{"id":4539,"date":"2018-07-17T12:02:06","date_gmt":"2018-07-17T16:02:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/HatchetOnline\/?p=4539"},"modified":"2024-08-16T14:03:35","modified_gmt":"2024-08-16T18:03:35","slug":"the-closing-argument-for-the-commonwealth-did-hosea-knowlton-author-the-legend","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/the-closing-argument-for-the-commonwealth-did-hosea-knowlton-author-the-legend\/","title":{"rendered":"The Closing Argument for the Commonwealth: Did Hosea Knowlton Author the Legend?"},"content":{"rendered":"

First published in Fall, 2009, Volume 6, Issue 2, The Hatchet: Journal of Lizzie Borden Studies<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

An Impossible Crime<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Knowlton begins his summation with an acknowledgment that this is a painful case, that the crimes in connection with the identity of the accused, together with the duty of the jury\u2014\u201cthere is that in it all which lacerates the heartstrings of humanity.\u201d He calls it an incredible crime and speculates about the improbability of it.\u00a0 <\/span>Knowlton wants to condition the jury against the expectation of seeing an image of an axe murderess in the visage of Lizzie Borden, to understand that this guilt doesn\u2019t show: \u201cIt was a terrible crime. It was an impossible crime. But it was committed. And very much, very much, Mr. Foreman, of the difficulty of solving this awful tragedy starts from the very impossibility of the thing itself.\u201d He describes the crime as a thing believable only in fiction and yet it was committed\u2014an observation that resonates today after a century of study. It is deeply perplexing as to whether Lizzie is guilty or innocent. Knowlton then goes on to show by examples how neither gender, nor age, nor reputation has ever been a guaranteed virtue that renders anyone incapable of a brutal crime.<\/span><\/p>\n

Circumstantial Evidence<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Without direct evidence against Lizzie, Knowlton\u2019s case is based on circumstantial evidence, and he is aware of the popular notion that circumstantial evidence is unreliable.\u00a0 <\/span>\u201cI speak of it frankly, for many honest men have been heard to say\u2014I have heard many an honest man say that he could not believe circumstantial evidence.\u201d He makes a literary reference to illustrate how powerful a single piece of circumstantial evidence can be: When Robinson Crusoe discovered the footprint in the sand, he knew he was not alone on the island.\u00a0 <\/span>He continues to prepare for the presentation of his case by expanding on his explanation of circumstantial evidence. He defines it through the use of the analogy of a flowing stream. One can see the direction of the flow by an observation of the refuse that floats upon it. Some debris may go here or there, but the vast majority runs in the same direction. He asserts that eye witness reports are often less reliable.<\/span><\/p>\n

Malice Against Abby<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIt was the malice against Mrs. Borden that inspired the assassin. It was Mrs. Borden whose life that wicked person sought; and all the motive that we have to consider, all we have to say about this case bears on her.\u201d As he delves into Lizzie\u2019s hatred of her stepmother, Knowlton is expounding on what may fairly be called the soul of his case against Lizzie, for without this it is not possible to believe in Lizzie Borden the assassin of parents, regardless of the circumstantial evidence arrayed against her. At least, this is what Knowlton has reckoned. The irony of his case is that while he claims the Prosecution does not need to prove motive, he actually spends a great deal of time on matters connected to it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Knowlton paints a picture of a quarrelsome, embittered household where animosity festers and volatile anger must be constantly suppressed.\u00a0 <\/span>He uses every kind of evidence available to him to demonstrate Lizzie\u2019s murderous hatred of Abby \u2013 the refusal to call her Mother and the resentment over Andrew\u2019s financial assistance for Abby\u2019s relations; the remark to the dressmaker, calling Abby a \u201cmean, good for nothing old thing;\u201d the correction made to the officer who referred to Abby as Lizzie\u2019s Mother.<\/span><\/p>\n

Knowlton claims that the wounds in Abby\u2019s skull indicate the work of a woman. \u201cThe hand that held that weapon was not the hand of masculine strength. It was the hand of a person strong only in hate and desire to kill.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>Interestingly, the Defense would make the opposite argument. Knowlton\u2019s contention about the nature of the axe wounds is actually based on a very subjective interpretation. This is a case of physical evidence that is difficult or practically impossible to duplicate.<\/span><\/p>\n

