Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I was looking thru some old posts, and I got to thinking. Would I want to defend Lizzie or prosicute her? I am sitting on the fence about this one.

First, the only thing you really have to do when you defend someone, is just prove reasonable doubt. That seems easy enough, unless the prosicution has an air tight case.

Then I thought, I love to be the proscuter, but then, if there is a good defense lawyer who could poke holes in your theory/case, then you got figure out how plug the holes up.


Which side would you choose to be on?

In this case, I would like to defend...there were just too many gaps in the prosecution's case. It would be much easier to defend the young Christian woman in Victorian times, suffering from shock, grieveing for her father, and under the effects of morphine and bromides. Poor little thing!

Yes, I have to agree with you. There were to many holes in the case, and I think that in that time, noone would believe that a woman could do such a horrible crime.

I don't the police did a very good job either.It just seems that they focused on her and didn't check out all the options.

I’d have to say I’d prefer to prosecute this one. The Commonwealth in this instance really was its own worst enemy – simply because nobody really, truly wanted to see it successfully tried to an inevitable, bitter and traumatic end. In essence they did little more than spend a fortnight playing legalistic softball with Jennings, Robinson & Co. There are, of course, times for propriety and social niceties, but vicious, bloody parricide ought not be overlooked or pardoned as easily as is a common belch.

I would much rather prosecute than defend in this case. It might be argued that the prosecution's lackluster performance actually reflected public opinion at the time, but it really doesn't excuse the job they did.

Yet Knowlton received much praise for his performance during this trial. More than the well-known former govenoor Robinson.

Public sentiment definitely seemed to favor not sentencing a woman to death. Since there was no choice at the time, conviction of murder carried a mandatory death sentence, this translates to public sentiment favoring acquittal. Knowlton would certainly receive praise for his handling of the case under those circumstances, as long as there was no conviction for murder. It was merely a politically correct solution rather than an absolutely correct solution.

Yooper @ Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:34 am wrote:Public sentiment definitely seemed to favor not sentencing a woman to death. Since there was no choice at the time, conviction of murder carried a mandatory death sentence, this translates to public sentiment favoring acquittal. Knowlton would certainly receive praise for his handling of the case under those circumstances, as long as there was no conviction for murder. It was merely a politically correct solution rather than an absolutely correct solution.

I t hink that you are right. Evan today noone wants to sentance a woman to death no matter how guilty they are. I think that was one of Lizzies saving graces even if she did do it.

In the Borden case I would rather defend Lizzie. But if she were guilty I would want the Prosecution to nail her to the wall.

-1bigsteve (o: