Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Albrook and Harvey - can't both be true

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Debra A
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra A View Post





    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    This is someone I have mentioned in the past as a possible for the Maria Harvey known by MJK. These records and addresses are transcripts I did from St George in the East settlement records

    Maria Harvey + William
    Admitted 22 March 1887
    ages 32 and 3 , charring, widow.
    Residence on admission 18 Station Place for 2 yrs
    Previous residence 25 Mary St 8-9 yrs

    admitted 30th March 1887 + John 5 years
    occupation washing, widow, 32
    Residence before admission- Casual Ward
    previous residence 25 Mary St 4 yrs, 18 Station Place 1 yr

    Admitted 21st July 1887 Maria, John, William
    previous residence 18 Station Place 8 or 9 years
    Admitted Feb 7th 1887 as Mary Harvey with son William ages 32 and 2.5yrs, occupation washing, widow.
    Residence before admission 6 Back Church Lane 2yrs, 21 Gun Alley 4 yrs.

    Here is the research I posted previously on the same woman. The information is similar to the above but taken from the admission and discharge and creed registers for SGE workhouse, rather than the settlement examination book.

    In the Raine St workhouse register of admissions and discharges for 4 separate occasions in Feb, March, April and July 1887 there is a Maria Harvey listed born in 1855, she was described as a washerwoman, destitute a Roman Catholic and as well as coming from the casual ward on one occasion she also gives an address of 18 Station Place. This address is repeated in the workhouse creed register. Station Place is just off Cornwall St St George in the East.
    What's interesting about this Maria Harvey is that she has two sons; John born 1882 and William born 1884.

    John appears in other Raine St workhouse records in 1890 where it is mention he has been sent to Leyton Roman Catholic School. Maria was in the SGE Infirmary at the time. I can't seem to find anything else for William.

    Over on casebook, poster 'Rosella' mentioned a John Harvey aged six who was run over in Commercial Rd in June 1888. His address was given as Dorset Court, Dorset St Spitalfields.
    I'm half way through the 1888 settlement book and Maria Harvey and her sons don't appear again in SGE, which we would expect if she had moved on to Whitechapel at this time.
    Just an update:

    I'd had no luck finding Maria Harvey in earlier records and no record of her sons births until I found another birth for a third child of Maria's:

    Saint George in the East Infirmary Register, 1889-1890. Admitted 11 February 1890 Maria Harvey born 1855, Roman Catholic, pregnant.

    Meanwhile, admitted to Raine Street workhouse on the same date 11 February 1890 was John Harvey b c 1882 admitted to Raine St Workhouse from 3 NE Passage, in the comments section it says 'mother in Infirmary' (see entry above, the only woman named Harvey admitted to SGE Infirmary on that date)

    I then checked the births to see if I could find a child with the surname Harvey registered in St George in the East in 1890 and found this one:

    11 February 1890 born at the workhouse Infirmary, Princes Street, Mary Ann Harvey, girl, father John Harvey deceased, mother Maria Harvey, formerly Santrey, of 3 North East Passage father dock labourer, the mark of Maria Harvey, mother, workhouse Infirmary Princes Street, 22nd Feb 1890 Alexander Littlejohn Registrar

    This birth was the record I needed to trace both Maria Harvey in the census entries and her sons in the birth registers as I now knew her maiden name.

    As Maria Harvey nee Santrey was listed as a Roman Catholic I looked for a baptsim in the Westminster Catholic records first and found this one:
    1852 15 August Maria Santry daughter of Timothy and Hannah Santry, sponsors John Heder and Amelia Dacey Stepney, Commercial Road, St Mary & St Michael. There was no maiden name given for Amelia, Maria's mother was usual in the RC baptism records.

