Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thomas Fogarty

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

  • Gary,

    Because it's sooooo spread around, I don't have a full picture of Fogarty like you and apparently Ed do. Same with other folks. I think that's why people are requesting a proper article. So all the relevant info is in a single, cohesive, easy to follow argument. Of course, such a thing doesn't have to be written up proper and put in a journal. Maybe just a single post?

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
      Gary,

      Because it's sooooo spread around, I don't have a full picture of Fogarty like you and apparently Ed do. Same with other folks. I think that's why people are requesting a proper article. So all the relevant info is in a single, cohesive, easy to follow argument. Of course, such a thing doesn't have to be written up proper and put in a journal. Maybe just a single post?

      Yours truly,

      Tom Wescott
      I’ve been a bit lazy in this respect, Tom. I really should have put up a timeline for people who haven’t been involved in the research. So far, most of the people who have shown any interest in Fogarty have been those on here who have contributed in some way to the research.

      What I perhaps should do is create a timeline post, or even a thread, to give an overview of Fogarty’s colourful life. I would include things like the Spitalfields attack in bold or italics to indicate that there is a degree of doubt as to whether they do relate to the TF who went on to marry Pearly Poll.

      Bare with me.

      Comment


      • I would put forth that in order to believe any element of her soldier story, there must be at least a modicum of supportive evidence. There is none. I would also suggest that if the investigating officer, Reid, came to disbelieve her and abandon the soldier theory, then so should we. We should have done so generations ago. But modern authors have ingrained it in our heads that Pearly Poll actually was a good friend of Martha Tabram and that they actually did spend hours with two soldiers. The repetition of modern authors who, truth be told, spent very little time considering Tabram, does not make any of it true.
        -Tom Wescott-




        Despite Poll claiming to have been in the company of Tabram & two punters for over 1 1/2 hours, if my memory serves me correctly, no one who was in any of the taprooms, male or female, came forward to say they saw them. To me, this is just as significant as Poll's b.s. story of the soldiers.

        Reid undoubtedly would have gone to the taproom or taprooms that Poll claimed to have been in and asked the barkeeper if he recalled seeing Poll and possibly Tabram, too. This would have occurred right after Poll came forward...no one remembered them. Personally, if he hadn't I'd be surprised. If he didn't take Poll with him to those taprooms to accelerate the inquiry...he really dropped the ball. It wasn't as if she was being forced to offer testimony, as she was a willing witness.

        The only possible reason to explain the local silence may be the fact that there appeared to have been some confusion in ascertaining her name . In the press, the name 'Turner', doesn't materialize until the 9th for the first time ( early editions of newspapers ), meaning that it was discovered, at least, by the 8th. This, of course has no bearing on whether Reid went to the taprooms by himself or with Connolly for the purpose of verifying Poll's 'testimony'...a separate matter altogether.

        I'm with Tom that Reid's official rejection of Connolly's spiel is sufficient.

        Bartenders, you can be sure, have excellent memories for faces. Ask one.
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact [email protected]

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
          I would put forth that in order to believe any element of her soldier story, there must be at least a modicum of supportive evidence. There is none. I would also suggest that if the investigating officer, Reid, came to disbelieve her and abandon the soldier theory, then so should we. We should have done so generations ago. But modern authors have ingrained it in our heads that Pearly Poll actually was a good friend of Martha Tabram and that they actually did spend hours with two soldiers. The repetition of modern authors who, truth be told, spent very little time considering Tabram, does not make any of it true.
          -Tom Wescott-




          Despite Poll claiming to have been in the company of Tabram & two punters for over 1 1/2 hours, if my memory serves me correctly, no one who was in any of the taprooms, male or female, came forward to say they saw them. To me, this is just as significant as Poll's b.s. story of the soldiers.

          Reid undoubtedly would have gone to the taproom or taprooms that Poll claimed to have been in and asked the barkeeper if he recalled seeing Poll and possibly Tabram, too. This would have occurred right after Poll came forward...no one remembered them. Personally, if he hadn't I'd be surprised. If he didn't take Poll with him to those taprooms to accelerate the inquiry...he really dropped the ball. It wasn't as if she was being forced to offer testimony, as she was a willing witness.

