|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 12:28 am: |       |
G'day,
This is what 'The Complete History Of..' says that 'Pearly Poll', (who was a tall masculine looking prostitute, with a face reddened and sodden with drink), told the police: 'One 6 August together with two soldiers, they had walked and drunk about Whitechapel from 10:00 to 11:45 in the evening.'
The four split up at 11:45, 'Poll' went up Angel Alley with the Corpoal and Tabram took the private up George Yard. Martha and her soldier seperated thirty or forty mnutes later, on friendly terms.
'Pearly Poll' said she would attend an identity parade, but disappeared for 2 days. When she did finally attend, she failed to pick anyone out. The soldiers were dismissed. Suddenly remembering that her soldier companions had white bands on their caps, another parade was set up. 'Poll' indentified two men, who were able to prove an alibi.
Fifty years later, Walter Dew wrote that 'Pearly Poll' had deliberately identified two wrong men. Sir Melville Macnaughten heard a similar story.
At Martha Tabram's inquest, 'Pearly Poll' complained that her chest was "queer", and had to give her testimony through an officer. I wonder was 'Pearly Poll' a queer and really a 'Pearly Pete' in drag?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 3:18 am: | |
G'day,
Did 'PEARLY POLL' kill her and try to blame the soldiers?
Was 'Pearly Poll' to suddenly turn into 'Jack the Ripper'?
LEANNE
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:13 pm: | |
Leanne,
So as to keep you from freaking out, here's my response to your Mister Pearly Poll theory in the Tabram thread:
"BRIAN: Please tell me what it is you think is in the water here at the ole 'Casebook'! I've wondered certain things too, but we can't let our minds wonder imagining things with nothing to base our beliefs on, can we?"
Touche. And unfortunately, I can't base any of my assumptions on fact because I haven't physically seen anyone smoking crack before posting recently, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to make me wonder. I think there's at least as much on the crack-smoking theory as ya'll have got on Joe Barnett.
"About Poll, who 'The A-Z' describes as: 'a big woman, with low, husky voice, drink-reddened face':
When found, after disappearing for 2 days without bothering to tell police where she was off to, a parade of the Grenadier Guards was arranged on the 13th of August. Poll picked no one!
A 2nd parade was set up of the Coldstream Guards on the 15th of August, where Poll picked out 2 men, who proved alibis. It was decided at the Yard that she could not be trusted again, (Edmund Reid, 24 Sept. 1888)
Fifty years later, Walter Dew wrote that she deliberately identified the wrong men.
In 1894, Sir Melville Macnaughten wrote in a confidential note that she 'failed or refused to identify' the soldiers."
Okay, this, in and of itself, tells us nothing. And I know a ton of women who are large and have deep voices and aren't men. And Poll was personally escorted by Edmund Reid, who reported to Swanson on the matter and makes no mention of any suspicion that she might be suspect in the murder, or male. You're taking your theory and finding facts to fit it - not taking the facts and making a theory.
"No one was going to question her sex in writing, for fear of liable action."
What? Let me get this straight - a destitute whore is going to get angry that someone in a confidential police document not released to the public until a hundred years after she died called her a man and is going to find enough money that she wouldn't use to eat and get drunk on to hire a solicitor to sue the cop who wrote it?
Or she's going to do the same thing to a contemporary reporter who writes an article about it?
Poll was a woman - albeit a manly woman, and she wasn't the Ripper. Maybe she knew more about the Tabram murder - which I actually can believe, since I don't view it as a Ripper murder, but then again, maybe she didn't.
"We'll never get anywhere near solving this case, if we remain stuck!"
We're also never going to get anywhere near solving this case if half of us spend our time coming up with bizarre, random ideas totally and wholly unsupported by facts and the other half spend it trying to explain why those theories are bizarre and random.
B |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 4:54 am: | |
Brian,
Who's smoking crack?
Have you got the book: 'The Complete History Of Jack the Ripper' handy? If so open it to page 25. The last paragraph begins: 'Reid's second important witness, a tall, masculine-looking prostitute, her face reddened and soddened by drink, walked into Commercial Street Police Station on 9 August and said...'
'MASCULINE-LOOKING' - What a description to give! What an insult!
I mentioned the 'liable action' thing, because Dr. Robert Anderson failed to mention the names of his witness and suspect. Apparently because of liable action fears!
