Lizzie Borden Society Forum

As we know Lizzie's Inquest testimony was ruled inadmissible. Also her alleged attempt to purchase poison. If you were the judge deciding how you would vote on these two issues how would you vote?

Interesting question, Harry. I think whether or not to admit the inquest testimony is a constitutional (U.S and Mass. Constitutions) issue, whereas the poison testimony is more related to what might be called facts in evidence. I voted to admit the poison testimony and exclude the inquest testimony.

I can't remember why they decided to omit the poison testimony.

Neat poll. I, too, voted in favor of excluding the inquest testimony, but including testimony as to poison. Just reviewing what memoranda exists in the trial record (the stipluation beginning at pg. 774a) and the fact of the inquest testimony's exclusion makes perfect sense for reasons given there. I suspect that if they had admitted Lizzie's inquest testimony, had she been convicted it would have been reversed immediately.

As for the poison evidence (and Bence) I'd say 'bring it in and, you two fight it out. Put this man to the test before a jury.'

The argument they present for excluding that makes absolutely no sense - unless the Commonwealth was somehow locked into means and manner of death set forth in the indictment.

I voted to exclude both. I tried putting myself in the Judge's position in upholding the constitutional right of "innocent until proven guilty" in context with the actual murder case that was before him and decided not just like he did that the inquest testimony was basicaly given while Lizzie was considered the prime suspect and informaly under "house arrest" and denied proper legal representation at the inquest. Granted this was in the days before the Miranda rights but still the same principle. Plus you and I both would today insist on our right to plead the 5th. To not have to give testimony that would incriminate ourselves. As to the poison testimony, I also agree that it was too remote from the crime before him. There was no forensic evidence of any poisoning and the crime before him was commited by a sharp instrument such as an axe or hatchet. To me, admiting the poison evidence such as it was, would be like admiting the other evidence that the week before the murders Lizzie stepped on a crack to break her mother's back. Just not relevant to the case at hand.

By the way Harry, AWESOME poll. It will bring out some interesting points as to how members of this forum decide this case for themselves.

I voted to admit both. I am of the mind that if there was evidence that the suspect was trying to obtain a possible murder weapon, whether it was last week or last month, it would not be too remote in time. To me that would be like saying there might be evidence she tried to hire a hitman about a month ago, but since we think she did it herself, and it was over a month ago, that testmony is excluded. Too remote in time to me doesn't even make a plausible argument.

I voted to exclude the inquest testimony, but admit the poison.

What is the evidence that Lizzie tried to buy prussic acid to use as a possible muder weapon ?






Tracy...

I guess I would feel that since murder had been committed that all avenues should be explored. It shouldn't be the decision of a judge to determine whether or not someone had one or several possible plans involved to commit the deed. Plus, Bowen discussed at the trial that Abby had told him she thought the family was being poisoned, so it would seem to stand to reason that this information should be examined.

I will check source documents when I get home, but for some reason I am thinking that Dr. Bowen did not feel Abby's thoughts about being poisoned warranted drastic action or serious worry. Didn't he basically send her home to take some castor oil and a port wine chaser ? Then when he did go over to the Borden house later to check on Andrew, Andrew refused to be examined ? (...and the line of "my money shant pay for it" allegedly came about ?)





Tracy...

theebmonique @ Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:59 pm wrote:What is the evidence that Lizzie tried to buy prussic acid to use as a possible muder weapon ?






Tracy...

I didn't say she was trying to buy a murder weapon. I said a possible murder weapon. What other purpose would she be trying to buy cyanide for? If it had any innocent uses at that time, in my opinion, you would not have needed a doctors presciption to obtain it. Which is why the sale was refused. I do not see a doctor giving a woman a prescription to use cyanide to clean a fur cape. Excuse me Dr. but my cape has an ailment could you prescribe me some prussic acid? . So if she was trying to buy cyanide, what other use could there have been for it? Unless she was planning to kill herself. But my opinion is that Lizzie would never do away with herself. She would rather stick around to get what she wants no matter what it takes to get it.

