Lizzie Borden Society Forum

****This is a complete rumor and in no way based on any hard evidence****

I am well acquanted with an attorney based in Western Massachusetts (I once worked for him and maintain a close friendship) and I recently had a conversation with him about my fascination with the Borden case as of late.

He told me, though I was already aware, about the case files stored at Robinsons offices in Springfield, and his exact wording was "Rumor has it the files prove beyond a doubt that she did it"



Still, just a rumor...

Wow- hot stuff!! I always believed there was something very very incriminating in those files or else they would have been published long ago.

Actually, the people at the law firm that did read them told the papers that there was "no smoking gun".

That does not make sense to me, that these people at the current firm got to read them and they were not Lizzie's attorney.

Myself, I wonder about something being in that Hip Bath collection from the Jennings family. There is something in there that Jennings was trying to keep very quiet, so that Lizzie could not be brought to trial again on a different charge.

Still, I am dying to see those Robinson files. I would think they contain a lot of "new" material.

I still say we should establish a Lizziegate mob and break in.

I agree; where do we join?

It would be nice to see these papers etc, before the next 100 years have passed

Is there any way (legal) to apply pressure. I know that it's been tried before, but there must be something that can be done.

Besides I'd like to have the counter part to the Knowlton book

I have my black ski mask and S.W.A.T. gear- where do we rendez-vous?

I'm practicing to jimmy a lock as we speak. By November I should be a cracker jack at it. Count me in!

I am so with you!
I don't get it, we can't take a look at the file, but any random attorney at that practice can? Doesn't seem right; doesn't seem fair. They are not her attorneys and if it is attorney/client priviledge (did I spell that right??) they're worrying about, then they've already broken it.
Personally, reading that file wouldn't change my obsession with the case. Whether it said definitively who did do it, I highly doubt it. I think the only thing we would find is that Lizzie aided and abetted or obstructed justice, and that is what she would have been charged with if the info came to light (per what Jennings said and/or was worried about) and probably found guilty of.
I wonder what the sentence would be for that? I know death by hanging was if she was found guilty of the murders, but would have happened if it came down that she was found guilty of conspiracy???
Pammie

I think in the end it comes down to possession being 9/10ths of the law. As far as that Supreme Court ruling the “custodial” firm seems to have hung its hat on is concerned – I’ve forgotten the citation at this point but we discussed it here awhile back, it had to do with the late Vincent Foster. If memory serves, the only thing that ruling really said was that an attorney of record cannot be forced to effectively violate attorney/client privilege despite the fact that the client is deceased.

The business about who may have access to the Robinson files actually makes sense. It would only be a real issue (legally and ethically) if the attorney who read the files decided to squeal. If said squealage were to occur, the attorney could face professional penalties at the least.

A current edition of the Rules of Professional Conduct which apply to lawyers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may be found at http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/rpcnet.htm

As far as the sentencing question is concerned, if we could find an 1893 or so edition of the General Laws of Massachusetts, there might be clues (indeed should be clues) in there. For example, see http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/274-7.htm for modern penalties.

Here is a download on the interpretation of the ruling, as it affects the Borden file:

I once called them up- to verify info in a Hatchet submission!