    The only GRO birth registration I could find that matched was this one but the year was out by two years. I ordered the birth certificate and these were the details
    Born 18 June 1854 at 7 Dorset Street Christ Church, Hannah Maria girl, father Timothy Santry, mother Johanna Santry formerly Dacey, father's occupation coal whipper, x the mark of Johanna Santry mother of 7 Dorset Street, Christ Church, 18th July 1854 George Deboos Registrar

    The 1861 census for the family showed that Hannah Maria was going by the name Maria at that time, aged 7 at the time (bc1854 as Hannah Maria was)

    1861 18 Grace's Alley
    Timothy Sauntre head mar 32 coal whipper born Ireland
    Johanna wife 31 char woman born Ireland Douglas
    John son 11 scholar b Wapping
    Mary daur 8 b Wapping
    Maria daur 7 b Wapping
    William son b Whitechapel
    Emily daur 2 born Whitechapel
    The children William and Emily were both registered with the mother's maiden name Dacey, showing it is the same family and Catholic baptism record for oldest son, John, also gives his mother' maiden name as Dacey

    By 1871 Hannah Maria was using the name Hannah M Santry
    1871 3 Cooper Court Whitechapel
    Timothy Santry head widow 50 coal labourer born Ireland
    Hannah M Santry daur unm 18 sail maker born Whitechapel
    William Santry son 16 potman (out of employ) born Wapping

    And in 1881 Hannah M Santry
    1881 20 Station Place SGE
    Hannah M Santry boarder unmarried 26 seamstress born Wapping

    Here we have links to both Dorset Street and Station Place

    As for John Harvey born c1882 and William born c1884 the reason they dont appear in the birth registers is because they were both born to Maria before she was with 'husband' John Harvey mentioned in the 1890 birth entry of Mary Ann Harvey, and were registered with the surname Santry, here are their birth entries:
    Born 1881 17 December 1881 workhouse infirmary princes street, John, boy, no father's name, mother's name Maria Sauntry, domestic servant of 23 Mary Street, the mark of Maria Sauntry mother, Princes St workhouse infirmary, 29 Dec 1881 Alexander Littlejohn registrar

    Born 1884 22 August workhouse infirmary William Percy, boy, no father's name given, mother Maria Sautry, washerwoman, 21 Lower Gun St, the mark of Maria Sautry mother workhouse, 30 August 1884 Henry william Barr registrar
    1884 admitted to Raine Street Workhouse, 28 April Maria Santry bc 1856 destitute and pregnant, occ-washing, 21 lower Gun Alley.

    Just as a recap- The significance of the John Harvey knocked over in Dorset Court, Spitalfields [suggested to be a mistake for Dorset Street] was that the Maria Harvey I found in the SGE records, one of the only women named Maria Harvey who fitted well as MJK's friend, (her workhouse and settlement records I posted in this thread) had a son named John of the same age as the accident victim (as noted by Rosella on Casebook) and as Wolf Vanderlinden posted at the start of the thread, the reported son belonging to MJK was later said to have been the son of a woman who stayed with MJK, as we know Maria Harvey did.
    One of the settlement records I found for Maria Harvey gave her address as 6 Backchurch Lane and I noted that there was another Santrey family living at Back Church Lane in one census.​

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    PC Robinson, at the Eddowes inquest said that he arrested Eddowes at 8:30 pm. Saturday night, yet at the same inquest John Kelly (another witness of the same low class?), told the court he had heard Eddowes had been arrested Saturday afternoon.

    I disagree with your conclusion for the reasons stated.

    I did want to highlight this part of your post, however.

    When I was reading through the inquest statements looking at times, I read this one from John Kelly and didn't quite know what to make of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    Because Harvey's statement at the inquest clearly states she was with Mary in the afternoon and left in the evening.

    And it follows that newspapers will report that as being there in the afternoon and in the evening.
    Yes, I get that, but Barnett was not there in the afternoon (as we understand the term), he only arrived at 7:30 pm, so evening or night, either way the same thing.
    Which demonstrates they all understood afternoon to mean the same, otherwise they would have raised an objection.

