Albrook and Harvey - can't both be true

[etenguy]

I am trying to make sense of the statements made by Maria Harvey and Lizzie Albrook concerning the evening of 8 November 1888. Both claim to have been with MJK the evening before she was murdered. Both claim to have been with MJK when Joe Barnett arrived to see her. Barnett claims there was a woman with MJK when he visited. So who was that, Harvey or Albrook? And who lied about being present and why?

Extracts of their statements below:

Harvey at inquest:

All the afternoon of Thursday we were together.
[Coroner] Were you in the house when Joe Barnett called ? - Yes. I said, "Well, Mary Jane, I shall not see you this evening again," and I left with her two men's dirty shirts, a little boy's shirt, a black overcoat, a black crepe bonnet with black satin strings, a pawn-ticket for a grey shawl, upon which 2s had been lent, and a little girls white petticoat.

Albrook in the press: (Lloyds Weekly 11 November)

"I knew Mary Jane Kelly very well, as we were near neighbours.
The last time I saw her was on Thursday night, about eight o'clock, when I left her in her room with Joe Barnett, who had been living with her.
About the last thing she said was, "Whatever you do don't you do wrong and turn out as I have."

Joe Barnett at Inquest

[Coroner] Was there any one else there on the Thursday evening ? - Yes, a woman who lives in the court. She left first, and I followed shortly afterwards.

On this site, it suggests Lizzie Albrook was most likely the woman with Joe and Mary, but I could not find any real information on what happened with these three - is one of the woman lying, is Joe lying (did he visit twice that night - or even three times?) Is there a good reference source anyone can point to?

[JeffHamm]

Are we even sure they are two different people? There are other examples of people giving different names to the press than at the inquest, might this just be another example?

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, you've a job on your hands to make sense of the witness statements from that night.

Strictly speaking, Maria Harvey didn't live in Miller's Court.

[Abby Normal]

shouldnt we go with harvey, the one who was at the inquest?

[Wickerman]

Maria Harvey can't have been the 'other woman' who Kelly took in, as that was the week before. It was that incident which made Barnet decide to leave Kelly on the previous Tuesday (30th Oct.)
Barnet was only there from 7:30 -7:45.
Albrook claimed to have left Kelly about 8;00 pm.

Barnet did say the female who was with Kelly, and left before him, was someone who lived in the court, Albrook, claimed to live in the court.

Harvey did describe the various clothing she left with Kelly, so that seems genuine.

It's always been a puzzle, no-one needs to be lying, timing was often vague as we all know.

Harvey says she arrived at Kelly's, about 7:00pm.

So, there is an hour between Harvey & Albrook.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Albrook, claimed to live in the court.

Did Lizzie claim to live in the court, or did she claim they were near neighbours and the press inferred she lived in the court?

[Wickerman]

This piece has always been a puzzle.

"A young woman named Harvey, who had slept with the deceased on several occasions, has also made a statement. She said she had been on good terms with the deceased, whose education was much superior to that of most persons in her position of life. Harvey, however, took a room in New court, off the same street, but remained friendly with the unfortunate woman, who visited her in New court on Thursday night. After drinking together they parted at half past seven o'clock, Kelly going off in the direction of Leman street, which she was in the habit of frequenting. She was perfectly sober at the time. Harvey never saw her alive afterwards. Hearing in the morning that a murder had been committed, she said, "I'll go and see if it is anyone I know," and, to her horror, found that it was her friend."
Daily News, 10 Nov. 1888.

The time seems about right, Harvey claimed to leave Kelly's about 7:30 pm. but has the reporter got his story backwards?
Was it Harvey who visited Kelly, not Kelly visiting Harvey?
If so, then why does he described Kelly leaving towards Leman-street?

[JeffHamm]

Maria Harvey can't have been the 'other woman' who Kelly took in, as that was the week before. It was that incident which made Barnet decide to leave Kelly on the previous Tuesday (30th Oct.)
Barnet was only there from 7:30 -7:45.
Albrook claimed to have left Kelly about 8;00 pm.

Barnet did say the female who was with Kelly, and left before him, was someone who lived in the court, Albrook, claimed to live in the court.

Harvey did describe the various clothing she left with Kelly, so that seems genuine.

It's always been a puzzle, no-one needs to be lying, timing was often vague as we all know.

Harvey says she arrived at Kelly's, about 7:00pm.

So, there is an hour between Harvey & Albrook.

