A jury of her peers?

[snokkums]

Just a thought, I always thought that we had a jury of our peers, well my question is this: All Lizzie's jurors were men. There were no women? How could she get a fair trail, if there wasn't a mixture of men and women?
Was a victorian thing that women just sit on juries, or what?

[1bigsteve]

I think Lizzie's trial was before the "Women's Right to Vote" movement picked up steam so I guess a woman's view point was looked down upon as if women could not be counted on for a senseable conclusion in a trial.

In the Lizzie movie there is a scene that touches on this basic problem when a Lawer is talking with his wife. Women were treated like door mats in those days.

-1bigsteve (o:

[1bigsteve]

Opps! Double entry again.

[doug65oh]

What you're working with there Snok is what's known as a "literalist" or "strict constructionist" view of one of the rights granted by the 6th Amendment - except that it doesn't work as you're trying to apply it. "Peer" doesn't mean equal in all respects in this instance.

The actual text of the amendment reads thus:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by
law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to
have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html

In 1893 at the time of Lizzie's trial, a "jury of one's peers" was interpreted exactly as spelled out in (what I hope at this point) is the bold text above. As Steve noted, women were not granted the vote until the coming of the 19th Amendment; and with the right to vote came the privilege of sitting as a juror.

So, in the sense of the time - the literal legal sense - Lizzie was tried by a "jury of her peers."

Some time ago I looked it up and discovered that the first female juror was not chosen to sit on a jury in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts until many years after 1920.

It's somewhere in yon faeried archive, tho I have no idea how to find it. The last time I was in there I forgot to take a flashlight along and broke a toe.

[snokkums]

What you're working with there Snok is what's known as a "literalist" or "strict constructionist" view of one of the rights granted by the 6th Amendment - except that it doesn't work as you're trying to apply it. "Peer" doesn't mean equal in all respects in this instance.

The actual text of the amendment reads thus:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by
law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to
have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html

In 1893 at the time of Lizzie's trial, a "jury of one's peers" was interpreted exactly as spelled out in (what I hope at this point) is the bold text above. As Steve noted, women were not granted the vote until the coming of the 19th Amendment; and with the right to vote came the privilege of sitting as a juror.

So, in the sense of the time - the literal legal sense - Lizzie was tried by a "jury of her peers."

Some time ago I looked it up and discovered that the first female juror was not chosen to sit on a jury in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts until many years after 1920.

It's somewhere in yon faeried archive, tho I have no idea how to find it. The last time I was in there I forgot to take a flashlight along and broke a toe.

Yes, you are right, I was taking it to literal. I did not think of the possibilty that a man can be a peer of yours too. But, it did just strike me odd that, in 1892, that most of her friends would have been ladies(given the day, Women folk stayed with women folk, and men with men), that she didn't have ladies on the jury. She could have some male friends too, I guess.
But, back then, too, women weren't considered "sensible" enough to be on a jury to make a decesion. But, you know, I think that might have helped her out. The men probablayl thought that she was too lady like and well brought up to do such a bad thing like killl her parents. Especialllyl with an axe.

[Harry]

I think Lizzie was lucky she had no female jurors. The women sitting in the court room, in general, were harder on her than the men. The newspapers of the day commented often on this.

Yes, there were women's right groups in strong support of her (at least through the trial) but odds are if women were eligible at the time these women would have had a hard time making the jury.

Lizzie was also lucky that there were no female police officers in Fall River. There were only the matrons at the jails who were never involved in the case itself. Who knows what a female officer could have uncovered on the early searches of the Borden house. She certainly would have been more aware of Lizzie's clothing.

[Allen]

Lizzie was also lucky that there were no female police officers in Fall River. There were only the matrons at the jails who were never involved in the case itself. Who knows what a female officer could have uncovered on the early searches of the Borden house. She certainly would have been more aware of Lizzie's clothing.

