Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden Topic Name: Closing Arguments In Porter  

1. "Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-22nd-03 at 11:39 PM

Porter, Edwin H. The Fall River Tragedy. Fall River, MA: George R. H. Buffinton, Press of J. D. Munroe, 1893. Rpt. with new introduction by Robert Flynn. Portland, ME: King Philip Pub., 1985. page 130-131:

"If it pleases Your Honor, Lizzie Borden did not attempt to purchase prussic acid, and she has asked to have her testimony taken upon this point. She declares that she never left her home Wednesday morning, and by a special providence, which seems to have watched over us in parts of this case, her words are corroborated by the dead woman who told John Morse that Lizzie had been sick in her room all day and had not left the house, and later, when Mrs. Bowen comes to the house and asks for Lizzie, Mr. Borden says: she was in the house all day and only went out at night, when she called on Miss Russell."

--This is part of Jennings plea at the end of the Preliminary Hearing, from Porter.  I'm not sure these arguments are to be found anywhere else.
His argument comes first, then Knowlton's, then Judge Blaisdell gives his decision.
--What can he mean by this statement?  How can Lizzie only reply to one part of the evidence, without being subject to being questioned on all of it?  Besides the Hearing is over.  I don't understand this.  Is Jennings trying to get the judge to believe Lizzie was willing to speak?  This sounds like a ploy for a jury.

--Also, I don't think that it was Andrew who told Mrs. Dr. Bowen that Lizzie had been home all day.  Maybe that's a misprint?


2. " Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-22nd-03 at 11:49 PM
In response to Message #1.

Again:  Porter, Edwin H. The Fall River Tragedy. Fall River, MA: George R. H. Buffinton, Press of J. D. Munroe, 1893. Rpt. with new introduction by Robert Flynn. Portland, ME: King Philip Pub., 1985. page 131:

"Now, if they had proved a motive, if the motive they have given satisfies you, let us look at other evidence in the case. This girl has got at the most ten to fifteen minutes to commit the crime and conceal the weapon. Why didn’t she wait before she called Bridget Sullivan downstairs? What is her condition just afterwards? Is there anything on her when the neighbors come to show that she committed the crime? If she did have time to kill her mother and clear the blood stains from her garments, she did not have time to clear up the evidence of her work down stairs. If she had on an apron, where is the apron? Officer Doherty attempted to describe the dress he saw her have on. Mrs. Churchill thinks it was of another color. The lighter the dress the better to find out if she did it, and, if she did it with the white skirt on, where are the blood spots? Where did she get rid of the weapons? The dress, the shoes she had on that morning. Are there any shoe buttons found in the fire? Is there any smell of burnt clothing? No. "

--This is still Jennings.  Does it sound as if even he doesn't know about the dress-burning incident?  Lizzie's lawyer for the defense?  We had speculated (or I had) that the *Emma You Have Given Me Away* incident was due to Emma possibly finally telling Jennings about the burning of the dress.  I was pretty confident that that might have been the basis for the girl's argument.
But that happened the day before the beginning of the Preliminary Hearing.  Now I fully doubt that Jennings would bring this "any shoe buttons found in the fire" question up if he had known of Sunday's dress-burning.
So that also begs the question :  Did Hanscomb even tell Jennings what Alice told him?


3. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-23rd-03 at 9:23 PM
In response to Message #2.

There are the "Aprons", my dears.  Apparently Jennings wasn't worried about those aprons found--What do you think?  Does this tell us something, like we should discard the idea of aprons covering Lizzie to protect from blood spatter, or is this a ploy as well, to diminish interest in those aprons found by making them sound like they are not part of the case?
This stuff is confusing.

If these arguments are even close to what was actually given as closings, this a unique view into Jennings defense-mind, as early as August31/Sept.1, 1892.


4. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Susan on Aug-24th-03 at 3:10 PM
In response to Message #3.

Jennings asks where this apron is, there are 2 bloodstained aprons in the laundry room.  We know Abby had on one at least, where did the other come from?  It sounds like Jennings was left out of the loop on a bunch of things with these broad statements that he makes. 


5. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-24th-03 at 8:43 PM
In response to Message #4.

