Dr B

[The Rookie Detective]

*Transferred from another thread...



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]

*Transferred from another thread...



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?

hi rd
fascinating thread. first of all, just because he was an apparently upstanding member of community, religious, and was doing philanthropy in no way can rule him out and the idea is ridiculous on the face of it (and this comes from someone who is religious and is active member of my church.) bundy seemed like a good guy, studying to be a lawyer, rader was an active member of his church, the gsk was a cop investigating his own crimes, even the latest LISK seemed to be an upstanding citizen, married no criminal record.

the fact that Dr B was abducting children seems to indicate an above the law mentality and extremely arrogant personality.

The assault against the prostitute/ woman is interesting, because it indicates an inclination of violence and dislike of that class of woman.
reminds me of many serial killers of prostitutes including ridgeway, who made the excuse that they were bad women anyway and he was doing society a favor or something to that affect.

For me location, proximity and connection to the case is a big one(as it should be) in the validity of a suspect. Imho if you cant place someone in london, let alone the country, a suspect you do not really have. The closer you can place a suspect to tje case and specifically with a victim, the better. And Bernardo certainly has that going for him.

He has medical and surgical experience and for me thats also very relevant, as ive always thought the ripper had. There was a poster on here recently who was a surgeon by the name of Prosector, who def thought the ripper had surgical skill evidenced by the wounds on the victim. there were many at the time who thought the ripper had medical skill and police were looking for various medical students.

As ive always said, all the ripper suspects are weak, some just less weak than others. Given all the circumstantial evidence, Bernardo is not that bad of a suspect, and definitely warrants looking into.

Ill leave you with the words witness Marshall heard the ripper say to Stride... "You would say anything but your prayers." sounds like something an overtly religious, arrogant Dr B would say.

[Losmandris]

Really interesting thread! Raises some interesting points. Inclined not to suspect Dr B. but all things taken into account there is always that slim margin of possibility. Worth exploring at least.

[The Rookie Detective]

hi rd
fascinating thread. first of all, just because he was an apparently upstanding member of community, religious, and was doing philanthropy in no way can rule him out and the idea is ridiculous on the face of it (and this comes from someone who is religious and is active member of my church.) bundy seemed like a good guy, studying to be a lawyer, rader was an active member of his church, the gsk was a cop investigating his own crimes, even the latest LISK seemed to be an upstanding citizen, married no criminal record.

the fact that Dr B was abducting children seems to indicate an above the law mentality and extremely arrogant personality.

The assault against the prostitute/ woman is interesting, because it indicates an inclination of violence and dislike of that class of woman.
reminds me of many serial killers of prostitutes including ridgeway, who made the excuse that they were bad women anyway and he was doing society a favor or something to that affect.

For me location, proximity and connection to the case is a big one(as it should be) in the validity of a suspect. Imho if you cant place someone in london, let alone the country, a suspect you do not really have. The closer you can place a suspect to tje case and specifically with a victim, the better. And Bernardo certainly has that going for him.

He has medical and surgical experience and for me thats also very relevant, as ive always thought the ripper had. There was a poster on here recently who was a surgeon by the name of Prosector, who def thought the ripper had surgical skill evidenced by the wounds on the victim. there were many at the time who thought the ripper had medical skill and police were looking for various medical students.

As ive always said, all the ripper suspects are weak, some just less weak than others. Given all the circumstantial evidence, Bernardo is not that bad of a suspect, and definitely warrants looking into.

Ill leave you with the words witness Marshall heard the ripper say to Stride... "You would say anything but your prayers." sounds like something an overtly religious, arrogant Dr B would say.

Absolutely fascinating!

Thank you for highlighting the comment that a witness heard the ripper say to Stride, that is very interesting indeed, particularly within the context of my hypothesis (NOT a theory of course) about Barnardo.

In the back of my mind, I had heard of that, but I must confess that I am less familiar with the murder of Stride than all the other 'Canonical 5' and so up until you mentioned it specifically in your previous post, I had not made the connection and hadn't realized the potential implication of that particular chosen use of words.
If the killer said the word "prayers" then that is quite a specific choice of word.
I appreciate that anyone can say the word "Prayers" but I would suggest that a person who actively preaches would be statistically more likely to USE the word than someone with no faith.