Knowlton makes a compelling argument that Lizzie Borden despised her stepmother enough to take an axe to her. But does evidence of any kind sufficiently support the theory? There is actually very little to give it credence\u2014a few hostile words and petty jealousies. No witness ever heard Lizzie say that she wished Abby was dead, for example. There are no witnesses to domestic fights. Yet Knowlton makes the story credible enough. He makes sense of it. And it becomes a part of the Legend\u2014that Lizzie Borden, driven more by ruthless venom for Abby than anything else including money, finally lost the temper of all tempers and put an end to her. But literally, this is fiction, effectively conceived and delivered by the Prosecutor.<\/span><\/p>\n

Knowlton gives us the logistical setup of murder morning, and a reason for Lizzie\u2019s check on Bridget at the back door. Knowlton convincingly demonstrates how Lizzie has sole opportunity to commit each murder. He attacks the note story: \u201cNo note came; no note was written; nobody brought a note; nobody was sick.\u00a0 <\/span>Mrs. Borden had not had a note.\u201d He asserts that Lizzie\u2019s story about a note for Abby was a fabrication to explain Abby\u2019s absence to her father. Knowlton then discredits the implication made by the Defense that Bridget heard about the note from Abby as well as Lizzie.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Murder of Andrew Borden<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

After an adjournment, Knowlton resumes his argument on June 20th, the thirteenth day of the Trial. He states that he is not called upon to prove motive. Then he goes on to explain the murder of Andrew Borden. \u201cIt was not Lizzie Andrew Borden . . . that came down those stairs, but a murderess, transformed from all the thirty-three years of an honest life, transformed from the daughter, transformed from the ties of affection, to the most consummate criminal we have read of in all our history or works of fiction.\u201d He describes Lizzie\u2019s reason for killing her father as \u201ca wicked and dreadful necessity.\u201d Having established that Lizzie took an axe in the first place because of her hatred of Abby, Knowlton now moves on to explain why she killed her father. He has to create something plausible; what he comes up with is brilliant in that it explains both Lizzie\u2019s sinful point of view and why the second murder was done just when it was, upon Mr. Borden\u2019s return home. She killed her father because he would know that she had killed Abby. Knowlton implies that Lizzie had miscalculated or failed to realize something in connection with her father\u2019s return. Knowlton\u2019s version of Mr. Borden\u2019s murder becomes a strangely morbid part of the Lizzie Legend\u2014the unspeakably corrupt daughter who is driven to cover up a terrible deed by doing something even worse.\u00a0 <\/span>Knowlton describes a chilling detail in the deed: \u201cShe suggests to him, with the spirit in which Judas kissed his Master that, as he is weary with his day\u2019s work, it would be well for him to lie down upon the sofa and rest.\u201d Author Victoria Lincoln would lift this and use it to great effect in her book.<\/span><\/p>\n

A Remarkable Woman<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c. . . I assert that that story is simply incredible, I assert that that story is simply absurd, I assert that that story is not within the bounds of reasonable possibilities.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>Knowlton speaks at length about the implausibility of Lizzie\u2019s barn story. He asks: Where is there a shred of evidence to support any of her various\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

reasons for visiting such a stifling place at this particular point in time?\u00a0 <\/span>He explains how telling it is about the handkerchiefs\u2014that only a few were actually ironed. As for what Lizzie said to Alice Russell the night before\u2014Knowlton defines it in terms of cynical realism. \u201cShe goes to her friend the evening before . . . and prepared her for something dreadful.\u201d Knowlton overlooks the fact that Lizzie\u2019s presentiments as told to Miss Russell involved her father\u2014not Abby\u2014yet Knowlton has posited the theory that Lizzie did not initially intend to kill her father.<\/span><\/p>\n

