Murder in VA Suzanne Lebsock\'s

Murder in VA

Suzanne Lebsock's a Murder in Virginia presents a glimpse into post Civil War southern justice. The book recounts the events surrounding a murder case in 1895 Lunenburg County, Virginia in a rather unique manner. Lebsock chooses to approach the criminal topic with a style that cannot quite be categorized as historical fiction, but can neither be described as a strict work of history. Instead, it is a narrative concerning actual events, people, and situations portrayed with particularly artful considerations. She writes, "The narrative that follows, however, is history. I have tried to be meticulous in sticking to the evidence. I have not put words in people's mouths. I have not made up events or changed their order." (Lebsock18-19). Essentially, the book conveys the emotions of the characters as well as the actual facts surrounding the circumstances, which are substantiated by documentation.

Consequently, the arguments presented within a Murder in Virginia are as surrounded with misinformation and contradiction as the actual events depicted. Lebsock does, however, through subsequent investigation present her encompassing theme of injustice in the reconstruction era southern United States, surrounding a pervasive mentality of white supremacy. Ingrained into her descriptive method of storytelling is the nagging and glaring lopsided nature of the investigation, prosecution, and public opinions surrounding this case. It is also the story of the struggle for justice against the will of a public seeking quick and vicious retribution. A Murder in Virginia illustrates the gross disparity between justice in its theoretical form and justice in practice; although the legitimacy of their convictions was almost obviously erroneous, forces unduly influencing the courts resulted in tragedy. Overall, Lebsock's interpretation of this case is meant to apply more widely than just a small county in Virginia, but to represent a much more widespread phenomenon of racial injustice, whose reverberations are still being felt to this day.

Lebsock appears to refrain from implicating a character in the murder as the main events of the story unfold. Like the witnesses present at the trials, it is not made abundantly clear who the murderer is. Yet, in twenty-first century retrospect, a number of facts become evident that perhaps escaped the minds of many over a century ago; so ensconced in the social stereotypes and practices of the time. One of the characters who is first implicated in the murder of Lucy Jane Pollard is Mary Barnes -- a local woman who often helps Mr. Pollard in the fields. The centerpiece to the case against Mary Barnes is the testimony of Solomon Marable. The fist version of events in which he involves Mary Barnes is revealed when he says,

Mary Barnes told me to meet her down at the spring Thursday, and she would give me something. I met her at four o'clock on Thursday. She said she couldn't make it then, but told me to come back Friday, and she would fix it. I agreed to return..." (Lebsock 79).

In his testimony, Marable clearly insinuates that Mary Barnes possessed some foreknowledge of the murder. This rather cryptic account raises one obvious question: how could Mary Barnes tell Marable that she could not make it to the spring on Thursday if that is when and where she told him? This is the first inconsistency in Marable's testimony concerning Mary Barnes. In her defense, this undoubtedly needs to be asked and his story picked apart. However, this is not the only account Marable gives in which he has trouble placing Mary Barnes at or around the scene of the crime. Only moments after providing the court with his first tale, he quickly amends it:

On the day before the murder Mary Barnes told me to meet her at the Pollard spring that evening, and that if she did not come I was to come back at noon on Friday and wait for her. At about four o'clock Friday Mary Barnes came to the spring and said she would soon be ready for me." (Lebsock 80).

This ordering of events makes more sense, but the evident fluctuations from one moment to the next make the validity of his testimony highly suspect. If these events had actually transpired, Marable should have no trouble remembering when and where Mary Barnes communicated with him. Apparently, this account takes into consideration Edward Pollard's testimony that Mary Barnes soon followed him into the fields.

Later Solomon Marable contends, "Mary Barnes told me on Friday before the murder that she had two women besides herself, and she wanted me to help them. My part was to keep Mrs. Pollard quiet, and Mary Abernathy and Pokey Barnes was to rob the house." (Lebsock 86). This constitutes three separate meeting times between Marable and Mary Barnes which he testifies to in a very short period of time. Rather than making his statements less trustworthy, in the eyes of the public and the prosecution, each new story tends to grant their preconceived theories credence.

In truth, defense of Mary Barnes should not have bee difficult. There was no physical evidence linking her to the crime; her stature all but precluded her ability to perpetrate it; the only person who swore to her involvement committed repeated and undeniable acts of perjury; and the circumstances that placed her at the crime scene left virtually no window of opportunity for her to have any direct association with the murder. Taken together, Mary Barnes trial should have been over before it began; and it was, only not in the direction that promoted justice. Unfortunately, "Marable's new confession was the centerpiece of the prosecution's case." (Lebsock 86).

Over the course of the investigation, virtually no attention was paid to Edward Pollard as a suspect. Doubtlessly, he possessed a motive: Lucy was his third wife, whom he married for social purposes, and perhaps Pollard was looking for new prospects. Additionally, since Pollard was the only one who knew the exact amount of money missing, he could fabricate his story in the interest of gaining more. By offering only twenty percent of the missing money to those who found it he stood to make a substantial profit. If he increased this to fifty percent, he would gain virtually nothing. This could explain his miserly rate of reward. Also suspect was the time of death for Lucy Pollard, and the fact that when Edward went to the front gate at six o'clock he somehow overlooked his wife's body. This suggests that the time of death may have been later, thus providing Edward Pollard with both motive and opportunity. Certainly, none of these facts undeniably point implication toward Edward Pollard, but it is sufficient to cast at least a shadow of doubt upon Mary Barnes and her possible involvement.