|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 12:05 pm: |       |
I will say from the outset that this is not only a MAYBE, but a very large MAYBE!!!
One abiding problem has been the apparent absence of any record of the Joseph Barnett of Miller's Court fame in either the 1891 or 1901 census returns.
Joseph's birth certificate gives his date of birth as 25th May 1858, so at the time of the 1891 census he would have been 32 years of age, one month away from his 33rd birthday. As always we must be wary of age alone as an identifier as this can be very "fluid" in census records and often varies by a year or two either way. IN the census records we have for Jospeh, his ages at the times of the censuses are given as follows:
1861 - 3
1871 - 13
1881 - 22
In the 1891 census we would therefore be looking for a Joseph Barnett of 33 or thereabouts. I have searched under variants of the forename (Joseph, Joe, Jos, J. etc) and under the surname (Barnett, Barnet) and possible logical mistranscriptions (Barrett, Bassett, even Parnell). There were a few possible identification but, without exception, there was one huge stumbling block for all these individuals. All were listed as married, and from the ages of the children listed, it was obvious that the marriage took place well before 1888. The available evidence we have about Barnett offers, as far as I am aware, not the slightest hint that at the time he was living with Kelly that he was married and had fathered children.
All of the above searches were carried out on the premise that Barnett, after the murders, carried on living in London. The next logical step was to extend the same searches as outlined above outside the capital incorporating the added provisoes that any individual who seemed a likely identification must be either unmarried or must have married since the time of the murders, late 1888.
All of the above conditions lead to only one individual. This person's surname in the 1891 census (both the index and original enumerator's aheet) was listed as Barnet but this same man's name was listed in 1901 as Barnett. To reiterate I was looking for someone with the following characteristics:
1) His name would be Joseph Barnett or some feasible variant thereof
2) His age would in 1891 be 33 or close thereto
3) If he were married indications are that this would have occurred after November 1888
4) His trade would probably be that of a labourer or of similar status.
5) His place of birth would have been listed as in or near Whitechapel
The only person fulfilling all these criteria was married and was in fact living in Kent. He was married and had one daughter but she was only 11 months old at the time of the marriage (i.e. born May 1890 and conception some time about August 1889) which means that the marriage could well have taken place in 1889.
The details for 1891 of this individual are as follows:
3 True Briton Alley, Minster in Sheppey, Kent
Head:
Joseph Barnet (sic) aged 33 born Spitalfields - Labourer
Wife:
Catherine Barnet aged 37 born Bridge, Kent
Daughter:
Florence Teresa Barnet aged 11 months born Sheerness, Kent
A copy of this record is attached below.
Following this individual through to 1901 again shows the caution that must be used as the age field has again magically gained 10 years! Other cases, as in the erratic ages shown for Albert Backert in the census returns, show this is, sadly, not that unusual.
The 1901 information for this family is as follows:
Yielstead, Stockbury, Kent
Head:
Joseph Barnett aged 44(?) born Spitalfields - Agricultural labourer
Wife:
Catherine Barnett aged 48 born Bridge, Kent
Daughter:
Florence Barnett aged 10 born Sheerness
Again note that in this return the spelling of the surname is listed as Barnett as opposed to Barnet in the 1891 listing.
A copy of the return is also attached below.
IF (and again I emphasise it is huge IF) this is the Joseph Barnett of Miller's Court fame then it would mean he left London and married within a pretty short time after the murders. I have not so far been able to trace the marriage record for this Jospeh and Catherine Barnett but will carry on looking for this. The most likely identification for Barnett's wife is Catherine Wilson, but I have yet to verify this.
 |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Hi, Chris
Did Joseph have a relation named David Barnett? I don't know if this is the same Joseph Barnett, but this article might be of interest to you: The Times, 28 Oct 1892.