I voted to admit both. While the poison testimony was excluded, it supposedly occurred close enough in time to the murders to suggest a predisposition to murder. What else would Lizzie have done with cyanide? I was tempted to vote to exclude the Inquest testimony, but the Grand Jury had access to it, and that was part of the reason Lizzie was being tried at that point. If it had been excluded at a lower level, a judge would be risking a mis-trial by including it, but the precedent had been set at the Grand Jury level. While morphine could be a hallucinogen, there is no proof that Lizzie was taking it in sufficient doses to have that effect on her. We don't know if she was taking it at all. Come to think of it, by the court having excluded the Inquest testimony, the defense may have had grounds to have the case dismissed.

I voted to admit both. I can understand the exclusion of the inquest testimony, as this might be construed as a means of getting around Lizzie's not testifying. Excluding the attempt to buy poison is indefensible as far as I can see.

I excluded the poison testimony not because of its proximity to the murders but because it had no bearing on the case that was being tried. Lizzie was NOT on trial for the attempted poisoning of her father and step mother. The time for that testimony was before the grand jury who could make an indictment against Lizzie to stand trial. She was NOT indicted by the grand jury for the attempted poisoning of her parents. So it was well within the judge's right to exclude that testimony based on irrelevance to the trial of a woman for an axe murder Not poisononing.

As Sullivan rightly pointed out, it did indicate an intention to kill even if it was not by the same means.

Allen @ Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:51 pm wrote:

theebmonique @ Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:59 pm wrote:What is the evidence that Lizzie tried to buy prussic acid to use as a possible muder weapon ?






Tracy...

I didn't say she was trying to buy a murder weapon. I said a possible murder weapon. What other purpose would she be trying to buy cyanide for? If it had any innocent uses at that time, in my opinion, you would not have needed a doctors presciption to obtain it. Which is why the sale was refused. I do not see a doctor giving a woman a prescription to use cyanide to clean a fur cape. Excuse me Dr. but my cape has an ailment could you prescribe me some prussic acid? . So if she was trying to buy cyanide, what other use could there have been for it? Unless she was planning to kill herself. But my opinion is that Lizzie would never do away with herself. She would rather stick around to get what she wants no matter what it takes to get it.

Yes Allen, I know you didn't say she was trying to buy a murder weapon, which is why I italicized "a possible murder weapon", which I took from your post. I apologize, I should have made my quote more clear.

There is no direct connection between Lizzie possibly attempting to buy prussic acid, which she denies at the Inquest, and the deaths of Abby and Andrew Borden. Yes, it is suspicious IF it was Lizzie who tried to buy the prussic acid, but without an actual connection to the murders, ie; a written plan, or a converstion about a plan, or evidence of poisoning from the autopsy, it seems VERY circumstantial.


EDIT: Lizzie also denied buying prussic acid during Prelim testimony. I apologize for not posting the testimony, but my word copy is packed away at the moment.


Tracy

Pardon me, but Lizzie only testified at the Inquest. You were right the first time.

From where do we know that the inquest testimony of all the *witnesses* was given to the grand jury to use in their decision?

My answer to her denying it would be, if I was a murderer I might deny many things. If I tell the truth I'm going to prison. Circumstancial evidence is also valuable because it can be used as small pieces of a puzzle, which fit together to show the larger picture of what happened. Cases have been won on nothing but circumstantial evidence. Sometimes there isn't even a body to present as evidence. There can't always be a confession, written plans, or discussions of a plan, or matching DNA at the crime scene. This defeats one of the main goals of a murderer in my opinion, which is not to get caught.

Kat @ Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:06 am wrote:Pardon me, but Lizzie only testified at the Inquest. You were right the first time.

From where do we know that the inquest testimony of all the *witnesses* was given to the grand jury to use in their decision?

You are right of course Kat. I was clearly not paying attention when I was searching the prelim. One of the references for prussic acid (the 18th on the list I believe is what I was referring to. It was Lizzie's testimony, but it was the insertion of the Inquest testimony at the end of the Preliminary Hearing. I used the Primary Sources disc I bought from Stefani.





Tracy...

