|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 8:18 am: |       |
G'day,
BOB: About George Hutchinson being the killer: Why would a killer who was fooling Scotland Yard and the whole of England, suddenly introduce himself to the case by voluntarily going to the police and claiming that he was concerned for the safety of the final victim? What was the 'actual evidence' incriminating him? Start another board about him, if you think he's No.1.
Who 'died the previous year'?
If you found that clay pipes were cheaper than ten a penny, Bruce Paley found that an ounce of tobacco was 2.5 pence!
Charles Booth calculated that the average casual dock labourer earned about 6s 3d per week. Barnett couldn't have earned much more jobbing around the fruit markets either. After losing his job, Joe would have been earning a sum far below the 2 or 3 pounds weekly that a steady worker at Billingsgate Market could earn!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 8:40 am: | |
G'day,
OOOps! I just noticed that there is a board about George Hutchinson! I'll check it out!
LEANNE |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 240
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 9:48 am: | |
As I now have full access to the 1891 census I have, just as an exercise, tried to apply some logic to tracking down one of the "key players" in this whole affair - Joe Barnett.
What I have written below is a bit long winded but I have left in all the logic and criteria so you can see how I got to where I ended up!
JOSEPH BARNETT: Tracking him from 1891 Census
Those resident in London in 1891 Census
1) Age 12 born Deptford
2) Age 21 born Bow
3) Age 2 born Islington
4) Age 58 born Hanover Square
5) Age 38 born Scotland
6) Age 12 born Islington
7) Age 22 born London
8) Age 21 born Poland, Russia
9) Age 15 born Spitalfields
10) Age 32 born Whitechapel
11) Age 3 born Mile End
12) Age 24 born Russia
13) Age 30 born Bethnal Green
14) Age 17 born Hoxton
15) Age 28 born Poland, Russia
16) Age 10 born Aldgate
17) Age 10 born Whitechapel
18) Age 6 born St George in the East
19) Age 40 born St Saviours
20) Age 5 born Bermondsey
21) Age 29 born Clare Market, London
22) Age 3 born Islington
23) Age 12 born London
24) Age 60 born Whitechapel
25) Age 20 born Whitechapel
26) Age 30 born Spitalfields
27) Age 10 born Whitechapel
28) Age 42 born Poland
29) Age 74 born London (Joseph A.)
30) Age 49 born St Georges East (Joseph David)
31) Age 51 born East Ham (Joseph Ebenezer)
32) Age 8 born South Hackney (Joseph H)
33) Age 15 born Newcastle on Tyne (Joseph H)
34) Age 7 born Shoreditch (Joseph J)
35) Age 77 born London (Joseph John)
36) Age 64 born Bermondsey (Joseph T M)
Stage One - Eliminate Lower Age Range:
As the murders took place in 1888 we are looking at an age for Barnett which is 3 years lower than the census ages quoted above.
There seems to be a general conception that Barnett was approximately Kelly's age group within +- 5 years but at this stage I am not assuming that. In the first instance, only those of the above named who are patently too young to be a candidate can be eliminated.
This will eliminate Nos. 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 27, 32, 33 and 34.
This reduces the list to:
2) Age 21 born Bow
4) Age 58 born Hanover Square
5) Age 38 born Scotland
7) Age 22 born London
8) Age 21 born Poland, Russia
10) Age 32 born Whitechapel
12) Age 24 born Russia
13) Age 30 born Bethnal Green
15) Age 28 born Poland, Russia
19) Age 40 born St Saviours
21) Age 29 born Clare Market, London
24) Age 60 born Whitechapel
25) Age 20 born Whitechapel
26) Age 30 born Spitalfields
28) Age 42 born Poland
29) Age 74 born London (Joseph A.)
30) Age 49 born St Georges East (Joseph David)
31) Age 51 born East Ham (Joseph Ebenezer)
35) Age 77 born London (Joseph John)
36) Age 64 born Bermondsey (Joseph T M)
It is known that Barnett was of Irish descent and born in London. This would eliminate from the above list Nos. 5, 8, 12, 15 and 28.
The list thus becomes:
2) Age 21 born Bow
4) Age 58 born Hanover Square
7) Age 22 born London
10) Age 32 born Whitechapel
13) Age 30 born Bethnal Green
19) Age 40 born St Saviours
21) Age 29 born Clare Market, London
24) Age 60 born Whitechapel
25) Age 20 born Whitechapel
26) Age 30 born Spitalfields
29) Age 74 born London (Joseph A.)
