|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 254
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 10:45 am: |       |
Robert re my previous message I found this information:
"Original Collection of the Material
Each of the British censuses in the years from 1841 to 1901 collected information in the same general manner. Enumerators left printed schedules for householders to complete. These were collected in due course by the enumerator , checked (often perfunctorily), copied out into what was to become known as a census enumerators' book (CEB) and then forwarded, via (usually two) registrars to a temporary census office, where tabulations of the information were made. The CEBs are the basis for all machine readable versions of the census, as all schedules were supposed to be destroyed subsequent to analysis of the data found in the CEBs."
Hope this helps
C
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 258
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:09 am: | |
Thanks very much, Chris.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:50 pm: | |
G'day,
On the Website 'GENDOCS, General Research in England & Wales', it says under a heading: 'Genealogical Abbreviations and Acronyms' that C.J. stands for Chief Justice.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:06 am: | |
G'day,
The Website I mentioned last doesn't say what a 'Traveller' was, but a 'Travers' was a collector of fees at a toll bridge.
LEANNE |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 256
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 7:05 am: | |
One point about the mysterious CJ abbreviation. If you look back at the original page in my post above you will notice two things:
1) the CJ is in lighter writing than the other entries
2) Compare the J of CJ with the J of Jospeh Barnett and you will see that the handwriting is obviously that of a different person
This suggests that the CJ was added later, most likely as part of the checking process. I therefore assume that what we may be looking at would be someone's initals to verify that an entry had been checked
Chris |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 265
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 8:33 am: | |
Hi Chris
Just a wild idea - and believe me it is wild! - but can we totally rule out the possibility that the Barnett who married Julia was half Jewish himself? I know this goes against Paley, but so does the idea of Joe being married!
Maybe I'm wrong, but weren't marriages between Jewish women and 100% Gentile men a bit uncommon in those days? If Joe was half Jewish that might help to explain the marriage.
I know that Barnett isn't described as being of Jewish appearance, but if he was only half Jewish, that might be understandable.
We do have a record of a Roland Gideon Israel Barnett, so I was wondering how common the name Barnett was among Jewish people at the time.
I'm not saying that Barnett WAS half Jewish, just wondering whether it's a possibility that can be ruled in or out.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 257
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 1:05 pm: | |
I dont think it can be ruled out completely but the main reason I think the story of Joseph's Irish descent is probably right is that in Paley's book there is reproduced the 1861 and 1871 census entries for his Joseph Barnett and these show that both his parents, John Barnett (who is listed as a Fish Porter at Billingsgate) and catherine were both born in Ireland.
Regards
Chris
|
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 98
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 2:21 pm: | |
Hi Chris
It seems unlikely that the Joseph Barnett living at 1 Horatio Street is Bruce Paley's Barnett as Paley's was a licenced Fish porter in 1881. Also the Joseph Barnett living at 1 Horatio Street in 1881 and the Joseph Barnett married to Julia, may be two different people, the occupations are different. I don't suppose on the marrage certificate there were other names or addresses that may be cross checked (not having seen a marrage certificate I don't know what information would be on them.)
I hope I have made the above clear enough.
On a different subject, are all the London census records for 1891 on the ancestry website, as I have been trying to find someone and there is no trace of him. I tried to search through Dorset Street but I could only find the north side.
Yours faithfully
Rob
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 267
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 2:22 pm: | |
OK Chris. This is turning into an amazing Odyssey for "boring old Joe" but I am bearing your caveats in mind.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 258
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi Robert
All the London records for 1891 are on the Ancestry website. Who is it your are trying to trace (if it does not divulge anything special you are working on at the moment?)
