Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden Topic Name: A new incident in the case  

1. "A new incident in the case"
Posted by harry on May-25th-03 at 1:22 PM

At least to me. In the book, "The Girl in the House of Hate", page 110, by Charles and Louise Samuels they refer to the following incident to which I have not read of anyplace else:

"....Mr. Knowlton announced, "I now offer the testimony of Mr. Eli Bence."

But at this Chief Justice Mason held up his hand an announced that he and his colleagues had decided that the drugstore clerk's evidence was not admissible, explaining, to the amazement even of Miss Lizzie's devoted followers,that the Commonwealth had not been able to prove that prussic acid could not be used for an innocent purpose, the implication being that even if Miss Lizzie had bought the poison on August 3, this was no reason to suppose that she had any intention of feeding it to her parents, who died so violently and mysteriously the next day! The stunned Mr. Knowlton promptly muttered, "The Commonwealth rests."

Immediately afterward the two district attorneys were seen arguing in a very excited manner. Mr. Moody kept nodding while Mr. Knowlton kept shaking his head. Long after the trial was over, both men discussed this argument of theirs. Mr. Moody had wished his chief to announce he would not continue his prosecution of the case. This, Mr. Moody pointed out, would have squarely put on the shoulders of the three judges the responsibility of appointing someone else as prosecutor, declaring a mistrial, or dismissing the defendant. It indicates just how strongly Mr. Moody felt about what, in his opinion, was an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

But District Attorney Knowlton refused to quit. He believed with all his heart that Lizzie Borden had foully murdered her parents. His fervent hope was that the jury would see this more clearly than the judges did. ...."

As I said I have never heard of this incident and wonder if it is cited anywhere else. If Knowlton had announced he was not going to continue that indeed would have been an interesting turn of events.

(Message last edited May-25th-03  1:24 PM.)


2. "Re: A new incident in the case"
Posted by augusta on May-25th-03 at 1:49 PM
In response to Message #1.

I don't recall reading that before.  Strange, as Knowlton didn't really want to prosecute anyway.  Maybe once the trial started, Knowlton figured he'd better see it all the way thru. 

Personally I would agree with Mr. Moody.  After they threw out Lizzie's inquest testimony, and then the prussic acid witnesses, what else did the prosecution have?  An axe that might or might not have been the murder weapon?

Yes, that would have changed things a great deal.  Lizzie would have been pretty much forgotten about, and we wouldn't be talking about the case today.  Not even a jump rope rhyme to remember her by.


3. "Re: A new incident in the case"
Posted by Susan on May-25th-03 at 6:01 PM
In response to Message #1.

Wow, cool find, Harry!  I wonder what would have happened if Knowlton gave up?  He comes across as being a very dogged, stubborn man fighting a losing battle.  Since so much was inadmissible in court, maybe it would have been a mis-trial? 


4. "Re: A new incident in the case"
Posted by Kat on May-26th-03 at 12:15 AM
In response to Message #1.

Samuels' are 1953.
We'd have to find a reference prior to that.
Some authors just keep repeating stories from the last writer, BUT there's this rather large gap between Samuels and Pearson, 1937, except for articles.
Maybe Davis or Wigmore might have something on this.  Otherwise it would have to be newspapers.

William's Casebook, 269+ gives an interesting timeline as to sequence of *important* writings on the case.  So does Radin in his Biblio.  Neither are complete, tho.


5. "Re: A new incident in the case"
Posted by Kat on May-26th-03 at 4:04 AM
In response to Message #4.

Have checked Judge Davis & John Wigmore's writings on the subject of this trial.
Word Searched both for:
Dismiss, Mistrial, Knowlton, Chief, Moody.

Found no reference to the above-mentioned event in Court.

--Davis, Judge Charles G. "The Conduct of the Law in the Borden Case." A Collection of Articles concerning the Borden Case. Boston: Boston Daily Advertiser, 1894.

--Wigmore, John H. "The Borden Case." American Law Review (Nov.-Dec. 1893): 819-845.

....have checked the Evening Standard articles, and found no reference.

(Message last edited May-26th-03  4:30 AM.)


6. "Re: A new incident in the case"
Posted by Kat on May-26th-03 at 9:34 AM
In response to Message #5.

I bet you checked some of these places, Har.
Anyway, to be thorough, I did check Pearson "Trial of..."  later this past night.
I couldn't find a mention of dismissing the case or the possiblity for a mistrial.

--I also don't find a letter about it in the Knowlton Papers, but it was a cursory look...using the index for "Poison".

(Message last edited May-26th-03  9:47 AM.)


7. " A new incident in the case"
Posted by Kat on May-26th-03 at 9:32 PM
In response to Message #1.

I doubt this ever happened.
I've finished checking the Evening Standard
On Wednesday, June 14th, pg. 4, they provide a long editorial about their fine and complete and comprehensive Trial reportage.  (For those who don't know, The Standard has provided the word for word account of Lizzie's Inquest testimony by which we study Lizzie).

