Albrook and Harvey - can't both be true

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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

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?

[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?)

[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.