Albrook and Harvey - can't both be true

[Fleetwood Mac]

I couldn't say.
I've been through the BNA and failed to find "evening" used prior to say 5:00pm, it's normally "afternoon", but certainly after 6:00pm we can read "evening" or "afternoon" as interchangeable terms right up until midnight.

The important thing to take home here is, both Bowyer & John Kelly have been accused of lying by modern theorists because they used both terms when speaking about the same incident. This is 'our' failing, not their's. It is incumbent on modern researchers to learn the correct terminology in use at the time, not impose our modern understanding on anything they said.

All that said....
We can't be sure if Harvey was lying about something she claimed, but, the issue of "afternoon" & "evening", is not the place to look for evidence of any lies.

Aye, there is an obstacle with this in that Barnett's definition of evening has to begin in the short time between when Maria Harvey left and Lizzie Albrook arrived. On the other hand, in the event someone asked you what you were doing last night you wouldn't reply with what you were doing yesterday afternoon, and so there is an argument to say that given Barnett was asked about the evening then whatever evening meant to him he's talking about a visit in the evening.

This is the only interpretation I can think of that ties it all together.

At one point I thought your suggestion that Maria Harvey lived at Miller's Court prior to the end of October is the best bet. But upon reflection, we have to believe that Maria was thrown out only to make her way to Mary's with neither of them paying rent, while John McCarthy is sat a few yards away.

[MrBarnett]

Ah, you are looking for a more civilized example, one to do with polling hours?

"Eight o'clock in the afternoon".




Or, perhaps you would like some official memo from a palace?

8:00 in the "afternoon".




Another example from the more civilized members of society?

8:30 in the "afternoon".

No, something less archaic than the forenoon and afternoon malarkey.

More like wot everyday Victorian Cockneys would have used.

[MrBarnett]

Aye, there is an obstacle with this in that Barnett's definition of evening has to begin in the short time between when Maria Harvey left and Lizzie Albrook arrived. On the other hand, in the event someone asked you what you were doing last night you wouldn't reply with what you were doing yesterday afternoon, and so there is an argument to say that given Barnett was asked about the evening then whatever evening meant to him he's talking about a visit in the evening.

This is the only interpretation I can think of that ties it all together.

At one point I thought your suggestion that Maria Harvey lived at Miller's Court prior to the end of October is the best bet. But upon reflection, we have to believe that Maria was thrown out only to make her way to Mary's with neither of them paying rent, while John McCarthy is sat a few yards away.

Do you imagine McCarthy knew precisely who slept in every one of his ‘rents’ every night?

[MrBarnett]

hi wick
isnt harvey corroborated by the clothes found in marys room?

She appears to have been, Abby, which is why the washerwoman of that name found by Debs is particularly interesting.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Do you imagine McCarthy knew precisely who slept in every one of his ‘rents’ every night?

I haven't thought about it too much and so I've no real opinion. 'Let's see what Jon comes back with as usually he has an interesting take on things. I'll have more of a think about it then and I'll post a few thoughts.

[Wickerman]

hi wick
isnt harvey corroborated by the clothes found in marys room?

Harvey is corroborated by the clothing, but I think the question is more to identify the woman who was with Kelly when Barnett arrived on Thursday. The clothing doesn't prove it was Harvey that Barnett saw on that specific night, evening or afternoon.

[Wickerman]

Aye, there is an obstacle with this in that Barnett's definition of evening has to begin in the short time between when Maria Harvey left and Lizzie Albrook arrived. On the other hand, in the event someone asked you what you were doing last night you wouldn't reply with what you were doing yesterday afternoon, and so there is an argument to say that given Barnett was asked about the evening then whatever evening meant to him he's talking about a visit in the evening.

This is the only interpretation I can think of that ties it all together.

At one point I thought your suggestion that Maria Harvey lived at Miller's Court prior to the end of October is the best bet. But upon reflection, we have to believe that Maria was thrown out only to make her way to Mary's with neither of them paying rent, while John McCarthy is sat a few yards away.

I wouldn't think McCarthy monitored the comings & goings of all the tenants, he thought of himself as a businessman, probably leaving the day to day running to his wife & Bowyer.

[Abby Normal]

Harvey is corroborated by the clothing, but I think the question is more to identify the woman who was with Kelly when Barnett arrived on Thursday. The clothing doesn't prove it was Harvey that Barnett saw on that specific night, evening or afternoon.

i think it probably does, as she says it was herself who was there when barnett was and who dropped off the clothes. and since her statement was taken under oath at the inquest Ill go with it was more than likely harvey. Ill consign allbrook to press confusion (and or the same person) , an attention seeker or just maybe Kattrups solution.

[Wickerman]

I haven't thought about it too much and so I've no real opinion. 'Let's see what Jon comes back with as usually he has an interesting take on things. I'll have more of a think about it then and I'll post a few thoughts.

I would tend to go along with the idea that no-one cared who came & went, or who stayed & for how long, as long as McCarthy's got their rent.
Rent was charged per room, not per tenant. We have read that the Gallaghers/Keylers had their married daughter staying with them by Thursday, and Lewis also showed up to spend the night.
Harvey may have shared one of the rooms - was that No.2 Dorset Court really No.2 Millers Court - where the Gallaghers/Keylers live?
Was Harvey moved out on the Sunday, to make room for the Gallagher's/Keyler's daughter to move in?
Is this why Harvey spent Mon & Tue nights with Kelly?

Jus' tossing things around....

[Fleetwood Mac]

I wouldn't think McCarthy monitored the comings & goings of all the tenants, he thought of himself as a businessman, probably leaving the day to day running to his wife & Bowyer.

Well, he does have to tell Bowyer to fetch the rent which would indicate he's pretty hands on and doesn't have an army of NCOs willing and able to take the initiative.

