Pearson and Prussic Acid

[Allen]

was reading Pearson and I came across this tid bit which I kept bookmarked for later reference. In my opinion, it sums up the whole argument about Lizzie buying prussic acid for a purpose other than to kill her parents. It also sums up how ridiculous I think it was that it was not admitted into evidence.

Pearson page 64:

The other contest about the admission of evidence arose when the prosecution offered the testimony of Eli Bence and his associates, as to the attempt to buy prussic acid. After listening to his argument, the Court excluded this evidence on the ground that is had not been proven that prussic acid may not have an innocent use! At this, the layman is simply floored. To decide that a jury, investigating a murder, shall not be allowed to hear of an attempt by the accused to procure a deadly poison only twenty-four hours before the murder, and to hear that the decision is based on a reason, seems to him equivalent to ruling that they should not be told of an attempt to buy a revolver, because the revolver may have innocent uses. And it is with satisfaction that he finds the judge using the same analogy.

page 65:

Upon the exclusion of the poison testimony, Professor Wigmore more says:

“A professional furrier...was held unqualified to say whether prussic acid was used in preserving furs...and the medical examiner...Dr. Dolan was not allowed to say whether prussic acid had any capacity...in the same connection...What a wonderful web of obscurity the legal mind can contrive to weave over the simplest matters! A woman of ordinary knowledge is alleged to have bought [sought?] prussic acid for cleaning furs; but two men of technical accomplishments are not allowed to say there is no such use known to their experience!


And on this subject, Judge Davis, in the letter already quoted says:

“There was a ruling during the trial which was received with almost universal surprise by the Bar. I refer to the rejection of evidence that the prisoner, within the twenty - four hours of the homicides, attempted to purchase a deadly poison. It seems sufficient to claim that it is a common practice to trace back before a jury all the life of a prisoner, as a detective would trace it for at least that period before the alleged crime; of course, with certain limitations, such as not proving another crime of a different nature as evidence of guilt in the case in issue; leaving it to the jury to decide whether they see any evidence or ground for suspicion of murderous intent or "dreadful preparation" for the crime in question.

“The court permitted the Government to prove the general facts as to the character and recognized uses or prussic acid, for which it was claimed that the prisoner inquired, and which she said she wanted to treat sealskin furs; and then, because a furrier and a druggist did not know that it was used for such a purpose, rejected the evidence. This was in effect a ruling that a circumstance of independent or helpful evidence, not essential to proof of guilt, but looking in that direction, could not be shown in a case of circumstantial evidence. It was a ruling that such evidence should not be left to a jury, but only admitted or rejected at the whim of the Court. It was a ruling that if the homicide was committed with a hatchet, evidence that the prisoner sought the purchase of an ax the day before was not admissible because an ax is used to split wood; in other words, if the murder was committed with one deadly instrument or article, the fact that she endeavored to obtain another deadly agent and could not get it, could not be shown.

“It is a matter of common knowledge that sealskins furnish no nidus for moths. The occasion was in August, long after midsummer, and if the evidence had been admitted it would have been open to explanation, like any other inculpatory fact. Suppose the Government had offered to show that the prisoner's dress, after the murders, was as white as the newly driven snow, and the defense objected. The prisoner, by her counsel in his opening, declared that 'the relations between father and daughter were in the relations that ordinarily exist between parent and daughter'...and that he was her 'loved and loving father'. Suppose that the Government had claimed, what to many minds is one of the most suspicious facts about the case, that, if innocent and ignorant of this terrible and unsuspected crime, she would as a loving daughter not have failed to have been in some way marked with blood by that sea of gore from the 'twenty mortal murders on their crowns.'

[Kat]

In fact, if one reads the testimony closely in the trial, as to what the court ruled about the *poison testimony* there really was no ruling. The court allowed information to be given by people on the subject, in court and on the stand, with the jury out of the room, but the decision was made to not go there with the jury- the jury wasn't allowed to hear it- that's not really a *ruling.* It's more an anti-climax.
There seems to have been some deal made ahead of time that it would be heard but that then after that the court would decide if the jury could hear and the bottom line was only *No the jury can't hear this*.

If a reason can be found, given by the actual juge as to why, at the time- I'd like to see it?

Also, when Lizzie supposedly asked for prussic acid, she did not say for what use she was going to put it, nor was she asked. I think it was said she wanted it for the edge of her cape:
Bence
160
Q. Did she say what she wanted it for?
A. I understood her to say she wanted it to put on the edge of a seal skin cape, if I remember rightly.

--I think it was the newspapers which tried to have Lizzie killing moths or cleaning her cape.
--Is that Pearson's Trial you've got there, Missy?

[Allen]

In fact, if one reads the testimony closely in the trial, as to what the court ruled about the *poison testimony* there really was no ruling. The court allowed information to be given by people on the subject, in court and on the stand, with the jury out of the room, but the decision was made to not go there with the jury- the jury wasn't allowed to hear it- that's not really a *ruling.* It's more an anti-climax.
There seems to have been some deal made ahead of time that it would be heard but that then after that the court would decide if the jury could hear and the bottom line was only *No the jury can't hear this*.

If a reason can be found, given by the actual juge as to why, at the time- I'd like to see it?

