Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bios of Maria Harvey & Joe Barnett after 1888?

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

  • Bios of Maria Harvey & Joe Barnett after 1888?

    Hi everybody

    What do can be stated "true" in the past-1888 lives of both Maria Harvey and Joe Barnett after nov 1888 ?

    And second, did Hutchinson completly vanished after his famous statement at the police ? Or do we know things about him ?


    regards
    Gene
    His man Bowyer
    (Forgive my accent, I've been to France for a while…)

    —————————————

  • #2
    Hi Gene

    As for Hutchinson, I'm afraid he did vanish from the case. There was his police statement, and one or two newspaper interviews, but that's it. The name "George Hutchinson" was an extremely common one and our lack of information about him has made it impossible to identify him in the census records, the birth, marriage and death records, etc. One or two candidates have been proposed, but there is no general agreement as to who was "the" George Hutchinson.

    Comment


    • #3
      The Romford Reference

      Originally posted by Robert View Post
      Hi Gene

      As for Hutchinson, I'm afraid he did vanish from the case. There was his police statement, and one or two newspaper interviews, but that's it. The name "George Hutchinson" was an extremely common one and our lack of information about him has made it impossible to identify him in the census records, the birth, marriage and death records, etc. One or two candidates have been proposed, but there is no general agreement as to who was "the" George Hutchinson.
      Hi Gene,

      I think Robert has pretty much covered all the bases re Hutchinson. We know that he claimed to have walked from Romford prior to the Kelly murder, so the birth entry of an improbably-named 'George Hutchinson Hutchinson' in the 2nd quarter of 1859 in Romford is interesting, but, as Robert has pointed out, the name was by no means uncommon.

      Regards, Bridewell.
      "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Bridewell

        I don't know whether that's the one that Bob Hinton was tracking. Bob had a dossier on a George Hutchinson with excellent Romford connections, but the signatures on the marriage certificate and the police statement just didn't match, so he abandoned that line of enquiry.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ask for it again: what on Maria Harvey past nov' 9 ?
          His man Bowyer
          (Forgive my accent, I've been to France for a while…)

          —————————————

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't know whether that's the one that Bob Hinton was tracking. Bob had a dossier on a George Hutchinson with excellent Romford connections, but the signatures on the marriage certificate and the police statement just didn't match, so he abandoned that line of enquiry.
            That is really interesting. I have always been so sorry that Bob felt that he had to leave Casebook (after being curtailed or banned, wasn't it ?). He always had informative posts (especially for me, being very interested in Hutch).
            http://youtu.be/GcBr3rosvNQ

            Comment


            • #7
              It was either a fake name - possible but in my opinion unlikely as the police interrogated him closely - or he was George William Topping Hutchinson.
              I have closely looked at all the other possible George Hutchinsons and none fit the bill.
              There weren't that many!
              There is a reluctance by some to accept George William Topping Hutchinson by some people despite one of his sons saying he was one and the same. What can be recreated in George William Topping Hutchinson's life also fits fairly well with what is know about the Ripper witness and the signature is not disimilar.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi Gene
                To answer, hopefully, part of your original question, we know what happened to Joe Barnett in the latter part of his life - where and when he died, the fact he was living with a woman as his wife but appeared not to have married her, and that he returned to his trade of portering.
                But there is a long gap in our knowledge in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder.
                He died in 1926 and for at least the last 7 years of his life (according to the A-Z) in Shadwell with his common law wife Louisa.
                As with so many things connected with Joe B there is some mystery about his marriage. Although no marriage has been traced to the women listed as his wife, Louisa Barnett, if we go back 15 years before his death to the 1911 census, he is listed as married but no details of his wife are given.
                The entry for 1911 reads as follows:
                Address: 60 Red Lion Street, E
                Name: Joseph Barnett
                Relationship: Head
                Status: Married
                Age: 53 (This fits exactly in that this would place his year of birth at 1911-53 which gives 1858, the exact year of his birth)
                Completed years of present marriage: 23
                Total children alive: None
                Total children died: None
                Occupation: Market Porter (Fish)
                Industry: Billingsgate
                Birthplace: Whitechapel, London
                Number of rooms in this dwelling: 1
                Is this THE Joseph Barnett? Well, we have a man of exactly the right age, the right trade, the right workplace and right place of birth. The odds are overwhelmingly, in my opinion, that this is Kelly's Joe Barnett.
                BUT this record poses a number of questions.
                1) His status is given as "Married" not "Widower" so we should infer that his wife was still alive. But no details of her are listed. Was he even at this stage living with the Louisa who is later listed as his wife?
                2) The most mysterious is the fact that the length of the marriage is given as 23 years. Assuming the unnamed wife is still alive, this places Barnett's marriage in 1887 or very early 1888. We can infer this from two facts:
                a) The 1911 form specifically lists COMPLETED years of marriage
                b) The census always took place in early April
                So Barnett is saying, if the form was completed correctly, that as of April 1911 he had been married for 23 FULL years, so the latest the marriage could have taken place would be early April of 1888.
                I am attaching a copy of the Barnett record and his address and signature
                Chris S
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • #9
                  With regard to Joe B's alleged wife in 1911, I some time back did a search for possible candidates.
                  The criteria I used were these:
                  1) She would be listed as Louisa Barnett
                  2) She would probably be of a broadly similar age to Joe (he is listed as 53)
                  3) She would probably come from somewhere in the environs of Whitechapel
                  4) Her marriage details as listed would have to match those for Joe exactly - i.e. 23 years completed marriage, no children alive or dead
                  5) There would have to be a logical reason why at the time of the census she could not be listed as living with him. For example she should be listed as a visitor, a patient or an inmate of some institution at the time of the census.

