Albrook and Harvey - can't both be true

[Kattrup]

Because, Barnett doesn't live in the court anymore, he stopped living there on the previous Tuesday (30th), moving to New Street.
So, the next time he sees Harvey, in Kelly's room on Thursday, he would automatically assume she still lived in the court - if she had been living there before he left.

And, as we do not know her address for that week, it could well be that she had been living in the court.

I don’t recall Barnett not seeing MJK for more than a week, is that mentioned somewhere? I think on the contrary he stated in his press statement that he visited her several times after moving out

[Wickerman]

...
If we accept both women were present but Maria Harvey dashed off soon after Barnett arrived and Albrook stayed for much of Barnett's visit, do you have a view on why Harvey was invited to the inquest, but Albrook was not. I ask because I think a potential possibility is that Barnett had told the police only one woman was with he and MJK that evening.

Have you given any thought to what Albrook said?

She claimed to have gone to Kelly's about 8:00 pm, so at the opposite end of the one hour time window - Harvey saying she arrived there about 7:00 pm.
It looks quite possible that, as we know, Harvey arrives first about 7:00, then Barnett came in about 7:30, whether he left about 7:45 or so, it is possible Albrook just arrived as Barnett was leaving.
Lets assume Albrook, being young like Kelly, just popped in to borrow something, a shawl perhaps - a fleeting visit.

Albrook said Kelly's words to her were:
"Whatever you do don't you do wrong and turn out as I have."

It's the kind of warning you'd offer a friend as they went out the door.
Something had to prompt that warning, it is quite possible Albrook was another prostitute friend who came to borrow something to keep her warm on a night on the town.

This would also explain why Barnett didn't mention her, she wasn't there long enough to be considered as 'there' any length of time.

[Wickerman]

I’m not sure I understand why her address before Monday is relevant.

Because, Barnett doesn't live in the court anymore, he stopped living there on the previous Tuesday (30th), moving to New Street.
So, the next time he sees Harvey, in Kelly's room on Thursday, he would automatically assume she still lived in the court - if she had been living there before he left.

And, as we do not know her address for that week, it could well be that she had been living in the court.

This is why the story of the 6 yr old boy named John Harvey, from June 1888, is so interesting. Maria Harvey did have a son named John, and he was 6 yrs old. And this John Harvey was recorded as living at No.2 Dorset Court, oddly, the same error made in the press - Dorset Court was Millers Court, in this newspaper report:

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_and_west_ham_gazette/881110.html?printer=true

No.2 Millers Court was an upstairs room, it was the same room(s) occupied by the Gallaghers/Keylers on Thursday evening (8th). The Harvey's may have shared the place, or had moved out on the Sunday - to move into Kelly's room for a couple of nights, before Harvey found a room in New Court, not far away.

[etenguy]

Glad you agree with the first part. As for the second part, you know my answer: no explaining needed, Harvey left as Barnett arrived and he therefore did not mention her as she was not there while he was with MJK.
Hopefully I’ll get you to agree with that too one day

It is always good to start with where there is agreement.
Your position is entirely plausible and nothing that we know contradicts the possibility. And you know the reasons I find a different possibility more likely. Either scenario raises questions which we currently have insufficient data to address.

If we accept both women were present but Maria Harvey dashed off soon after Barnett arrived and Albrook stayed for much of Barnett's visit, do you have a view on why Harvey was invited to the inquest, but Albrook was not. I ask because I think a potential possibility is that Barnett had told the police only one woman was with he and MJK that evening.

[Kattrup]

maybe barnett was just mistaken about harvey not living in the court? or maybe she lived nearby?

Could be. One would then conclude that Harvey was mistaken when estimating the time she left MJK, and that Lizzie Albrook was an attention-seeking liar?

[Abby Normal]

The reasoning is not unreasonable at all, it's just that we already have sources that seem to explain things without needing to resort to speculation.

You are correct that Barnett's mention of Harvey's name appears to be only in the paper a week later.

Harvey did not live in the court. Barnett says the woman who was with him and MJK did. Ergo, it was not Harvey. You might then argue that Harvey had only recently moved away, perhaps as recently as spending Monday and Tuesday nights at MJK's. Still, it seems pretty simple and non-speculative: Harvey by her own testimony did not live in the court.

The story of MJK having a little boy living with him can be explained in any number of ways and has no explanatory value. There were likely other children in the area.

maybe barnett was just mistaken about harvey not living in the court? or maybe she lived nearby?

[Kattrup]

But why would you say that?
Unless you have her address before the Monday (5th), - you know Harvey stayed with Kelly on the Monday & Tuesday, and that she moved to New Court after that.
So, the question is, where was she living before that Monday?

To which you say "Harvey did not live in the court" - so would you like to explain how you know that?




What you are not considering is, that Barnett left the court the previous Tuesday, that was the 30th. So, his remark about Harvey is based on what he knew before he moved out.
If Harvey was living in the court the previous week Barnett would know this woman "lived in the court", which she could have for all we know.