Then the Prosecutor moves into very psychologically suggestive material about Lizzie Borden the person, the human being, the woman.\u00a0 <\/span>Does she have normal feelings\u2014or is there indeed something of the monster in her makeup?\u00a0 <\/span>He admits that the absence of tears under the circumstances may have been a legitimate way of dealing with horror and grief. But there are some odd things in Lizzie\u2019s demeanor and behavior that are hard to ignore, he asserts. He points out the fact that Lizzie was not frightened out of the house, that whereas Charles Sawyer was nervous standing guard, the idea of danger never seemed to occur to Lizzie Borden. \u201cNo cry was made, no escape from the house was made, no thought of danger was suggested, but we have the calm and quiet demeanor of a woman contrasted with the agitation of a man in the same position within fifteen minutes afterwards . . .\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>When Knowlton refers to Lizzie\u2019s nocturnal visit to the cellar that night after the murders, he is not speaking to the literal-minded but to those who are aware of our normal, non-rational fears\u2014in order to suggest that something is fundamentally wrong or lacking in the nature of Lizzie Borden: \u201c. . . she is certainly a remarkable woman. Some people may share with me in that dread of going down below the stairs into the somewhat damp and gloomy recesses of the cellar after dark. I should not want to confess myself timid, but there have been times when I did not like to do it. And all the use I propose to make of that incident is to emphasize from it the almost stoical nerve of a woman, who, when her friend, not the daughter nor the stepdaughter of these murdered people, but her friend\u2014could not bear to go into the room where those clothes were, should have the nerve to go down there alone, alone, and calmly enter the room for some purpose that I do not [know] what connection with this case.\u201d Knowlton\u2019s interpretation of this is psychologically astute and scary.<\/span><\/p>\n

How Did She Do It?<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Unlike most of Knowlton\u2019s theories, his evidence concerning Lizzie\u2019s dress is based on eye-witness accounts. His detective work on this subject is comprehensive and completely convincing. It is doubtful it has ever been successfully refuted, although Victoria Lincoln tried to do so in her book by adding a big twist on Knowlton\u2019s analysis. Knowlton\u2019s conclusion is that the dress Lizzie claimed to have worn murder morning was a fraud; the one she burned was actually what she was wearing. Knowlton admits that the lack of blood evidence against Lizzie is puzzling. He attributes this largely to female cunning. But he does invent one item that has captured the imagination of writers\u2014that Lizzie used Andrew\u2019s coat as a shield. He points to the suspicious nature of it as it is, draped over the arm of the sofa. Perhaps the weakest portion of Knowlton\u2019s argument concerns the hatchet. His conclusion is that maybe the handleless hatchet was the murder weapon, maybe it wasn\u2019t; it doesn\u2019t matter anyway, he claims. His contention is that a hidden or disposed of hatchet confirms Lizzie\u2019s guilt, that any intruder would have left it at the scene. In an indirect sense, Knowlton is building the Legend with this particular argument, which reinforces another essential facet of it\u2014the inscrutability of Lizzie Borden.<\/span><\/p>\n

Where the Stream Leads<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

As Knowlton reaches the end, he tells the jury that there is in fact no defense from the \u201carray of impregnable facts\u201d that stand in condemnation against Lizzie Borden. \u201cWe get hatred, we get malice, we get falsehood about the position and disposition of the body; we get absurd and impossible alibis.\u201d As he describes to the jury their duty, he becomes manipulative. Mercy is not appropriate now, he explains; they must have the courage to find her guilty. We are able to hear in his closing passages his awareness of the weight of the common sympathy for Lizzie Borden. \u201cRise, gentlemen, rise to the altitude of your duty.\u00a0 <\/span>Act as you would be reported to act when you stand before the Great White Throne at the last day. What shall be your reward? The ineffable consciousness of duty done.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Knowlton as Storyteller<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

It would appear that Knowlton realized the weakness of his case, as it was based on circumstantial evidence, and that he found it necessary to delve into Lizzie\u2019s motivations in order to create a convincing argument for her guilt. His task was essentially to make \u201cLizzie Borden\u00a0 <\/span>the axe murderess\u201d as plausible as possible. He did this by using every shred of evidence available, in addition to his own speculations and inventions, to make her look bad, suspicious, abnormal. He did terrific analysis on the dress evidence and made a strong argument that included a clever analogy for the veracity of circumstantial evidence. But in a factual sense, he could not reach the altitude of proving her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is unlikely that any other lawyer could have done so. It is also hard to believe that just any lawyer could have given the same performance with the same nuances. Moody opened for the Prosecution using the same material, but Knowlton took it to another level through the application of intuitive reasoning and invention concerning the most baffling features. He told a spine-tingling story, complete with character development and uncanny details. His story has the foundational elements of the Lizzie Legend. It was told in Lizzie\u2019s presence in a courtroom, presented whole and documented for the first time, before the verdict. What Knowlton lost in the courtroom, he actually won for posterity.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Knowlton claims that the wounds in Abby\u2019s skull indicate the work of a woman.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":5219,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-cutting-room"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/16"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4539"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4539\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5220,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4539\/revisions\/5220"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5219"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}