Dr Barnardo is the Ripper...?

[anna]

I've got to agree,this is April 1st stuff!!- and a publisher is willing to print this drivel.....as has been already stated - one wonders what the Barnardo people will do about it....hope he's got plenty of pennies in his piggy to pay for his STUPID suggestions.

[Suzi]

Hi Mike-
Ooooooooh 'CULT' sorry..... This is becoming even more yawn making than Patsy.......and almost as well researched!!..Wheres Tony Williams when we need him!
Suz x

[Limehouse]

I've got to agree,this is April 1st stuff!!- and a publisher is willing to print this drivel.....as has been already stated - one wonders what the Barnardo people will do about it....hope he's got plenty of pennies in his piggy to pay for his STUPID suggestions.

Hi Anna,

Yes, and it's not just Barnardo and his organisation that is being sullied. What about the family and friends of Diana and Dodi? I would think the young Princes have suffered enough and should be left alone to remember their mother as 'their mother' and not a piece of public property used to make money for any number of crank authors.

[joelhall]

no doubt it was the freemasons again it was them that killed diana didnt you know. they also have all the evidence of the ripper, the black hand gang, who shot jfk, jesus' birth certificate, hitlers mustache, red rum and lord lucan hiding in a secret basement at the grand union lodge

you know as well as i do when someone has an idiotic theory the masons fit into it somewhere.

come to think of it, being from a masonic family we have a nice handcrafted cabinet containing a silver cutlery set...

presented to my great-grandmother by the lodge of emulation 1505. i believe mt great-grandfather was the head of this lodge...

therefore i propose a new theory... jack used a silver knife and fork to do the murders, he stuck it back in the set, and before his death in 1930 he left to set to my great-grandfather (hope tony williams is reading - this is how you stitch up an ancestor ).

of course ill get some dna tests done, compare them to samples of obscure bits and bobs that have been handled by everyone and his mrs. (i owe the inspiration and credit to patricia cornwell for this little gem ). of course i dont need to bother with evidence (cheers aj ) ill build a nice story (ooooh could become a movie) then name whomever i think deserves to be put down a notch (its BOUND to be someone famous or influential after all, killers always are....).

ok lesson in irony over aj.

[Suzi]

Hi Anna,

Yes, and it's not just Barnardo and his organisation that is being sullied. What about the family and friends of Diana and Dodi? I would think the young Princes have suffered enough and should be left alone to remember their mother as 'their mother' and not a piece of public property used to make money for any number of crank authors.

Hi Limehouse-
When we get into the D &D thing I do start to get qualms....... OK Diana was an interesting person in may ways and certainly a product of a disfunctional marriage-BUT-quite why she chose that marriage partner I will never know but the 'kids' are great .....however....I will NEVER be convinced that Harry is the spawn of Chas (I didn't say that!) though....Come in Mr Hewitt!! [actually I've heard that from people who should know!]... As to the Egyptian man with the corner shop (aka M Al F) The shop's cheap (well not that cheap) and tacky I hated it when I went!!!...Typical of a
man who added an Al to his name I say!!!

joel- What was that all about??

Suzi

I've had my say now rant rant!!!...feel better now!! x
I await the boat to take me to Traitors Gate as I type!!!

[joelhall]

its called ribbing suzi

just my idea of huomur based on this new 'solution'

never mind...

joel

[Suzi]

Right!! ok thanks for that joel!!.... Hmmmmmm Why are there still two threads though I ask myself................ I can't be bothered with this thread will go back to the other one where blood should be spilt!!

[Suzi]

its called ribbing suzi

just my idea of huomur based on this new 'solution'

never mind...

joel

It was HUMOUR last time I used it joel!! Outta here!

[The Prophet]

Hello everyone,

I don't usually make extreme derogatory remarks about someone else's theories as expressed on these boards but that was the biggest load of hogwash I have read since Cornwell's attack on Sickert. It has so many holes in it, you could drive a fleet of Routemasters through them.

Holes? I didn’t know this was a game of golf?

I'm finding quite a few current threads to which I was contributing I no longer wish to read, and I think I will no longer be doing so. This is one of them. It's a shame because there could have been something interesting. Not any revelations, of course, but perhaps a slow realisation of truth and a conclusion.