          The only possible reason to explain the local silence may be the fact that there appeared to have been some confusion in ascertaining her name . In the press, the name 'Turner', doesn't materialize until the 9th for the first time ( early editions of newspapers ), meaning that it was discovered, at least, by the 8th. This, of course has no bearing on whether Reid went to the taprooms by himself or with Connolly for the purpose of verifying Poll's 'testimony'...a separate matter altogether.

          I'm with Tom that Reid's official rejection of Connolly's spiel is sufficient.

          Bartenders, you can be sure, have excellent memories for faces. Ask one.
          Those pubs would probably have been rammed, How. Are we to believe there were no soldiers accompanied by women anywhere in Whitechapel that night? I’m sure we’d like to think we could spot a living Tabram in a crowd and Poll with her arms akimbo, but would every barman in the East End have known them? Did they visit their ‘locals’ that night or might the soldiers have taken them to pubs of their choice where the women were less well known?

          Can you remind of the form Reid’s official rejection took. I thought there was just a general private comment years after the event about none of the victims having been seen with a possible suspect on the night of their murder.

          Comment


          • Howard and Gary,

            The pubs would have been jammed. That's true. But Pearly Poll was reportedly well known in the area. Tabram probably not so much. But two frumpy, middle-aged women being plied for hours by two soldiers would be remembered by SOMEONE. Reid found nothing. And it wasn't just Reid who looked, but his men.

            The pubs were busy the other nights, but Nichols was witnessed, and Chapman, and Stride, and Eddowes, and Kelly. And indeed Tabram was also witnessed the night of her murder. But she was seen standing alone.

            There are many, many pieces to this argument and they all point to one conclusion - Pearly Poll was lying. I'd suggest everyone (including those silently reading) read the chapters in BHM pertaining to this.

            Yours truly,

            Tom Wescott

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
              I’ve been a bit lazy in this respect, Tom. I really should have put up a timeline for people who haven’t been involved in the research. So far, most of the people who have shown any interest in Fogarty have been those on here who have contributed in some way to the research.

              What I perhaps should do is create a timeline post, or even a thread, to give an overview of Fogarty’s colourful life. I would include things like the Spitalfields attack in bold or italics to indicate that there is a degree of doubt as to whether they do relate to the TF who went on to marry Pearly Poll.

              Bear with me.
              Whether or not anyone takes Fogarty serious as a murder suspect, he was a real person, involved in some way with Pearly Poll, and the stuff you've mentioned is interesting. A timeline and links to posts with articles and documents would be greatly appreciated. Have fun with it.

              Yours truly,

              Tom Wescott

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                Whether or not anyone takes Fogarty serious as a murder suspect, he was a real person, involved in some way with Pearly Poll, and the stuff you've mentioned is interesting. A timeline and links to posts with articles and documents would be greatly appreciated. Have fun with it.

                Yours truly,

                Tom Wescott
                Yes, Fogarty is an interesting character in his own right. An unstable, violent man who was very much in the social circle of the victims. Others who have been put forward as ‘serious’ candidates such as Daniel Sullivan and Charles Lechmere have far less going for them IMO.

                How two men with no history of violence, no hint of mental instability and in Lechmere’s case, no hint of a connection to the dosshouse underclass can be considered serious suspects and a man who may well have knocked a woman to the ground and repeatedly stabbed her can’t is totally beyond me.

                Comment


                • Gary,

                  I was thinking about that earlier. You and Ed would be at odds over Fogarty's candidature since what intrigues you so much is (besides his association with Pearly Poll) his history of violence. Evidently, Ed has no such requirement to consider someone a serial murderer. The big strike against Fogarty is the blind thing.

                  Yours truly,

                  Tom Wescott

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                    Howard and Gary,

                    The pubs would have been jammed. That's true. But Pearly Poll was reportedly well known in the area. Tabram probably not so much. But two frumpy, middle-aged women being plied for hours by two soldiers would be remembered by SOMEONE. Reid found nothing. And it wasn't just Reid who looked, but his men.

                    The pubs were busy the other nights, but Nichols was witnessed, and Chapman, and Stride, and Eddowes, and Kelly. And indeed Tabram was also witnessed the night of her murder. But she was seen standing alone.

                    There are many, many pieces to this argument and they all point to one conclusion - Pearly Poll was lying. I'd suggest everyone (including those silently reading) read the chapters in BHM pertaining to this.

