Dr B

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

That's great, thank you kindly for that. I will look to do that asap

[Lewis C]

That's great, thank you kindly for that. I will look to do that asap

You're welcome. I'll be interested in knowing what Rowlands' source is. BTW, I seem to have gotten his name wrong in my last post. Apparently it's Rowlands, not Rowland.

[The Rookie Detective]

I found another piece of evidence which I have just found regarding Dr B.

He was due to attend a New Year's Celebration event just after the New Year 1891 (January)

But he didn't attend the annual event in Limehouse London, because he was incapacitated due to having recently broken 2 of his ribs.

This is only stated by his wife as an explanation for his absence, as she tells others at the event that he has just broken 2 of his ribs and is incapacitated.


Frances Coles was murdered just a month later.


If Dr B was the ripper, could he have recovered from 2 broken ribs in around 5 weeks?

Does the broken ribs story help to clear him from being the killer?


Not sure how he received the 2 broken ribs


Thoughts?


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just before I put Revelations Of The True Ripper back on the shelf I thought I’d post what Hayes put as the ‘most pertinent questions’ in the Summing Up The Evidence section of her book:

• Who could walk the streets of Whitechapel at all times of the day and night and not be a cause for suspicion by the unfortunates or locals?
• Who would have the medical knowledge to carry out the list mortem mutilations that was performed on these women.
• Who would be able to walk straight past a policeman on any occasion, including some of the nights that a ripper murder had occurred and fail to be noticed?
• Who knew the East End well enough that he could just “disappear” when necessary, but then also had the confidence to walk the streets again days after committing these murders?
• Who could have known the exact plans of the police, e.g. flooding the streets with extra police officers dressed as women, and also been able to know when he needed to change his M.O. (Mary Kelly)?
• Who would have financial means to buy a hat for Polly Nichols, supply drugs to Annie Chapman, and give Elizabeth Stride a piece of velvet?
• What reasons if any would this person have for committing these murders?

I thought that hat one was a cracker.

[The Rookie Detective]

Just before I put Revelations Of The True Ripper back on the shelf I thought I’d post what Hayes put as the ‘most pertinent questions’ in the Summing Up The Evidence section of her book:

• Who could walk the streets of Whitechapel at all times of the day and night and not be a cause for suspicion by the unfortunates or locals?
• Who would have the medical knowledge to carry out the list mortem mutilations that was performed on these women.
• Who would be able to walk straight past a policeman on any occasion, including some of the nights that a ripper murder had occurred and fail to be noticed?
• Who knew the East End well enough that he could just “disappear” when necessary, but then also had the confidence to walk the streets again days after committing these murders?
• Who could have known the exact plans of the police, e.g. flooding the streets with extra police officers dressed as women, and also been able to know when he needed to change his M.O. (Mary Kelly)?
• Who would have financial means to buy a hat for Polly Nichols, supply drugs to Annie Chapman, and give Elizabeth Stride a piece of velvet?
• What reasons if any would this person have for committing these murders?

I thought that hat one was a cracker.

Based on those ridiculous questions, I think I will pass on that book after all! ha ha!


Now if I was asking questions about Barnardo, I wouldn't ask such benign questions, I would instead build a background picture and then relate it to the case. For example, I would ask...


Despite training as a surgeon at the London Hospital (just yards from Bucks Row) why did Barnardo claim to be a Dr when he wasn't fully qualified? (he quit early)

Why did Barnardo visit Stride at the mortuary to identify her? (He confirmed Stride was present at the Lodging House in Flower and Dean St when he gave a talk to the women in the kitchen a few days before)

Why did Barnardo walk free from court no fewer than 88 times for various offenses, including abduction and fraud, despite having openly admitted to having taken children from their parents in the slums unwillingly? (It was stated by the press that he used his charm and public influence to evade justice on multiple occasions)

Despite being a self-proclaimed "Man of God" why did Barnardo choose to use violence against a woman (shoving her violently in her chest to push her backward) who refused to move away from her helping her father who was at the time assaulted by group of "Barnardos Boys?"

Why does a man who spent much of his time visiting the slums, including various lodging houses, and who talked to many prostitutes about the error of their ways and who was obsessed with taking children away from unfortunates, not receive greater scrutiny?

Why did the (likely) killer say to Stride... "You'll say anything but your prayers" and does this signify a religious angle? (Barnardo was a preacher)

Why did the killer choose Mitre Square as a murder site? (A Mitre is a headdress worn by a Bishop or Abbott - Barnardo was a staunch evangelical protestant and a member of the Orange order)

Was the fact Barnardo became a Freemason (secret Men's only organization) just before the killing of Coles significant? (The Freemasons included Charles Warren, Donald Swanson, Wynne Baxter, and several others)

Why does a man who has over 20 different pros for making him; at the very least, a "person of interest" not get taken seriously as a potential option for being the killer?