I just offered people the idea of 'Pearly Poll' being the Ripper. I wasn't serious!
I know Poll was escorted to the line-up by Edmund Reid. Did he have xray-vision? Poll wasn't the only person who mentioned soldiers either. Thomas Barrett saw one soldier loitering! What a crime! Is that any reason to hold an identification parade?
And what do you say about the report in 'The East End Observer'?:'"Can you see either of the men you saw with the woman now dead?" Pearly Poll, in no way embarressed, placed her arms akimbo, and glanced at the men with an air of an inspecting officer, and shook her head.' (she didn't want to use her voice), but that wasn't good enough, so they asked the question again. She exclaimed '..with a good deal of feminine emphasis "He aint here". That deserves an academy award! If you can't see through that performance....
LEANNE |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 4:50 pm: | |
Leanne,
As I've stated before, there are a lot of masculine looking women in the world, and most of them are women.
Anderson naming a suspect for the most notorious criminal in the world at the time is a bit different on the liable front than claiming that maybe a poor prostitute wasn't female.
I guess I just have a hard time telling when you are serious and when you aren't.
I say that the report in the East End Observer is just that - a report. We don't know if it's true, and you are putting emphasis where none probably exists. I've already given you a plausible explanation as to why she may have lied about the soldier in the line-up.
As for the crack smoking, if the authors would be so kind as to protect me from a liable action...
Heh.
B |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 5:47 pm: | |
"As for the crack smoking,"
Actually, the preferred drug of choice in these circles is of course absinthe.
Sir Robert |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 10:31 am: | |
Sir Bob,
Yeah...but you can't smoke it.
Crack smoking just has a better ring to it.
"I don't know what kind of absinthe you're quaffing" doesn't sound as good as "I don't know what kind of crack yo're smoking" to me. 
B |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 8:06 am: | |
G'day,
I reckon if Pearly Poll didn't murder Martha Tabram and try to increase the suspicion of soldiers, I'd say she was a he-soldier trying to direct suspicion onto another regiment!
LEANNE |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 9:45 am: | |
Leanne,
I'd say that Pearly Poll was what she claimed to be - a poor prostitute, and she had nothing to do with the murder of Martha Tabram.
B |
Verd Taggert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 12:50 pm: | |
Two things:
It's libel. One may be liable for libel; there is no such thing as an action for liable.
"That deserves an academy award! If you can't see through that performance...."
What does this mean?
What the news report describes seems to me very ordinary. People often respond with shakes or nods of the head. They are then prompted to respond verbally. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Police Constable
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 7
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 3:38 pm: | |
Hello All
The term is indeed libel and pertains to written material which would amount to slander if spoken. Poll probably was libeled by the press, but it sems unlikely she would have the money to afford a member of the legal profession to bring the case foreward. Of course truth is an absolute defense to lible or slander, so if Poll was really a man...?
I don't believe Poll was really a man in drag, she was simply a frightened witness who wanted nothing to do with the possible identification and its' consequences for her safety.
Best Regards
Gary |
Faye
Police Constable
Username: Faye
Post Number: 10
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 8:23 pm: | |
Hey all
I doubt pearly poll was pearly paul. Just because she was mannish in her looks according to the writings we have now, it does not mean that she was male. Of course if you want to, you can read anything into a file, with enough imagination.
Imo there might be a very simple explenation to Poll's behaviour as a witness. Perhaps she was terribly drunk at the night of the murder and didnt remember stuff (the mind is a complicated thing). Perhaps she was indeed, as Gary said, frightened. We will never find out.
Faye |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 8:55 pm: | |
G'day,
FAYE: You say that PERHAPS she was terribly drunk / I say that PERHAPS she was not really a woman! We can never know the truth, because we were not there!
Point is that no one ever checked this out!
LEANNE |
Faye
Sergeant
Username: Faye
Post Number: 11
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 9:18 pm: | |
hi Leanne,
If you would find any indication that Pearly Poll is Pearly Paul I would be very interested in hearing about it However, I simply don't see anything that points towards that direction other than some vague comments.
To each their own opinion
Faye |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 11:06 pm: | |
Grammar Nazis,
I apologize to all of the grammar Nazis, who apparently have never made a spelling mistake, accidently written a homophone incorrectly, and feel the need to point this out to people who do for the incorrect spelling of the word "libel". It never occurred to me that the point of my post would be ignored due to poor spelling.
