Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barnett - The Indefinite Article!

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

  • Barnett - The Indefinite Article!

    Barnett seems rather vague and indefinite about Kelly, despite knowing her intimately for eighteen months:

    Quote:

    Joseph Barnett deposed : I was a fish-porter, and I work as a labourer and fruit- porter. Until Saturday last I lived at 24, New-street, Bishopsgate, and have since stayed at my sister's, 21, Portpool-lane, Gray's Inn-road. I have lived with the deceased one year and eight months. Her name was Marie Jeanette Kelly with the French spelling as described to me. Kelly was her maiden name. I have seen the body, and I identify it by the ear and eyes, which are all that I can recognise; but I am positive it is the same woman I knew. I lived with her in No. 13 room, at Miller's-court for eight months. I separated from her on Oct. 30.
    [Coroner] Why did you leave her ? - Because she had a woman of bad character there, whom she took in out of compassion, and I objected to it. That was the only reason. I left her on the Tuesday between five and six p.m. I last saw her alive between half-past seven and a quarter to eight on Thursday night last, when I called upon her. I stayed there for a quarter of an hour.
    [Coroner] Were you on good terms ? - Yes, on friendly terms; but when we parted I told her I had no work, and had nothing to give her, for which I was very sorry.
    [Coroner] Did you drink together ? - No, sir. She was quite sober.
    [Coroner] Was she, generally speaking, of sober habits ? - When she was with me I found her of sober habits, but she has been drunk several times in my presence.
    [Coroner] Was there any one else there on the Thursday evening ? - Yes, a woman who lives in the court. She left first, and I followed shortly afterwards.
    [Coroner] Have you had conversation with deceased about her parents ? - Yes, frequently. She said she was born in Limerick, and went when very young to Wales. She did not say how long she lived there, but that she came to London about four years ago. Her father's name was John Kelly, a "gaffer" or foreman in an iron works in Carnarvonshire, or Carmarthen. She said she had one sister, who was respectable, who travelled from market place to market place. This sister was very fond of her. There were six brothers living in London, and one was in the army. One of them was named Henry. I never saw the brothers to my knowledge. She said she was married when very young in Wales to a collier. I think the name was Davis or Davies. She said she had lived with him until he was killed in an explosion, but I cannot say how many years since that was. Her age was, I believe, 16 when she married. After her husband's death deceased went to Cardiff to a cousin.
    [Coroner] Did she live there long ? - Yes, she was in an infirmary there for eight or nine months. She was following a bad life with her cousin, who, as I reckon, and as I often told her, was the cause of her downfall.
    [Coroner] After she left Cardiff did she come direct to London ? - Yes. She was in a gay house in the West-end, but in what part she did not say. A gentleman came there to her and asked her if she would like to go to France.
    [Coroner] Did she go to France ? - Yes; but she did not remain long. She said she did not like the part, but whether it was the part or purpose I cannot say. She was not there more than a fortnight, and she returned to England, and went to Ratcliffe-highway. She must have lived there for some time. Afterwards she lived with a man opposite the Commercial Gas Works, Stepney. The man's name was Morganstone.
    [Coroner] Have you seen that man ? - Never. I don't know how long she lived with him.
    [Coroner] Was Morganstone the last man she lived with ? - I cannot answer that question, but she described a man named Joseph Fleming, who came to Pennington-street, a bad house, where she stayed. I don't know when this was. She was very fond of him. He was a mason's plasterer, and lodged in the Bethnal-green-road.
    [Coroner] Was that all you knew of her history when you lived with her? - Yes. After she lived with Morganstone or Fleming - I don't know which one was the last - she lived with me.
    [Coroner] Where did you pick up with her first ? - In Commercial-street. We then had a drink together, and I made arrangements to see her on the following day - a Saturday. On that day we both of us agreed that we should remain together. I took lodgings in George-street, Commercial-street, where I was known. I lived with her, until I left her, on very friendly terms.
    [Coroner] Have you heard her speak of being afraid of any one ? - Yes; several times. I bought newspapers, and I read to her everything about the murders, which she asked me about.
    [Coroner] Did she express fear of any particular individual ? - No, sir. Our own quarrels were very soon over.
    The Coroner: You have given your evidence very well indeed. (To the Jury): The doctor has sent a note asking whether we shall want his attendance here to-day. I take it that it would be convenient that he should tell us roughly what the cause of death was, so as to enable the body to be buried. It will not be necessary to go into the details of the doctor's evidence; but he suggested that he might come to state roughly the cause of death.
    The jury acquiesced in the proposed course.

    Unquote;

    ++
    Last edited by mpriestnall; 08-30-2021, 11:32 AM.
    Sapere Aude

  • #2
    If you're put up to give a false background for someone, best be vague about the details, so the details can't be checked and challenged!
    Sapere Aude

    Comment


    • #3
      Barnett only had a limited time to "learn his lines", so that could be another reason for his vagueness.
      Sapere Aude

      Comment


      • #4
        Leaving aside for a moment the question why Barnett would give a false background for Mary Kelly in the first place, and also conveniently not taking into account the great shock he must have felt at witnessing the obliterated body of his former lover, not recalling every detail of the tale conveyed by Kelly is what's to be expected under the circumstances. Furthermore, had Barnett- for some unknown and improbable reason- wanted to feign information pertaining to his former lover's background, the details he did provide to the inquest are surprisingly specific and not exactly what one would expect him to recollect or fail to recollect. The fact of the matter that few details regarding Kelly's pre-London whereabouts can be substantiated is, of course, another matter, more likely than not stemming from the probability that Mary Jane Kelly (or Marie Jeanette Kelly, as Barnett will have it) was an assumed name.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jurriaan Maessen View Post
          Leaving aside for a moment the question why Barnett would give a false background for Mary Kelly in the first place, and also conveniently not taking into account the great shock he must have felt at witnessing the obliterated body of his former lover, not recalling every detail of the tale conveyed by Kelly is what's to be expected under the circumstances. Furthermore, had Barnett- for some unknown and improbable reason- wanted to feign information pertaining to his former lover's background, the details he did provide to the inquest are surprisingly specific and not exactly what one would expect him to recollect or fail to recollect. The fact of the matter that few details regarding Kelly's pre-London whereabouts can be substantiated is, of course, another matter, more likely than not stemming from the probability that Mary Jane Kelly (or Marie Jeanette Kelly, as Barnett will have it) was an assumed name.
          Hi Jurriaan,

          Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

          "Tegen de stroom in zwemmen is ziek" which is my of saying I'll think I'll park my views on the case for a while.

          Cheers,

          Martyn
          Sapere Aude

          Comment


          • #6
            ...to focus on my manuscript btw. Stand by!
            Sapere Aude

            Comment


            • #7
              Well, that's interesting. Are you Dutch, as I am? If that's an affirmative, we're probably the only two dutchmen working on the Kelly case.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jurriaan Maessen View Post
                Well, that's interesting. Are you Dutch, as I am? If that's an affirmative, we're probably the only two dutchmen working on the Kelly case.
                Sorry, Jurriaan, only when drinking! ("Going Dutch").

                I am english btw.

                Martyn

                Sapere Aude

                Comment


                • #9
                  Haha, all right.
                  & cheers.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jurriaan Maessen View Post
                    Haha, all right.
                    & cheers.
                    Good luck with your research into the case.

                    Going to stop posting now. "Scrivener" the writer's WP is calling me...
                    Sapere Aude

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X