Where did Robinson stand on Lizzies' quilt?

[snokkums]

I have always wondered about where Robinsons' personal opinion on Lizzies' quilt or innocence. I know publicly, he was probably saying she was innocent, and he believed she was, but I have always wondered if maybe in private he might have believed otherwise and said something to someone. In high profile cases, the lawyers are always saying they believe their client, but what do they believe privately. It would be great to be a fly on the wall when they are having private conversations!!

[Curryong]

Good question, snokkums! As far as I know he always maintained that Lizzie was innocent, in public that is! What he stated to his wife of an evening when he was relaxing with a whisky after dinner, nobody knows.

We know that Jennings lost patience with Lizzie after her shoplifting episode with the little painted figurines, and a junior member of her defence team was determined to try and clear Lizzie's name, years afterwards.

I doubt whether Robinson told anyone if he did think her guilty. It would look very cynical indeed for a leading lawyer to take such a huge fee and then, after the trial turn round and say he thought his client was guilty anyway.

[BOBO]

I read somewhere (notes not handy) that when Robinson first met with Lizzie they talked in private for about an HOUR before he came out and said he would defend her. Seems a little long just to decide if she was guilty/innocent. More like "lets get the story straight", which she didn't...lol. Regardless if he thought her guilty or not, you know the old saying... "Money talks and BS walks".

[snokkums]

I read somewhere (notes not handy) that when Robinson first met with Lizzie they talked in private for about an HOUR before he came out and said he would defend her. Seems a little long just to decide if she was guilty/innocent. More like "lets get the story straight", which she didn't...lol. Regardless if he thought her guilty or not, you know the old saying... "Money talks and BS walks".

I agree, an hour is a little long to talk about whether or not he wants to defend her. Maybe he was trying to determine what happened? But even then,this is just the first conversation they would have had, and it would seem kind of odd (to me anyway) to be talking about what happened. Seems to me that's the second conversation, after the lawyer decides to take the case.

And you are right, money talks BS walks. If you have money, you are innocent, and if you don't have money, you are guilty!! LOL!!

[BOBO]

TOTAL BRAIN FREEZE HERE....... What was the date Lizzie hired Robinson? Sorry, but I'm away from my notes.

[debbiediablo]

What he stated to his wife of an evening when he was relaxing with a whisky after dinner, nobody knows.

I doubt whether Robinson told anyone if he did think her guilty. It would look very cynical indeed for a leading lawyer to take such a huge fee and then, after the trial turn round and say he thought his client was guilty anyway.

A good attorney would never discuss a case with anyone, not even their spouse. I'm guessing he thought she was not guilty; even Knowlton thought they didn't have enough evidence to convict. Thing is that in the legal system not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

[irina]

Sometime I need to re-read the closing arguments for the trial. What Robinson actually said there can also give us some idea of what he really thought. There is a BIG difference between, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit", and "O.J. Simpson is innocent; He DID NOT kill Ron and Nichole." Did Robinson ever say Lizzie was INNOCENT? Did he say she had been locked up long enough and the state didn't prove the case? Big difference.

The reason I'm slothful in reading the lawyers' statements is my mind wanders after two or three of those flowery sentences.

[BOBO]

TOTAL BRAIN FREEZE HERE....... What was the date Lizzie hired Robinson? Sorry, but I'm away from my notes.

A three year old post by snokkums answered my question. Feb. 1893.

[irina]

I read through Robinson's closing argument. I'm not much of a speed reader but didn't have time to consume all hundred and some pages. What I think I figured out is that Robinson never said he personally knew that Lizzie was innocent. That bothered me until I remembered that Lizzie had had her say about being innocent and letting her lawyers speak for her. Robinson used every possible detail to say she was innocent plus a lot more. In the end I don't know if it was style to do it this way or if it meant anything else. Arthur Phillips wrote something that I take to mean the attorneys had a good idea about another suspect or suspects but did not dare bring it up because they could not prove a case against anyone else and failing that Lizzie would more likely have been convicted. Phillips seemed to believe in Lizzie's innocence as I read his work. It means a lot to me when someone who was very close to the case has a strong feeling. Of course if they believe their client was really guilty, attorneys will say nothing after the fact, but innocence can be discussed.

[Curryong]

Defence counsel use every tactic in court, nowadays and over 100 years ago, to do their best to get their client found not guilty. If it besmirches another person by inference, well, that's just too bad! The suspect they had in mind was probably John Morse.

After all, Jennings had already sent a detective west to try and gather dirt on him. In spite of an obviously viable alibi he was the only male then alive who had been at No 92 during the Wednesday/Thursday, so they'd naturally flick some dirt in that direction, as well as the pale man who turned out to be a tubercular ex-soldier and who was passing at around the time. I've no doubt Robinson did think his client innocent. All the best defence counsel fervently believe in their clients, or make a good stab at doing so.

[debbiediablo]

Who was it who had someone whose ancestors were directly related to the case who said the attorneys were convinced it was Emma!

[Curryong]

LOL ! Well that theory has been discussed on here before, based on a book I can't think of the title of at the moment. I'm just imagining Emma sneaking out of her friends' Fairhaven home, second-hand tailored suit on, hair tucked under her hat, hatchet in bag, Hercule Poirot moustache nicely glued on! Ready to go!

More seriously, what Emma knew or didn't know about the murders and whether she knew or guessed who the murderer was, is always an interesting topic.