|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 6:47 pm: |       |
Hallo Leanne
Barnett left Kelly on Oct 30th. When Kelly died her rent was 29 shillings, i.e. six and a half weeks, in arrears. She'd have been in rent trouble a good month before Barnett walked out!
Either she wasn't paying anything during this period, or she would have been paying a reduced sum, say half rent, for a period dating back to about the time Barnett lost his job. That would also add up to about 29 shillings.
It may be we only have Barnett's word that it was Kelly who asked him to read to her, but Paley suggested that Kelly was affected by the Smith and Tabram murders, so why shouldn't she have wanted to hear about the others? Many people did.
NB I hadn't noticed until today, so congratulations on your promotion, Inspector Abberleanne!
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 4:16 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
This could have course be pure hearsay, however I believe a nephew of Barnett, a few years ago said he remembers his uncle saying.Quote.. I always felt sorry for her killer, for he could never come forward for fear of being topped.
That is a very strange statement.
It would imply that Barnett believed that the killer of his woman, was not the Ripper, and he could never admit it for being labelled as the Whitechapel murderer.
Is this an admission of guilt , or did he have a insight to the murderer of Mary Jane?.
Richard.
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 8:53 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: I'm sorry, I typed without thinking quick enough! I remember we worked it out that Kelly would have stopped paying at the time Barnett lost his job. SORRY and thanks for pointing that out!
Why wouldn't someone like Mary Kelly have wanted to hear whether or not the killer was charged?
Last time I looked I was 'Detective Sergeant'. I take it that 'Inspector' is better (I HOPE!). Stephen could use a demotion to warn people that they are misbehaving and better smarten-up!
RICHARD: That quote you found is very interesting, where did you find it? Why would he feel sorry for the killer of the woman he loved and how could he know what her killer was frightened of? How could he even spare a thought for him?
Bruce Paley says that Denis Barnett married Mary Ann Garett in 1869.
Catherine Barnett married Joseph Beer in 1871,
and her daughter Catherine died in 1960 at age 86.
Can't find what happened to Daniel or John Barnett.
LEANNE |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 23
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 2:52 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
The quote Richard mentioned is from "Jack the Ripper The Mystery Solved" by Paul Harrison.
Unfortuately Paul Harrison, identified a different Joseph Barnett from Bruce Paley, and it is likely Paul Harrison got the wrong one
Rob |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 6:38 pm: | |
Hallo everyone
That's OK, Leanne, no problem.
I've been cudgelling my brains to think what Barnett could have meant, and then Rob comes and tells us it's the wrong Barnett!
I just hope there's only one Jack the Ripper!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 5:51 am: | |
G'day Rob,
There were more than three 'Joseph Barnetts' at the time. Bruce Paley got the right one, because he researched at:
'The British Library;
The British Newspaper Library;
The Greater London Record Office;
The Guildhall Record Room and Library;
The London Museum of Jewish Life;
The Public Record Office in Kew;
The Ragged School Museum;
St Catherine's House;
The Tower Hamlets Library;
and records of Billingsgate Porter's licenses.'
Just because it was found that Paul Harrison researched the wrong one, doesn't prove that he spoke to the nephew of the same one that he researched!
Anyway let's leave that quote alone, because those who are convinced that our Joe couldn't have killed her, will pounce on the fact that Harrison researched the wrong one!
Just remember, Paley got the right Joseph barnett!
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 5:59 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
The real Joseph Barnetts identity, is a mystery,
my question is can we say for sure that Harrisons candidate is the wrong person?
After all he claims to have had a meeting with Barnetts nephew , who told him the statement from his uncle , surely this must therefore be the right man, if it had been any old person who just happened to have the same surname, why would that statement have been made?. odds are the uncle would have never have expressed an opinion, in that crptic manner.
There must have been lots of Barnetts born between 1858-1860 in Britain, Chris names the most likely list, I would tend to sway to the 1860 list as the most likely, the marble polisher the most likely.
Intrestingly both Paleys and harrisons Barnetts died within a year of each other, could they have not been the same person with a confusion of dates?.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 9:57 am: | |
G'day Richard,
The real 'Joseph Barnett', the one-and-only, is no longer a mystery. Bruce Paley revealed him. There is a copy of his birth certificate his death certificate and his Billingsgate Porters licence, in 'Jack the Ripper, The Simple Truth'! Imagine the confusion if two Joseph Barnetts worked at Billingsgate!
The Billingsgate fish porters licences were deposited at the Guildhall Record Room, London. He got the known addresses from birth certificates, porters licences, press statements and his inquest testimony.
If Harrison had a meeting with Barnett's nephew, how could he have been sure it was his Barnett's nephew, or Paley's Barnett's nephew?
This death certificate in front of me now, definately says he died on the 29th of November 1926.
See ya tomorrow!
LEANNE
|
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 30
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Leanne, Richard, Marie, Robert
Paul Harrison spoke to the relative firstly on the phone and the relative confirmed Joseph Barnetts date and place of death 15th March 1927, Old Ford Road, Bethnal Green.
