Lizzie Borden Society Forum

What I like is the ability to read other people's opinions on this case.
They have not changed my mind, but set it. Brown says the verdict was fixed to free Lizzie.

"Harry" talked about a "broken" handle but the photos show one that was sawn, not broken. From this I realized how they fixed this case.

Imagine a juror with the wisdom, knowledge, and practical experience of those men. Prosecutor Knowlton had displayed an old hatchet with a sawn-off handle that he claims broke during the struggle. No way could that happen. Then he also admits the head was loose on the handle. Practical experience will tell you that it would "fly off the handle" when it struck something. The bottom line is that this handle was not the murder weapon and Lizzie didn't do it. The jury would resent a false claim.

I'm sure Knowlton later secretly boasted of fixing the verdict by convincing the jury of the absurdity of his claim. His reward was to be appointed State Attorney General. Yes, he was elected. But we all know that the appointment of a candidate by the ruling political party is the same as being elected.

I guess some will present a contrary opinion. No problem, I will try to resolve any reasonable objection.
Note how Brown's Theory works again with new facts.

I can't wait for installments 4 through 827! I don't think it was the handleless hatchet either, but I still think Lizzie dun it, with a cleaver for the second murder.

Me too. With either a cleaver or ice axe.

Bob Gutowski @ Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:15 pm wrote:I can't wait for installments 4 through 827! I don't think it was the handleless hatchet either, but I still think Lizzie dun it, with a cleaver for the second murder.

Is there any "documentary proof" in the Trial Transcript? Or the newspaper reports?
Would a light weight meat cleaver (narrow blade) make the same wounds?
(I don't know what an 'ice axe' is.) Would Andy spend money on a duplicate or unneeded tool?
And just why do YOU know better than the experienced police who were there at the time?

Thanks for your very sincere comments. I only expect one more installement. I hope you and the others will not weep about this.

Angel @ Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:29 pm wrote:Me too. With either a cleaver or ice axe.

"Either" one? Why is that? And why wasn't this known at the time?

Sometimes a losing DA will find him/herself out of a job. Like Marcia Clark and Chris Darden. Yet Knowlton was promoted to State Attorney General! Somebody who can do legal tricks is always in demand by the wealthy.

Andrew Jennings successfuly defended Lizzie. Next he was elected as the County DA, then took a job with the local corporations. (Is that still possible in Mass?) Being able to make legal magic will always command a high price.

Such talent is shown in TV shows like "Justice" (the most educational) and "Shark" (more dramatic emphasis on the star than the story). You may disagree, I'm sure of it.

Has there ever been any of the men in the jury heard from? I mean their opinions, and the reason they give for acquiting Lizzie? or their thoughts on what happend? I'll be up front and honest about it......I have never read Brown, and only know about him from you, so maybe I shouldn't be saying anything until I do read him, but, I just can't for the life of me, understand why they would all come together to see that Lizzie would get off and then do it in such a way she would pay for it the rest of her life anyway. Especially if they knew she didn't do it? Wouldn't it have been easier to find a scapegoat, killed while being apprehended, with bloody clothes and a murder weapon on him? uuhh count to ten Ray, before you answer.......

shakiboo @ Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:48 pm wrote:Has there ever been any of the men in the jury heard from? I mean their opinions, and the reason they give for acquiting Lizzie? or their thoughts on what happend? I'll be up front and honest about it......I have never read Brown, and only know about him from you, so maybe I shouldn't be saying anything until I do read him, but, I just can't for the life of me, understand why they would all come together to see that Lizzie would get off and then do it in such a way she would pay for it the rest of her life anyway. Especially if they knew she didn't do it? Wouldn't it have been easier to find a scapegoat, killed while being apprehended, with bloody clothes and a murder weapon on him? uuhh count to ten Ray, before you answer.......

All that I know is they decided right after the trial that Lizzie wasn't guilty, but waited for over an hour before announcing their verdict. What is important is how they were motivated; there is no record to my knowledge. I think claiming a broken hatchet was the murder weapon would turn them off, as it would for me. IMO

Frank Spiering points out that the $5 a day was about a week's wages for many in those days.

