Albrook and Harvey - can't both be true

[Wickerman]

Not according to the witnesses at the various inquest testimonies who spoke of approx. 7pm. They classed it as evening. I'd infer that at that time, in that place, 7pm was generally deemed to be the evening.

According to The Daily Telegraph, Maria Harvey believes 7pm is in the evening also.

It isn't a case of numbers.

"Hey, 10 people say evening, only 9 say afternoon, so I win"!

The point is, both terms are used for the same time of day. That is beyond dispute - so 'that' is the point.
And, it is a point we need to learn from, not turn a blind eye to.

[Debra A]

"A 6-year-old boy named John Harvey was injured in a traffic accident in Commercial Street in June, 1888. He was taken to the London Hospital where his address was recorded as 2, Dorset Court, Commercial Street. There doesn’t appear to have been a Dorset Court in Spitalfields, but that was the name given to Millers Court by some newspapers in the aftermath of the Kelly murder.

In addition, Debra Arif found an 1887 (I think) workhouse admission for a laundress/washerwoman named Maria Harvey who had two sons, one a John of the same age as the boy involved in accident. The address this Maria Harvey gave was 12, Station Place - a very interesting address."

In case you haven't seen the original 1887 entry, there was also a younger son with Maria and John named Willam, born 1884.

The only address I've seen for John Harvey came in 1890 -- No. 3 N.E. Passage, which I think was the same common lodging house associated with Pearly Poll, etc.

This is presumably him:

Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
This is someone I have mentioned in the past as a possible for the Maria Harvey known by MJK. These records and addresses are transcripts I did from St George in the East settlement records

Maria Harvey + William
Admitted 22 March 1887
ages 32 and 3 , charring, widow.
Residence on admission 18 Station Place for 2 yrs
Previous residence 25 Mary St 8-9 yrs

admitted 30th March 1887 + John 5 years
occupation washing, widow, 32
Residence before admission- Casual Ward
previous residence 25 Mary St 4 yrs, 18 Station Place 1 yr

Admitted 21st July 1887 Maria, John, William
previous residence 18 Station Place 8 or 9 years
Admitted Feb 7th 1887 as Mary Harvey with son William ages 32 and 2.5yrs, occupation washing, widow.
Residence before admission 6 Back Church Lane 2yrs, 21 Gun Alley 4 yrs.

Here is the research I posted previously on the same woman. The information is similar to the above but taken from the admission and discharge and creed registers for SGE workhouse, rather than the settlement examination book.

In the Raine St workhouse register of admissions and discharges for 4 separate occasions in Feb, March, April and July 1887 there is a Maria Harvey listed born in 1855, she was described as a washerwoman, destitute a Roman Catholic and as well as coming from the casual ward on one occasion she also gives an address of 18 Station Place. This address is repeated in the workhouse creed register. Station Place is just off Cornwall St St George in the East.
What's interesting about this Maria Harvey is that she has two sons; John born 1882 and William born 1884.

John appears in other Raine St workhouse records in 1890 where it is mention he has been sent to Leyton Roman Catholic School. Maria was in the SGE Infirmary at the time. I can't seem to find anything else for William.

Over on casebook, poster 'Rosella' mentioned a John Harvey aged six who was run over in Commercial Rd in June 1888. His address was given as Dorset Court, Dorset St Spitalfields.
I'm half way through the 1888 settlement book and Maria Harvey and her sons don't appear again in SGE, which we would expect if she had moved on to Whitechapel at this time.

[rjpalmer]

Thankyou RJ, am I allowed to bite, and ask what is interesting about 12 Station Place?

This should help. It was a rough street with a least one brothel:

Station Place, Shadwell - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

The location was also associated with the mysterious attack on Emily Edith Smith:

The attack on Emily Edith Smith - 5 Nov 1892 - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

[Fleetwood Mac]

But, if you read all the press accounts, they make no distinction between afternoon and evening - like I said, they meant the same for the times we are concerned with.

Daily News:
"We were together Thursday evening"

Times:
"We were together Thursday afternoon"

Daily Telegraph:
"All afternoon we were together".

Echo:
"She last saw deceased at five minutes to seven, Thursday evening".

Afternoon - evening are synonymous at 7:00 pm.

Not according to the witnesses at the various inquest testimonies who spoke of approx. 7pm. They classed it as evening. I'd infer that at that time, in that place, 7pm was generally deemed to be the evening.

According to The Daily Telegraph, Maria Harvey believes 7pm is in the evening also.

[Wickerman]

Thankyou RJ, am I allowed to bite, and ask what is interesting about 12 Station Place?

[rjpalmer]

Perhaps you also missed the post#17
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...362#post793362
Where we read that a 6 yr old boy named John Harvey lived at a N0.2 Dorset Court, which may have been a mistyping for Millers Court.
Also, an account of a woman named Maria Harvey, who had a son named John or the same age as in the previous report, although at that time she did not live in Millers Court.

It's all very speculative, though the connections are not unreasonable.