Like some other threads, this just ain't gonna happen. At least the originator of this thread isn't being abusive but I agree, this refusal to acknowledge reality and preference of inaccurate fantasy is winding me up.

I'm out of this thread. It's difficult to find any threads I'm interested in I want to read without going ballistic right now (or that I dare to comment on, given the bitching that's taking place).

I’m sorry to hear that George, that’s terrible! I hope it wasn’t anything I said, I am only repeating quotes from others, and pointing out information that hasn’t been looked into – I’m not worried if you don’t care for my research into Dr B, everyone’s opinions count as long as there is respect shown in the process.

Barnardo polarised opinion between love and loathing in his own time; which brings us nicely to your ‘Nunnerism’ jibe I believe.

No you’ve misunderstood me completely. A Nunnerism is where someone states something as a ‘fact’ but is in reality nothing more than an opinion based on nothing. Your Nunnerism is in the statement:

“fact that this arrogant, mean-spirited, obnoxious”

This is not a fact, it is your opinion, based on some research that you can longer locate so you really can’t expect anyone to take it seriously.

You then launch into a long series of extracts from Wagners book. These are not facts either. They are the opinions of someone writing well after the time and not based on any information that can now be located. It is sheer whimsy.

If you want people to take you seriously you must start quoting sources that back up your theories. It is not sufficient to say “Well my wife has been studying Barnardo for many years – but I don’t know what happened to all the research, but it said this honest!”

Hi Bob,
A lot of this is quoting Alex’s messages, some of which I agree, but I have been studying Dr B for nearly two decades, and I can definitely state that he was arrogant, mean-spirited (at times), and most certainly obnoxious. Another one is ‘control freak’.

If you are trying to link the Ripper killings to the accident in which Diana died then you will just be holding yourself up to ridicule.

Yes, I know…but now is the time to tread water and see what reaction I would get in the Ripper world. Of course I was expecting this…but I assure you in the not to far future the truth will come as a sensational surprise. I haven’t given much away – just the basics…but you will see.

May I make a suggestion? If you have written a book about the Ripper, send me a copy and let me read it. I will give you an honest opinion of your work. The offers there.

Yes, thanks…but you will have the same opportunity as everyone else when it comes to reading my book.

Can one really take an author seriously to request a copy of his forthcoming book when he repeatedly spells the name of a chief source as McCormack? Perhaps there is a conspiracy afoot to restore the House of Spencer to the throne of England. Whatever next?

I for one am grateful to the sterling and sustained work of Mr Evans on the Whitechapel murders as a reliable source and reference for without it, truly the inmates would be running the asylum at His Majesty's Pleasure.

Oh sorry, was that me spelling his name wrong? No conspiracy to restore anything but truth or hidden evidence…you will see some day.
And yes Mr Evans has been indispensable when it comes to the achievements he has given the Ripper world, thanks to him and Skinner we have the records of almost the entire case at our fingertips!

You wrote (quoting Wagner)
‘As murder succeeded murder the list of suspects became increasingly long and it is hardly surprising that Barnardo’s name should have been included among them.’

Well, actually, it IS rather surprising that Barnardo's name was added. It is rather surprising also, that the list of suspects was getting longer. What criteria was being used to compose this list?

I’m not too sure what you mean? I would have thought it was self-explanatory, given the fact we have an author officially stating it on record in 1979 that Dr B’s name was on the list. As far as I know, if it was not true – why did no one at the time say “wait a minute, no he is not”. I do not know the criteria for sure, but it would most certainly have been apart of Victorian police procedure to interview suspects? Or at least shadow them from afar. Professor W. J. Fishman puts it in his book, East End 1888, “It is not surprising that suspicion fell on local doctors, and rumour had it that such notable practitioners as Dr. Barnardo and Frederick Treves were both under surveillance”.

Next, you quote Wagner again:

‘…the incisions…could only have been the work of someone who had knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations, and this view gave further weight to the theory that Barnardo could have been the murderer…”

Why Barnardo particularly? Why not any other doctor living and working in the East End? This comment also assumes that the Ripper had anotomical knowledge. There is no firm agreement that he did.

That is true, I agree, Dr B was not an official doctor and it may never be agreed upon whether the killer had anatomical knowledge, yet Dr B committed fraud in obtaining his place at medical school etc. However, Dr B knew how to dissect complete human bodies, and he did have a fascination with women’s genitalia, and when he was a student he had books with graphic illustrations of woman’s sexual diseases.