I strongly urge you to read David Kent's "40 Whacks" first as an introduction to the subject, and whatever is in your public library.
Save Arnold Brown's book for last like a delicious dessert that will spoil your appetite.

Thanks for this quote.

Ran across this curious tidbit in Rebello, p195+:

"... Attorney General Albert E. Pillsbury appointed Moody to serve on the Borden trial with Hosea M. Knowlton. Moody presented the opening argument for the prosecution. (Trial: 47-89) The Borden case was Moody's first murder case. It was Moody who suggested George Dexter Robinson be retained by the defense."

He would come to regret that recommendation.

That seems to confirm the story of a fixed verdict. Arnold Brown didn't invent that story.
The bottom line is that Knowlton was appointed Massachusetts Attorney-General, and Moody was appointed to the US Supreme Court!
What regrets could they possibly have had? It was a boost to their careers. This may be a mystery to those who don't understand the concept of a ruling class and conspiracy theory.

Edmund Pearson's "Trial of LB" said the legend was that Lizzie was guilty, but paid off the authorities to be found not guilty. Robert Sullivan questions that, given the "incorruptibility" of Judge Dewey.
I believe the "pay off" was more likely when they knew Lizzie was not guilty, but merely shielding someone. "We'll show her there are big costs associated with that" they may have said.

Consider another similar case. If after OJ was correctly acquitted, Marcia Clark (instead of resigning for a new career) was appointed Attorney-General of California. And Johnny Cochran was appointed District Attorney of Los Angeles.
Wouln't tongues wag on the gossip-opinion shows (called 'talk radio')?

Kat @ Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:27 am wrote:Now, Ray can prove how Lizzie was only tried for Andrew's murder. That's fair I think.

Yes, I think that is fair too.

From reading the accounts, you will all learn that Lizzie was tried for the death of her father. After she was correctly found not guilty the prosecutor then dropped the other two indictments.

WHY are you questioning this? I would think that all who actually read more than one book would know this!!!

Lizzie was tried on the one charge for which she had an alibi, Lubinsky saw her in the back yard at the time of the murders.

We all know, don't we, that Lizzie was in the house 9:30 am when Abby was whacked. Being down in the basement at the WC means she was in the opposite end of the house (as I remember the floor plan).

As I posted in another thread...Ray, why are you responding to posts from OTHER threads in THIS thread ?





Tracy...

Yes, this is from "Trial Being Fixed" thread.

Ok ray, prove that Lizzie was tried in New Bedford only for Andrew's murder, please.

In the Preliminary Hearing she was only arrested and *heard* on the death of Andrew.

Smudgeman @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:57 pm wrote:Yes, this is from "Trial Being Fixed" thread.

Yes...and it has happened at least twice. Not sure why.





Tracy...

Kat @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:37 am wrote:Ok ray, prove that Lizzie was tried in New Bedford only for Andrew's murder, please.

In the Preliminary Hearing she was only arrested and *heard* on the death of Andrew.

As I remember it (which is what we all do), the jury considered the murder of Andy only. After the verdict, the other counts were dropped.

Edward Porter's book says so, and so does Arnold Brown's book.

Does anyone remember it differently?

I am not to sure the trial was fixed as I think that the jury just couldn't believe that a fine young lady could do that kind of awful thing, regardless of what the reasoning behind it. Besides, who wants to believe anyone, especially one of their own could do something like that?

Ray for a change, I would like your source and page number if you have it.
If you don't, maybe you can call your local library and order these books and go thru them and get the info that way.
Like others do when asked. Thank you.

Kat @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:34 pm wrote:Ray for a change, I would like your source and page number if you have it.
If you don't, maybe you can call your local library and order these books and go thru them and get the info that way.
Like others do when asked. Thank you.

I do not accept the need to answer every question on my postings. I'm pretty sure it is as I type it. (I may have made typing errors from memory, like Hathaway for Hawthorne, etc.) Errare humanum est.