Cheers,
Dave |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
Hi David
Spooky that- I was looking at that article the other day! I have not yet done any work on this David/Joseph Barnett link - will have a look
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1454
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Dave,
On rereading the article you mentioned, one thing occurs to me. In the searches I have done the Barnett surname seems two refer to two main ethic groupings, i.e. Irish and Jewish. Considering the fact that the plaintiffs in this case were a Mr and Mrs Cohen, it is possible that the David and Joseph Barnett were Jewish Barnetts rather than Irish Barnetts.
Chris
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
Hi, Chris
On the subject of Jewish Barnetts, have you seen The Times, 9 April 1880?
I haven't done much reading on Joseph Barnett--this is a different person from MJK's Barnett?
Cheers,
Dave |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1111
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 1:36 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
It has always been a puzzle to me that Joseph Barnett was not traceable in the 1891-1901 census.
I have reason to believe that Barnett [of millers court fame[ was infact married at the time of his meeting with Mary kelly.
How about the marriage between joseph Barnett and Julia jacobs in December 1878[ a jewish woman] the 1891 census shows him living at 50, mile end Shadwell, which incidently the same location shadwell he was living in 1906 and 19i9-1926.
I Have had a theory for some time now that Joseph Barnett was a married man with children, but seperated, and that he returned to his wife soon after millers court.
And I have reason to believe that this Joseph Barnett was the man in question.
Regards Richard. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 2:39 pm: | |
Hi Richard
I looked at the Joseph and Julia you mention but must admit I have reservations.
The fact they had 5 children during the period 1879 to 1886 and they are listed as living together in 1881, 1891 and 1901 suggests a stable marriage.
Two more serious objections are)
1) I am confident we have already identified the Miller's Court Joseph in the 1881 census and he is listed as unmarried
2) The Barnett you suggest is listed as a commercial traveller, of which there is no hint in Barnett's background or experience
You say above
have reason to believe that Barnett [of millers court fame[ was infact married at the time of his meeting with Mary kelly.
Could you elaborate as to what led you to believe this?
All the best
Chris
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 993
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Chris and Richard
I do find it curious that there were a large number of Barnetts who were Jewish living in London at the time of the murders. I do accept the fact though that as Chris says there appear to have been Irish Barnetts and Jewish Barnetts.
Doesn't it appear likely then that the Joseph Barnett who married Julia Jacobs in December 1878 was Jewish? I also do agree with Chris that it would appear that it is unlikely that this could be our Joe given his reported occupation of commercial traveller and that the couple had 5 children during the period 1879 to 1886. The fact that Mary's Joe's testimony appeared in the paper, along with his sketch makes it even less probable that this could be the same Joe who married Julia... Though nonetheless, Richard, we should leave ourselves open to the possibility that Joe could have been married.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 3:04 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
The Joseph Barnett in the 1881 Census calls himself unmarried, but that does not mean that he was, at that time he was living at 1, Horatio street, london, with brother john as guest.
Is it not possible that he left his wife and two chlidren , and was hiding away at the time of the census.
I think that it is significant, that this Joseph Barnett of the right age lived in shadwell at the time of the 1891 census, and that the almost certain Joseph Barnett was resident at 18 new gravel lane, Shadwell in 1906,at 60. Red Lion street, Shadwell in 1907, and the years between 1919- 1926 at 106 Red Lion Street, Shadwell.
In my mind Chris , the Joseph Barnett who married Julia in 1878, is the same Joseph Barnett, that was with her in the 1891 census, and the same Barnett that remained in Shadwell proberly from 1906-1926.
I Would hazard a quess that Barnett left is wife before 1881 census, met kelly a few years later, and returned head in hand after the murders.
Regards Richard. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Hi Richard
The Joseph and Julia Barnett listed at 50 Mile End road had the following children at that time:
Louie born 1879
Rachael born 1880
Gershon born 1882
Matilda born 1884
Rosetta born 1886.
If this Barnett left his wife in 1881 and returned after the murders then at least three of these children were not his.