    Even, at the same inquest, we have Bowyer saying he last saw Kelly "Wednesday afternoon", and all the press versions repeat the same words, which indicates those are the words he used.
    Yet, on the same day of the inquest Bowyer is in the press describing the man he saw Kelly with, when he saw them on "Wednesday night".
    Bowyer is another of the same class as Harvey, though I don't really see the significance of focusing on those types. It's not like they spoke a different language than what we read in the press.

    PC Robinson, at the Eddowes inquest said that he arrested Eddowes at 8:30 pm. Saturday night, yet at the same inquest John Kelly (another witness of the same low class?), told the court he had heard Eddowes had been arrested Saturday afternoon.


    From what you have posted it doesn't appear you have shown that in the late hours from say 5:00 pm. until midnight, that the terms "evening" and "afternoon" are not interchangeable.
    Whereas the numerous examples in the press show at this time of day, they were.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post


    Why would you disagree, the last two specifically say when she saw Barnett; in the 'afternoon' in one, and in the 'evening' in the other.

    These are the same two:

    St. James Gazette:
    "She saw Barnett there that afternoon for a short time".

    Times:
    "...witness was in the room when Joe Barnett called, witness left the house on Thursday evening..."

    Harvey only saw Barnett once.
    Because Harvey's statement at the inquest clearly states she was with Mary in the afternoon and left in the evening.

    And it follows that newspapers will report that as being there in the afternoon and in the evening.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    I disagree.

    At the inquest, Harvey stated:

    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".

    None of the extracts you posted contradict this one I have posted.

    Why would you disagree, the last two specifically say when she saw Barnett; in the 'afternoon' in one, and in the 'evening' in the other.

    These are the same two:

    St. James Gazette:
    "She saw Barnett there that afternoon for a short time".

    Times:
    "...witness was in the room when Joe Barnett called, witness left the house on Thursday evening..."

    Harvey only saw Barnett once.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Ok, but you've seen it already.

    Lets just deal with Maria Harvey - presumably she's local enough.
    The following extracts are taken from each newspaper who reported the same sentence of her testimony.

    Court Record:
    "We were together all the afternoon on Thursday".

    Morning Advertiser:
    "She saw the deceased on the Thursday night about 7:00".

    Daily News:
    "We were together on Thursday evening".

    St. James Gazette:
    "She and the deceased were together all Thursday afternoon".

    Times:
    "They were together on Thursday afternoon".



    Then, Harvey remarked about seeing Barnett.

    St. James Gazette:
    "She saw Barnett there that afternoon for a short time".

    Times:
    "...witness was in the room when Joe Barnett called, witness left the house on Thursday evening..."


    I thought we had posted a few of these earlier. Whether it is the journalist paraphrasing, or the witness herself - verbatim, we can see that "afternoon" is the same as "evening", at that hour of the day.
    I disagree.

    At the inquest, Harvey stated:

    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".

    None of the extracts you posted contradict this one I have posted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by etenguy View Post

    Hi Wickerman

    The above quote is entirely consistent with Maria Harvey leaving MJK at 6.55 - ie the very last time she saw MJK was when she left Barnett and MJK. It does not sound like an arrival time to me.
    Hi, ok, I chose the previous sentence from the Echo because it specifically gave a time, which I see only confused the issue.

    We are most likely to get a more accurate picture when we consider all the statements, not pick one and dismiss the rest.


    Harvey did say she last saw Kelly about 7:00 (or 6:55), but our next question should be, was that when she arrived, or when she left?

    If we assume she just arrived, then the rest of the testimony is in agreement.
    However, if we assume she was leaving, then her next statement is a problem.

    "Joe Barnett came in while she was there" - (several sources).

    How can that be, if Harvey had left at 7:00?

    Barnett says he came at 7:30, and stayed about 15 minutes.

    These last two points prove that Harvey did not leave about 7:00.

    Therefore, we know from considering the rest of the testimony that Harvey was providing the time she arrived, not the time she left.
    That is the simplest interpretation.