I couldn't find an exact quote. Brown mentions the three indictements, and the last two were noll prossed (as in Porter's book}. I can't access Robert Sullivan's book for now.

Porter's book has no Table of Contents or Index.
Brown's book has an Index but its skimpy (more narrative than history).

Lizzie was indicted for the murder of Andy (#1), the murder of Abby (#2), and the murder of Abby and Andy (#3).

Does anyone take exception to this factual statement? I hope not.

If I ask for a source from anyone, I would hope I could get it.
I don't ask you for "every question" on your postings.

I may be wrong.

But for a change I would like you to prove it- instead of me proving if I am wrong.
So I would like your source and page and not your general knowledge or understranding or paraphrasing what you think you remember, please.
Also, I am the one who showed you the 3 indictments. I made the "factual statement.* If you now mention that here, you might mention that.

RayS @ Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:23 am wrote:What I like is the ability to read other people's opinions on this case.
They have not changed my mind, but set it. Brown says the verdict was fixed to free Lizzie.

"Harry" talked about a "broken" handle but the photos show one that was sawn, not broken. From this I realized how they fixed this case.

Imagine a juror with the wisdom, knowledge, and practical experience of those men. Prosecutor Knowlton had displayed an old hatchet with a sawn-off handle that he claims broke during the struggle. No way could that happen. Then he also admits the head was loose on the handle. Practical experience will tell you that it would "fly off the handle" when it struck something. The bottom line is that this handle was not the murder weapon and Lizzie didn't do it. The jury would resent a false claim.

I'm sure Knowlton later secretly boasted of fixing the verdict by convincing the jury of the absurdity of his claim. His reward was to be appointed State Attorney General. Yes, he was elected. But we all know that the appointment of a candidate by the ruling political party is the same as being elected.

I guess some will present a contrary opinion. No problem, I will try to resolve any reasonable objection.
Note how Brown's Theory works again with new facts.

Ray, you are basing your theory on the handle being "sawed-off?" When a hammer head or hatchet head misses or "over shoots" it's intended target and the handle hits the target the handle usually breaks-off clean, with some edge splintering, due to the direction of the wood grain. I have broken hatchet and hammer handles during use and almost everyone breaks-off clean as if it had been sawn-off. The break in that HH handle is very consistant with a break occurring during normal use. Harry was right.

A loose handle does not mean the head will fly off. The opening in the top of the "eye" is larger than the opening in the bottom of the "eye." This is so the wedges that are inserted into the top of the handle will spread the top of the handle to fit the "eye" and keep the head on. A handle that is extreamly loose can lose the head. A little wiggle is common in older handles that are dried out. I'm sure that Lizzie's HH handle has more wiggle now than it did in 1892.

You are saying that your idea of the trial being "fixed" is based upon the handle being loose and sawn-off? I think you need to go back and get your facts straight and try again, Ray. I hate to say it but much of your "Brown" theory is based upon quicksand. I think it would be a good idea if you were to remove your blinders and examin the established facts and then see if Brown's theory fits. I think you will then see just how many holes you will find in Arnold's "final chapter." It seems that you are so blindly devoted to Brown's theory that you don't realize when he is wrong. Give it a try and see what you find.

-1bigsteve (o:

Hey BigSteve!
I posted Crowe's hatchet info for you!
viewtopic.php?t=2507

Thank you, Kat! I see that. It looks like the hatchet must have been up there for some time due to the pitting. A few years I would guess. It could have been a roofer's hatchet by the description. It could have been a full shingling hatchet like Lizzie's HH or a half-hatchet or a roofer's claw hammer hatchet like one I got. It looks to me like it was a roofer's hatchet of some type.

Thanks again for the information, Kat.

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat @ Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:48 pm wrote:If I ask for a source from anyone, I would hope I could get it.
I don't ask you for "every question" on your postings.

I may be wrong.