Do we know Abby had on an apron?  Is that from the photo?
I agree either Jennings is out of the loop this soon into the proceedings against Lizzie...or else he is pulling one of those things lawyers do to minimize the impact of some evidence positive toward the prosecution by bringing it up and basically throwing it out.  A sort of  example of legerdemain?

Which do you  think?  I do need input with this.

(So far I was talking to myself, which I can do, but I don't get too far in cases like this, so thanks Susan)


6. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Susan on Aug-24th-03 at 9:14 PM
In response to Message #5.

From the photo and from the list of things that were buried.  Yes, I know, its a big assumption, but, they seem to be listing all the bloody clothing buried and then the towels and batting and such.

I've heard that a really good lawyer will not ask questions that he or she does not know the answer to.  Yet, Jennings seems to be doing just that, imagine his surprise when told of Lizzie's dress burning!  I think personally that he is just out of the loop.


7. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-24th-03 at 9:34 PM
In response to Message #6.

Then what - and to whom - did Emma give Lizzie away  do you think?


8. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Susan on Aug-25th-03 at 3:10 AM
In response to Message #7.

Oh, I imagine its that Emmer told Jennings about the dress burning as Alice probably had told about it, or, Emmer knew she was going to.  Like I had posted before, Emma telling about it diffused Alice telling about it, it wasn't a secret then, it was an "innocent" act.  But, maybe Lizzie didn't view it that way?  I can't really imagine what else Emma could tell that Lizzie would view as Emma giving her away?  We could speculate quite alot, but, what was the final outcome?  What was so earthshattering that Emma told?  I recall that one or two of the authors said that Emma told Jennings that Lizzie came across Abby's body earlier and happened to get her blood on her innocently, hence the dress burning.  But, why wouldn't Lizzie get help at that point in time and just wait until after Andrew's death? 


9. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-25th-03 at 4:00 AM
In response to Message #8.

That's what I had thought.  But according to the closing arguments I don't think it can be both ways.
Either Jennings was out of the loop still, which we agreed, by the end of the Prelim Hearing, not knowing of the dress burning and just throwing that comment into the mix, which he might think is reasonable speculation...
or he does know about it and is trying to diffuse the significance of the act with a word ploy.  If he does know, them Emma could have *given it away* to him.  He's taking a big chance to bring that up about *where's the smell of burning* if he knows what happened.
I really don't think he would throw that in at the end of arguments.  He's almost finished.  It's almost over.  Alice had her time on the stand and did not bring the subject up.  He's home free.  Final stretch.
(The comment was made the eve of the Prelim from Lizzie to Emma, so Jennings would have to have known about Lizzie burning a dress by the 24th of August if he did know.)

--I never heard that about the authors but there's no need to find that.


10. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Susan on Aug-25th-03 at 11:56 AM
In response to Message #9.

Yes, okay, I see what you mean, its the timing of the thing, when the fight between Emmer and Lizzie was vs. at what point they were in the Preliminary.  Any other ideas you can think of that Emma could share with Jennings that Lizzie would feel had given her away? 


11. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-25th-03 at 8:22 PM
In response to Message #10.

That's a real doozey of a question and one which never ceases to fascinate me.  I am open to what it might mean now that it probably doesn't refer to the dress.
I was thinking about how Emmer was *so scared* about what Alice was going to tell Hanscomb.  I was thinking too, about something you said about maybe the dress-burning was an innocent act, and thought maybe that, to Lizzie, was no big deal.
If it was no big deal (or really wasn't a cover-up), that maybe what scares Emma about the case might be different from what might scare Lizzie about the case.
If Emma was scared about that dress because she realized it would look incriminating, yet Lizzie didn't care so much about it, then their differing ideas as to what was important as evidence might divide them.
The *argument* might be easier explained in this light?
Somehow I don't think Lizzie was scared about any of it!  It's odd to realize that as a possibility.

I'd welcome more opinions on this and your opinion as well.  Thanks for taking the time to follow the argument.  It helps us to  develope it.
...
I figured that Jennings's closing at the Prelim.might be paraphrased in the newpaper, and I wanted to verify that Jennings probably did say these things about the aprons and the burning.  This is for corrobation.