If Barnardo hadn't saved children for the slums, would we then open our eyes to view Barnardo for what he was actually like as a man? (an "overbearing", controlling, self-proclaimed "Dr" and man of God, who in fact wasn't even qualified as a doctor at the time, was charged with assault on a woman who disobeyed him and confessed in court to abducting children from unfortunates, knowing that we would walk free because of his stature in the community.


Just some of the many points I would make if asking questions about Barnardo.

[Aethelwulf]

Why did Barnardo walk free from court no fewer than 88 times for various offenses, including abduction and fraud, despite having openly admitted to having taken children from their parents in the slums unwillingly? (It was stated by the press that he used his charm and public influence to evade justice on multiple occasions)

He certainly gets a flicker on the weirdo-meter but apart from tht there is nothing that makes me think he was the killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He certainly gets a flicker on the weirdo-meter but apart from tht there is nothing that makes me think he was the killer.

Someone has to invent a weirdo-meter Wulf.

[Fiver]

Based on those ridiculous questions, I think I will pass on that book after all! ha ha!


Now if I was asking questions about Barnardo, I wouldn't ask such benign questions, I would instead build a background picture and then relate it to the case. For example, I would ask...

Most of these have nothing to do with whether Barnardo was the Ripper.

Despite training as a surgeon at the London Hospital (just yards from Bucks Row) why did Barnardo claim to be a Dr when he wasn't fully qualified? (he quit early)

Lying on your resume does not mean you are a serial killer. The important point is that Barnardo did have medical knowledge.

Why did Barnardo visit Stride at the mortuary to identify her? (He confirmed Stride was present at the Lodging House in Flower and Dean St when he gave a talk to the women in the kitchen a few days before)

This argues against Barnardo being the Ripper. If the Ripper wanted another chance to admire his handiwork, he wouldn't have selected Stride, the one he hadn't had the time to mutilate.

Why did Barnardo walk free from court no fewer than 88 times for various offenses, including abduction and fraud, despite having openly admitted to having taken children from their parents in the slums unwillingly? (It was stated by the press that he used his charm and public influence to evade justice on multiple occasions)

Despite being a self-proclaimed "Man of God" why did Barnardo choose to use violence against a woman (shoving her violently in her chest to push her backward) who refused to move away from her helping her father who was at the time assaulted by group of "Barnardos Boys?"

These show that Barnardo was big on self-justification. They don't show that Barnardo was the Ripper.

Why does a man who spent much of his time visiting the slums, including various lodging houses, and who talked to many prostitutes about the error of their ways and who was obsessed with taking children away from unfortunates, not receive greater scrutiny?

Barnardo has no apparent motive. The worst violence he was accused of is shoving someone and those charges were dropped. While he talked with prostitutes at lodging houses, there is no indication he met any alone in secluded locations. He worked with helping poor children from two decades before the murders began until his death nearly two decades after they ended. Barnardo does not match the description of any of the men seen with the victims.

Why did the (likely) killer say to Stride... "You'll say anything but your prayers" and does this signify a religious angle? (Barnardo was a preacher)

The man that William Marshall heard saying this to Stride does not match the description of Barnardo.

Why did the killer choose Mitre Square as a murder site? (A Mitre is a headdress worn by a Bishop or Abbott - Barnardo was a staunch evangelical protestant and a member of the Orange order)

Why are you assuming Eddowes killer chose Mitre Square? General consensus seems to be that the victims chose places that would give some privacy for engaging in prostitution and took their killer there.

Why should the name Mitre Square be a clue? Nobody suggests that the Ripper was named Buck, or Hanbury, of Dutfield, or Berner, or Goulston, or Miller.

Was the fact Barnardo became a Freemason (secret Men's only organization) just before the killing of Coles significant? (The Freemasons included Charles Warren, Donald Swanson, Wynne Baxter, and several others)

That's a point against Barnardo being the Ripper. Masons were supposed to help other Masons, but not in cases of murder or treason. And February of 1891 is 2 1/2 years late to be trying to enlist people in a coverup.

Why does a man who has over 20 different pros for making him; at the very least, a "person of interest" not get taken seriously as a potential option for being the killer?

The points for Barnardo being the Ripper are:
* He frequented the area.
* The victims probably would have trusted him.
* He had some medical knowledge.

The points against Barnardo being the Ripper are:
* No apparent motive.
* Doesn't match witness descriptions.
* Worst alledged violence is shoving someone.
* Lived nearly two decades after the killings stopped..

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps we could add that if he was known in the area, due to his philanthropic work, wouldn’t that make him less likely to have chosen there as his killing ground? If he’d been unlucky and he’d been recognised near a couple of the crime scenes at the time he might have come under suspicion however respected he was. It’s not exactly a game changer of a point but for me it adds doubt. It’s the same reason that makes me wary of any assumption that the killer lived locally.