But for a change I would like you to prove it- instead of me proving if I am wrong.
So I would like your source and page and not your general knowledge or understranding or paraphrasing what you think you remember, please.
Also, I am the one who showed you the 3 indictments. I made the "factual statement.* If you now mention that here, you might mention that.

Arnold Brown, Part Two, Charge to the Jury, pages 275-280.
Chapter 19 - the summary of what happened.

Edwin H. Porter Chapter XXXII
Lizzie was found Not Guilty. Knowlton nol prossed the two pending indictments against Lizzie.
[Murder of Abby, murder of Abby and Andy].

I resent the question as it seems like a weasel-worded attempt to question my honesty without actually accusing me of lying. IF you were to question my accurate recollection, that is another thing.
YOU, as one of the experts here, should know the sources better than me.

RAY...It is common courtesy to cite/provide sources. You sure like to twist things around in order to place the blame on someone else. Kat's post was NOT questioning your honesty, just your seemingly unwillingness to follow commonly accepted practices of courtesy.





Tracy...

Let's have a third party check the references cited and figure out if that is the correct source material and whether it is factual and valid, or an author's interpretation.

Thanks, so far, Ray.

If I am wrong I'd like to know it.

Bob Gutowski @ Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:15 pm wrote:I can't wait for installments 4 through 827! I don't think it was the handleless hatchet either, but I still think Lizzie dun it, with a cleaver for the second murder.

Yes, this would explain the neat slicing through of Andrew's eyeball.

Let's look at Justice Dewey's charge to the jury. It couldn't be more clearer as to what the charges were.

Page 1888 - "... The defendant is being tried before you on a written accusation, termed an indictment, which contains two charges or counts; one count by the use of the usual legal language in substance charges her with the murder of Andrew J. Borden, and the other count charges her with the murder of Abby D. Borden in Fall River in this county on August 4th, 1892. ..."

page 1896 - "... Now, gentlemen, the material charge in the first count of the indictment is that, at Fall River, in this County, the defendant killed Mrs. Borden, by striking, cutting, beating, and bruising her on the head with some sharp cutting instrument. In the second count the same charges are made in regard to Mr. Borden. And the Government claims that these acts were done with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, and so were acts of murder in the first degree. ..."

There were 3 indictments issued by the Grand Jury. The first charged her with killing Andrew, the second Abbie and the third the killing of them both.

It sounds like to me she was tried on the third indictment. This is cooberated by Knowlton's request that the other 2 indictments be nol prossed.

Page 1930 - "MR. KNOWLTON. May it please the Court: There are pending two indictments against the same defendant, one charging the murder which is charged in this indictment on the first count, and the other charging the murder which is charged in this indictment on the second count. An entry should be made in those cases of nol prossed by reason of the verdict in this case. ..."

To me Knowlton is saying that the indictment charging Lizzie with the murder of her father alone was included in the indictment she was tried on and likewise for Abbie.

What has always been confusing to me is that the jury announced only one "Not guilty" verdict. This would seem to be in violation of Dewey's charge on page 1890 -

"... Although most of the evidence may relate to both counts in the indictment, the counts are distinct and will require a separate finding by you. ..."

That makes total sense to me, Harry. Thank you for clarifying what the actual trial judge stated.

I think that should be good enough for you, Ray?

It's OK to be wrong- just make a note of the details for future reference.

The purpose of a Trial Transcript is to record what was done for any appeal for a reversible error. Every trial contains errors, not all are reversible (an error that leads to a wrong verdict).

Therefore those who are not lawyers or have little knowledge of law should not read a transcript as they may become confused. IMO

Was the jury wrong to bring back a single verdict? This is another unsolved mystery.

Or perhaps the judges to talk as if only two of the three indictments were tried?

Lizzie was brought to trial on 3 indictments. There was rendered a verdict openly in court on one- the one that was for both killings. The single killing indictments were nol prossed. I believe they were nol prossed due to the court's eruption at the verdict and re-establishing order would not have been possible at that point.

As Harry said to me, there would be documentation of these nol prossed indictments. They are most probably a part of further court record.

