Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I just dusted off the book 40 Whacks and re-read it. The author David Kent is so intensely pro-Lizzie innocent that It borders on inaccurate. Anyone else own the book and wish to comment? One example is how the author defends Judge Dewey and his ridiculously biased statements to the jury doing a better job of defending Lizzie than her own lawyers did. The author stated that the Judge was just passing on information, but I read and re-read his statements, and he basically told the jury that she was innocent. This is the second time I have read 40 Whacks, and I think I will sell it on Amazon.

That is one of the books I haven't read, but I'll take a look at it when I can. Judge Dewey charged the jury on the evidence which is absolutely forbidden. He told them whose testimony could be disregarded and called to question much of the prosecution's case. I don't know why he didn't recuse himself, he had been appointed by Robinson while Robinson was governor!

Judge Dewey's remarks have always bothered me...he had a personal interest in her being found innocent, and he made no secret about making every attempt to influence the jury.

I agree. I can't even read the his closing remarks to the jury; what a biased, incompetent old man he was. WHY didn't Knowlton object...do something, raise issue with the state bar?

I have always been unsure as to her guilt. I have the ability in life to "see both sides" of an issue, even emotionally charged ones like abortion, so I truly have not formed a definite opinion as to her guilt. I lean towards a knowledge of the killing, having someone else come in and do the actual killings, but I try to be objective when I read the facts. AND having said that, the judge's closing remarks to the jury are so prejudicial against the prosecution that it was a definite mistrial. Problem is that once a jury found her "not guilty" the prosecution lost any right to appeal the ruling based on the remarks. Case closed. Not that I think his remarks made much difference, the prosecution botched the case before the remarks were ever made.

From an inquest, to a preliminary hearing, to a grand jury hearing, Lizzie was found probably guilty and advanced to the jury trial. The case against her was strong enough at the three preceding stages to go to the next step. The real problem was that the public did not want to send a woman to the gallows. The legal/political system was well aware of that, so rules were bent.

The classification of second degree murder was adopted in 1852 in Massachusetts as the result of the near impossibility of guilty verdicts for women in murder cases, regardless of the evidence against them. There was no way to get second degree murder out of a double homicide, so it had to be a first degree murder trial for Lizzie with the mandatory death penalty.

Lizzie's inquest testimony and Eli Bence's testimony were disallowed at the trial. Justin Dewey should have recused himself and didn't. The jury was predisposed to a not guilty verdict and Dewey's charge sent the message that they had the court's permission for a not guilty verdict. Everyone got what they wanted at the time. The police didn't pursue the case any further after the trial and there wasn't much pressure from the public for them to do so. The fact that Lizzie was ostracized to the point of living a reclusive life implies that a great many thought she had committed the crimes. Lizzie and Emma didn't seem to have any great interest in finding the person who killed their parents after the trial, either.

Prosecutors nowadays are having a harder time getting someone convicted on circumstantial evidence. While circumstantial evidence is legitimate and enough to convict, it seems everyone is watching shows like CSI and Law & Order, and believe that in every case, some fancy DNA test will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the killer was the accused. At that point the accused will break down, and tearfully tell the police all the details and why they committed the murder. The facts are quite different. DNA is rarely used because it is so expensive, and you need a minimum of body fluid from the killer. Killers, even after conviction rarely admit their guilt. About 8 out of 10 victims knew their killer which is why the family is examined first.

I find it strange that Lizzie had so much support before the trial and then afterwards, was pretty much dumped into the trashheap of history. Ostracized, treated like a leper, she lived in a paranoia. Where were all her suffragette friends? Why didn't they stick around to help her re-acclimate?

NancyDrew wrote:I find it strange that Lizzie had so much support before the trial and then afterwards, was pretty much dumped into the trashheap of history. Ostracized, treated like a leper, she lived in a paranoia. Where were all her suffragette friends? Why didn't they stick around to help her re-acclimate?

The times were different back then, just being associated with that mess was a stigma. I think Lizzie was afraid of continued publicity, wanted desperately to live that like of opulence, and let a choice few into her world, once she trusted that they were not there to dig up the past. Changing her name was proof of wanting out of the lime light, but I never did know why she didn't move to NYC or someplace where she could blend in and lose some notoriety. She was stubborn like her father, and I believe she thought 'no matter what, they are not driving me out'

I think that after many of the facts came out people started to see things differently. Maybe many of the people who once supported Lizzie had just as difficult a time ignoring the facts as many of us do.

Allen wrote:I think that after many of the facts came out people started to see things differently. Maybe many of the people who once supported Lizzie had just as difficult a time ignoring the facts as many of us do.

I Agree...