Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pearly Poll's 'Deception'.

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

  • #31
    Point 3 in TBHM includes Poll's 'affected' loss of voice when giving evidence at Martha's inquest. Given what we now know, thanks to Debra and Gareth, about her long term health issues, I think we can scratch that one.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
      I'm sure we're not done with points 1 and 2 yet, but what about point 3?

      Having identified Martha (as Emma) and alleged that the two of them had spent the night of Martha's murder in the company of two guardsmen, Poll does a runner from her lodging house, telling her mates that she intends to drown herself, and goes back to her native Drury Lane area.

      When she is eventually tracked down and brought back to the East End by the police, she attends two ID parades. She scuppers the first by suddenly realising that she had the wrong regiment and the second by picking out two soldiers who had alibis for the night in question.
      Why did Poll initially do a runner?

      Because she was fearful of repercussions from Martha's killer(s) against whom she had given evidence?

      Because she had been coerced into giving the police false information and felt unable to carry it through?

      Or because she was such a nervy type that she just lost it and sought the comfort of her home turf?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
        Why did Poll initially do a runner?

        Because she was fearful of repercussions from Martha's killer(s) against whom she had given evidence?

        Because she had been coerced into giving the police false information and felt unable to carry it through?

        Or because she was such a nervy type that she just lost it and sought the comfort of her home turf?
        Poll was about 50 years old with a low voice and a face reddened with drink. She could have been drinking so much that she was confabulating. She could have been so drunk on the night in question that she half hallucinated what happened. When pressure was put upon her to witness she panicked, maybe considered suicide or threatened it to say, "leave me alone", and she went back to her home area.

        Maybe she was in very bad shape from drinking and maybe that is the answer to a question I had on another thread. Why would she marry Fogarty, what was in it for her? Maybe they were two drunks coming to the ends of their lives and it seemed like a good thing to do.

        On the one hand Pearly Poll's behavior concerning Martha's demise, appears to be cover-up and conspiracy. But another reasonable explanation is that she was very messed up and in no state to be a witness and deal with the police investigation. If Martha was her friend perhaps Poll drank even more to deal with her loss. Perhaps her telling of the story earned free drinks in the pubs. One way or another maybe her alcohol intake increased.

        There are so many ways to see all these things and then you hope you find something with research that will point you toward the truth.
        The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

        Comment


        • #34
          Maybe Martha and Poll had planned to roll the two soldiers but things went badly wrong and Poll panicked and disappeared, feeling partly responsible for what happened? Or felt she would be treated as the guilty party?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
            Poll was about 50 years old with a low voice and a face reddened with drink.
            The Mary Ann Connolly who appears extensively in the workhouse and infirmary records and married Thomas Fogarty was born in 1856 and in her early thirties in 88.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
              Maybe Martha and Poll had planned to roll the two soldiers but things went badly wrong and Poll panicked and disappeared, feeling partly responsible for what happened? Or felt she would be treated as the guilty party?
              A couple of wannabe Biddy the Chivers? That's possible, I suppose. I have wondered whether Poll's story about being struck with a stick by her soldier meant she had a visible injury. There's no mention of it though, as far as I know.

              One report speaks of Poll and her soldier going to a house in Angel Alley. Was that a scoop or an error, I wonder?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                The Mary Ann Connolly who appears extensively in the workhouse and infirmary records and married Thomas Fogarty was born in 1856 and in her early thirties in 88.
                I was thinking about that last night. I used a quote but from what I do not know. If she was born in 1859 she would have been 39 in 1888 and now you say 1856 which would make her around 42. So I was thinking she must have looked like she was 50.

                The possibility that she and Martha planned to roll the soldiers makes sense. That could explain why she could not identify them and why her story does not make sense.

                There were a number of cases where soldiers and sailors were getting rolled or thought they were and wild stabbing ensued.
                The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                  I was thinking about that last night. I used a quote but from what I do not know. If she was born in 1859 she would have been 39 in 1888 and now you say 1856 which would make her around 42. So I was thinking she must have looked like she was 50.

                  The possibility that she and Martha planned to roll the soldiers makes sense. That could explain why she could not identify them and why her story does not make sense.

                  There were a number of cases where soldiers and sailors were getting rolled or thought they were and wild stabbing ensued.
                  I think you might need to get the calculator out, Anna

                  That Poll was born c 1837 was something often quoted and used in the first A to Z but no one knows the original source for that. If there ever was one.

