Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Was Jack The Ripper ? (H Division, 2019)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JMenges View Post
    As Debs points out, John Bennett didn’t make a mistake since he doesn’t claim that Barnett married Louisa Rowe.

    Still, your moral is a good one to live by.

    JM
    That's right. John's information is based on what Paley found when looking at the Billingsgate licences. I think it was Mark Ripper who first mentioned the same Joseph Barnett was in the then newly digitised 1911 census at Red Lion Street, the address from the licence and Louisa (Paley found her in the electorals with JB at Red Lion St) was in the infirmary and their number of years married and number of children as zero, matched. The louisa Rowe marriage being the wrong one is a separate issue.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paul View Post
      By the way, did anybody discover the identity of Keith Stride?
      From a legal perspective, who Keith Stride is, is irrelevant. From curiosity, my money is on Barry Eddowes or Billy Kelly.

      Monty

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Monty View Post
        From a legal perspective, who Keith Stride is, is irrelevant. From curiosity, my money is on Barry Eddowes or Billy Kelly.

        Monty
        I just wanted to satisfy a mild curiosity.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
          I think the 1911 JB is probably the right man, R.J. And I think the Louisa found in the SGE Infirmary also seems to be that particular Joseph Barnett's 'wife.' The couple Joseph Barnett and Louisa Rowe were found by researchers to have moved to Lancashire if I remember correctly, so they couldn't be the people at St George in the East in 1911.
          Debs - maybe this is old news and the wrong place for it, but what do you think of the following?

          From the wiki entry on Joseph Barnett:

          "Little is known about Barnett's life after Kelly's death. He only reappears in a register in 1906, when he was granted a license as a doorman, again in the Billinsgate Market. At that time he lived at Number 18 of New Lane Gravel, Shadwell, with his brother Daniel."

          But isn't the following a reference to Joseph Barnett's whereabouts in August 1897?

          The Whitechapel Infirmary Admissions/Discharge records for 18 August 1897 lists a Daniel Barnett, porter, age 49, admitted from 66 Leman Street (line 1818) with an injury to the ribs. The age is slightly off, but it looks like the same Daniel listed as a "fish porter" in the Victoria Home in 1891, etc. (His age is all over the place)

          In the far right column it lists his contact--his brother Joseph at what looks like No.4 James Place. I can't make out if it is "Common," or "Corner," or even "carman" or what they mean by the street address. Unfortunately, there are James Places all over London--Lambeth, St. George, etc. but maybe someone can make it out.

          But then, maybe this is old news, but it looks good to me. Maybe this can lead to the 1901 entry, if he didn't move house.
          Attached Files

          Comment


          • It must be 4 James Place, Cannon Street Road

            Comment


            • I think this man may have died in 1906.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                It must be 4 James Place, Cannon Street Road
                I've just read your post below and it reads to me as Cannon St Road too. There's one not far from Henriques Street. Interesting.

                Comment


                • Hi Robert - What appears to be the same guy is listed as a fish porter in the infirmary records for Oct 1905, suffering from bronchitis. The wiki entry on Daniel Barnett has him as the guy dying in 1906. RC like all good Irish fish porters.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Amanda Lloyd View Post
                    I've just read your post below and it reads to me as Cannon St Road too. There's one not far from Henriques Street. Interesting.
                    Yes, it must be No. 4 James Place, Cannon Street Road, St. George in the East.

                    The same address is mentioned in a news report back in the 1850s: a drunken row and broken window panes. Go figure!
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • Daniel was at the Victoria Home, Commercial St in 1891. I haven't found him in 1901 but the Leman St address was also a working man's home.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                        Debs - maybe this is old news and the wrong place for it, but what do you think of the following?

                        From the wiki entry on Joseph Barnett:

                        "Little is known about Barnett's life after Kelly's death. He only reappears in a register in 1906, when he was granted a license as a doorman, again in the Billinsgate Market. At that time he lived at Number 18 of New Lane Gravel, Shadwell, with his brother Daniel."

                        But isn't the following a reference to Joseph Barnett's whereabouts in August 1897?

                        The Whitechapel Infirmary Admissions/Discharge records for 18 August 1897 lists a Daniel Barnett, porter, age 49, admitted from 66 Leman Street (line 1818) with an injury to the ribs. The age is slightly off, but it looks like the same Daniel listed as a "fish porter" in the Victoria Home in 1891, etc. (His age is all over the place)

                        In the far right column it lists his contact--his brother Joseph at what looks like No.4 James Place. I can't make out if it is "Common," or "Corner," or even "carman" or what they mean by the street address. Unfortunately, there are James Places all over London--Lambeth, St. George, etc. but maybe someone can make it out.

                        But then, maybe this is old news, but it looks good to me. Maybe this can lead to the 1901 entry, if he didn't move house.

                        Hi R.J. Yes, I believe this is Daniel and Joseph and the information was posted on Casebook forums at one point in a general conversation about Barnett and Louisa/Emily in 1901. The address is Cannon Street Road as mentioned already and just going by memory (so not certain) the householder at that address in the census was the brother of another person that Joseph Barnett Barnett had once lodged with. I will try and dig it out as I mentioned that again quite recently.
                        Much has been posted about Barnett in recent years that Paley hadn't found at the time he wrote the book. The Barnett family is quite confusing- I recently found Catholic baptisms for several members of the family that fits with the 1871/1881 census ages perfectly but Barnett's mother, Catherine, has a different maiden name in those baptisms for a couple of the children. Barnett's baptism also gave his birth date as a couple of months different to his birth certificate. I have also come across another John Barnett, born the same time as Joseph Barnett's brother and in Hairbrain Court but to a single mother.

                        Comment


                        • Barnett in 1901 thread

                          Got the thread again. It has quite a lot of interesting research on it.
                          The brothers I mentioned were named Hostler:


                          https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-in-1901/page4

                          This is the Catholic BMD thread:
                          http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....ett#post312312

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                            I just wanted to satisfy a mild curiosity.
                            Can’t wait for the Rip review.

                            Monty

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                              Can’t wait for the Rip review.

                              Monty
                              It' written. And it was written before this brouhaha blew up. I think the main problem with the book is that it has all been done before. It was nice that it was dedicated to Martin, but even his chapter covered familiar ground, and I feel rather upset that it was probably the last thing he ever wrote on the subject.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                                It' written. And it was written before this brouhaha blew up. I think the main problem with the book is that it has all been done before. It was nice that it was dedicated to Martin, but even his chapter covered familiar ground, and I feel rather upset that it was probably the last thing he ever wrote on the subject.
                                Shall look forward to your views on John Bennett’s intro.

                                That is sad to note.

                                Monty.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X