Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Joe Barnett's 'wife' Louisa

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JadenCollins
    replied
    Originally posted by Craig H View Post
    Hi Mystery Singer
    Sorry for my delay in responding to your question about Joe Barnett.
    Several of us did a lot of research several years ago into Joe Barnett and his wife Louisa (either on this forum or the other one) ...
    I have the marriage certificate of the Joe Barnett / Agnes Rowe marriage. Unfortunately it's not "our" Joseph. The one who married Agnes was a musician, and his father was Michael Barnett, a coachman.
    I have Joe and Louisa's death certificate also.
    Unfortunately it looks like they were never married in church or civil service (many poorer folk back then didn't marry but called themselves married in census).
    Bounce back if I need to go back through previous notes to find more detail.
    All the best
    Craig
    Hey Craig!

    Do you have any data of Joe after MJK's death? ( 1888-1890? )


    Jaden

    Leave a comment:


  • JadenCollins
    replied
    Originally posted by curious View Post
    I agree, Jaden, there are many interesting paths to check out and there's no reason not to explore each one thoroughly.

    curious
    Exactly!

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig H
    replied
    Hi Mystery Singer
    Sorry for my delay in responding to your question about Joe Barnett.
    Several of us did a lot of research several years ago into Joe Barnett and his wife Louisa (either on this forum or the other one) ...
    I have the marriage certificate of the Joe Barnett / Agnes Rowe marriage. Unfortunately it's not "our" Joseph. The one who married Agnes was a musician, and his father was Michael Barnett, a coachman.
    I have Joe and Louisa's death certificate also.
    Unfortunately it looks like they were never married in church or civil service (many poorer folk back then didn't marry but called themselves married in census).
    Bounce back if I need to go back through previous notes to find more detail.
    All the best
    Craig

    Leave a comment:


  • curious
    replied
    Originally posted by JadenCollins View Post
    Thanks, Pat
    It does answer my question.
    It will always be "WHAT IF", and I know some find it a ridiculous theory but who knows? And I don't understand why many here try to avoid this option? And try to prove it wrong just because it doesn't suit "THE STORY". With this case, you can't just stick to one theory.
    I agree, Jaden, there are many interesting paths to check out and there's no reason not to explore each one thoroughly.

    curious

    Leave a comment:


  • JadenCollins
    replied
    Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
    Hello, Jaden--

    It took me a little while to find this, but I posted this back in September of this year on the "Maxwell Discrepancy" thread in the Witnesses section of Casebook:

    "I think it was another witness who claimed to see Mary Kelly in the bar, but the rest of your first paragraph is correct.

    But this is all based on the idea that IF Maxwell was correct in identifying Kelly, THEN she must have been murdered later... What if we look at it from a different point of view?

    What if Mary and Joe decided to fix up a hoax to help Mary slip away from whatever she seemed to be afraid of (whether JtR, ex-boyfriend, McCarty, Fenians, fill in the blank), and they decided to let the room that night. Maybe Joe promised he'd handle the details if she went into hiding. Maybe he (or they) went out and found a woman (probably in a pub) that was similar to Mary Jane in height, hair and eye color, offered her a safe place in MJK's room, then went away. I don't think they meant to have the woman murdered, but needed an occupant in the place while they snuck away leaving the rent unpaid. Perhaps Mary Jane returned early in the morning, found the terrible scene, and became sick at the sight and her near escape. That would allow for the sightings of her that morning to make sense... Although, I admit, her actions the previous night, as well as being seen the following morning don't really make a lot of sense.

    Unless Joe wanted a woman who resembled Mary in order to have her impersonate Mary, the previous evening. Was Hutchinson in on the plot as well?
    Perhaps distracting the police with their search for a phony man in a fancy coat?

    Joe identified the dead woman as Mary, because he knew she could still escape. Did he disappear as well?"

    It seems pertinent to your questions here, and is perhaps the best way to answer your questions to me. As you can see, I like the idea of Joe helping Mary escape (from whatever the threat was), and being the one who "identifies" the corpse as being that of MJK.
    Thanks, Pat
    It does answer my question.
    It will always be "WHAT IF", and I know some find it a ridiculous theory but who knows? And I don't understand why many here try to avoid this option? And try to prove it wrong just because it doesn't suit "THE STORY". With this case, you can't just stick to one theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rosella
    replied
    'Midnight flits' as they were known (people leaving rental property without paying rent owed) happened all the time in poor districts. It wasn't as if Mary had furniture to smuggle out, just a few clothes and odds and ends. She could have left for other parts of London at any time.

