Lizzie Borden Society Forum

i've been reading some criticism about history vs. fictional narrative......and i thought about knowlton.

this is only if you read his closing argument, BTW.....but i see know that what he had to say is really that of a talented story teller. he had some circumstantial evidence, some hearsay......he put all that together to create this story that survives to this day as the legend of lizzie borden.

if you look at what v. lincoln did -- she just puts herself beside him or behind him and makes up a solution to what is missing.

i'm not asking a question so much as making an observation -- that how curious it is for a lawyer to create this hair-raising story. i don't think he expected a conviction, yet he goes and constructs this story. it's a good one. i don't think it's the truth, but it's a good one. and it SURVIVES TO THIS DAY. that's amazing, isn't it? he did his job as best he could do, but i'll bet he would have been floored to hear, GUILTY.

in a nutshell, i'm saying that knowlton is the first author of the lizzie borden legend. he does not normally get that credit, but that's what he did. but it is a story--and god, did it ever last.

the truth? no.

Don't forget the many newspaper stories of that day, and the many 'true crime' stories published since then.
My first intro to the Borden Murders was the Sunday Daily News of NY city, which used to print famous cases in their newspapers (circa 1957?).

Working with criminal defense lawyers as I do, it's fascinating to me to hear the events of a case "packaged" to make the defendant seem innocent. Just this morning, I heard one of our attorneys discussing a brand-new, high-profile case we'd just picked up. She was scanning the newspaper accounts and jotting down details she could play with.

It's in the interest of the Constitution that this goes on, of course, but as a writer, I'm hyper-aware that an alternate version is being prepared.

Bob Gutowski @ Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:18 am wrote:Working with criminal defense lawyers as I do, it's fascinating to me to hear the events of a case "packaged" to make the defendant seem innocent. Just this morning, I heard one of our attorneys discussing a brand-new, high-profile case we'd just picked up. She was scanning the newspaper accounts and jotting down details she could play with.

It's in the interest of the Constitution that this goes on, of course, but as a writer, I'm hyper-aware that an alternate version is being prepared.

I think the performance of the defense plays a MUCH larger part in the jury's finding-- Much more so than evidence and testimony. Where is Matlock when we needed him? Not only would he have gotten Lizzie off-- he would have forced the real killer to confess on the stand!

Audrey @ Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:25 pm wrote:

Bob Gutowski @ Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:18 am wrote:... Just this morning, I heard one of our attorneys discussing a brand-new, high-profile case we'd just picked up. She was scanning the newspaper accounts and jotting down details she could play with.
It's in the interest of the Constitution that this goes on, of course, but as a writer, I'm hyper-aware that an alternate version is being prepared.

I think the performance of the defense plays a MUCH larger part in the jury's finding-- Much more so than evidence and testimony. Where is Matlock when we needed him? Not only would he have gotten Lizzie off-- he would have forced the real killer to confess on the stand!

Surely you meant another fictional defense lawyer? It was Erle Stanley Gardner's "Perry Mason" who almost always got his clients freed from a murder rap. Perry Mason was based on the real Earl Rogers. Reading about either lawyer will educate and enterrain you.

Somewhere I read that a successful defense lawyer will always point to someone else, as some jurors will be more likely to acquit if they can believe the "real killer" is someone else. While a fictional lawyer can get some to indicate guilt, this rarely happens today.

RayS @ Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:33 pm wrote:

Audrey @ Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:25 pm wrote:

Bob Gutowski @ Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:18 am wrote:... Just this morning, I heard one of our attorneys discussing a brand-new, high-profile case we'd just picked up. She was scanning the newspaper accounts and jotting down details she could play with.
It's in the interest of the Constitution that this goes on, of course, but as a writer, I'm hyper-aware that an alternate version is being prepared.

I think the performance of the defense plays a MUCH larger part in the jury's finding-- Much more so than evidence and testimony. Where is Matlock when we needed him? Not only would he have gotten Lizzie off-- he would have forced the real killer to confess on the stand!

Surely you meant another fictional defense lawyer? It was Erle Stanley Gardner's "Perry Mason" who almost always got his clients freed from a murder rap. Perry Mason was based on the real Earl Rogers. Reading about either lawyer will educate and enterrain you.

Somewhere I read that a successful defense lawyer will always point to someone else, as some jurors will be more likely to acquit if they can believe the "real killer" is someone else. While a fictional lawyer can get some to indicate guilt, this rarely happens today.

I absolutely did not mean anyone else.... Do you have a television?

I believe Erle Stanley Gardner invented the fictional defense lawyer who always wins for his client, writing the Perry Mason series from 1933 to 1970. His works outsold the combined output of his competitors. Guinness Book of World Records.
I believe there was one case where his defendant was convicted, but the alleged victim turned out to be alive! You can look it up.
Prior to this defense lawyers had the "shyster" label (based on the famous NY lawyer Schuester from the 1840s)

"Matlock" has been off the air for over 12 years (as I remember it). Its stories were better than the nouveaux (or faux?) "Perry Mason" at that same time.

The "Perry Mason" TV series from 1958 to 1966 were under the control of Erle Stanley Gardner himself. I read earlier that one Supreme Court Justice is still a "Perry Mason" fan, it must be the novels than the TV films. There is no comparison for quality.

i loved the perry mason show. but i think audrey is saying that matlock is another edition of that, ray, which is obvious enough.

i was really paying knowlton a compliment about compelling story-telling -- in his closing -- my point being that the whole legend is there from the workings of his mind. this is why knowlton is a "better work" than robinson -- it's a better story.

consider how much victoria lincoln stole from him -- and then "corrected" him on a key point RE the dress -- which is really a way of defining what the lincoln book actually is.

AS far as I know, neither the original 1958-1966 Perry Mason series, or the later versions, are available. Same for Matlock. I liked Matlock, but some of the stories seemed sort of cliched, as if written for another show and adopted for Matlock. No comments on Jessica Fletcher?

I LOVE Matlock!
I just watched his series for the 1st time the last 2 years. It's on several times a day.
I especially love Andy Griffith and also when Don Knotts guest stars!

Anyway, Eugene, it's an interesting observation!
I don't particularly enjoy the lawyer's arguments, but I can see your point. I feel like I'm inspired to read those now!
Thanks for the thoughtful insight!

i'm going to read the whole thing again myself soon.

to cite a specific instance of what i'm talking about -- where he acknowledges the time problem with the second murder and suggests the coat. and this specific point "saved" victoria lincoln in her dress theory.

and not to mention the whole fiction about a relationship between lizzie and abby he could not have known, bolstering it with the property deal and the "mrs" borden.

Knowlton showed up after the murders, and used the information gathered by the police. Is there a publication with all the police info?

Particularly, who questioned Ellan Eagan, and what did she say?
Brown dances around Ellan's "recovered memory", she did not tell all she says she witnessed. This is a fault in the story. But, all in all, that's the best solution so far. Not all will agree, but the theory of a Secret Visitor who did the murders seems accurate to me. But I wasn't there.