Commenting on Barnardo's letter to The Times in which he mentions the murder of Stride you quote Wagner again:

‘It could be that it was the letter itself that gave rise to the suspicions concerning Barnardo…’

Again, why? Why should he be held in suspicion because he wrote a letter about homelessness and prostitution in which he mentions having met Stride shortly before her murder? Surely if the authorities were alarmed by this letter they would have questioned Barnardo about the killing? Were all men who wrote to the newspapers about the murders suspects?

Again I must stress that obviously the files that were stolen/misplaced from Scotland Yard will throw light on this situation? Dr B was close friends with Dr Robert Anderson and Howard Vincent (founder of CID), both worked for him at Dr Barnardo’s Homes in 1888 – my conclusions are in my book – so I will not disclose too much here.
How many suspects known today wrote letters to the newspapers at the time discussing their involvement with one of the victims, while during inquest proceedings of that particular victim – yet was never summoned to court?
Remember Dr B had very very close connections with the police, not saying that they knew, just that the killer was right under their noses!! Too simple? Well…over a hundred years speculation is testimony to his clever elusiveness, even well after death.

Now we have some of your own comments:

It is here that it becomes obvious why Wagner listed the information as private, and that whoever (I have suspicions), gave her that information she seems certain that Barnardo was either in the files before the double murder, or due probably to the letter he wrote afterwards which put him under suspicion – remember she isn’t a Ripper expert, so whoever gave her that info she could only go by their authority, important enough, shady enough to be private – why?

I have underlined the comment that particularly struck me. Barnardo was propably in the files before the double murder? And they didn't apprehend him or question him or watch him in any way - so that he was free to go on killing?

You ask us to remember that Wagner is not a Ripper expert but we are asked to take her research seriously? She is not a Ripper expert but she writes a book speculating on the person responsible?

Again, remember the files are now missing; Wagner’s book was published in 1979, so she was obviously given the information before then. If you can prove that the suspects’ file was gone before 1979, I would like to know. However, it is on good solid authority that before the list was officially noted as missing in 1983 BARNARDO’S NAME WAS SEEN ON THAT LIST BY SOMEONE, AND IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1979!!! It doesn’t matter how much people here want to play around with the semantics of wording – I’m just pointing out the facts as they appear. People now should consider who passed that ‘private information’ to Wagner, not whether he was a suspect or not – obviously he WAS as it has been officially stated in 1979 – and why is it that some people here seem agitated? Surely not just because it seems as if a good man is being run through the muck (again), but perhaps because they completely missed a potential suspect back in 1979?

Finally, you feel there are some files tucked away somewhere that will name Barnardo as a suspect and perhaps offer some evidence. I think it is more likely that if the police at the time of the murders EVER had any tiny suspicion that Barnardo might be responsible, they would have made enquiries and found out exactly where Barnardo was when even one of the murders was carried out. he was a workaholic who spent a great deal of time at meetings and fundraising events at all times of the day and night and when he wasn't doing that he could usually be found at his pitch outside the London Hospital with a massive crowd around him more than willing to testify where he was.

Again, Barnardo was the head of a major children’s organisation, and was involved with some of the greatest men and women of the day – including ‘The Establishment’. So of course they wouldn’t want to believe he had anything to do with this – same as the general sentiment about Barnardo’s candidacy as the Ripper here among people now? Shame really that the files are missing, but for all its worth, Barnardo’s name among hundreds of other doctors, butchers, shoe-makers, etc etc, wouldn’t have been any surprise. And would it have changed anyone’s opinion of him now? I believe not…he got away with it then…and I laugh now when I see him getting away with it in front of everyone now!

Did I read that wrong or did Prophet imply in his last post that someone has mysteriously "done away with" Vanessa Hayes? And imply that he would likewise be "done away with" for solving the mystery? Which means two things really.

One, Vanessa Hayes, in order to have been "done away with" must have already solved the case before Prophet, therefore all of his endeavors are useless and pointless.

Two, he's an arrogant berk prone to delusions of grandeur and persecution. Just the sort we need around here. I agree with Magpie, Baphomet will appear next.

