Why were the soldiers never identified?

[Howard Brown]

By the way, the two days that "Pearly Poll" went missing between her appearance at the police station and the parade of soldiers..what if the guardsmen found her and "sweet-talked" her into keeping her mouth shut? Or naming persons that had an alibi, so the investigation would go nowhere?--Hellrider

Theoretically, if the Guardsmen had found her prior to her appearance at police station, and they knew she intended or gestured that she was intending to appear to identify or implicate a Guardsman, its almost certain that she would not have appeared in the first place...and certainly not identify a man with an iron clad alibi.

The fact is we don't know if anyone other than Poll ( and this is taking into account that her story had any semblance of truth ) knew what Poll knew...that she and Tabram were out and about with two gents. No one for 49 days came forth to Reid to corroborate the story as you know.

Barrett says he encountered a Lone Guardsman waiting for his mate with a girl, not two. Barrett could not assume on any evidentiary basis that there was a second woman ( Poll ).

Therefore, the guilty Guardsman and the Lone Guardsman ( Who else would admit to being along with Poll and Tabram on that night when Tabram was murdered? ) would be the two or just one of the two who would have approached her prior to her going ( hypothetically ) to the police station. I for one think that implausible, but thats just my opinion on it.

Dear Capt. Jack...

The police may not move as quickly for victims of rape if they are prostitutes, but they do shake a leg a little faster if a woman is murdered, wouldn't you agree, regardless of the age it occurs ??

[Celesta]

Well, one gets the definite impression that she didn't want to participate in the identification ritual. She was repenting of her actions in coming forward. She must have been fearful of somebody.

HR, I hadn't thought about some guardsmen trying to bribe her or otherwise impress upon her that it would be in her best interests to develop myopia. I can't visualize one of them admitting they killed her, but just the suspicion might be enough to make them band together to protect one of their own, esp. if they didn't believe he was guilty.

It's like a merry-go-round.

BTW, HR, You may be right about them training the policemen to recognize faces. It sounds good anyway! I don't know their training procedures well enough---make that at all!--- to contest such a possibility.

[Cap'n Jack]

Both you and me are grown up now, Gideon, if the police really want someone prosecuted then the CPS will prosecute them.
Even under damnable circumstances.
In this case the forms were filled out and processed, probably with the advice of the officers concerned to avoid trial as the both women had criminal records, and such previous would harm the prosecution case.
My simple point being if they were not prostitutes with previous convictions then the CPS would have moved the case into court, with the best advice of the officers concerned.
Therefore the prejudice that is evident in the Whitechapel Murders when it comes to the case of prostitutes is still widespread and endemic in the police, and CPS of today.
See Peter Sutcliffe for further details.

[Gideon Fell]

Not much changes. I was just reading the case of a vicious rapist here in England who has just been handed down 4 life sentences for his crimes against dozens of women. But what didn't come as much of a surprise was that two years ago two women went to the police to register the fact that they had been viciously raped and beaten by this man, but the Crown Prosecution Service refused to proceed with legal action against the man.
Why?
Because the two women were working prostitutes.
In the meantime eight other women were raped.

The Crown Prosecution Service isn't the police. The fact that they made the decision whether to prosecute or not means that the police submitted a prosecution file for consideration.

[Hellrider]

I guess policemen are trained to memorize features of a person in a very short space of time because they may face a situation where the identification of an offender depends on their testimony. And if a policeman is shown different "candidates", they will all look alike and he has to name one then. Much depends on such a statement, so they are trained to only name persons if they are absolutely sure.

By the way, the two days that "Pearly Poll" went missing between her appearance at the police station and the parade of soldiers..what if the guardsmen found her and "sweet-talked" her into keeping her mouth shut? Or naming persons that had an alibi, so the investigation would go nowhere?

[Cap'n Jack]

I still think that the witness evidence of prostitutes was never taken seriously by the police officials of the LVP, if at all; and that when she was hiding, she was hiding from the police, not the killer.
Not much changes. I was just reading the case of a vicious rapist here in England who has just been handed down 4 life sentences for his crimes against dozens of women. But what didn't come as much of a surprise was that two years ago two women went to the police to register the fact that they had been viciously raped and beaten by this man, but the Crown Prosecution Service refused to proceed with legal action against the man.
Why?
Because the two women were working prostitutes.
In the meantime eight other women were raped.

[Celesta]

Yes, it makes sense, Howard. The most we can say is that a guardsman was there. You make a good point about Barrett's guardsman being caught up in a godawful mess. I was trying to explain the anomalous stab wound, really. I still don't discard some of our earlier speculations, that she met up with thugs, just as Emma and Margaret did. That's why I said earlier that we had nothing. By that, I mean, we have nothing if the guardsmen were not involved.

