Barnett in 1901?

[miss marple]

Thats great work, the infirmary records add a bit of colour. [ the bit about the gout] Sally has nailed Joe's missing years conclusively.Turns out he was not missing after all, just leading the life he'd always led in the area he'd always lived.
Wonder if he ever referred to the Mary Kelly Years in his cups, or just kept quiet about it.
It would be great to trace Louisa but without her surname, no chance. and no marriage records.
I don't think Barnett was a violent man, but was quite a moral man who hated the idea of her street walking, and that led to some godawful rows, worse if Mary was drunk.after all he stayed in touch and tried to help her. I bet she could be quite aggressive when drunk. I like Tom Cullen's hearsay that she had a pitch outside the Ten Bells and attacked girls who tried to muscle in on her pitch. We know Joe meet her in Commercial street, so that sounds right.Also she dragged Mrs Buki up to Knightsbridge in the row about her clothes. I don't think she was a passive victim, but seemed very sparky and knew what she wanted and no one was going to interfer.
May be Louisa was quieter,a calm after the storm.

Miss Marple

[Tango]

Hi Miss Marple and Sally

I am new to the forum and wanted to say hi. Joesph Barnett is a big interest of mine and just wanted to pop in and say congratulations on all the hard work you have put into trying to locate Joe. His disappearance has interested me greatly and i had been going down a similar route of looking at census records and i have actually requested some infirmary records for the whitechapel area in a bid to try and find him!! I too found this census entry but the date put me off. However i did not notice the Henry Turner there as well and like Miss Maple would love to have something that proved all the victims knew each other.

Anyway i'm sure we will speak again!!

Tango

[Debra A]

Thanks for keeping us informed with this, Sally.
You're doing a good job.

[Sally]

Joseph and Louisa..

..appear to have been in the area as early as 1898. If correct, I think the 1901 census entry is almost certainly for the same people - as there is no other Joseph Barnett listed in that vicinity. In that case, I think the age given for Joseph Barnett and the name 'Emily' for his 'wife' are simply incorrect.

Subject to further checks, I will post results in due course.

[Sally]

Naughty Joe..

Hi Lynn

No, I think one of the witnesses - can't remember which at this moment in time - Julia Venturney possibly -at the Kelly inquest suggested that Kelly detested Barnett. I think he was painted as an overbearing, jealous type. This was of course the basis for Paley's book on Barnett as the Ripper.

Gossip of that type is generic, though, and to be expected, I think.

[lynn cates]

violence

Hello Sally. Thanks.

What about the report of violence? I've never seen a hint of that before.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Mercury

Thanks Lynn for posting the article from the Mercury.

I think the only point of possible interest is Barnett potentially using the name Kelly - it rings a bell, I think I've seen it before, somewhere?

That 'Kelly' was a pseudonym is a possibility, obviously. Mary Kelly has not been identified in the record to date - and although the name was fairly common, I don't think that's for a want of trying.

On the other hand, Kelly and Barnett were nobodys. Confusion as to the details of their lives was rife following Kelly's murder - perhaps there is no reason to suspect anything other in this case.

[lynn cates]

conclusion

Hello All. Here is part 2 of the article.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Mercury account

Hello All. Here is a different account of Barnett. It is from the "Mercury" November 17, 1888.

Debs Arif has confirmed for me some unusual data here:

1. It is worded in such a way that Kelly is suggested as possibly HIS name.

2. It seems to suggests some abuse in the relationship.

3. It claims that he is employed by the Spitalfields market.

Surely not all these are correct? I notice that the journalist has Mary Ann Nichols dying at #35 Hanbury. Perhaps a conflating of various sources at work here?

(Part 2 in next post.)

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Barnett in 1899?

The admission and discharge register of the Raine Street Infirmary for the year 1899-1900 records the following:

Joseph Barnett: b.1859
Date of admission: 25th November 1899
Malady: Gout
Date of discharge: 22nd January 1900
Reason: Own Desire

Given the census entry for 1901, it would appear that this may be the same Joseph Barnett - his age given here much closer to that of Kelly's Barnett.

The further I go with this, the more I think it's the same man.

[PLUCKING VIOLETS]

where was Barnett buried

Hi. Does anyone have information on where Barnett was buried??

[Sally]

Hi Debra

I will keep on searching, see if I can add anything further to the picture. I do wonder if 'Louisa' is also 'Emily' - the birth year is the same - which of course could be coincidence - but on the other hand, I am well aware of the snares of the historic record - the census particularly. How often did people (apparently at random!) use their middle name - or even a totally different name? I have encountered this in my own family - it's a bugger!

Just speculation really at this stage, but we could have a Louisa Emily, or an Emily Louisa. Having said that, I haven't come across any likely candidates so far

Only time will tell!

[Debra A]

Well done, Sally!

It's a pity there aren't more details on her though.
I was also hoping there might be an address that confirms she was living at the same address Joseph Barnett was listed at in 1911 found by Mark Ripper...just to tie it up neatly.

Thanks for taking the trouble to trawl these records.

[Sally]

Hi Debra

I have now found Louisa, admitted on Monday 20th March 1911. Year of birth given as 1856. There are no observations on the register. I'll try to get an image posted - I don't know yet when she was discharged, I'm working on it!

Best regards

Sally

Discharged on April 19th 1911 to own residence - which as we know, was 60 Red Lion Street.

[Sally]

Louisa Barnett

Hi Debra

I have now found Louisa, admitted on Monday 20th March 1911. Year of birth given as 1856. There are no observations on the register. I'll try to get an image posted - I don't know yet when she was discharged, I'm working on it!

Best regards

Sally