Lizzie Borden Society Forum

When Lizzie asked of Mayor Coughlin and Marshal Hilliard, "Why? Is there someone in this house suspected?" (or words to that effect) Emma is quoted as saying, "We have tried to keep it from her as long as possible".

I've always wondered about that quote. Why was Emma told and who told her? When was she told? Why didn't she let Lizzie in on it? It always made me feel like Emma was siding in with the police. Would she have been asked by the authorities not to tell Lizzie?

If it were my sister, I would have told her so she really watched her step and so that she had more time to prepare her story. Why didn't Emma tell Lizzie earlier?

augusta @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:28 pm wrote:When Lizzie asked of Mayor Coughlin and Marshal Hilliard, "Why? Is there someone in this house suspected?" (or words to that effect) Emma is quoted as saying, "We have tried to keep it from her as long as possible".

I've always wondered about that quote. Why was Emma told and who told her? When was she told? Why didn't she let Lizzie in on it? It always made me feel like Emma was siding in with the police. Would she have been asked by the authorities not to tell Lizzie?

If it were my sister, I would have told her so she really watched her step and so that she had more time to prepare her story. Why didn't Emma tell Lizzie earlier?

Yes, I think that is an unuaul comment to make too. It has always made me wonder about how Emma knew or how much she was involved with it. Maybe she was somehow let known what happened by way of Bridget(after the fact sending a telegraph) and she told the maid to clean everything up. I guess what I am saying is that maybe she was told before the police contacted her, and she was the one orchestraing the cleanup. Just a thought, but you are right it's off remark.

I honestly think that the household at that point was pretty clueless as to the problems they were about to face. (Except maybe for Morse, who probably was waiting for the most opportune time to beat a hasty retreat.)

I think that Lizzie fully believed that her "story" was believed by the investigators and that she was off the hook.

I think that Emma may have suspected they would be in for more questioning, but that telling Lizzie about it would upset her. Emma was being naively overprotective, and still might have still had hope the whole thing might blow over.

The comment Emma made, was made several days after the day of the murder. I'm not sure how many days, but it was made even after the funeral I believe. By that time alot of people could have filled Emma in on the thoughts of the authorities.

Well, techinically I suppose Emma was now head of household, so maybe being that and the older sister, they figured she should be informed.

It is also possible that Emma and John Morse reached that conclusion independently, without the help of the authorities. Both of their alibis would likely have been checked by the time Lizzie asked the question, and their alibis would be well known to Lizzie. If Bridget was out of the house by then, who would Lizzie be referring to by "someone in this house"? I have a feeling even Lizzie herself figured she was a suspect by then.

Here is Hilliard at the trial with the pertinent testimony:

Q. When you reached the neighborhood of the Borden house, what was there about the house?
A. A large crowd of people in front.

Q. And by a large crowd, give us a little more definite description?
A. Oh, I should say there possibly might have been two and three hundred people: perhaps more than that.

Q. Did you do anything with reference to that crowd?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do?
A. I sent for officers and had them removed from the street.

Q. You then went into the house?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see after you went in, some little time after you went in, the prisoner, her sister and Mr. Morse?
Q. Yes, sir.

Q. Any one else?
A. I think there was somebody that was in the sitting room when we went in: I won't be sure about that: I think there was.

Q. Into which room did you go?
A. Well, when we entered we entered on the side door, what is called the rear door, and passed from there into the kitchen and from there into the sitting room. There we waited perhaps four or five minutes, and finally went into the parlor.

Q. Was there some conversation that occurred?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you take part in it to any extent?