Here's another one Ray: I don't think they had appeal back then. (You can look it up!)
At least no automatic appeal- so trial judges would not be keeping that in mind when they ruled on motions in court.

RayS @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:55 pm wrote:Therefore those who are not lawyers or have little knowledge of law should not read a transcript as they may become confused. IMO

Does this include authors such as BROWN? Just what is so hard to understand about a trial transcript? But I'm wasting my time responding.

I encourage all to read the primary documents. Those that won't have their head in the sand and are happy to have others do their thinking for them.

Kat @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:49 am wrote:Lizzie was brought to trial on 3 indictments. There was rendered a verdict openly in court on one- the one that was for both killings. The single killing indictments were nol prossed. I believe they were nol prossed due to the court's eruption at the verdict and re-establishing order would not have been possible at that point.

As Harry said to me, there would be documentation of these nol prossed indictments. They are most probably a part of further court record.

Here's another one Ray: I don't think they had appeal back then. (You can look it up!)
At least no automatic appeal- so trial judges would not be keeping that in mind when they ruled on motions in court.

As far as I know, the appeal of a verdict may go back to the Magna Carta time. At least since the King stopped acting as a judge in cases.

I never said anything about automatic appeal. I did read one book last year that made the point that Civil Law (based on Roman Law) came from the Ecclesiastical Court system. (I have another book to read soon.)

Most of all, the fact of not guilty meant an acquittal of the charges. Why should I waste time over quibbles? Or anyone else who doesn't want to play that game?

Harry @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:10 am wrote:

RayS @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:55 pm wrote:Therefore those who are not lawyers or have little knowledge of law should not read a transcript as they may become confused. IMO

Does this include authors such as BROWN? Just what is so hard to understand about a trial transcript? But I'm wasting my time responding.

I encourage all to read the primary documents. Those that won't have their head in the sand and are happy to have others do their thinking for them.

AS far as I know, Brown does not depend on his interpretation of the Trial Transcript. That quote refers to the more technical aspects.

EG one person here claimed that Alice Russell's testimony was hearsay. Not true. Hearsay is anything that you did not witness or hear yourself. Alice's statement was testimony; but if someone else talked about Lizzie may have told Alice, that would be hearsay.

Ever notice how statements get garbled in the retelling?

What Lizzie told Alice about what she supposedly overheard Andrew saying to Abbie about Dr. Bowen and the famous quote : My money shan't pay for it is Hearsay.

Kat @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:21 am wrote:What Lizzie told Alice about what she supposedly overheard Andrew saying to Abbie about Dr. Bowen and the famous quote : My money shan't pay for it is Hearsay.

I believe telling what Lizzie told her is not hearsay.
Hearsay would be saying what I or you heard about what Lizzie said to Alice, when we were not there in person.

There may be a limited exception in the case of a dying person.

Rumors and gossip have no part in courtrooms, that was learned from centuries of experience. Don't things get garbled in the retelling?

RayS @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:49 am wrote:

Kat @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:21 am wrote:What Lizzie told Alice about what she supposedly overheard Andrew saying to Abbie about Dr. Bowen and the famous quote : My money shan't pay for it is Hearsay.

I believe telling what Lizzie told her is not hearsay.
Hearsay would be saying what I or you heard about what Lizzie said to Alice, when we were not there in person.

There may be a limited exception in the case of a dying person.

Rumors and gossip have no part in courtrooms, that was learned from centuries of experience. Don't things get garbled in the retelling?

Hearsay is "second-hand" information. It occurs when a witness testifies NOT about something they personally saw or heard, but testifies about something someone else told them or said they saw.

Alice did not personally hear what Andrew said to Abby. Lizzie claims she heard it. She repeated it to Alice. Sorry, Ray...Alice's statement WAS heresay.

SallyG @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:11 pm wrote:

RayS @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:49 am wrote:

Kat @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:21 am wrote:What Lizzie told Alice about what she supposedly overheard Andrew saying to Abbie about Dr. Bowen and the famous quote : My money shan't pay for it is Hearsay.

