Barnett in 1911 Census

[Debra A]

Given the doubts expressed on this thread about Paley's identification of Joe Barnett after 1891, a little thought came to me.
On the 1911 census there is a declaration box that requires a signature of the head of the household, I'm thinking that as Barnett could read and write, and he was the head of the household, that there is a good chance that the signature that appears on the bottom of the form is his. I was wondering if this could be compared to something we know to have been signed by Barnett in 88, a statement or something similar maybe?

I have the 1911 Joseph and Catherine Barnett in Kent entry, mentioned by Miss Marple in an earlier post and signed by a Joseph Barnett.
Anyone have a signature of Barnett from 88 or know where I can get one?
Mark, do you have the signature of the Joe Barnett identified by Paley that you found in 1911?
Worth a try?
Debs

[m_w_r]

Hi Debs -

Here's the signature of the Joe Barnett I posted about at the start of this thread, from the 1911 census ...



... and here's his name where he's filled in his own details on the same page ...



In Paley's book, there is a reproduction of Joseph's porter's licence, which has his name hand-written on it. I do not suppose it is in his handwriting, but one might persuade oneself that there are certain points of similarity (particularly the tall p in Joseph), which, coupled with the diminished pen control in the later samples (written by a much older man; the licence apparently dates from somewhere between 1878 and 1887), might - might - be thought to add up to something. I attach my digital photo of it - the handwriting in the image in the book is very small. I have also messed around with the colours and things to try to emphasise the detail, probably with very little success.



Regards,

Mark

[Robert]

I don't suppose he signed his police statement of Nov 9th?

[Debra A]

Hi Mark,

Thanks very much for doing that!

Now, here is the signature for the 1911 'Kent' Joe Barnett



And here is his name from the details filled on the form



We may have a little problem with this one because to me it looks like the original signature in this case has been 'overwritten' by someone.

I did try to put all the images posted together on one page along with the licence entry, for easier comparison, but my PSP is playing up big time.
Not that easy this signature comparison lark is it!

Robert, I was was wondering if this was Barnett's signature? taken from some statement Stewart posted a while back on another thread. Any idea?

Barnett statement

Debs

[miss marple]

It seems the more one finds out, the harder it gets. Joe's life is well documented until 1888 then there is the gap till 1906, then the Louisa years.
i have searched the Joseph Barnett marriages from 1878 till 1910 looking for a marriage with either a Louisa or Catherine, nothing. If he did shack up with Louisa they never married. Can't find a Kent marriage to a Catherine either.
Joe's birth certificate definitely states he was born in Whitechapel.
The Osbourn St Joe could be the Kent one, but there are no Joe Barnetts born in Spitalfields so why would this Kent Joe claim he was on two census certificates?
Miss M

[Robert]

Hi Debs

That's the inquest, isn't it?

[Sam Flynn]

Robert, I was was wondering if this was Barnett's signature? taken from some statement Stewart posted a while back on another thread. Any idea?

Barnett statement

I think that Barnett's name may have been written by an official/clerk at the top of the pro-forma, Debs. Perhaps Barnett's actual signature appeared at the end?

[miss marple]

London Joe needs to be found on the 1891 and 1901 census, if a London Joe can be found living with Louisa for those two censuses then that would tie Paley's id together and knock out Kent Joe.
We have Kent Joe for three census 1891, 1901 AND 1911.
Miss Marple

[richardnunweek]

Hello Miss Marple.
The trouble is our London Joe was not on the 91/01 census, he appears to have vanished until 1906 when I believe Paley traced him via a porters license.
I am still not convinced that Mary Kellys Joseph Barnett has been identified correctly, too many doubts are being raised?
Regards Richard.

[Debra A]

Hi Robert, Sam
That is from the inquest statement, yes. Now all we need is the bottom of it!
I did put a request on another thread where the attachement was previously posted, but no one responded.

Glad to see you put my sig idea to good use on the Hutch thread Sam

[Sam Flynn]

Glad to see you put my sig idea to good use on the Hutch thread Sam

I was inspired. I've been scouring the Hutches like a rabbit farmer ever since, Debs.

[Dave O]

Debra,

I have not seen copies of the original depositions in full, but going by the transcriptions in Sourcebook, which I think we can rely upon as faithful, I think you may find that all the depositions for the Kelly inquest are unsigned in the copy surviving in the archives. I think Sam is right that the signature at the top is in the hand of Alfred Hodgkinson, Macdonald's deputy (who appears to have written down the depositions). Comparison with similar signatures at the top of the other depositions from that inquest should tell you if that's right though.

Cheers,
Dave

[Debra A]

Thanks Dave,
I trust wholeheartedly that you and Sam are right about the name of Joseph Barnett on the statement being by another hand, I had an inkling myself that was the case but thought it best to check.

Sam,
You should be congratulated for going to all that trouble, not a cheap exercise by any means. Well done.