Barnett's candidacy - a few issues

[MayBea]

If you believe that this 'false' Joe Barnett was telling the truth when he said he was a Mariner with a father Michael, is there then such a person fitting those details in the census record?

[Sally]

Hi May,

But does that mean we don't have the right marriage certificate? I don't think it does, if we agree that Joe 'wife' was Agnes Louisa Rowe. All indications are that he did.

Except that the identification with Agnes Louisa Rowe appears to be a speculative assumption to start with. I've had a quick look at the family tree on which Agnes Louisa Rowe appears as Barnett's 'wife' and it is highlighted as a speculative identification - that means that they don't know, to put it plainly.

As I thought, the likelihood is that 'Louisa Rowe's appearing on Barnett - related family trees on Ancestry are assumptions based on the only recorded marriage between a Joseph Barnett and a 'Louisa' being the only one to take place anywhere near 1888 in London.

In other words, there is no evidence to tie them together. As Chris, and now Craig, have said, the details on this marriage certificate do not match what is known of Kelly's Barnett.

This is not the same man, and the Louisa Rowe marrying him is not the same Louisa 'married' to him for 23 years in 1911.

They are not the same people, it is not the marriage certificate of Kelly's Barnett to his 'wife' Louisa.

[MayBea]

Correction: Chris Scott was saying he was convinced his "Kent-based" Barnett is not our Joe. That would be the Barnett who moved to Kent, married and became a labourer.

The father John who lived in Kent is still the correct father.

But does that mean we don't have the right marriage certificate? I don't think it does, if we agree that Joe 'wife' was Agnes Louisa Rowe. All indications are that he did.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=10339&page=4
http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...ettporter.html

[MayBea]

I have the details from the Joseph Barnett - Louisa Rowe marriage in 1887.

This Joseph was a mariner and his father was Michael Barnett. He is not "our" Joseph who was a fish porter with a father John.

Thanks, Craig, but aren't you jumping to conclusions?

This Joe Barnett still has to be the Joe Barnett found in the 1911 Census, occupation Fish Porter, 'married' for 23 years to a woman Chris Scott identified as Agnes Louisa Rowe.

There are no other alternatives I found in 1891. Joe Barnett/Agnes Louisa Rowe have to be Joseph Barnett/Louise Rowe. How can it not be?

As for the father John, that was the father of Kent Joe which even Chris Scott was beginning to deny. He could also have lied about his job to hide his identity. If he married in the third quarter of 1887, he'd have to be considered a liar with regard to his statements regarding Mary Kelly and himself.

[Craig H]

I have the details from the Joseph Barnett - Louisa Rowe marriage in 1887.

This Joseph was a mariner and his father was Michael Barnett. He is not "our" Joseph who was a fish porter with a father John.

I'm still waiting on the actual marriage certificate which should arrive in the next day or two. However, I emailed GRO who bounced back with the above information.

I'll post the marriage certificate here when it arrives.

The question about this marriage certificate is also been asked on the "victim-MJK" thread so I posted this reply there as well.

Craig

[Sally]

I've ordered the Joseph Barnett-Louisa Rowe marriage certificate (Sept 1887) which may confirm that this was a different Joseph Barnett.

I've also found a London-based researcher who will look for any family death notices about Louisa Barnett when she died 3 November 1926. Hopefully, someone from her family may have published a notice which will show Louisa's maiden name.

Will come back with any findings.

Also, did Leanne Perry's book "Catch me when you can" reveal anything about this ? Any suggestions on where I can get a copy ?

Hi Hawkecr - Marvellous - I'm so pleased that you've ordered the marriage certificate in question, it'll save me doing it. I look forward to seeing who got married in 1887.

Regarding death notices, I feel bound to say that I don't think you'll have any luck - sorry. It's unlikely that a person of Louisa's social class would have appeared in any death notices or obituaries. Any researcher worth employing should have the decency to tell you that before you part with any cash; so I hope you're not paying for the search.

[Cogidubnus]

Also, did Leanne Perry's book "Catch me when you can" reveal anything about this ? Any suggestions on where I can get a copy ?

Ditto - I've also been searching for this....

All the best

Dave

[Craig H]

I've ordered the Joseph Barnett-Louisa Rowe marriage certificate (Sept 1887) which may confirm that this was a different Joseph Barnett.

I've also found a London-based researcher who will look for any family death notices about Louisa Barnett when she died 3 November 1926. Hopefully, someone from her family may have published a notice which will show Louisa's maiden name.

Will come back with any findings.

Also, did Leanne Perry's book "Catch me when you can" reveal anything about this ? Any suggestions on where I can get a copy ?

[MayBea]

...Beyond the events of 1888, he lived a typical, mundane life until his death in 1926. The evidence suggests that he spent all of that time with one woman...According to his, and Louisa's, 1911 census returns, they had been 'married' since 1888 - the likelihood exists, therefore, that they had already begun a relationship when Kelly was murdered...

But now, on the Mary boards, we're saying that this Barnett, married to Louisa, can't be the real Barnett because the marriage was real, not common law, and it was in 1887 when he was supposed to be with Mary.

At least, that's how I understand it.

[GUT]

Pinkmoon

I am simply unable to accept that whoever dd that to Mary Jane was then able to return to normal life, t just doesn't sit well with things I've seen and experienced and the people I knew that did them. Unless the killer was in a total dissociative state, and that only works if MJK was a "one off" don't see him being in that state multiple times as to me , the same assessment of "glut" applies if he did more than one abdominal "operation".

[pinkmoon]

Which seems to be the root of suicide theories and must say I tend to agree I have only seen one worse murder scene and I've seen more than I want to.

Hi gut,I think "awfull glut" explains that terrible photo very well indeed I have always found it very hard to believe that our killer could carry on a normal life after Kelly's murder.Over the years we have been given some suspects who have seemed very good however we have been asked to believe that they simply stopped killing I think death or imprisonment is the only explanation for the murders to have ceased.

[GUT]

G'day Pinkmoon

When you look at the photo of Mary Kelly's remains you wonder how someone could do such a thing to a fellow human so to ask as to believe that this monster could go on and live a quite life and not kill again is far fetched.

Which seems to be the root of suicide theories and must say I tend to agree I have only seen one worse murder scene and I've seen more than I want to.

[MayBea]

You had mentioned 11 Louisa's . You probably know the London area better than me. Is my list too broad ?

Sorry, Craig. The 11 were from "East London", i.e. London City, so not the East End.

However, I found a thread at JtRforums about Barnett's 'wife' possibly being Louisa Rowe. They would actually have been married in 1887.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=10339

[pinkmoon]

When you look at the photo of Mary Kelly's remains you wonder how someone could do such a thing to a fellow human so to ask as to believe that this monster could go on and live a quite life and not kill again is far fetched.

[Sally]

Barnett had an alibi. The police questioned him for several hours and found no reason to suspect him. That ought to be enough for anybody interested in the case today, yet up he pops, with predictable regularity.

Beyond the events of 1888, he lived a typical, mundane life until his death in 1926. The evidence suggests that he spent all of that time with one woman -There is no sign whatever to date that he was ever in any sort of trouble with the police; or that he was engaged in any type of criminal activity - let alone murder.

According to his, and Louisa's, 1911 census returns, they had been 'married' since 1888 - the likelihood exists, therefore, that they had already begun a relationship when Kelly was murdered.

If Barnett had already moved on, it doesn't leave much motivation for murder, eh?

Regarding the chances of finding an obituary for either Barnett - about zero, I'd say. Neither was important enough, or wealthy enough, to merit an obituary.