Page 1118

A. No, sir.

Q. Who were the ones who did the talking?
A. The mayor, Mr. Morse, and Miss Lizzie and Miss Emma.

Q. Be good enough to state what the talk was.
A. Yes, sir. After we entered the parlor and sat down, the mayor said that he had a request to make of the family, and that was that they remain in the house for a few days: that there was a great deal of excitement, and he thought it would be better for all concerned if they should remain there and not go onto the street. And I think in that conversation, I am pretty sure that he told them that if they was annoyed by the people around the house, why, to send word to the city marshal or himself and he would see that they was dispersed. I think Mr. Morse it was spoke up and wanted to know how they was going to get their mail from the post office, and the mayor told them it would be better to send somebody for it on account of so much excitement as there was there at the present time around the house. I think Miss Lizzie it was that spoke up next and said "What, is there anybody suspected in this house?" The mayor said, "Well, perhaps Mr. Morse can answer that question from what occurred last night.” Then with that Miss Lizzie spoke up and said, "I want to know the truth." I think that she repeated that twice. The mayor said, "Well, I regret very much to say, Miss Borden, but you are suspected." With that Miss Emma Borden spoke up and said, "We have tried to keep it from her as long as we could." I think that was about all the conversation that I can remember of.

Page 1119

Q. Did you hear anything said in reference to---

MR. ROBINSON. Wouldn't it be best to ask him if anything more was said?

Q. (By Mr. Moody.) Do you recall any other subject talked of?
A. Yes, sir, I do.

MR. ROBINSON. You mean the Mayor spoke?

A. The Mayor asked Miss Lizzie where she was at the time that her father was killed. She said that she was out in the barn, and he asked her what she was out there for; she said that she went out there to get some lead to make some sinkers with. He asked her about how long she remained there and she said about twenty minutes.

Q. Do you recall anything else?
A. No, sir, I do not.

Q. Let me ask you if Miss Borden, when she was told that she was suspected, after Miss Emma had said what you tell us, said anything herself,---if you recall it?
A. Yes, sir, I think there was. When she made the remark "I want to know the truth," and after the Mayor had said "I regret Miss Borden to say you are suspected,"---I think it was there she made the remark "well, I am ready to go any time."

Q. Now, Mr. Hilliard, just stop a moment and see if there is anything else in that conversation you gave, that we may get it all?
A. That is all I can think of at that time there.

Q. How long did your visit occupy?
A. Oh, I should say ten or twelve minutes.

Reading Mayor Coughlin's testimony regarding the visit to the house there is the indication that he spoke with Emma before meeting with Lizzie, Morse and Emma as a group. This from page 1162:

"Q. And there did you have an interview with any of the inmates of the house?
A. We did; after we had been in the house a few moments.
Q. With whom had you the interview?
A. The first person that I saw was Miss Emma Borden.
Q. Then did you later see other persons who lived there?
A. I did.
Q. Whom?
A. I saw Miss Lizzie, Miss Emma, Mr. Morse. The three were together.
Q. In what room did you talk?
A. In the parlor."

I've always had a theory about this meeting as to who suspected Lizzie. What I think Coughlin may have been saying was that it was the crowd who suspected Lizzie. When I read Coughlin's testimony below he mentions the crowd following Morse.

"Q. Doctor, I wish you would recall that conversation as best you can at this time?
A. Upon taking my seat, as near as I can recall, I said to the family, "I have a request to make of the family, and that is that you remain in the house for a few days, as I believe it would be better for all concerned if they did so." There was a question arose---I think Miss Lizzie, to the best of my recollection, Miss Lizzie asked me, and said, "Why, is there anybody in this house suspected?" I said, "Well, perhaps Mr. Morse can answer that question better than I, as his experience last night, perhaps, would justify him in the inference that somebody in this house was suspected." Miss Lizzie said, "I want to know the truth." And I believe that she repeated the statement. "Well," I said, "Miss Borden, I regret to answer, but I must answer yes, you are suspected." And if I remember rightly, at that time Miss Borden, replying, said, "I am ready to go now." I asked her where she went to after she had left her father."

Why bring up the subject of Morse if not to warn them about the suspicions of the crowd? His warning to stay in the house I believe was because he thought the crowd situation was getting out of hand. There were certainly enough police guards placed around the house. On page 1161 he testifies:

"Q. As you approached toward the house did you see any persons on the street?
A. I saw a large number of people congregated around the Borden house.
Q. What was done with reference to those people?
A. I instructed the marshal to have them removed.
Q. Were they removed?
A. They were."

We'd have to be naive to think the police didn't suspect Lizzie but would they alert her to their suspicions at that stage of the investigation?

Just something to consider as a possibility.