                  Grainger was supposed to have a grudge against Whitechapel unfortunates because he had been duped and robbed by some in the past and there are other examples.

                  In Di Carlo's case, witness Caroline McCarthy claimed she didn't work but was not a prostitute and that what she did was 'drink with sailors' around the areas of the docks. She admitted that her reason for joining the two sailors on the pub crawl was specifically to do one of them over.

                  In TBHM Tom mentions that Martha's sister in law saw Martha alone on Whitechapel High Street when she was supposed to be drinking with Poll and suggests this means Poll was lying about being with Martha but also in the Di Carlo case, the three women involved in drinking in different pubs with the two sailors split from the party and were seen on their own at different intervals before rejoining them.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                    I think you might need to get the calculator out, Anna

                    That Poll was born c 1837 was something often quoted and used in the first A to Z but no one knows the original source for that. If there ever was one.

                    Grainger was supposed to have a grudge against Whitechapel unfortunates because he had been duped and robbed by some in the past and there are other examples.

                    In Di Carlo's case, witness Caroline McCarthy claimed she didn't work but was not a prostitute and that what she did was 'drink with sailors' around the areas of the docks. She admitted that her reason for joining the two sailors on the pub crawl was specifically to do one of them over.

                    In TBHM Tom mentions that Martha's sister in law saw Martha alone on Whitechapel High Street when she was supposed to be drinking with Poll and suggests this means Poll was lying about being with Martha but also in the Di Carlo case, the three women involved in drinking in different pubs with the two sailors split from the party and were seen on their own at different intervals before rejoining them.
                    You are right, Debra. Poll would have been around 29-32 in 1888. But according to the quote she looked around 50. Hmmmm........

                    Reminiscences of MJK. She was 22 and fair as a lily. Or, her age is now known to be 24 but people said she looked to be over 30. No wonder we can't find these people!
                    The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Could Fogarty, a blind man, have managed to descend the stairs of GYB unaided?


                      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Of7J_YV-9lU

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        This one is perhaps more pertinent.

                        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QrsWOD9cm9Q

                        And of course, if you've just murdered a woman in a fit of 'ungovernable rage' on a first floor landing, you'll find a way down, whatever your disability.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Here's the Di Carlo trial at the OB.

                          It had elements of similarity to Poll's soldier story, but also some differences.

                          I can't recall, did we establish the ages of all three women involved: 'Rose, Jenny and Caroline'?

                          https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...-695#highlight

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            A number of robbery attempts as well as episodes of domestic violence ended with stabbing by knife. IMO a lot of these stabbings were quick, angry reactions though the throat seemed to be a popular target.

                            In the di Carlo case below there was a very decisive, fatal throat cutting by razor.

                            In general is the deliberate throat cutting more of a premeditated act, even if slightly premeditated? Or if the assailant had previous training such as military, might such an act be as equally impulsive as the wild stabbing cases?

                            In the murders done in 1888 Whitechapel we have Martha who was stabbed randomly and we have others, not limited to the C-5, who decidedly had their throats cut, probably from behind as was suggested in the di Carlo case.

                            How many and what kind of men in that time would have known how or been able to quickly make such deep, fatal cuts to throats? Are there any patterns we could find?

                            (When I think of self defense with a knife I think of stabbing the abdomen which is soft and unprotected. Perhaps I have seen too much TV. How did men in the late 1800's learn to use knives for attack or self defense?)
                            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                              Here's the Di Carlo trial at the OB.

                              It had elements of similarity to Poll's soldier story, but also some differences.

                              I can't recall, did we establish the ages of all three women involved: 'Rose, Jenny and Caroline'?

                              https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...-695#highlight
                              Jane Thompson aka Jenny Hinks, the murdered woman, was said to be 'about 53 years' old by her estranged husband, Charles.
                              Di Carlo was in his very early twenties.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                We could open a whole new points to ponder under the prostitution subforum. Were younger women already busy early in the evening? Did younger, more attractive women reject foreign sailors? Did some of the older women have great personalities that made time spent with them very enjoyable? How drunk did a fellow have to be to go with some of the older, less attractive ones? Did older women get younger men after young women had gotten all they could out of them earlier in the evening? Were evening activities somewhat dependent on whether or not the man intended to spend the night with a woman in a rooming house? I can think of a lot of questions.....

                                Don't know how we could get answers but I can think of lots of questions.
                                The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X