The mystery of Jane C. Cooney (Baker)

Petey's next career should be Detective First Class of the Forensic Records Division. He'll be the lead of a crack team of experts who can find dirt on anybody, anywhere, any time. But, his team can also be used for good to un-earth important facts to aid in research for the benefit of mankind.
 

Pogue Mahone

Officials say drugs may have played a part
I kinda thought it was fake news for a bit, but it's solid. An incredible contribution. You see a different dynamic between Hank and Jane than what other sources would make you believe. Outstanding.
 

Petey

RIP
The Wilmington morning star. (Wilmington, N.C.) January 26, 1943 and The Wilmington morning star., January 27, 1943.

Craig Baker II.jpg



Craig Baker.jpg


Seaman is confirmed in the marriage certificate and he was born 1907 so this MUST be Jane's husband.

His second first name Kinsinger was verified in my post from Jun 17, 2016.
 

Petey

RIP
An short update guys:

Today after two !!! fucking years and several reminders from my side the cemetery confirmed that Jane's grave still exists.

So we will go forward now for the plan to create a gravestone in cooperation with Jane's granddaughter Pam and the german Bukowski Society.

The Wilmington morning star. (Wilmington, N.C.) January 26, 1943 and The Wilmington morning star., January 27, 1943.

View attachment 17287
View attachment 17288

Seaman is confirmed in the marriage certificate and he was born 1907 so this MUST be Jane's husband.

His second first name Kinsinger was verified in my post from Jun 17, 2016.
Sent a request to the FBI today and asked for the FBI files . Let's see what will happen...
 

mjp

Founding member
Looks like the contract or bill of sale or whatever it is says flat-only anyway (5). Most of the graveyards here in California are all flat markers like that. Don't know why that is, but there you go.

Maybe they don't want us to be reminded of our ultimate fate as we drive past them.
 
"She was a marvelous fuck." -- C. Bukowski

In seriousness though, maybe something along the lines of "Beloved Wife of Poet C. Bukowski"

Not sure if Linda Lee would appreciate that though.
 

Black Swan

Abord the Yorikke!
I also liked that line but then I thought that someone might think that she took off with everything... 😁
But, seriously, both are good!
 
Last edited:
I did some further research in the net in addional to this threads:

- https://bukowskiforum.com/threads/marriage-eyes.7682/
- https://bukowskiforum.com/threads/twice-divorced-by-1960.4884/
- https://bukowskiforum.com/threads/the-birds-gallows-1959.3485/
- https://bukowskiforum.com/threads/1-500-pieces-of-ass-and-2-wives-by-1966.4887/

and found the marriage license from Graig K. Baker and Jane C. Cooney dated 13th July of 1943.

According to Sounes in " Locked in the Arms..." page 28 it was 25 Jan. of 1928...?

And I was wondering about the note of " divorced " and " number of marriage: 2nd "

Anyone here to bring some light into the dark ?


But anyway, it seems that the right column shows her original handwriting and signature which makes the whole thing a bit romantic for me....

It was Jane , the big love of this life.....

Her grave in L.A. is still ummarked but she is not forgotten ...
Hi,
I believe that some research should be done into the FBI file on Charles Bukowski.

This file clearly lists her as JANE S.W COONYE

It also lists her birth year as 1918 as opposed to 1910.
 
mjp
Through the FOIA I was able to view the FBI file on Charles Bukowski.
This file has many parts redacted. However, you are able to clearly see one section regarding the name of Jane.
In this file Jane is referred to as Jane S.W Coonye.
It is also stated that she was born in Roswell, New Mexico in 1918.
I am seeking clarification as to why so many people firmly believe that Jane is Jane C Cooney Baker (born in 2010).
If anyone can provide some insight or help me further research the information in said file, that would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Brooklyn
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
Brooklyn, those points were raised earlier in this thread. Most likely sloppy typos.
There is a society pages piece in a newspaper from 1920 having Jane hosting a kids birthday party. Seems more a thing for a 10 year old to do, rather than a 2 year old.
Screenshot_2020-03-30-19-22-20.png
 
the FBI file on Charles Bukowski
Yes, we know the FBI files here, as they've been hosted on this site since the very beginning of mjps efforts to gather Buk-material some million years ago.

One thing that strikes when you go through them is, that they are not always reliable.
(e.g. have a look at the list of his addresses and jobs claiming he had only one address and job outside LA (in Philadelphia) during his so called lost years, while we have strong evidence that he was travelling the whole south and did plenty of jobs. Even more so: Said page provides an intact list with not one gap, neither in job nor addresses, between 1/1937 and 12/1957. Do you believe that?)

So, even though the FBI is a gouvernmental organization, we can't believe everything they gathered. Some of it seems sloppy research or, as hooch indicated, typos, or plain mad-up.

As to Janes age:
Not only do we have the paper-sniplet, hooch mentions, and not only Bukowski's own statment (many time), that Jane was 10 years his elder, and not only Sounes' reprint of her death-certificate in a book:
Our Petey has done a huge amount of thorough research and delivered more paper-sniplets and whatnot regarding Jane, all of which confirm the living-dates we have by now.
(He even found Jane's granddaughter and unearthed a letter by her own hand, where she mentions Buk. So we do know, she's the right person we're talking about.)

Btw, I really appreciate your efforts to research and investigate. We need this sort of person, asking questions and questioning answers. So don't take my above explanations as a letdown. Please feel yourself encouraged to go on.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your reply!
It means a great amount that you would take the time to assist me in my research.
I too have done plenty of research, finding letters and other information that proves that Jane Cooney Baker is the Jane mentioned in his poems, stories, and letters.
However, I still have one problem with the FBI file.
Everything seems so meticulous. It seems as though, with all the work put into the file, the facts should have bee correct. I mean, after all, why would a superior government organization such as the FBI take the time to write the file if they were going to do a poor job gathering facts. They had to know that years later it would be discovered that the information was false. If they did in fact make up the facts, what purpose could they have possibly had to do that?
I know it's a stretch, probably a shot in the dark, but is there anything that anyone can think of that could have been hidden using this file. Like I said, if they were taking the time, and doing the research anyways (as shown by the number of correct facts in the file) why are there still so many mistakes?
 

mjp

Founding member
There's the FBI that exists in movies and television, and there's the real-world FBI that's mostly made up of a lot of people working in government offices. Like people in offices everywhere, some care about doing a good job, many don't.
 
Top