Albrook and Harvey - can't both be true

[etenguy]

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?

Hi Abby

Re timings - without checking back for exact timings, Barnett says he left MJK at around 7.45 to 8.00 pm and the female visitor left just before him. Harvey says she left around 7,00pm - before Barnett says he arrived. And Albrook says she left at around 8.00pm. So Harvey and Barnett are almost an hour out from each other.

Yes, we could have an option where Albrook lies (but that means also that Harvey and Barnett got their times mixed up).

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Re timings - without checking back for exact timings, Barnett says he left MJK at around 7.45 to 8.00 pm and the female visitor left just before him. Harvey says she left around 7,00pm - before Barnett says he arrived. And Albrook says she left at around 8.00pm. So Harvey and Barnett are almost an hour out from each other.

Yes, we could have an option where Albrook lies (but that means also that Harvey and Barnett got their times mixed up).

thanks eten
i appreciate you explaining that. i dont think the mixed up timings between harvey and barnett are that big a deal. but thats just me.

[Abby Normal]

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

thanks gary! and a washerwoman sounds about right, especially if debs found her!

[etenguy]

thanks eten
i appreciate you explaining that. i dont think the mixed up timings between harvey and barnett are that big a deal. but thats just me.

Hi Abby

It is not just the time per se, but that Harvey says she left as Barnett arrives whereas Barnett says the female left a few minutes before him.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

'Possible.

We'd still have the same hurdle though: Barnett states one woman; Albrook and Harvey both state they saw Barnett.

I suppose it's possible that Barnett considered the Harvey visit to be in the afternoon and the Albrook visit to be in the evening.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

It is not just the time per se, but that Harvey says she left as Barnett arrives whereas Barnett says the female left a few minutes before him.

harveys there, barnett arrives, harvey leaves, then barnett leaves. whats the issue?

[Fleetwood Mac]

'Possible.

We'd still have the same hurdle though: Barnett states one woman; Albrook and Harvey both state they saw Barnett.

I suppose it's possible that Barnett considered the Harvey visit to be in the afternoon and the Albrook visit to be in the evening.

To add to this:

I've looked at witness statements from various inquests, and the few who talk of around 7pm deem this time to be in the evening and not the afternoon.

Moreover, when considering these parts of Harvey's statement:

All the afternoon of Thursday we were together. "Well, Mary Jane, I shall not see you this evening again"

This would suggest she was with Mary for a long time, but by the time she leaves she considers it to be the evening, i.e. "this evening again".

On balance, I think it's unlikely that Joe Barnett considered around 7pm to be in the afternoon.

[etenguy]

harveys there, barnett arrives, harvey leaves, then barnett leaves. whats the issue?

Well, if Harvey says she left at around 7,00pm when Barnett arrived - so is not there for most of the time when Barnett is with Mary - and Barnett says she left nearer 7.45 - 8.00 pm, just before he left - there is both the issue of the absolute time - was it nearer 7.00 or 8.00 but also the issue of whether Harvey spent little time with the two of them (Harvey) or she was there for most of the time with the two of them (Barnett) - the two accounts contradict each other.

[Wickerman]

'Possible.

We'd still have the same hurdle though: Barnett states one woman; Albrook and Harvey both state they saw Barnett.

I suppose it's possible that Barnett considered the Harvey visit to be in the afternoon and the Albrook visit to be in the evening.

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.

[Wickerman]

I suppose it's possible that Barnett considered the Harvey visit to be in the afternoon and the Albrook visit to be in the evening.

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.

[Kattrup]

Well, if Harvey says she left at around 7,00pm when Barnett arrived - so is not there for most of the time when Barnett is with Mary - and Barnett says she left nearer 7.45 - 8.00 pm, just before he left - there is both the issue of the absolute time - was it nearer 7.00 or 8.00 but also the issue of whether Harvey spent little time with the two of them (Harvey) or she was there for most of the time with the two of them (Barnett) - the two accounts contradict each other.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Well, if Harvey says she left at around 7,00pm when Barnett arrived - so is not there for most of the time when Barnett is with Mary - and Barnett says she left nearer 7.45 - 8.00 pm, just before he left - there is both the issue of the absolute time - was it nearer 7.00 or 8.00 but also the issue of whether Harvey spent little time with the two of them (Harvey) or she was there for most of the time with the two of them (Barnett) - the two accounts contradict each other.

Hi eten
again thanks. To me its all just timing issues, so if one or both are just a little off on their times including how long they are there its no big deal to me.

Its not a credibility issue, its a memory issue. Witnessess are notorious for screwing up times. sequences, durations etc.

What is important, is that Harvey was at the inquest, barnett was at the inquest and other than minor discrepencies they corroborate each other. harvey is also corroborated by her leaving the clothes. So I go with harvey, and dont really care about aldbrook.

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.

[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. : )

[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.

[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.