Interesting that Morse was there when that was said. I didn't realize that. Good Lord, what is it with him and the mail? The first words out of his mouth - "How will we get the mail?" He was obsessed with it. It was his main concern, it looks. I think I'd ask "How will we get ___? (Whatever they needed that was necessary to live.)" I think Morse was contacting the murderer.

Emma saying "We tried to..." says that more than just her in the house knew Lizzie was suspected. I would not have guessed Morse in a thousand years. I thought she might have been referring to Alice Russell. And that one of the authorities told them earlier.

I don't think Morse left the house to get rid of the crowd. He went to the post office (where else?) and it was remarked that incredibly he didn't know he was being followed, and some policeman had to help him. I can't imagine the crowd yelling, "Give us Lizzie!" After she was suspected, so many people were on her side. How the jury felt (probably) about how could a female Sunday school teacher murdering her parents makes me think that that's how most of society felt - at first. Until she really was acquitted and then they wondered ...

It must have been before the inquest? Or between the two days Lizzie testified? Because they arrested her right after the inquest, I think.

But if Coughlin & Company were telling her she was a suspect, surely Jennings would have brought it up when he hollered about Lizzie not having a lawyer and it being a time when she was a suspect.

I have to vote for Coughlin & friend(s) meaning the police thought she was a suspect. She asked for "the truth" perhaps twice. I think they were telling her informally. There was no warrant or arrest made at the time. Maybe because the Victorian lady (Lizzie) asked them for 'the truth' they complied. I think he asked Morse to tell them about the crowd chasing him to illustrate to her how dangerous it was for any of them to go out, to make that her answer so he wouldn't have to say. I don't think he should have lied and said, "Why no, Miss Lizzie. None of you in the house are suspects."

Yes, I believe in what Shelley and/or Yooper said in that Lizzie would have gotten all upset if Emma told (now it is Emma and Morse, isn't it?). But I can't imagine the authorities saying, "By the way, don't turn your back on your sister. We think she did it." I'd think they would not trust her own sister not to tell her.

I do wonder what that crowd was saying, if a person could make it out. I always thought they were suspecting Morse. "Give us Lizzie! Give us Lizzie, by God, or we'll break in the house!" I don't think that was the way everyone but Lizzie heard of it. Wouldn't that have made the papers? And wouldn't Lizzie have heard about it? Oh, she didn't read the papers then, did she?

Apparently Emma and at least one other knew for "some time". Maybe they told Emma when they had to search all the dresses? She was most co-operative with all the searches. It's still strange.

Please give to the Edmund Porter grave marker fund.

I think it may have been Medley who said on August 4th "I don't like the girl" to Hilliard. I should check on the statements. Yes, I think the police, who did this sort of thing daily, smelled something fishy in Lizzie's manner and story. Immediately. And Emma, who was no dummy must have thought it through that Lizzie had NO alibi at all for Abby's murder, and was in fact right downstairs in the kitchen. Emma was sure to realize things did not look good for her sister. Alice figured squealing about that dress would put the icing on the cake for old Lizzie, and kept her mouth shut for a good long time until she had to, in good conscience, spill the beans.
I think John Morse was also as sharp as a tack, in his profession, he would need to be. And I think he got a handle on that situation really fast. and how it might play out. He was probably not the sort of guy who liked to be cooped up in the house with a bunch of women either -especially Lizzie maybe.

Philip Harrington was one cop who disliked Lizzie. I think he's the one to whom she said, "She was my step-mother. My mother died when I was two years of age," or words to that effect.

It seems that Harrington questioned her upstairs and did not like Lizzie's alibi.


Please give to the Edwin Porter Gravestone Fund

No, there weren't any mobs with torches and pitchforks clamoring for the arrest of Lizzie but the newspapers were quite open about their suspicions. I assume the populace read the papers. The FR Globe especially was hinting there should be an arrest.

This was in the FR Herald, on Saturday, the day of the conversation in the parlor:

"... It appears that no newspapers have been received inside the house since the murder, and that up to the time of the funeral neither of the sisters suspected the cruel suspicions which the police had formed. The Misses Borden were beginning to feel the strain terribly. Besides the kind friends who have sacrificed their own comfort to relieve the stricken daughters, they have seen nobody to talk to since the murder. The newspaper stories have been kept from Lizzie, but will be broken to her after the funeral, either by friends or officers of the law. Up to the present, Marshal Hilliard has respected the feelings of the daughters, knowing that he would be able to find either of them when he wanted to interview her."