Harry hits the nail on the head yet again. If it would've been a woman investigating Lizzie, I also believe things would've turned out much differently. There would've been less question as to what Lizzie had been wearing, as a woman trained as a police officer would've thought to take note of such things. A woman probably would've also collected the clothing Lizzie was wearing that day, instead of days later. A woman would also have been less indelicate and self concious when speaking about issues such as Lizzie's menstrual cycle. Women also, not to put too fine a point on it, are more aware of the things which women are capable of.

[DWilly]

I think Lizzie was lucky she had no female jurors. The women sitting in the court room, in general, were harder on her than the men. The newspapers of the day commented often on this.

Yes, there were women's right groups in strong support of her (at least through the trial) but odds are if women were eligible at the time these women would have had a hard time making the jury.

Lizzie was also lucky that there were no female police officers in Fall River. There were only the matrons at the jails who were never involved in the case itself. Who knows what a female officer could have uncovered on the early searches of the Borden house. She certainly would have been more aware of Lizzie's clothing.

Many of those women who were "hard" on her were also lower class women with more than just a tad bit of envy directed at Lizzie. Speaking as a woman and one who leans toward her guilt if, I had been on a jury I too would have voted for an acquittal. No blood, no weapon, no witness.

Anyway, I know most of the posters on this board are familiar with the retrial of Lizzie done at Stanford Law School. I went and looked this up again on the internet and it's rather interesting to see a rather well known "Bush" lady who apparently also thinks Lizzie should not be convicted even today.


STANFORD: Lizzie Borden walks free once again
Mock trail at Stanford relives famous case
Popular opinion convicted her of the dastardly deeds more than 100 years ago. But the evidence was as thin then as it was Tuesday when Lizzie Borden walked free again after a Stanford jury refused to convict her of killing her father and stepmother.

The jury in this case was about 720 people who filled Dinkelspiel Auditorium. In this mock trial, Lizzie Borden was actually played by third-year Stanford law student Julia Wilson, but the two judges were real enough: Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The mock trial was held this week because Rehnquist and O'Connor, members of the Stanford Law School Class of 1952, were on campus participating in their 45-year class reunion. Both are distinguished now and were distinguished then--Rehnquist finished first in the class academically, and O'Connor finished third.

The dramatization of the trial of Lizzie Borden was held in honor of installing Barbara Babcock as the first Judge John Crown Professor of Law, a newly endowed professorship. Babcock played the role of Borden's defense attorney. Fittingly enough on a day to honor her, Babcock's client walked free.

Lizzie Borden was charged with hacking to death her father and stepmother in Fall River, Mass. in 1892. She was convicted in the court of popular opinion, but set free by a jury of 12 men.

There were no witnesses to the grisly murders, and no murder weapon was ever found.

Babcock, in her closing summary to the jury (audience), made an impassioned and at times funny plea for her client's freedom. "This was the work of a madman," Babcock argued. "Lizzie Borden was not mad and not a man."

Borden was arrested and tried, Babcock explained, "because this was the biggest case the Fall River police ever saw, and the press from all over the world was breathing down their necks."

With tongue firmly in cheek, Babcock then spun her own rhyme (a la "If the glove don't fit you must acquit."): "Without an axe or a bloody dress, she is not a murderess."

Charles Olgetree, a Harvard Law School professor and member of the Stanford University Board of Trustees, who played the frustrated prosecutor, argued convincingly for a conviction. But he simply didn't have enough evidence to convict.

Kathleen Sullivan, a law school professor who was the narrator for the dramatization, urged the members of the audience to carefully consider all the evidence they heard, and then gave people 60 seconds to decide on guilt or innocence. The audience, including law school faculty, students, alumni, and the general public, voted for acquittal by a wide margin.

Stanford President Gerhard Casper and Provost Condoleezza Rice were seen to raise their hands to vote for acquittal. When asked afterward, Rice replied, "it was all circumstantial. There was no murder weapon."