There is no mention of the relative being his nephew, I got the impression he may have been a grandson. The only proof the relative gave was some newspaper cuttings(33 in total) of the Whitechapel murders from August (starting with Martha Tabram) to April 1891.
I thought I found him in the 1901 census but I got the wrong one, the information was interesting so here it is:
Joseph Barnett
Age: 40
Address: 8 Brady Street Dwellings
Born: Whitechapel
Profession: General Dealer Fruit
Other Occupiers of the premises were
Wife, Flora Barnett age 38
Son, David, age 15, profession: Clerk Commercial.
Daughter, Julia, age 12
Daughter, Alice, age 10
Son, Mark, age 7
Brady Street Dwellings is about one minute walk from Bucks Row.
Rob
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 1:33 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
My point is regardless of nephew or grandson, the fact remains that Harrisons contact, who I believe he met in the flesh, stated that his uncle or grandfather stated that quote, also if the newspaper cuttings were original, I would say, knowing as we do Barnetts obsession in reading to Kelly, the fact that he kept all the press reports starting with the Tabram murder, suggests to me that Harrisons informant was a decendant Of Barnetts,if it was the wrong Barnett, why would this person have all these clippings, of course it could have been Paleys Barnett relation , then of course we have a problem of dates,..
To finalize The quote .. I always felt sorry for her killer for he could not come forward for fear of being topped.. is strong evidence that Barnett knew that Kellys killer was not JACK , and that if her killer admitted the act, he would have been branded Jack the Ripper.
So question is, what made him think that?.
Was he the killer of Mary? or did he know the person who killed her , and could understand his reasons for the act.
I believe like the events at leytonstone cemetary, and Barnetts quote, although both could be classed as pure hearsay, could be significant in solving the death of at least Mary Kelly..
Regards Richard. |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 32
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 2:47 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Paul Harrison met his informant in the 'Blind Begger' public house.
There isn't any doubt that he found the wrong Barnett, so we have the problem of the informants dates. The only reason I can think of is if the two Joseph Barnetts were related, say there father or grandfather might be brothers. It's something that needs to be researched.
I agree with you that Joseph Barnett killed just Mary Kelly and not the other women, but I think the newspaper clippings don't help that scenario. If they did they would have stopped at Elizabeth Stride and Catharine Eddowes.
All the best
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 10:11 pm: | |
G'day,
The birth certificate that Bruce Paley displays in his book, says: 'When and Where Born: Twenty fifth May 1858, 4 Hairbrain Court Whitechapel'. I'd say this is our Barnett because he would have been 30 years old in 1888.
It also says: 'name of mother: Catherine Barnett, formerly Hayes', 'Name of father: John Barnett', 'Occupation of father: Dock labourer'.
The death certificate underneath of a Joseph Barnett says: 'When and Where died: twenty ninth November 1926, 106 Red Lion Street, Shadwell', 'Occupation: Dock labourer', 'Cause of death: Bronchitis' and 'A. Denis' of 'Red Lion Street' was the informant.
The birth certificate here, I'd say is the correct one, but the death certificate has only the name of 'A. Denis' living at the same address, to link it to our Joseph Barnett.
Our Joseph Barnett was known to have a brother named Denis, but why would it appear here as the informants surname? It could even say: 'A. Donis'
The other Joseph barnett could have been a dock labourer too!
RICHARD: That quote: "I always felt sorry for her killer for he could not come forward for fear of being topped". does not prove that Joseph Barnett only killed only Mary! Why does it suggest to you that he knew Kelly's killer was not 'Jack the Ripper'?
"...fear of being topped." Wouldn't the killer of all the women fear of being labelled as the ghoul of the East End? Especially if it's true that the label was given to him by the press!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 10:34 pm: | |
G'day,
Reading Viper's 'Dissertation' story titled: 'Hey Joe, Your Porter Story Sounds Fishy!', he notes a porters licence: 'Badge 739, Barnett, Joseph, Address 18 New Gravel Lane, Shadwell. Age 49.' I'd say this is our Joe, who lived with his brother Daniel.
Viper then gives 8 renewal dates for this licence and then states: 'There are changes of addresses to 60 Red Lion Street and 1 Tench Street, Wapping. There is a faded, illegible comment in the margin which may refer to the late renewal of this license in 1913. A new application number was entered for that year.'
Bruce Paley has his Joe as moving to 'Tench Street, Wapping' in 1908 and from there he moved to 'Red Lion Street'. Paley got these details from the same licences.
Paley writes: 'There are no known official records of Barnett until 1906 when he was given a new porter's licence at Billingsgate Market'.
This is all giving me a headache! What I am trying to work out is whether Paley was side-tracked onto the wrong Joseph Barnett, who may also have had a porter's licence. Could the proof lie in the 'illegible comment in the margin'?
If our Joe was living with his brother Daniel on Gravel Lane in 1906/7, how come he appears to have suddenly moved in with his other brother Denis at Red Lion Street? How can we know that this Denis was Joes brother Denis, when Paley tells readers on page 9 that Denis Barnett married in 1869 and escaped to Bermondsey to raise a family?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 4:15 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
The Statement we are refering to, in my mind can be interputed in a couple of ways.