When I write a book, if I don't do a good job in the editing, attack me then. Otherwise, say something constructive or keep your thoughts to yourself.
B |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Police Constable
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 9
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 9:56 am: | |
Hi Brian
I was not nit picking over your spelling in my post. In actual fact I felt the emphasis placed on spelling by a previous poster may have been a bit pedantic.
With the way I spell it is only a matter of time before the grammar Nazis come looking for me.
Best Regards
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 222
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 11:14 am: | |
Hi all
Let's not worry about typing eras. We all do it.
"The post is another country. They do things differently there."
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 11
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 1:42 pm: | |
Robert
Typing eras are a fact of life, anyone who posts messages will run into them. They shouldn't be used to detract from the relevance of any post.
Sometimes we have to be careful not to take ourselves too seriously.
Best Regards
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 227
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 4:43 pm: | |
Hi Gary
And as Brian says, it's not as if we were writing books or anything.
I feel the Message Boards are ideal for the quick exchange of considered opinions, and it would be a shame if anything stifled that.
Gary, I think you said you'd read Farson's book.
Have you still got his hardback? I hear it's worth a bit now.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 12
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 5:52 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I have Farson's First Shere edition in paperback (1973) Copywright 1972,Great Britain in my hand. It's funny you should mention that book because I just pulled it off the shelf a little while ago. I also have the original 1972 Michael Joseph
edition hardback but it is being stored.
The 73 Sphere is the first JTR book I ever purchased and read. I bought it in Canada when just a mere lad back in 1976 in a used book store.
So you say the 72 Michael Joseph edition hardback is worth a few dollars now? I bought mine about ten years ago and didn't pay too much for it.
I guess my purchase turned out to be a good investment.
Best Regards
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 229
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 6:43 pm: | |
Hi Gary
Yes, I think I read it here on Casebook somewhere, that it's a bit of a rarity. Mine's a Jan 73 third impression, and was the first JTR book I read too! I still have a soft spot for Druitt.
We'd better shut up now because we're off topic. Hopefully by now Poll has changed back into a woman!
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 13
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 8:45 pm: | |
Robert and All
Well said, back to a serious discussion of the androgynous Miss Poll.
Best
Gary |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 5:15 am: | |
G'day,
Judging by the reaction here, of people who have never seen the 'woman' and never will, it's no wonder no one in 1888 ever questioned 'her' femininity! And I suppose there is no way we can find out the truth today, but I offer it as a suggestion, and I am serious about it!
They had a soldier that just disappeared did they?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 5:19 am: | |
G'day,
Seeing that we are bickering about spelling errors: Has anyone noticed the big one I made when I started this board? That was an accident!
LEANNE |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 15
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 12:30 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I assume you mean that you called Pearly Poll, "Pearl Poll" I noticed it but it didn't seem worth pointing out. We all know who you meant. I guess I wouldn't make a good grammer nazi. I do however enjoy mixed metaphors and oxymorons. The papers are full of them.
By the way, while we are on the subject of mannish looking women take a look at the "Reconstructed image of Liz Stride" in John Wilding's book JACK THE RIPPER RVEALED; published by Constable, 1993 in Great Britain. Poor Liz resembles a prize fighter who stayed in the ring well past her prime as a pugilist.
If I saw that face in a dimly lit setting I would take her for a man in drag and head in the opposite direction. (My son just leaned ovr my shoulder, looked at the drawing and said "You mean that is not a man?")
Recall slso the drawings of Liz in the POLICE ILLUSTRATED magazines, I have heard them called gratuitously unflattering.
Women like Liz and Poll were often drink sodden, bedragled and looked much older and unappealing than other women their age. They were victims of their circumstances. It doesn't mean they were men in drag.
Now to my point (at Last) these were soldiers and sailors women. Their clients were poorly paid, usually drunk and not in a position to be too choosy about who they picked up with the possible exception of Kelly. Their killer(s) had to be able to fit into their surroundings and at least look the part of the typical customer.
Jack was like todays serial killers, ordinary looking and acting blokes who who could pass through the Whitechappel environment without arousing suspicion Further, they could give a satisfactory account of themselves and an address to the police. I believe Jack was stopped and questioned and let go for these reasons to the point where he thought he was impervious to detection.
Best Regards
Gary
Sorry for the verbiage. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