30) Age 49 born St Georges East (Joseph David)
31) Age 51 born East Ham (Joseph Ebenezer)
35) Age 77 born London (Joseph John)
36) Age 64 born Bermondsey (Joseph T M)
Barnett was living with Kelly on a fulltime basis until shortly before her murder in November 1888. It is possible that in the period between Kelly's murder and the 1891 Census that Barnett married and fathered a child or children. Allowing for the two and a half years gap between the murder and the census, it should be possible to eliminate from the above list anyone in a family household as husband/father with any offspring older than 3 years.
This eliminates Nos. 10 (original page shows his age was 52, not 22), 13, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31 and 36.
Looking at the original census sheets that the name of entry 35 has been wrongly transcribed and should read BARRETT. This records can be eliminated.
The list thus reduces to:-
2) Age 21 born Bow
4) Age 58 born Hanover Square
7) Age 22 born London
19) Age 40 born St Saviours
21) Age 29 born Clare Market, London
25) Age 20 born Whitechapel
Domestic situations of those remaining:
2) An engine fitter living at home with parents in Bromley St. Leonards
4) A waiter at an Inn in Islington, living with wife
7) A general dealer/hawker living as a Lodger in Vauxhall
19) A general labourer living with sister and brother in law in Southwark
21) A potato merchant's carman living with wife and 3 year old child in St Giles North
25) A carpenter living at home with parents in Whitechapel
On age and domestic situation, I would suggest we can eliminate Nos. 2 and 25. As the census was held in April, the presence of a 3 year old child in No 21 would eliminate that. The 30 year age gap with No. 4 would suggest this individual can be eliminated as well.
This leaves:
7) Age 22 born London
19) Age 40 born St Saviours
So we are left with the possibility that Kelly's Barnett was (at the time of the murders) either a 19 year old or a 37 year old. IF one of those on this list is the man we are looking for (and it is a big IF!!) then for what it's worth my money would be on the 19 year old. But that is only a guess!
|
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 10:19 am: | |
Leanne
You are completely missing the point. I emphasised sticking to the evidence, you immediately go off into the blue asking hypothetical questions:
"Why would a killer who was fooling Scotland Yard and the whole of England, suddenly introduce himself to the case by voluntarily going to the police and claiming that he was concerned for the safety of the final victim? "
I say again the reason GH is Number 1 is because he is the only one who was seen at the scene at the time of a murder. Now going on the evidence that makes him number one. Does it mean he is definitely the killer? Of course not, but going on the evidence he is Number 1 suspect.
If you don't agree with me, fine just tell me what evidence you have that any other suspect was seen at the scene at the time of any of the killings?
Bob |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 238
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 11:27 am: | |
Hi Chris
Thanks for taking the trouble to post that lot!
You eliminate Barnetts the way Jack scythed through victims!
Neither of the final two looks like "the" Barnett, but unless he was outside London during the Census, I suppose that's what we're stuck with.
I never thought of Joe as a toyboy, though it might explain the ginger beer!
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 240
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 12:34 pm: | |
Hi Bob
Any idea why Abberline wanted Hutchinson to go to the mortuary on 13th to identify Kelly? It seems a bit bizarre - the inquest was over, and Barnett and McCarthy had already identified her.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 21
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 2:59 pm: | |
Hi Robert, Bob, Leanne and All
If I was Abberline and I was suspicious about Hutchinson I might want to record his reaction to the body. This is sometimes done by police officials today to individuals whose stories are suspect.
Best Regards
Gary
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 241
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi Gary
Yes, I did wonder about that. But Abberline's words were "he has promised to go with an officer.....to identify the deceased." I just thought Abberline would have wanted to be there himself, if it was a reaction test - though I suppose he could have been there, after all.
How anyone identified the poor woman at all is something I find a bit hard to understand, however it obviously was possible, because we have Barnett's identification, which is conclusive.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 22
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 5:45 pm: | |
Hi Bob
I also wondered whether Abberline was going to be there in person. If not, a trusted officer could record the reaction and pass it on to Abberline. Abberline was no dummy, he had a good reason for a seemingly unnecessary identification.
Some will say he was trying to determine if Hutchinson saw the correct woman. However, this could be done by viewing the clothing after confirming what she had worn through those who sighted her on the evening and early morning of the day she died. Assuming she did die that night. As you imply the body was so butchered that it is hard to believe it could be identified by anyone other than someone(Barnett) who knew her features intimately.The clothing would prove an easier means of I.D.ing her for a mere acquaintance such as Hutchinson claimed to be.
I believe Leanne will be directing us toward the Hutchinson thread shortly. However the thread does say Barnett, No 1 suspect, and all of the circumstances surrounding Kelly's murder are important.
I still have the feeling I will be shown the door.
Best Regards
Gary |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 8:22 pm: | |
G'day,
CHRIS: Bruce Paley's book shows his Joseph Barnett's birth certificate which says he was born on: '25.5.1858 at 4 Hairbrain Court Whitechapel', so on the twenty-fifth of May 1888, he would have turned 30, and on the twenty-fifth of May 1891 he would have turned 33.
