepney boys home and over the next 30 every child was photographed that entered one of his homes then again several months later after they had improved after their experiences. Some critics claimed that he staged the photographs to make the children look more ragged and so gain more support and donations. Barnado strenuously denied this. During his life he was said to have helped 60,000 children.

In 1888 he was 43, 5ft 3 inches tall and with a heavy moustache. He lived at 106 Devon’s Street. In November 1889 he became a Freemason Shadwell Clerke Lodge No. 1910. There’s a record of him arriving back from NY in Liverpool on the Teutonic in October 1893. He ignored doctors orders to rest and died of angina aged 60 on September 19th 1905. Buried in Tanners Lane Cemetery he left £13485 5s 10d in his will.

…..

Probably nothing there that you couldn’t have found on Wiki but I thought I’d post it all the same for anyone that doesn’t have the Morley book.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Lewis/ RD,

I have Morley’s book which contains a sizeable 5 page entry on Barnado. By comparison Joseph Barnett gets 7½ pages. Cross gets only 3 pages (which is a bit surprising given the current interest) as does Levy. Weirdly Macnaghten gets nearly 4 pages!

I’ll give a summary of what’s written on Barnado for those that don’t have the book.


First suggested by McCormick in 1962 (first point against him being the ripper) then Rowland in 1999 and Hayes in 2006.

Rowland suggests TB’s lonely childhood and religious zeal as motives and that he only stopped because of a swimming pool accident which left him totally deaf.

Hayes points are - he had medical training, he was familiar with the area, he’d been in America which might explain Americanisms like “Boss.” He was a recognisable figure known for his charity work, visited doss houses urging prostitutes to place their children in his care.

Then close to two whole pages are taken up with a letter that he wrote to The Times on October 6th regarding his visit to 32 Flower And Dean Street. When he saw Stride at the mortuary he recognised her as one of the women that he’d seen there.

Then there’s a paragraph on his birth, family etc. it’s suggested that he was an ‘unattractive child’ unlike his ‘cherubic’ and talented younger brother Henry Lionel. It’s suggests that Thomas was kept hidden away whilst his brother was shown off. After leaving school he became a clerk and joined various Christian associations including becoming a Sunday school teacher.

Living in Dublin he trawled the backstreets and pubs Bible in hand despite the abuse that he received. Often being mobbed and pelted with refuse..so he didn’t lack courage. He left to go to London to train as a missionary lodging at 30, Coburn Street in the East End. In Nov 1867 he registered as a student at the London Hospital where it was said that he had a keen interest in anatomy. He never actually qualified though and went back to religion and when his attempt to start a mission in the East End failed he had the first of several nervous breakdowns. March 1868 he founded his East End juvenile mission in two cottages in Limehouse. In 1870 he opened his home for underprivileged boys at 18 Stepney Causeway where boys were trained in a trade. He would also go out at night, lantern in hand, rescuing children sleeping rough. He next built a home for girls. In 1874 he opened a photographic department in his Stepney boys home and over the next 30 every child was photographed that entered one of his homes then again several months later after they had improved after their experiences. Some critics claimed that he staged the photographs to make the children look more ragged and so gain more support and donations. Barnado strenuously denied this. During his life he was said to have helped 60,000 children.

In 1888 he was 43, 5ft 3 inches tall and with a heavy moustache. He lived at 106 Devon’s Street. In November 1889 he became a Freemason Shadwell Clerke Lodge No. 1910. There’s a record of him arriving back from NY in Liverpool on the Teutonic in October 1893. He ignored doctors orders to rest and died of angina aged 60 on September 19th 1905. Buried in Tanners Lane Cemetery he left £13485 5s 10d in his will.

…..

Probably nothing there that you couldn’t have found on Wiki but I thought I’d post it all the same for anyone that doesn’t have the Morley book.

That's great, thank you Herlock!

I was aware of most of that information, but it's still great to see it written down in context, so i appreciate you taking the time to confirm all of that info on Barnardo.

I knew he went to America (and certainly Canada) but I was unaware of when he returned or which vessel he traveled on to return to England.

It would be interesting to find a date that he had his accident which made him go deaf. That in itself greatly reduces the chances of him having been the ripper if you're a non-canonical 5 believer.

I personally think that McKenzie was a ripper victim and so that may not fit with Barnardo going deaf.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's great, thank you Herlock!

I was aware of most of that information, but it's still great to see it written down in context, so i appreciate you taking the time to confirm all of that info on Barnardo.

I knew he went to America (and certainly Canada) but I was unaware of when he returned or which vessel he traveled on to return to England.

It would be interesting to find a date that he had his accident which made him go deaf. That in itself greatly reduces the chances of him having been the ripper if you're a non-canonical 5 believer.

I personally think that McKenzie was a ripper victim and so that may not fit with Barnardo going deaf.