Lizzie's alleged attempt to purchase poison was also known and had been printed in the papers.

To the Marshal I said “I dont like that girl”.

This comes from Philip Harrington, pg 7. of the witness statements, if I'm reading the attributions correctly.

Ah yes, thanks. It was Medley though who went straight out to the barn and checked out that dusty loft with his hands -which tells me he was not buying Lizzie's tale either. I picture the boys in blue back at Central Station comparing notes later and drawing their own conclusions about how the day's interviews had gone and what they thought about Lizzie. I would love to have been a fly on the wall there-and at their homes later telling their WIVES about it all!

Aye, you were thinking of Medley and the loft is all Shelley. You know you're right tho: I do have to wonder how long it took before at least one amongst the bunch said 'All right, this is what we have. Now, it may be just me ... but do you fellers smell something odd? - and I'm not talking about mutton...'

You can almost hear it:
"There she was as cool as ice, sitting up on her tuffet like the QUEEN, telling ME it would make her sick if I searched her chamber -and then me dismissed with a flea in my ear just like that!"or
" Peculiar bunch- the lot of 'em! Always said old man Borden would met a bad end one day. I tell ya boys, the Irish work girl looked like a rabbit ready to bolt. We should make sure she don't skip town! She had the wind up pretty bad and I'm saying she knows more than she's saying!"
"And how about ole Addie Churchill creeping about with wide eyes like she's seen something she oughten- I'll bet ya a pint Lizzie will never give in- with that face like a battleship and as mum as the grave, she'll bank on her petticoats and her old man's money to see her through right enough!"

Hear it?? No... You've got me beat on that one kiddo, I'll tell you that this minute!

I think the strangest part of all is the authorities allowing someone they strongly suspected of murdering two family members to remain in the house with other family members! Who knows what she might come up with in the middle of the night? Who trusted who how far and why? Maybe Bridget showed the most sense of all of them by beating a hasty retreat! I wonder how well they all slept.

Well, that's true - but just the same the authorities did have her under surveillance of a sort, so she wasn't entirely alone.

I thought I remembered that Alice Russell was reading a newspaper one of the nights. It was the night of the trip to the cellar- Thursday night. I couldn't imagine staying over that night after reading about it! :

Trial
Alice Russell
Page 389 / i411

Q. Do you remember when you parted after coming up from the cellar with Miss Lizzie Borden?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see her again that night?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How soon after?
A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know where she had been in the meantime?
A. I think she had been in her room. Our doors were open.

Q. Were the doors open all the time?
A. Up to that time.

Q. Well, then, after that time were the doors open?
A. No, they were closed a short time.

Q. You said you slept in which room?
A. What was Mr. and Mrs. Borden's room.

Q. The doors were closed, were they?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. After the doors were closed did you see her again until morning?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time?
A. After I opened the door.

Q. How long was that after you closed the door?
A. I don't know for sure; I think fifteen or twenty minutes.

Q. How long after you came upstairs was it before you closed the door between the two rooms?
A. I don't know.

Q. Can't you give me any idea?
A. I cannot: I don't know whether we went right up stairs or not.

Q. You don't remember whether you did or not?
A. No, I did not: I can't tell you anything about it.

Q. In any event, the doors were closed at the time you say?
A. Yes, sir.

Page 390 / i412

Q. What were you doing---that will measure the time, perhaps as well as anything else ---what were you doing while the doors were closed between the rooms?
A. I was getting ready for bed. I read an account of this affair in the News.

Q. Anything else?
A. I don't think I did anything else.

Q. Any toilet operation of any sort?
A. Bathing.

When the attorneys argued case law to the Judges at the trial to suppress Lizzie's inquest testimony, partly the reason that testimony was disallowed was because from the moment the Mayor told Lizzie she was suspected (it was decided), she was considered by the court to have been practically under arrest. A warrant was in their pocket by the 8th I believe- Monday- and that clinched it for the judges to throw out Lizzie's testimony.

