Part Three: The Trial of Esther Pay

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.