Mondo Lizzie Borden

In Sebastian Junger’s new book A Death in Belmont, he discusses the 1963 murder of Bessie Goldberg a few streets over from where he lived as a child in Belmont, Mass., a suburb of Boston. Working for Junger’s mother, building an art room addition to his house, was a handyman named Albert DeSalvo. He had been working at their house the day of the Goldberg murder and never admitted to the murder of Bessie when he later confessed to being the Boston Strangler. Roy Smith, a black man who had been hired to clean Mrs. Goldberg’s house that day, was the prime suspect. He was arrested, tried, and convicted of her rape and murder. Junger believes that Smith was falsely convicted and links DeSalvo to the crime.

It is a good read and I highly recommend it.

Also of note is a section near the end of the book where he discusses the interrogation of Smith, which was analyzed in 2004 by a Boston homicide prosecutor named David Meier. This evaluation of Smith’s behavior during the police questioning is very much connected to our study of the Lizzie Borden case. This one part literally jumped off the page at me, and I wanted to share it with you here.

Evaluating Smith’s interrogation is more complicated because there is no way to prove by someone’s behavior that he or she is lying. But you can come close. Interrogations are extremely stressful events, even for the innocent, and almost no one can completely control his or her responses when being questioned about a murder. A classic law enforcement manual called Criminal Interrogation and Confessions describes in detail some typical behaviors of an innocent and a guilty person. The guilty take, on average, three times longer to answer a direct question than the innocent. The guilty tend to touch their hair or their face or pick lint off their clothing when they talk. The guilty tend to repeat a question before they get around to answering it. The guilty tend to offer specific denials that are technically true —”I did not take the $1,200 from the cash register yesterday!” —rather than general denials that are false. The guilty tend to apologize for the misunderstanding. The guilty tend to look for some sign of partial understanding. The guilty tend to use non-specific language about their actions that leaves wiggle room for later questions. The guilty tend ot veer from angry to sullen to ingratiating and then back to angry again. The guilty tend to slouch in their chair, cross their arms, look away, and not move for long periods of time. The guilty, in other words, act guilty. Controlled studies have showed that trained investigators who watch silent videotapes of interrogations can correctly tell if a subject is lying 72 percent of the time. When the sound is turned on, their accuracy rises to 86 percent.

Innocent subjects are an entirely different matter. The innocent tend to get angry and stay angry. They tend to insist on continuing the interrogation until they are cleared as a suspect. They tend to sit straight up, look the questioner in the eye, and answer questions quickly if not eagerly. They tend to describe their actions in excruciating detail. They tend to continue voicing their denials even after they have been told to be quiet. The innocent, in short, see the interrogation not as an ordeal to be survived, but as an opportunity to clear their name. First and foremost the innocent tend to answer questions without having a lawyer by their side.

So let’s go back and analyze the only testimony we have, the only transcription of an interrogation we have, of Lizzie Borden. Read her Inquest Testimony here on my site and see what you think based on the above information of how the guilty and the innocent behave under questioning.

From the New York Times, May 12, 1923:

Back in 1997, Stanford University conducted a 90 minute dramatization of the trial of Lizzie Borden. The jury was the large attending audience and the presiding justices were Stanford alums Sandra Day O’Connor and William Rehnquist. This article is from the September 19, 1997 issue of the Palo Alto Weekly online edition, and describes the event and the outcome.

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.

Read the rest of the article here.

This related piece, published on September 12, 1997, also discusses the event.

And here, where a piece appeared in the California Bar Journal, October. 1997.

This from the July 30, 1998 South Coast Today.

Lizzie will come alive at seminar

By Carol Lee Costa-Crowell, Standard-Times staff writer
FALL RIVER — All right all you Lizzie Borden fans, get ready to gear up for four days of Lizzie mania. The seventh annual Lizzie Borden Expo begins Saturday, and this time all the festivities will be held at the 92 Second St. home of the Borden family, which has recently been converted into a bed and breakfast.

“We’re offering a number of events for the general public as well as Lizzie buffs,” said Kathie Goncalo, a member of The Second Street Players group. “There will be tours of the house at 92 Second St., a symposium featuring Lizzie historians and a “one-ax” play called “Oh, Lizzie.”

The Lizzie Borden Bed and Breakfast/museum tours will take place on each of the four days from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Admission is $7.50 for adults, $3.50 for children 7 to 12 years old, and free for all children 6 and under.

The 1892 crime of the century, in which Lizzie Borden was accused of taking an ax to her father Andrew Borden and her step-mother Abby Borden, took place in the Second Street home on Aug. 4 that year. The extended tours will include re-creations of the morning of the double-ax murders performed by The Second Street Players.

Cast members include Deborah Ali as Lizzie; Ms. Goncalo playing both Abby Borden and Emma Borden, Lizzie’s sister; Michelle Corvelo will play Bridget the maid; Bill Pavao will perform the dual roles of John Morse and Dr. Bowen; and George Quigley will be Andrew Borden.

On Saturday, a symposium will be held from 4 to 6 p.m. at the Borden house. Mr. Pavao, a Borden historian, will discuss the real Abby Borden, while Borden author George Quigley and local actress Ms. Corvelo will recount the mysterious life of Bridget Sullivan. Then, Emma and Lizzie will take center stage and answer tourists’ questions. Refreshments will be served at the symposium.

On Sunday, The Second Street Players will present ‘Oh Lizzie’ in the sitting room from 4 to 6 p.m. Refreshments will be served.

On Monday and Tuesday, the public may come and have tea with the Bordens. Guests can sit at the dining room table with Lizzie and discuss general topics of the day while enjoying a spot of tea and the Borden Bed and Breakfast’s famous ax cookies and other treats.

Sigh.

From the Chicago Daily Tribune, June 23, 1893, three days after her acquittal: