Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another version of the Barnett account

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

  • Another version of the Barnett account

    I don't remember seeing this particlar version before. One interesting anomaly here - Barnett says that when he met Kelly at Easter 1887 she was 22 years old.


    Manchester Times
    17 November 1888

    THE CAREER OF THE VICTIM
    Joseph Barnett, the man who lived with the deceased woman Kelly as her husband until a few days before her death, has made the following full
    statement:
    "I first met the deceased last Easter twelvemonth, and I lived with her from that time until last Tuesday fortnight. I was in decent work in Billingsgate Market when I first met her, and we lived along quite comfortably. She was then twenty two years of age, fresh looking, and well behaved, though she had been walking the streets for some three years previously. She told me that her maiden name was Marie Jeanette Kelly, and that she was born in Limerick. Her parents, who were fairly well off, removed when she was child to Wales, and they lived in Carmarthenshire. When she was but a little over sixteen years of age she married a collier, but I do not remember his name. He was killed in an explosion in the mine, and then Marie went to Cardiff with her cousin, living as a prostitute. Thence she went to France, but remained only a short time. Afterwards she lived in a fashionable house of ill fame in the West End of London, but drifted from the West End to the East End, where she took lodgings in Pennington Street. Her father came from Wales and tried to find her there, but hearing from her companions that he was looking for her, Marie kept out of the way. A brother in the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards came to see her once, but beyond that she saw none of her relations, nor did she correspond with them. When she was in Pennington Street a man named Morganstone lived with her, and subsequently a man named Joseph Fleming passed as her husband. She lived with me first of all in George Street, then in Paternoster Court, Dorset Street, but we were ejected from our lodgings there because we went on a drink, and did not pay our rent. We took lodgings afterwards in Brick Lane, and, finally, about four months ago, in Miller's Court, where the murder occurred. We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room. I objected and as Mrs Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left her, and went and took lodgings elsewhere. I told her I would come back if she would go and live somewhere else. I used to call there nearly every day, and if I had any money I used to give her some. I last saw her alive at 7.30 on Thursday night. I stopped about a quarter of an hour, and told her I had no money. Next day I heard there had been a murder in Miller's Court, and on my way there I met my sister's brother in law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the court, and there saw the police inspector, and told him who I was, and where I had been the previous night. They kept me about four hours, examining my clothes for blood stains, and finally finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free. Marie never went out on the streets when she lived with me. She would never have gone wrong again and I should never have left if it had not been for the prostitutes stopping at the house. She only let them in the house because she was good hearted, and did not like to refuse them shelter on a cold bitter night."

  • #2
    Chris,

    This is interesting. The mention of Kelly's parents as being well-off is new to me, as is the intimation that MJK had many prostitutes stay with her, and not just Julia. If this is accurate (big if), there are many possible implications.

    Thanks,

    Mike
    huh?

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Michael
      Glad you found this interesting - just for reference the original is below
      Chris
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • #4
        "Marie went with her cousin to Cardiff" ...an interesting construction.

        The version with which I'm most familiar is "She went to stay with a cousin in Cardiff", which I've always read as "She stayed with a cousin [who was already living] in Cardiff". Of course, it can also mean "She and her cousin left [together] to live in Cardiff".

        It's only on reading the Manchester Times version that I've noticed the ambiguity.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • #5
          Or she went with her cousin to Cardiff to stay with another cousin.

          Too many possibilities, but intriguing nevertheless.

          Mike
          huh?

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi,
            According to McCarthy the couple rented the room around Feb 88, that is nine months not four, as Barnett recollected....
            Also if Barnett could not recall Marys young husbands name, how come he clearly stated elsewhere the mans name was Davies/Davis, also that surname appears on her death certificate does it not ie A.K.A. Davies.?
            Obviously he was not thinking straight during that press interview, other more pressing things on his mind perhaps?.
            Regards Richard.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hello Nunners,
              Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
              Also if Barnett could not recall Marys young husbands name, how come he clearly stated elsewhere the mans name was Davies/Davis, also that surname appears on her death certificate does it not ie A.K.A. Davies.?
              Perhaps the journalist didn't press him for it. Elsewhere he says "I think she said her husband's name was Davis or Davies" (police interview), or "Davis or Davies.... I think Davies" (inquest), so it's possible that Barnett truly wasn't sure of the name, and only dug it out in response to specific prompts from Abberline or Macdonald. Even then, the answer was tentative ("I think it was...").

              It's worth remembering that, whilst these interviews might come across as seamless speeches, in reality they would have been anything but - rather, what we often see are "reasonable summaries" of what was said. Press interviews, then as now, do not preserve all the prompts or questions raised by the interviewing journalists - but they almost certainly do ask them. Likewise, there were interjections from coroners and juries at inquests that appear not to have been recorded consistently, either in official or press sources.

              If we had those "missing bits", I'm sure we'd be able to make more sense of what witnesses said, and interpret their words more fairly. If only they'd had tape-recorders back then!

              Two eagle-eyed observations, by the way
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment

              Working...
              X