                  This is the first time I have posted this but I am pretty confident that I have found her. There is only one women who fits all those criteria and her details are:
                  1911 census
                  St George in the East
                  Name: Louisa Barnett
                  Relationship: Patient
                  Age: 55
                  Status: Married
                  Completed years of Marriage: 23
                  Children Alive: None
                  Children Died: None
                  Occupation: Nil
                  Place of Birth: Bethnal Green, London
                  Which institution was Louisa in?
                  The cover sheets gives its locations:
                  St George in the East Workhouse Infirmary, 3 Raine Street, St George Street

                  The next step would be to try and trace the admission and discharge record for Louisa as this should confirm her address as 60 Red Lion Street.

                  Below is the record for her for 1911:
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The admission of Louisa Barnett to the Infirmary in 1911

                    Parish of St George in the East
                    Workhouse Infirmary
                    Admitted
                    Day of the Month: March 20th 1911
                    Name: Barnet (sic), Louisa
                    When born: 1856
                    Class for Diet: Women - Sick
                    Page in Relief List: 14
                    Parish to which chargeable: St George in the East
                    By whose order admitted: Dr Jobson
                    Date of order of admission: 20/3/11
                    Cause of seeking relief: Sickness

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Discharge of Louisa Barnett from Infirmary in 1911
                      Date: April 19th 1911
                      Day of the week: Wednesday
                      Last meal before discharge: B (i.e. Breakfast)
                      Name: Barnet, Louisa
                      When born: 1856
                      Class for diet: Women - Sick
                      Page in relief list: 8
                      How disharged: O.B.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Just to acknowledge that this info was found by Sally last year and you can see the details on this thread:-
                        http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5320&page=2

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          new mystery

                          Hello Chris. This is all very interesting stuff. But just when it looks like a mystery is solved, another crops up.

                          Cheers.
                          LC

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi Lynn
                            Agreed! What piques my interest is this - there is no indication whatever that Joe and this Louisa, whoever she was, ever actually married. There was a marriage late in 1887 in Hackney between a Joseph Barnett and a Louise Rowe, but this is not them. For a start the wife's name is Louise and not Louisa but apart from that I got the certificate and the details simply do not match.
                            The one crucial missing piece of evidence is where is Joe in the 1891 and 1901 census returns. This might fill in the missing info as to when Joe and Louisa actually got together.
                            I wonder WHY Joe and Louisa decided that 1887/early 88 would be the date they settled on for their supposed marriage. This exactly coincides with the period Barnett knew Kelly. They met at easter 1887 and lived together almost immediately until Barnett left just before Kelly's death.
                            I will continue to try and find Joe and/or Louisa in 1891 and 1901 for I am now firmly convinced that the the Kent based Barnett I mentioned in "Will the Real Mary Kelly...?" has nothing whatever to do with the case.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Chris Scott View Post
                              Hi Lynn
                              Agreed! What piques my interest is this - there is no indication whatever that Joe and this Louisa, whoever she was, ever actually married. There was a marriage late in 1887 in Hackney between a Joseph Barnett and a Louise Rowe, but this is not them. For a start the wife's name is Louise and not Louisa but apart from that I got the certificate and the details simply do not match.
                              The one crucial missing piece of evidence is where is Joe in the 1891 and 1901 census returns. This might fill in the missing info as to when Joe and Louisa actually got together.
                              I wonder WHY Joe and Louisa decided that 1887/early 88 would be the date they settled on for their supposed marriage. This exactly coincides with the period Barnett knew Kelly. They met at easter 1887 and lived together almost immediately until Barnett left just before Kelly's death.
                              I will continue to try and find Joe and/or Louisa in 1891 and 1901 for I am now firmly convinced that the the Kent based Barnett I mentioned in "Will the Real Mary Kelly...?" has nothing whatever to do with the case.

                              Hi Chris, Sally did also propose a candidate in the 1901 census on the same thread you linked to. What are your thoughts on that particular Joseph Barnett and wife Emily?
                              ,ΈΈ,ψ€Ί°`°Ί€ψ,ΈΈ, Debs ,ΈΈ,ψ€Ί°`°Ί€ψ,ΈΈ,

                              I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X