I believe telling what Lizzie told her is not hearsay.
Hearsay would be saying what I or you heard about what Lizzie said to Alice, when we were not there in person.

There may be a limited exception in the case of a dying person.

Rumors and gossip have no part in courtrooms, that was learned from centuries of experience. Don't things get garbled in the retelling?

Hearsay is "second-hand" information. It occurs when a witness testifies NOT about something they personally saw or heard, but testifies about something someone else told them or said they saw.

Alice did not personally hear what Andrew said to Abby. Lizzie claims she heard it. She repeated it to Alice. Sorry, Ray...Alice's statement WAS heresay.

I'm not a lawyer either.
But Alice is telling what Lizzie told her. If it was hearsay, a lawyer would object to it. Based on what I know.

Alice said...that Lizzie said...that Andrew said...

Sounds like hearsay from here. Alice wasn't present so she can not guarantee that Andrew said anything. The conversation between Lizzie and Alice the evening of the third would not be hearsay, Alice was present for that.

ME: It is, or, it isn't.
YOU: It is not, or, it is.

DA CAPO, ad infinitum.

"You can lead a mule to water but you can't make him or her think" said Arnold Brown (?).

Yooper @ Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:38 pm wrote:Alice said...that Lizzie said...that Andrew said...

Sounds like hearsay from here. Alice wasn't present so she can not guarantee that Andrew said anything. The conversation between Lizzie and Alice the evening of the third would not be hearsay, Alice was present for that.

SO where is your quote from a law book, legal dictionary, etc.

I think many people here need to do their homework.

Maybe even me? But you'll disagree with that.

RayS @ Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:10 am wrote:

Yooper @ Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:38 pm wrote:Alice said...that Lizzie said...that Andrew said...

Sounds like hearsay from here. Alice wasn't present so she can not guarantee that Andrew said anything. The conversation between Lizzie and Alice the evening of the third would not be hearsay, Alice was present for that.

SO where is your quote from a law book, legal dictionary, etc.

I think many people here need to do their homework.

Maybe even me? But you'll disagree with that.

Ray, read this to yourself while looking in a mirror.

I think that the way Yooper broke it down to its simplest form proves the point of hearsay, and it was the way it was taught to me in school.

Alice said...that Lizzie said...that Andrew said...

--Yooper

Once you've reached that third person, there is the proof.

"Hearsay Evidence" is not admissable, it is derived from the statements of others. The exceptions are declarations, confessions, or admissions made by a party, entries in a shop book or other records, etc.

The actual definition is too long to quote here.

Alice was telling what Lizzie told her, if accurately. Was it at the trial, or what? (I've wondered if it was a way to get Lizzie to speak out.)

If you are unable or unwilling to "type" the definition you found, would you be so kind to, as we always have to ask you, at least give us the link to where you found the information ? If you found it in a book at your local library would you at least cite the source ? Since you are making the claim, I would think you would be willing to back it up.





Tracy...

Now Tracy, you know that Ray has never backed up anything he says and never will. It's always. "Look it up" or "read Ann Rule", or some other ridiculous statement like "My time is limited." He does this for fun remember?

theebmonique @ Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:28 pm wrote:If you are unable or unwilling to "type" the definition you found, would you be so kind to, as we always have to ask you, at least give us the link to where you found the information ? If you found it in a book at your local library would you at least cite the source ? Since you are making the claim, I would think you would be willing to back it up.

Tracy...

Thank you for your kind concerns.

Samuel G. Kling, "The Legal Encyclopedia" from the 1950s.
Out of print, the author dead, not even on Amazon.
But you can look it up for yourself.
Maybe GOOGLE?

Smudgeman @ Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:02 pm wrote:Now Tracy, you know that Ray has never backed up anything he says and never will. It's always. "Look it up" or "read Ann Rule", or some other ridiculous statement like "My time is limited." He does this for fun remember?

CONGRATUALATIONS!!! You are learning, keep up the good work.

While I haven't done it yet, maybe GOOGLE will work for you.