Paul Brest, dean of the law school, was later asked how he had voted. Brest smiled and said, "That stays within the jury room."

The Lizzie Borden trial was chosen for the 90-minute dramatization because Judge John Crown, a Chicago jurist for 22 years, was particularly interested in rules of evidence. And evidence, or the lack of it, was the pivotal element in the Borden trial.


--Don Kazak

[Kat]

Have you seen the video?
It's pretty interesting. It's really done like a play- but there is some testimony- and the major portion of the "trial" is the closing arguments.
It wasn't like The Trial.

I think closing arguments can make a big difference in a circumstantial case.
In this "dramatization" the defense made a wonderful closing. The prosecution was lack-luster in my opinion.
The great Cara Robertson, who played Emma, was the other wonderful player in this "trial."

Thanks for the item transcription. Will you please provide the link?

[theebmonique]

D,

Did the article you posted come from the Palo Alto Weekly ? Also, is your comment "a rather well known "Bush" lady" referring to Dr. Rice ?

Article from the Palo Alto Weekly:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/mo ... TRIAL.html

Another link about the Stanford 're-trial':
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/97 ... izzie.html


Tracy...

[DWilly]

D,

Did the article you posted come from the Palo Alto Weekly ? Also, is your comment "a rather well known "Bush" lady" referring to Dr. Rice ?

Article from the Palo Alto Weekly:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/mo ... TRIAL.html

Another link about the Stanford 're-trial':
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/97 ... izzie.html


Tracy...

Yes, I was referring to Condi and yes, it came from the Palo Alto Weekly. I was just googling on aol trying to find something on the retrial and came up with that. I gather there were women on the jury and they voted to let Lizzie walk again.


http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/mo ... TRIAL.html

[Kat]

The whole audience was the jury, as far as I know.
They were inappropriately chuckling, and they had "fans" on sticks with Guilty or Not Guilty written on them, in the video, which they used to vote.
They thought it was a lark- they were not quite serious enough for a murder trial jury/audience. It was really the major flaw.

[theebmonique]

I wonder how possible it would be to do a serious 're-creation' ? I mean that in the sense of 'what would it take' ? I would love to be able to 'see' all that we have been discussing...happening right before my eyes. Could Hollywood, or anyone really, pull off something like that ?...stay true to the court records...details and all ? I guess there would always be some things that would be open to one's own interpretation.


Tracy...

[Allen]

I wonder how possible it would be to do a serious 're-creation' ? I mean that in the sense of 'what would it take' ? I would love to be able to 'see' all that we have been discussing...happening right before my eyes. Could Hollywood, or anyone really, pull off something like that ?...stay true to the court records...details and all ? I guess there would always be some things that would be open to one's own interpretation.


Tracy...

I would also love to see a re-creation of the trial. Let James Cameron do it, he thinks nothing of spending loads of money on a movie budget to get the right atmosphere and theme. The only thing that a re-creation would not accomplish would be to change anyone's opinion on the case. But it would be interesting to see it all played out I agree whole heartedly on that.

[Kat]

That is a good idea. Re-creating the trial, for real.
We have to start casting it now.

[snokkums]

I'd love to see a re-creation of the trial myself. It would be interesting to see who you could get to play lizzie.

[1bigsteve]

I'd love to see a re-creation of the trial myself. It would be interesting to see who you could get to play lizzie.

I'll play Lizzie! I'll play Lizzie! No, well maybe not.

It would be interesting to see a full re-creation of the Inquest and Trial provided all the details are accurate with no liberties taken. James Cameron was very accurate with the details on Titanic. If he or someone else were to put that much effort into the Borden case I would pay to see it.

Remember the chimney in the Elizabeth Montgomery movie? It was on the side of the house near the screen door. That would put the fireplace in the Dinning Room. I know the Studio can't spend the money to recreate an exact replica of Lizzie's house but little out-of-place details like that bug me.