Then, on June 15, pg. 3, col. 3 at top, there is a breakdown of what happened when the poison testimony was given with the jury out of the courtroom.  This is precisely WHERE this scene would have ensued, and it does not.  All there is on the subject is a reporter remarking about the *collapse* of the Prosecution case with what seems an early and unexpected *rest*, and the reporter says to the defense that it seems to him, they need not even launch a defense, in the light of the important evidential exclusions.  The reply to him was that if this were not a case tried for a human life, they probably need not mount a defense.  But because of the calibre of the charge, they will proceed with their defense.

--This would be next-day reporting of what was going on the day before, the 14th, I'm assuming -- that 14th being the day of the *prussic acid statements*.


8. "Re:  A new incident in the case"
Posted by fredd on May-26th-03 at 10:33 PM
In response to Message #7.

It did happen.  Edmund Pearson was the first to write of it and subsequent authors took from his accounting.  He first mentions it in his earlier writings on the case.  Remember, through Knowlton's son he had entre to the prosecutor's private papers as well as people who were involved in the case or otherwise knew Lizzie personally. 

The following is from Knowlton's exquisite Trial Essay on the Trial of Lizzie Borden published 1934, page 67:

"An attorney, who had come to New Bedford at request of Mr Knowlton to advise in the debate about the poison testimony, arrived too late to help. The decision had been rendered. During a recess, he found Mr Knowlton and Mr Moody in their private room. Mr Knowlton was sitting in a chair, pale and depressed, while Mr Moody stalked up and down, protesting against going on with the case. He wished not to prosecute further, since the evidence for the Commonwealth was being thrown out. His advice was to put upon the Court---a hopelessly biased Court, as they both believed---the responsibility of freeing the
prisoner. Mr Knowlton refused.(33)" 

Knowlton's footnote #33 reveals the attorney referenced is John W. Cummings.

For me, Pearson's books are invaluable because he was close to the time and spoke to living witnesses and spoke to those who knew Lizzie but wished to keep anonymous.  We have to wait until Radin for the next major book on Lizzie, a period of nearly 30 between the two publications.  "If you want to get close to the source of the truth, read what was published close to the time."   It seems to me the "theory" books on Lizzie (and I'll add Jack the Ripper here, too) - are less and less credible as they get published further and further away in time from the crime.

-Victor


9. "Re:  A new incident in the case"
Posted by Kat on May-27th-03 at 1:19 AM
In response to Message #8.

I was giving up.  I figured if I laid an open ultimatum, that it did not happen, someone would start looking as well.
So thanks for that.

But, I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying?
Did Pearson write this or did Knowlton?
Did Knowlton write a Trial essay which was published after he died in 1902?
If Pearson wrote this, in which essay?  If the date is 1934, was that a reprint?
Also, are you saying that  event in court  is referred to in the Peason/Knowlton correspondence?
You can see I am confused.


10. "Re:  A new incident in the case"
Posted by fredd on May-27th-03 at 8:29 AM
In response to Message #9.

My typo.  It's "Pearson's" long trial essay in his book The Trial of Lizzie Borden (first book published in the American Notable Trial Series).  I inadverdently stated "Knowlton" when I should have typed "Pearson".  No wonder you were confused.


11. "Re:  A new incident in the case"
Posted by adminlizzieborden on May-27th-03 at 10:03 AM
In response to Message #10.

I emailed you this information as well the same date. Please respond.

Stefani Koorey
Moderator
Lizzie Borden Society Forum


12. "Re: A new incident in the case"
Posted by rays on May-27th-03 at 6:44 PM
In response to Message #1.

The legend says Lizzie was guilty but paid off the judges to be found 'not guilty'. AR Brown says Lizzie was NOT guilty, and paid off the judges to effect this verdict. Are they both right when they say judicial bribery? This may happen more often than it is reported. They say that judges have to buy their jobs thru political contributions, even if it an elected position. What is your opinion?

Do we agree that something happened here?


13. "Re: A new incident in the case"
Posted by Kat on May-27th-03 at 10:19 PM
In response to Message #12.

My opinion is that it is as much an aspersion on the characters of the judges in this trial, and the entire state of Massachusetts, as ever was cast upon a probably guilty Lizzie Borden.


14. "Re: A new incident in the case"
Posted by rays on May-28th-03 at 5:01 PM
In response to Message #13.

Do you really think this was an anomaly?
Gerry Spence (and others) said in his book that a judge has to buy his job through "hefty campaign contributions", or have a corporation do it for him (eternally grateful?). Even when there is elections, as in NY state. The boss of the political machine decides.

AR Brown says this is more routine in civil cases, where there is less publicity.
I once worked with a guy whose wife took up with her personal trainer; her lawyer forced him out of the house and pay good alimony. Then had to buy her a new car, just like he did.
Of course, that's only one side of the story.