Also, when Lizzie supposedly asked for prussic acid, she did not say for what use she was going to put it, nor was she asked. I think it was said she wanted it for the edge of her cape:
Bence
160
Q. Did she say what she wanted it for?
A. I understood her to say she wanted it to put on the edge of a seal skin cape, if I remember rightly.

--I think it was the newspapers which tried to have Lizzie killing moths or cleaning her cape.
--Is that Pearson's Trial you've got there, Missy?

Well if the Court, or the Judges, decided that the evidence was not to be heard by the jury, wasn't this in effect a ruling? Any time an objection is made, a decision has to be made whether or not to allow or supress whatever it is that is being objected to. What I got from reading the exchanges was that Robinson wanted the Commonwealth had to provide ahead of time what they intended to prove with each witness and stick to that, and that they not try to prove more than he wanted them to. Which was that Lizzie tried to buy poison at all, or that it could not be used on fur. I mean Robinson is objecting already at the question of what Mr. Lawton does for a living! The only questions he has answered prior to this are to state what his name is, where he lives, and how long he lived there. He didn't even want him to say he was a druggist? Robinson also objects to the questions of how it is kept, for what purposes it was sold, and whether or not it can be sold without a physicians prescription.

Lizzie Borden trial transcipt page 1243 +:

Now oftentimes this question arises on discussion as to the connection in time. I must say at the outset that, on one branch of the question, it cannot be considered here, because the offer is on the 3rd of August, Wednesday, and the killing as charged in the indictment was on Thursday the 4th. So perhaps I am bound to say that the nearness of time may be considered out of this consideration; it is not sufficiently near, if it were pertinent. It must be shown, I maintain, taht any act which is to be put in evidence on the part of this defendant must have some natural tendency to show that she has committed the act for which she stands on trial. Now to my mind it does not show that. It does not carry any weight at all. It is not aimed to these persons at all by the evidence, it is not brough to them upon the evidence, and, in fact, it is entirely negative to what has already gone on; and so it has no tendency to prove the substantive acts for which the defendant stands under indictment. And before any such thing can be shown, I say there must be substantive facts tending to implicate her in the charges for which she stands now on trial. Now I maintain that while this is not remote in time, it is entirely remote and distinct in connection and foreign to this inquiry. And I emphasize it the more because the offer of the evidence in itself is so extremely lean, if I may say it, taking this witness alone, and taking the others, if there are more, tending to show the same thing, but not brought down to any act that has any natural tendency to sustain this charge.....Does it have any tendency at all that this defendant killed these two people with an axe? This is all we are inquiring about. I maintain it does not.


Robinson is basically saying the Commonwealth cannot admit the evidence that Lizzie tried to buy poison until they actually have solid proof that she killed Abby and Andrew, and even if they should get the proof it should not be admitted because Prussic Acid is poison and and Axe is..well an Axe.


Why when I read this, and all of Robinson's objections, I get the instant imagine of Jim Carey in a scene from the Movie Liar Liar?

Fletcher Reede: You honor I object!

Judge Marshall Stevens: Why?

Fletcher Reede: Because it's devastating to my case!

And yep I have Edmund Pearson's The Trial of Lizzie Borden.

[doug65oh]

Well if the Court, or the Judges, decided that the evidence was not to be heard by the jury, wasn't this in effect a ruling?

That's exactly right - it was a ruling. If I'm reading these passages correctly, what was actually going on at this point was an evidentiary hearing. What counts in the end is that the jury didn't hear what the Court had to hear in order to assess admissibility of the evidence.

(It's only an anti-climax because we have the benefit - God bless Harry, et al. - of the entire trial transcript at our fingertips, so are able to "hear" things the jury did not.)

[Kat]

That is Robinson speaking? Is that in his closing?
But it's not a judge speaking, correct?

I will take the info that you guys provide by calling what the court decided a "ruling." Thank you.

But how in H--- did Robinson get this argument into closing? It wasn't testimony the jury heard, yet he gets to sum it up?
I haven't read his closing at trial, because he makes me so mad at the things he got away with, and what he says isn't evidence.
So technically, it sounds like HE ruled.
Anyway, it's a good discussion here because most people don't realize the distinction of what really went on about the poison statements at the trial.
The "ruling" issue has been pointed to, like by Pearson, as if there was comment made in court that it was "remote in time" or "not the weapon ultimately used," or it could be shown to have had an innocent use" etc.- when the court never said that- but looks like Robinson did?

Thanks again you guys.
BTW: I was just talking about Pearson today and which books of his I had (coincidentally!)- so I just wanted to be clear it was his Trial book being quoted.

BTW2: The Eli Bence story, I believe was brought up in opening statements by the State, so the jury did get to hear that- and then heard no more.
Was Robinson allowed to speak on the subject in closing to counter the opening by the state? Does it work that way? I'd think that once The Court Ruled, the subject was closed?

[nbcatlover]

Seal skin may not get moths, but does it get fleas? Would a proper lady want to admit to someone she really doesn't know that she has a flea infestation (very common in hot, dry Augusts in New England).

I do not believe "fleas" is a Victorian euphemism, and we have heard she purchased chloroform to kill a cat (whether she chopped its head off afterwards is uncertain).

Prussic acid is an excellent killer of fleas.

[Allen]

Seal skin may not get moths, but does it get fleas? Would a proper lady want to admit to someone she really doesn't know that she has a flea infestation (very common in hot, dry Augusts in New England).