-1bigsteve (o:

[nbcatlover]

1bigsteve--you've got the 'eyes' for Lizzie down pat.

[snokkums]

I wanna be Bridget!!

[nbcatlover]

1bigsteve--

I was recently disappointed to learn (here on the forum) that the built-in bookcases in the sitting room and in Lizzie's room were not there when the Borden's lived there. They seemed so right.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a343/ ... 0_0149.jpg

I've got the wrong view to prove there is no chimney in the dining room, but I know that's true:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a343/ ... 0_0147.jpg

Here's the chimney shot from the basement. Sorry it's so blurry...too many people going in and out on August 4. Maybe someone can find a ghost here. There seems to be an unusual brightness in the alcove around the photo.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a343/ ... 0154-2.jpg

[snokkums]

Those are nice pictures. One day I will make it to the lizzie Borden Bed and breakfast.

[Kat]

Those are nice pictures (except for the blurry one). Thanks!
Why is there a framed picture behind the bowl, do you know?

[snokkums]

Lizzie was also lucky that there were no female police officers in Fall River. There were only the matrons at the jails who were never involved in the case itself. Who knows what a female officer could have uncovered on the early searches of the Borden house. She certainly would have been more aware of Lizzie's clothing.

Harry hits the nail on the head yet again. If it would've been a woman investigating Lizzie, I also believe things would've turned out much differently. There would've been less question as to what Lizzie had been wearing, as a woman trained as a police officer would've thought to take note of such things. A woman probably would've also collected the clothing Lizzie was wearing that day, instead of days later. A woman would also have been less indelicate and self concious when speaking about issues such as Lizzie's menstrual cycle. Women also, not to put too fine a point on it, are more aware of the things which women are capable of.

I think you are both right. A woman would have been able to look better because of the colting, and also I don't think it was "proper" back then for a man to touch a woman in what might be considered in a lewd way.

[theebmonique]

May I please ask what 'colting' means ? Also, I am thinking it is not "proper" now for a man to touch a woman in a lewd way. Are you meaning as in patting her down during a search/arrest ? If they did that would they have had a female present at the time of the pat down to make sure there was no 'lewd' act committed by the officer ?


Tracy...

[1bigsteve]

I couldn't find anything on "colting." All I get is "colt", the horse and revolver. I agree that Lizzie would have been in trouble if a woman officer had been there at the scene. She would have gone through Lizzie's stuff like a blood hound.

Did she mean "clothing?"

-1bigsteve (o:

[theebmonique]

Maybe she did. Hopefully she will see my question and respond. Snok...you out there ? Help !


Tracy...

[1bigsteve]

1bigsteve--

I was recently disappointed to learn (here on the forum) that the built-in bookcases in the sitting room and in Lizzie's room were not there when the Borden's lived there. They seemed so right.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a343/ ... 0_0149.jpg

I've got the wrong view to prove there is no chimney in the dining room, but I know that's true:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a343/ ... 0_0147.jpg

Here's the chimney shot from the basement. Sorry it's so blurry...too many people going in and out on August 4. Maybe someone can find a ghost here. There seems to be an unusual brightness in the alcove around the photo.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a343/ ... 0154-2.jpg

So, Cynthia, you like my blue eyes? The Avatar look's just like me. No, really.

I like those photos. Can you tell me what that bowl is for in the chimney off-set? Where is that bowl in relation to where the hatchets were found? Has anyone ever taken photos of the entire basement? Is the floor dirt or concrete? I would love to see those.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Allen]

May I please ask what 'colting' means ? Also, I am thinking it is not "proper" now for a man to touch a woman in a lewd way. Are you meaning as in patting her down during a search/arrest ? If they did that would they have had a female present at the time of the pat down to make sure there was no 'lewd' act committed by the officer ?


Tracy...

I am thinking that maybe too much is being made of Snok's spelling errors. When I read that same post I just automatically took it to mean clothing, yet misspelled, especially since many references have been made to clothing in this thread. Many of us misspell words or type in a hurry. And thinking that the word colting, if there even is such a word, belongs there just wouldn't make sense.

