How do you do? Posting for the first time here, I wish to begin by saying how fascinating this forum is. Thanks largely to it I have become quite a devotee of the subject. Like anybody not born dead, I've always known about the Borden murder case; at least, I thought I knew about it. The story turns out to have levels and layers galore, some of which have been real eye openers. Having learned vastly more now, I only have the feeling that I'm still scraping the surface.
That being said, I've attempted to absorb the gist and more. I've read the hearing and trial transcripts, plus several books. Also, I've gone through the entire available archives for this site, a mighty endeavor in itself! And, I've watched numerous video or recorded TV shows online, although their general caliber didn't impress me.
Fond enough I've become of the Lizzie saga that I composed an essay outlining my observations on the case at this time. Perhaps that modest treatise is the best way to introduce myself. "Musings on the Borden Murder Case" can be read on my web site at https://jefferyscottsims.webs.com/lizzieborden.html
All of my knowledge at this moment comes from the literature. I envy those who have visited the house, even stayed there. What a thrill that must be! The topic is oddly alluring. I'm somewhat amused by how it fastened hold of me. Apparently that is a malady shared by many.
First Greetings
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
Vorchek
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:48 pm
- Real Name: Jeffery Scott Sims
- Location: Surprise, AZ
- Contact:
-
Rolie Polie
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:35 pm
- Real Name: Beverly Blakemore
Re: First Greetings
Hello! Welcome. It's nice to meet you. I also am a new member from about 2 weeks ago. I was a guest for many months, finding this by accident during the pandemic when I was stuck at home. It has been a very interesting trip through History. Lots to look at here.
-
Lizzie A.B. MA
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:53 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Lizzie A. Borden Kersting
- Location: Fall River, MA-5months per year in Germany with, my German husband
Re: First Greetings
Hello and Welcome!
Oh yes behind all this is a big fascination,
A few weeks I decided to stay here in this forum.
Lizzie has a magic of Ansich and, mystery that captured me. Before, I came into contact about mine and their connection.
Best wishes
L.A.B
Oh yes behind all this is a big fascination,
A few weeks I decided to stay here in this forum.
Lizzie has a magic of Ansich and, mystery that captured me. Before, I came into contact about mine and their connection.
Best wishes
L.A.B
„The further we get in exploring his, the more mysterious it becomes for us.“
L.A. Borden Kersting
L.A. Borden Kersting
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1814
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: First Greetings
Vorchek -- welcome to the site.
Enjoyed reading your paper. I'd like to probe a bit on your sections regarding the Prussic Acid and the Crowe roof hatchet.
You state yourself that finding the hatchet on the roof doesn't point the finger at anyone, so why would the prosecution or the defense introduce the information in the middle of a trial? Frankly, the find would be most beneficial to the defense since it would strongly indicate an outside intruder who was escaping the house and create more 'reasonable doubt'. However, the defense was clearly winning the case, so they would avoid anything that could change the course of the trial. So the hatch stayed out of the trial. That really shouldn't be a surprising outcome.
Is the reason you discard this event because of the timing of the find? Any other reasons?
On the Prussic Acid, if I'm understanding correctly, I think you are signaling that you don't find that event relevant to the case......but I'm not clear why you believe so.
Look forward to the banter.....Thanks!
Enjoyed reading your paper. I'd like to probe a bit on your sections regarding the Prussic Acid and the Crowe roof hatchet.
You state yourself that finding the hatchet on the roof doesn't point the finger at anyone, so why would the prosecution or the defense introduce the information in the middle of a trial? Frankly, the find would be most beneficial to the defense since it would strongly indicate an outside intruder who was escaping the house and create more 'reasonable doubt'. However, the defense was clearly winning the case, so they would avoid anything that could change the course of the trial. So the hatch stayed out of the trial. That really shouldn't be a surprising outcome.
Is the reason you discard this event because of the timing of the find? Any other reasons?
On the Prussic Acid, if I'm understanding correctly, I think you are signaling that you don't find that event relevant to the case......but I'm not clear why you believe so.
Look forward to the banter.....Thanks!
-
Vorchek
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:48 pm
- Real Name: Jeffery Scott Sims
- Location: Surprise, AZ
- Contact:
Re: First Greetings
I appreciate your taking the time to read my mini-tome. You touch upon two stand-out moments from this curiously convoluted case. My views on both derive from my impression that there is so much inherently wrong with the claims.
As to the hatchet on the roof, no matter how hard I try I can't climb up there and accept it on any terms. I don't believe any murderer ever touched the thing. The timing of the find is dime store novel material; the manner of the finding, the notion it could have rusted up there all that time, the workman's statement that it belonged to him, all put it beyond the pale. I don't see how either side could have used it convincingly as evidence. Point well taken that the defense didn't need it. The prosecution, behind on points, might have given it a whirl, if they had seen any virtue in presenting it. They didn't. I suspect they agreed with me. The police weren't interested. The episode reeks of publicity stunt.
