Why were the soldiers never identified?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No, it is not, Celesta,

Clearly you must see the difference between the credibility of PC Barrett and Pearly Poll as witnesses.
I agree with Howie, that it's quite possible that Pearly Poll was talking crap, but I don't think she was a attention-seeker - her own behaviour totally discounts this. She was a very reluctant witness, called twice before they managed to force her to testify. That is not the behaviour of an attention-seeker.

But as I said, considering that Pearly Poll might have had personal reasons to throw the police off their tracks in order to save her own neck, I don't see her as a credible witness, nor especially important. So what I am trying to say is - forget Pearly Poll!

PC Barrett is in a completely different league - the fact that he didn't manage to identify the soldier has nothing to do with it, and can not in any way justify a comparison with Pearly Poll.
PC Barrett, as a police constable, must be considered to possess a high level of credibility, and even if he DIDN'T mange to identify the doldier, the fact remains - that he saw a soldier - who claimed his 'friend had gone off with a girl' - very close to the murder scene and at a suitable time fitting that of the murder. This can never be disputed and there would also be no reason for him to lie about it (in contrsat to Pearly Poll).
He may not have managed to identify the soldier (which in itself is totally secondary), but he did see a solider at the right place at the right time, and that is what matters. Period.

All the best

[Howard Brown]

Fact remains, that it is (or should be) PC Barrett's evidence that is used as an argument for excluding Tabram. Regardless if Pearly Poll's story is true or not, we still have PC Barrett's to deal with and he was a police constable, i.e. a much more reliable witness than Pearly Poll.
Barrett came across a soldier around the corner to the murder site at the right time of the murder, and this is what should be considered in the Tabram context, not Pearly Poll.

Glenn:

Barrett's evidence ? Because he saw one Guardsman,not two? If Poll was with one and Tabram with the other, which one was standing and waiting alone?

Because his testimony was also considered worthless by Reid ?

We aren't even sure if Barrett was on Wentworth Street ( Swanson's September statement) or in George Yard (Reid's statement in August ).

Its just as likely that Pearly Poll got wind of Barrett's statement of seeing a guardsman in George Yard or Wentworth Street or somewhere in the vicinity. You yourself just stated that it was indeed Bank Holiday....so this might have provided Poll with the "culprit" for her deposition.



There's no connection of the guardsman Barrett saw to anything that happened inside the building except that Barrett saw a guardsman elsewhere and from that, people have used Barrett's mentioning of the sighting to support the idea that it was more likely that Tabram was murdered by a Guardsman than JTR or someone else. Pure speculation and without any evidence whatsoever that the two scenarios are connected at all.

Simon, old bean:

If you have a copy of Stewart Evans & Keith Skinner's "Ultimate" handy...turn to pages 14-16 for the communique.

Hope all is well for you over yonder.

[Howard Brown]

Dammit !

I tried to edit the statement for you Glenn:

If Poll was with one and Tabram with the other, which one was standing and waiting alone? to:

If Poll was with one and Tabram the other, why is one guy standing alone?

Another last minute point ,Glenners...so hang on:

If Barrett's Lone Guardsman was in front of the George Yard building, thats one thing....if he's elsewhere,thats another.

[Cap'n Jack]

The Metropolitan police man on the beat was notoriously corrupt, and inefficient in 1888. I fear again that we are transferring the modern practise of our largely incorruptible and very efficient police force of today with that of yesterday. The Force has emerged in the last hundred years to be what it is today. In the LVP it was a limping, corrupted and despicable beast.
I'd put the frightened testimony of a prostitute from 1888 many degrees above that from a police man of the same period.
If the Poll was frightened of anything, it was the police, not the killer.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi HR,

I would have thought guardsmen would NOT wear uniform during leave.

I believe that it was compulsory for British soldiers to wear uniform whether they were on or off duty - a practice which continued into the 20th Century and which, at one time, was also true of policemen.

[Howard Brown]

Sammy:

Thanks for that information.

Glenn:

Let me try to explain it one more time and not so convolutedly. I've been up since 4:30 A.M. and my previous post is, well, a little fuzzy. Forgive me.

1. Poll claims she and Tabram were out with two guardsmen. For 7 weeks, and I'm sure they didn't raze the earth trying to find someone who could corroborate her story, they still considered that her story might be true until Reid put an end to it on September 24th.

2. We don't know for certain if Barrett was on Wentworth or in George Yard.

If there had been a Guardsman in George Yard as Barrett claimed and Barrett was definitely in George Yard as Reid's statement declared, this still doesn't mean that Barrett saw anyone connected to anything inside the building at all.

This also holds true if the location is moved to Wentworth Street as Swanson stated in September.

The primary way people have connected Barrett to a possible sighting of the actual killer is through what Poll says on the 9th. How could what Barrett saw be connected with evidence of anything other than standard operating procedure for a Bank Holiday evening?

Remove Poll from the equation and you have Barrett seeing a guy waiting for another guy with a girl in what probably was an unconnected situation UNTIL Poll steps into the mix with what she possibly heard from inside sources or gossip. For a friend, she takes too long for my liking to step forward without the likelihood that she has ulterior motives or some "reason' for fingering a Guardsman.

[Celesta]

Glenn,

Yes, he is probably a more creditable witness. There's no reason to doubt him, as far as we know. Forget Poll, for the moment. We're left with Barrett's lone soldier. There's no doubt he encountered the one soldier. This soldier was just hanging around. He claims his friend went off with a girl. We have no way of knowing if this soldier was telling Barrett the truth. If he was telling the truth, then we have reason to suspect that his friend could have been with Tabram. We can't say for certain that he was with her and not some other woman, but there is a good chance. As you say, he was in the right place at the right time.

If Barrett couldn't identify his soldier, it could be because he saw a lot of soldiers in a short period of time. I got the impression that he was confused that he was having trouble identifying him. I think Poll's being there caused confusion. There could be any number of reasons why he didn't recognize the guy.

Without Poll, there's a hole in the traditional story. What's left is the possibility that the soldier Barrett met had a friend, who went off with Tabram. Barrett never saw the second soldier at all. Yet the traditional story holds up because Barrett's soldier claims there was a second soldier who went off with a girl.

So as far as Martha is concerned, we don't know if she was with a soldier at all, esp. if we discount Poll's statement. There is certainly a possibility that she was with a soldier at one point. Barrett's statement is supportive of that.

[Celesta]

The Metropolitan police man on the beat was notoriously corrupt, and inefficient in 1888. I fear again that we are transferring the modern practise of our largely incorruptible and very efficient police force of today with that of yesterday. The Force has emerged in the last hundred years to be what it is today. In the LVP it was a limping, corrupted and despicable beast.
I'd put the frightened testimony of a prostitute from 1888 many degrees above that from a police man of the same period.
If the Poll was frightened of anything, it was the police, not the killer.

This had crossed my mind, A.P., esp. as I just read the article by Bernard Brown, about RR policemen, which states that policemen, in years prior to JtR, had been up to a bit of hanky-panky and been caught in the act. Poll's being afraid is something to keep in mind and might explain why the whole identification line-up ritual was odd. She was being dodgy. I think she could have been as afraid of the Guardsmen as the police though, once she got herself involved.

Sam, Thanks for the info on the uniforms.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Cellie:

No offense meant in countering what you posted earlier:


This had crossed my mind, A.P., esp. as I just read the article by Bernard Brown, about RR policemen, which states that policemen, in years prior to JtR, had been up to a bit of hanky-panky and been caught in the act. Poll's being afraid is something to keep in mind and might explain why the whole identification line-up ritual was odd. She was being dodgy. I think she could have been as afraid of the Guardsmen as the police though, once she got herself involved.

May I just say that had Poll actually been with a P.C. or off duty policeman or anyone affiliated with the Met Police, that she would NOT have come forward in the first place. I am pretty sure that her revelation was not due to fear from the police ( No offense,Capt. Jack ) since her ass would have been grass the second she resumed her life of streetwalking again....because she did come forward with either a bogus story or possibly a real one.

Yet,its actually productive ( your post ) Cellie....because it just might allude to a fear of authority on Poll's part to be hesitant for two days. Perhaps Poll considered all men in uniform with authority. I'm sure she was well aware of the differences of their capacities, but then again, maybe a man in uniform was a "man in uniform" if you get my drift.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam
I think you might need to check that again, as my experience tells me that a member of HMS needed to wear his uniform to and fro from work but not when he was on leave.

[Sam Flynn]

I think you might need to check that again, as my experience tells me

Blimus! You're not saying you were in the army in the LVP, surely?

that a member of HMS needed to wear his uniform to and fro from work but not when he was on leave.

