Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I was reading some things online and found this bit on the Borden trial in a book entitled The Story of the Sun, New York 1833-1918 by Frank M. O'brien. I find it interesting because of the way it depicts Lizzie at the time of the verdict.

"The following was printed in the Sun of June 21, 1893, under the date of New Bedford, Massachusetts:

"Lizzie Andrew Borden," said the clerk of the court, "stand up!"

She arose unsteadily, with a face as white as marble.

"Gentlemen, have you agreed upon a verdict?" said the clerk to the jury.

It was so still in court that the flutter of two fans made a great noise.

"We have," said Foreman Richards boldly.

The prisoner was gripping the rail in front of the dock as if her standing up depended on it keeping its place.

"Lizzie Andrew Borden," said the clerk,"hold up your right hand. Jurors, look upon the prisoner. Prisoner, look upon the foreman."

Every juryman stood at right-about-face, staring at the woman. There was such a gentle, kindly light beaming in every eye that no one questioned the verdict that was to be uttered. But God save every woman from the feelings that Lizzie Borden showed in the return look she cast upon the jury! It was what is pictured as the rolling gaze of a dying person. She seemed not to have the power to move her eyes directly where she was told to, and they swung all around in her head. They looked at the ceiling; they looked at everything, but saw nothing. It was a horrible, a pitiful sight, to see her then.

"What say you, Mr. Foreman?" said the gentle old clerk.

"Not guilty!" shouted Mr. Richards.

At the words the wretched woman fell quicker than ever an ox fell in the stockyards of Chicago. Her forehead crashed against the heavy walnut rail so as to shake the reporter of the Sun who sat next to her, twelve feet away, leaning on the rail. It seemed that she must be stunned, but she was not. Quickly, with unconscious movement, she flung up both arms, threw them over the rail, and pressed them under her face so that it rested on them. What followed was a mere mockery, but it was the well-governed order of the court and had to be gone through with."

They make it sound as though Lizzie was expecting a verdict other than the one she got.

The way they discribed the jury doesn't sound like what you'd expect from a jury who thought her quilty.

Allen @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:51 pm wrote:... Her forehead crashed against the heavy walnut rail so as to shake the reporter of the Sun who sat next to her, twelve feet away, leaning on the rail. It seemed that she must be stunned, but she was not. Quickly, with unconscious movement, she flung up both arms, threw them over the rail, and pressed them under her face so that it rested on them. ...

Well, well, well, our Lizzie shows emotion after all!!! Now, isn't that interesting... She shows all this emotion when it comes to herself, but none, zip, zero, when it comes to the brutal murders of her father and step-mother. If this scene actually took place, then it tells me quite a bit about Lizzie's character.

yes, Twinsrwv, but she had over a year of what had to be tremendous stress. I don't think it's quite the same thing, as her going through what she did when the murders were discovered. Mrs. Churchill pretty much says the same thing when she first saw Lizzie standing at the side door, enough so that she immediately knew something was wrong and called out to Lizzie. Lizzie had from that time on, time to get herself under control, and as all her friends stated, she acted as they would expect her to act.......in control of herself. And even though she fainted and bonked her noggin it didn't take her long to once again have control of herself.

Thanks for the Sun transcription!
I think the scene, depicted in the New York Sun was a bit overdramatic. The verdict, as covered in other papers, was certainly melodrama, but not descriptive as to Lizzie bonking her head or fainting:

Evening Standard of June 21, 1893:
It was 4:30 o’clock when Lizzie sat in her seat in the dock with a box of flowers in her lap, and was leaning forward and conversing with Charles J. Holmes in a desultory manner. All at once there was a stir, and people began to gather in the room, the reporters’ seats being the first to fill.
“What is the matter?” was asked a reporter who had just came in, and he answered, “The jury is ready to report.” Miss Borden’s face for an instant became very pale, and then the red tide surged back, leaving her with more color than she has had since the commencement of the trial. . .

On the announcement of the verdict her iron composure again failed her, and she bowed her head on the rail of the dock, and burst into a very passion of tears. Her friends, including her faithful sister, Emma, gathered around her and counseled her so that she became after a minute or two more composed. . .

Immediately after the adjournment of the court Miss Borden, accompanied by Miss Emma and John V. Morse, her counsel and other friends, took possession of the judge’s room. There an informal reception was held.
When a Standard man looked in on the happy party every lady was in tears.
At 5:45 o’clock Miss Borden, accompanied by her sister, left the city for Fall River.

This is Howard in the Boston Globe, June 21,1893, on the verdict:
Clerk Borden – What is your verdict?
Foreman – Not guilty.
At once there rose so wild a yell that every prisoner in his cell could hear it.
Lizzie sank into a chair, rested her hands upon the rail, her face upon them, and cried her second cry of joy.
She was no longer friendless. Her sister, her counsel, the women in the court room, all the men from everywhere rushed to greet her, and burying her head in her sister's arms, she said:
"Now take me home, I want to go to the old place and go at once tonight."
I had a brief conversation of congratulation and satisfaction, but it was such a talk as would only naturally pass between a woman relieved but a moment before from a terrific strain and one who felt it to be the privilege and duty of a man to congratulate her on the changed condition of affairs.