Eli Bence's tale of the intended poison purchase is in a very different league. To my untrained legal mind, it is peculiar that such evidence wasn't admitted at the trial. Then again, I'm puzzled by much of what was excluded on both sides. Anyway, the prussic acid testimony is surely relevant. The question is whether it's accurate. There's evidence, however fuzzy, that Lizzie didn't go out that morning; if true, then the event simply didn't happen. Not with Lizzie, that is. The clumsy method of identification, in violation of standard procedure (as noted at the time, not just decades later), throws another monkey wrench into acceptance. How different I would feel if she had been picked from a lineup! I'll bet that, all by itself, would have overcome the trial judges' technical scruples. The foregoing makes it easier for me to say that the story doesn't sound right, with too many improbable elements. I doubt that it happened as told. If the testimony had been admitted, it would have been great to hear what kind of argument countered it: whether a strict denial, or more information on uses for the stuff other than murder!
As to the hatchet on the roof, no matter how hard I try I can't climb up there and accept it on any terms. I don't believe any murderer ever touched the thing. The timing of the find is dime store novel material; the manner of the finding, the notion it could have rusted up there all that time, the workman's statement that it belonged to him, all put it beyond the pale. I don't see how either side could have used it convincingly as evidence. Point well taken that the defense didn't need it. The prosecution, behind on points, might have given it a whirl, if they had seen any virtue in presenting it. They didn't. I suspect they agreed with me. The police weren't interested. The episode reeks of publicity stunt.
Eli Bence's tale of the intended poison purchase is in a very different league. To my untrained legal mind, it is peculiar that such evidence wasn't admitted at the trial. Then again, I'm puzzled by much of what was excluded on both sides. Anyway, the prussic acid testimony is surely relevant. The question is whether it's accurate. There's evidence, however fuzzy, that Lizzie didn't go out that morning; if true, then the event simply didn't happen. Not with Lizzie, that is. The clumsy method of identification, in violation of standard procedure (as noted at the time, not just decades later), throws another monkey wrench into acceptance. How different I would feel if she had been picked from a lineup! I'll bet that, all by itself, would have overcome the trial judges' technical scruples. The foregoing makes it easier for me to say that the story doesn't sound right, with too many improbable elements. I doubt that it happened as told. If the testimony had been admitted, it would have been great to hear what kind of argument countered it: whether a strict denial, or more information on uses for the stuff other than murder!
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1814
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: First Greetings
Vorchek -- I see this a bit differently than you.....there is no evidence, hazy or not, that Lizzie did not leave the house between breakfast and lunch. Bridget and Abby presumed she was in her room since they didn't see her between breakfast and lunch, but that isn't evidence. She was 'sick', even though she is the only member of the household that didn't vomit. Her bedroom had direct access to the front door and the pharmacy was just a few minutes walk away.
Bowen testified seeing her early in the day when he came over to check on the Borden's (Lizzie scurried upstairs), but not during the timeline of the visit to the pharmacy. Did she scurry upstairs to avoid interaction with a doctor?
There is zero testimony that she was home at the time the three gentlemen state she was at the pharmacy.
That the police didn't conduct a formal lineup doesn't mean that Bence didn't recognize Lizzie. Skipping the lineup procedure would have given the defense a great attack point if the testimony had been admitted. But not sure why it would have made Bence's identification any more valid; Bence could have erred with a lineup just as well.
On why the testimony was not allowed, I believe the Judges basis was that the prosecution did not prove that Prussic Acid did not have a reasonable non-lethal use and therefore wasn't relevant to a murder trial. Robinson just out-lawyered the prosecution on this topic.
Another tidbit that I find compelling.....Bence and compatriots told police about the attempt to purchase Prussic Acid BEFORE they would have known that poisoning was even an aspect in the Borden murders. They had no idea that Abby went running over that very morning to the Bowen's worried that someone might be trying to poison them. They had no idea that there would be similar testimony that Lizzie had attempted to purchase Prussic Acid in New Bedford at two different pharmacies in the prior weeks.
Frankly, I see no reason to disregard their testimony unless we just want greater certainty, which we won't get at this point. So much of this case is less than pristine, that if we disregard the testimony of 3 men stating a specific event occurred (without any countering proof), then not sure what we can choose to believe about this case other than Abby and Andrew died. That sure would take away most of the fun!
Bowen testified seeing her early in the day when he came over to check on the Borden's (Lizzie scurried upstairs), but not during the timeline of the visit to the pharmacy. Did she scurry upstairs to avoid interaction with a doctor?