"On leave", or "off-duty", AP? There's a subtle difference, and I'm sure that those soldiers who were off-duty (as in "between shifts") were required to wear uniform. I will double-check, though - you're welcome to do so too.

[Celesta]

Dear Cellie:

No offense meant in countering what you posted earlier:


This had crossed my mind, A.P., esp. as I just read the article by Bernard Brown, about RR policemen, which states that policemen, in years prior to JtR, had been up to a bit of hanky-panky and been caught in the act. Poll's being afraid is something to keep in mind and might explain why the whole identification line-up ritual was odd. She was being dodgy. I think she could have been as afraid of the Guardsmen as the police though, once she got herself involved.

May I just say that had Poll actually been with a P.C. or off duty policeman or anyone affiliated with the Met Police, that she would NOT have come forward in the first place. I am pretty sure that her revelation was not due to fear from the police ( No offense,Capt. Jack ) since her ass would have been grass the second she resumed her life of streetwalking again....because she did come forward with either a bogus story or possibly a real one.

Yet,its actually productive ( your post ) Cellie....because it just might allude to a fear of authority on Poll's part to be hesitant for two days. Perhaps Poll considered all men in uniform with authority. I'm sure she was well aware of the differences of their capacities, but then again, maybe a man in uniform was a "man in uniform" if you get my drift.

No offense taken! So you're saying that she would not have come forward if she had been with a policeman. That's probably true, also.

Did I give the impression I thought she was with a policeman? I didn't mean to. In my post to A.P., I was alluding to the fact that the police were not perfect in those days. They were standing on the cusp of a new type of police force. She may have been leery of any man in uniform. Then on the other hand, she may have been less so of the Guardsmen, up until this night. I think I said earlier that she would have either wanted him off the street for fear of his coming after her as a witness, and the same applies if she did not come forth. She was not in a good position any way you think about it.

By her being afraid, I was thinking she might have been afraid of retaliation by some of the colleagues of the Guardsman she saw that night, as well as the actual Guardsman.

What did become of her? Does anyone know? I wonder what her encounters with the Guardsmen were like later on.

[Howard Brown]

Sorry for the misinterpretation,Cel. Its been a long day...

As to what ever happened to her, I could ask Nina to check that out unless someone else knows. I was under the impression she more or less vanished from sight.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Many thanks for the Inspector Reid reference. My copy of "Ultimate" has fallen to pieces through use. I shall assemble the pages and read on.

Regards,

Simon

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Remove Poll from the equation and you have Barrett seeing a guy waiting for another guy with a girl in what probably was an unconnected situation UNTIL Poll steps into the mix with what she possibly heard from inside sources or gossip. For a friend, she takes too long for my liking to step forward without the likelihood that she has ulterior motives or some "reason' for fingering a Guardsman.

Howard,

No I don't agree and I think you - like many others - are missing the point.

There is no problem with taking out Pearly Poll from the equation.
Quite possibly there were many soliders out on leave that night, since it was a Bank Holiday so there is no need to connect Pearly Poll's soldiers with the one that PC Barrett saw - for all we know, she and Pearly Poll could have served several that night.
Pearly Poll has no bearling on the matter and frankly her whole reluctant behaviour makes her an unreliable witness to begin with.

I certainly don't agree with that the information Barrett delivered can be downplayed in any way.
To me the fact that PC Barrett saw a solider close to the murder site at the right time of the murder is to me too much of a coincidence to accept - we don't NEED to connect that soldier with the building where the murder occurred as such - the fact that he was seen in the vicinity is important enough. It is no proof of anything but it certainly provides 'speculation' that is justified.
George Yard Buildings was situated at the corner of George Yard and Wentworth Street, so most likely this meeting occurred on Wentworth Street close to the corner of the building. If it happened further up on Wentworth Street it is hardly likely PC Barrett himself even would find it important enough to mention.

No, we don't know if the solider seen by Barrett really had a 'mate' but then again we don't know if Tabram was killed by two people anyway, so that point is redundant.

So here is the rub:
Fact remains, that even if Pearly Poll made up her story about the soldiers based on what she read about PC Barrett (somthing that I don't find impossible but still far-fetched and I also see no reason why she would in the first place), we still have a man - soldier or not - who was standing at the vicinity of the murder site at the right time of the murder. As far as I am concerned that is the best lead we have.
My only problem is that Barrett didn't manage to identify him, but most likely the uniformed soldiers just simply looked too alike to him.

All the best