" (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...

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.
Another important piece of information that would be beneficial to Mary Barnes' defense is the financial dealings of Edward Pollard. Over the course of his lending practices Edward accumulated a number of debtors, as well as a number of enemies. Marable's final testimony and the economic circumstances in which Pollard found himself tend to connect a Thompson to the crime. The Thompson's were in debt to Pollard, and therefore, possessed a motive. Solomon Marable, if his statements are to be regarded at all, eventually incriminates a man calling himself David Thompson. Also, the financial records of the Thompson family are highly suspicious, "The Thompson's financial history in the year after the murder is interesting for both its initial period of quiet and for the tumult that came after." (Lebsock 321). For adequate defense of Mary Barnes to have occurred, all of these possible scenarios should have been suggested. Together and even individually, the holes in the prosecution's case and the evidence pointing away from Mary Barnes' involvement should have resoundingly absolved her from any suspicion.

Works Cited

Lebsock, Suzanne. A Murder in Virginia: Southern Justice on Trial. New York W.W. Norton, 2003.