However the main objection is that the Joseph Barnett of 50 Mile End Road is listed separately with his wife and two oldest children living at 6 Artillery Street in 1881. The surname is noted in the transcription as BASSETT but the correlation of family details and names (Joseph, Julia, Lewis and Rachael) makes it clear, in my opinion, that this is the Barnett family listed in 1891 at Mile End road.
Joseph BASSETT Head M Male 17 London, Middlesex, England Boot Clicker
Julia BASSETT Wife M Female 17 Middlesex, England
Lewis BASSETT Son U Male 3 Middlesex, England
Rachael BASSETT Daur U Female 2 Middlesex, England
Source Information:
Dwelling 6 Artillery St
Census Place London, Middlesex, England
Family History Library Film 1341095
Public Records Office Reference RG11
Piece / Folio 0438 / 116
Page Number 35
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1457
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Chris G
Re. the Jewish Barnett connection, I found this comment:
This project is a scientific study using DNA specifically the Y-Chromosomes of males from families with the surname Barnett. The project encompasses any surname now or previously spelled Barnet/Barnett/Barnette including Barney or any derivitive thereof. While there is no known study going on for Bernard.Barnard there should be. If you have that name and want to join in the testing you would be welcome to join with us.
When I was a child my grandfather told me if we spelled our name Barnet we were Jewish; If we spelled our name Barnett we were English or Irish; and if we spelled our name Barnette we were French.
This is from a website called
Barnett Y-Chromosome DNA Project
whose aim is
"This project is a scientific study using DNA specifically the Y-Chromosomes of males from families with the surname Barnett. The project encompasses any surname now or previously spelled Barnet/Barnett/Barnette including Barney or any derivitive thereof."
The site can be found at
http://micbarnette.bravepages.com/_barnett_dna_project.html |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Just one more note. It appears that the Jewish Barnetts were probably BARUCH in origin. Found this note:
In Poland, in particular, many Jews used a variety of names for business, religious and social purposes. These too were often changed or simplified after a period in the new country. Baruch might become Barnett or Barney or Bernard. Sometimes it helps to know the meaning of the original name as when Blume became Flora. Many people changed their names for secular purposes but retained their Hebrew names for religious purposes. These names can often be found on gravestones in the Hebrew writing and they are useful because they are written in the form of patronymics and thus give you the father's name (in Hebrew at least).
|
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 198
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 1:09 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Great work as always. Did the census enumerators spell the name as the censusee spoke it? If so, and depending on Joe speech impediment, you may want to look under "B B B BARNET" or maybe "BARNA NA NETT". If he had echolia as previously thought you may need to search under "MYNAME?MYNAME?BARNETT" Just a thought, Brad |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3255
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 4:41 am: | |
Hi Chris
I know you've been through this before somewhere, so apologies for asking you to refresh my memory, but what's wrong with the Joseph Barnett, 30 (there's a tally mark through the age, but Ancestry reckon it's 30), living at 8 Brady St Dwellings with wife Flora 29 and children David, 5, Julia, 2, and infant Alice? (1891).
The occupation looks like it might be Costermonger with "Hawk" written above it, but it looks a bit as if the enumerator may have crossed out the "Coster" and written after it "oranges" - so orange hawker?
Maybe he married Flora when she already had David, the other two children being his i.e. he married after 1888?
Robert
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1459
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 6:51 am: | |
Hi Robert
The trade description is all one word - "Costermonger" which simply means a street trader. The "Hawk" written by it means that this indiviual also worked as a hawker. The main difference is as follows:
A costermonger tended to work from a fixed "pitch" and often had a coster's barrow from which he/she would sell their wares. A hawker wandered from place to place to sell their goods with a more portable means of displaying them. often a tray hung round their neck.
This couple married in 3rd quarter of 1883 and his wife's maiden name was Flora Rees, daughter of Ellen Rees. She is listed in 1881 living at 25 Shepherd Street and was a Netherlands Jew in background, although herself born in London.
