|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3061
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:49 am: |       |
If anyone has a copy of, or has access to, the Western Mail (Cardiff) newspaper, I would very much appreciate a copy or transcription of its Ripper coverage for 12 November 1888. I am specifically researching Lizzie Albrook's comments made to that newspaper regarding Mary Jane Kelly. I know her comments have been reproduced in several modern sources, but I would very much like to read the entire article so as to see her statement in the context of the original article.
Please feel free to either email or post the information here - thank you!
(Also any other contemporary source material (newspaper, census, police records, etc.) on Lizzie would be greatly appreciated. I'm working on building out the 'Witnesses' section of the Casebook, and she's my first subject.)
(Message edited by admin on April 25, 2004)
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1193
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 12:45 pm: | |
Hi Stephen
That is really spooky as I was doing some background work on Lizzie last week in the 1891 census. But so far it does not look promising. First there is the question of the spelling of her name - I have seen it variously quoted as Allbrook and Albrook. If the A-Z is right about her date of birth (1868) then she would have been circa 23 at the time of the census.
There was only one Lizzie Allbrook in the whole UK listed but she was only 7 years old in 1891. Working on the assumption that Lizzie was a contraction fo Elizabeth or Eliza, I searched under both spellings of the surname.
the only remotely possible entry as far as location was a 50 year old widow, a needlewoman, named Eliza Allbrook who lived in Devonshire Street, Mile End. Age wise the nearest was Eliza Albrook aged 29, a married woman living ion Greenwich, but neither identification rings true to me.
I do not know where the date of birth in the A-Z originates - if that were false then the Mile End needlewoman might be a possibility
I will see what else I can find
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on April 25, 2004) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1194
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Stephen
This URL
http://www.applegate.co.uk/company/coz/1223068.htm
gives details of the business address and tel. number of the Western Mail offcie in Cardiff
They might be able to help with archives etc
Chris
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3062
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
Hi Chris -
Thanks for the information!
I know Paley also says that Lizzie was "20 years old" in 1888 - not sure if he got his information from the A-Z or vice versa.
Here's what I've collected so far on Lizzie:
http://casebook.org/witnesses/lizzie-albrook.html
Any corrections, additions and suggestions are appreciated.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2395
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 1:29 pm: | |
Hi Stephen and Chris
There is in the 1901 census an E.S. Allbrook, 32, living in Flower and Dean St with husband and three children (the eldest of which is 10). Of course, this only works if she married around 18 or 19.
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 280
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hi, Stephen
If the Western Mail is unable to help, try the Cardiff Central Library's Information Service. robb@libraries.cardiff.gov.uk
Cheers,
Dave |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Stephen
The most promising lead I have found is an Eliza Maria Albrook whose death was registered at Hackney in September 1903 at the age of 41 (i.e. born circa 1862)
I will let you know anything more I find out about her.
 |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 251
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
Hi Stephen
This is from "The St James's Gazette" 12th November 1888
Lizzie Allbrook, a young woman of twenty, who resides in Miller's-court' and works at a lodging-house in Dorset-street, says:-
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,the man who had been living with her. About the last thing she said to me was, "Whatever you do, don't you do wrong and turn out as I have." She had often spoken to me in this way, and warned me against going on the streets, as she had done. She told me, too, she was heartily sick of the life she was leading, and wished she had money enough to go back to Ireland, where her people lived. I don't believe she would have gone out as she did if she had not been oblighed to do so in order to keep herself from starvation. She had talked to me about her friends several times, and on one occasion told me she had a female relation in London who was on the stage.
I hope this is of some help.
All the best
Rob |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1196
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:21 pm: | |
Another possible lead from the 1901 census.
1 Flower and Dean Street, Spitalfields:
W.S. Allbrook aged 33 born Mile End _ Dock labourer
Wife:
E.J. Allbrook aged 32 born Spitalfields
Children:
W.S. (son) aged 10 born Bethnal Green
H.J. (son) aged 5 born Hoxton
A.D.R. (daughter) aged 7 months born Spitalfields
The E.J. Allbrook mentioned is listed as 32 as of April, 1901 (the date of the census). This would make her 19 or 20 in 1888.
Of course the crucial things is when she married and changed her name to Allbrook. As the oldest child is aged 10 (and assuming he was legitimate) this would in or before 1890.
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3063
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
Hi Chris, Robert and Robert -
Thank you all for this information! E.J. Allbrook sounds like the closest match so far, though it looks as though we may have some trouble nailing it down for sure.
Many thanks for the St. James's Gazette article as well, Robert.
- Stephen
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2396
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hi Chris
You're right. Ancestry transcribed it as "E.S" but it does look more like "E.J."
I've looked for marriages for W - something Allbrook for 86, 87 and 88 but not a sausage.
Robert |
Neal Shelden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Neal
Post Number: 136
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
It could be significant though, that there is a birth recorded of an Emma Julia Allbrook for Sept book 1889 at Bethnal Green? (bmd site)
She could have had the same name as her mother perhaps with initials E.J. Allbrook who was on the above 1901 census?
The child could have died before 1901? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2398
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 5:22 pm: | |
Hi Neal
That's interesting. Could the mother have been Lizzie Allbrook, but with "Allbrook" being her maiden mame, i.e. she was unmarried? Allbrook said that Kelly warned her not to go on the streets. I feel that would have been a strange thing for a married woman to say (at least, if she was still with her husband). At least, I don't think the husband would have been too pleased!
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2399
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 6:33 pm: | |
Hi all
I've just got onto the Free BMD site without being timed out(!) and I notice that there were subsequent births of a William Allbrook, Bethnal Green March quarter 1891 ; a Henry Thomas, Bethnal Green March quarter 1896 ; and Annie Rose, Whitechapel December quarter 1900. If the 'J' of the younger son's second name in the 1901 census is instead read as a 'T' then it all
seems to fit together as far as there being a correspondence between the birth dates and the ages in the 1901 census, and also as far as the initials are concerned, with Emma Julia maybe dying by 1901, as Neal says.
I've searched from 1886 to 1890 for the marriage, and can't find it. Maybe I'm blind as a bat (actually quite possible).
Robert |
Neal Shelden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Neal
Post Number: 137
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
Robert, I think I would agree that the census entry is unlikely to be her for the reasons in your post. One thought I did have was that MJK's friend could have been Lizzie Hallbrook? After all most Eastenders would probably pronounce Hallbrook as Allbrook. Although, there aren't many Hallbrook's around and I know it's unlikely, but she doesn't seem to exist on the 1881 census?
One point to keep in mind though, is that Chris once came up with an entry for a family on the 1881 census that was not on the census microfiche index. That made me relise that the 1881 microfiche index has missed some if not many entries that are on the microfilm census at the FRC!
Neal |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2400
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:16 pm: | |
Hi Neal
Thanks for that. I never thought of searching under "Hallbrook".
There only seems to be one possible for 1891, and that's Eliza Hallbrook, 48 Hoodstock (Woodstock?) St, West Ham.
George Hallbrook, Head, 24, Blacksmith labourer, born Poplar.
Eliza Hallbrook, wife, 22, born Poplar.
Edith Rose, daughter, age a mess but transcribed as 1.12, born Canning Town.
There was a marriage in the March quarter of 1889, London Middlesex, between a George Hallbrook and either an Eliza Joyce or an Elizabeth Smith. So I suppose that if this is our Lizzie, she must have been George's common law wife for a while before the marriage, to be known as "(H)Allbrook".
Thanks again, Neal.
Robert |
Rudolphe Giordani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Stephen,
in the witness link given above you write:
Barnett responded, "Yes, a woman who lives in the court. She left first, and I followed shortly afterwards." (Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 13 November). It was long suspected that this woman was Maria Harvey, but it is now generally accepted that it was, in fact, Lizzie Albrook.
Maria Harvey, however stated in the inquest: "[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.
So what ist the foundation of your claim it was Albrook, not Harvey who shared part of the evening with Joe and MJK?
Regards
R. Giordani |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