    Why go through an elaborate subterfuge involving a man (Joe) from whom she was already separated and for whom she probably really didn't care that much?

    I think women all over the East End were terrified of JTR, but some had to make a few pennies for food and drink (and rent) and so went out on the streets in the dark. It's not unknown for people to say afterwards of murder victims (especially female prostitutes) that they appeared to be 'afraid' of a mysterious something or someone shortly before their deaths.

    Leave a comment:


  • curious
    replied
    Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
    Now this is interesting, and makes a lot of sense. Though if the murder was in daylight, then we must toss out the notion that Mary escaped by means of mistaken identity, since the killer would not have been working in complete darkness. So much for that line of thought...
    And you also have to wonder why such a big fire was needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pcdunn
    replied
    Joe and Mary Jane

    Originally posted by JadenCollins View Post
    Pat,

    Who else would she turn to? Even though they broke up, Joe was the only one she could actually turn to. Of course he would help her, he was still madly in love with her. He was also the first to give his statement. He clearly lied to the police, he knew that wasn't Mary.

    But then the question is; why did Mary disappear? Why didn't she tell the truth? Did she get herself in some kind of trouble and had to disappear?
    Hello, Jaden--

    It took me a little while to find this, but I posted this back in September of this year on the "Maxwell Discrepancy" thread in the Witnesses section of Casebook:

    "I think it was another witness who claimed to see Mary Kelly in the bar, but the rest of your first paragraph is correct.

    But this is all based on the idea that IF Maxwell was correct in identifying Kelly, THEN she must have been murdered later... What if we look at it from a different point of view?

    What if Mary and Joe decided to fix up a hoax to help Mary slip away from whatever she seemed to be afraid of (whether JtR, ex-boyfriend, McCarty, Fenians, fill in the blank), and they decided to let the room that night. Maybe Joe promised he'd handle the details if she went into hiding. Maybe he (or they) went out and found a woman (probably in a pub) that was similar to Mary Jane in height, hair and eye color, offered her a safe place in MJK's room, then went away. I don't think they meant to have the woman murdered, but needed an occupant in the place while they snuck away leaving the rent unpaid. Perhaps Mary Jane returned early in the morning, found the terrible scene, and became sick at the sight and her near escape. That would allow for the sightings of her that morning to make sense... Although, I admit, her actions the previous night, as well as being seen the following morning don't really make a lot of sense.

    Unless Joe wanted a woman who resembled Mary in order to have her impersonate Mary, the previous evening. Was Hutchinson in on the plot as well?
    Perhaps distracting the police with their search for a phony man in a fancy coat?

    Joe identified the dead woman as Mary, because he knew she could still escape. Did he disappear as well?"

    It seems pertinent to your questions here, and is perhaps the best way to answer your questions to me. As you can see, I like the idea of Joe helping Mary escape (from whatever the threat was), and being the one who "identifies" the corpse as being that of MJK.

    Leave a comment:


  • richardnunweek
    replied
    Hi.
    As Harry says.clean himself up. and mingle with the crowds,no great problem, if luck was with you.
    Richard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Rosella View Post
    If Mary was killed at around 9am and Jack then occupied himself with 30 minutes of mutilations beside a large fire, that means he would have left Mary's room at a time when many people would have been out and about on a public holiday. Nothing like walking through a court and then crowded streets with possibly blood-splashed hands and clothing!
    Easy. The killer could've wiped his hands on some of Mary Kelly's clothing after he had finished and thrown it in the grate with the rest, then donned an overcoat to cover up any bloodstains on his own clothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • MysterySinger
    replied
    Can we compare notes on Joseph Barnett please?

    I have him born 25th May 1858 in Whitechapel to John and Catherine. He had brothers Dennis, Daniel and John and sister Catherine. He is found in the 1861, 1871, 1881 and 1911 censuses. He died on 29th November 1926 in Stepney. Less certain is that he married Agnes Louisa Rowe in 1887 (because of the date and his relationship with MJK). Is any of this obviously wrong? Where else does he pop up?

    Leave a comment:


  • JadenCollins
    replied
    Originally posted by Penhalion View Post
    Jaden- I don't actually have a theory. I don't know what happened or who did it. I'm still trying to figure it out.

    I didn't misinterpret. I quoted you exactly and asked you to respond to specific questions related to those quotes.

