Lizzie Borden Society Forum

In rereading over the trial and inquest transcripts there have been points during the testimony where I actually found myself chuckling over some of the statements that were made. I don't know if this goes to show I just have a morbid sense of humor but here is an example of something that made me chuckl a bit.


Trial testimony of Dr. William A. Dolan page 917:

Q. And would the injuries that you found there, other than these two, not have been adequately caused by a cut from this instrument or one like it which did not meet the skull along the whole cutting edge?
A. State that again, please.

MR. ADAMS. I will let the stenographer read it; I don't think I can state it just the same again?

( The stenographer read the question)

THE WITNESS. I don't understand the question now.

(The question was read again)

MR. KNOWLTON. I submit whether the questioner himself understands the question.

MR. ADAMS. I do. I understood yours a little while ago, that you had trouble understanding yourself.



I find humor in this passage. I can also clearly picture the frustration of all those involved. Am I alone in finding a certain humor to some of the proceedings?

Nope, you're not alone. It sort of makes me think along the lines of "Pardon Sir - will the shovel you use presently be sufficient, or would you prefer a larger instrument?"

No, Allen, I too found humor in some of the comments. Adams in particular had a biting way of questioning. He also was a bit of an actor.

Here's one when he was questioning Dr. Dolan, p921+:

"Q. I have no objection to you marking my coat, and you may do it with a piece of chalk, so that we may see the location and extent of that injury. I hope that I shall not be numbered as an exhibit."

I haven't gotten all the way through the trial testimony as of yet, but sometimes the way they phrase a question is almost like reading a different lanquage! It seems like they took the long way around, and by the time they finish it, you could forget what the first part of it was!

Now was Adams the Junior attorney on Lizzie's team, that is, was he much younger than Robinson and Jennings. In drawings of him it looks like he may have been much younger and quite a handsome dude? No?

Adams was in his early 40s at the time of Lizzie's trial - just about 40 years old, I believe.

Great idea for a thread! Yes, I suspect the quaint way of phrasing things can sound humorous to us now. Going all around the mulberry bush instead of just firing from the hip. I always got a laugh out of "It depends on your idea of cordiality" ( that may not be an exact quote) when Lizzie is asked about her daily relationship with Abby. I suspect much of the humor was unintentional, but when lots of people are thrown together , sometimes under stress, funny things do pop out. I have seen people at funerals just giggling and laughing up a storm in the corner. Nerves, I guess.

Rebello, pages 194 through 199, lists the following years of birth for the attorneys in the case.

Knowlton - 1847
Moody - 1853
Jennings - 1849
Robinson - 1834
Adams - 1850

The Knowlton papers also list Adams as being born in 1850. However, unless his gravestone is incorrect, which I doubt, he was born November 7, 1847.

He was born in Ashburnham, Mass. and several years ago I wrote their Historical Society and a fellow that worked there was kind enough to go the Adams' family plot and take photos for me. The stone is clearly marked 1847.

I provided a photo of Adams to the town website:

http://www.ashburnham-ma.gov/OurTown/Ye ... /index.htm

Allen @ Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:27 pm wrote:In rereading over the trial and inquest transcripts there have been points during the testimony where I actually found myself chuckling over some of the statements that were made. I don't know if this goes to show I just have a morbid sense of humor but here is an example of something that made me chuckl a bit.


Trial testimony of Dr. William A. Dolan page 917:

Q. And would the injuries that you found there, other than these two, not have been adequately caused by a cut from this instrument or one like it which did not meet the skull along the whole cutting edge?
A. State that again, please.

MR. ADAMS. I will let the stenographer read it; I don't think I can state it just the same again?

( The stenographer read the question)

THE WITNESS. I don't understand the question now.

(The question was read again)

MR. KNOWLTON. I submit whether the questioner himself understands the question.

MR. ADAMS. I do. I understood yours a little while ago, that you had trouble understanding yourself.



I find humor in this passage. I can also clearly picture the frustration of all those involved. Am I alone in finding a certain humor to some of the proceedings?

Maybe Knowlton should have said "Does this axe fit the wounds?" Dr. Dolan would have understood. I would have gone crazy back then the way everyone talked taking 10 words to say what could be said in 5 words.