I do not believe "fleas" is a Victorian euphemism, and we have heard she purchased chloroform to kill a cat (whether she chopped its head off afterwards is uncertain).

Prussic acid is an excellent killer of fleas.

But what need would a woman have of a sealskin cape in a hot month such as August? This has always confounded me. I am not sure, but I would think if moth's wouldn't be attracted to it, that maybe fleas would give it a pass as well?

[Harry]

Fleas to the best of my knowledge only drink blood. Why would they infest a seal skin cape?

Prussic acid will kill anything that comes near it. Including a less than ultra careful user.

[nbcatlover]

Well, in later years, we know both Lizzie and Emma always put their furs in storage in Boston in the Spring and took them out again in the Fall. Maybe Andrew didn't give them the luxury of fur storage. If she were cleaning because of a flea infestation and had the cape in a closet, she might be concerned because she thought the fur would attract them.

Quite honestly, I don't believe adult fleas could live on the cape, but if they can lay eggs in carpet fibers, I'm sure they could lay eggs there. And my cats will seek out anything soft to lay on. They've opened up closet doors when I'm not home, and pulled down clothing items to sleep on.

[Susan]

Cynthia, according to Lizzie's Inquest testimony, her furs were hung in the attic. Inquest, page 91:

Q. Have you sealskin sacks?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where are they?
A. Hanging in a large white bag in the attic, each one seperate.

Q. Put away for the summer?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you ever use prussic acid on your sacks?
A. Acid? No, sir; I don't use anything on them.

It makes me curious as to how these furs were stored at the furriers that was deemed better than home storage?

[nbcatlover]

I don't know myself--but I remember my godmother bringing her mink to Jordan Marsh. It seemed to be the thing to do if you had a certain amount of money. La di da.

[nbcatlover]

Yes, the furs were at Second St. They stored them in Boston when they lived at Maplecroft and when Emma was in Newmarket.

As for the buying of the poison, it seems that Robinson is saying that the poison can't be evidence to a murder on August 3rd because no murder had been committed on August 3rd, and the murder on August 4th was by a different method. Bence can't prove the woman's intent was to kill someone, and it is not proper evidence. It is his speculation that the woman was Lizzie and she wanted to use it to poison Andrew and Abbie. Speculation without probable cause (i.e., murder by poison) is not supposed to be entered as evidence.

How is this different from a person on trial for rape,who has been accused of rape 3 or 4 times but never convicted on technicalities, being allowed by courts to exclude this prior history because it is prejudicial? This happens all the time, and it is the same crime, committed in the same fashion.

Being presumed innocent favors the accused. In France, people on trial are presumed guilty and have to prove their innocence--a much harder task.

[Allen]

As for the buying of the poison, it seems that Robinson is saying that the poison can't be evidence to a murder on August 3rd because no murder had been committed on August 3rd, and the murder on August 4th was by a different method. Bence can't prove the woman's intent was to kill someone, and it is not proper evidence. It is his speculation that the woman was Lizzie and she wanted to use it to poison Andrew and Abbie. Speculation without probable cause (i.e., murder by poison) is not supposed to be entered as evidence.

I cannot agree with that. In fact, I disagree with that 1000%.

[theebmonique]

Melissa...do you disagree with it because of Robinson's reasoning, or is it using 'speculation' as evidence ? I am not that well versed in legal technicalities.


Tracy...

[Allen]

I disagree on both counts.

First of all there was no such innocent use for Prussic Acid that the ordinary person could just walk into a drug store and buy it over the counter. If it were so Lizzie would not have been refused it when she attempted to buy it. You could only purchase it with a prescription from a physician, which she did not have. She was trying to buy ten cents worth of prussic acid. So why was she trying to to buy it?

Second of all, there was at least probable cause to believe that Lizzie had committed murder or she would not have been on trial in the first place. The prussic acid could be used to show intent, because as I said, it could only be bought with a physicians prescription which Lizzie did not have. Because the murder did not take place on the 3rd is a ludicrous argument. If the poison had been procured who is to say it might not have? Or that it might not have occured on Friday. Or whenever she decided to use it. It also goes to show that Lizzie in fact tried to use one mode of murder, which is poison, but when unable to obtain it, she was then forced to improvise and move onto something else. Such as an axe. The prussic acid shows intent. I don't think that Eli Bence believe it was speculation, he had positively ID'd the woman as Lizzie, and she was sitting right there in front of him as he began to testify. What little he was allowed to testify to that is. If Lizzie had tried to purchase a gun the day before the murders, it might not have been so easily excluded, but because it was a poison, and it could somehow be more easily set aside as having innocent uses, it was allowed to be dismissed as evidence. How it was classified as having innocent uses, and that any person could walk into a drugstore and purchase it for these uses is beyond me. We have quite a few witnesses who testified that it could only be purchased with a physicians prescription. Or they tried to, this is one of the questions that Robinson always objected to.

In my above post I included and excerpt from a letter written by a Judge Davis of the Third District Court in Massachusetts on December 23, 1893. It was sent to the Boston Advertiser. In it he strongly criticised the actions of the judges during the trial. He went as far as saying the Commonwealth did not get a fair trial. I got this information from The Trial of Lizzie Borden by Edmund Pearson and it can be found on page 66.

