Bios of Maria Harvey & Joe Barnett after 1888?

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
Regarding the listing for 31 Old Gravel Lane of Joseph and Emily Barnet, it is certainly interesting but my main thought is that there are too many unresolved features at this stage to be more emphatic. The name (albeit with one T) and general area are really the only items in support. The age, name of spouse, age of spouse, trade - all are at variance so at the present stage I think all one can say is that it is an interesting possibility.

Hi Chris, Thanks. Sally also found another entry for a Joseph Barnett b 1859 in the Raine Street infirmary records in 1899? Do you think this could be the same 1911 Barnett seeing as the age matches and also Louisa was known to have been at Raine St in 1911?

[Bridewell]

Hi Chris,

If it's the same Joseph Barnett and he didn't miscalculate the length of his marriage, is there any other possibility than that he was leading a double life?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Chris Scott]

Personally I would think that for a man to get his age wrong by 5 years (when previously and after the records of his age are spot on) and also to get his own wife's name and age wrong takes a lot of believing.
I am 99% certain that this is NOT the Barnett who lived with Mary Kelly.

[lynn cates]

calculation

Hello Chris. Thanks. Is it possible that Barnett is merely off in his calculations? That seems a frequent occurrence in genealogies.

If correct, what are the implications? Two women?

Cheers.
LC

[Chris Scott]

Hi Debs
Regarding the listing for 31 Old Gravel Lane of Joseph and Emily Barnet, it is certainly interesting but my main thought is that there are too many unresolved features at this stage to be more emphatic. The name (albeit with one T) and general area are really the only items in support. The age, name of spouse, age of spouse, trade - all are at variance so at the present stage I think all one can say is that it is an interesting possibility.

[Debra A]

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?

[Chris Scott]

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.

[lynn cates]

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

[Chris Scott]

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

[Chris Scott]

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.

[Chris Scott]

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

[Chris Scott]

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:

[Chris Scott]

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

[Lechmere]

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.

[Rubyretro]

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).