It seems there are varying degrees of circumstantial evidence. Some more connected to the crime than others. It seems like Lizzie's evidence is VERY remote at best.





Tracy...

Pretty amazing results so far. We almost split down the middle on both issues.

After 16 votes, the Inquest testimony is split, 8 for admission, 8 against.

On the poison issue, 9 for its admission, 7 against.

My vote was to exclude the inquest but include the poison. The poison "purchase" appears to be real evidence, while the inquest was not. I think the Court made the right decision in excluding the inquest testimony from her trial for being too contradictory and full of implausible claims. Not only that, but Lizzie ws just a suspect at the time of the inquest. I've often wondered if the outcome of the trial would have been different if Bence was allowed to testify.

Yes Joe! That's what I keep thinking.

(I haven't voted yet. Anyone want to buy my vote?)

If the poison testimony was included we would have a much better idea of the supposed episode, as told by Bence. The defence might have paused and hired their own expert for a rebuttal. An alibi might have been established for Lizzie's whereabouts during that morning gap of time. It would actually be a subject upon which Lizzie needed defending. Robinson and Co. would have had to actually do a little work on that issue for their $25,000.

Thanks Tracy for explaining about the Prelim.

Also, about circumstantial evidence- isn't it equal to direct evidence- it's just that laymen *qualify* it because they somehow think that it is lesser than, say, eyewitness testimony? Evidence is evidence- it's the jury's interpretation that counts as to it's *value.* That's what I was led to believe.

I voted to exclude both.

The Poison and Eli Bence : My thoughts on this are that you either know someone or you dont. For him to have to be taken to the house to identify Lizzie tells me that he in fact did not know her. Also the witness's who saw her described her demeanor differently, voice-soft, voice-loud.

Inquest Testimony: Questioning someone who is on morphine would be the equivalent to questioning a drunk in my opinion, I dont believe either is clear headed enough to be giving statements. Since she was virtually under house arrest, she should have been allowed to have her attorney present. I think at this point in time, she was still trying to help them find the killer and was honestly trying to remember just where she was at these times. Had she been the killer, I believe she would have a better alibi. If she knew it was going to happen, I think she would have an air-tight alibi like John Morse did. I think that inquest was underhanded and illegal and they knew it.

Just my opinion and apt to change constantly!!!

I voted. There was no Mellen House Gang to buy my vote!

Kat- aw pshaw meant to ask you how much you wanted for that vote!!!!

I think the judge should have admitted both into evidence.

I just wanted to add a few things about circumstantial evidence, and how evidence is deemed remote. I guess since that is really what is in debate here I thought it might be relevant.

circumstantial evidence
n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.
See also: evidence

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp? ... =191&bold=

remote
adj., adv. extremely far off or slight. Evidence may be so remote from the issues in a trial that it will not be allowed because it is "immaterial." An act which started the events which led to an accident may be too remote to be a cause, as distinguished from the "proximate cause." Example: While Doug Driver is passing a corner a friend calls out to him causing him to look away, and then Doug looks back and in the middle of the block is hit by a truck backing out of a driveway. The momentary inattention is not a cause of the injury, and is called a "remote cause."

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp? ... ote&type=1

Kat @ Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:06 am wrote:Pardon me, but Lizzie only testified at the Inquest. You were right the first time.

From where do we know that the inquest testimony of all the *witnesses* was given to the grand jury to use in their decision?

The task of the grand jury was to consider the prosecution's evidence against Lizzie and determine whether an indictment and trial were warranted. Since Lizzie's Inquest testimony was a part of the prosecution's evidence, it would have been under consideration by the grand jury. While there is no written record of the grand jury proceedings, to assume that they did not consider the Inquest testimony implies irresponsibility on the part of Knowlton and/or the grand jury. Since there is no proof either way, whether they did or did not read the Inquest testimony, I'll assume that they behaved in good faith and considered all of the prosecution's evidence.

I voted to exclude both and my reasons are pretty much in line with those posted by Bobarth on the previous page. But I was quite tempted by Doug's suggestion to bring Bence into court and put him to the test before a jury ... These are tough decisions. Thanks for making us think about them, Harry.