The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Lizzie Andrew Borden

.

Forum URL:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/LBForum/index.php
Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY
Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden
Topic Name: Direct evidence?

1. "Direct evidence?"
Posted by Nicole on Apr-8th-02 at 1:59 PM

I am still reading Brown. And he mentions that in Jenning's opening statement, he says the prosecution cannot produce "direct evidence" (i am not quoting).  And then Brown describes "direct evidence" as testimony of persons who have seen, heard of which they are testifying.  I am no lawyer, but wouldn't Alice Russell, Hannah Reagan, and Eli Bences' testimony be considered "direct evidence".  All three testify (which is not to say it's entirely true) of having direct contact with Lizzie, and personally it seems damaging.  So what's with that? Please clarify.


2. "Re: Direct evidence?"
Posted by bobcook848 on Apr-8th-02 at 4:16 PM
In response to Message #1.

I think "direct evidence" as taken by Brown and other authors as meaning physical proof...such as "the smoking gun", bloody hatchet, bloody dress.

The testimony of witness's is circumstancial in that it is believable only to the extent that the listner chooses to accept it as truth.  You recall that the testimony of Eli Bence was not allowed due to technicalities of whether or not prussic acid does or does not have any effect on mites and pests who might inhabit a sealskin cape.

If someone else has a better understanding of this meaning I am all ears...

BC


3. "Re: Direct evidence?"
Posted by diana on Apr-8th-02 at 4:55 PM
In response to Message #1.

According to the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, Illinois - 17th Judicial Circuit:
Direct Evidence is "evidence that stands on its own to prove a legal fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant point a gun at a victim during a robbery."
Circumstantial Evidence is Indirect Evidence "that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it.  If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he stole the money."

Hope this helps.


4. "Re: Direct evidence?"
Posted by Carol on Apr-9th-02 at 11:53 AM
In response to Message #2.

The testimony of Eli Bence was not admitted because 1. the remoteness in time of the event of purchase being 1 day before the murders and 2. Lizzie was charged with murder by axe or hatchet, not poison.


5. "Re: Direct evidence?"
Posted by dave rehak on Apr-9th-02 at 1:17 PM
In response to Message #4.

Thats true, Carol. And I believe its the GOODBYE LIZZIE BORDEN book that argues, from a legal point, that Eli Bence's testimony would not have been excluded if the murders had occured in our time rather than 1892. I suppose that can be debated.


6. "Re: Direct evidence?"
Posted by rays on Apr-11th-02 at 2:01 PM
In response to Message #3.

Direct evidence = eyewitness account (which may not be reliable if a stranger is seen for only a few seconds, transracial, etc.). It derived from olden times when everyone knew both the victim and the accused; almost no chance for a mistake, then.

"Circumstantial evidence" is deduced from the facts.
"I saw Andy enter the house. Then I saw Lizzie in the back. The next thing was a big commotion, and I learned Andy was dead. I didn't notice nobody else, but there were a lot of passers-by on Second street."
A typical statement from somebody standing on the corner?


LizzieAndrewBorden.com © 2001-2008 Stefani Koorey. All Rights Reserved. Copyright Notice.
PearTree Press, P.O. Box 9585, Fall River, MA 02720

Page updated 13 October, 2003