See my above post for the letter from Judge Davis. The next paragraph in that letter reads:

" In the rejection of the testimony offered on the attempt to purchase prussic acid, the Court practically held that if a prisoner tried to purchase a gun the day before the murder, and the murder was committed with a pistol, his attempted purchase could not be shown, if the prisoner stated that he wanted the gun to shoot cats, unless the Government could show affirmatively that the gun was never used for shooting cats."

[Audrey]

Why should it have introduced into evidence?

Mr. Bence's identification of the woman purported to attempt to purchase the acid is suspect at best.

Oh... and where did you read that French courts require the defendant to prove his/her innocence? It is categorically not true!

Mon Dieu! We pride ourselves on being the "Land of Civil Rights"

Some facts...

Legal System

A series of written civil laws known as the Napoleonic code (code Napoleon), as laid down by Napoleon in 1789, forms the basis of the French legal system. There are 2 parts to the system – the administrative handles disputes between government and individuals, whereas criminal and civil cases fall to the judiciary to settle.

The jury system in France was abolished in 1941, so all cases are decided by judges of various kinds. The only exception is in the cour d’assises that deals with major criminal cases – here a jury populaire of 9 ordinary citizens decides the verdict.

France has different courts to deal with different types of cases; civil courts hear small claims, commercial, social security and labour disputes, while various criminal courts handle criminal cases, from minor offences to major trials, plus two courts of appeal.

If your French is sufficiently fluent, you may represent yourself in certain civil court cases. In most other cases, you will need to hire a lawyer (avocat) to act for you.

Under the French legal system, a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to silence. Anyone who is arrested is entitled to see a lawyer within 3 hours. Legal aid (aide juridictionnelle) is available to EU citizens and those on low incomes who visit France regularly. The maximum prison sentence is 30 years.

Lists of English-speaking lawyers can be obtained from local consulates or the relevant embassy in France.

http://www.expatfocus.com/expatriate-france-crime-legal


he French (Napoleonic) legal system of justice known as Corpus Juris where suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

[theebmonique]

So...if I buy a .38 handgun one day...and my creepy neighbor next door (whom I detest) is murdered the next day with a .38, I am automatically guilty ? I don't think so ! What happened to being innocent until proven guilty ? Wasn't Lizzie found innocent ?


Tracy...

[Kat]

As for the buying of the poison, it seems that Robinson is saying that the poison can't be evidence to a murder on August 3rd because no murder had been committed on August 3rd, and the murder on August 4th was by a different method. Bence can't prove the woman's intent was to kill someone, and it is not proper evidence. It is his speculation that the woman was Lizzie and she wanted to use it to poison Andrew and Abbie. Speculation without probable cause (i.e., murder by poison) is not supposed to be entered as evidence.

I cannot agree with that. In fact, I disagree with that 1000%.

Well your following argument after this response sounds good- but my impression of this was only that Cynthia was explaining Robinson's closing remarks- sort of paraphrasing, rather than interpreting the law as Davis did.

[Kat]

So...if I buy a .38 handgun one day...and my creepy neighbor next door (whom I detest) is murdered the next day with a .38, I am automatically guilty ? I don't think so ! What happened to being innocent until proven guilty ? Wasn't Lizzie found innocent ?


Tracy...

Tracy are you responding to Missy's posting of Judge Davis' opinion?
I'm a bit confused...

[theebmonique]

I was replying to Melissa's post from 10:41 p.m. 12-19-05. Melissa did I misinterpret what you are trying to say ? (Sometimes with the longer posts, I may miss a line or two.)


Tracy...

[Allen]

First of all, I did not even post the part about France and their laws that was in Pearson's book. I became confused, and had to go back and reread my earlier posts. If anyone reads this passage in Pearson's book they would read that part so I guess it's a valid argument.

Why should it have been introduced, see my whole entire above argument. I don't feel like arguing the same question twice.

As for if Tracy bought a gun and then her neighbor died would they come and arrest her simply on the evidence that she bought a gun. NO. I'm not saying that everyone who buys a gun the day before the murders ought to be arrested without any evidence that they committed the crime. That's just ridiculous. Lizzie had already been arrested. She had already been through a hearing to decide if there was enough evidence to bind her over as probably guilty.

What you are in effect saying is that if a person should be arrested for a crime, and it is found that there is enough probable cause to arrest them for the murder, that no evidence should be introduced of their guilt. If they shot someone, no evidence that they tried to buy other weapons should be introduced. If the did shoot someone, no evidence of buying a gun should be introduced. What in the world would a trial be then?

Lizzie was already on trial because they had probable cause to believe she had committed the murders. When a person is on trial for murder, they begin introducing evidence to prove that they are responsible for the murders. This is the purpose of a trial. This is where the proven guilty part comes in. The fact that she tried to buy prussic acid without a physicians prescription, when you cannot buy it without a physicians prescription, could go to prove that she was buying it for something other than what it could be legally sold for. Prussic acid is also a deadly poison. It could go to intent. When is the last time you wanted to go out and buy a deadly poison for an innocent use? Again please read some of my argument above.

Is a person innocent until proven guilty? YES. But the whole reason Lizzie was found innocent was because some of the evidence which could have been used to prove her guilt was supressed. The poison testimony, her inquest testimony...Because in my opinion the judges were biased. The judges received a good deal of critism in legal circles after the trial for the way they handled things. In my above post that is a judge, who is pretty much aware of the law I would think because he is a judge, saying there was no reason that the prussic acid evidence should've been excluded.