This doesn't answer the speculative question of this topic, but I'm just givng more info for background.

My reading of the court's ruling is that the court's decision was based only on her sworn Inquest statements while under oath.

Pages 830-831 covers that ruling. In part it reads:

"... It has been held that statements of the accused as a witness under oath at an inquest before he had been arrested or charged with the crime under investigation, may be voluntary and admissible against him in his subsequent trial, and the mere fact that at the time of his testimony at the inquest he was aware that he was suspected of the crime does not make them otherwise. But we are of opinion both upon principle and authority that if the accused was at the time of such testimony under arrest, charged with the crime in question, the statements so made are not voluntary and are inadmissible at the trial."

From that I read that once the warrant was issued (on the 8th) she could be considered under arrest. That was not so on the 6th, when she was neither charged (by warrant) or under arrest.

But going back to the original question of how Emma knew, I again cite the testimony of Mayor Coughlin:

"Q. And there did you have an interview with any of the inmates of the house?
A. We did; after we had been in the house a few moments.
Q. With whom had you the interview?
A. The first person that I saw was Miss Emma Borden.
Q. Then did you later see other persons who lived there?
A. I did.

There is no record of what said at this pre-meeting alone with Emma but he could have advised her at that time.

Kat @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:45 am wrote:I thought I remembered that Alice Russell was reading a newspaper one of the nights. It was the night of the trip to the cellar- Thursday night. I couldn't imagine staying over that night after reading about it! :

...And she was sleeping in the murdered couples's bed.

...And yet, she was scared going down into the cellar where the clothes were, etc.

Bit of an enigma, Alice!

I think you are right,Shelley. I think the police thought maybe to as the only close living relative, that Emma should know.

The phrase "keep it from her as long as possible" implies some amount of time has elapsed since gaining the knowledge. Probably longer than since the mayor's arrival. If the mayor informed Emma upon his arrival that Lizzie was suspected, and if this was news to Emma, then the statement makes very little sense at that moment.

I agree with you Yooper, I took it to mean she had knowlede of Lizzie being a suspect for alot longer then those few minutes. And the "we" implies more then just her.

I was interpreting this by the Judge at the trial:

The common law regards substance more than form. The principle involved cannot be evaded by avoiding the form of arrest if the witness at the time of such testimony is practically in custody. From the agreed facts and the facts otherwise in evidence, it is plain that the prisoner at the time of her testimony was, so far as relates to this question,
Page 831
as effectually in custody as if the formal precept had been served; and, without dwelling on other circumstances which distinguish the facts of this case from those of cases on which the Government relies, we are all of opinion that this consideration is decisive, and the evidence is excluded.

I was under the impression that with police surrounding the house, and inmates told to stay home, and then the Mayor- who is head of the police- told Lizzie she was a suspect, that these conditions contributed partly (as I wrote) to the decision.

It’s never made sense to me why the judge(s) didn’t base their ruling on admissibility along strictly constitutional lines, without the rather muddy references to common law practices.

For example, the 12th article of the Commonwealth’s Constitution – which had been operative since 1780 or thereabouts, stated that:

“No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or no offence until the same if [sic.] fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself; and every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his counsel at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.”

See what I mean? The key there is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him. As far as it goes, a person might be "held to answer" at either an inquest or a formal criminal proceeding – it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other, you might say.

There’s a contradiction though, smack in the middle of the judges' ruling, just above the paragraph cited earlier:

“Statements made by one accused of crime are admissible against him only when it is affirmatively established that they were voluntarily made. It has been held that statements of the accused as a witness under oath at an inquest before he had been arrested or charged with the crime under investigation, may be voluntary and admissible against him in his subsequent trial, and the mere fact that at the time of his testimony at the inquest he was aware that he was suspected of the crime does not make them otherwise."

If they'd started with even the most basic Article 12 interpretation and went from there...

Oh well, at least this is the section that does provide some citations of case law!