StevenB

Trial testimon of Rufus B. Hilliard page 1140:

Q. Well I probably have not put it in the right words. You were looking after a key there which you did not find, and they told you where it was?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Tell us about that: tell us all about it without my questioning: go right on.
A. As I said, we opened all the trunks in that room. There was one trunk we could not find the key to, and finally they told us where the key was.

Q. And where was it?
A. That key I think, was tacked onto the trunk itself, side of the lock. It hung down if I remember right. We passed from that room into--

Whoops - thanks for the refresher, Harry!

No problem, Doug, we have only the one photo of Adams and he looks the youngest of the group with the possible exception of Moody. I don't know the year it was taken.

The "runt" of the legal litter was actually Arthur Phillips I think - he was 28 at the time of the trial according to Len Rebello's book.

I always recall the part where Knowlton is used as a stand-in for the bulk of Abbie, but I certainly don't know how to find that.

Here's a courtroom incident that even brought a smile to Lizzie's face. I found it on page 152, in the Lizzie Borden: A Case Book Of Family and Crime in the 1890s.

" The next witness, John Cunningham, raised a laugh by saying that he saw Mrs. Churchill running "triangularly" across toward the Borden house.

'Not triangularly; diagonally, you mean,' suggested Mr. Adams, while Lizzie bowed her head in laughter and the court and counsel joined in."

There's another funny one involving Moody that I think I read in this same book but now I can't find the page. It tells of how Moody, who had never been married, was trying to find the waistline on one of Lizzie's dresses. He couldn't do it and the married Knowlton had to help him find it. The women in the courtroom thought that was funny.

There is this entry in the Sept. 1st Evening Standard:

"... There were no seats to spare in the courtroom yesterday, but the number of distinguished people present seemed less than on some other occasion, and there were apparently in the room few people outside of Fall River. Mr. Knowlton and Attorney Adams pulled their chairs together and leaned over on each other's shoulders, engaged in a very confidential whisper while Marshal Hilliard was being examined. Both were shaking with laughter and they belied the deadly hostility which has been frequently displayed during the hearing. Their disputes, in fact, have been the most entertaining exhibitions in court. On such occasions they addressed each other as brothers. Mr. Adams is blandly sarcastic, and Mr. Knowlton cutting and aggressive. No one enjoys these professional bouts more than Judge Blaisdell, unless indeed it be the prisoner. She rarely fails to notice a witty retort, especially if it comes from Mr. Adams. Her confidence in that gentleman is evidently increasing. She consults with him much more frequently than at first. ..."

What a shame we have no idea what Knowlton and Adams were laughing at. Can't imagine Hilliard was too pleased.

DWilly @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:37 pm wrote:There's another funny one involving Moody that I think I read in this same book but now I can't find the page. It tells of how Moody, who had never been married, was trying to find the waistline on one of Lizzie's dresses. He couldn't do it and the married Knowlton had to help him find it. The women in the courtroom thought that was funny.

Dwilly, that was reported in the NY Times of June 9th. As you say it is probably in one of the books.

"District Attorney Moody showed the blue dress that is one of the exhibits in the case and got all the women in the courtroom laughing while he walked around it as it lay upon the floor and gazed at it earnestly, vainly endeavoring to locate the waist line. Lawyer Knowlton, who is a married man, came to Mr. Moody's relief and the two managed to spread the dress in such a way to display its general style."

shakiboo @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:38 am wrote:I haven't gotten all the way through the trial testimony as of yet, but sometimes the way they phrase a question is almost like reading a different lanquage! It seems like they took the long way around, and by the time they finish it, you could forget what the first part of it was!

"Can you tell us, Sir, aside from the mention of the hatchet, your location from the sill, the angle of your view, but not in the northernly direction, the location of the chip in the chimney, to the best of your recollection, from the illumination of the moon, on the 13th I mean, the location of the body in alignment to, but not with the oak tree, the big hairball in the corner of Lizzie's bedroom?"

Geez!! Lawyer talk. I know what you mean. Why can't lawyers just cut to the chase without all the puffery and Shakespearian verbage?

