Barnett's candidacy - a few issues

[Craig H]

Don't you love a long weekend !!

Hi, Craig,
Very interesting. According the notes about her, I think of Mary Ann Cox as being quite homely.

curious

Hi Curious,
Did you mean Mary Ann Cox was "homely" or "not homely" ??
I was reading on the link below that she was charged several times with assault.

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Mary_Ann_Cox.html

[Craig H]

Your argument depends on the accuracy of the report in the Wheeling Register; which may - or may not - be accurate.
.

Thanks Sally.

The Joseph Barnett moving in with someone who testified at the Inquest was from the Wheeling Register which Chris Scott included in a JTR post from 2010 - as below :

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=10003&highlight=wheeling+register

Does anyone know about the reliability of the Wheeling Register ? It reads like a modern gossip column ?!

However, if it is right, it would explain how Joseph Barnett could say in 1911 Census he was married for 23 years.

[GUT]

If it is true about Barnett moving in with someone [Cox or someone else] just 10 days after MJK's murder it casts a real doubt over his so called passion for her.

To my mind it also reduces his candidacy for Jacky.

[Sally]

Thanks Sally.

The Joseph Barnett moving in with someone who testified at the Inquest was from the Wheeling Register which Chris Scott included in a JTR post from 2010 - as below :

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=10003&highlight=wheeling+register

Does anyone know about the reliability of the Wheeling Register ? It reads like a modern gossip column ?!

However, if it is right, it would explain how Joseph Barnett could say in 1911 Census he was married for 23 years.

Yep, "Modern Gossip Column" seems about right. That doesn't automatically mean we should dismiss it of course, but I'd be wary of taking it at face value. If the same information is reported elsewhere it could be interesting - I don't know whether anyone has looked? Probably.

Its possible that Barnett did hook up with another woman shortly after Kelly's death. Its also possible that he's already done so when she died.

Plenty to think about there.

[miss marple]

That gossip about him being drunk at the inquest is not supported by the evidence. The whole article appears to be a scurrilous piece of unverifiable lies on the lines of the Sun's attack on the victims of Hillsborough. Think the Cox line a waste of time

I still wonder about Kent Joe, the age fits and the birthplace of Spitalfields is odd as there were no Joe Barnett's born in Spitalfields in 1857/8 but Barnett was born in Whitechapel, Spits is in Whitechapel and where the most dramatic event of his life occurred. Maybe saying he was born in Spitalfields was a way of connecting with that life. His elder brother Denis was born in Kent and if he wanted to start a new life, Kent would be a good choice. I know this is fanciful but I like to imagine Joe starting a new life away from the horror.

Miss Marple

[GUT]

G'day Sally

Its possible that Barnett did hook up with another woman shortly after Kelly's death. Its also possible that he's already done so when she died.

But would another woman put up with him giving money to MJK? when there isn't much doubt that even when working Joe was not exactly rolling in money.

[Sally]

But would another woman put up with him giving money to MJK? when there isn't much doubt that even when working Joe was not exactly rolling in money.

Who knows? She may have been the tolerant type; she may not have known that he was giving money to his ex - there are many possibilities.

Regardless, we are left with a record which tells us, definitively, that Barnett and 'wife' Louisa had been in a relationship since 1888. That being so. they either began that relationship before, or after Kelly's death.

If Barnett had in fact 'met somebody else' when Kelly was murdered I can quite see why he may not have wanted to reveal the fact. I think that we should remember that as far as we can determine, Barnett was the one who ended his relationship with Kelly, not the other way around.

[MayBea]

Regardless, we are left with a record which tells us, definitively, that Barnett and 'wife' Louisa had been in a relationship since 1888.

I'm willing to accept that our Joe Barnett did not officially marry Louisa in 1887.

But before we move on to an unofficially-married situation, what about the only Joseph Barnett/Louisa marriage in the record? A Joseph Barnett married a Louisa Chambers in 1876 when our Joe and Louisa were 20 or close to it. Could this be them? Perhaps they got back together after Mary died?

[Craig H]

Hi MayBea,
I'm wondering if this is the Louisa Barnett bn 1854 (so could have been 22 y.o when married Joseph). They have a 3 year old which also supports that idea. However, this Joseph was a dyer and born in 1853.
Craig

[Sally]

I recall looking into the Barnett/Chambers marriage when I was looking for Joseph Barnett in the record. This Joseph Barnett was married on Christmas Day, 1876 at Holy Trinity Church Bermondsey. His father John was a Copper Smith and he was a dyer.

He was 24 when he married, and Louisa Chambers was 23, so he was born 1852/3 and she was born a year later.

Once again, the details don't match what we know of Kelly's Barnett, so I don't think this couple is the right one.

I think if, as seems likely, Joseph Barnett and his common law wife Louisa were not officially married, it will be difficult to track them down. I was lucky (and patient!) with the Raine Street infirmary records. We can see that from that point on, at least, they were living in the same small area of London. Nonetheless, I haven't identified them anywhere to date earlier than 1896.

Those eight years from 1888 are still a mystery and a puzzle.

[Sally]

The other thing is that this Joseph Barnett's parents were from the Midlands, if memory serves. I think his father John was from Birmingham.

[curious]

Don't you love a long weekend !!



Hi Curious,
Did you mean Mary Ann Cox was "homely" or "not homely" ??
I was reading on the link below that she was charged several times with assault.

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Mary_Ann_Cox.html

Hi, Craig,
To me and my area of the country (U.S.) "homely" is the same as unattractive.

I can see that it might have other meanings.

curious

[MayBea]

If we're looking for Louisa from the cast of characters associated with the case, might we not look Louisa Day, who was living in Bethnal Green and testified at her own trial, or perhaps Lizzie Albrook whom some believe might really be named Louisa?

The fact that Joe and Louisa agreed to 1888 as the date that they 'married' suggests they met because of the case.

[Craig H]

Below is Louisa Barnett's death certificate (November, 1926). Louisa died of pneumonia and described her husband's job as a dock labourer.

Is the address of "3 Raine St" the Raine St Infirmary ?

I have an email from City of London Cemetery to say "Louisa was buried in a 2nd class commons (paupers/public) grave in Square 415 grave number 100354." Unfortunately, as it is a common area, it is currently being re-used with new burials being placed on top of it.

Below is death certificate for Joseph Barnett, three weeks later.

The informant, Arthur Denis, lived at the same location as the Barnetts.

He was not buried or cremated at City of London Cemetery, where his wife was buried. I understand a large number of poor folk were buried at Brookwood Cemetery. I have emailed them to request any information.

It also highlights the Barnetts were poor. This suggests they probably didn't have a civil marriage so unlikely to appear in FreeBMD as married. Additionally, they had no children - which may have been a reason to get married.

[Craig H]

If we're looking for Louisa from the cast of characters associated with the case, might we not look Louisa Day, who was living in Bethnal Green and testified at her own trial, or perhaps Lizzie Albrook whom some believe might really be named Louisa?
.

Hi MayBea,

Good idea .... I'll look at these folk on Ancestry.com. How do we know Lizzie was sometimes called Louisa ? That would make sense