The Robinson papers have they been released?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:58 pm

I was reading the link that was in another post on the forum. The article Lizzie Bordens legal Papers found, by Paul Edward Park, and was wandering have they been released yet. From what I got out of the article, sounds like it was going to the surpreme court to see if they could be released because of the attorney client privledge. The Robinson, Donovon, Madden and Barry law firm(the one that succeeded Gov. Robinson law firm) still has the papers.

I think it would make for some interesting reading, maybe see if there is a confession in there.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:44 am

It's true that the only way they would be released by the public is if it went to the Supreme Court.

I haven't heard that it did. Can you tell us where the article was so we can read it?

As far as I know, they will not ever release them.

What gets me, is the attorneys that are there now probably read them. And they were not her lawyer.

Ad · Post by Ad » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:42 pm

Snokkums,
Can you connect the dots for me? Where on this forum did you read about the Robinson papers?
How do I find this posting? I'm new here and I'm just starting to find my way around.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:17 pm

Hello Ad, welcome to the forum.

You can find the article referring to Robinson's files at this web site:

http://www.s-t.com/daily/04-98/04-14-98/a02lo019.htm

There is a search feature on the first screen which can help in locating specific words.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:31 am

Thank you Harry!

Ad · Post by Ad » Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:20 am

Yes, Thank you Harry. I was really hoping that something new was on the horizon, but it looks like the same red tape...sigh!!
I'm not expecting a signed confession, but every piece of the puzzle counts. Besides, it would give us all something new to talk about for years to come.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:37 pm

HI Ad!
I clicked on your *website* but it's just a bunch of portraits. Am I going to the right place? What is it?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:54 pm

Welcome to the forum Ad.

I went to your website as well. Is it about a company where you buy into it in some fashion, and then recruit people to work (selling) at levels under you, then you make the money ? I would not be good at that sort of thing.

Tracy...

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:57 am

Do you not think that, if there was something that was helpful in showing Lizzie's innocence, the papers would be brought forth without any problem? It seems to me that by hiding them for all these years it shows that whatever is being hidden is damning to Lizzie's case. Very telling.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:27 am

Well, Lizzie was acquitted so she doesn't need any press now to prove that she was *innocent,* right?
I mean, her lawyers firm would look at it that way.
She and Emma paid for that defense and so they own it.
Anyway, the Vince Foster case in the Supreme Court is what they cite now- personally I don't think it really applies. They could release that stuff if they wanted. I don't think they want to be bothered.
Mostly we'd be looking for Bridget's Inquest testimony.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:41 am

Another possibility is that the lawyer's reputation might be compromised by releasing the information.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:09 am

Do you mean Robinson's defense team? Do you think there's some *shady* stuff in there?

Protecting the reputation of a dead man is controversial.
But it hasn't stopped people from maligning the victim, Andrew Borden.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:26 am

Thank you Harry for posting that link. Would sure love to see those papers. I'm sure that we all would! I keep wondering what was said between them & how he advised her to be sure she would be acquitted.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:16 am

For all you wanna-be lawyers attached is the Supreme Court's ruling of the Foster client/lawyer privilege case. They reversed, by a vote of 6 to 3, the initial ruling by a lower court that the Foster records should be available.

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:41 am

i'd be very interested in anything having to do with possible suspects and leads that Lizzie's team were working on. if I recollect correctly, both Lizzie and Robinson alluded to the fact that other leads were being worked on (even after the trial and acquital) and that Lizzie herself claimed to have an idea about who did the deed, but would not reveal the suspect(s) identity without more proof of guilt.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:06 am

Thanks for that Supreme Court download Harry !

Tracy...

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:00 am

Kat @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:09 pm wrote:Do you mean Robinson's defense team? Do you think there's some *shady* stuff in there?

Protecting the reputation of a dead man is controversial.
But it hasn't stopped people from maligning the victim, Andrew Borden.

There might be evidence in the papers of shady dealing, or there might be evidence of Lizzie's guilt and the defense's awareness of it. I suggest that successfully defending a guilty client when you are aware of her guilt is more damaging than when it is done unwittingly, without awareness of guilt. The former suggests complicity in a conspiracy, but the latter is simply a lawyer doing what he was hired to do.

The reluctance to release the papers might simply be a hesitance to set a possibly dangerous precedent. If they do it in this case, they might be compelled to do it in other cases.