We do not know of any other woman who stayed in room 13, who had a boy, who might have lived in an upstairs room in the court.
Do you know of one?, I don't.

I’m not sure I understand why her address before Monday is relevant.

Barnett visited MJK Thursday, at the inquest he stated that the woman with them “lives” at Miller’s Court.

Harvey did not, she did not on the Thursday and she did not at the time of the inquest. Seeing as Barnett was at the court Thursday, there’s no reason to assume he did not know she‘d moved out.
Contrariwise, since Harvey was perhaps one of the reasons he’d left MJK, a speculative mind could suppose that he’d have a special interest in knowing where she was living.

About the story of the boy, we’ve no way of knowing who it refers to - if it even refers to an actual person. Could it be a misunderstanding for Harvey? Well, yes, perhaps, because it’s possible but unproven that Harvey had a boy and lived at Miller’s Court. But it’s so far unknown, therefore the story might refer to someone else or, in all likelihood, simply be a garbled misunderstanding.

We don’t know. So using the story as an argument in favor of Harvey’s presence at the Court is speculation - doesn’t carry much weight in terms of resolution.

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup

I agree with your reasoning and conclusion. It is highly likely Barnett is talking about another woman and the name that is reported in the press is Lizzie Albrook.

That leaves us with Maria Harvey's testimony to explain and a question about why Barnett did not male any reference to Harvey when asked who was there. Would he have known when he gave his testimony that Harvey will later claim to have been present? If not, it would explain why he did not challenge her.

Glad you agree with the first part. As for the second part, you know my answer: no explaining needed, Harvey left as Barnett arrived and he therefore did not mention her as she was not there while he was with MJK.
Hopefully I’ll get you to agree with that too one day

[Wickerman]

This short piece suggests Harvey only moved into New Court after she had spent a few nights with Kelly.

"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."

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/st._james_gazette/881110.html

To say Harvey took a room in New Court, but remained friendly with Kelly, suggests she took the room after sharing Kelly's room.
Like I say, we have no idea where Harvey lived prior to the Monday 5th Nov.

[Wickerman]

...
Harvey did not live in the court.

But why would you say that?
Unless you have her address before the Monday (5th), - you know Harvey stayed with Kelly on the Monday & Tuesday, and that she moved to New Court after that.
So, the question is, where was she living before that Monday?

To which you say "Harvey did not live in the court" - so would you like to explain how you know that?

Barnett says the woman who was with him and MJK did. Ergo, it was not Harvey. You might then argue that Harvey had only recently moved away, perhaps as recently as spending Monday and Tuesday nights at MJK's. Still, it seems pretty simple and non-speculative: Harvey by her own testimony did not live in the court.

What you are not considering is, that Barnett left the court the previous Tuesday, that was the 30th. So, his remark about Harvey is based on what he knew before he moved out.
If Harvey was living in the court the previous week Barnett would know this woman "lived in the court", which she could have for all we know.

The story of MJK having a little boy living with him can be explained in any number of ways and has no explanatory value. There were likely other children in the area.

We do not know of any other woman who stayed in room 13, who had a boy, who might have lived in an upstairs room in the court.
Do you know of one?, I don't.

[Wickerman]

As you wish, Jon.

Ah, C'mon FM, you know a handful of witnesses makes no difference one way or the other.
What matters is you have seen enough press extracts that demonstrate afternoon was interchangeable for evening in the latter portion of the day.
Why the resistance?, you know we expect to see evidence in black & white to support an argument, and you've seen plenty of that.
What's behind the resistance?

[etenguy]

Harvey did not live in the court. Barnett says the woman who was with him and MJK did. Ergo, it was not Harvey.

Hi Kattrup

I agree with your reasoning and conclusion. It is highly likely Barnett is talking about another woman and the name that is reported in the press is Lizzie Albrook.

That leaves us with Maria Harvey's testimony to explain and a question about why Barnett did not male any reference to Harvey when asked who was there. Would he have known when he gave his testimony that Harvey will later claim to have been present? If not, it would explain why he did not challenge her.

[Kattrup]

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.



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.

The reasoning is not unreasonable at all, it's just that we already have sources that seem to explain things without needing to resort to speculation.

You are correct that Barnett's mention of Harvey's name appears to be only in the paper a week later.

Harvey did not live in the court. Barnett says the woman who was with him and MJK did. Ergo, it was not Harvey. You might then argue that Harvey had only recently moved away, perhaps as recently as spending Monday and Tuesday nights at MJK's. Still, it seems pretty simple and non-speculative: Harvey by her own testimony did not live in the court.

The story of MJK having a little boy living with him can be explained in any number of ways and has no explanatory value. There were likely other children in the area.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

As you wish, Jon.

[Wickerman]

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

Thankyou RJ.