1] The killer if he admitted killing K elly would be branded as Jack..
2] The killer simply was riddled with guilt, but was reluctant to admit his involvement, for fear of being executed.
I find it hard to find any more interpetations of that message.
Regarding the headache you are getting over Barnetts movements , i agree it is a complex affair
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 4:25 am: | |
Hi Robert,
The newspaper cuttings are intresting, they appear to have started with The Tabram murder through to Kelly.
Therefore I put up the question.
Why did the collector of these clippings start with the Tabram killing ?.
How was he to know that this was to be the start of a series?.
I persume that the collector must have cut out these news reports as they occured, or he went to a lot of trouble finding the relevant papers at a later date
As for Barnetts involvement. I do not believe that he killed only Mary.. I was just trying to get my head around Harrisons informants statement, and came up with a possible scenerio.
Richard. |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 37
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 2:49 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Sorry I got the impression you believed Joseph Barnett killed only Mary Kelly.
The articles went all the way to April 1891, which is strange as I don't remember anything happening in April 1891, February was when Francis Coles was murdered. There is no mention of which newspaper they were from.
Leanne may be on to something when she mentions Bruce Paley may have been side-tracked onto a different Joseph Barnett.
Paul Harrison just lists his Joseph Barnett has having Died 15th March 1927 suffering from 'Lympho sarcoma' of the cervical or mesenteric gland. Something he was suffering from for about 3 years. He was living at Old Frord Road, Bethnal Green, in rented accomadation.
Rob |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 7:00 pm: | |
Hi All
Thats meant to be Old Ford Road.
I did find in the 1901 census a John Barnett, which may be Joseph's brother. The details are:
John Barnett
Age: 41
Address: 18 Ocean Street, Mile End Old Town
Profession: Dock Labourer
Born: Whitechapel
Other members of his household were:
Emma Barnett, Wife
Age: 41
Born: Bishopsgate
Emma Barnett, Daughter
Age: 18
Profession: Tailoress
Born: Hoxton
Violet Barnett, Daughter
Age, 4
Born, Mile End
Alice Martin, Boarder
Age, 18
Born, Whitechapel
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 10:11 pm: | |
G'day,
From Bruce Paley's book: 'After Joseph, a final son, John, was born in 1860.'
1901 - 1860 = 41
Yep! That's Joseph's brother!
Is it possible to find out if Denis Barnett ever lived in Red Lion Street, Shadwell?
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 3:37 am: | |
Hi,
The mystery continues..
Paul Harrisons Barnett then appears to be the wrong one, for he was also born in 1860, unless they were twins.
Their does seem to be a lot of Barnetts about.
I think its headache time again..
Richard. |
Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 25
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 12:00 pm: | |
Leanne,
Barnett may have sold oranges in the streets and St James's place may have held an orange market but was the market up and running at 1:30am..ish?
Thats my query. In Leicester our market doesnt start up until 5 or 6 am. Granted, such places may have started earlier in the East end of 1888, but at 1:30 am? n
Monty
 |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 623
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 4:45 am: | |
G'day Monty,
In 'The Simple Truth', Bruce Paley said that 'Jack the Ripper, if he was disturbed killing Stride, may not have planned to kill a second woman that same night and the presence of the orange market at St. James Place, may have been his reason for going there. He may have thought to get some casual work and give himself a reason to be there. SEVERAL PEOPLE WERE ALREADY IN THE ORANGE MARKET GEARING UP FOR THE NEXT DAYS BUSINESS.'
LEANNE |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 224
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 5:42 am: | |
Hi LEANNE,
Blimey, you must be bored....digging up an old post !!
Wheres Paleys source for this statement ?
Ive yet to come across anything which supports it. I mean, at 1.30am ?? why bother closing down ??
Besides, it seems to me that Paley is banging out supposition...not fact.
And thats what Im after.
MONTY
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 8:27 am: | |
G'day Monty,
Paley's source for that info was 'The Daily Telegraph, 13 November'. It was nothing to do with supposition! The Telegraph reporter interviewed them without suspecting it could have been Joseph Barnett, so let's assume that the two men had every right to be there. They were probably setting up stalls for the big Sunday market!
LEANNE
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 225
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Leanne
The first of these descriptions was given by two persons who were in the Orange Market and closely observed the man.
You mean that quote ?
I could assume that these 2 people just passing through the Orange market. There is no indication that they were stall holders at all.
These unidentified witnesses may have been named in the Citys polices records but since they have been destroyed in the blitz we have no way of knowing who these people are or what the were doing there in St James place....nor had Paley.
The DT report makes no mention of the setting up of stalls so are we assuming or supposing that these witnesses were stallholders ?
Monty
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 5:56 pm: | |
G'day Monty,
Have a search through the Website 'The Victorian Dictionary' http://www.victorianlondon.org/
Click on 'Markets'. Markets in Victorian London were very busy places, for example coffee stall owners made their appearance at 12:00pm and: 'the grandest stall' stood on the corner of Duke Street and Oxford Street.
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
