Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I know that the judge ruled that lizzie's inquest testimony was ruled inadmissable. Does anybody know why? I can't seem to find out why. Am I not looking in the right place?

Look in http://lizzieandrewborden.com/pdf%20fil ... orden1.pdf

The discussion of the question is on pages 726-757 of the pdf file (corresponding to pages 774a through 831 of the transcript).

The judge ruled that, since Lizzie was effectively, though not technically, under arrest at the time, her testimony could not be regarded as a voluntary statement. (Most of those who have studied the case regard the ruling as faulty. (See Sullivan, for example.)) The judge's ruling is on pages 756-757 of the pdf (pages 830-831 of the transcript).

Thanks Constantine. Going there now!!

There was also a reasoning that she did not have an attorney present.

I think the ruling was very faulty. The Coroner's Inquest is not a trial. People speculated she was The One, but geez, after that testimony she was doomed. I don't think you see that happening often - that someone's inquest testimony gets thrown out in court.

As far as her not having her attorney there, he was just out in the hall and she talked to him all the time. I'm sure he gave her tips when he could. Maybe one of them was, "Admit nothing. You simply don't remember."

The testimony of Eli Bence, the druggist who says Lizzie tried to buy prussic acid from him before the murders had his testimony thrown out, too. I read in the trial transcripts that they threw it out because they found one guy who testified that prussic acid can kill moths - henceforth, there was another reason a person might try to purchase prussic acid.

(He also identified her by being taken to Lizzie's house and having him listen to her talk from another room. I don't think this was a formal, legal reason for having his testimony ruled inadmissable. But it was a crummy way of ID-ing a person, especially for a charge as serious as this.)