Depending on the date that the 1891 Census was taken, I'd say that he was No.10. I don't understand your reasons for eliminating No.10. Please explain!
BOB, ROBERT, GARY, Everyone: I am now directing you all to the Hutchinson thread! See ya there!
LEANNE |
Brad McGinnis
Police Constable
Username: Brad
Post Number: 9
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 9:49 pm: | |
Actually this thread should be" Barnett, the No 2 Suspect". Once again Maybrick is number one, according to the poll.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 23
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 12:41 am: | |
Hi Brad
The public has spoken, it's off to the Maybrick thread for everyone.
Best
Gary |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 5:38 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Great post , listing possible Barnetts, unless he vanished or left London between 88-91, one of those shown . is our man.
The pictures or rather sketches that we have of the man , tend to show him quite a mature looking person , and as Barnett stayed with his sister at the time of the murders, The 37 year old at the time of the murders is a candidate.
I also feel that although eliminated by you, numbers 13 , and 26, are possibles, even though they had older offspring, I find it entirely possible that Barnett may have left his wife and possible child or children to take up with Kelly.I feel quite confident that One of these three is our man, and more research into these individuals, could bring results.
Of course If Barnett was responsible for any of these murders, he may simply have gone to ground, and never appeared on any census list from 88 onwards,
Richard. |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 241
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 8:46 am: | |
Hi Richard
Many thanks for the comments. I take on baord what you say about 13 and 26. I don't think it's impossible that Barnett had been married and father a child or children by the time he met Kelly. the point is that the two listed are backl as family units by 1891. So we would be looking at a situation where he had married, fathered a child, left his wife, taken up with Kelly, been involved in all the headline publicity of the murder and then his wife took him back by 1891. I think that scanario is less likely, but of course not impossible.
I am conducting a similar exerise on the whole census, not just London, which will of course take a lot longer. Also we must allow for name variations and transcription errors. He might have been entered on the census as simply J.BARNETT or JOS. BARNETT. Also as we only have the police and press reports to go by, there is no absolute proof that Joseph was his first name - I have more than one instance in my own family tree of relatives who chose day to day to use one of their middle names.
I will post the results of any further exercises like this I do but would always advise that there are caveats as these alone will never definitively identify the person we are looking.
Thanks again
Chris |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 95
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
The census was taken on the 5th April 1891.
The No. 10 on the list was married to a Julia aged 32, they had two sons aged 12 and 9, and three daughters aged 11, 7 and 5. his occupation was listed as traveller C. J. (I don't know what the C. J. stands for). I think all this rules him out as being Bruce Paley's Joseph Barnett. Strange as Bruce Paley's Joseph Barnett doesn't appear on the 1881 or 1901 census either. Out of curiousity I checked to see if his brothers or sisters were on the 1891 census. I didn't find any of them but I did find a Daniel Barnett living at the Victoria Home, Commercial Street. His age was listed as 44 which would make him 4 years to old to be Joseph's brother. His occupation was listed as Fish Porter so his age may have wrongly written down. If it was Joseph's brother he seems to have fallen on bad times.
All the best
Rob |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 242
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 1:23 pm: | |
Leanne
the main reason I discounted No 10 on the list is that when I checked the original image of the page it was clear there had been a transcription error. In the search list when I looked for JB the age of number 10 was reported as 32 but when I checked against the original page his age is clearly listed as 52. This and his family situation I think rules him out.
Robert, I think that the CJ stands for Commercial Journeyman, what we would call a Commercial Travaller or Travelling salesman.
As for the date of the census, this was usually done in early April.
regards
Chris |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 2:18 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
I am glad that you agree that it is possible that the real Barnet could have been married , with offspring, by the the of the 91 census.
It is entirely possible that his wife , could have forgiven him,in account of the tragic circumstances with Kelly. and taken him back.
I feel sure that further investigation into the three candidates that I mentioned may well yield results.
I am convinced that Bruce Paleys Barnet is the wrong man, and until we find the real man the uncertainty continues.
Thanks Chris.
Richard.