Even more significant is that Barnardo himself confirmed that Stride had been one of the women in the room (lodging house kitchen) during his talk.

Those 2 facts coupled together make for a particularly interesting hypothesis.


One other thing that I need to just clarify...
On the 28th July 1888, Barnardo was summoned to court for the alleged assault on a young woman called Eliza Whitbread.

At the time she was trying to defend her father who was being lifted up by iron bars (literally) by a group of "Barnardos Boys"
It was a dispute over a public access/right of way by the railway arch near his "Ragged Home" for boys... and Barnardo was heard to be verbally encouraging his supporters to lift him higher.

When his daughter Eliza tried to intervene, he rushed at her and struck her in the chest, which knocked her backward.

When she refused to move, he did it again... but this time the contact was minimal (although the intent was there)

The assault WAS proven, BUT I have no idea of the outcome of the court case.

What strikes me is that a so-called preacher of faith can openly express any degree of physical violence.

Based on the very little amount of written evidence, he was clearly capable of violence, he was controlling, he was known for being "overbearing", he didn't like people not doing what they were told, he was an unqualified doctor who insisted he was addressed as "DR". He lied and used his charm and social power to avoid sentencing from 88 separate court appearances and admitted to kidnapping children from their destitute mothers/parents.

However, Eliza Whitbread was NOT a prostitute, and so his proven assault on her (Not convicted for whatever reason) highlights his willingness to be physically aggressive towards women.

The confirmed assault on Eliza Whitbread, therefore, does NOT relate to hate for prostitutes; but merely confirms his willingness and capacity for violence against women who disobey him.


I thought it important to make that distinction.

I believe he sounds like a tyrant in the making and the more I look and the deeper I dig, the more questions arise.

All it would take would be for a small group of fellow case-bookers to mount a full-scale research assault and I'm convinced that more would come to light.


Can you imagine if Barnardos DID kill Stride...it doesn't necessarily make him the ripper, but there's just something about him that makes me question exactly why he went to identify Stride.

[Abby Normal]

Absolutely fascinating!

Thank you for highlighting the comment that a witness heard the ripper say to Stride, that is very interesting indeed, particularly within the context of my hypothesis (NOT a theory of course) about Barnardo.

In the back of my mind, I had heard of that, but I must confess that I am less familiar with the murder of Stride than all the other 'Canonical 5' and so up until you mentioned it specifically in your previous post, I had not made the connection and hadn't realized the potential implication of that particular chosen use of words.
If the killer said the word "prayers" then that is quite a specific choice of word.
I appreciate that anyone can say the word "Prayers" but I would suggest that a person who actively preaches would be statistically more likely to USE the word than someone with no faith.

Even more significant is that Barnardo himself confirmed that Stride had been one of the women in the room (lodging house kitchen) during his talk.

Those 2 facts coupled together make for a particularly interesting hypothesis.


One other thing that I need to just clarify...
On the 28th July 1888, Barnardo was summoned to court for the alleged assault on a young woman called Eliza Whitbread.

At the time she was trying to defend her father who was being lifted up by iron bars (literally) by a group of "Barnardos Boys"
It was a dispute over a public access/right of way by the railway arch near his "Ragged Home" for boys... and Barnardo was heard to be verbally encouraging his supporters to lift him higher.

When his daughter Eliza tried to intervene, he rushed at her and struck her in the chest, which knocked her backward.

When she refused to move, he did it again... but this time the contact was minimal (although the intent was there)

The assault WAS proven, BUT I have no idea of the outcome of the court case.

What strikes me is that a so-called preacher of faith can openly express any degree of physical violence.

Based on the very little amount of written evidence, he was clearly capable of violence, he was controlling, he was known for being "overbearing", he didn't like people not doing what they were told, he was an unqualified doctor who insisted he was addressed as "DR". He lied and used his charm and social power to avoid sentencing from 88 separate court appearances and admitted to kidnapping children from their destitute mothers/parents.

However, Eliza Whitbread was NOT a prostitute, and so his proven assault on her (Not convicted for whatever reason) highlights his willingness to be physically aggressive towards women.

The confirmed assault on Eliza Whitbread, therefore, does NOT relate to hate for prostitutes; but merely confirms his willingness and capacity for violence against women who disobey him.


I thought it important to make that distinction.

I believe he sounds like a tyrant in the making and the more I look and the deeper I dig, the more questions arise.

