Part Two: Lisa - Chapter 18: It’s Time to Face the Music

 

Everything is going to plan. I move a piece of hair from my eye and smack my lips after donning on some bright red lipstick. I adjust my black, shoulder-length wig and stare into the mirror. Botox has helped prevent the fine lines and wrinkles whereas Patrice looks every bit her age. My reflection stares back and I realize I’m finally acting myself again. After years of divorce, losing my job, the drug abuse and losing my two children, I knew it was time to act. My life has been destroyed by that night and it’s time for Patrice Summers to pay.

My mind flies back to 1984. Emily had her whole life ahead of her (yes, it sounds cliché) but it’s true. She had been accepted to Harvard for pre-law and had told me she was going to be an attorney, so she could ensure justice was served, which hadn’t happened with her younger brother, Darren, who had been kidnapped when he was five and murdered a week later. The monster was acquitted because our family attorney screwed up the case and did unethical shit to coerce a confession which was then overturned.

That night, me and my boyfriend, Chad, and four more couples decide to hike up a popular trail in the Spanish Fork canyon before prom. We would be gone for the day and then we girls would go back to Emily’s and get ready. Emily was a quiet person, very shy, and not very popular. I took her under my wing and changed her look, got her contacts, and showed her how to be popular. It worked. After I taught her how to do her makeup and hair, she finally got a date. That date turned into a boyfriend.

I was so proud of myself.

After, we hung out all the time, and double-dated often. She was my project, and I made sure she was popular, but not too popular. I ruled Grantsville High, and no one crossed me – no one. When Emily died, a piece of my heart died too, and I vowed I would get revenge – not for me, mind you, but for her and her family. Patrice pushed her to get on the bridge when she didn’t want to and she could have gone around and met us on the other side, but no, Patrice Summers guilted her into it. Then after, she moved on with her life, got married, had kids, a successful marketing consultant business, and even a YouTube gardening channel. Her home is beautiful, and she has a gorgeous husband. It’s not fair.

Of course, over the last year, she’s had it rough. Her neighbor was found murdered, his lover’s husband tried to poison her and Brock, and our first-grade teacher was also murdered, oh, and a police officer was a drug dealer. Patrice was nearly killed at least a few times. Too bad, the plots never worked. I won’t make that mistake.

My phone buzzes and I pull my phone out and push accept.

“What?” I know it’s Mark and I hope he has good news.

“They got Bob.”

“You mean Chad?” My old boyfriend who I’ve kept in contact with and also wanted to get revenge agreed to work with me if I paid him a handsome sum - $100,000. It’s a drop in the bucket since my husband died and I got a $5 million life insurance policy. Plus, my organization, The Shadows, has been raking in funds from gullible millionaires. It’s amazing what people will pay when you put on your best sorrowful face and tell them the money is to help fund cold cases that families can’t pay to continue. I guess marrying a man 20 years your senior and him dying of a stroke was, what would you call it, a stroke of good luck.

“Yeah, Chad.”

“Well, I can’t say I’m not surprised. He knew the risks. I’ll be there soon.” I end the call and head to the bathroom where I fix my hair and dab on some lipstick. Why is that I must do things myself when stupid men should have completed the mission swiftly without problems.

I push the car fob that unlocks my Tesla and climb in. I punch the address into my GPS and open the sunroof to allow the heat to penetrate. Finally, after forty years, I will get my revenge, and oh, yes, it will be sweet.

Too bad Patrice’s husband, Brock, must die.

A life for a life.

***

I arrive at the compound, punch in the code, and drive inside the iron gates. The guards usher me in and I wave them off. Being in control is such a freeing thing. For many years, I was controlled by drugs, men, and my anger. Not anymore.

“Well, since Chad has been captured, we need a new plan,” I say to the 20 or so of my “team.” I use that word loosely, as I have used these men and a few women from all walks of life and from several countries. They didn’t know each other and were thrown together – all to make a measly twenty grand. Pitiful if you ask me, but I didn’t ask questions. They had a job and, well, they haven’t performed. Time to bring some incentive to the game.

I summon The Doctor. He arrives promptly with his briefcase in hand, saying nothing. He knows his orders. He unclicks the case and pulls out a branding iron with the seal of The Shadows imbedded into it.

I summon the rest of the team, and they look scared.

Good.

“Now, since you seem to not care about your mission, I would like to make it crystal clear, well, shall we say, iron clad.” I nod and walk away as I hear the first screams echo off the walls of the compound.

That should do it.