Here is what I've gathered from Harry's Evening Standard document.  There were some missing pages in the continuity of the items published and Stef got those for him so he could complete a day's story in the paper.
This was from the Evening Standard, Sept. 1, 1892, page 4, which is not available anywhere else but Harry's document:

"If this motive satisfies the court there are other difficulties in the case.  This girl has just 15 minutes to clear herself of all traces of the crime; why didn’t she take more time in giving the alarm?  What was her object in calling in the neighbors after so short a time?  Was there anything to indicate she had taken part in a tragedy like this?  O, but they say she cleaned up after doing it.  Yes, but how did she do it?  If she had an apron on, where is it?  It is for them to find and show.
Everybody says they didn't see a sign of disorder about her appearance. What did she do with the hatchet, for it seems to be claimed by the government that the deeds were done by such a weapon.  Did she clean it, and where did she clean it? Where did she get rid of these things?  Was there anything about the stove to indicate that anything had been burned?  Did the sink show any signs of blood?"




12. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Susan on Aug-26th-03 at 12:24 AM
In response to Message #11.

Thanks, Kat.  So, no dress mentioned?

I still get the impression that the dress burning things was a big deal to Lizzie, I felt like she needed to get rid of it, and with a witness.  Look at her reaction to Alice telling her that burning that dress was probably the worst thing she could have done, "Oh, what made you let me do it?  Why didn't you tell me?"  Was it real anguish?  Or part of her little plan?  And look how she conveinantly uses poor Alice as a scapegoat!  I mean, Emma could just as easily be blamed for knowing Lizzie was going to burn that dress and telling her to do it as her testimony states.

Hmmm, I can see why Emma might be scared if she actually did tell Lizzie to burn that dress, she might be implicated as an accomplice helping to destroy evidence. 


13. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by rays on Aug-26th-03 at 12:09 PM
In response to Message #12.

You are assuming there was no prior conversation between Alice (who had visited earlier) and Lizzie. Maybe something was said to cause the burning? "Lizzie, are you still wearing that old thing?" (my quotes).

(Message last edited Aug-26th-03  6:53 PM.)


14. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Susan on Aug-27th-03 at 12:44 AM
In response to Message #13.

Well, Ray, if we go by Emma's Trial testimony, the bedford cord dress was a filthy mess and Lizzie hadn't been wearing it weeks prior to the murders.

Q.What was the condition of that dress at that time?
A. It was very dirty, very much soiled and badly faded.

Q. Do you know whether she had been wearing it for some little time prior to the day of the murder?
A. I don't remember her having it on for several weeks before I went away.

So, by that rational, if Alice had suggested to Lizzie something about getting rid of that old thing, it would have had to have been before Emma went away on her trip to Fairhaven.  Lizzie had weeks before the murders to dispose of that dress.  Alice never stated that she prompted Lizzie to burn it, Emma did.  So, I think if Alice had made some sort of comment along those lines to Lizzie, I think she would have mentioned it, the dress burning incident was bothering her conscience. 


15. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-27th-03 at 4:23 PM
In response to Message #12.

Why does Lizzie need a witness to the burning of the dress, who was not her sister?
It has felt, to me, that Lizzie was doing this thing, not secretly, but out in the open.  Maybe because her defense wants me to think that.  But he does have a point.  The windows are open, the screen door is there, there are cops outside, and there is Alice & Emma.  It might be a decoy.  But it seems this thing she did would seem suspicious no matter what she burned.  It could have been anything I suppose, and if Lizzie burned it Sunday, someone is bound to find out and say, hey that's not going to look good for you.   She could have been burning her old report cards because she thinks the police will think she was a dunce while at school.  It could then be ascribed as Lizzie burning *the note*.
I've read on messages that maybe Lizzie was worried, vainly, that these men would see her crummy dress and she didn't want it around to end up in the papers that she ever wore such a thing.  Well, burning report cards could serve the same vain purpose.  (Hypothetically).  The point being anything she did was scrutinized and so what she did was either innocent and stupid (highlighted by her remarks showing she didn't know- had no idea this was suspicious.. *Why did you let me do it?*) or it was planned because it WAS destroying evidence and she was willing to take the consequences because the alternative would be worse.  BUt.  Why do it in front of Alice?  Alice was in & out.  She wasn't always there.  Morse was in & out, he wasn't always there.
If she needed someone outside of the family to see what she was doing, perhaps it was because she wasn't doing what it looked like she was doing?


16. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by haulover on Aug-27th-03 at 4:44 PM
In response to Message #15.

i see you got back on.  fixed now i hope.

what is really puzzling is to compare this to the other lizzie/alice incident of going down to the cellar:  lizzie sneaks down again just a few minutes later.  in her inquest, lizzie basically lies about the incident (the usual i don't remember but who knows answer).  interesting to envision sneaking around alice one minute and showing herself the next.  is it possible she just couldn't get alice off her back?

but as far as getting rid of evidence, lizzie had plenty of time for that thursday night.  i realized how much she might have accomplished if she needed to.  we talk about those two aprons in the cellar.  but if lizzie had one somewhere to dispose of, she could have simply tossed it in the dining room, where undoubtedly cloths and aprons had been used.  whatever was found there would be the fault of the doctors and police.  lizzie only had to make it to thursday night to do just about anything.  what i'm really saying is:  do you think the police actually had an inventory of such things in the house which they themselves had used/handled?  at this point, i think not.


17. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-27th-03 at 4:57 PM
In response to Message #16.

Yes I also think Thursday night might be the time when real evidence was obscured or hidden finally or destroyed, or re-hiden.  But I thought about Lizzie burning something Thursday night after everyone is abed and figured the police would notice.  She HAD to burn something, I figure, or else she would never have taken that chance.  But why Sunday?  The only difference of Sunday, was that Bridget was gone that day...unless one can find another difference about Sunday?

The point about anything and most everything possibly being accounted as evidence against Lizzie being removed or re-located by her Thursday night, makes most sense, because Friday they were probably out doing probate things and reward things, and there were more thorough searches Saturday while the girls were gone on their funeral trek.  Not being home to hear the search or supervise the search or hang around the search, Lizzie would have to be confident that there was nothing to find.
Also, Thursday night Bridget was not there.  So the 2x in that long weekend, that Bridget wasn't there, Lizzie did these 2 suspicious things.


18. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by amy on Aug-27th-03 at 5:11 PM
In response to Message #17.

I'm with you Kat.  "First opportunity" are words that pop up relative to the killing of Abby & Andrew AND the dress burning (if one considers Lizzie guilty, which I do).

I guess I could add in here that I think Lizzie dropped the murder weapon in the privvy in the barn, which no one searched and to this day has never been excavated.  I believe she WAS out in the yard, WAS out in the barn but not UP in the barn.  I belive she saw Hyman drive by and realized she might have been seen so she HAD to say she was outside.  Otherwise, why not say you were "down cellar" - away from the scenes of the crime.  Bridget:  "Where was you, Miss Lizzie?" Lizzie: "I was down cellar washing some hankies to iron late (or whatever).  I heard the screen door slam, came upstairs and went into the sitting room and found father!"   "Ohhhh, the horror!"   But no.  She doesn't say that.  She places herself outside and then, not only outside, but subsequently incredulous to Knowlton,  in a vantage point where she SHOULD have seen any fleeing killer.

I've read lots of posts here that denegrate (sp) Victoria Lincoln.  But while she took some speculative liberties, she also hits to the core of many issues.  Particularly, her "sea of sand" relative to Lizzie's testimony.  Indeed, Ms. Lincoln, indeed! 


19. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by rays on Aug-27th-03 at 7:14 PM
In response to Message #14.

Emma's testimony supported Lizzie, and take that into account. The fact is that Andy was a miser, and would NOT have allowed Lizzie to destroy a fairly new dress like that.
Ever know of anyone who made changes to a house after their spouse died? Like throwing out items that her husband cherished?


20. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by rays on Aug-27th-03 at 7:16 PM
In response to Message #16.

Maybe there's a perfectly innocent reason for another visit to the cellar. Ever suffer from the runs? Would you want a witness?


21. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by rays on Aug-27th-03 at 7:18 PM
In response to Message #18.

Lizzie's presence OUTSIDE of the house around the time of the Andy's death sounds like a pretty good alibi for the jury, then or now.


22. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-27th-03 at 10:35 PM
In response to Message #13.

I think you are assuming that Susan is assuming and I wish you wouldn't say that.
She knows what went on with Emma and Alice about the dress.
It's also known that Alice hadn't seen that dress since the spring, so it's doubtful Alice made any remarks about it after it was first modeled for her by Lizzie in the days it was made. [Trial, Alice, 395]

(Message last edited Aug-27th-03  10:48 PM.)


23. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-27th-03 at 10:37 PM
In response to Message #20.

Hyde recounts Lizzie's trip to the cellar alone and tells us that she went to the sink and 'stooped' down there,  was there maybe 2 minutes-- and we know the water closet is in another room so is this a test of some kind?
[Trial, Hyde, 835]

(Message last edited Aug-27th-03  10:44 PM.)


24. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Susan on Aug-27th-03 at 10:38 PM
In response to Message #15.

Well, Emma may have been enough, but, with Alice witnessing it Lizzie's story of innocently burning the dress becomes more credible.  If it was just Emma, there would probably be the thought, Oh, thats her big sister, of course she'll look out for Lizzie's best interests.  Doing it in front of Alice becomes I did it in front of all these people in broad daylight, I had nothing to hide.

As I said before, the only other way I can look at it is that Lizzie got caught doing something she didn't want anyone other than Emma to see.

Now, if Lizzie tried to burn that dress in front of one of the police men as a witness, forget it, we'd know for sure whether that dress was bloodstained or not.

Morse was under suspicion at the beginning, I don't know if his word would count in her defense?

That kind of leaves Alice in the lurch and Alice believes, or did at one time, what Lizzie had to say.  She did remember all those tales of strange men hovering around the house that Lizzie told her the night before.  Alice might buy Lizzie's innocently burning a dress, but, from what she said about not letting anyone see what she was doing, maybe she didn't buy it entirely? 


25. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-30th-03 at 2:00 AM
In response to Message #24.

This Hanscom thing is bothering me.  It appears that his loyalty was to the girls and not to Jennings who may have hired him.  It appears that he did not tell Jennings, by the last day of the Preliminary, Sept. 1st, that Alice had told him about Lizzie burning a dress...Else Jennings would not have included that question about burning in his final remarks.
I wonder more about Hanscom.  What else did he know but not tell.  And how did the girls get him not to tell things?  And how could Lizzie withhold evidence from her own defense lawyer?  If she covered that up, she could cover up other things as well.  How could he trust her after that?  I wonder when Jennings finally found out, and also if Hanscom was the one *paid off*, if, in the legend, someone was (and it wasn't Bridget).
I am also getting curious about the Pinkerton's file on Lizzie.  It may hold more intimate detail than anything in the Robinson file!

(Message last edited Aug-31st-03  12:16 AM.)


26. " Private-Eye Hanscom:  Update"
Posted by Kat on Aug-30th-03 at 5:47 PM
In response to Message #25.

Rebello, pg. 118:

"Famous Pinkerton Agency Hired

Emma and Lizzie, presumably on the advice of Att. Jennings, secured the services of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency in Boston. Detective Orinton M. Hanscom arrived in Fall River late Saturday evening, August 6, and stayed at the Mellen House. He was at the Borden home on Sunday, August 7, with Att. Jennings. He interviewed Emma, Lizzie, Alice Russell and others. Miss Russell testified at the trial that she had told a 'falsehood' to Detective Hanscom when he inquired about Lizzie's dresses on Monday, August 8. Lizzie burned a dress the day after she was informed that she was a suspect. Newspapers reported that Detective Hansom's presence in Fall River was not well received by Marshal Hilliard and Mayor Coughlin. The Fall River Daily Herald and the Fall River Daily Globe published a report that Detective Hanscom was sent to Hastings, Iowa, to investigate John V. Morse."

" 'The police officials of Fall River resent it because the Borden family has employed a lawyer and a detective to look after its interest. The mayor also does not like it. ..., ' Taunton Daily Gazette, Tuesday, August 9, 1892: 2."

119:
"Mr. Robert A. Pinkerton, head of the family, owned Pinkerton National Detective Agency, told a New York newspaper of Pinkerton's involvement in the Borden case. His account was published by the Fall River Herald on August 14.

