Tweet
Hi,
I am now on dangerous ground, for I have one of my speculative moments.
What has puzzled me for countless years, is the now acceptance of Mjks common law, being Bruce Paleys 1858 Joseph Barnett, a licensed Fish porter, with a confirmed brother Daniel.
That is correct, and can be confirmed by from many avenues.
However although Daniel is traceable on the 1891/1901 census, the man we are all intrested in. is not..
Why?
Paley has him emerging around 1906... Not good enough.
My Joseph Barnett, born in whitechapel around 1861/2, appears in the 1891/1901 census, whats more he is a Fruit dealer, and living at 8, Brady dwellings , Brady street, spitalfields, both census show the same address. he is then a married man[ before 1888] with a family in 1891, and a futher edition in 1901.
My point being .
We have a Joseph Barnett , occupation General dealer/ fruit, who resided in 1891, at 8,Brady street dwellings, also in 1901, although a married man in 1888, no children were born between the years 87/88.
Therefore is it not possible, that this man was infact residing with Mjk between april 87/oct 88, on a on /off basis?
The most intresting factor being, it has been recorded by experts in profiling, that the first murder in a series, tends to be close to the murderers dwellings.
Taking that as a guide, it therefore could indicate that Polly Nichols was the first victim. discounting Tabram as many do, and that victim was found no more then 150 yards from this Barnetts abode, infact if reports can be believed the initial attack, actually occurred in Brady street.
I appreciate that I am assuming that The Barnetts were residing at that residence in 1888, but as they resided there in the 1891/1901 census, and they had a family in 1888 albeit one son born 1886, it is not unlikely.
Lots of loopholes Guys, but the occupation , and the address , and the age of this Barnett, is at the very least intresting, even if it takes a Nunners/speculative mind.
Regards Richard.
I am now on dangerous ground, for I have one of my speculative moments.
What has puzzled me for countless years, is the now acceptance of Mjks common law, being Bruce Paleys 1858 Joseph Barnett, a licensed Fish porter, with a confirmed brother Daniel.
That is correct, and can be confirmed by from many avenues.
However although Daniel is traceable on the 1891/1901 census, the man we are all intrested in. is not..
Why?
Paley has him emerging around 1906... Not good enough.
My Joseph Barnett, born in whitechapel around 1861/2, appears in the 1891/1901 census, whats more he is a Fruit dealer, and living at 8, Brady dwellings , Brady street, spitalfields, both census show the same address. he is then a married man[ before 1888] with a family in 1891, and a futher edition in 1901.
My point being .
We have a Joseph Barnett , occupation General dealer/ fruit, who resided in 1891, at 8,Brady street dwellings, also in 1901, although a married man in 1888, no children were born between the years 87/88.
Therefore is it not possible, that this man was infact residing with Mjk between april 87/oct 88, on a on /off basis?
The most intresting factor being, it has been recorded by experts in profiling, that the first murder in a series, tends to be close to the murderers dwellings.
Taking that as a guide, it therefore could indicate that Polly Nichols was the first victim. discounting Tabram as many do, and that victim was found no more then 150 yards from this Barnetts abode, infact if reports can be believed the initial attack, actually occurred in Brady street.
I appreciate that I am assuming that The Barnetts were residing at that residence in 1888, but as they resided there in the 1891/1901 census, and they had a family in 1888 albeit one son born 1886, it is not unlikely.
Lots of loopholes Guys, but the occupation , and the address , and the age of this Barnett, is at the very least intresting, even if it takes a Nunners/speculative mind.
Regards Richard.
Comment