                    Yours truly,

                    Tom Wescott
                    Traditional pub culture is sadly on the wane these days. One of its features was the concept of the ‘local’. Drinkers had a favourite pub or pubs they patronised on a regular basis. Loyalty to your local and its landlord was important. Given the number of pubs in or near Whitechapel Road/High Street, it is unlikely that the two women were known by name in every single one of them. Poll’s nickname and her character appeals to us, but would she have stood out among the heaving multitudes of Victorian Whitechapel?

                    Tabram’s connection to the East End went back a long way. Her connection to 19, George Street seems to have predated Poll’s.

                    The pieces can be interpreted to suggest Poll was lying, but they can be interpreted otherwise. There are reasonable interpretations that might lead to the conclusion that she lied but not in order to protect Martha’s murder.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                      Gary,

                      I was thinking about that earlier. You and Ed would be at odds over Fogarty's candidature since what intrigues you so much is (besides his association with Pearly Poll) his history of violence. Evidently, Ed has no such requirement to consider someone a serial murderer. The big strike against Fogarty is the blind thing.

                      Yours truly,

                      Tom Wescott
                      In what way is the blind thing a big strike?

                      Just imagine the blind Spitalfields assailant losing it with his victim while they were alone on a dark tenement landing. What is there that was done to Martha that he couldn’t have done?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                        In what way is the blind thing a big strike?

                        Just imagine the blind Spitalfields assailant losing it with his victim while they were alone on a dark tenement landing. What is there that was done to Martha that he couldn’t have done?
                        Tabram was most likely a Ripper victims, so the killer we're looking for is not a one-off. But if we leave all that aside and just consider the Tabram murder alone, let's consider where it was at and what did and didn't happen.

                        A rather robust woman was overpowered, silenced, and laid down. Sounds may have been made (I wrote an article about this once), but if there were any, they weren't significant. The killer moved quickly, rendering her almost naked. I have no reason to presume that Fogarty had vast experience at undressing prone, unconscious women. But Tabram's killer did that. He then stabbed her in rather strategic places about her body with a pen knife. He then puts the pen knife away and pulls out a larger knife with a dagger-like blade and strikes the killing blow. He then goes between her legs and does some pretty despicable things.

                        You describe Fogarty as acting out in a rage. Tabram's killer did not do that. He committed a brutal murder and got away without being seen or heard. Impressively, he managed to step over the spilling blood, leaving no foot prints.

                        Is it impossible that Tabram was murdered by a blind man? No. But to argue something so outre, you'd want to find an indicator pointing towards that being more likely than the man having sight. You'd almost have an easier time with Eddowes, where it was so damn dark people wonder how the killer could see what he was doing.

                        Yours truly,

                        Tom Wescott

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                          Traditional pub culture is sadly on the wane these days. One of its features was the concept of the ‘local’. Drinkers had a favourite pub or pubs they patronised on a regular basis. Loyalty to your local and its landlord was important. Given the number of pubs in or near Whitechapel Road/High Street, it is unlikely that the two women were known by name in every single one of them. Poll’s nickname and her character appeals to us, but would she have stood out among the heaving multitudes of Victorian Whitechapel?

                          Tabram’s connection to the East End went back a long way. Her connection to 19, George Street seems to have predated Poll’s.

                          The pieces can be interpreted to suggest Poll was lying, but they can be interpreted otherwise. There are reasonable interpretations that might lead to the conclusion that she lied but not in order to protect Martha’s murder.
                          Like you say, people had favorite pubs. This would presumably include Poll and Tabram. Places where they'd be recognized. They were not. The names and places Poll gave were followed up. Led to nothing. Yes, the pieces of the puzzle can be interpreted that Poll was lying. They cannot be interpreted to conclude she was telling the truth. At that point, you're simply taking Poll at her word.

                          Once you decide she lied, you're looking for motive. The most common put forward (such as by Paul Begg) is that she wanted money and fame. Show me the reams of press interviews and appearances and I'll buy that one. Until then, we're looking for a different motive. I don't accept that Poll herself was the killer, so she's protecting someone who holds some sort of sway over her, because it's pretty clear at some point during the process that she's under duress.

                          The best I've come up with is the landlord angle. I believe she, like many, were indebted to them. A boyfriend in the picture, particularly a violent one, is someone who should be considered very seriously. If nothing else, it proves that Poll did indeed associate with dangerous people.