I agree that the two JBs cannot be definitively identified - hence all the caveats I have posted throughout this thread
Regards
Chris
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 4:55 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
I think your find of an marriage reference to Joseph And Julia , absolutely fascinating, . Skeptics may say , mayby he is not the right Barnett, but I for one believe he most cetainly is.Many people past and present live a on / off relationship, and Barnett was proberly one of them, all of the children were born between 1879-1886, before his meeting with Kelly.To me he was not the type of person that sustained a routine existance, mayby not for want of trying, but lets not forget even kelly who lets face it, needed all the help she could get, admitted she could not bear the man...
Barnett with a jewish connection, now thst is intresting..
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 6:54 pm: | |
G'day,
Sifting through 'The A-Z', on page408 under 'Shelden, Neal', it says that this gifted researcher found that: 'Mary Jane Kelly's lover Joseph Barnett was not the man identified by Paul Harrison, who was living with a wife and three children (eldest five years old) at the time of the 1891 census.'
To make sure this is not the wrong Joseph Barnett that was identified by Harrison, (who had three children, not five), can we find him and cross him off?
LEANNE |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 259
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 8:43 am: | |
Hi Leanne
regarding you query about Harrison's Barnett, please see below:
Paul Harrison's Barnett in 1891 census
Harrison's Barnett was born in 1860 so in 1891 census he would be either 30 or 31 depending on when his birthday fell.
Joseph Barnett in 1891 30 years of age
2 records:
1) 4 Broke Road
JB aged 30 born Bethnal Green/ Tinplate worker
Wife Maria aged 33
4 children aged 7 to 1 years old
2) 8 Brady Street Buildings
JD aged 30 born Spitalfields/Costermonger
Wife Flora aged 29
3 children aged 5, 2 and 7 days
Aged 31 - no records
Of these two, the second fits in with the 1891 description, i.e. 3 children with the oldest being 5 years old.
Just for reference, this Joseph Barnett was No 26 on my original 1891 list psoted previously.
CS |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 9:05 am: | |
G'day Chris,
Well that's that!
He wasn't No.10, this is promising!
LEANNE |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
Hi!
I've done a little searching of the 1881 census UK. I'm not sure if this has been covered here yet but I found this...
Household:
Name Relation Marital Status Gender Age Birthplace Occupation Disability
N. SYKES Head M Male 31 Bishopsgate Fish Porter
M. SYKES Other M Female 29 St Georges
Edward MILES Other Male 28 London, London, Middlesex, England Lab
Margret COODES Other Female 29 London, London, Middlesex, England Servant (Dom)
Archibald ? SULIVAN Other M Male 50 (City) Painter
Saml. BEDWELL Other M Male 20 St Lukes Carpenter
Rose ADEN Other M Female 30
Ann WELCH Other U Female 36 Bath Charwoman
Joseph BARNET Other M Male 23 London, London, Middlesex, England Costermonger
Annie BARNET Other M Female 25 London, London, Middlesex, England Cleaner
Fred CRAWLEY Other M Male 30 Ireland Rag Sorter
Becky CRAWLEY Other M Female 28 London, London, Middlesex, England Servant (Dom)
Tom COURET Other M Male 36 Sevenoaks Soldier Military Man
Kate COURET ? Other M Female 29 London, London, Middlesex, England
Mike SULLIVAN Other M Male 39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Information:
Dwelling 10 Keate Street
Census Place London, Middlesex, England
Family History Library Film 1341094
Public Records Office Reference RG11
Piece / Folio 0435 / 118
Page Number 37
--------------------------------------------------
I've also found a record of an Annie Barnet's death in Leeds 1883 on Ancestry.com.
Barnet, Annie
Year: 1883 Quarter: March
Record Type: Deaths Volume: 9b
District: Leeds Page: 321
Question is, if this is indeed the Joseph Barnett we are looking for, what happened to his first wife Annie? I'm assuming she died, but how? This may also explain why the name Anne/Annie was used by so many of the women he murdered, if he is JTR. |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi Chris;
Great work as usual!