'Concerning the Pinkerton Detective who was placed on the case and who was severely criticized by the Fall River police authorities: "The authorities seem to have thought that our detective was brought into the case for the purpose of protecting Lizzie Borden from them. Such was not the case. He was hired by the family to follow any clues that might lead to the detection of the criminal. He (Hanscom) has been removed at my suggestion, as I thought it unwise to have a private on the case until authorities had reached some decision." The lawyer who has charge of Miss Borden's interests, Mr. Pinkerton considers very clever and thinks her interests will not suffer while under his care'."
..........
Yesterday In Old Fall River, Paul Dennis Hoffman, Carolina Academic Press,Durham, N. Carolina, 2000:

"The Fall River police were aware of Hanscom's cooperation with Lizzie.  City Marshal Rufus . Hilliard hired Providence, Rhode Island private detective Edward D. McHenry, later involved in the so-called Trickey-McHenry hoax, to keep an eye on Hanscomb.  When McHenry noticed Hanscomb eaveasdropping on a conversation betweeen Hilliard and state policeman George F. Seaver by the rear window of Hilliard's house, McHenry chased Hanscom around the building and away from the dwelling.

One reason Jennings sent Hanscom to Hastings, Iowa, was that by law Hanscom could not keep any legal evidence he might have discovered a secret;  he had to inform the police.  This put Hanscom and Jennings in an uncomfortable position:  Hanscomb was hired to work for Lizzie Borden but his information about the dress would put Lizzie in a poor light.  The answer seemed to be to get Hanscom far enough away from Fall River so the Pinkerton man could not talk to the Fall River police.  This plan worked:  knowledge about the dress burning did not come out until Alice Russell decided to tell the story to the grand jury in November (sic), 1892."

--I don't know Prof. Hoffman's sources, but it may be he did not notice that Jennings closing at Prelim. implied that he did not yet know himself of Lizzie's dress burning.- I'm speculating.



(Message last edited Aug-31st-03  1:59 AM.)


27. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Susan on Aug-31st-03 at 4:39 PM
In response to Message #25.

Well, that particular file may be at the Library of Congress!!!  Found this page on the Pinkerton Agency's 150th anniversary.  Heres the link: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0006/pink.html

Heres one of the things thats in the archives, a picture of "The Sundance Kid" and his mistress, Etta Place, pretty cool!


28. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-31st-03 at 8:32 PM
In response to Message #27.

Gee that's amazing!  You are so good at finding stuff on the Internet.  I don't know how to do what some of you do...
Thanks a bunch!


29. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Susan on Aug-31st-03 at 9:06 PM
In response to Message #28.

You're welcome.  I usually just use Google as a search engine.  Sometimes its just annoying, but, other times it can be quite fruitful.  Will you be making an inquiry as to whether they have the Borden documents? 


30. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Aug-31st-03 at 10:51 PM
In response to Message #29.

Be my guest!  After all, you have interviewed Rick Geary!


31. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by rays on Sep-2nd-03 at 4:56 PM
In response to Message #25.

Are you saying that Lizzie's personality was such as to assure sympathy from the Pinkerton man? Could this explain her 'not guilty' verdict? Did she project an aura of innocence?

One author said Jennings hired the Pinkerton man to watch the police so they wouldn't plant evidence, as I remember. Anyone know this source?


32. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Sep-2nd-03 at 5:41 PM
In response to Message #31.

I don't use the word sympathy when it comes to a hired investigator and Lizzie Borden.  I infer she might have paid him for his discretion.  That's business.

Hoffman, in his Yesterday In Old Fall River, makes the comment:
"Another reason O.M.Hanscom was hired by Andrew Jennings was because the lawyer was fearful the police might place false evidence in the Borden home to assure her arrest and conviction and thereby placate a demanding press and public that insisted upon a quick arrest."

--He doesn't attribute this statement to any particular author.  I thought it might be Porter but I couldn't find it there.  Hoffman gives much more detailed credit to his illustrations.


33. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by rays on Sep-2nd-03 at 6:40 PM
In response to Message #32.

I think David Kent or Arnold R Brown makes this claim; probably the latter, as he was politically aware of How Things Work.


34. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Raymond on Feb-13th-04 at 3:37 PM
In response to Message #32.

Didn't AR Brown say this in his book?

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes.

If neither Bridget or Lizzie did it, and it was impossible for Emma or JVM to do it, who is left?

If AR Brown was "wrong" (meaning you don't agree with him), then which author was "right"? And your reason why?


35. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Raymond on Feb-13th-04 at 3:39 PM
In response to Message #32.