It also would've been considered, not lewd, but improper conduct to go through a woman's under things, her menstrual garments, her slop pail, her anything. These were Victorian times and when it comes to a woman's belongings it was pretty much hands off to men. And there were women present during the investigation into the Borden murders. Just not women police officers who would've been less squeamish about going through Lizzie and Emma's things. I think 1bigsteve was right. She would've been like a bloodhound .

[snokkums]

I think Lizzie was lucky she had no female jurors. The women sitting in the court room, in general, were harder on her than the men. The newspapers of the day commented often on this.

Yes, there were women's right groups in strong support of her (at least through the trial) but odds are if women were eligible at the time these women would have had a hard time making the jury.

Lizzie was also lucky that there were no female police officers in Fall River. There were only the matrons at the jails who were never involved in the case itself. Who knows what a female officer could have uncovered on the early searches of the Borden house. She certainly would have been more aware of Lizzie's clothing.

I think she was lucky too. A woman of the time would have known the clothing of a woman, and would have known where a woman could have hid something.

[theebmonique]

I am thinking that maybe too much is being made of Snok's spelling errors. When I read that same post I just automatically took it to mean clothing, yet misspelled, especially since many references have been made to clothing in this thread. Many of us misspell words or type in a hurry. And thinking that the word colting, if there even is such a word, belongs there just wouldn't make sense.

You are right Melissa. Thank you.


Tracy...

[nbcatlover]

1bigsteve--I believe the 'bowl' is a hand basin, for washing.

[Kat]

I didn't know what "colting" was. I thought it sounded like a good new word tho. If there is no word like that- there should be!
I was going to ask the same as Tracy- and I wasn't thinking of it being misspelled, either. So, more confusion.

Anyway, the basin was supposedly where the laundry's hot water was heated. It is in an inset at the fireplace.
There is a cellar floor plan in the FRHS edition of The Knowlton Papers, pg. 133.

In The Hatchet, I have an article called "The Borden House: Frame By Frame," part 4 being on the cellar. I have identified the rooms of the cellar and where certain objects and evidence were found, according to testimony, on page 25, of the Dec/Jan. 2004-2005 issue, Vol. 1, Issue 6.
I also include photos taken in 2004 of the rooms in the cellar.

Got Your Hatchet?

[Allen]

I have this shot of the basin, I'd posted it on the forum somewhere before, but no idea at this time where. I already had my album out looking at it earlier and just decided to post this shot as well. Please click on the picture to make it bigger. MUCH bigger unfortunately. As Kat mentioned in another thread my picture looked almost black and white. Yes, my scanner is pretty much a piece of crap. I keep meaning to buy a new one but never do. My pictures keep coming out huge, and when I try to resize them they look all blurry and odd. And the color doesn't come out quite right. Maybe it's not the scanner. Maybe it's the person using it.

[Kat]

Thanks for posting that!
I've seen that rubber piping above the basin and wondered if it signified some sort of torture device!

[nbcatlover]

I think the 'rubber piping' is what brought to mind Andrew's undertaker past for some people.

[snokkums]

I think Lizzie was lucky she had no female jurors. The women sitting in the court room, in general, were harder on her than the men. The newspapers of the day commented often on this.

Yes, there were women's right groups in strong support of her (at least through the trial) but odds are if women were eligible at the time these women would have had a hard time making the jury.

Lizzie was also lucky that there were no female police officers in Fall River. There were only the matrons at the jails who were never involved in the case itself. Who knows what a female officer could have uncovered on the early searches of the Borden house. She certainly would have been more aware of Lizzie's clothing.

Many of those women who were "hard" on her were also lower class women with more than just a tad bit of envy directed at Lizzie. Speaking as a woman and one who leans toward her guilt if, I had been on a jury I too would have voted for an acquittal. No blood, no weapon, no witness.