RD

I could only find three mentions of deafness after a very quick look around. Morley and Wiki are virtually identical in saying that the accident occurred just after Kelly. And in the article below which has a book excerpt which says that he was often quite deaf. Was that before or after the accident? If it was after the accident does this mean that it only made him sporadically deaf? Either way I don’t see it as important in regard to whether he was JTR or not.

https://www.writingcities.com/2015/10/21/dr-barnardo-of-stepney/

[Lewis C]

I could only find three mentions of deafness after a very quick look around. Morley and Wiki are virtually identical in saying that the accident occurred just after Kelly. And in the article below which has a book excerpt which says that he was often quite deaf. Was that before or after the accident? If it was after the accident does this mean that it only made him sporadically deaf? Either way I don’t see it as important in regard to whether he was JTR or not.

https://www.writingcities.com/2015/1...do-of-stepney/

Hi Herlock,

Morley's book and the Wiki article about Barnardo both cite Gary Rowland's chapter in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper for the claim that Barnardo went deaf shortly after the Kelly murder. Do you happen to own that book too? If so, could you (or anyone else reading this) check to see if there's a citation in it for Rowland's claim?

You mentioned that in Morley's book, Barnardo's October 6 letter to The Times takes up close to 2 whole pages. That tells me that what I saw in Begg's book must have been an excerpt rather than the whole letter, because it only took up about half a page in that book.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Morley's book and the Wiki article about Barnardo both cite Gary Rowland's chapter in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper for the claim that Barnardo went deaf shortly after the Kelly murder. Do you happen to own that book too? If so, could you (or anyone else reading this) check to see if there's a citation in it for Rowland's claim?

You mentioned that in Morley's book, Barnardo's October 6 letter to The Times takes up close to 2 whole pages. That tells me that what I saw in Begg's book must have been an excerpt rather than the whole letter, because it only took up about half a page in that book.

Hi Lewis,

I have the book in front of me now. Rowlands’ chapter is called The Mad Doc and is 23 pages long. There’s no citation I’m afraid. It’s in the final paragraph of the article:

The real reason for the cessation of the murders is far simpler. Shortly after his return to work following the Kelly murder, Barnado had an accident while diving into a swimming pool. He seriously impaired his hearing, rendering him almost totally deaf.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

I have the book in front of me now. Rowlands’ chapter is called The Mad Doc and is 23 pages long. There’s no citation I’m afraid. It’s in the final paragraph of the article:

The real reason for the cessation of the murders is far simpler. Shortly after his return to work following the Kelly murder, Barnado had an accident while diving into a swimming pool. He seriously impaired his hearing, rendering him almost totally deaf.

Thanks Herlock. So it looks like this possible reason for suspecting Barnardo is a dead end, unless someone finds a scholarly biography of Barnardo that documents it. I think it would have counted for something if verified, in the same way that it became impossible for Druitt, Bury, or Cohen to have continued killing soon after the Kelly murder, and that's part of the argument for suspecting each of them.

[Paddy Goose]

Good afternoon Rookie D

In reference to Ed Buckley on that thread you stated to Mr. Tye -

...I believe you have found the ripper, I genuinely do, ...

RD

That being said, happily we can put the 'suspect' Dr B matter to bed.

Wouldn't you agree?

[The Rookie Detective]

Good afternoon Rookie D

In reference to Ed Buckley on that thread you stated to Mr. Tye -



That being said, happily we can put the 'suspect' Dr B matter to bed.

Wouldn't you agree?

Ah, we can never put anything to bed where Dr B is concerned.

He is still a person of interest to me in the Stride Murder


Buckley is a more viable suspect, except that he hasn't been proven to have had any physical connection to any of the murder victims, unlike Barnardo.

Bury
Buckley
Barnardo

All viable persons of interest, all very different in terms of what they bring to the table.

These 3 make up my own personal top 10.

I also favor Le Grand, Thompson, Bachert...the list is fairly extensive.

At my last count, I have an ongoing research list of 22 different persons of interest/suspects.

4 of whom nobody has ever stated as being a potential suspect (to my knowledge)

And 2 of those 4 are completely new individuals. (to my knowledge)


But I can see why you highlighted my previous claim on Barnardo; after I've now claimed I think Buckley was the Ripper.

I still stand by that... loosely.

The key for me is whether or not we can establish the fate of Frances Jones.

If we strip away all the additional data on Buckley, including his countless number of offenses, and focus solely on his specific attacks on Frances Jones; that is the man that I believe fits with the psychology of being the Ripper.

It's the little details that I find the most important.

He wrote a letter to Frances, requesting a meeting on London Bridge...only for him to stab her in the abdomen with a knife by the railway arch.

He took the time to lock the bedroom door from the inside, before he attacked Frances on her bed and deliberately cut her with a knife, marking her from her nose to her left cheek.

He punched her in the face in front of multiple witnesses.


When you look at the behavior he expressed in each of those incidents, there are obvious similarities with the Ripper murders.

Added to the fact he lived just yards away from 29 Hanbury Street, at the coffee house situated at 14 Hanbury Street, is also interesting because he would of had the opportunity to means to murder Chapman and simply walk back across the road to number 14.

Could the reason why Chapman's TOD is likely later than the other Canonical victims; be because the killer of Chapman lived very close and therefore required far less post-murder time to return back to his dwellings?



As for Barnardo...I wouldn't completely put his case to bed, because he still has a lot of red flags that are still worth looking at.


RD