"Hired by Andrew Jennings" is correct. Little Lizzie would know little about the criminal defense system. Hiring good detectives to investigate the case is important, and can prevent any planted evidence. Some of the books on the OJ case mention the defense's team.

I find this part the most interesting in any trial, which is supposed to be based on the facts.


36. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by audrey on Feb-13th-04 at 4:40 PM
In response to Message #35.

On trial for you life... if you knew you were guilty or not-- Any normal person would pull out all the stops.  Especially if they were in a position (financially) to do so.


37. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Raymond on Feb-17th-04 at 6:52 PM
In response to Message #36.

Andrew Jennings claimed to be a long-time friend of Andrew Borden; he was Andy's lawyer. No conflict of interest there!

Could he have known or suspected the reason why Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father", but said no more?


38. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Gramma on Feb-17th-04 at 9:55 PM
In response to Message #37.

Personal Opinion:

He not only knew the reason, he knew who did it. There were certain people who knew and there were no "leaks" like there are today.
The murderer knew
Lizzie knew
Bridget knew
John Morse knew
Emma knew
Dr Handy knew
Andrew Jennings knew
Nora Donahue knew
Maggie Jonnsen knew
The Swifts knew
The Anthonys knew
Charles Cook knew
And it is possible the Milnes knew

The people who got too close to knowing were McHenry and his wife, Trickey, Porter, and the Boston Daily Globe.

Gramma


39. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Kat on Feb-18th-04 at 12:56 AM
In response to Message #38.

This is labeled as personal opinion, but it seems rather specific.
Do you think you can explain how you know this?
If not sourced in some way, this could become rumor with no foundation and we really try to strive for foundations.
Thanks! 


40. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Gramma on Feb-18th-04 at 11:56 AM
In response to Message #39.

My source is direct from the daughter of Maggie Jonnsen, face to face in her living room in Cherryfield, Maine. The source is Ruby, who lived with this until her last months on the earth.
I had the incredible privilege to know her and sit with her often, away from the excitment and fervor of reporters. We talked of many things, in a relaxed atmosphere, Lizzie among them. I did not spend an hour with her and run away drawing conclusions based on that small exposure. I spent multiple hours with her learning all about her and her amazing life.

Gramma


41. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by haulover on Feb-18th-04 at 12:31 PM
In response to Message #40.

this may sound like a silly question -- but how much may we know?
are you writing or planning a book?



42. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Gramma on Feb-18th-04 at 1:55 PM
In response to Message #41.

Hi Haulover,
What a strange name you have!
That is a question that remains unanswered. There are many who have charged me to write but that has not happened as yet. My life has been too busy lately with real time crises to spend huge amounts of time on the hundred year old ones.
If I did I would have to clean up my "grammar" (giggle) and get a little more serious about the whole thing. That day may come but at this moment in time it is not here yet.
Perhaps I should think about it seriously now.
Anyhow, you folks are the first ones since the conference that have shared any of my thoughts on this except for a couple of dear friends who were there with me but have no direct connection to the case.

Gramma


43. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Raymond on Feb-18th-04 at 8:31 PM
In response to Message #40.

OK, you have my attention. So who do they say was The Murderer?
AR Brown explains how he came across the answer from Henry Hawthorne.


44. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Gramma on Feb-18th-04 at 10:24 PM
In response to Message #43.

Both my mother and I were not terribly impressed with Brown's book. I actually have a copy right here beside me but I rarely use it. However, he saw some of the signs leading in the right direction. He used valid facts but drew the wrong conclusions in my opinion. He did call attention to the fact that Lizzie's and Bridget's testimonies were in complete agreement......well, now, what would you expect from the only two people (supposedly) in the house and plenty of time to get the story straight before the police arrived?
He also drew attention to the fact Emma and Lizzie locked their Maplecroft home and were afraid that someone out there may strike again.
If David was finally visiting Lizzie again at Maplecroft could that have been what caused Emma to leave, rather than the cast parties? I would leave in fear of my life under the same circumstances.
If the answer was in the existing written documentation we would not be here tonight. You can pour over the words until the ink fades from the page but unless you are looking behind the story you will not find the answers. An effort was made to be sure nothing went to the public except that which was approved. The only story that has made any sense to me is Ruby's account of David Anthony doing it and her parents hiding him in New Bedford until the storm blew over. Any reference to Lizzie having a relationship was either retracted, bought up, or just plain disappeared. That tells me it was something dangerous to the defense of Lizzie and it was very important no link be found and no "beau" be put on the stand.
I have an original edition of Porter, by the way, as well as the reprint by Mr Flynn. I asked Mom once,why didn't they put Lizzie's boyfriend on the stand as a witness? The answer was supposed to be "Because she didn't have one." but I think differently.
The answer is not on the surface but all the arrows are there.

