Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I got to thinking after watching the lizzie show last night. Couldl the trial have been fixed? After all, they sure had enough evidence that LIzzie might have had a hand in what happened, or in with someone to kill her parents.

People who were around at the time claimed the trial was fixed, to get Lizzie off. They said she was guilty of the crime (verdict first, trial afterwards).

Arnold Brown pointed out that the Trial was indeed fixed to get a not guilty verdict for Lizzie, who did not kill her father (she was outside at the time of the murder). Brown alone came up with a logical solution, that works for me.

No Weapon ever proven or found ! No blood evidence where it should have been. Questionable circumstantial evidence? Investigation most likely botched by police. Jury's hand were tied. Case closed..........not guilty. Simple as that.

Exactly! Reasonable doubt skews toward aquittal, not conviction!

I read about the law in California, and probably elsewhere.
If there is any scenario that explains the actions of the suspect that is not contradicted by the known facts, then the jury MUST find him not guilty by reasonable doubt.

You can find references to this in Erle Stanley Gardner's novels, and true crime books. Do we agree?

BUT, Lizzie was only tried for the murder of her father, which happened when she was outdoors and seen returning to the house. No bloodstains, no murder weapon, HENCE she had an alibi. What could have happened if she was also charged with Abby's murder?

For a modern example, look at the Bizarre Bat Murder in New Orlean circa 1984. The woman's husband and his friend were convicted. Joseph Bosco wrote a book about this crime.

mbhenty @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:17 pm wrote:

No Weapon ever proven or found ! No blood evidence where it should have been. Questionable circumstantial evidence? Investigation most likely botched by police. Jury's hand were tied. Case closed..........not guilty. Simple as that.

I think you have a good point with the blood evidence. I have always had a problem with that they never found very much blood. I think you are right to with the police botching the investigation. Smacks of oj simpson trial to me.

Lizzie was held for trial on 3 indictments, ray.
One for her father, one for her stepmother, and one for both.
You may want to bone up on the info you used to know.

As for a fixed trial, I have no idea Why anyone would want to do that, plus spend all that State money on it! Mr. Borden wasn't that rich, that important, or that special.

The trial was fixed? Oh, please, give me a break.

One just has to read Knowlton's letter to Pillsbury, April 24, 1893 (page 158, the Knowlton Papers) to get his own opinion of their chances of conviction:

"... The case has proceeded so far and an indictment has been found by the grand inquest of the county that it does not seem to me that we ought to take the responsibility of discharging her without trial, even though there is every reasonable expectation of a verdict of not guilty. I am unable to concur fully in your views as to the probable result. I think it may well be that the jury might disagree upon the case. But even in my most sanguine moments I have scarcely expected a verdict of guilty. ..."

This letter was about 1-1/2 months before the trial started. At that time he had every expectation that Lizzie's Inquest testimony and attempt to purchase poison would be allowed in as evidence. Even with that he did not expect a conviction.

I can't see the trial being fixed, there are just too many variables, and too many people involved to try and pull that off. If they knew, and apparently they did, that there wasn't enough evidence against her for conviction at that time, why did they proceed? If they'd have waited, hoping for more evidence to turn up or maybe a confession how would that have changed things for her? Would she still have been able to get the the money. By going ahead with it, didn't they tie their own hands, as she then couldn't be tried for the murders again, IF more evidence had turned up?

RayS @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:01 pm wrote:People who were around at the time claimed the trial was fixed, to get Lizzie off. They said she was guilty of the crime (v erdict first, trial afterwards).

Arnold Brown pointed out that the Trial was indeed fixed to get a not guilty verdict for Lizzie, who did not fill her father (she was outside at the time of the murder). Brown alone came up with a logical solution.

The only thing Brown did was claim the trial was fixed. He gave no evidence supporting that claim. He didn't interview anyone connected to the case e.g. jury members, police, lawyers, or their families. Nor did he provide statements made later by anyone connected with the case saying such a thing did happen. He didn't even provide quotes from Hawthorne's memoirs showing that such a thing happened. Nothing. The book is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims.