The difference may be in being suspected of a crime or being arrested for a crime. Being arrested implies exclusive suspicion of a crime, to the exclusion of others. Being suspected is not exclusive, many people could be suspected at any given time. The Commonwealth needed to have Lizzie under arrest to make the Inquest testimony inadmissible. If common law recognizes substance over form, then that was the best approach because constitutional law would require a formal arrest and an explanation of the charges before rights were abridged, and the Inquest testimony could not be excluded. Even if a person is formally charged with a crime, Inquest testimony is admissible and recognized as voluntary. This stands to reason, a signed confession is also a voluntary statement and admissible.

The form of arrest is very loosely interpreted in this case. Lizzie was no more under arrest than any other occupant of the house, especially when the mayor offered safety as the reason for the request (not demand) that they remain indoors. He cited John Morse's post office visit as the example. Lizzie had not been formally charged with any crime, so she wasn't under arrest. I think the object was to disallow the Inquest testimony, and this was rationalized by a loose interpretation of common law.

That's true, or would seem so. I'd forgotten, but when I reviewed the hearing transcripts earlier tonight I did notice at least a passing nod to the "Article 12" argument.

The 6th item at the bottom of page 795 though is the most troublesome. If counsel was in fact sought and denied, that pretty well kills the whole business right there I would think. It makes no difference at all if the defendant is a woman or a chimpanzee...

Robinson's argument succeeded only because of Lizzie being suspected of the murders. The warrant which had been issued and was in effect at the time of the Inquest was never acted upon. A new warrant was issued and Lizzie was arrested based upon it. Until she was under arrest, she was not under arrest. The fact that the police might have acted upon the warrant at any time is an admission that Lizzie was not under arrest. Robinson illustrates the marshal being "at Lizzie's side" during the Inquest with the warrant in his pocket. Is there some "danger" in this? The danger of what, being put under arrest?

If Lizzie was not under arrest, could she be denied her right to counsel? Was she actually denied the right having requested it? If she was under arrest, denial of counsel would certainly solve the argument immediately, there would be no question.

Another consideration stems from Robinson's point of the police more or less having the house surrounded. He contended that every move within the house was being monitored by the police. Would the substance change if Lizzie was not suspected and the police were only interested in the protection of the Borden household? What difference would there be in the actions of the police whether or not Lizzie was suspected? Would she still be "effectively under arrest"?

If Lizzie was in fact effectively under arrest due to the actions of the authorities, was she denied her right to due process? If the warrant was part of due process and it was not acted upon in a timely manner, it might be so. At that point, why bother with a trial at all?

Today I guess they would just refer to her as "a person of interest".
Here's an interesting bit from the Fall River Herald which would sound as if someone in the house was a suspect to the police.

"Photographer Walsh took an inside view of the cell room this morning.
In speaking of the handling of the case District Attorney Knowlton stated that it more than pleases him. As everyone under suspicion was under close police surveillance it was better to examine everything before precipitating matters."

I think this is from The Sourcebook, compiled by Kent, page 36,
and the date is implied, by context and continuity:

The Fall River Herald, Tuesday, August 9 (?), 1892
[Headlines]
INQUEST BEGUN.

Judge Blaisdell Listens to
The Evidence

GATHERED BY THE POLICE
IN THE BORDEN CASE.

Midnight Conference With
the District Attorney

ALD. BEATTIE STATES HIS VIEWS
ON THE AFFAIR.

Lizzie Borden Taken to the
Central Police Station.

Shelley @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:38 am wrote:Today I guess they would just refer to her as "a person of interest".
Here's an interesting bit from the Fall River Herald which would sound as if someone in the house was a suspect to the police.

"Photographer Walsh took an inside view of the cell room this morning.
In speaking of the handling of the case District Attorney Knowlton stated that it more than pleases him. As everyone under suspicion was under close police surveillance it was better to examine everything before precipitating matters."

I don't think there's any doubt that the police had Lizzie under surveillance as an adjunct to their presence for the safety of the occupants in the Borden house. If they suspected her and didn't want to arrest her or if they couldn't show probable cause for an arrest warrant, they would be limited to surveillance. Maybe they were hoping Lizzie would somehow lead them to the murder weapon through her actions.

There is nothing wrong with the police suspecting someone and watching them. That does not put the suspected individual under arrest, either in effect or in fact. The law would have to be redefined to allow arrest without probable cause to validate the finding of the court which excluded Lizzie's Inquest testimony.