Ha ha…that put a wry smile on my face. Honesty I don’t know where she is, I contacted the publisher but they are at a loss, so who knows…I do have suspicions though. As for my own research, I was quite surprised when she came onto the scene – but at least I got to see what impact it gave to the Ripper world (Gary Rowlands thesis in ‘The Mammoth Book’ in 1999 was short and sweet), but I regard her work as being the mere shell of what mine will be in regards to yolk – a rotten egg to some, or an amazing omelette leaving people satisfied, or wanting more…I guess one day people will soon see.

this really has been the worst sales pitch i have ever seen. i suggest youre yet another hack writer who is trying to make some cash out of sensationalism. so far you are yet to convince anyone to even take bernados name as a possible suspect seriously, not least to try and have us believe he actually committed the murders.

I don’t need to try; people will believe what ever they want. I’m not here to corner anyone into believing my theory, just to inform, and gather opinions. If people want to question me, I will do my best in answering them – as long as they are not too rude I guess.

im sure the odd layman with a passing interest may think its an exciting read, particularly after your somewhat ott advertisement on the other thread, but its liable to end up on cornwells route here - picked mercilessly to pieces.

Yes, my extra book launch was to convince my publisher to include that chapter on Diana in my book (seems to be working). Most people here don’t know what it means, I hope not, but soon you all will – I promise!

you seem to have no regard for proper investigative procedures, nor the sense to realise alot of members here are not those who are in it for the spookiness or conspiracy but serious scholars of the ripper murders and criminal history. your failure to take heed of certain opinions works against you.

if you honestly do have some new or swaying evidence then discuss it here (and i dont mean 'bernado joined the freemasons').

otherwise i wish you the best of luck with your work. youre going to need it!

Investigative procedures? I could be M-16 for all you know (of course I’m not), but where did you ever get that impression of no regard for this? As for spookiness or conspiracies, they always abound and need to be dealt with. Believe me I am at the top of the list when it comes to reading such garbage (got to understand that it is rubbish first), and can feel the frustrations people feel – remember I too yawn at such theories!

As for Dr B becoming a Freemason, remember he was a school teacher, one time medical student, doctor by name and practice, author of children’s books, a journalist, a Christian, master-disguiser, and close friend of key men and women in charge of running society, particularly the law!
The Ripper had many faces, and many theories over the past 120 years Barnardo could easily be most of them! Give me one genuine suspect that trumps this…oh I also forgot, but sorry might not release this till my book comes out – he fits the geographic profile of a serial killer (don’t ask me to explain), you will see this fully in my book – exciting stuff, yes it is!
Please excuse me everyone if I have not been able to answer all your questions, I am finding myself sometimes answering a lot all in the same paragraph, hope this isn’t too confusing.

Regards,
AJ.

[Limehouse]

Hello again Prophet,

You wrote: However, Dr B knew how to dissect complete human bodies, and he did have a fascination with women’s genitalia, and when he was a student he had books with graphic illustrations of woman’s sexual diseases.

My friend's son is a second year medical student and he knows how to dissect human bodies. My daughter is a paramedic and she could pretty well manage it also. None of them shopws the slightest inclination towards serial murder.

Secondly, how do you KNOW Barnardo had a fascination with women's genitalia?? And even if he did, plenty of perfectly decent men enjoy using porn.

Finally - this book showing illustrations of women's sexual diseases. Isn't it likely that a doctor would have such a book. When our college nurse does the sexual health talk with the students at the start of the year, she brings with her some laminated cards with some pretty scary pictures of the results of sexual disease with her. This is no basis for suspecting her of the unsolved murder of a local prostitute two years ago.

None of this material you have produced is evidence.

[anna]

I thought The Prophet and Alex were the same person,because of Alex's spat with our Bob.
So,two of them are defending this "theory".???????????
I'm all for congratulating people when they achieve anything on JTR, like books,as some of you will know who have done so.
Sooooo,I'll say "Congratulations on your book,and I hope it does well for you",to this author too,as any book takes research and effort.But,
Sorry,I just don't get this one.I'm really suprised that a publisher will go anywhere near it.