    The fact she also claimed to have been with Kelly all afternoon is a separate issue. If you notice, Harvey points out she was with Kelly all afternoon before they get into her being with Kelly at 7:00.
    They must have been together two different times that day, first for a while in the afternoon, then specifically at 7:00 pm. just before Barnett called.


    In the Morning Advertiser, Barnett is reported to have been asked:

    Coroner: - "When did you see her last?"
    Barnett replied: - "About half-past seven on Thursday evening".

    Barnett gives the time he arrives, not the time he leaves.
    We have no justification in questioning Barnett's arrival time when the times given are consistent, and repeated several times over.



    Leave a comment:


  • etenguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I was thinking more along the lines of what the Echo reported, they seem more specific:

    "Maria Harvey, living at 3, New-court, Dorset-street, said she slept with the deceased for two nights - Monday and Tuesday. She last saw the deceased at five minutes to seven o'clock on Thursday evening."
    Hi Wickerman

    The above quote is entirely consistent with Maria Harvey leaving MJK at 6.55 - ie the very last time she saw MJK was when she left Barnett and MJK. It does not sound like an arrival time to me.

    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I take it as more normal to give your arrival time as opposed to the time you leave when saying you saw someone.
    If I'm asked what time I saw someone, I give the time I arrived, not the time I leave. Unless you are being asked what time you last saw her, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
    Except Maria does say it is the last time that she saw her and in her inquest statement makes quite clear that she is leaving at 6.55 - I still read this differently to you.
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    So, you take issue with what Barnett said?

    "I last saw her alive between half-past seven and a quarter to eight on Thursday night last, when I called upon her. I stayed there for a quarter of an hour."

    Harvey can't be leaving at 6:55 if she was still there at 7:30 when Barnett arrived. So, I take it she meant she arrived at 6:55.
    Harvey does say she was with Kelly all Thursday afternoon - so that was possibly a previous visit.


    I think an alternative explanation is that one or both were not entirely accurate with their timings - Albrook says she left MJK and Barnett at 8.00pm which is 15 minutes later than Barnett said he left. I do not think we can expect great accuracy with the estimates of time people are giving.

    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    We also read this likely erroneous press report on the 10th, that concerns Harvey meeting with Kelly.
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    "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.

    Compared with her inquest testimony, the above appears confused as to who visited whom, the reporter may have got his story mixed up.
    But, what may be of interest are two specific points:
    1 - The visit occurred Thursday night.
    2 - They parted company about 7:30, which is consistent with what Barnett said - that Harvey left after he arrived at 7:30.
    I agree that this report is clearly completely confused about what happened - I would not take any information in such a piece as accurate, even if it is accurate by coincidence (stopped clocks are right twice a day type of thing).

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    Best not get too hung up on whether it was afternoon or evening...

    PIP 17 Nov
    Barnett: "I last saw her alive at 7.30 on Thursday night"
    This is true Joshua, but any opportunity to learn something, is important.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    I think that when there is evidence telling us that the local people in that place, at that time, considered 7pm to be in the evening; then I should go with that.

    Every statement at the inquests talking of 7pm, deems it to be in the evening. These are the local people, like Joe Barnett.

    I'm open to changing my mind in the event you can show me where the local people on the streets deemed 7pm to be in the afternoon.
    Ok, but you've seen it already.

    Lets just deal with Maria Harvey - presumably she's local enough.
    The following extracts are taken from each newspaper who reported the same sentence of her testimony.

    Court Record:
    "We were together all the afternoon on Thursday".

    Morning Advertiser:
    "She saw the deceased on the Thursday night about 7:00".

    Daily News:
    "We were together on Thursday evening".

    St. James Gazette:
    "She and the deceased were together all Thursday afternoon".

    Times:
    "They were together on Thursday afternoon".



    Then, Harvey remarked about seeing Barnett.