This, coupled with the contextual information for the residents of Brady Street dwellings in 1891, convinced me that the Joseph Barnett listed at 8 Brady Street Dwellings (all the other families listed are east European Jews)was overwhelmingly likely to be one of the Jewish Barnetts rather than the Irish Barnetts.
All the best
Chris
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3256
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 8:30 am: | |
OK, Chris. It seems weird to have Joseph as an agricultural labourer, but once you have eliminated the impossible....
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1460
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 8:54 am: | |
Hi Robert
Just a few more observations:
1) I am not saying that the Kent Jospeh Barnett IS the Miller's Court man. There simply is not the evidence to state that. Only that of all the Barnetts I have been able to find he seems the most likely at the moment.
2) He is not described as an agricultural labourer until 1901. In 1891 he is simply listed as labourer, as was the "real" Joseph Barnett in 1881 when a lodger.
3) The choice of names for the young daughter, Florence Teresa, could well suggest a Catholic household (they often named their chidfren after saints) which would fit with an Irish background.
All the best
Chris |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3257
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 9:09 am: | |
Understood, Chris. Well, at least it's Kent and not Yorkshire! Maybe Joe's parents first lived in Kent because they had connections there.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1461
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 11:52 am: | |
I am continuing researches on this Kent family. One minor amendment - Joseph's daughter was called Florence Teresa in 1891 census and just Florence in 1901.
In 1891 (April) she is listed as 11 months old so we should expect the birth to be registered in the 2nd Quarter of 1890. They were living in Sheerness which is on the Isle of Sheppey, north kent, which would have been the registration district. Looking at the births registerd for that quarter it looks very much as though her given names at birth were Florence Catharine which would make sense if her mother was also Catharine by name.
 |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 994
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Hi all
I have had a conversation with the Barnettites before when the topic came up about whether Joe Barnett as a fish porter at Billingsgate market cut up fish and was therefore handy with a knife. My contention is that, no, not necessarily, his job could have been just to haul around cases of fish. In this case, his job was more or less being a laborer. Thus, if Chris is right and that Joe was listed later as a laborer or agricultural laborer, this would mean that he was not really doing work that much removed from what he was doing at Billingsgate, i.e., likely as a laborer he would still be lifting and hauling and other similar activities.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1462
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 9:23 am: | |
Hi Chris
Your comment:
Thus, if Chris is right and that Joe was listed later as a laborer or agricultural laborer,...
I should qualify this by saying that one of these descriptions is definite and one tentative. The 1881 listing for Joseph, which I consider definite, in that it also lists his brother John (described as a fish porter) is as follows:
1 Horatio Street, London
George BAILEY Head M Male 28 London City Of, Middlesex, England General Dealer
Mary A. BAILEY Wife M Female 26 St Lukes
James BAILEY Son Male 5 St Lukes
Lizzie BAILEY Daur Female 3 Shoreditch
Alfred BAILEY Son Male 1 Shoreditch
Joseph BARNETT Lodger U Male 22 Whitechapel General Labourer
John BARNETT Visitor U Male 20 Whitechapel Fish Porter
If the Kent Barnett mentioned above has any connection with this man (which I think is possible but not yet proven) then he was described in 1891 as a "labourer" and not until 1901 as an "agricultural labourer." IF this is "our" Joseph and he did leave the East End in 1889 or 1890 and move to Kent, then it is not surprising that he would adapt his employment to the local economy and end up as a farm worker. In a place like Sheppey, which I know reasonably well, the two main forms of employment would have been agricultural labour and dock labour in Sheerness Docks.
All the best
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1463
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Chris G
I was going through some articles today that Stephen sent to transcribe and this extract caught my eye. Two points of interest
The unnamed informant says Barnett's work as a porter was only sporadic. Also interesting to note the comment about Kelly speaking Welsh.
This is from the Daily News of November 11, 1888
Chris
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3264
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 2:00 pm: | |
From the "Times" Feb 25th 1914.
Robert |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