[The Rookie Detective]

Most of these have nothing to do with whether Barnardo was the Ripper.



Lying on your resume does not mean you are a serial killer. The important point is that Barnardo did have medical knowledge.



This argues against Barnardo being the Ripper. If the Ripper wanted another chance to admire his handiwork, he wouldn't have selected Stride, the one he hadn't had the time to mutilate.



These show that Barnardo was big on self-justification. They don't show that Barnardo was the Ripper.



Barnardo has no apparent motive. The worst violence he was accused of is shoving someone and those charges were dropped. While he talked with prostitutes at lodging houses, there is no indication he met any alone in secluded locations. He worked with helping poor children from two decades before the murders began until his death nearly two decades after they ended. Barnardo does not match the description of any of the men seen with the victims.




The man that William Marshall heard saying this to Stride does not match the description of Barnardo.




Why are you assuming Eddowes killer chose Mitre Square? General consensus seems to be that the victims chose places that would give some privacy for engaging in prostitution and took their killer there.

Why should the name Mitre Square be a clue? Nobody suggests that the Ripper was named Buck, or Hanbury, of Dutfield, or Berner, or Goulston, or Miller.



That's a point against Barnardo being the Ripper. Masons were supposed to help other Masons, but not in cases of murder or treason. And February of 1891 is 2 1/2 years late to be trying to enlist people in a coverup.



The points for Barnardo being the Ripper are:
* He frequented the area.
* The victims probably would have trusted him.
* He had some medical knowledge.

The points against Barnardo being the Ripper are:
* No apparent motive.
* Doesn't match witness descriptions.
* Worst alledged violence is shoving someone.
* Lived nearly two decades after the killings stopped..

Some excellent points Fiver and the exact response I was hoping for.

Your points against are particularly interesting but I would suggest that the age old argument of the killer needed to have died shortly after the murders stopped is only used as a means to favour suspects who DID die shortly after MJK and is often used by those who favour the Canonical 5 theory (Not always)

It's more likely that the killer was incarcerated for another crime or moved area to continue killing elsewhere.
In terms of Barnado though I do understand that dying in 1905 would be construed as being too long after the main spate of Killings.

As for his motive...he hated the slums and wanted to take all the children away from the area.
He was an evangelist protestant who wanted to teach the people of the slums the error of their ways and he focused on prostitutes because they were more likely to bring children into the world unwillingly and unplanned.
The idea that a woman would use her body for sex and increase the chances of bringing unwanted children into the world MAY have been something that affected Barnardo because he wanted to help and save children and by being a prostitute a woman was acting more carelessly and outside of a balanced family set up.
He may have taken the womb or attacked the womb because it was a way of ensuring that the victim couldnt use it to recklessly bring an unwanted child into the world.

THAT was his motive to kill and punish prostitutes.

And while there's no proof, regarding MJK...what if she WAS pregnant and he had no idea until after he had killed her...Could him finding out she was with child be the reason he lost all control and completely obliterated her because he had in effect just murdered a child within her womb?
Could that be enough reason to stop killing?

He was obsessed with a balanced family home.
He was obsessed with protecting and helping children
He hated the slums and had a significant reason to dislike prostitutes for what they did and what they represented.
He was a religious extremist in every sense of the word.
He abducted children and he NEVER helped ANY of the mothers to those children.

THAT'S his motive...

Potential motive is reason enough to consider him.
To say he had no potential motive is simply NOT TRUE.

The other point that you make against him regards him visiting Stride...I believe that the point is completely the opposite.
The reason why he needed to visit Stride is because she is the only victim he had to leave in a hurry and that didn't sit right with him.
He knew he had cut her throat but then that cart turned into the yard and he had only a few seconds to hide/escape.
He needed to make sure she was dead and make sure of what he had done because unlike the others he had no time to savour his work.
THAT'S the reason why he would need to see Stride...for some kind of closure.

And he was 5ft 3" (without shoes or a hat)
Dark Moustache
No beard
Fair complexion
Fair eyebrows, eyelashes and weak eyes.
Broad shoulders
Stout build
Aged 43
Usually wore dark clothing (when out preaching)
Had German Jewish ethnicity. (And Spanish)
Well spoken


Now forgive me for saying but I don't see too much difference to particular witness descriptions?

Being aged 43, he could have looked between 30-50 years old but certainly not younger than 30.

So can someone tell me how his description doesn't fit ANY of some of the witnesses?

Ive seen the idea before that he didn't fit any descriptions stated by others, but Id like to challenge that idea.

He WASNT blonde
He DIDNT have a light moustache
He WOULDNT have looked over 5ft 6" with boots on

But what else doesn't fit?

He didn't walk with a Gait so the BGB he likely wasn't.