[Suzi]

I'm totally astonished!!! OK Authorhouse have a reputation for 'publishing' hogwash (vainly!) but I cannot believe that any publisher (in the real sense) would touch this with the proverbial pole!!! Maybe The Sun,or the News of The Sc**** may.....although thinking again maybe it's more Daily Mail material with the Diana connection!
!!!
Perhaps there are two 'Prophets' Anna..Remember the old adage to 'Beware of False Prophets' ........Hmmmmmmmm maybe that comment was a long way ahead of it's time!
Look- if.........IF there is a book/books in the offing here Prophet- give us a clue 'eh(...an ISBN may help!!!) and I'm sure that many people here will give you the benefit of their advice -as to it's merit.
Suzi

[Bob Hinton]

Here we go again.

Once again we are diving into the pools of Nunnerisms. The latest posting contains the following:

“However, it is on good solid authority that before the list was officially noted as missing in 1983 BARNARDO’S NAME WAS SEEN ON THAT LIST BY SOMEONE, AND IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1979!!! It doesn’t matter how much people here want to play around with the semantics of wording – I’m just pointing out the facts as they appear”

How many times do you have to be told THESE ARE NOT FACTS! These are merely opinions of someone who does not have a single shred of evidence to back up their claims. Who is this ‘good solid authority’ you are talking about. I know of no authoritative figures who have made this claim.

For anything to be accepted as a fact you have to provide evidence. This can consist of official statements made under oath, photographs and even actual items. For example it is a fact that a letter signed Jack the Ripper was posted. How do we know this? Because the actual letter and the postmarked envelop can be produced.

I mean you actually include an extract from Fishmans book, a person I would accept as an authority. What does he say?

“It is not surprising that suspicion fell on local doctors, and rumour had it that such notable practitioners as Dr. Barnardo and Frederick Treves were both under surveillance”.

‘and rumour had it’. Do you notice the difference between that and definitely stating that it was a fact.

Another section reads:

“How many suspects known today wrote letters to the newspapers at the time discussing their involvement with one of the victims, while during inquest proceedings of that particular victim – yet was never summoned to court?”

The answer is three thousand. How do I know? Because my great grandfather told me that and said it was true so you must accept it.

Besides you are obviously ignorant of the procedures of an Inquest. It is there to establish cause of death – nothing else. It is not meant to be a get together for all the people who might or might not have known the victim.

Since you are obvious going to try and link the death of Diana to your theories I assume you have read ‘The Paget Report’?

[joelhall]

im not going into too much detail with this as im sure most people are of a consensus here so ill stick to the major points...

Hello everyone,



Holes? I didn’t know this was a game of golf?



I’m sorry to hear that George, that’s terrible! I hope it wasn’t anything I said, I am only repeating quotes from others, and pointing out information that hasn’t been looked into – I’m not worried if you don’t care for my research into Dr B, everyone’s opinions count as long as there is respect shown in the process.

as long as there is, but you have yet to actually discuss evidence. this doesnt sound particularly respectful. its not that noone cares, in fact for such a long period of time, its admirable. however it would be nice if you showed some in depth knowledge of the whitechapel murders.

Hi Bob,
A lot of this is quoting Alex’s messages, some of which I agree, but I have been studying Dr B for nearly two decades, and I can definitely state that he was arrogant, mean-spirited (at times), and most certainly obnoxious. Another one is ‘control freak’.

this of course is inadmissable as evidence.

Yes, I know…but now is the time to tread water and see what reaction I would get in the Ripper world. Of course I was expecting this…but I assure you in the not to far future the truth will come as a sensational surprise. I haven’t given much away – just the basics…but you will see.

its looking doubtful to be blunt. you havent actually given anything away, which to be honest strikes as odd if you have an in depth knowledge of these crimes, just 'hints' you know something. noone is asking for your whole reasoning, just a prima facie case to be taken seriously.


Yes, thanks…but you will have the same opportunity as everyone else when it comes to reading my book.

Oh sorry, was that me spelling his name wrong? No conspiracy to restore anything but truth or hidden evidence…you will see some day.
And yes Mr Evans has been indispensable when it comes to the achievements he has given the Ripper world, thanks to him and Skinner we have the records of almost the entire case at our fingertips!

stewarts work has been, without exception, exemplary to anyone to follow in this case. however, there is still a mass of information missing, which casts doubt on anyone proving the guilt of any suspect.