Now what if little Louis, who would be 9 years old in 1888, had gone along with daddy Joseph a few times on his visits to Mary Kelly, and this is the basis for the rumour that Mary had a child who was "in the care of someone else" at the time of the murder. And isn't Louis a rather French name, thinking of how Mary Jane "frenchified" her name to Marie Jeannette.
It would not be the first time that a married man would have been leading a double life, and there could also have been a bit of deception as to him having a family, where the wife could receive some type of assistance because the father was absent from time to time.
Going even farther we could almost think that Joseph had taken Louis into his family with his own children after the murder, but I think that would have come out at the time, as he would have told the police if he knew for sure that Mary had a child. All of the younger children are 2 years apart except for the first two ( only one year apart). I think we are closing in on some solid information here!
P.S. Chris, I left a post on the "dream portrait" thread, but due to the delay in getting my posts on, it may have expired before you saw it.
Joan |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 1:44 pm: | |
Here's a link to a map showing Upper and Lower Keate St.(no longer in existance) They are in the lower Right hand corner. Very close to Dorset St.
http://www.motco.com/map/81006/SeriesSearchPlatesFulla.asp?mode=query&title=Lower+Keate+Street&artist=390&other=552&x=11&y=11
Has anyone ever done Geological Profiling on this case? I know it is a fairly new process, but it's likely someone has before. I know that a lot of the evidence, blood trails etc... point to JTR residing in the area of Dorset St. Which is why I'm beginning to feel more and more that John Barnet was JTR. |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 1:55 pm: | |
After searching the census for a Joseph Barnet(1T) I found this likely candidate.
Barnet, Joseph
Relationship: Head County: Kent
Age: 33 Civil Parish: Minster in Sheppey
Gender: Male ED: 10
Where Born: London, Spitalfields Eccl. Parish: St Paul
Piece: RG12/721 Town: Sheerness
Folio: 49
Page: 32
-------------------------------------------------
He has a wife Catherine(34)born in Bridge, Kent and a daughter Florence Teresa who is 11mos(I think). And his occupation is listed as a labourer. |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 10:58 pm: | |
Have you people not read Scott Morro's case againsnt Barnett being the killer? Most of your so called "evidence" is based on asumptions. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 2:57 am: | |
G'day Phil,
ASSUMPTIONS!...What do you want, fingerprints...a murder weapon? Have you read the dissertation underneath by Dr. Frederick Walker, responding to Scott Morrow?
Many times I believe this case will never truly be solved, because of the lack of hard evidence against anyone! We have to fill in the gaps, and it's a fact that the detectives never looked close enough at Joseph Barnett!
Scott Morro said that Joe was ARRESTED at the time of Mary's murder, and let go. This is not true, he was questioned because it was usual detective work to interview a victims closest relative/partner first. Barnett told the press about this interview, so people would throw away suspicion against him, and everyone today is still using it as absolute proof that he didn't kill her!
No bloody clothes were found in his lodgings, but he was an odd-job man with no fixed address of employment. He could have hid anything anywhere!
Barnett's pipe had to have been destroyed, because why wasn't it shown as crime scene evidence? Anyone could have smoked it last!
Barnett's claim of having been in bed was no alibi, because at the time of giving it her most likely time-of-death wasn't yet established!
Underneath Fred Walker's dissertation, Stewart Evan's adds his comments:
I agree with Stewart that the Hanbury Street Envelope found near the body of Chapman should be discounted as a clue!
If Stewart is convinced that Barnett had more than one pipe, isn't that an assumption? Whether or not he did, it was crime scene evidence and could have been 'borrowed' by anyone!
Where's the proof that the DORSET STREET SINK with bloody water in it never existed and was just a 'fanciful inaccurate account' of Major Henry Smith?
If there is no evidence that the police ever considered Kelly's missing key suspicious, why did Inspector Abberline ask Barnett about it?
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 6:06 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
The bloody sink in Dorset street I have always considered a vital clue.
It implies one of two things?.