DWilly @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:17 pm wrote:...
The only thing Brown did was claim the trial was fixed. He gave no evidence supporting that claim. He didn't interview anyone connected to the case e.g. jury members, police, lawyers, or their families. Nor did he provide statements made later by anyone connected with the case saying such a thing did happen. He didn't even provide quotes from Hawthorne's memoirs showing that such a thing happened. Nothing. The book is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims.

I believe the quotes of Judge Davis about the trial will show he wasn't sure about the outcome of the trial.
Presenting a sawed off handle (if that happened) would certainly convince ordinary jurors there was a doubt in the prosecution.

In any event, the statements in Edmund Pearson's Trial of LB (as I remember them) was the trial was fixed to get Lizzie off. She paid big money for this. But it was really Emma's money at the time.

So I guess we will agree to disagree. But what did Robert Sullivan have to say about the trial? His book is still available.

I'm sorry if I have no confession or fingerprints for this. You just have to look at the big picture.

shakiboo @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:34 am wrote:I can't see the trial being fixed, there are just too many variables, and too many people involved to try and pull that off. If they knew, and apparently they did, that there wasn't enough evidence against her for conviction at that time, why did they proceed? If they'd have waited, hoping for more evidence to turn up or maybe a confession how would that have changed things for her? Would she still have been able to get the the money. By going ahead with it, didn't they tie their own hands, as she then couldn't be tried for the murders again, IF more evidence had turned up?

I'm sure that experienced lawyers know how to do it "without leaving fingerprints" as they say.
Why proceed to trial w/o a good case? What was the point except to exclude Lizzie from ANY future prosecution?

Kat @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:36 am wrote:Lizzie was held for trial on 3 indictments, ray.
One for her father, one for her stepmother, and one for both.
You may want to bone up on the info you used to know.

As for a fixed trial, I have no idea Why anyone would want to do that, plus spend all that State money on it! Mr. Borden wasn't that rich, that important, or that special.

Lizzie was tried for the murder of her father, the weakest case given her presence outside the house at the time of the murders.

Now, if she had been indicted for obstruction of justice, holding back what she knew, what would the verdict have been? Or an accessory after the fact?

mbhenty @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:17 pm wrote: No Weapon ever proven or found ! No blood evidence where it should have been. Questionable circumstantial evidence? Investigation most likely botched by police. Jury's hand were tied. Case closed..........not guilty. Simple as that.

The absence of the murder weapon and lack of bloodstains tells me it was an intruder. So why did Lizzie clam up? Because she saw nothing?

Suppose Ellan Eagan told the police about seeing a stranger and describing? I'll bet the crime would have been solved then.

RayS @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:27 pm wrote:

Kat @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:36 am wrote:Lizzie was held for trial on 3 indictments, ray.
One for her father, one for her stepmother, and one for both.
You may want to bone up on the info you used to know.

As for a fixed trial, I have no idea Why anyone would want to do that, plus spend all that State money on it! Mr. Borden wasn't that rich, that important, or that special.

Lizzie was tried for the murder of her father, the weakest case given her presence outside the house at the time of the murders.

Now, if she had been indicted for obstruction of justice, holding back what she knew, what would the verdict have been? Or an accessory after the fact?

What part about Lizzie was charged for the murders of her Father, Stepmother, and for both do you not understand? You are talking in riddles again.

I think that as ugly as people are getting on this topic, maybe we should put it to bed. Maybe I should not have started it to begin with. Sorry.

It's Ok. I really don't see any ugliness. I see people in discussion. I think DWilly and Harry made good points, and that ray was talking in riddles as Scott pointed out. I will provide copies of the indictments so everyone can see them and remember. They are from the Knowlton Papers which not many people have.
I am not scanning the backs of the first 2.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.

This copy is for Andrew's murder;

Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.
The indictment for Abbie's murder

Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.

Indictment for both.
Side 1

Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.

Both, part 2

Now, Ray can prove how Lizzie was only tried for Andrew's murder. That's fair I think.

I like the copies of the indictment. I liked reading them, thanks Kat.

RayS @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:29 pm wrote:

mbhenty @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:17 pm wrote: No Weapon ever proven or found ! No blood evidence where it should have been. Questionable circumstantial evidence? Investigation most likely botched by police. Jury's hand were tied. Case closed..........not guilty. Simple as that.

The absence of the murder weapon and lack of bloodstains tells me it was an intruder. So why did Lizzie clam up? Because she saw nothing?