I’m not too sure what you mean? I would have thought it was self-explanatory, given the fact we have an author officially stating it on record in 1979 that Dr B’s name was on the list. As far as I know, if it was not true – why did no one at the time say “wait a minute, no he is not”. I do not know the criteria for sure, but it would most certainly have been apart of Victorian police procedure to interview suspects? Or at least shadow them from afar. Professor W. J. Fishman puts it in his book, East End 1888, “It is not surprising that suspicion fell on local doctors, and rumour had it that such notable practitioners as Dr. Barnardo and Frederick Treves were both under surveillance”.

his name was on a list? so why not another suspect from it? if they were under surveillance then why is there no case against him? so far, no evidence, only clutching at straws.

That is true, I agree, Dr B was not an official doctor and it may never be agreed upon whether the killer had anatomical knowledge, yet Dr B committed fraud in obtaining his place at medical school etc. However, Dr B knew how to dissect complete human bodies, and he did have a fascination with women’s genitalia, and when he was a student he had books with graphic illustrations of woman’s sexual diseases.

this is getting rediculous. ok supposing he did know how to dissect. i do too. however i doubt i actually could dissect, its not an easy job... its also time consuming.

not that it matters anyway as the killer did not dissect anyone. he ripped them open and ripped things out. anyone with military experience here? im sure you could do the same. its also not hard to learn about insides if, say, you tortured animals for fun! yes it does happen and yes mammals share lots of traits with each other. lets not forget that people around the area were not as backward as people assume. to think that they wouldnt have any knowledge of the human body at all or couldnt find out is naive. if the killer was a sexual killer and had an in depth knowledge, why the bladder? or the liver? why not take the object his was supposedly after each time?

medical opinion of the time stated also that the killer had no knowledge or skill, even it was said that of a butcher.

Again I must stress that obviously the files that were stolen/misplaced from Scotland Yard will throw light on this situation? Dr B was close friends with Dr Robert Anderson and Howard Vincent (founder of CID), both worked for him at Dr Barnardo’s Homes in 1888 – my conclusions are in my book – so I will not disclose too much here.
How many suspects known today wrote letters to the newspapers at the time discussing their involvement with one of the victims, while during inquest proceedings of that particular victim – yet was never summoned to court?
Remember Dr B had very very close connections with the police, not saying that they knew, just that the killer was right under their noses!! Too simple? Well…over a hundred years speculation is testimony to his clever elusiveness, even well after death.

so it is conspiracy youre advocating? why would the killer admit to knowing the victim if he was a suspect? indeed if you dont know whether the police knew, then why the importance that they were friends? people are only summoned to inquests when they can help with the death. its not a trial.

Again, remember the files are now missing; Wagner’s book was published in 1979, so she was obviously given the information before then. If you can prove that the suspects’ file was gone before 1979, I would like to know. However, it is on good solid authority that before the list was officially noted as missing in 1983 BARNARDO’S NAME WAS SEEN ON THAT LIST BY SOMEONE, AND IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1979!!! It doesn’t matter how much people here want to play around with the semantics of wording – I’m just pointing out the facts as they appear. People now should consider who passed that ‘private information’ to Wagner, not whether he was a suspect or not – obviously he WAS as it has been officially stated in 1979 – and why is it that some people here seem agitated? Surely not just because it seems as if a good man is being run through the muck (again), but perhaps because they completely missed a potential suspect back in 1979?

it does matter about 'semantics of wording' if you claim its a 'good solid authority'. so explain your source and the details of it. thats what an investigator does. no other records claim this man as a suspect to my knowledge, so youre basing it on a document you have not seen, nor do you know the whereabouts of?

Again, Barnardo was the head of a major children’s organisation, and was involved with some of the greatest men and women of the day – including ‘The Establishment’. So of course they wouldn’t want to believe he had anything to do with this – same as the general sentiment about Barnardo’s candidacy as the Ripper here among people now? Shame really that the files are missing, but for all its worth, Barnardo’s name among hundreds of other doctors, butchers, shoe-makers, etc etc, wouldn’t have been any surprise. And would it have changed anyone’s opinion of him now? I believe not…he got away with it then…and I laugh now when I see him getting away with it in front of everyone now!

and hed want to jepordise this because....? why would he want to put his legacy, which hes put so much effort into at risk? youre starting to sound like patricia cornwell.

I don’t need to try; people will believe what ever they want. I’m not here to corner anyone into believing my theory, just to inform, and gather opinions. If people want to question me, I will do my best in answering them – as long as they are not too rude I guess.

they will believe what they want, youve demonstrated just that - belief. we have questioned you here. to deliver evidence, which so far is not forthcoming.