Part Three: The Trial of Ester Pay

 

From The Illustrated Police News, Saturday, 25th February, 1882. Copyright, The British Library Board.

        The Trial Date Was Set

The judge concluded by stating that this was a general overview of the case, and he believed that based on the facts presented to them, the jury would have no trouble reaching a guilty verdict.

Later that afternoon, the grand jury indicted Esther Pay for the willful murder of Georgina Moore.

Mr. Byrom, who would lead the prosecution along with Mr. Poland and Mr. Eyre Lloyd, requested a trial date from the court.

Baron Pollock stated that it was important to finish other matters before this trial began, and he suggested starting the trial on Wednesday morning.

      Esther Pay’s Trial

The trial itself began at the County Hall, Lewes, on Wednesday, April 26th, 1882. On Saturday, April 29th, The Thanet Advertiser published a report on the proceedings:

"The trial of Esther Pay for the murder of Georgina Ann Moore, at Yalding, Kent, commenced at the County Hall, Lewes,before Mr. Baron Pollock, on Wednesday morning.

There was little to no public excitement surrounding the trial.

The prisoner was transported in a cab from the jail shortly before ten o'clock, accompanied by two policemen. A number of policemen formed a pathway for her to enter the court. However, very few people, beyond those necessary to fill the court, showed up. Due to the court's small size, only a few ticket holders were admitted, filling it to capacity. The gallery was reserved entirely for women.

The witnesses, reportedly numbering 69, were kept together in a waiting room adjacent to the court.

      The Trial Begins

Mr. Baron Pollock took his seat on the bench at ten o'clock.

The prisoner was then brought to the defendant's stand.

She wore a gray coat and a black bonnet with a veil, and a white lace-trimmed scarf around her neck. She immediately raised her veil, and while the jury was being sworn in, she put on a pair of black kid gloves, occasionally glancing at the jurors. She also leaned over the bar and spoke to her solicitor.

After the jury was sworn in, she was allowed to sit down, with a female guard seated nearby in the dock. She listened intently to Mr. Poland's opening statement for the prosecution and closely observed the proceedings.

Mr. Poland, Mr. Biron, and Mr. Eyre Lloyd, instructed by the Solicitors to the Treasury, represented the prosecution. Mr.E. Clarke, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Deane, and Mr. Safford, instructed by Mr. Dutton, solicitor, represented the prisoner.

The Case for the Prosecution

The prisoner pleaded not guilty in a firm voice. Mr. Poland, in his opening statement, reminded the jury that although the evidence was entirely circumstantial, there were connections that he believed would undeniably prove the prisoner's guilt in this serious crime.

Among the witnesses examined that day were the child's father and mother. The father was questioned extensively by the defense counsel about his relationship with the prisoner, particularly in the time leading up to his daughter's disappearance and death.

The trial resumed on Thursday.

The session was spent examining witnesses for the prosecution, most of whom were called to testify about the prisoner being seen with the little girl after she left London on December 20th and traveled to Yalding. However, with one exception, the witnesses were very uncertain in their identification.

THE YALDING MURDER CASE

The Witney Express and Oxfordshire and Midland Counties Herald reported on the final day of the trial in its May 4th, 1882 edition:

"The trial of Esther Pay for the murder of Georgina Moore resumed at Lewes before Mr. Baron Pollock.

Mr. Edward Clarke, Q.C., representing the defense, argued that in this unusual case, there wasn't a single shred of the kind of circumstantial evidence typically relied upon in such trials. Nothing belonging to the child was found on the prisoner, and nothing belonging to the prisoner was found on the child.

While a black lace shawl was retrieved from the River Medway, which one witness claimed to have seen in Mrs. Pay's possession before the murder, her confidence in identifying this particular shawl was completely shaken when presented with similar items and cross-examined about them.

Flawed Evidence

Certain evidence had been presented by the prosecution with an intention that he had to protest against. The prosecution aimed to prove that Esther Pay was the one who committed the crime, and if he could show that their case against her was flawed, he wasn't obligated to suggest any other specific person as the guilty party. The jury had to rely on the evidence presented to them, and based on that evidence, he demanded an acquittal.

The prosecution's decision to call these women could only be described as an attempt to distract the jury from the real issue: had the prosecution proven their case against Esther Pay?

Despite having all resources at their disposal and assistance from the most skilled detectives, the prosecution had proven absolutely nothing against the prisoner. Meanwhile, the woman's poverty prevented her from conducting investigations that might have significantly helped her case. In fact, it was only through the kind assistance of friends who sympathized with her elderly parents that she was able to secure legal representation for her trial.

