Lizzie Borden Society Forum

C J Mason wouldn’t allow Knowlton’s questioning to Bridget about the house burglary because it was too remote in time, but said if it had been within “a few days, it would be a different matter.”
However the Bence testimony fit the few days timeframe perfectly.
Wasn’t the Bence testimony not allowed because it was too remote in time?

It wasn't allowed because buying prussic acid wasn't necessarily a nefarious act. Really an indefensible decision by the judge in my non-attorney point of view.

He ignored the perspective of letting the jury decide what was and wasn't pertinent.

Have you read his instructions to the jury? They essentially inform the jury that Lizzie should be found innocent.

A very insightful and informative legal analysis of the trial and judge conduct regarding evidence exclusion was written by Professor Wigmore. Below is the link to his writings.

https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content ... n-Case.pdf

I have seen many quotes from the Wigmore paper but never read the whole thing, so thanks for that link, that is some very dense writing! But I want to understand it. I have read the arguments between the prosecution and the defense about it in court, and I very much agreed with the prosecution's point of view (which I don't often do!) that it established intent. Whatever the legal reasoning by the three judges, I've always been frustrated by their decision to rule the prussic acid stuff inadmissible. Perhaps Robinson did Lizzie a favor for the purpose of the trial, but he did her no favors at all in the eyes of history, because that eyewitness testimony from the preliminary has been allowed to stand all this time, with no credible case made against it (say on the basis of mistaken identity). I think if she really did go try to buy that prussic acid, however foolhardy or illogical the choice, then she was probably guilty of the murders. I wonder if the jury would have been so easy to acquit her if Robinson couldn't have shaken those three eyewitnesses. They weren't shaken by the defense at the preliminary, but I would have liked to have seen Robinson have a go.

I have read the judges charges to the jury myself, and how other professionals have deemed it as you say. It’s maddening.
I’ll look over the article you posted, and thanks for clearing up the “reason “ for the Bence dismissal.