All it would take would be for a small group of fellow case-bookers to mount a full-scale research assault and I'm convinced that more would come to light.


Can you imagine if Barnardos DID kill Stride...it doesn't necessarily make him the ripper, but there's just something about him that makes me question exactly why he went to identify Stride.

hi rd
thanks for clarifying that the woman he assaulted wasnt an unfortunate. the main point still stands however of his inclination for violence toward women and his arrogance.

his wanting to see stride may have to do with his closer and longer than usual contact with her vs the rest of the victims. and or because he wasnt able to mutilate her and left her while she was still alive. perhaps he wanted to make sure she was the same woman and that she was in fact dead (and therefore not able to ID him).

[The Rookie Detective]

hi rd
thanks for clarifying that the woman he assaulted wasnt an unfortunate. the main point still stands however of his inclination for violence toward women and his arrogance.

his wanting to see stride may have to do with his closer and longer than usual contact with her vs the rest of the victims. and or because he wasnt able to mutilate her and left her while she was still alive. perhaps he wanted to make sure she was the same woman and that she was in fact dead (and therefore not able to ID him).

One of the most balanced and sensible posts I have read today. I concur with you completely.

I just looked at William Marshall; the suspect you mentioned who overheard the killer (likely)

His description is strengthened by the additional testimonies of John Best and John (Gardener?)


John Best's description is very interesting because it resembles Barnardo.

A height of 5ft 5" - (Barnardo was 5FT 3" without shoes or a hat on)
A dark mustache with no beard - Barnardo had a prominent dark mustache, well kept with no beard.
Well presented and looked like "an Englishman" - Barnardo was Irish (a Dubliner) with German Jewish ancestry. Having a German/English look is similar (because the "English" are ethnically Germanic (Angles)
He was stout - Barnardo was a stout Irishman with German Jew heritage (and Spanish)
He was middle-aged - Barnardo was 43 at the time


In terms of facial appearance, he was fair (light) skinned but with dark hair and mustache and so that does resemble some of the eyewitness descriptions, albeit not ALL the possible sightings.

Certainly close enough to warrant a closer look at some of the other witness descriptions from the other murders.


There's also a possibility for those who believe that Stride WASN'T one of the Canonical 5 AND don't believe the authenticity of the DOUBLE EVENT letters, that Barnardo may have been responsible for Strides murder alone and not the others.

Either way, I think that his likelihood goes up the more you look at him as a potential suspect.


Still looking to find a way to rule him out though, so will keep looking to disprove my hypothesis.

[GBinOz]

He really doesn't seem to be the sort of character we are looking for.

Might I suggest that the Ripper escaped apprehension for that very reason?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Might I suggest that the Ripper escaped apprehension for that very reason?

Yes, of course, that's always going to be true. But there still doesn't seem to be any evidence that he could possibly be the type of character who could do this sort of thing, and I don't think that he even faintly resembles anyone mentioned in the various witness statements.

[Lewis C]

To me, he seems like not one of the stronger suspects, but one that should probably be considered viable. The reasons given here so far for his suspect status that I'd consider valid are that he was in the area at the time, had surgical training, and his wife said that he had bouts of mental illness. Another reason that I haven't seen given here is that he went deaf shortly after the MJK murder, which could explain why the murders stopped (if they did): if he was deaf, he would have been less confident that he could get away. And yet, if McKenzie was a JtR murder, it's not impossible for him to have committed that one.

At 43, he's older than JtR's likely age, but not so old that you can rule him out. I think JtR's motive was that he liked to do it, which doesn't fit with the motive offered for Barnardo. It was common for men of the time to have a mustache, so that doesn't make me suspect him. Given his work and his location, I'm not surprised that he would have known one of the victims.

[Abby Normal]

One of the most balanced and sensible posts I have read today. I concur with you completely.

I just looked at William Marshall; the suspect you mentioned who overheard the killer (likely)

His description is strengthened by the additional testimonies of John Best and John (Gardener?)


John Best's description is very interesting because it resembles Barnardo.