Having said that, Maria is there on the 5th and 6th and so John and associates aren't breaking their backs to find out who is in his premises, either that or they've got bigger fish to fry and Maria Harvey staying a couple of nights rent free is not a very big fish.

In the end though, assuming Maria has been thrown out of Miller's Court you'd have to assume that John McCarthy wouldn't want her in any other lodging in Miller's Court, and I reckon Maria Harvey has a job on her hands keeping herself tucked away; and of course any of his employees seeing Maria after she's been thrown out of Miller's Court will feel obliged to report back to John.

[Scott Nelson]

The official version is not always the correct version.

Particularly in the Kelly case. For example, was Barnett's smoking pipe found in the room, or was he describing the drainpipe outside the room?

A rushed one-day inquest -- so much vital information glossed over and lost.

[Wickerman]

Which may throw some light on the next mystery...

"Kelly appears to have tenanted a top room in one of Mrs. M'Carthy's houses. She had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her, and latterly her circumstances had been so reduced that she reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881110.html

Ok, so hypothetically, if Harvey had been staying at No2 Millers Court (with the Gallaghers/Keylers), and then moved in with Kelly for a couple of nights, we might have the basis for a partial solution to the press story published above.

Someone thought the victim lived upstairs, and had a boy.
No2 Millers Court was upstairs, and apparently, Harvey did have a boy.
Harvey's connection to the victim was that she had been staying in room 13 for two nights.

[Wickerman]

In the end though, assuming Maria has been thrown out of Miller's Court you'd have to assume that John McCarthy wouldn't want her in any other lodging in Miller's Court, and I reckon Maria Harvey has a job on her hands keeping herself tucked away; and of course any of his employees seeing Maria after she's been thrown out of Miller's Court will feel obliged to report back to John.

I going on the assumption Harvey was sharing a room, she wouldn't be paying McCarthy anything. If she was paying rent it would be to the Gallaghers/Keylers - think of it like a sublet.

[etenguy]

i think it probably does, as she says it was herself who was there when barnett was and who dropped off the clothes. and since her statement was taken under oath at the inquest Ill go with it was more than likely harvey. Ill consign allbrook to press confusion (and or the same person) , an attention seeker or just maybe Kattrups solution.

Hi Abby

Good to see you here again.

If we start with Kattrup's solution, I believe you mean that there were two women, one left as Barnett arrived (Harvey) and the other joined and left while Barnett was with Mary (Albrook). I think that highly unlikely based on the statements. Barnett refers to only one woman, not one leaving as he arrived and another then joining them and then leaving. Nothing is impossible, but I do not think the evidence is there to support that scenario. If both women were there when Barnett arrived and one left immediately (Harvey) and the other later (Albrook), you would expect Barnett to say there were two women, one left shortly after he arrived and the other left just before he did. I think it highly unlikely Barnett would say there was just one woman there in those circumstances. I struggle to see how the evidence supports that scenario either.

If it was Harvey who was there, then the timings are quite far out. We have to allow some 15 or 20 minute leeway, but an hour out is too long I think.

We do not even know for certain that Albrook existed, but if we assume she is not the figment of a journalists imagination, then her timings more closely tie up with Barnett and as she lived close by, so does her address tie in with Barnett's statement. Also, if it was Harvey - who had stayed at the house while he lived there, I think he would have mentioned her by name. The fact he said a woman suggests to me he did not know the name of the visitor.

I think the more likely options are that:
a) Barnett visited twice and saw Harvey in the afternoon and Albrook in the evening and answered the question he was asked about who he saw in the evening.
b) Albrook does not exist, it was Harvey and she and Barnett really got their times mixed up. (your preferred option I think)
c) Albrook does exist and that is who Barnett saw and Harvey is lying (but why would she? Attention seeking? )
d) Barnett is lying - he saw Harvey as she described the event and he saw Albrook as she described the event but he lied about seeing Harvey (but again - why would he?)

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Good to see you here again.

If we start with Kattrup's solution, I believe you mean that there were two women, one left as Barnett arrived (Harvey) and the other joined and left while Barnett was with Mary (Albrook). I think that highly unlikely based on the statements. Barnett refers to only one woman, not one leaving as he arrived and another then joining them and then leaving. Nothing is impossible, but I do not think the evidence is there to support that scenario. If both women were there when Barnett arrived and one left immediately (Harvey) and the other later (Albrook), you would expect Barnett to say there were two women, one left shortly after he arrived and the other left just before he did. I think it highly unlikely Barnett would say there was just one woman there in those circumstances. I struggle to see how the evidence supports that scenario either.

If it was Harvey who was there, then the timings are quite far out. We have to allow some 15 or 20 minute leeway, but an hour out is too long I think.

We do not even know for certain that Albrook existed, but if we assume she is not the figment of a journalists imagination, then her timings more closely tie up with Barnett and as she lived close by, so does her address tie in with Barnett's statement. Also, if it was Harvey - who had stayed at the house while he lived there, I think he would have mentioned her by name. The fact he said a woman suggests to me he did not know the name of the visitor.

I think the more likely options are that:
a) Barnett visited twice and saw Harvey in the afternoon and Albrook in the evening and answered the question he was asked about who he saw in the evening.
b) Albrook does not exist, it was Harvey and she and Barnett really got their times mixed up. (your preferred option I think)
c) Albrook does exist and that is who Barnett saw and Harvey is lying (but why would she? Attention seeking? )
d) Barnett is lying - he saw Harvey as she described the event and he saw Albrook as she described the event but he lied about seeing Harvey (but again - why would he?)

thanks eten
re option b. if albrook does not exist, why do barnett and harvey have to have there times mixed up?
and what about an option of albrook just lying?