Thoughts?


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Perhaps we could add that if he was known in the area, due to his philanthropic work, wouldn’t that make him less likely to have chosen there as his killing ground? If he’d been unlucky and he’d been recognised near a couple of the crime scenes at the time he might have come under suspicion however respected he was. It’s not exactly a game changer of a point but for me it adds doubt. It’s the same reason that makes me wary of any assumption that the killer lived locally.

Herlock that is a brilliant point and in my opinion the best reason AGAINST him being the ripper. He WOULD have been recognised. Certainly by many prostitutes with whom he spoke with on a relatively regular basis.
If he would have been spotted at any of the crime scenes that that would have been extremely risky and so I think you're spot on with your point.

The only thing I can think of to counter that would be that he walked free from court 88 times and he was known to use his social influence and charm as a way out of some damning criticism he received at the time from some sources rating to his alleged abduction charges (amongst others)
He even admitted in court to the charge of abducting children away from their destitute mother's in the slums but the court STILL let him go.
A powerful man with powerful friends and lot of influence.
And so if a man can also have the confidence and bravado to admit his crimes and yet still walk free...I imagine the feeling of power he would have felt to have been fairly high.
He may have felt untouchable as he used his religious and social philanthropy as a defence and everyone bought it because he was trying to save the children after all.
The authorities appear to have tried to convict him but after 88 times of walking free from court and the people behind you, they probably felt he WAS untouchable.
And who would question a man of God?

Maybe THAT is the reason why it IS possible that someone like Barnardo COULD have effectively walks around with impunity because he felt noone could touch him.
And remember, he had lived and worked in Mile End Road/Whitechapel London Hospital...but at the time of the murders he lived slightly further afield in South Hackney. I.e He didn't LIVE in Whitechapel but did WORK in Whitechapel and frequented all of the lodging houses in and around Whitechapel over the years for his philanthropic and preaching work.

He had spent years prior to the murders I and around the area and knew Whitechapel very well as a result.
But he didn't live in Whitechapel itself.
He was able to separate his home life and work in Whitechapel which may or may not be significant.


Thoughts?


RD

[Abby Normal]

Most of these have nothing to do with whether Barnardo was the Ripper.



Lying on your resume does not mean you are a serial killer. The important point is that Barnardo did have medical knowledge.



This argues against Barnardo being the Ripper. If the Ripper wanted another chance to admire his handiwork, he wouldn't have selected Stride, the one he hadn't had the time to mutilate.



These show that Barnardo was big on self-justification. They don't show that Barnardo was the Ripper.



Barnardo has no apparent motive. The worst violence he was accused of is shoving someone and those charges were dropped. While he talked with prostitutes at lodging houses, there is no indication he met any alone in secluded locations. He worked with helping poor children from two decades before the murders began until his death nearly two decades after they ended. Barnardo does not match the description of any of the men seen with the victims.




The man that William Marshall heard saying this to Stride does not match the description of Barnardo.




Why are you assuming Eddowes killer chose Mitre Square? General consensus seems to be that the victims chose places that would give some privacy for engaging in prostitution and took their killer there.

Why should the name Mitre Square be a clue? Nobody suggests that the Ripper was named Buck, or Hanbury, of Dutfield, or Berner, or Goulston, or Miller.



That's a point against Barnardo being the Ripper. Masons were supposed to help other Masons, but not in cases of murder or treason. And February of 1891 is 2 1/2 years late to be trying to enlist people in a coverup.



The points for Barnardo being the Ripper are:
* He frequented the area.
* The victims probably would have trusted him.
* He had some medical knowledge.

The points against Barnardo being the Ripper are:
* No apparent motive.
* Doesn't match witness descriptions.
* Worst alledged violence is shoving someone.
* Lived nearly two decades after the killings stopped..

hi fiver

The points for Barnardo being the Ripper are:
* He frequented the area.
* The victims probably would have trusted him.
* He had some medical knowledge.
to add-he had contact with one of the victims, and if the ripper, maybe wanted to see strides body, to make sure it was her and that she was in fact dead, since he had to leave her before he was finished.
-he showed he was capable of violence against women
-he showed an above the law, better than thou attitude-a trait very commen in SKs


The points against Barnardo being the Ripper are:
* No apparent motive.-most serial killers dont have an apparent motive. you continue to struggle with this.
* Doesn't match witness descriptions.-yes he does. to a t. especially marshalls man, who also heard him make a religious comment.
* Worst alledged violence is shoving someone.-shoving a WOMAN.
* Lived nearly two decades after the killings stopped..-irrelevant. many SKs do. another one you continue to struggle with

[/QUOTE]

[The Rookie Detective]

hi fiver

[/QUOTE]

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

[Lewis C]

hi fiver

[/QUOTE]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.[/QUOTE]

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.