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 243
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 2:37 pm: | |
Leanna
Further to your query about a Joseph Barnett born in 1858
I have searched the 1881 census (whole UK) and there are only three of that name born in that year:
1) 85 High Street, Margate, Kent
Head:
Joseph Barnett
Born 1858 in Margate, General Dealer
Wife:
Julia Barnett
Born 1861 in Mile End
Son: Daniel born 1878 in Margate, Kent
2) Paradise Green, Church Minshull, Cheshire
Joseph Barnett
Born 1858 in Church Minshull, Cheshire
Corn Miller
Living with parents:
Joseph Barnett aged 62 and Jane Barnett aged 60
Others:
Betsey Barnett aged 20, daughter of Joseph Snr and Jane
Henry Barnett aged 7 and Edith Barnett aged 5, grandchildren of Joseph Snr and Jane
3) 3 Holford Street, London
Head:
Joseph Barnett born 1858 in Glasgow, Scotland
Contractor's Clerk
Wife:
Emma A Barnett born 1857 in Islington
Daughter:
Edith A Barnett born 1880 in Clerkenwell
Chris S |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 244
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 4:29 pm: | |
Hi Richard
the three you seem interested in (NOs 13, 19 and 26) are fully detailed below:
1891 Census
13)
Civil Parish: Shoreditch
Address: 4 Broke Road
Household:
Head:
Joseph Barnett aged 30
Tinplate worker
Born in Bethnal Green
Wife:
Maria Barnett aged 33 born in Northampton
Children:
Joseph J aged 7
George M aged 6
Amy M aged 4
Amelia A aged 1
All children born in Shoreditch
19)
Civil parish: St George the Martyr, Southwark
Address: 7 Cross Street
Household:
Head:
Ebenezer Scofield aged 40, Brushmaker, born Newington
Wife:
Mary A Scofield aged 37, born St Saviours
Children:
Henry C aged 14, cycle engineer
William J aged 12
Ebenezer aged 11
Ellen aged 9
Edith aged 4
Maurice aged 3
Margaret aged 1
All children born in Newington
Others:
Brother in Law
Joseph Barnett aged 40 born St Saviours
General Labourer
26)
Civil Parish: St Marys, Whitechapel
Address: 8 Brady Street Dwellings
Household:
Head:
Joseph Barnett aged 32 born in Spitalfields
Costermonger/Hawker
Wife:
Flora Barnett aged 29 born in Whitechapel
Children:
David aged 5 born Spitalfields
Julia aged 2 born Shoreditch
Alice aged 7 days born Whitechapel
Hope this helps
Chris |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 96
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 5:52 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Thanks for the info.
I thought No. 26's age was 30. He is living at the same address in the 1901 census and his age is given as 40. I believe this is the Joseph Barnett, Paul Harrison identified (well the first part of the one he did.)
I am certain Bruce Paley identified the right Joseph Barnett. He just doesn't seem to appear in the 1881, 1891 or 1901 census.
All the best
Rob |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 246
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 6:51 pm: | |
Hi all
Chris, I dare say there's a simple answer to this question, but why couldn't "the" Barnett have got married, some time between Nov 88 and Apr 91, to a widow who'd already had a child, or even an unmarried mother? He seems to have had a bit of a "knight in shining armour" complex. As far as the census was concerned, they'd probably have preferred to tell the enumerator that Joe was the father, rather than the stepfather.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 245
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 7:12 pm: | |
Hi
Rob C
The No 26 entry gives the age as 30 in the summary list but on the original page the age has been struck though and could be read as 30 or 32
See below
CS
 |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 246
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 7:16 pm: | |
Hi Robert L
I agree that there is nothing inherently unlikely in the scenario you draw - in the exercise I was carrying out I was trying to work from the most likely to the less likely. I know this type of approach can never definitvely identify "the" Joe Barnett or George Hutchinson , Mary Kelly or any other key character.
All it can do is eliminate the candidates who are either impossible or more or less unlikely. It can never identify finally, only narrow the field
Regards]
Chris |
Wehrwulf
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 5:00 pm: | |
Is it not possible that Abberline asked him to confirm that the woman in the mortuary was the same as the one he had seen on the night of the murder? |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 3:45 pm: | |
Hi all;
Regarding the "fag end" or cigarette butt evidence; We just had a case here in Nova Scotia that was solved after 10 years by DNA evidence gathered from..you guessed it, a cigarette butt found at the scene.
A woman working her first night shift at a convenience store was found stabbed to death. It was in the middle of a raging blizzard, and no footprints were found. The knife was found after the snow melted. A butt found had DNA on it, but there was no one to compare it to.
Ten years later, a young offender was set up in a sting concerning organized crime, and in order to earn the trust of the boss, he confessed to the murder, and said he had never told anyone, and that he had got away clean.
He has been charged and convicted, and in his statement he says that he had been very drunk, and doesn't remember the reason he did the crime. He remembers the lady had a knife and was making sandwiches, and thinks maybe she was threatening or rude to him. He "woke up" in the middle of stabbing her repeatedly. He then robbed the store of some items and fled.
This case relates to Jack the Ripper in the following ways;
Motivation is not always clear.
The murderer was not really aware of what he was doing until part way through the act.
The murderer took the time afterwards to rob the victim, although that was not the original intention of the senseless crime.
So those little clues are important!
Joan |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
