Robinson Papers

[Inspector]

I know the standard answer, but why keep them secret?
Is the film being paid off to do so?

Any profiteers of the mystery wouldn’t want any closure to the case, that’s a given, but do you believe the Robinson Papers will actually help solve the case?

I don’t think they contain Bridget’s inquest.

[camgarsky4]

Inspector - this post seems like is missing an introduction. Not sure what film is paid off to do what?

If the Robinson papers exist and if they provide any information beyond what we already possess, then it could certainly only help in deciphering this case. I can only imagine 'they' are not forthcoming to be a bit onery or they don't know where the file is and don't want the huge public embarrassment of conceding they've misplaced the files for one of the nation's biggest trials. Some say laws prevent them releasing the information, but I can't imagine that protection right is for infinity.

Why do you not think they include Bridget's inquest? Just curious what is driving your opinion on this.

[camgarsky4]

I can't imagine Lizzie confessed to the defense team. I also don't think they had strong evidence implicating another suspect or they would have surfaced that distinct possibility.

So, without one of those two items being included in the missing file, the case would still be debated...just maybe with more information to chew on and form more and differing theories!!

[Inspector]

Sorry for the error, I meant to say firm, and I just feel it’s asking too much to believe we will hear from Bridget again.
What a thrill it would be though.

Misplaced files is something I hadn’t thought of, that would be frustrating for sure.

I thought perhaps if Lizzie had confessed in the 3 hour jail interview, that’s possibly in the papers, the law firm would be embarrassed for protecting Lizzie.

[camgarsky4]

Because they referenced it directly a couple times during the trial, we know the defense team had a copy of her inquest transcript. So, if there is a case file at the Robinson law firm, I can't imagine why it wouldn't include her inquest transcript. Why would they have a file, but toss key evidence?

That said, Knowlton wrote that her inquest testimony didn't differ materially from her prelim and trial testimony. That doesn't mean it doesn't, but I would be surprised if it provided much more than a couple of 'eyebrow raisers'.

[Inspector]

I hope you’re right, it would be like going back in time.

[Lorcan]

I'm on the road, so I won't be on the forum much for the next few days. Here's an older thread that covers some of the legal fight to gain access to those papers:

viewtopic.php?t=3413

[CuriouserCat]

I could definitely imagine there being something interesting in those papers.

Like if the defense outlined to Lizzie that the greatest arguments the prosecution might have are the disquiet in the house and the bucket full of soaking period napkins, all of which came from Bridget ... and then interestingly, Bridget changed her opinion on those two items in court, where she said the house was very quiet and she witnessed no fights, when she'd already stated that she wanted to leave multiple times because of how mean the girls were to Abby, (boldly offering fanfic versions of statements from recollection), and I believe she was no longer certain that the period bucket wasn't there on Wednesday. Did the lawyer suggest a bribe? Did Emma arrange one? Did they know?

There could certainly be situations in which they suggested perhaps her story could change or to shift under prosecution. Even personal observations by the attorneys. Maybe something that makes the lawyers look guilty of helping to hide the crime or encouraging their client to bribe Bridget.

I doubt we'd get so lucky, but who knows.
Of course, they could just destroy those pages that could implicate them, but maybe they just don't know what's in them and don't want to spend the time and money to sift through old-time records, or risk having it come out that their founder was up to anything nefarious. Assuming the current partners aren't Lizzy Borden wonks, there may be minimal interest and no positive return for them in opening themselves up to investigation, and lawyers would certainly want to avoid the scandal if it came out their founder knew for a fact she was guilty and helped her get away with murder.

[Inspector]

From my understanding, some attorneys demand to know the truth from their clients in order to properly protect, and defend their clients as well as themselves.
Whether they would notate such information is doubtful.

From all I’ve read, Jennings was a big believer in Lizzie’s innocence, but this doesn’t necessarily mean the same for Robinson.