You are right, Allen, there are funny things said and done in Court rooms. Sometimes I wonder if it is the result of the cloak of respectability being yanked off of our facade of self-importance to reveal that we are all rubes.

-1bigsteve (o:

wow 1bigsteve, for a minuet there I thought you were actually quoting one of the lawyers!!! lol

shakiboo @ Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:39 am wrote:wow 1bigsteve, for a minuet there I thought you were actually quoting one of the lawyers!!! lol

shakiboo @ Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:39 am wrote:wow 1bigsteve, for a minuet there I thought you were actually quoting one of the lawyers!!! lol

I was.

Sometimes I wish I could tell these lawyers to their collective faces, "In english man, in bloody english!!" I would laugh if a juror stood up at the end of a trial and said to the judge, "Could we please do this trial all over again? I couldn't understand a word these lawyers said!"

That would be worth watching.

-1bigsteve (o:

The look on the judges face would qualify for a "kodak moment' followed quickly by the standing ovation from the rest of the courtroom! lol

I know what you mean, lawyer talk. That's probably the reason the witness didn't understand the question.

Page 107 of the trial, with respect to testimony of Thomas Kieran concerning the measurements of the barn door:

MASON, C. J. Was not this all pointed out to the jury? Is it necessary to take time now for him to describe it?

MR. JENNINGS. Well, I do not know that that door was particularly pointed out. I suppose they saw it if they looked at it---so many things, your Honor.

MASON, C. J. Have they not photographs of it from which they can tell in one second more than you can get from the witness in half an hour?

Apparently, nothing will put a courtroom to sleep faster than an engineer droning on at length about measurements!

Yes you can almost hear exasperation on a hot day...

BTW: I happened to have had the trial hard copy out, Vol. 1, and I see that the quote is from page 105.

I was rather tickled by Officer Harrington's ability to describe in detail the dress (or "wrapper") into which Lizzie changed. Evidently, so was Robinson, as he makes clear in his cross examination. Also, when Officer Medley says that there is "nothing stylish" about his method of wrapping the hatchet head, Robinson says, "Well, I am glad to find a man that is not on style."

This one always cracks me up in Lizzie's Inquest testimony, when she is asked about John Morse's visits in the past, page 53:

A. Yes, he has been here, if you remember the winter that the river was frozen over and they went across, he was here that winter, some 14 years ago, was it not?

Q. I am not answering questions, but asking them.

Susan @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:07 pm wrote:This one always cracks me up in Lizzie's Inquest testimony, when she is asked about John Morse's visits in the past, page 53:

A. Yes, he has been here, if you remember the winter that the river was frozen over and they went across, he was here that winter, some 14 years ago, was it not?

Q. I am not answering questions, but asking them.

Arnold Brown correctly points out the meaning of this interchange.
Knowlton seems surly and angry. Usually they just ask for a simple response.

RayS said:

Knowlton seems surly and angry.

Surprise, surprise.

I must say that the rigidity of the form of questioning irritates me. For example, it's okay to say that you talked with someone, but God forbid you should say what was said, however relevant. (Yes, I know. It's a matter of form and may not even be agreeable to the practitioners. I find it refreshing when they occasionally let things slide and even point out that they are doing so. (I can't think of an exact quote, but I remember someone saying something like, "That goes beyond what I asked, but I'll let it pass.")

(In case anyone is wondering about Kat's reply to this, I accidentally posted this message five times, then gutted the extra ones and replaced them with an explanation and apologies. Stefani has deleted the extra ones at my request.)

I think you just accidentally qualified for The Privy!

You remind me of this exchange:
107 inquest Emma

Q. You came right to the house. You went up to Weir Junction and came down. Who sent for Mr. Jennings?
A. I think I did. I know I did.
Q. In relation to Administration?
A. Not then.
Q. I have no business to ask you what you sent for him for. Did you ever hear your father speak of a will?

--I've always been surprised he got away with that question. Imagine!

Constantine @ Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:31 pm wrote:RayS said:

Knowlton seems surly and angry.

Surprise, surprise.