                          Yours truly,

                          Tom Wescott

                          Comment


                          • The most common put forward (such as by Paul Begg) is that she wanted money and fame. Show me the reams of press interviews and appearances and I'll buy that one.
                            -Tom Wescott-

                            Tom...if she had done it for fame and money, she couldn't have known how it would turn out one way or the other, having received no money and little 'fame'. Paul's suggestion is valid, IMHO.

                            There have been many, many cases of people coming forward and confessing to capital crimes....as well as providing false information to the police.

                            There are three or four primary reasons why people confess or provide bogus info.
                            Personal ( which I agree with you on)....Fame....Fortune....or they're mentally imbalanced.
                            To Join JTR Forums :
                            Contact [email protected]

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                              Tabram was most likely a Ripper victims, so the killer we're looking for is not a one-off. But if we leave all that aside and just consider the Tabram murder alone, let's consider where it was at and what did and didn't happen.

                              A rather robust woman was overpowered, silenced, and laid down. Sounds may have been made (I wrote an article about this once), but if there were any, they weren't significant. The killer moved quickly, rendering her almost naked. I have no reason to presume that Fogarty had vast experience at undressing prone, unconscious women. But Tabram's killer did that. He then stabbed her in rather strategic places about her body with a pen knife. He then puts the pen knife away and pulls out a larger knife with a dagger-like blade and strikes the killing blow. He then goes between her legs and does some pretty despicable things.

                              You describe Fogarty as acting out in a rage. Tabram's killer did not do that. He committed a brutal murder and got away without being seen or heard. Impressively, he managed to step over the spilling blood, leaving no foot prints.

                              Is it impossible that Tabram was murdered by a blind man? No. But to argue something so outre, you'd want to find an indicator pointing towards that being more likely than the man having sight. You'd almost have an easier time with Eddowes, where it was so damn dark people wonder how the killer could see what he was doing.

                              Yours truly,

                              Tom Wescott
                              If I recollect correctly, a few posts back you were saying Tabram was nude. Now your wording is ‘almost naked’. I thought her upper clothing had been ripped open and her skirts lifted. Why would Fogarty have been incapable of that? And if Martha had been undressed (I don’t think she was, but perhaps you have a source for that I’ve missed) why would Fogarty, a man who was probably sighted until he was in his thirties and would later marry a prostitute, necessarily be less able to remove Martha’s limited clothing than a sighted person?

                              Why outre, Tom? What were the lighting conditions on that landing? How easy would it have been for a sighted person (or persons) to have avoided treading in the blood that slowly oozed from Tabram’s body?

                              Comment


                              • Hi Ed,

                                Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                                ... the killer ripped open Tabram's clothing to establish the most suitable loci for his incisions? While she struggled? And she went quietly with him, and lay down quietly (apart from that damned tap-tap-taping echoing like an infernal metronome around and through the stairwell, resonating into the inner sanctum of the caretakers flat I shouldn't wonder).
                                Yes exactly, Ed. The Tap-tap-tapping of Foggy's cane as he goes up the stairwell. And he has to get the across busy streets and up alleys first. But did anyone see a blind man that night? Did anyone see Martha Tabram in company with a blind man. Or hear the tap tap tapping of his cane anywhere in the vicinity.

                                Because we have had Shill Theorom further elucidated for us. If Reid and his boys couldn't sniff out Martha, Poll and soldiers, and no one saw Martha with Poll, then Pearly Poll is a lying shill deployed to deceive the authorities in a murder case. Plain and simple.

                                it's over to you Gary, slotting your man in. You have drawn a direct line from point A, the murderer Tom Fogarty to point B the lying shill Pearly Poll. They were an item and he corerced her to go forward and tell a bunch of cockamamie lies because Fog was afeared someone had espied him the night before when he murdered Martha Tabram.

                                But not only did nobody report seeing a blind man about, nobody heard him either!

                                So again, you want to have your cake and eat it too, Gary. Foggy was afeared of "What?" Because in Shill Theorom, if Reid's boys couldn't sniff it out - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN in the first place.

                                At least in Tom's version, where some agent of the lodging house syndicate has coerced Pearly, who knows why or how he did, but he's somehow convinced her to outright lie to the police to cover up that someone in the lodging house world murdered Martha Tabram - at least in Tom's scenario, there are literally hundreds of players in the world of the lodging houses, and none of them have to be walking around tap-tap-tapping a gall darned cane up the landing back of George Yard Buildings.

                                Roy

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X