Anyway, I know most of the posters on this board are familiar with the retrial of Lizzie done at Stanford Law School. I went and looked this up again on the internet and it's rather interesting to see a rather well known "Bush" lady who apparently also thinks Lizzie should not be convicted even today.


STANFORD: Lizzie Borden walks free once again
Mock trail at Stanford relives famous case
Popular opinion convicted her of the dastardly deeds more than 100 years ago. But the evidence was as thin then as it was Tuesday when Lizzie Borden walked free again after a Stanford jury refused to convict her of killing her father and stepmother.

The jury in this case was about 720 people who filled Dinkelspiel Auditorium. In this mock trial, Lizzie Borden was actually played by third-year Stanford law student Julia Wilson, but the two judges were real enough: Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The mock trial was held this week because Rehnquist and O'Connor, members of the Stanford Law School Class of 1952, were on campus participating in their 45-year class reunion. Both are distinguished now and were distinguished then--Rehnquist finished first in the class academically, and O'Connor finished third.

The dramatization of the trial of Lizzie Borden was held in honor of installing Barbara Babcock as the first Judge John Crown Professor of Law, a newly endowed professorship. Babcock played the role of Borden's defense attorney. Fittingly enough on a day to honor her, Babcock's client walked free.

Lizzie Borden was charged with hacking to death her father and stepmother in Fall River, Mass. in 1892. She was convicted in the court of popular opinion, but set free by a jury of 12 men.

There were no witnesses to the grisly murders, and no murder weapon was ever found.

Babcock, in her closing summary to the jury (audience), made an impassioned and at times funny plea for her client's freedom. "This was the work of a madman," Babcock argued. "Lizzie Borden was not mad and not a man."

Borden was arrested and tried, Babcock explained, "because this was the biggest case the Fall River police ever saw, and the press from all over the world was breathing down their necks."

With tongue firmly in cheek, Babcock then spun her own rhyme (a la "If the glove don't fit you must acquit."): "Without an axe or a bloody dress, she is not a murderess."

Charles Olgetree, a Harvard Law School professor and member of the Stanford University Board of Trustees, who played the frustrated prosecutor, argued convincingly for a conviction. But he simply didn't have enough evidence to convict.

Kathleen Sullivan, a law school professor who was the narrator for the dramatization, urged the members of the audience to carefully consider all the evidence they heard, and then gave people 60 seconds to decide on guilt or innocence. The audience, including law school faculty, students, alumni, and the general public, voted for acquittal by a wide margin.

Stanford President Gerhard Casper and Provost Condoleezza Rice were seen to raise their hands to vote for acquittal. When asked afterward, Rice replied, "it was all circumstantial. There was no murder weapon."

Paul Brest, dean of the law school, was later asked how he had voted. Brest smiled and said, "That stays within the jury room."

The Lizzie Borden trial was chosen for the 90-minute dramatization because Judge John Crown, a Chicago jurist for 22 years, was particularly interested in rules of evidence. And evidence, or the lack of it, was the pivotal element in the Borden trial.


--Don Kazak

O f course there were no witnessess. The only two other people in the house besides the parents were the ones that probably had something to do with the murders.What are they going to do and say. Yes I killed my parents, here's my accomplice,and oh, by the the way,here's the murder weapon. Of course not. Lizzie was very intelligent, and Bridget had enough sense to keep her mouth shut.

[Kat]

Oh my gosh, Snokkums, that was unnecessary to redo that whole Stanford article quote to make your point.
You can just reply- we will have a decent idea as to what you're getting at.

Do you really really like that "Quote" feature?

[snokkums]

not really kat, I am still trying to figure out how to use it thats all sorry

[snokkums]

What I was trying to say was that they wouldn't have thought of touching a nice well brought up woman as lizzie. Now if she had been a prostitute the story might have been a little different. Thats all. Most men now are the same way.