I must say that the rigidity of the form of questioning irritates me. For example, it's okay to say that you talked with someone, but God forbid you should say what was said, however relevant. (Yes, I know. It's a matter of form and may not even be agreeable to the practitioners. I find it refreshing when they occasionally let things slide and even point out that they are doing so. (I can't think of an exact quote, but I remember someone saying something like, "That goes beyond what I asked, but I'll let it pass.")

(In case anyone is wondering about Kat's reply to this, I accidentally posted this message five times, then gutted the extra ones and replaced them with an explanation and apologies. Stefani has deleted the extra ones at my request.)

That was from the Inquest. But telling what someone else said is "hearsay" and is generally banned from a trial. They want the person who spoke to say it, not perhaps garbled by someone else.
There are some exceptions, like if the person died, etc.

Also, for efficiency they want a simple direct answer.
Like "when you were born" and you answer "it was on a hot day in July, people were sweating like pigs, blah blah blah".

One classic case was when an actess was asked how old she was. She declined to answer on the grounds it was hearsay, she had no recollection. THAT got a laugh. (She was definitely over 30.)

Kat @ Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:40 pm wrote:You remind me of this exchange:
107 inquest Emma

Q. You came right to the house. You went up to Weir Junction and came down. Who sent for Mr. Jennings?
A. I think I did. I know I did.
Q. In relation to Administration?
A. Not then.
Q. I have no business to ask you what you sent for him for. Did you ever hear your father speak of a will?

--I've always been surprised he got away with that question. Imagine!

THAT could mean the DA was asking about confidential trial matters.
Knowlton only wanted to know about a will. There was none, or so they all said.

RayS said:

But telling what someone else said is "hearsay" and is generally banned from a trial. They want the person who spoke to say it, not perhaps garbled by someone else.

I know, but it seems carried to a ridiculous extreme when even the most trivial and/or obvious instances are barred. However, I don't make the rules.

Kat @ Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:40 pm wrote:You remind me of this exchange:
107 inquest Emma

Q. You came right to the house. You went up to Weir Junction and came down. Who sent for Mr. Jennings?
A. I think I did. I know I did.
Q. In relation to Administration?
A. Not then.
Q. I have no business to ask you what you sent for him for. Did you ever hear your father speak of a will?

--I've always been surprised he got away with that question. Imagine!

I think the difference here in this bit of questioning is that Andrew was dead. The only way they could possibly get any information about things he might have said was through second hand, even though these admissions may have been taken with a grain of salt as such. But they had no choice. There was no questioning Andrew himself.

Maybe you are referring to hearsay?
I don't think this is hearsay- I'm thinking this is a question that has to do with professional lawyer/client privelege.
Plus Emma was at an inquest without benefit of counsel and being asked a question that might tend to incriminate her.
She should not have been asked the question as to why she had called a lawyer and she should not have answered it either, in my opinion.
Even Knowlton said right out he had no business asking her the question. If Emma did not hire a lawyer for probate purposes it infers to the court she hired him for criminal accusations purposes.
That's what I was getting at.

Constantine @ Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:45 am wrote:RayS said:

But telling what someone else said is "hearsay" and is generally banned from a trial. They want the person who spoke to say it, not perhaps garbled by someone else.

I know, but it seems carried to a ridiculous extreme when even the most trivial and/or obvious instances are barred. However, I don't make the rules.

You do realize just how incriminating hearsay can be?
"Lizzie told me she disposed of the hatchet and bloody clothes by giving it to a stranger passing through town so it would never be found. Also the poison she used to make Abby and Andy dopey."

What do you believe or are prepared to believe? That story certainly explains why no bloody clothes or hatchet was ever found.

RayS said:

You do realize just how incriminating hearsay can be?
"Lizzie told me she disposed of the hatchet and bloody clothes by giving it to a stranger passing through town so it would never be found. Also the poison she used to make Abby and Andy dopey."

What do you believe or are prepared to believe? That story certainly explains why no bloody clothes or hatchet was ever found.

I never disputed that for a moment. I only say that there are innumerable instances where things might be quoted that are utterly harmless in that respect. Obviously, the thinking behind the rule is that it is better to err on the side of caution, which is understandable.