[Allen]

I get a little frustrated when I make an argument, and it seems the whole point of my argument was missed. I'm sorry if I sound a little touchy in my last post.

The whole idea that Prussic acid could be used as a pesticide and that is an innocent use, also makes no sense to me. I don't see Lizzie out dusting any crops in her life time.It was also not used for cleaning seal skin, which is what the prosecution was trying to show, but were not allowed to show.

[Allen]

These were also not creepy neighbors that were murdered, Lizzie lived in the home with Abby and Andrew.

[theebmonique]

Maybe I have not expressed my thinking clearly. I know you feel you have a very clear, concise, and valid reasoning for why the prussic acid should have been admitted as evidence. You have some well thought ought ideas, I just don't always agree with you. I guess I am not getting WHY that should be held against Lizzie when Andrew and Abby were killed with an axe (or other similar implement).

Let me redo the neighbor story. For instance, my neighbor thinks it's ok to come in my yard and give various edible things to my dogs. I have never really given my dogs anything but dog food, very good dog food. So, when the neighbor brings them a hunk of leftover steak, while the dogs think it is VERY delicious, they are not used to food like that and they get 'upset stomachs" within a few hours. I have begged and pleaded with my neighbor to NOT give my dogs treats...I have even said thank you, I appreciate the thought, but they get sick...etc. This same neighbor also likes to fill my garbage can with her extra garbage...leaving me no room for my own garbage. I have begged her to PLEASE ask me first...if I have extra room, then she will be welcomed to it. BUT...she continues.......sigh.

So...the other neighbors know of my feelings towards this neighbor and why. If I buy a gun one day following an argument with my neighbor, then the next day my neighbor dies in a house fire (I do happen to have matches in my house) and I am arrested for her murder...what does my buying a gun have to do with her death ? I can legally own a gun if I want. Maybe my timing in purcahsing a new gun was not great, but HOW is it connected to my neighr's death ?

Honestly, my explanantion is not to upset you Melissa, but to only explain my position on this issue.


Tracy...

[Allen]

Maybe I have not expressed my thinking clearly. I know you feel you have a very clear, concise, and valid reasoning for why the prussic acid should have been admitted as evidence. You have some well thought ought ideas, I just don't always agree with you. I guess I am not getting WHY that should be held against Lizzie when Andrew and Abby were killed with an axe (or other similar implement).

Let me redo the neighbor story. For instance, my neighbor thinks it's ok to come in my yard and give various edible things to my dogs. I have never really given my dogs anything but dog food, very good dog food. So, when the neighbor brings them a hunk of leftover steak, while the dogs think it is VERY delicious, they are not used to food like that and they get 'upset stomachs" within a few hours. I have begged and pleaded with my neighbor to NOT give my dogs treats...I have even said thank you, I appreciate the thought, but they get sick...etc. This same neighbor also likes to fill my garbage can with her extra garbage...leaving me no room for my own garbage. I have begged her to PLEASE ask me first...if I have extra room, then she will be welcomed to it. BUT...she continues.......sigh.

So...the other neighbors know of my feelings towards this neighbor and why. If I buy a gun one day following an argument with my neighbor, then the next day my neighbor dies in a house fire (I do happen to have matches in my house) and I am arrested for her murder...what does my buying a gun have to do with her death ? I can legally own a gun if I want. Maybe my timing in purcahsing a new gun was not great, but HOW is it connected to my neighr's death ?

Honestly, my explanantion is not to upset you Melissa, but to only explain my position on this issue.


Tracy...

Have you never heard of a killer changing their MO even after they have committed one murder? Why does a killer have to stick to one weapon?I'm saying Lizzie couldn't have used the poison as a murder weapon because she couldn't obtain it. So she had to use another instrument of death that was more easily obtained. You can't use a weapon you cannot obtain can you? If a serial murderer first stabs someone, and then a little while later shoots someone, and then a little while later decided to push someone off a building, they could only be convicted of one murder because the weapons changed each time?

I don't understand that reasoning, but it's your reasoning so you're entitled to it. But if someone threatens to kill you with a gun, and then sneaks into your house and stabs you, would not the fact that they threatened your life with any weapon then be evidence? Or would it have to be excluded because they stated they wanted to shoot you?

A few questions:

You were you in your neighbors home, and were the only one, save a servant, who survived the fire?

And did your alibi keep changing as to where you were when it happened?

Was there some evidence indicating you may have destroyed evidence pertaining to the case, for example a dress?

Did these matches need a physicians prescription in order to be purchased?

Were many of the doors of your neighbors home locked, and you were inside and had detailed knowledge of the lay out because you lived there?

Had you been heard to make statements against your neighbors?

In other words, was there any other evidence that could be used to show that you might have killed your neighbors?

If so, then yes I say that buying a gun or any weapon that close in time to the killings should be taken into account. But this poison, as I stated before, was even more suspiscious because IT COULD ONLY BE OBTAINED WITH A DOCTORS PRESCRIPTION WHICH LIZZIE DID NOT HAVE. Anybody without a criminal record can get a gun. Anybody can buy matches. A gun can be used for defending yourself, or hunting. Matches can be used for a multitude of things. But what in the world would she be using prussic acid for? That is the question you have to consider the most valid. That's what makes it suspicious. There was no reason she would have needed to buy prussic acid.