"A 6-year-old boy named John Harvey was injured in a traffic accident in Commercial Street in June, 1888. He was taken to the London Hospital where his address was recorded as 2, Dorset Court, Commercial Street. There doesn’t appear to have been a Dorset Court in Spitalfields, but that was the name given to Millers Court by some newspapers in the aftermath of the Kelly murder.

In addition, Debra Arif found an 1887 (I think) workhouse admission for a laundress/washerwoman named Maria Harvey who had two sons, one a John of the same age as the boy involved in accident. The address this Maria Harvey gave was 12, Station Place - a very interesting address."


In case you haven't seen the original 1887 entry, there was also a younger son with Maria and John named Willam, born 1884.

The only address I've seen for John Harvey came in 1890 -- No. 3 N.E. Passage, which I think was the same common lodging house associated with Pearly Poll, etc.

This is presumably him:

[Wickerman]

Thank you.
it’s Penny illustrated paper, nov. 17:

“We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room. I objected; and as Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left her”

Thankyou, yes but that was published on the 17th, it doesn't say he knew her name as he gave his testimony on the 12th.
He obviously learned her name as she stood to give evidence after him, on the same day.

Times and S James Gazette:
“Harvey, however, took a room in New court, on the same street, but remained friendly with the unfortunate woman, who visited her in New court on Thursday night.“
plus she gave her address at the inquest as New Court

Of course, Barnett could have been unaware of it. Still, I think it trumps speculation

Yes, we know her current address (current, meaning on the day of the inquest). However, she only moved there after the Tuesday 6th Nov. What we need to know is where was Harvey living before she moved in with Mary.

I also showed how the story about "the victim living upstairs with a boy" in the Saturday press, could be a reflection of Harvey living at No.2 Millers Court, as that is upstairs, and Harvey then moved in with Kelly. So, we have a connection between Harvey, the victim, a boy, room 13, and "upstairs", all in one erroneous newspaper article.

Perhaps you also missed the post#17

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/793324-albrook-and-harvey-can-t-both-be-true?p=793362#post793362

Where we read that a 6 yr old boy named John Harvey lived at a N0.2 Dorset Court, which may have been a mistyping for Millers Court.
Also, an account of a woman named Maria Harvey, who had a son named John or the same age as in the previous report, although at that time she did not live in Millers Court.

It's all very speculative, though the connections are not unreasonable.

[Kattrup]

Do you have the quote where he uses her name?
I can't find one, and I have a dozen or so press accounts plus the Court Record.

As for Harvey living in the court, perhaps you missed a couple of posts?
It's only speculation, but see what you think.
Post #54 - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...437#post793437
Post #57 - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...444#post793444

So, assuming the above speculation explains why Barnett thought she lived in the court, then I go with what you just read in post #76.

Thank you.
it’s Penny illustrated paper, nov. 17:

“We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room. I objected; and as Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left her”

Times and S James Gazette:
“Harvey, however, took a room in New court, on the same street, but remained friendly with the unfortunate woman, who visited her in New court on Thursday night.“
plus she gave her address at the inquest as New Court

Of course, Barnett could have been unaware of it. Still, I think it trumps speculation

[Wickerman]

But Barnett knew her name and referred to her by name? plus she did not live at the court, she gave a different address.

Do you have the quote where he uses her name?
I can't find one, and I have a dozen or so press accounts plus the Court Record.

As for Harvey living in the court, perhaps you missed a couple of posts?
It's only speculation, but see what you think.
Post #54 - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...437#post793437
Post #57 - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...444#post793444

So, assuming the above speculation explains why Barnett thought she lived in the court, then I go with what you just read in post #76.

[Kattrup]

Ah, sorry, I felt sure you used that to mean pure inventions.



Nah, your multivarious mental mechanisms are in overdrive

I honestly don't know what to make of Albrook, I've no doubt she's real - so I'm not going down that path.
I'm pretty sure I found an Albrook in the census, but I can't find any notes to that effect.
Sorry to disappoint, but this one has me flummoxed.

--------------

It could be we are misunderstanding the context.

The Coroner already knows Harvey was there, he has her police statement, but he may not know about Albrook, her statement was only in the press.

So, the coroner asked Barnett if there was anyone else there, which Barnett confirms there was a woman (Harvey) who lived in the court, he apparently didn't know her name.

So, Harvey was already with Kelly when Barnett called, she was probably there from near 7:00pm.
Barnett arrived about 7:30.
Sometime after 7:30, Harvey left the room.
While Barnett was alone with Kelly, this young woman Lizzie Albrook came for a brief few minutes, then left before Barnett.
Albrook made a fleeting visit of mere minutes, which is why Barnett didn't mention her.
Then Barnett leaves about 7:45.

I think that is probably the most likely explanation.

But Barnett knew her name and referred to her by name? plus she did not live at the court, she gave a different address.

[Abby Normal]

Ah, sorry, I felt sure you used that to mean pure inventions.



Nah, your multivarious mental mechanisms are in overdrive

I honestly don't know what to make of Albrook, I've no doubt she's real - so I'm not going down that path.
I'm pretty sure I found an Albrook in the census, but I can't find any notes to that effect.
Sorry to disappoint, but this one has me flummoxed.