Unable to Account for Her Movements

Much was made of the fact that Pay hadn't accounted for her whereabouts on the day of the murder. One of the absurdities of the law was that her husband couldn't be called as a witness. But as barbaric as the law had sometimes been, surely it never contained such a barbarity that a person's life could be taken away simply because she couldn't account for where she had been at certain times on a particular day in the past.

Out of eleven witnesses called to identify Pay, nine failed to do so, and two of them even picked out another person as the woman supposedly seen with the child at Yalding.

The Murder Committed in London

He reiterated that the medical evidence clearly indicated that the murder must have been committed in London, within two or three hours after the child had eaten her dinner at half-past twelve o'clock, and the body was then somehow transported to Yalding.

Pay's conversations and behavior after her arrest were those of an innocent woman. They had heard how she was taken into custody, how her elderly father asked, "Are you guilty or innocent?" How she embraced him and tearfully replied that she was innocent, and how her father then told her that, knowing her innocence, she could stand up and face either God or the devil.

He was sure it would be one of the happiest days in the lives of the jury if they found themselves not only entitled but obligated by the evidence to return her to the home and hearts of her parents who loved her – to restore her as a woman who, between a husband's cruelty and a seducer's persuasion, had unfortunately sinned, but who, in their opinion, was innocent of the terrible crime charged against her.

A Ridiculous Suggestion

Mr. Poland, for the prosecution, dismissed the suggestion that the child had been murdered in London by a man and then transported to Yalding as absurd. He pointed out that while each piece of evidence might not be conclusive on its own, when considered together, they pointed to Pay as the one who lured the child away from Pimlico and then committed the murder in Yalding.

They would argue that Pay was seen talking to the child in Westmoreland-street, the last time she was seen alive. Witnesses testified to seeing her in the Yalding area with a child that same night, and others saw her at the Yalding train station with her mother the following morning. It was true that the defense questioned the reliability of these witnesses' memories, but it was up to the jury to decide whether to believe them.

Pay also had given an inaccurate account of her movements that day, and surely if she had been in London, she could have found someone to confirm where she had been or someone who had seen her.

The Judge’s Summing Up

Mr. Baron Pollock, in summing up, said that this was a case in which the jury could not take a middle ground. It was clear to all that the trial relied solely on circumstantial evidence, and it was for the jury to decide which parts they could accept and which they could reject. He didn't think they would have much difficulty in this case. If they felt there were any facts they couldn't entirely rely on, they should, of course, give the benefit of the doubt to the prisoner.

The judge then proceeded to carefully weigh the evidence, tracing the alleged movements of Pay to Yalding, and commenting on the suggestion that the murder was committed in London.

Regarding Moore, he said that this man's conduct wasn't such that most people would readily believe he was likely to be the murderer of his own child. As wicked as Moore might be – immoral, sensual, utterly dishonest, and cruel to the women who trusted him to some extent – even though he might be a man whom anyone, even of the humblest social standing, might be ashamed to call a friend, it didn't necessarily follow that he was someone who would take the life of his own child without a specific motive.

A Verdict of Not Guilty

In conclusion, the judge said that in his many years of experience, he couldn't recall any case in which, as far as human effort could go, greater pains had been taken to present every possible piece of evidence to the jury.

The jury retired at a quarter past five o'clock, and after an absence of twenty minutes, returned with a verdict of not guilty.

The verdict was met with loud applause from many of the women in court.

Pay's father, mother, brother, and sister, who were seated in the first row behind the dock, were deeply moved. The old woman, clasping her hands, cried out, "Thank the Lord, and all of you gentlemen."

Mrs. Pay herself also seemed pleased with her acquittal and, with a smile, thanked the jury. Leaning over the rail of the dock, she expressed her desire to thank her solicitor (Mr. Dutton) and her counsel (Mr. Clarke, Q.C., and Mr. Safford) for their tremendous efforts on her behalf, but she had barely begun the sentence when the jailer took her downstairs, away from the crowd of relatives who were trying to embrace her.

To this day, the murder of Georgina Moore has never been solved.

Part Two: The Arrest

 

On Wednesday, February 1st. Esther Pay, a 35-year-old married woman was brought before Mr. Partridge at Westminster Police Court. She was charged with suspicion of causing the death of Georgina Moore.

HER MOTIVE WAS JEALOUSY

The Inspector's testimony revealed a curious fact – during the train journey to London, and even before, the prisoner repeatedly asked him to invite Mr. Moore to ride in the same carriage with them. She also dropped hints intended to implicate the father in the murder of his own little girl. For instance, Esther said to Inspector Marshall, "Well, don't be surprised if he runs away, and then you'll find that the most guilty party is gone."

