Joe Barnett's 'wife' Louisa

[JadenCollins]

This is so confusing, all the name changing...
How will we ever find the right one?

Anyways, my question to ya'll; is there a possibility that the body they found at Millers Court isn't the real MJK? and if so, can there be a connection with Barnett's so called wife, "Louisa"?

[Pcdunn]

Definitely a possibility -- remember the Kelly sightings on Sat.

This is so confusing, all the name changing...
How will we ever find the right one?

Anyways, my question to ya'll; is there a possibility that the body they found at Millers Court isn't the real MJK? and if so, can there be a connection with Barnett's so called wife, "Louisa"?

In my opinion: Yes, MJK was seen by more than one witness on Saturday morning. She was known to sometimes let other women use the place, after the break-up with Barnett.

Re the question of Barnett's wife-- interesting. I don't know enough about this situation to reply. Are you suggesting the murderer was someone looking for Louisa in particular, but had incomplete information, and got one of Mary's guests instead?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Just a correction the body was found on Friday 9th November, the alleged sightings were on the Friday morning , not the Sat which was the 10th.
Regards Richard.

[Rosella]

Hi Pcdunn.

Do you mean that Joseph killed his wife Louisa and switcherood her with Louisa, living with Mary afterwards? That's an intriguing idea! I do believe that Mary Kelly was the victim and those who saw her later were mistaken, but I guess we can all argue about that till kingdom come!

Chris Scott and others did invaluable work on a certain Joe Barnett and his background. A Louisa Rowe married a Joseph Barnett in the third quarter of 1887 at Hackney, meaning if this man is our Joe he married before Mary's death.

That doesn't sound to me like a man who was so madly in love with Mary that he would kill his missus and go through a deception to be with her to me. If it's the correct Joe the whole setup seems weird. Where was Louisa Barnett when Joe was living away from Mary after he'd lost his job but still came round to see her? He was lodging at Bullers Lodging House, Billingsgate. No mention of wife in the newspapers after Mary's death, just one sarcastic article about him hanging about with a notorious Whitechapel female identity.

This Joe Barnett (a fish porter) signed the Census forms in 1911 at his address in Red Lion St. His wife Louisa (married 23 complete years) was absent as she was in the St George in the East infirmary sick. The couple had no children. She may have been separated from Joe at the time of her death (1912.)

What puzzles me is that reporters were constantly buzzing around victims' friends, family members etc during the Jack the Ripper hunt. It just seems odd that Louisa and her friends and acquaintances wouldn't have picked up that her hubby Joseph and Mary's boyfriend who appeared at the inquest and in the Press were one and the same person!

[Penhalion]

None of this makes any sense. IF Joe Barnett wanted to be with Louisa and not Mary then all he had to do was stop seeing Mary. If he wanted to be with Mary and not Louisa all he had to do was stop seeing Louisa. Relationships and even marriage were much less formal and much more fluid in the underclass than in more economically stable segments of Victorian society. There would be no need for an elaborate murder/substitution plot. In fact, the murder/substitution plot would be the worst way possible to accomplish this because if discovered, the murderer would be executed.

[Pcdunn]

^^ Hello, Rosella,

I'm not at all sure what I meant; I was asking Jaden for clarification as to what they meant, but they haven't replied.

I didn't particularly think of Joe as the murderer of the body supposed to be MJK, but if we allow that this is NOT one of Jack's (let's break canon here, as others have, in other cases), then your suggestion is intriguing. After all, wives being murdered by husbands is common enough.
My question would be, how did Joe get Louisa to Mary's room? Was she alive or dead at the time? (That is, did Joe kill Louisa elsewhere, bring the body in and do the mutliations in Mary's bed to set up the unknown Ripper?)
Facts may not support this, once Louisa is properly identified in the census records.

I think my original idea about Mary escaping death that night (whether the killer was actually the Ripper or not) was more along the lines of a friend or neighbor was using the room in Mary's absence, and was murdered in error.
That seems very tame, compared to the idea of Joe as a wife-murderer-- the papers would have loved the sensation-- but it would only have worked if both Joe and Mary Jane hastily beat a retreat to other parts afterwards.
Not sure any of this is making sense.

[Pcdunn]

Darn twenty-four hours...

Hi,
Just a correction the body was found on Friday 9th November, the alleged sightings were on the Friday morning , not the Sat which was the 10th.
Regards Richard.

I do seem to have that part of the timeline confused in my mind-- thank you for the correction, Richard.

[JadenCollins]

In my opinion: Yes, MJK was seen by more than one witness on Saturday morning. She was known to sometimes let other women use the place, after the break-up with Barnett.

Re the question of Barnett's wife-- interesting. I don't know enough about this situation to reply. Are you suggesting the murderer was someone looking for Louisa in particular, but had incomplete information, and got one of Mary's guests instead?

Well,...
It could be but that wasn't really what I meant. You see, since we don't believe it was the real MJK they found at Millers Court, who was it?