There is zero testimony that she was home at the time the three gentlemen state she was at the pharmacy.
That the police didn't conduct a formal lineup doesn't mean that Bence didn't recognize Lizzie. Skipping the lineup procedure would have given the defense a great attack point if the testimony had been admitted. But not sure why it would have made Bence's identification any more valid; Bence could have erred with a lineup just as well.
On why the testimony was not allowed, I believe the Judges basis was that the prosecution did not prove that Prussic Acid did not have a reasonable non-lethal use and therefore wasn't relevant to a murder trial. Robinson just out-lawyered the prosecution on this topic.
Another tidbit that I find compelling.....Bence and compatriots told police about the attempt to purchase Prussic Acid BEFORE they would have known that poisoning was even an aspect in the Borden murders. They had no idea that Abby went running over that very morning to the Bowen's worried that someone might be trying to poison them. They had no idea that there would be similar testimony that Lizzie had attempted to purchase Prussic Acid in New Bedford at two different pharmacies in the prior weeks.
Frankly, I see no reason to disregard their testimony unless we just want greater certainty, which we won't get at this point. So much of this case is less than pristine, that if we disregard the testimony of 3 men stating a specific event occurred (without any countering proof), then not sure what we can choose to believe about this case other than Abby and Andrew died. That sure would take away most of the fun!
-
Vorchek
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:48 pm
- Real Name: Jeffery Scott Sims
- Location: Surprise, AZ
- Contact:
Re: First Greetings
The Borden case is rife with claims to which various writers grant varying weight. I would hesitate to declare any evidence which fails to convince as "no evidence." At worst, it fails to convince. If there were a clear path through the Borden murder tangle then the entire subject would have been a dead letter ages ago. After all, it appears that an insufficient amount of the prosecution evidence impressed Lizzie's jury. That doesn't alter the fact that there was a mountain of such evidence: depending on one's point of view, good or bad.
The evidence, such as it is, can be understood to place Lizzie at home that Wednesday morning, except for the prussic acid testimony. Therefore the quality of the identification looms large. If Bence had picked Lizzie out of a lineup it would have been a real big deal. If, in the same circumstance, he had picked the wrong woman, that outcome should have also loudly reverberated. Proceeding according to Hoyle would have provided much greater clarity.
Lizzie-supporting writers differ on how they handle the matter. Some see it all as a mistake, others as innocent shopping. It's unfortunate that the issue wasn't wrung through the ringer at the trial. We have the testimony from the preliminary hearing. It doesn't clinch the matter, leaving us hanging with unanswered questions. I still wonder whether a would-be murderer would attempt to purchase poison that requires a doctor's prescription!
The evidence, such as it is, can be understood to place Lizzie at home that Wednesday morning, except for the prussic acid testimony. Therefore the quality of the identification looms large. If Bence had picked Lizzie out of a lineup it would have been a real big deal. If, in the same circumstance, he had picked the wrong woman, that outcome should have also loudly reverberated. Proceeding according to Hoyle would have provided much greater clarity.
Lizzie-supporting writers differ on how they handle the matter. Some see it all as a mistake, others as innocent shopping. It's unfortunate that the issue wasn't wrung through the ringer at the trial. We have the testimony from the preliminary hearing. It doesn't clinch the matter, leaving us hanging with unanswered questions. I still wonder whether a would-be murderer would attempt to purchase poison that requires a doctor's prescription!
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1814
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: First Greetings
To each his own interpretation.
In my opinion, Bridget and Abby assuming that Lizzie is in her bedroom because they didn't see her for an extended period of time is not evidence of anything except they didn't know where Lizzie was. It is a complete guess because they didn't know if she left the house, stayed in her room, visited a neighbor, or went to a pharmacy.
Bence identifying Lizzie as the pharmacy shopper is eye witness testimony and is evidence. Witnesses identify criminals all the time without the use of a lineup, so there is no 'book of Hoyle' that eye witnesses must identify suspects out of a lineup.
So, if we take the position that 'guessing' has equal weight to 3 adult eye witnesses, then yes, the Prussic Acid episode should be set aside as too murky.
In my opinion, Bridget and Abby assuming that Lizzie is in her bedroom because they didn't see her for an extended period of time is not evidence of anything except they didn't know where Lizzie was. It is a complete guess because they didn't know if she left the house, stayed in her room, visited a neighbor, or went to a pharmacy.
Bence identifying Lizzie as the pharmacy shopper is eye witness testimony and is evidence. Witnesses identify criminals all the time without the use of a lineup, so there is no 'book of Hoyle' that eye witnesses must identify suspects out of a lineup.
So, if we take the position that 'guessing' has equal weight to 3 adult eye witnesses, then yes, the Prussic Acid episode should be set aside as too murky.