Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I was reading some of the questions and answers from Dr. Bowen's Preliminary Hearing testimony, and a couple of things intrigued me. If any of the other posters here can help me out, I would be grateful.

First, Mr. Adams had the following exchange with the doctor:

Q. By the way, you have been summoned here, and have been in attendance here constantly, as a government witness? You have been summoned here every day as a government witness?
A. I have been summoned.
Q. If you do not know by whom, it is very fortunate.
(Mr. Knowlton) I will agree that he was.

I hate to seem dense, but does anyone know what Adams and Knowlton meant when they agreed that Dr. Bowen was "very fortunate" not to know who summoned him to the hearing? Or was Knowlton simply agreeing that Bowen was summoned? I don't understand this exchange at all.

Secondly, Mr. Knowlton seemed very interested in Dr. Bowen's emotional reaction to the sight of the victims bodies, as shown in the following:

Q. Dr. Bowen, it was an awful sight, was it not? (Knowlton is referring to Andrew's body)
A. Yes Sir.
Q. It was a ghastly sight, was it not?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. It effected you to tears, did it not, Doctor?
A. No Sir.
Q. When you came out from that room into the other room, were there not tears streaming down your cheeks?
A. I should not think so.
Q. Would you say they were not, if anybody else said so?
A. I should want more than one to say it, or two or three.
Q. The eye ball was hanging out itself?
A. It was cut in two, in halves.
Q. And lay on one cheek or the other?
A. No it was not lying on the cheek. It was cut in two, or cut in halves, and remained almost in the natural position.
Q. You do not remember that you came out of that room with the tears streaming down your face?
A. No Sir.
Q. You think you did not?
A. I think I did not; I am sure I did not.

Then, on re-cross, discussing Abby's body:

Q. (Mr. Knowlton) How long a look did you take at the body at that time?
A. The first time up there, I do not suppose it was more than a minute or two.
Q. Were you taking particular notice of the position of things at that time?
A. No Sir I was not, except herself, except the body.
Q. You were not looking at it as a physician would look at an ordinary case?
A. No Sir. I was satisfying myself she was dead.
Q. You were then, if you will pardon me for saying so, quite excited?
A. I was.
Q. You were very excited?
A. Yes Sir.

Does anyone have any idea what, if anything, Knowlton was driving at? He seemed to be implying that Dr. Bowen's testimony could not be trusted due to his emotional state at the crime scene, but I'm not sure.

Darrowfan wrote:I was reading some of the questions and answers from Dr. Bowen's Preliminary Hearing testimony, and a couple of things intrigued me. If any of the other posters here can help me out, I would be grateful.

First, Mr. Adams had the following exchange with the doctor:

Q. By the way, you have been summoned here, and have been in attendance here constantly, as a government witness? You have been summoned here every day as a government witness?
A. I have been summoned.
Q. If you do not know by whom, it is very fortunate.
(Mr. Knowlton) I will agree that he was.

I hate to seem dense, but does anyone know what Adams and Knowlton meant when they agreed that Dr. Bowen was "very fortunate" not to know who summoned him to the hearing? Or was Knowlton simply agreeing that Bowen was summoned? I don't understand this exchange at all.

Secondly, Mr. Knowlton seemed very interested in Dr. Bowen's emotional reaction to the sight of the victims bodies, as shown in the following:

Q. Dr. Bowen, it was an awful sight, was it not? (Knowlton is referring to Andrew's body)
A. Yes Sir.
Q. It was a ghastly sight, was it not?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. It effected you to tears, did it not, Doctor?
A. No Sir.
Q. When you came out from that room into the other room, were there not tears streaming down your cheeks?
A. I should not think so.
Q. Would you say they were not, if anybody else said so?
A. I should want more than one to say it, or two or three.
Q. The eye ball was hanging out itself?
A. It was cut in two, in halves.
Q. And lay on one cheek or the other?
A. No it was not lying on the cheek. It was cut in two, or cut in halves, and remained almost in the natural position.
Q. You do not remember that you came out of that room with the tears streaming down your face?
A. No Sir.
Q. You think you did not?
A. I think I did not; I am sure I did not.

Then, on re-cross, discussing Abby's body:

Q. (Mr. Knowlton) How long a look did you take at the body at that time?
A. The first time up there, I do not suppose it was more than a minute or two.
Q. Were you taking particular notice of the position of things at that time?
A. No Sir I was not, except herself, except the body.
Q. You were not looking at it as a physician would look at an ordinary case?
A. No Sir. I was satisfying myself she was dead.
Q. You were then, if you will pardon me for saying so, quite excited?
A. I was.
Q. You were very excited?
A. Yes Sir.

Does anyone have any idea what, if anything, Knowlton was driving at? He seemed to be implying that Dr. Bowen's testimony could not be trusted due to his emotional state at the crime scene, but I'm not sure.

As for the first questioning, it seems like a vain attempt at humor that fell flat. He was REQUIRED to be at testimony every day, so wasn't it lucky for the person who forced him to be there...ie. the doctor may tell him off. That is the only thing I can come up with.

The second questioning appears as if the lawyer was trying to demonstrate that the crime Lizzie was accused of was so heinous, so horrible that even a seasoned doctor cried. That is was no ordinary murder-for-revenge over money, but a horrible brutal murder of passion. Dr. wouldn't play along and say he cried like a baby, so it was a failed line of questioning.

PossumPie wrote:
As for the first questioning, it seems like a vain attempt at humor that fell flat. He was REQUIRED to be at testimony every day, so wasn't it lucky for the person who forced him to be there...ie. the doctor may tell him off. That is the only thing I can come up with.

The second questioning appears as if the lawyer was trying to demonstrate that the crime Lizzie was accused of was so heinous, so horrible that even a seasoned doctor cried. That is was no ordinary murder-for-revenge over money, but a horrible brutal murder of passion. Dr. wouldn't play along and say he cried like a baby, so it was a failed line of questioning.

You make sense on both counts, Possum. I get the impression that someone told Knowlton, or an investigator, that they had seen Dr. Bowen crying, and Knowlton wanted to explore that. For some reason, Dr. Bowen would have none of it. Perhaps his manly pride was at stake. Thanks for addressing it.

Darrowfan wrote:

PossumPie wrote:
As for the first questioning, it seems like a vain attempt at humor that fell flat. He was REQUIRED to be at testimony every day, so wasn't it lucky for the person who forced him to be there...ie. the doctor may tell him off. That is the only thing I can come up with.

The second questioning appears as if the lawyer was trying to demonstrate that the crime Lizzie was accused of was so heinous, so horrible that even a seasoned doctor cried. That is was no ordinary murder-for-revenge over money, but a horrible brutal murder of passion. Dr. wouldn't play along and say he cried like a baby, so it was a failed line of questioning.

You make sense on both counts, Possum. I get the impression that someone told Knowlton, or an investigator, that they had seen Dr. Bowen crying, and Knowlton wanted to explore that. For some reason, Dr. Bowen would have none of it. Perhaps his manly pride was at stake. Thanks for addressing it.

Right, I agree that the REASON he didn't want to appear to cry was what you said. My response is the REASON the prosecutor asked the question in the first place.

Of course it is conjecture on my part.