--------------

It could be we are misunderstanding the context.

The Coroner already knows Harvey was there, he has her police statement, but he may not know about Albrook, her statement was only in the press.

So, the coroner asked Barnett if there was anyone else there, which Barnett confirms there was a woman (Harvey) who lived in the court, he apparently didn't know her name.

So, Harvey was already with Kelly when Barnett called, she was probably there from near 7:00pm.
Barnett arrived about 7:30.
Sometime after 7:30, Harvey left the room.
While Barnett was alone with Kelly, this young woman Lizzie Albrook came for a brief few minutes, then left before Barnett.
Albrook made a fleeting visit of mere minutes, which is why Barnett didn't mention her.
Then Barnett leaves about 7:45.

I think that is probably the most likely explanation.

fair enough, and not a bad explanation. thanks wick

[Wickerman]

hi wick
when I said 'newspaper tattle" i meant errors, embellishments AND invention, sorry if I wasnt clear. just basically newspaper BS.

Ah, sorry, I felt sure you used that to mean pure inventions.

But anyway, I can see your mental gears firing up for the mental gymnastics to make aldbrook the one being there and the more important witness, which means you have some bigger reason for it. What gives? just cut to the chase please. : )

Nah, your multivarious mental mechanisms are in overdrive

I honestly don't know what to make of Albrook, I've no doubt she's real - so I'm not going down that path.
I'm pretty sure I found an Albrook in the census, but I can't find any notes to that effect.
Sorry to disappoint, but this one has me flummoxed.

--------------

It could be we are misunderstanding the context.

The Coroner already knows Harvey was there, he has her police statement, but he may not know about Albrook, her statement was only in the press.

So, the coroner asked Barnett if there was anyone else there, which Barnett confirms there was a woman (Harvey) who lived in the court, he apparently didn't know her name.

So, Harvey was already with Kelly when Barnett called, she was probably there from near 7:00pm.
Barnett arrived about 7:30.
Sometime after 7:30, Harvey left the room.
While Barnett was alone with Kelly, this young woman Lizzie Albrook came for a brief few minutes, then left before Barnett.
Albrook made a fleeting visit of mere minutes, which is why Barnett didn't mention her.
Then Barnett leaves about 7:45.

I think that is probably the most likely explanation.

[etenguy]

Yes its a conundrum on its own, but mean what does it matter to the case as a whole? not much if anything.

Its harvey being proved there that matters-she explains the clothes. she corroborates Barnett being there. she corroborates mary still being alive at that point etc.

Hi Abby

You may be right and I am making too much of apparent discrepancies that can be explained by imprecise recollection of times and events. The Albrook intervention though does add to the complications of what actually happened. And Harvey and the clothes only talks to the fact she had been there - not that she was there when Barnett was there. Whether Barnett was chaperoned or not while with Mary might help us confirm how cordial his last meeting with Mary was - especially for those who either see Barnett as a strong or weak suspect.

Why I think it matters though, apart from just growing my understanding of that event, is part of a wider question I am grappling with about witnesses reliability in different situations generally - but also specifically all the contradictions around the witnesses for Mary Kelly - once we add in Maxwell, Lewis, Hutchinson etc... There are often witness statements that are not consistent with what is known or that contain inaccuracies or inconsistencies, but in the Kelly case it seems there are really significant contradictions (for instance seeing Mary alive after she had been murdered) that make it more difficult to understand what likely happened.

[etenguy]

They do not, they’re two different women. Harvey left at 18.55-19, Albrook left shortly before Barnett.
Harvey did not live at the Court so cannot have been the woman described by Barnett. Harvey also says she saw Barnett “shortly” or “briefly” that afternoon, so perfectly consistent with leaving just as he arrived.

Hi Kattrup

That does neatly deal with the contradiction about timings that I was discussing - but I struggle to find support for the notion that two different women were there at the same or different times. If both women were there when Barnett arrived, you would expect him to say that and one left immediately and the other just before him. We cannot put the words we want to hear into his mouth, and he may have thought nothing of Maria leaving as he arrived so concentrated his answer on Albrook when responding to questions - so I do not entirely dismiss the idea that both women might have been there and all statements are not contradictory to each other - except the lack of any of the three referring to such a situation is more consistent, in my view, with the situation not being as you describe and only one woman being present as Barnett explicitly states.

[Abby Normal]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Barnett was only there 15 minutes (7:30-7:45).

I think my point was, if we can't place Harvey in Millers Court as a tenant in the days Barnett lived there, then Barnett had to be talking about Albrook (a woman who lived in the court).
On balance, although the scenario was extremely tenuous, I suspect it more likely than either woman just lying, or,... that Albrook was another one of Abby's "Newspaper Tattle" (journalists invention)

Which absolutely makes zero sense to me at all.

hi wick
when I said 'newspaper tattle" i meant errors, embellishments AND invention, sorry if I wasnt clear. just basically newspaper BS.

But anyway, I can see your mental gears firing up for the mental gymnastics to make aldbrook the one being there and the more important witness, which means you have some bigger reason for it. What gives? just cut to the chase please. : )