That the blood was found after the events in Mitre square, which a lot of people have assumed the case.
Or after the Murder of Kelly. which I would consider more likely.
I have not read Major Henry Smiths publication account , but I believe the sink is not mentioned , until several pages after his reflections on the double event.
It reads like he could not believe the audacity of the killer, saying 'In Dorset Street, he even washed his hands in a sink not far from the street, I arrived there in time to see the bloodstained water.
There has never been proof that Major smith was present at Millers court at the time of the police arrival , but that does not mean he was not.
The point I am making is if the sinks contents were there at 11.15am aprox. then it would imply to me that the murderer had only just washed himself, for I would assume that this was a public sink, that was used on a regular bases, and I would also assume if the contents were there much before that time, the water would have been not in evidence[ washed away] or the police would have been imformed.
So to sum up , if this incident was after the millers court murder, it would point to Kelly being killed after the sightings of Maxwell, and Lewis, and that the killer left the room not long before Boyer discovered the body,
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 273
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 8:08 am: | |
Hi all
Joan, I suppose if there WAS a child regularly visiting 13 room, it would explain the ginger beer bottles - though of course they could have been Barnett's.
But surely, such a child could have belonged to one of the local women. I imagine such kids behaved like cats - doing the rounds for any place where they might get a bite to eat - or simply wanting somewhere to go while their mothers were "entertaining a visitor".
I don't know whether Barnett's siblings had children who might have visited . To tell you the truth, I haven't the foggiest idea which Barnett is "the" Barnett and which relatives are "the" relatives etc!
Leanne, it's true that the pipe doesn't seem to have been produced in court for identification on oath, but nor was the overcoat, was it? On the other hand, for all we know, the jury may have viewed both these objects when they were taken to 13 room.
Why does this innocent pipe seem so sinister to you?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 8:54 am: | |
G'day,
True crime writer Hargrave Lee Adam wrote about that bloody sink in a series of articles that appeared in 'The People' on the 9th of June 1912.
Under the heading: 'Murderer's Narrow Escape' he wrote: 'The assasin had wiped his hands on the missing half of the apron and it was further discovered had with remarkable audacity washed his hands at a sink up a close in Dorset St., only a few yards from the street...' (page 634 'The Complete JtR Companion')
Adam had obviously interviewed Sir Robert Anderson and Lieut. Col. Sir Hy. Smith, who told him about the efforts of Detective Constable Daniel Halse.
Admittedly it's wrong to just assume that this was Joe Barnett's sink, but why assume that it 'Simply DID NOT HAPPEN'? If anything it showed in which direction the killer fled and it might have been a good idea to interview a few people in Dorset Street! Especially since Martha Tabram's friend and soliciting partner lived at 'Crossinghams' in Dorset Street, Annie Chapman had lived at 30 Dorset Street for about 2 years, was living at 35 Dorset Street at the time of her murder, spoke to Amelia Farmer for the last time in Dorset Street, Micheal Kidney lived at 38 Dorset Street, and Catharine Eddowes had often stayed in the 'Shed' in Dorset Street!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 9:00 am: | |
Hi,
The clues are there, Dorset Street figures more then any other in this case.Lets not forget Whitechapel was a big area, and I for one think that the murderer lived in that very road.
No prizes for guessing who?.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 12:24 pm: | |
Hi All,
I thought there was evidence that some serial killers don't like to shi* right on their own doorstep. If the ripper hated the idea of a woman prostituting herself, but felt strangely compelled to go where they could be found in abundance and attack them there, he would have been a glutton for punishment to dwell in Dorset Street of all places, if he had any choice at all in the matter. I keep thinking of Peter Sutcliffe, roaming red light areas both nearby and further afield, but living with his wife in a respectable location - another double life being led.
Jack may have been a very different animal from the Yorkshire Ripper, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find more similarities than differences with regard to motivation and location.
Love,
Caz |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