Mr. Partridge: "You're sure she said 'the most guilty'?"

The Witness: "Oh, yes. We were never alone during any part of the journey. Later on, she said, 'This child was killed out of spite towards Moore, because he has treated women very badly, and one that I know worse than me, and has treated me badly enough. Why don't you find them? Then you might be on the right track. One can only die once, and I won't die a coward. That's all.'"

THE FUNERAL AND PUBLIC OUTRAGE

A large demonstration occurred in Pimlico at the funeral of Georgina Moore that Saturday afternoon. The coffin was placed in an open car, and a crowd of over two thousand people gathered near the parents' residence on Winchester-street.

When the father was seen entering one of the mourning coaches, he was met with boos and hisses. A large police force struggled to protect him from the mob's anger. A strong line of officers had to be formed around the vehicle, accompanying the procession to the burial site at Brompton Cemetery. The crowd grew larger along the route, and the demonstrations continued.

The scene at the cemetery was shocking and disturbing. The crowd's behavior was so threatening that the police decided to lock Mr. Moore in the chapel, preventing him from attending the graveside service or returning with the other mourners. He wasn't released to go home until after dark, when the crowd had dispersed.

MR. MOORE'S STATEMENT

Georgina’s father stated that although he had suffered greatly from the public's anger towards him since the court proceedings, he was certain that nothing the suspect could say would affect him.

He admitted to having been to Yalding, but not for two years, and neither he nor the accused tried to talk to each other at the train station after the arrest.

Moore stated that he accompanied the suspect (Pay) to London Bridge on the night of Saturday, the 28th of the previous month. He didn't believe she was going to Yalding until he saw her buy a ticket for that station at Charing Cross. He wanted to know if she was really leaving London, so he accompanied her on the train as far as his destination.

Almost the entire journey, she talked about Georgina, and she begged him to write and let her know if any information was found about her. In fact, ever since the girl went missing, she had expressed the greatest concern about the child's fate – whom she claimed to be very fond of – and she had often visited or sent someone twice a day to inquire about her.

Georgina had often gone for walks with Esther, and if she had met her and asked her, his daughter would have undoubtedly gone anywhere with her.

Georgina had an older brother, but Esther had never shown the same interest in him.

MRS. PAY AND GEORGINA MOORE: THE INVESTIGATION

The diligent reporters had made it clear days before that there would be significant evidence presented at the Westminster Police Court on Wednesday.

But it might be most impactful to present this information in a narrative form.

There's strong evidence suggesting that Georgina Moore was murdered in Yalding on the evening of the day she left her home. The date of the murder is determined in an unusual way – by the partially digested food found in her stomach. The mother remembers that the little girl ate a lot of bread and milk for breakfast and had a good portion of currant pudding for dinner. Food of the same kind was found by the doctors who performed the autopsy.

The mother can also confirm that the child hadn't changed her clothes because she had dressed her on the morning of December 20th, and the fastenings and the way the clothes were arranged hadn't been altered.

WITNESS ACCOUNTS

Early in the afternoon in question, Georgina was allegedly seen by some of her playmates and acquaintances in the company of the suspect on the street in Pimlico. A constable named Hill also saw the little girl with a woman whose face he didn't see but who matched the accused in height and other details.

However, other theories were presented. Mr. Poland, the prosecutor, dismissed the idea that the child had been murdered in London by a man and then transported to Yalding as absurd. He emphasized that while each piece of evidence might not be conclusive on its own, when considered together, they pointed to the prisoner as the one who lured the child away from Pimlico and then committed the murder in Yalding.

The prisoner was seen talking to the child in Westmoreland-street, the last time she was seen alive. Witnesses testified to seeing her in the Yalding area with a child that same night, and others saw her at the Yalding train station with her mother the following morning. The defense questioned the reliability of these witnesses' memories, but it was up to the jury to decide whether to believe them.

MRS. PAY’S MOVEMENTS

In the interviews Inspector Marshall had with her before her arrest, she only accounted for her time on the afternoon and night of December 20th by stating that she was with her sister-in-law, Mrs. Rutter, walking around Fulham, Hammersmith, and King's Road, Chelsea, window-shopping.

She couldn't name any specific place they had been to or where she had eaten dinner. Mrs. Rutter only provided a vague confirmation of the suspect's story.

The suspect didn't get home until almost midnight on the night of December 20th, and she then said that she was soaked through from the rain and was very tired.

Stay tuned for the shocking conclusion ….