A height of 5ft 5" - (Barnardo was 5FT 3" without shoes or a hat on)
A dark mustache with no beard - Barnardo had a prominent dark mustache, well kept with no beard.
Well presented and looked like "an Englishman" - Barnardo was Irish (a Dubliner) with German Jewish ancestry. Having a German/English look is similar (because the "English" are ethnically Germanic (Angles)
He was stout - Barnardo was a stout Irishman with German Jew heritage (and Spanish)
He was middle-aged - Barnardo was 43 at the time


In terms of facial appearance, he was fair (light) skinned but with dark hair and mustache and so that does resemble some of the eyewitness descriptions, albeit not ALL the possible sightings.

Certainly close enough to warrant a closer look at some of the other witness descriptions from the other murders.


There's also a possibility for those who believe that Stride WASN'T one of the Canonical 5 AND don't believe the authenticity of the DOUBLE EVENT letters, that Barnardo may have been responsible for Strides murder alone and not the others.

Either way, I think that his likelihood goes up the more you look at him as a potential suspect.


Still looking to find a way to rule him out though, so will keep looking to disprove my hypothesis.

hey rd
maybe a fun exercise for you would be to dig up some of the old ripper letters that have a religious bent to them, especially the Moab and Midian letter, and compare to Dr Bs handwriting to see if theres any match.

[The Rookie Detective]

To me, he seems like not one of the stronger suspects, but one that should probably be considered viable. The reasons given here so far for his suspect status that I'd consider valid are that he was in the area at the time, had surgical training, and his wife said that he had bouts of mental illness. Another reason that I haven't seen given here is that he went deaf shortly after the MJK murder, which could explain why the murders stopped (if they did): if he was deaf, he would have been less confident that he could get away. And yet, if McKenzie was a JtR murder, it's not impossible for him to have committed that one.

At 43, he's older than JtR's likely age, but not so old that you can rule him out. I think JtR's motive was that he liked to do it, which doesn't fit with the motive offered for Barnardo. It was common for men of the time to have a mustache, so that doesn't make me suspect him. Given his work and his location, I'm not surprised that he would have known one of the victims.

I did hear about Barnardo's going deaf shortly after MJK was murdered, after an accident at a swimming pool...

BUT...

I chose not to include amongst my 20+ reasons to consider him a person of interest because find no evidence to corroborate that story and so because I couldn't prove the claim myself, I omitted it.

Can you therefore confirm where this particular story of him going deaf stems from and/or how I can corroborate that to add it to the list of Pros?

Please bear in mind that ALL of those 22+ PROS I listed are proven factual based data from multiple sources, ergo I only list what is definitive.

if he did go deaf then that may explain the reason why there was a drop off after MJK was slain.
Personally I feel that he also killed McKenzie at the very least and the idea that his most horrific kill had to have been his last kill, is a way to bring some kind of psychological closure to events.
In reality, the chances are that the killings didn't just stop with MJK as I don't believe that he chose to end just because he had no where to go after the utter obliteration of MJK.

Ironically IF he did go deaf shortly after MJK was killed, I feel that goes against him as a suspect because I believe he killed at least twice after MJK

I believe he killed Coles... Which happened just a few months after Dr B was officially accepted into the Freemasons.

It's interesting that the Freemasons also included...

Sir Charles Warren
Donald Swanson

and the coroners...

Wynne Batxer
Henry Crawford


Plus various other high ranking officials

Could the murders have stopped or been nullified through Dr B becoming a Freemason? A secret fraternal organisation comprising men in positions of power and privilege.

Bearing in mind that this organisation would have been sworn to protect each others interests and so if it was later discovered that Dr B was the killer, there's a strong possibility that...

Well...it was swept under the carpet.

After all, he did help and save a lot of children from a life of misery.

Now I'm not usually the one for conspiracy theories because in nearly every example, it's all codswallop... But there's just something about Barnardo that puts me at unease.

What if the murders continued?

And we just never heard about them.


Thoughts?

[The Rookie Detective]

hey rd
maybe a fun exercise for you would be to dig up some of the old ripper letters that have a religious bent to them, especially the Moab and Midian letter, and compare to Dr Bs handwriting to see if theres any match.

Yes I had thought that, but what's really interesting is that its proving particularly hard to find his handwriting.

The Moab and Midian letter is a dead end because the only version ever to be seen is transcribed by Thomas Bulling (suspected of being the real author of Dear Boss and Saucy Jack).
It's therefore impossible to know about Moab and Midian letter because it's only a transcription and the original may never had existed in the first place.

in terms of Barnardo's handwriting, I have found his signature which is interesting in itself.