--These 2 news items were transcribed by Harry.

shakiboo @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:37 pm wrote:yes, Twinsrwv, but she had over a year of what had to be tremendous stress. I don't think it's quite the same thing, as her going through what she did when the murders were discovered. Mrs. Churchill pretty much says the same thing when she first saw Lizzie standing at the side door, enough so that she immediately knew something was wrong and called out to Lizzie. Lizzie had from that time on, time to get herself under control, and as all her friends stated, she acted as they would expect her to act.......in control of herself. And even though she fainted and bonked her noggin it didn't take her long to once again have control of herself.

O.K. you have a good point there; she probably was under a great deal of stress, however, it seems to me that she displayed more emotion for herself, than for her beloved, brutally murdered, father. As for Lizzie's reactions on the day of the murders, I have always wondered how Mrs. Churchill, and Lizzie's other friends, could possibly know that Lizzie acted as they would expect her to act. I mean, it is not as if a double homicide was a normal occurrence in the Borden household. I think people's reaction to death is, more often than not, 'out of character' for them, and especially when death comes in such a brutal manner.

I may have been misleading in presenting the point I wanted to convey here. Correct me if I am wrong... It is my understanding that during an interview with a policeman (?), Lizzie said, "They call me the Sphinx of Coldness. I never did show my feelings, and I cannot change my nature now."

I did a search of the forum topics yesterday and again today but could not find anything to support the above statement, that is, I could not find who the interview was with nor the interview with this statement in it. I will continue to search, but, will post this entry without source support. The point I want to make is that if this statement was in fact made by Lizzie and the article in the book titled The Story of the Sun, New York 1833-1918, is anywhere near true, then Lizzie was not being truthful, because she did display her emotions at the time her verdict was read. So was she the Sphinx of Coldness, as she was dubbed, or wasn't she?

I'd also like to know where I can find information to support the above statement that was supposedly made by Lizzie. Would this information be in the witness statements? Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Kat @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:07 pm wrote:... Evening Standard of June 21, 1893: ... Miss Borden’s face for an instant became very pale, and then the red tide surged back, leaving her with more color than she has had since the commencement of the trial. . .

On the announcement of the verdict her iron composure again failed her, and she bowed her head on the rail of the dock, and burst into a very passion of tears. Her friends, including her faithful sister, Emma, gathered around her and counseled her so that she became after a minute or two more composed. . . ...

and

Kat @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:31 pm wrote:This is Howard in the Boston Globe, June 21,1893, on the verdict:
Clerk Borden – What is your verdict?
Foreman – Not guilty.
At once there rose so wild a yell that every prisoner in his cell could hear it.
Lizzie sank into a chair, rested her hands upon the rail, her face upon them, and cried her second cry of joy.
She was no longer friendless. Her sister, her counsel, the women in the court room, all the men from everywhere rushed to greet her, and burying her head in her sister's arms, she said:
"Now take me home, I want to go to the old place and go at once tonight."
I had a brief conversation of congratulation and satisfaction, but it was such a talk as would only naturally pass between a woman relieved but a moment before from a terrific strain and one who felt it to be the privilege and duty of a man to congratulate her on the changed condition of affairs.

Although the reports in the Evening Standard and the Boston Globe are less dramatic than what was reported in the Sun - it is still showing that Lizzie did indeed show her emotions.

Rebello, page 202-3:

An interview with Allen Wordell, a Borden juror, offered much insight to the jurors and the trial. Mr. Wordell recalled Lizzie as, "... rather good looking ... very genteel ... nothing hard about her face ... quite the sort of person anyone would like to know ... through the trial she kept her emotions well in hand ... 'The Sphinx of Coolness' she was called when she had looked unperturbed on the hatchets which were brought into the court ...
compared to Lady Macbeth ... because she seemed to be so cold-blooded and unconcerned throughout the trial."

Source: William M. Emery Scrapbook, courtesy of Robert A. Flynn.

I think the Emery Scrapbook became the Sourcebook-- maybe the quote is in there?

Thanks, Kat! We now know who the interview was with, but darn it, I don't have a copy of the Sourcebook.

According to the Evening Standard (Sept. 2, 1892) the expression "sphinx of coolness" originated with Knowlton himself. This is a line from the article:

"... When Assistant Marshal Fleet was at the house in the interests of justice, attempting to ascertain how her father and mother were killed, this sphinx of coolness said: "She is not my mother; she is my stepmother."..."

This was made apparently in Knowlton's closing argument at the Preliminary hearing. It is not in Porter's book where he writes of Knowlton's closing.

Thanks Harry, I appreciate the information. I don't have the Preliminary hearing, either! Looks like I need to go shopping...

Judy, that expression is not included in our transcribed book of the Preliminary hearing. For the closing arguments (which were not included in the 5 part record found in the Jenning's files) we worked from Porter's book.

The Evening Standard includes other material beyond what is in Porter.

O.K. If I am understanding you correctly, we don't have Knowlton's complete closing argument at the Preliminary hearing. Hmmm, that's too bad.

Out of curiosity, do we have a copy of the article in the Evening Standard (Sept. 2, 1892)?

I still want to get a copy of the Preliminary hearing; I think it would be a helpful thing to have.