1. Maxwell was right, she did Mary that morning, why was Mary in a hurry? Well, maybe because she came into her room to find her guest ripped apart? She burnt her clothes and left.
2. Do we have proof that Louisa was really the person they said she was? A birth certificate? Any data about her? How come she and Joe suddenly disappeared?..
3. Sickert made a painting "Mrs. Barrett", if you change one letter it says Mrs. Barnett. Sickert knew Mary very well, didn't he?

Jaden

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
In my opinion. if Mrs Maxwell, and others, actually saw Mary Kelly during daylight on the Friday morning, then the simple explanation would be, she was killed around 9 am...if this was the case the main suspect would be the market porter seen talking with Kelly , around 8.45.
The last person seen with any victim, has to be the first, to be eliminated from enquiries.
Regards Richard.

[Pcdunn]

Questions, and more questions...

Well,...
It could be but that wasn't really what I meant. You see, since we don't believe it was the real MJK they found at Millers Court, who was it?

1. Maxwell was right, she did Mary that morning, why was Mary in a hurry? Well, maybe because she came into her room to find her guest ripped apart? She burnt her clothes and left.
2. Do we have proof that Louisa was really the person they said she was? A birth certificate? Any data about her? How come she and Joe suddenly disappeared?..
3. Sickert made a painting "Mrs. Barrett", if you change one letter it says Mrs. Barnett. Sickert knew Mary very well, didn't he?

Jaden

Hi, Jaden,

I think I see-- you think Mary Jane changed her name to Louisa and went off with Joe after the killing, presumably to escape. Could be.

1.-- Agree with you about why Mary seemed unnerved on the Friday morning. She was the first to find the body, but didn't call a cop.
2.-- People are still trying to track Louisa, so the answers to these questions are still unknown.
3.-- I really don't know about Mary and Sickert. Do you have a source for their being acquainted (other than the painting?)

Still more questions come up, though: assuming the body was a friend of Mary's who had been in the wrong place at the wrong time, why did Mary and Joe take off so quick? (For that matter, do we know she fled with Joe at all, since they had broken up and he did stay long enough to identify the body.)
What was Mary really afraid of? (Fenians, the Ripper, old lovers?)

I understand the clothing burnt in the fire was not necessarily Mary's, as some were children's clothes, and some men's. One suggestion is it was laundry left by a friend of Mary's.

[Pcdunn]

Hi,
In my opinion. if Mrs Maxwell, and others, actually saw Mary Kelly during daylight on the Friday morning, then the simple explanation would be, she was killed around 9 am...if this was the case the main suspect would be the market porter seen talking with Kelly , around 8.45.
The last person seen with any victim, has to be the first, to be eliminated from enquiries.
Regards Richard.

Now this is interesting, and makes a lot of sense. Though if the murder was in daylight, then we must toss out the notion that Mary escaped by means of mistaken identity, since the killer would not have been working in complete darkness. So much for that line of thought...

[Bridewell]

Hi,
In my opinion. if Mrs Maxwell, and others, actually saw Mary Kelly during daylight on the Friday morning, then the simple explanation would be, she was killed around 9 am...if this was the case the main suspect would be the market porter seen talking with Kelly , around 8.45.
The last person seen with any victim, has to be the first, to be eliminated from enquiries.
Regards Richard.

This post is why there should be a 'Like' button on Casebook. History is too wedded to the notion that the injuries could not have been inflicted in less that 2 hours. We only have the police surgeon's opinion as to the time estimate -presumably based on medical experience. How long would a butcher need?

[Harry D]

I'm inclined to agree with the 'post-mortem' sightings of Mary Kelly. Caroline Maxwell was a credible witness and she is backed up by independent corroboration from several other witnesses. If Mary Kelly were a victim of the Ripper, it would be a change of tack for him to target a victim in the mid-morning, but when you're killing indoors anyway, who needs the cover of night?

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Most of all. we know the police at least initially believed, the murder was committed in daylight..
Many members believe the murderer would have taken ages to have committed the mutilations , but accept that Eddowes was cut open in around 4 minutes.
I am not medical man, but I would suggest a person who was skilled with a knife, could have completed that frenzied attack in around 30 minutes.
Hutchinson's man could have left at dawn, leaving Kelly asleep., the ''Oh Murder'' could have been as Mrs Prater described at the inquest''Awakening from a nightmare''..and just that..if one takes other factors, I have mentioned for years on Casebook .
The report of a bloodstained man, rushing through Mitre square around 10.10am [ thirty five minutes before the body of Kelly was discovered] may have significance.
It may have been en-route to the killers lodgings, which could explain how the killer encountered Eddowes weeks before.
There is much more to this case , then the traditional form book, which has blinkers fitted.
Regards Richard.

[Rosella]

If Mary was killed at around 9am and Jack then occupied himself with 30 minutes of mutilations beside a large fire, that means he would have left Mary's room at a time when many people would have been out and about on a public holiday. Nothing like walking through a court and then crowded streets with possibly blood-splashed hands and clothing!

When Bond saw Mary's body at 2pm he saw the signs of rigor Morris setting in. He opted for a time of death of between 1am and 2am, Bond believed that she had died five to six hours before he was called to the scene at a quarter to eleven. Neither of these experienced medical men, having seen the body, opted for 9am or later. I know that TOD is an inexact science but surely not that inexact!