Yes, my extra book launch was to convince my publisher to include that chapter on Diana in my book (seems to be working). Most people here don’t know what it means, I hope not, but soon you all will – I promise!

again this just suggests conspiracy. theres some real difference between these cases, not least the time lag. im doubting bernardos bumped off diana.

Investigative procedures? I could be M-16 for all you know (of course I’m not), but where did you ever get that impression of no regard for this? As for spookiness or conspiracies, they always abound and need to be dealt with. Believe me I am at the top of the list when it comes to reading such garbage (got to understand that it is rubbish first), and can feel the frustrations people feel – remember I too yawn at such theories!

i cant quite believe that you need to ask some of these question but here goes...

investigative procedures... yes, thats what it need to investigate something. this is done by examining evidence to weigh up probabilities. getting a suspect then finding so-called evidence to fit is not the way to go. you could literally suspect anyone. this is how wrongful convictions happen. not quite sure what m-16s have to do with things though?

however if you find conspiracy theories laughable, why are you yourself pushing one?

As for Dr B becoming a Freemason, remember he was a school teacher, one time medical student, doctor by name and practice, author of children’s books, a journalist, a Christian, master-disguiser, and close friend of key men and women in charge of running society, particularly the law!

and? this could describe half of my family so whats your point?

The Ripper had many faces, and many theories over the past 120 years Barnardo could easily be most of them! Give me one genuine suspect that trumps this…oh I also forgot, but sorry might not release this till my book comes out – he fits the geographic profile of a serial killer (don’t ask me to explain), you will see this fully in my book – exciting stuff, yes it is!
Please excuse me everyone if I have not been able to answer all your questions, I am finding myself sometimes answering a lot all in the same paragraph, hope this isn’t too confusing.

Regards,
AJ.

well a few suspects fit the geographical profile... if you believe that it makes sense as different profilers will give different profiles. its not an exact science.

im sorry but this is casebook, not an advertising site. if youre not going to discuss evidence i fail to see why the posts? is it because you want to see who agrees with you? to tease us into wanting to read your book?

also, this isnt the first time that freemasonry has been involved in a new theory. would you mind sharing your knowledge of freemasonary, as you seem to attach some importance to it with regards to motive/means/opportunity?

cheers.

by the way i dont mean to come off as cocky or anything. just seen this sort of thing time and time again, only to be presented with a mish-mash of supposition, hearsay and improbable proof at the end of it.

[joelhall]

actually i think you should take up bobs offer.

send a manuscript segment to a few with good knowledge for appraisal and feedback... youre publisher is not going to be able to help with this only those with experience in this field.

id suggest four segments, or condensed parts...

1. showing part of your investigative procedures.

2. showing part of your corroborated evidence

3. showing parts of your conclusions based on evaluation of this evidence

4. showing any reasonable guesswork on your part to explain the theory where evidence is missing.

lastly, if you feel youre under attack here.

i should also point out you dont need to dangle carrots at people here to buy the book or try to stop us stealing your theory. thats not how the real ripper community works, unlike many other fields of study/mystery. many will still read it even if its nonsense.

the issue raised here is because most of us consider themselves scholars of the crimes, period and/or criminal history. you will see that no matter who raises a book or theory here, it will be questioned closely (yes even the likes of stewart evans are not just accepted on their word without evidence, which is what makes these folks work so impressive - they delve into the evidence).

your theory will still be yours (its documented on the site now for a start and your publisher knows of it) and people will still read the book.

what we will not do is entertain unsubstantiated theories in discussion when no proof at all is available, then seriously accept the view.

and thats the only concern here. that youve entered 'our world' with a theory you believe in and made it sound as if you have not even looked for proof, and also that you are making errors that we have seen time and time again, which have led to major failings and useless information added to the case which merely clutters up the literary side of this.

when i told you youd need luck with the book i didnt refer to sales - jtr sells book, no doubt. i meant with serious examiners of the case attaching real credence to the theory.

here you have the opportunity the discuss ideas and evidence (ive yet to see you actually discuss the case without regard to your own belief)...

trust me itll make you book sell even more than any 'wait and see, hint hint, wink' posts you can throw at us.

we kind of get immune to that here

joel