1. "The Grand Jury"
Posted by harry on Aug-6th-03 at 9:38 AM

One of the more interesting aspects of the case is the failure of the Grand Jury to indict Lizzie until Alice Russell gives her testimony about the burning of a dress.

Apparently there was much evidence presented to them as these lines from the Nov. 17th Evening Standard indicate:

"Among the witnesses examined were Officers Connors, Mullaley, Chase, Hyde and Edson of Fall River; Police Matron Reagan, who told of Lizzie’s conduct in the police station and the interview between the sisters; Frank H. Kilroy, a Harvard medical student, who happened to be in Smith's drug store when it is alleged Lizzie Borden tried to buy hydrocyanic acid; Eli Bense and Fred Hart, drug clerk there; Thomas Brown, who worked for the ice company on Third street opposite the Borden house; Thomas Boulds, Charles Sawyer and Harry Peirce, who were called in on the discovery of the murder; Dr. Bowen and his wife and Mrs. Churchill, the intimate neighbors of the Bordens; Mrs. Kirby, an old lady on Third street, back of the Borden house, who heard noises the night preceding the murder; Miss Johnson, a schoolteacher; Mark Chase, and express driver; James E. Cuneen, superintendent of the Seaconnet Mill; Charles Cook, William L. Hacking, George L. Douglass and Oliver Durling, who together were sitting talking on Mrs. Churchill's steps when the terrible deed was done and who saw no one enter or leave the Borden premises; Hiram Harrington, a relative of the Bordens, who, it is said, knows more of the internal affairs of the household than the prisoner wishes he did; Miss Carrie Rogers, a saleslady in the Troy dry goods store, a new witness who is said to have novel testimony; Orrick Smalley of New Bedford, whose friend at Craigville, George W. Hathaway, told him about a conversation with Andrew J. Borden in which Mr. Borden was said to have told of family infelicity, and Edward E. Wright and William R. Martin, New Bedford druggists, who think it was Lizzie Borden who tried to buy hydrocyanic acid of them."

Note the inclusion of Eli Bence.  There is no mention of whether Lizzie's inquest testimony was read (at least I didn't find it) but it may very well have been.  If it was it would say that even with the poison testimony and the inquest statement, the Grand Jury was not moved enough to issue an indictment against Lizzie. It's easy to understand why Knowlton thought his case to be weak.

There's also a lot of witnesses appearing in that article that were never included in the trial

Yes, I wonder why certain of these people weren't allowed to testify?  Was their testimony possibly redundant?  I'd still like to hear it in their own words, it gives us such a fuller picture of what happened that day.

Ooo, and I want to hear Miss Carrie Rogers' novel idea!  Thanks, Harry. 

But she had been arrested and taken into custody?
Perhaps just to provide a victim to still the people's curiosity and end the virtual general strike in Fall River? One Alice Russell testified, Lizzie could not be released on a "no true bill".

I was reading on to the Nov. 22nd date and the rumors and speculation as to why the grand jury was paid and adjourned are incredible.
Alice was not really involved in those stories.
There was talk of an accomplice to Lizzie in the form of a Portuguese, a "mysterious axe purchaser'; a young man , unidentified  visiting the Borden home several times after the murder; testimony by Bridget more fully explaining the family's problems with each other, and recounting the weird story of the boiling water all gone in 20 minutes when she was called downstairs.
For some reason Pillsbury appeared and gave a talk and the jury apparently agreed to disburse temporarily.  The papers made it out to be because the case was not yet fully investigated.

I have read that the other Indictment expected was not that of an accomplice in the murders but rather that of Trickey being exposed, and Indicted.  (At least that was my understanding of those letters)  I believe he got wind of this through a *leak* and left town as a precaution which may ultimately  have led to his premature death.  This type of thing is implied in the Knowlton letters, and also references to an insanity plea possibility and a sanity survey being conducted for the jury's consideration.

It's interesting to note the contrast in the newspaper's  lurid version of the adjournment as compared to the Knowlton letters.

I know you, Harry, have read all these papers.  It's an interesting point you made about the poison testimony being offered the grand jury yet they may not have been swayed by it!

Someone (Dershowitz?) said that you could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.  It was apparently not that easy for this jury.

Most Grand Juries follow the Prosecutor's lead. It is given a one-sided account. Rarely do they question the Official Theory.
I believe someone else talked about the "ham sandwich" in the 1960s.

Most of the references I see to the ham sandwich credit former New York Court of Appeals Judge Sol Wachtler in 1985.

Ironically seven years later a grand jury indicted him for sexual harassment.  He was convicted.

He got his ham in a jam?

Arnold R Brown says (as I remember) that the arrest of LAB was to quiet the populace. Later, the charges would be dropped (no true bill). A Russell's testimony prevented this.

Why did AR wait for so many months? Why did she use a lawyer?
I would like to believe the best of her, but the delay suggests a failure to agree about something. But I could be wrong.