If Harvey arrived "about 7:00 pm" and Albrook left "about 8:00", and Barnet arrived about 7:30 and there was a woman with Kelly at that time, and then he leaves about 7:45 (but shortly after the woman who was there left), then it sounds to me like Harvey and Albrook are the same woman, with the time she and Barnet leaves being somewhere between 7:45 and 8:00 type thing. The details in the press accounts, particularly if someone gives them a false name, are unlikely to align perfectly for all sorts of reasons. I think it may be worth considering that the two names refer to the same woman, and then seeing if that can't hold up to closer scrutiny.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

If Harvey arrived "about 7:00 pm" and Albrook left "about 8:00", and Barnet arrived about 7:30 and there was a woman with Kelly at that time, and then he leaves about 7:45 (but shortly after the woman who was there left), then it sounds to me like Harvey and Albrook are the same woman, with the time she and Barnet leaves being somewhere between 7:45 and 8:00 type thing. The details in the press accounts, particularly if someone gives them a false name, are unlikely to align perfectly for all sorts of reasons. I think it may be worth considering that the two names refer to the same woman, and then seeing if that can't hold up to closer scrutiny.

- Jeff

But then Barnett's statement argues against them being one and the same. According to Barnett, it was a woman who lived in the court and that wouldn't apply to Maria Harvey.

[Wickerman]

Did Lizzie claim to live in the court, or did she claim they were near neighbours and the press inferred she lived in the court?

If he wasn't talking about Albrook, then we must have a third female there that night.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If he wasn't talking about Albrook, then we must have a third female there that night.

The reasonable interpretation is that it wasn't Maria Harvey, given Barnett stated the woman lived in the court.

In truth, the likelihood is that "near neighbour" in this scenario means someone living in the court. 'Just wanted to make the point, keep options open sort of thing, I don't think Lizzie Albrook directly claimed to live in the court, a near neighbour were her words.

'Interesting that Barnett doesn't mention the woman by name given he lived in the court for a good while.

[etenguy]

There are some interesting ideas in this thread already. Some things we do know
- Maria Harvey and Lizzie Albrook were both real people who knew Mary.
- I guess Maria may have known Lizzie and used her name with the press, but I can think off no reason why she would do so.
- Also the account in the press is diffferent than the inquest account in terms of timings.
- Also the Albrook press account has her stating Mary told her not to end up prostituting herself - advice too late for Harvey.
- Barnett knew Harvey (I don't know if he knew Albrook) but does not use her name in his statement (makes me think Albrook was the likely visitor)
_ if these are two separate woman (and the evidence suggests that is likely) then one of the three (including Barnett) must be lying (I don't think there is room for clutching at the 'mistaken' excuse)

[Wickerman]

The reasonable interpretation is that it wasn't Maria Harvey, given Barnett stated the woman lived in the court.

In truth, the likelihood is that "near neighbour" in this scenario means someone living in the court. 'Just wanted to make the point, keep options open sort of thing, I don't think Lizzie Albrook directly claimed to live in the court, a near neighbour were her words.

Agreed.

'Interesting that Barnett doesn't mention the woman by name given he lived in the court for a good while.

I have looked in the past to see if Harvey says where she lived before she moved in with Kelly.

If it had been another room Millers court then that would justify Barnett saying the female visitor "lived in the court", as he would have moved out (on 30th) before Harvey must have moved out of her room, and into Kelly's.
Meaning, Barnett wouldn't have known Harvey now lived in New Court.

Was Harvey ejected from another room in Millers Court?

I couldn't find any mention of a previous address for Harvey.

Just trying to allow for all options.

[etenguy]

Agreed.



I have looked in the past to see if Harvey says where she lived before she moved in with Kelly.

If it had been another room Millers court then that would justify Barnett saying the female visitor "lived in the court", as he would have moved out (on 30th) before Harvey must have moved out of her room, and into Kelly's.
Meaning, Barnett wouldn't have known Harvey now lived in New Court.

Was Harvey ejected from another room in Millers Court?

I couldn't find any mention of a previous address for Harvey.

Just trying to allow for all options.

I agree with both you and Fleetwood, which would leave the question - what was happening with Maria Harvey. Was she lying? Or did Barnett visit twice and he was lying. Why were either of them lying?

[etenguy]

There are some interesting ideas in this thread already. Some things we do know
- Maria Harvey and Lizzie Albrook were both real people who knew Mary.

Even though she is quoted in the press and Walter Dew refers to her in later years, there is doubt about whether Lizzie Albrook was a real person. She has an age and address quoted and her story more closely matches Barnett's account than Harvey's. Also Barnett does not refer to the female visitor by name, which I would expect if Maria Harvey was the visitor.

If she was a journalist invention, then mystery solved, but presumably the journalist would have to have known the Barnett story. Given the input of the statement, it would seem a pointless invention, though some argue it was simply to make MJK a more tragic figure. Although widely reported, it seems to be a syndicated story.