[Allen]

As an aside, in your story you actually obtained the weapon, a gun, The house burned down. So the fact that you bought a gun would probably not carry as much weight in an arson case. But Lizzie could NOT obtain the poison. Therefore it could NOT be used as a weapon. So the murder could not have been perpetrated with a weapon she could not obtain.

[nbcatlover]

Re: French law--there were changes to French constitution and law in 1954.

Lizzie was tried in the era of the Dreyfus case. There was a difference under Napoleanic Law between de jure law (in writing, stated in court) and de facto law (the facts) which had the accused remanded to prisons for long periods without trial and subject to inquistional tactics to secure "confusions" without right to counsel. Napoleanic Law of this period of French history is still practiced in many countries today which are considered to be repressive to the rights of the accused.

[theebmonique]

Thank you so very much for your detailed response.

Do we have proof that Lizzie knew that a Rx was needed to buy prussic acid, and that she didn't really think she she was going to clean a sealskin cape ? I wonder if Lizzie was truly aware of the dangers of prussic acid. I know there has been mention/discussion about a book being opened to a page on prussic acid.


Tracy...

[Allen]

Thank you so very much for your detailed response.

Do we have proof that Lizzie knew that a Rx was needed to buy prussic acid, and that she didn't really think she she was going to clean a sealskin cape ? I wonder if Lizzie was truly aware of the dangers of prussic acid. I know there has been mention/discussion about a book being opened to a page on prussic acid.


Tracy...

Well it's apparent, in my opinion, that Lizzie did not know that it was needed, or she would not have gone to the trouble to try and buy it. Also the fact that she did not know that one was needed in order to make a purchase also shows me she had never tried to buy the poison before for any purpose, or she would've known that you needed a prescription. So if she had never purchased it before, why the day before the murders is she suddenly deciding she needs it?

[theebmonique]

Re: French law--there were changes to French constitution and law in 1954.

Lizzie was tried in the era of the Dreyfus case. There was a difference under Napoleanic Law between de jure law (in writing, stated in court) and de facto law (the facts) which had the accused remanded to prisons for long periods without trial and subject to inquistional tactics to secure "confusions" without right to counsel. Napoleanic Law of this period of French history is still practiced in many countries today which are considered to be repressive to the rights of the accused.

In addition to Cynthia's info, I think we may also benefit from Audrey's input on the subject of French law...Auds ?


Tracy...

[theebmonique]

I just think that IF Lizzie had wanted to use prussic acid as a means of killing A & A, that she would have done a bit more 'research', as to it's availability, uses, dangers, etc., and realized it would take more effort than it was worth...and that the contact with the pharmacy people could implicate her. Yet, they were killed with an axe-type instrument...which was readily available in the home. So even if the prussic acid incident was not murder-related, Lizzie was bound to be a suspect with having a possible murder weapon within her reach. I apparently want to give her too much credit for being intelligent enough to get someone else to commit the murders, rather than doing it herself.


Tracy...

[Allen]

Where would she have gotten this information? That's the first question. The second one being how was she to find out that it could only be obtained without a prescription unless she actually tried to purchase it? How would she have discovered this? I would venture to say she didn't want to ask anyone's advice on the subject.

[theebmonique]

OK...I am thinking...a library ? Or by asking around ? Maybe she even asked Andrew ? It's not like he can tell on her after the fact. She had to find out about prussic acid from SOMEWHERE...or she would have never been able to fit into the scenario of asking for it in the first place...right ?


Tracy...

[nbcatlover]

Personally, I believe Uncle John Morse would have knowledge about prussic acid as it occurs naturally in sorghum grass under certain weather conditions. It was responsible, when first imported, for killing cattle and horses "out West", and Uncle John is a "horse" man.

Also, I have always wondered if Charles F. Borden was a relative. He was involved in Borden & Remington, a chemical company, in Fall River.

Borden & Remington Corp.
Company History


In 1837, the drug and medicine business of Dr. Nathan Durfee, located on Central Street, was purchased by Hale Remington and Company and a line of groceries were added.

About 1850, Robert K. Remington, a son of Hale Remington, took over the business which was carried on in a wooden building near the foot of Anawan Street. Upon the death of R. K. Remington, on November 25, 1886, the business passed into the hands of Edward B. Remington, a son, and Charles F. Borden, a son-in-law. The original company building was on the northeast corner of Anawan and Pond Streets.

Following Mr. Borden’s death in 1905, the control passed to Edward B. Remington, the minority stock being held by Albert A. Harrison and the Borden Family. Subsequently, Mr. Remington sold his interests and, after the death of Mr. Borden’s two sons, Mr. Harrison purchased the controlling shares and became president of the company in 1921. Mr. Harrison originally entered the employ of the company in 1888 as an assistant bookkeeper.

http://www.boremco.com/brhist.htm

New Bedford was involved in whaling and poisoned harpoons had been investigated. The Whaling Museum site is unavailable at the moment, but here's another article about prussic acid being used in the 1830s.