Suppose Ellan Eagan told the police about seeing a stranger and describing? I'll bet the crime would have been solved then.

Or maybe she cleaned herself up, with help from Brdiget. But, even if it was an intruder, there is going to be blood somewhere. Maybe sloopy police work? As for LIzzie not seeing any thing, someone in the house had to let the intruder in. Bridget Lizzie or Abby had to have let the person in, so that would lead be to ask why didn't the intruder kill everyone in the house. He left two living witnesses.

You're welcome.

Yes, there were left 2 living witnesses so that would seem to imply that someone on the inside was in on it. They had *protection*, right?

And yes, there should be blood or some kind of blood trail no matter who did the deed.

If there was one strike to each, it would not be unusual to have no blood trail- but with overkill there should be. Why isn't there?

I have often wondered that. With the overkill that took place blood would have been everywher. They couldn't have possibly got all the blood up, and then what happened to the rags that they used to clean? Did they burn them?

Kat @ Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:45 am wrote:I will provide copies of the indictments so everyone can see them and remember. They are from the Knowlton Papers which not many people have.

Thank-you Kat! You are right in saying that not many people have a copy of the Knowlton Papers; I for one do not. I enjoyed reading the indictments and found them to be quite interesting.

I probably should have done a proper job and scanned the backs of the first 2.
I had been doing a lot of scanning lately on another project and got tired of it pretty quickly.

Do you want the backs? Are you saving them to your computer?

Kat @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:31 am wrote:I probably should have done a proper job and scanned the backs of the first 2.
I had been doing a lot of scanning lately on another project and got tired of it pretty quickly.

Do you want the backs? Are you saving them to your computer?

I don't know as though it is necessary to scan the backs of the first 2, Kat. I am saving them for future reference, however, what you have posted so far, is fine with me; is more than I had before!

Only scan the backs of the first 2, if there are other members who would like to have them. I do want to thank-you for offering to scan them.

RayS @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:29 pm wrote:The absence of the murder weapon and lack of bloodstains tells me it was an intruder.

On pages 8-9, of Brown's book, he described the man that Ellan Eagan saw in the Borden's yard the day of the murders. Brown wrote:

As she headed home... Ellan saw a man in the Borden yard, just standing there. She started to do the ladylike thing and avert her eyes when, for the first time in her life, she found herself staring at a stranger. There was something about this man that was wrong! He was about halfway between the gate and the back stoop, and he was facing her. He turned as if to go back. His left side and his back were all that she could see now. His clothes were dirty and course, but what had caught her eye was that he was wearing an overcoat - and on one of the hottest days of the year! At first Ellan thought his coat was burlap, then she realized he had a burlap bag over his shoulder and partially tucked under his arm. The overcoat, she could see, was a long duster-type like nothing she had ever seen. She felt funny, sort of scared. He stopped and turned his face toward her. His eyes looked into hers.

She sucked in her breath, gasping. Feeling faint, she shivered and almost cried out in terror. Speak of the Devil and he will appear roared in her ears. I am seeing the Devil!

When he took a step toward her, she ran. She had to get away, and somehow she did, feeling the fire from his eyes burning right through her. Even though she was confused and filled with terror, she knew something else was wrong, too. As she sped away, her senses finally told her what it was. It was his odor - one that she had never smelled before. It was not sour, not sweet, not a manure smell, not sweat... not anything she could even imagine! Intent on getting help, she ducked into the first yard she came to, gasping and sobbing. Then she was sick.

Notice that there is no mention, whatsoever, of this man having blood on his clothes, or that he had a weapon; granted the weapon could have been hidden in the burlap bag. Note what Brown wrote: At first Ellan thought his coat was burlap; this tells me that this man's coat was either the same color as the burlap bag or very close to it. The color of burlap is beige, therefore, any amount of blood would easily have shown up on this man overcoat. If it is believed that the killer would have been covered in blood or would have had some amount of blood on them, then, why didn't this man have blood on him? Perhaps, it is because this man was not the killer!

IMO: The statement of, "The absence of the murder weapon and lack of bloodstains tells me it was an intruder", does not hold a great deal of merit. I am not saying that the possibly of the killer being an intruder is out of the question; what I am saying is that these are weak reasons, when it comes to determining that the killer had to be an intruder.