Gramma


45. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by haulover on Feb-18th-04 at 11:57 PM
In response to Message #44.

***He did call attention to the fact that Lizzie's and Bridget's testimonies were in complete agreement......well, now, what would you expect from the only two people (supposedly) in the house and plenty of time to get the story straight before the police arrived? ***

this is not exactly true, at least in the way i think of it.  bridget recalled seeing and conversing with lizzie.  according to lizzie, bridget became invisible.  this is one of the mysteries that must have some explanation.

i don't post and compare testimonies here since i assume you're familiar.

i'm open to the idea that someone else was in the house.  if lizzie's own hands did not do it, i can only conclude that the killer was unidentified.  morse, bridget, emma -- they did not do it.

i've tried to find lizzie guilty, but i've never gotten past the fact that after the second murder -- lizzie did not have time to do much of anything.  which reminds me again of your quote i posted:  according to bridget's estimation of time, lizzie's barn story is impossible.

i may not understand your statement i refer to exactly as you intended, but this is where my head is anyway.







46. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by haulover on Feb-19th-04 at 12:43 AM
In response to Message #42.

i think most here have heard it, but i'll explain the name.  it has nothing to do, of course, with the case.

haulover is a beach on miami beach.  as you may know, miami beach is actually a long narrow island off the mainland.  toward the northern part of it, between what is known as bal harbour and sunny isles -- the land is so narrow that in the old days, fishermen who wanted to switch between the bay side and the ocean side would haul their boats over land -- rather than traveling the length of the island.  at one point in particular, this was little more than a matter of yards.  they have since cut a channel that is now bridged -- but somehow the descriptive name survived:  Haulover.  this area i like to vacation still bears the name.  to quote lizzie, "that is all."  had i known i would be here so long, i would have thought more carefully about a name -- but alas, i'm stuck with it.  though i do recommend the area for people who want that type vacation without a tourist invasion of teenage mobs.

_______________

so by your answer, i'm to understand you are not but might be a writer?  and we are the first ones since........who have shared any of your thoughts?  as i understand the term, none of us has any direct connection with the case -- unless you do.  i don't mean to be sarcastic or even impolite -- but apparently you believe you know more than you wish to tell?  perhaps you do somewhere -- i have the other threads to check, i just started here tonight. any valuable information here would not only be appreciated but constructively used.









 


47. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Gramma on Feb-19th-04 at 10:50 AM
In response to Message #46.

Just a quick, off topic response to the name. I spent two years in Florida taking care of my father but I was on the west coast (Gulf). I am familiar with Miami but your historical background on it was great! Thank you for sharing that.
It is not my goal to win everyone over to my solution to the Borden Case. Personally, I don't care if anyone agrees with me. I know what has come before in my study of this and Ruby's story is the most logical answer in my mind, just like Bridget is to others. I love a good discussion but I am the type of person who believes in individuals getting the facts and making up their own mind. So a synopsis by me is not a good idea. Once everyone has the same sources in front of them then we can go from there. I wish I could scan these articles in for all of you and I am working on that.
I am struggling hard about the writing end of it. Perhaps it is time to do it although the intention was not there when I joined this discussion. I think I need a trip to Fall River and some time on the old home turf.

Gramma


48. "Re:  Closing Arguments In Porter"
Posted by Raymond on Feb-19th-04 at 3:16 PM
In response to Message #47.

QUICKLY write down as much as you remember!!! Because this second-hand information can be very useful to whoever writes this story.

I don't see it as a book necessarity, but an article in the general press. (Even though no one can prove it in a court of law.)

The "somebody else" theory (like AR Brown's) makes the most sense to me. (Who is David Anthony and why was he shielded from the law?)