In 1832 Ship William Young of Lieth, Scotland, was fitted out with these prussic-acid harpoons, but was crushed in the ice before the irons could be used. Another whaleship, Clarendon, was sent out with prussic acid in 1833 and Christison described the use of poison during that voyage:

The fact is, that a harpoon-gun was provided; and another seaman states that he himself fired it for the first and only time it was used; that the harpoon was buried deeply in the whale, which immediately "sounded," or dived perpendicularly downwards; but that in a very short time the rope relaxed, and the whale rose to the surface quite dead. And he added, that the men were so appalled by the terrific effect of the harpoon, that they declined to use any more of them.

http://www.whalecraft.net/Poison_Irons.html

Prussic acid use was explored extensively in the 1830s and 1840s, so I believe Lizzie, a great reader, could have found the information if she wanted it.

Bitter almonds (source of cyanide/prussic acid) was used in Victorian baths, to flavor baking items, and was used in a notorious murder in England in 1845, claiming a man had poisoned his girlfriend with Steele's acid, a treatment for varicose veins which contained prussic acid. The defense said she killed herself because she liked to eat bitter almonds.

http://www.tales.ndirect.co.uk/FITZR2.HTML

In fact, in the early part of the Victorian Age, people were quite infatuated with bitter almonds til they started killing themselves with them--hence, the need for a prescription.

[Allen]

OK...I am thinking...a library ? Or by asking around ? Maybe she even asked Andrew ? It's not like he can tell on her after the fact. She had to find out about prussic acid from SOMEWHERE...or she would have never been able to fit into the scenario of asking for it in the first place...right ?


Tracy...

If she was planning to kill her parents with prussic acid, I don't think she would've done a whole lot of asking around about it. If she were to question Andrew about it, I'm sure he would want to know why, that would be my natural response.

Reading up on the subject would have been the best option, in my opinion. But even this has flaws. Because who knows what sort of information would've been available for her to read, such as the fact that it was only available by prescription, or how much had to be used to kill someone. It may not have provided all the information she needed beyond the fact that it was a lethal fast acting poison, some of its uses, and what it's effects were. We can't be sure how much Lizzie knew, or didn't know, or even where she got her information.

I'm going to do a little experiment and see how much information I can find in my own available libraries about prussic acid/ hydrocyanic acid.

[Allen]

All of this information that you have posted that was written about prussic acid is dated anywhere from 1830-1840, and the murder took place in 1845 according to nbcatlover's post. That is a possible gap of anywhere from 47 to 62 years before the murders, and even before Lizzie herself was born. So I am thinking if she was reading any of this material, it was far from up to date. This could explain why she had some misconceptions.

[theebmonique]

Great info Cynthia ! Thank you. Uncle John was certainly a resource for Lizzie. I believe with her love for reading, while prussic acid info is not exactly classic reading, that Lizzie would have know her way enough around a library to be able to gather some info on this poison.

Oh Melissa, that would be so great if you local library had circa-1892 and prior, info on prussic acid...it's uses, cautions etc.. I am guessing anything publshed after the murder date wouldn't count...since Lizzie would not have had access to that info ?


Tracy...

[nbcatlover]

I've been doing some quick research for the 1890s:

Prussic acid/cyanide was used in big ways for:

textile dyes (Fall River)
silverplating (Taunton/Attleborough)
leaching gold in mining of the period (Gold Rush)
fumigating glasshouses (i.e. greenhouses/conservatories)
metal alloys (railroad companies were supposed to have used it--? for the rails? the engines?)

[Allen]

I've been doing some quick research for the 1890s:

Prussic acid/cyanide was used in big ways for:

textile dyes (Fall River)
silverplating (Taunton/Attleborough)
leaching gold in mining of the period (Gold Rush)
fumigating glasshouses (i.e. greenhouses/conservatories)
metal alloys (railroad companies were supposed to have used it--? for the rails? the engines?)

So far none of these uses apply to Lizzie in any way.

[nbcatlover]

The uses don't apply to Lizzie, but there were plenty of people working with it daily, and some in her immediate area. She probably heard stories of "accidents."

H.P. Lovecraft, the Providence writer, was making jokes in a letter about killing himself in the 1920s. He wrote in a letter that he had misplaced his cyanide and would have to use a gun. Ha Ha. It seems to have been a popular method for upper crust suicides since the mid-1870s.

For the years after World War II, much information about cyanide/prussic acid was purged because the Nazis used the fumigant Zylon B (cyanide) in the gas chambers.

But Agatha Christie used had used it as a murder weapon in "Sparkling Cyanide" around 1938. Ask any reader of mysteries about the scent of bitter almonds.

Today it's found in cigarette smoke and bakery items. It was used by Jim Jones in Guyana and was the poison in the Tylenol killings.

There's tons of info about prussic acid depending on if you call it prussic acid, cyanide, bitter almonds, etc. with some going back to the 1700s. I really don't think Lizzie would have had a hard time learning from someone (maybe her Chinese Sunday school workers or her tenants on Ferry St. who probably worked in the mills).

[nbcatlover]

Also, it was used in photography.

It was part of the developing process with silver nitrate for daguerreotypes from 1855 to 1881.

[Allen]

But from what I read, the students were children, and I think that if she would've pointledly asked anyone about prussic acid, they would've come forward during the trial.