    I have my facts straight on MJK. I just have problems with people who mistake supposition and fantasy for facts. There are darn few solid facts on MJK. Name? Age? Place of Origin? All mysteries. But her physical appearance is not a mystery. It is documented.
    Tbh, you actually did misinterprete the last part about JTR finding her guest.

    It's not some fantasy, it can actual be true, who knows?

    And as far as I know, she was ginger.

    There's no actual proof of her birthplace or whatsoever.

    Her whole life is a mystery.
    Last edited by JadenCollins; 12-23-2015, 01:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Penhalion
    replied
    Jaden- I don't actually have a theory. I don't know what happened or who did it. I'm still trying to figure it out.

    I didn't misinterpret. I quoted you exactly and asked you to respond to specific questions related to those quotes.

    I have my facts straight on MJK. I just have problems with people who mistake supposition and fantasy for facts. There are darn few solid facts on MJK. Name? Age? Place of Origin? All mysteries. But her physical appearance is not a mystery. It is documented.

    Leave a comment:


  • Penhalion
    replied
    1. Well it's not her fault that Maxwell "caught" her. Maxwell was there, going the other way was no option and avoiding her neither.

    But she didn't appear to be trying to avoid her either- if it WAS MJK and it was on THAT day. But you specifically mentioned 'other people' seeing her so she was clearly very bad at avoiding people who knew her.

    2. Lying is not so bad, people got away with worse things. What consequences? Joe disappeared too after 1888.

    Lying at a hearing, trial, or any other legal proceeding is perjury and it is serious. The Perjury Act 1728 was in effect at the time of JtR. Section 2 provided that perjury and subornation of perjury were punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

    And Joe did fade from the radar for awhile probably because he was basically a nobody who didn't do anything interesting. He didn't disappear he still shows up in a few records. He died at the age of 68 in November 1926 at 106 Red Lion Street, Shadwell, London.

    2.b MJK was 5'7 and she wasn't blonde. And btw I'm 100% sure that she wasn't the only one with that height.

    Yes, I said 'over 5'6" which I believe includes 5'7". Did you read the description of her here on Casebook? "Mary Jane Kelly was approximately 25 years old at the time of her death which would place her birth around 1863. She was 5' 7" tall and stout. She had blonde hair, blue eyes and a fair complexion. "Said to have been possessed of considerable personal attractions." (McNaughten)". Other victims include Polly Nichols:5'2" tall; brown eyes; dark complexion; brown hair turning grey. Annie Chapman: 5' tall, 47 years old at time of death, Pallid complexion, Blue eyes, Dark brown wavy hair. Elizabeth Stride: 45 years old, pale complexion, light gray eyes and had curly dark brown hair. All the teeth in her lower left jaw were missing and she stood five foot five inches tall. (Tallest of the victims other than MJK but often not counted as a JtR victim) Katherine Eddowes: 5 feet tall, has hazel eyes and dark auburn hair. Even the non-canonicals are significantly shorter than MJK- Tabram was described as a plump middle-aged woman, about 5'3" tall, dark hair and complexion.

    I wasn't talking about the other victims. I was talking about Mary. They say she was 25, she might have been older than that, maybe in her 30s, and I know she's way younger than the others. But what does that have to do with her being a Jack The Ripper victim?

    You postulated that JtR was enraged by finding someone other than MJK in her room and so venting his frustration at not finding his intended victim on the corpse. This implies that he was looking for her specifically. That implies he knew her in some way. Why would he be looking for her specifically? Were his other kills just random and THIS one was specific? Had he been looking for MJK all along? If so then he had no idea what she looked like given the wildly different appearance she had from the other victims.

    Honestly, we know very little about MJK, even the name is probably different. She could have been 20 or 25 or 30. If you get much past 30 she is probably not going to be believable as a 20-25 year old, but really who knows? The point is she LOOKED like she could have been 25 and the other victims most emphatically looked older by at least a decade.

    The other victims are all significantly older, significantly shorter (one exception and even she is a couple of inches shorter), with dark hair. How does that support JtR seeking out MJK unless each woman was either completely opportunistic and random or each woman was sought out for an individual, specific reason. I'd be more inclined to believe he mistook Polly for Annie or Katherine than he mistook MJK for any of the others.

    Leave a comment:


  • JadenCollins
    replied
    1. You misinterpreted everything I wrote.
    2. I suggest you get your facts straight about MJK.
    3. Let me guess, your theory is clearly the opposite of mine, but that's no reason to break my theory off.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X