    St. James Gazette:
    "She saw Barnett there that afternoon for a short time".

    Times:
    "...witness was in the room when Joe Barnett called, witness left the house on Thursday evening..."


    I thought we had posted a few of these earlier. Whether it is the journalist paraphrasing, or the witness herself - verbatim, we can see that "afternoon" is the same as "evening", at that hour of the day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Best not get too hung up on whether it was afternoon or evening...

    PIP 17 Nov
    Barnett: "I last saw her alive at 7.30 on Thursday night"

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    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?
    I think that when there is evidence telling us that the local people in that place, at that time, considered 7pm to be in the evening; then I should go with that.

    Every statement at the inquests talking of 7pm, deems it to be in the evening. These are the local people, like Joe Barnett.

    I'm open to changing my mind in the event you can show me where the local people on the streets deemed 7pm to be in the afternoon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    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
    He said he wasn't "living there".

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by etenguy View Post

    Hi Wickerman

    I have read the statements in conjunction with each other and take a different meaning.

    a) Harvey is most straight-forward, she says she had been with MJK during the afternoon but left around 7.00pm just as Barnett arrives - so she is there only briefly while Barnett is there. She mentions no other person (Albrook for instance) as being present.
    I was thinking more along the lines of what the Echo reported, they seem more specific:

    "Maria Harvey, living at 3, New-court, Dorset-street, said she slept with the deceased for two nights - Monday and Tuesday. She last saw the deceased at five minutes to seven o'clock on Thursday evening."

    I take it as more normal to give your arrival time as opposed to the time you leave when saying you saw someone.
    If I'm asked what time I saw someone, I give the time I arrived, not the time I leave. Unless you are being asked what time you last saw her, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
    Barnett appears more precise, whereas both women seem vague with their times.

    So Harvey is leaving as Barnett arrives at 7.00 - not arriving herself at that time.
    So, you take issue with what Barnett said?

    "I last saw her alive between half-past seven and a quarter to eight on Thursday night last, when I called upon her. I stayed there for a quarter of an hour."

    Harvey can't be leaving at 6:55 if she was still there at 7:30 when Barnett arrived. So, I take it she meant she arrived at 6:55.
    Harvey does say she was with Kelly all Thursday afternoon - so that was possibly a previous visit.

    We also read this likely erroneous press report on the 10th, that concerns Harvey meeting with Kelly.


    "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.

    Compared with her inquest testimony, the above appears confused as to who visited whom, the reporter may have got his story mixed up.
    But, what may be of interest are two specific points:
    1 - The visit occurred Thursday night.
    2 - They parted company about 7:30, which is consistent with what Barnett said - that Harvey left after he arrived at 7:30.



    b) Albrook's statement is a little more ambigous saying she last saw Kelly when she left her with Barnett at around 8.00pm. She does not say what time she arrived. Given the conversation she says she had with Kelly and Barnett's statement that a woman was there while he was there but left shortly before him, I conclude she was there when he arrived - but I infer that and there is not a definitive statement to that affect that I can find.
    Ok, so you take the 8:00 as the time she leaves, not the time she arrived.

    Leave a comment:


  • etenguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    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.
    Hi Wickerman

    I have read the statements in conjunction with each other and take a different meaning.

    a) Harvey is most straight-forward, she says she had been with MJK during the afternoon but left around 7.00pm just as Barnett arrives - so she is there only briefly while Barnett is there. She mentions no other person (Albrook for instance) as being present. So Harvey is leaving as Barnett arrives at 7.00 - not arriving herself at that time.

    b) Albrook's statement is a little more ambigous saying she last saw Kelly when she left her with Barnett at around 8.00pm. She does not say what time she arrived. Given the conversation she says she had with Kelly and Barnett's statement that a woman was there while he was there but left shortly before him, I conclude she was there when he arrived - but I infer that and there is not a definitive statement to that affect that I can find.
    Last edited by etenguy; 08-27-2022, 08:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X