These are all good points that people are making here. If we're going to suspect the second guardsman, the one with Martha, I'm not ready to toss out Connally's statement. She corroborates, or at least supports, the guardsman theory. I don't mean that I doubt him, just that we have another angle on it. Something that could confirm that Martha was with a guardsman.

If Barrett's guardsman suspected his mate, it's hard to judge what he would do unless we have some examples of similar events from his own time. Then we might be able to make some good guesses. I can easily see the comrade loyalty idea, but still, you are right. This was murder.

I maintain that the badge would have been something he recognized instantly. The face is a different matter.

Frankly, I would not have wanted to be in Connally's shoes or in the shoes of Barrett's soldier either. They were dealing with someone who stabbed a person 39 times.

Why do I have this vague memory that Poll met a bad end? I need to check that out.


HR, I agree, in principle about the faces, but Barrett was facing a group of men, all dressed alike. I imagine the faces might have all become too similar under those circumstances.

[Hellrider]

yeah, I see yourm point again

I personally tend to believe that every face is different from the others, but under the circumstances we have, it might be difficult. Barret might have been unsure..why he did not state that and instead picked an innocent man is beyond me...the pressure from his superiors might be the reason

[Howard Brown]

Hellrider:

Actually, we came to the understanding that of the noticable features or rather the features that would be likely to remember more than others, the badges would stand out. I agree with you on that point.

That he didn't remember the face ( remembering and seeing,as you know with no offense meant,aren't one and the same ) might indicate that the L.G.'s face was a rank and file face.

[Howard Brown]

Human nature question....a guy witnesses a mob hit, sees the hitman....and in court, when asked to testify against someone, he sees the real hitman in the back of the court....his wife and kids a few rows ahead. Does he accuse the innocent man.....point out the real killer in the back of the court, a man not charged with any crime, and obviously dangerous....or does his memory fail him, and make him unsure?-Perry Mason
____________________________________

Human nature answer...Not if the innocent man is in the same sort of line of work as the one who really did it. This is what happened with the Poll scenario,Mike. I understand that its possible for someone to select an innocent man in a circumstance as you presented, but don't forget that she was selecting from the same sort of individuals ( Guardsmen ) and to select one out incorrectly would piss everyone of them off,and indeed the one selected falsely.

Poll did,as we know,select someone...someone that she had no way of knowing wouldn't retaliate against her in the future...or even face retaliation from other Guardsmen who could also have been selected falsely.

Best

How

[Hellrider]

The first thing you would do as a policeman in the instance of coming upon someone suspicious is look at their face.

A few posts ago we came to the conclusion that he would have looked at the conduct badge rather than at the face

Hi Howard,

I see that I wasn't clear, I believe she may have seen the man/or the men, but they weren't among the two she actually picks out. I think eye contact with that particular soldier or soldiers might be enough to convey a threat, and she was reluctant to be involved at all...perhaps from fear of reprisal.

I think many of us forget just how vicious that murder was, but the press knew, and this murder really is the start of that Autumn of Terror...whether by Jack or not.

I believe she may have feared her own death, but had to satisfy a request from police to point out two men. So she did...then found she couldnt accuse men she knew she didnt know...nor the real killer among the soldiers, so she nullified her value by acting unsure.

Human nature question....a guy witnesses a mob hit, sees the hitman....and in court, when asked to testify against someone, he sees the real hitman in the back of the court....his wife and kids a few rows ahead. Does he accuse the innocent man.....point out the real killer in the back of the court, a man not charged with any crime, and obviously dangerous....or does his memory fail him, and make him unsure?

I believe the answer is the reason that today many witnesses that id dangerous men do so from behind two way mirrors, or without having to see the killers eyes.

Best regards Howard.

[Howard Brown]

Hellrider:

The first thing you would do as a policeman in the instance of coming upon someone suspicious is look at their face.

The first thing you would do if you were startled by someone is to look at their (Barrett's) face since you don't know who it is.

The first thing a policeman will do if someone averts their face is do their best to look at their face.

The policeman saw the Lone Guardsman's face. It was a non-descript face...or a "regular" face. It evidently had no extraordinary features ( like mine does,'cause I'm gorgeous) for him not to be able to pinpoint him in the lineup.

Don't you think that Reid & Co checked out the alibis for those who had alibis?

[Hellrider]

I don't think it was that easy to leave the East End..otherwise, it would mean, all the women would have been there by choice and I don't believe that

[Hellrider]

not necessarily...maybe the guardsman knew it was too dark and such...but if I think about it, this doesn't make sense...the guardsman would have to be a clairvoyant in order to know that Barrett only looked at the badges