[nbcatlover]

I think I've been missing the point:

Clothes moths do affect furs:

As mentioned earlier, clothes moths feed on a variety of animal-based materials, including wool, fur, silk, feathers and leather. Items commonly infested include wool sweaters, coats, blankets, carpets, decorative items, down pillows and comforters, toys and animal trophies. Synthetic fabrics such as polyester and rayon are rarely attacked unless blended with wool, or if they are heavily soiled with food stains or body oils. The larvae prefer to feed in dark, undisturbed areas such as closets, attics, and within boxes where woolens and furs are stored for long periods.

http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/Entomolo ... /ef609.htm

Prussic acid as a fumigant kills lice, fleas, and their eggs, clothes moths, and other insect pests. It takes 24+ hours to fumigate them depending on the temperature. I refuse to quote from sites arguing about revisionist views about the Holocaust so I offer no citations.

I guess the issue is if sealskin is exempted from "furs."

As an aside, I mention that eye-witness identification is a poor source of identifying culprits, and the way Eli Bence was brought to the Borden home in no way constitutes an impartial "line-up".

Line-up procedures recommended today for live line-ups are found beginning on pg. 42 (U.S. Dept. of Justice publication):
www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf

[theebmonique]

I've been doing some quick research for the 1890s:

Prussic acid/cyanide was used in big ways for:

textile dyes (Fall River)
silverplating (Taunton/Attleborough)
leaching gold in mining of the period (Gold Rush)
fumigating glasshouses (i.e. greenhouses/conservatories)
metal alloys (railroad companies were supposed to have used it--? for the rails? the engines?)

So far none of these uses apply to Lizzie in any way.

Yes, while the uses themselves were not something Lizzzie wa involved with directly, knowing some people whwo were involved with these processes may have been a source of information for her. Maybe Lizzie did not ask her questions pointedly, but rather subtley instead ? Maybe she tried the "you get more flies with honey" approach. This may have gotten her the information she wanted plus she may have come off in a much less suspicious manner with her questions.


Tracy...

[Allen]

Bitter almonds may yield from 6 to 8% of prussic acid (also known as hydrogen cyanide). Extract of bitter almond was once used medicinally but even in small doses effects are severe and in larger doses can be deadly; the prussic acid must be removed before consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almonds

Hydrocyanic acid is a dangerous poison (about one twentieth of a gram is considered lethal for an adult), but it is also very volatile and susceptible to hydrolysis at higher temperatures. Therefore, significant amounts of hydrocyanic acid are highly unlikely to accumulate in any dish prepared with bitter almonds. On the other side, incorporation of whole raw bitter almonds is fairly dangerous because, in this case, all of its hydrocyanic acid is formed in one's stomach. Serious poisoning is quite rare with adults, but children may be killed by just a few bitter almonds. Very similar warnings hold for other plants of the genus Prunus, the kernels of which all contain amygdalin: Peach, apricot and, to a lesser extent, cherry and plum. One kernel of bitter almond yields about one milligram of hydrocyanic acid.
http://menyhart.net/blog/2004/05/poisonous-almonds.html


The bitter form of almonds is also used in cooking, but it must first be processed in the raw stage. Bitter almonds contain a toxic amount of prussic acid, which can be further refined into a poison called cyanide. Consuming a handful of raw bitter almonds can lead to death from this poison. Consequently, the prussic acid must be leached out of the bitter almonds before they can be used by humans as food.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-almonds.htm

[Allen]

But do we even know if she DID know anybody she could ask? Is she going to go and fraternize with the tenents in her rentals?

[Audrey]

With all due respect... Sometimes it is difficult, even tedious to engage in a discussion with someone who so clearly thinks one way or another about Lizzie's guilt and seems unwilling to waiver in any way...

It gets frustrating for all of us... It's like a dog with a bone... Single minded and absolute in their intentions and ideas...

And in France, a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty..... Period.

[Allen]

Line-up procedures recommended today for live line-ups are found beginning on pg. 42 (U.S. Dept. of Justice publication):
www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf

At the very beginning of this link:


This document does not intend to create, does not create, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal.

Opinions or points of view expressed in this document represent a consensus of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S Department of Justice.

All this states is that eyewitness identification is not infallable. There is nothing in life that is infallible. We are only human, not robots or computers with perfect memories. Yes, eyewitnesses can be wrong about certain things, but they can also be right. It also suggests improved procedures for the collection and preservation of eyewitness evidence.

Eyewitness identification is a poor source for identifying culprits? So we shouldn't use any evidence of prussic acid because it is not an axe, and we shouldn't believe the person who saw and heard Lizzie in his store? One of the witnesses in the drugstore that day also knew Lizzie, and knew her on sight. He testified it was her.I ask what kind of evidence you all believe we should use? A video camera and a tape recorder and a signed confession?

[Allen]

With all due respect... Sometimes it is difficult, even tedious to engage in a discussion with someone who so clearly thinks one way or another about Lizzie's guilt and seems unwilling to waiver in any way...

It gets frustrating for all of us... It's like a dog with a bone... Single minded and absolute in their intentions and ideas...

And in France, a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty..... Period.

That is the same thing I have been saying to myself alot here recently.

[theebmonique]

Sometimes tenacity can a plus..yet sometimes it is a PITA. Sometimes I think we could ask questions for those theories we question or disagree with in a less confrontational way. We ALL have our opinions on how things went that day...etc.. But, it can be hard to want to discuss thing politely when told 'no way', or 'that could NOT have happened'...etc.. Despite all the 'evidence' we present, we still may not change someone's opinion on any given point in this case. We have to agree to disagree many times over. Sometimes some of the responses border on "It's my way...or NO way". I want to learn how to make my self more clear in less keystrokes.

Tracy...


Tracy...