FYI: Anything directly quoted from Brown's book is in a blue font.

RayS @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:29 pm wrote:So why did Lizzie clam up? Because she saw nothing?

This is a real good question. Why did Lizzie keep her silence? I find it unbelievable that Lizzie kept her silence because of an intruder, who was supposedly Andrews' illegitimate son, only because she wanted to protect her father's reputation. Good gravy, her father and stepmother had just been brutally murdered! I find it totally unbelievable that Lizzie would find it more important to hide the identity of an intruder just to protect her father's reputation, than to seek justice for the killing of Abby and Andrew. Granted, it appears that there was no love lost between Abby and Lizzie, but, supposedly Lizzie loved her father. Some love!!! Perhaps Lizzie's silence was due to protecting her own behind!

Rebello, Page 273, has lists of expenses to try Lizzie Borden.
They don't include her costs for her defense nor for her personal wants and needs while held for trial.

Preliminary Hearing
351.25
Dr. Dolan, Dr. Coughlin each received $80.00 or
240.00
a rate of $10.00 a day for expenses

Grand Jury Evidence 372.25
Officers' Fees, Plans, Detectives 1,253.04
Autopsies 68.00

Total Cost $2,284.54

Page 274

Grand Jury

Grand Jury 600.00
Sheriffs 200.00
Witnesses' Fees 425.00
Other Expenses 1,476.00
Total Cost $2,701.00

Trial Expenses

Deputy Sheriff $1,760.00
Jury $1,375.00
Parker House for Jurors 708. 35
New Bedford Police 177.00
Witnesses and Other Expenses that Include those
listed below: $6,752.87


Dr. Dolan, First / Second Hearing in 1892 760.00
643.00
Capt. Harrington, First / Second Hearing 104.00
49.00

Professor Wood 1,400.00
Dr. Draper 549.30

Dr. Cheever 422.45
Dr. Richardson 100.00
Dr. Dwight [E. Cone] 100.00

Stenographer Burt and Others 1,587.97
Mr. Brownell, Parker Hotel 201.00
William B. Wright, extra work 20.00
F. H. Hurd 50.00
William H. Moody, Essex County
District Attorney for his 500.00
assistance to Attorney Knowlton
Miscellaneous 266.15

Total Cost $10, 773.22

Total Expenses

Preliminary Hearing $2,284.54
Grand Jury $2,701.00
Trial $10,773.22

Total Cost $15,758.76
______

x 18 = $284,400 to pursue Lizzie only to *fix it* so she was acquitted, after her 10 month stay in prison.

I think it would be more likely to fix a trial if she was guilty and have the city fathers rationalize that 10 months in prison would have to be her only *sentence* she would serve for the killings.

RayS @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:29 pm wrote:Suppose Ellan Eagan told the police about seeing a stranger and describing? I'll bet the crime would have been solved then.

IMO: Ellan Egan was a gutless wonder!!! According to Brown, Ellan Eagan passed by the Borden house shortly before 11:00 am, saw a strange man in the Borden yard, most likely, within hours, or shortly thereafter, would have known about a double homicide being committed at the Borden's house around the time she was there, and didn't have the guts to stand up to tell the police what she witnessed? If in fact, the man Ellan Eagan saw in the Borden's yard the morning of August 4th, 1892, was indeed the killer of Abby and Andrew, then all that Ellan Eagan accomplished was to allow a murderer to go free. Good Lord! I would not have been able to live with myself knowing that I may have seen the murderer of two people, face to face, and not had the guts to stand up and demanded that the police officer listen to what I had to say.

According to Brown, Ellan Eagan did tell Officer Mullaly that she saw a man when she went by the Borden house, however, she failed to tell him the man was in the Borden's yard. She had a golden opportunity to tell her story, and she blew it! (See pages 70-72 of Brown's book). I find it very hard to believe that a police officer was given this information and failed to question her further and investigate it. What else could she have told this officer that would have lead him to check out her story? She saw a man... in the Borden's yard, who was wearing dirty clothes, had an overcoat on, and had an odor she could even imagine. Not much to solve a crime on, IMO. Of course, you may be right, Ray. Anything is possible.