And a letter which was written to a woman called Mrs Wyburn in 1882; thanking her for her contribution etc...

BUT I can't be sure if her wrote the letter in 3rd person context or whether it was written by his clerk and he had just simply added his signature at the end.

If he did write the letter then it would seem odd writing in the 3rd person, although the only reference to who wrote the letter is his own signature at the bottom.

If he did write the letter, then I think you'll find it particularly interesting because I believe the handwriting is very similar to the Dear Boss letter.

I'm no expert but if you get chance, have a look at the letter sent to Mrs Wyburn and IF you feel he did write it to her in 3rd person, then compare it with Dear Boss and see what you think.

I find it interesting and somewhat strange how a man who wrote letter after letter after letter...there's hardly any evidence as to his handwriting from what I can find.

It may just be I am dreadful researcher and so if there's anyone who is able to find proof of his handwriting, then please share accordingly on this thread.

We have his signature...and that's about it.

Not much to go on

[Herlock Sholmes]

*Transferred from another thread...

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?!

The book is called Revelations Of The True Ripper by Vanessa A. Hayes and it’s sitting on the table next to me as I type. I knew that I had it somewhere but it took me a few minutes to find it as it wasn’t with the rest of my ripper books for some reason. I know that I read it when I bought it but I really can’t remember anything about the contents other than I didn’t come away saying “game over.” It might be worth a re-read at some point though.

You can get a copy on Amazon for around £3.

[The Rookie Detective]

The book is called Revelations Of The True Ripper by Vanessa A. Hayes and it’s sitting on the table next to me as I type. I knew that I had it somewhere but it took me a few minutes to find it as it wasn’t with the rest of my ripper books for some reason. I know that I read it when I bought it but I really can’t remember anything about the contents other than I didn’t come away saying “game over.” It might be worth a re-read at some point though.

You can get a copy on Amazon for around £3.

That's great, thank you for that Herlock.


I think it's one of those books I need to read, so that I can be dissuaded from my hypothesis that he's the mastermind behind all of this.

I've always wondered why the most successful serial killer of all time (because he never got caught and we're all still discussing the case 135 years later) seemingly went into obscurity and his identity fades into history without ever being known.

One of the biggest thrills for a serial killer is for them to be found out for those crimes, to be known for what they did and to be remembered long after they're gone.

What's the point if no-one knows who you are or what you've done?

But maybe we do know him and maybe his legacy lives on through the work he did to save the children.

The only serial killer in history to be remembered for doing good because that's the part society is shown and what he's remembered for...and yet his darker side was unknown and yet still talked about today.

I mean, I m not saying I think he was the killer because I'm still at the point that I want to .be proven wrong.

I did read another post somewhere on this forum that suggests a local Dr was arrested on the night of one of the murders, and then questioned, but he was let go after providing an alibi. However, I can find NO reference to this since and so I can't verify that's true?

If it is true, then I'd like to take a closer look at that claim.


As a slight aside, I found a photo of Barnardo at his desk facing the camera... But it's not the one that springs up when you search and I had to dig to find it.
There appears to be a rather odd looking painting on the wall behind him featuring 3 women who look distressed by something.
it just struck me as a bit out of place next to his other possessions.
It's worth zooming in and having a look.


I don't think I'm allowed to upload the photo on here because of copyright infringement and so I won't take the risk of getting into trouble.

If however I am allowed to upload a photo of a person of interest then I can post it onto the thread accordingly.

[Lewis C]

I did hear about Barnardo's going deaf shortly after MJK was murdered, after an accident at a swimming pool...

BUT...

I chose not to include amongst my 20+ reasons to consider him a person of interest because find no evidence to corroborate that story and so because I couldn't prove the claim myself, I omitted it.

Can you therefore confirm where this particular story of him going deaf stems from and/or how I can corroborate that to add it to the list of Pros?

Please bear in mind that ALL of those 22+ PROS I listed are proven factual based data from multiple sources, ergo I only list what is definitive.

Christopher Morley's Suspect Guide and the Wiki article about Barnardo both cite Gary Rowland's chapter in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper for this claim. It's a secondary source, and one that I don't own, so to be confident that this claim is accurate, one would need to check the book for Rowland's citation.