The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-08-04

"Mr. Pollard, husband of the murdered
| lady, then took the stand and described In
| detail, his and his wife's proceedings be-
| tween IL o'clock and the time o. discog-
ering her body. Mary Barnes was the
| first TO come in answer to his alarm, ana
| Pokey Barnes and Mary Abernathy
| quickly came from another direction.
| He described his wife as healthy and
strong. The axe with which the deed
was done was produced, and Identified.
The loss by the robbery was $Si5 and
some jewelry and clothing. Mary Barnes
and Mary Abernathy knew OF the where
aDOuts of the money"
Now these two statements, ~ nce1 not
be said, are absolutely irreconciliable. and
IL is of the utmost importance TO know
which is true. For, If il be true that
Mary Barnes did know of the location
of this money il to some extent corrObO-
rates Marables testimony. while If she
did not, 1t, OF course makes it that much
the more false.
Mr.. Pollard said to me. as .-eported IN
my article in Thursdays' Times that
Mary Alternately had been 20 his house
only twice before the day of the murder
and Mary Barnes only some eight or ten
times. and that neither OF them had ever
seen him take out any money from the
place in which ii was kept.
In view of these facts, it seems that he
was right when he said that Mary Barnes
knew nothing as 10 the whereabouts OF
his money. and that he was mistaken
Mary Alternately both knew where the
money was kept II this view is right
then, IL must impress every one with sun
stronger doubts as 10 the quit or the
women, for Marables whole story with
reference to them is based upon the theo-
ry that Mary Barnes, who was acqualnt-
ed with the place In which Mr.. Pollard
kept the keys. and that she got them
out and gave them 10 Mary Abernathey,
who went into the house and got the
bf Of Pollard
MARY BARNES DID NOT GET THE KEYS.
And here too, are some more conflict
ing circumstances which need an explana-
tion, and explanation the most SPECIFIC
and convincing
The letter. from which we have first
quoted, says:
IAN examination of the house revealed
the fact that bunch Of keys had been
taken from the bottom corner or GER
tain drawer" etc.
Now, here again j. a demonstration OF
Marables utter truthlessness. for he says
with regard to this robbery and murder.
that he saw "Mary Barnes come out OF
the house. give Mary Alternately n.
bunch OF keys. and then run back out Of
the front Of the house. and that in min
ute or two, Mrs. Pollard came out OF
the house"
Now. there are two reasons why Mary
Barnes could not have done this, the
fed, Mary Barnes did not know where
the keys were kept and that, therefore
she could not have gotten the keys. Inc
second is. that Mrs. Pollart was in the
house at the time Now II anything mas
been established in this case IL Is the fact
that II Mary Barnes did come out OF the
back OF the house At all, II was 50 quickly
after the departure of Mr.. Pollard that
he could not have gotten more tnan
few yards from the house. Now, when
Mr. Pollard went by the house mrs.
Pollard was sitting on the front porch
right at the door OF the big room in when
those keys and his money were kept II
was, therefore, absolutely impossible tnat
Mary Barnes could have gone into TINS
room In full view of Mrs. Pollard OPEN
ed this drawer and taken out the keys,
for Mrs. Pollard would have seen her' anu
being right there at the bell cord, prONlu-
ed for lust such occasions would nave
given the alarm. 1t is absolutely certain
that whoever did commit TINS muruer,
did get those keys from the drawers,
and unlock the various trunks anu tne
drawers OF the chests. as an examination
into matter there plainly demonstrated.
And II is just as certain that ior the rea,
sons just given. Mary Barnes cid not ana
could not get those KEYS ana shs,or sre 're ,hat
Marable's account Of the murder is lie.
MORE DISCREPANCIES.
And here are two other contradictory
statements one taken from The Times
of June IS. 1895. and the other from The
Times OF July l3. 1885.
The first Is:
..rhe murderer took from the house
about eight hundred dollars In paper
money, and, strange to say, the old man
had a good deal OF both gold and silver
in the house which the villain failed tc
take away.
Here Is the other:
Mr.. Pollard was the first to take the
stand. He stated that he was away
fro home when the murder was COM
mitted ard gave a very precise account
OF hts acts from noon until the discovery
OF the body. He stated his loss as $50
In currency and $50 or SIS in gold, gold
chain and bracelet. and bond on the
Blackstone Female Institute for 800: NOW
there are three things to be explained
and reconciled here. The first Is the dis
crepancy between the two statements,
one saying that the murderer took no
gold and silver. and the other tEat he not
only took gold. but that he took orna-
ments and bond. The second Is, what
use to thief is bond which he could
not use. and which would be the one GER
tain means Of detection. Money unless
marked, has no individual characters
tics by which II can be unidentified; this
bond. on the contrary, bore upon It's race