Knowlton writes to Pillsbury

[Harry]

On April 24, 1893 Knowlton wrote a letter to Attorney General Pillsbury in which he made the statement, in referring to the probable outcome of the trial, that "...even in my most sanguine moments I have scarcely expected a verdict of guilty."

In that same letter he makes another admission which I also find interesting:

"... She has been presented for trial by a jury which, to say the least, was not influenced by anything by the government in the favor of the indictment."

Sounds to me like he did not even expect the Grand Jury to issue the indictment

[Kat]

I don't know what that means.
It's a hard one.
In the Knowlton Papers, I usually need more context- like the whole letter and the one before it and the one after.

[augusta]

The first time I remember reading this was in Kent's "Forty Whacks". I think it was first published there. In any event, it was and is very interesting. To know that the prosecution didn't think they would win. I always thought, since reading that, that they only prosecuted her to quiet the public. They knew all they had was circumstantial evidence. If I were a jurist on her jury, and heard only what the jury was supposed to have heard, I would have had to vote 'not guilty', too.

Some think that the reason they didn't try anyone else after Lizzie's acquittal was because Lizzie was the murderer. I don't agree. Well, she may have been the murderer - I'm not saying that. But they had no more evidence on anyone else. They could have tried Bridget, but it would have come out the same as Lizzie's trial.

However, I think that the police might have been able to get more out of Bridget - possibly who the murderer was - if they had put more pressure on her. Right from the start, they thought of Lizzie as the culprit. I think if they would have leaned on Bridget and thought of her as an equally suspicious suspect, they may have solved the case.

By the way, I always wondered if Pillsbury really was ill or if he just wanted Knowlton to handle the case. Has anyone ever read what was supposed to be wrong with him?

[Kat]

I hear that all the time and I'm glad you brought it up. When people say *all they had was circumstantial evidence* it implies that there is something about circumstantial evidence which is lacking the same weight as direct evidence or eyewitness testimony.
Actually, I have found, that these types of evidence all carry the same weight in law, but that some might need more support than another to convince a jury.
When the trial started, Knowlton couldn't know if the testimonies of Lizzie at the inquest or Bence of her request for poison the day before the murders would be admissable.
If these 2 important aspects of the govenments case had been allowed, would the verdict still be the same?
Would it be the same today with these elements included?

I understood your meaning and intent, Augusta- I just used this as an example. It's something I've talked about privately before.

As to Pillsbury, that's a good question. He certainly lived longer than the other lawyers- I'd think the stress of the whole Borden prosecution took a few years off Knowlton's life-span.

[augusta]

In some of Pillsbury's letters to Knowlton, I think he mentions he doctor, saying in essence he was under a doctor's care. But nowhere have I read what he had. Interesting, Kat, to know he lived a pretty long life.

Was anyone's inquest testimony allowed in? After all, none of the witnesses had any counsel to represent them, so none of the inquest testimony should have been allowed, I'm thinking.

I think if Lizzie's inquest testimony would have been allowed in, the Dr. Bowen/morphine would have been brought up and Robinson would have made a long speech to the jury making Lizzie sound like a pathetic patient who was inebriated, which she may have been. But still, the jury would have heard what she said, and even tho there was the element of her being possibly whacked out of her gourd, once the jury hears something - right or wrong - it's too late. They've already heard it and they can't help but remember it. Sometimes in a trial, a lawyer will bring up a question to a witness, even tho he/she knows full well it's gonna be objected to. The attorney just wants the jury to hear the question to plant a seed in their mind. And that could have happened if the jury had read her inquest testimony. But I think in the long run, they would have let it go because of the "little girl", as Robinson sometimes referred to her as, alone on the stand on morphine.

If the jury would have heard the poison testimony of Eli Bence + the two guys who were in the drug store and said the same thing he did - that would have been of great interest, I should think. But I think the judge would have cautioned the jury - and Robinson - would have cautioned the jury strongly about it not being the way the Bordens were killed and would probably talk them into believing it had nothing whatsoever to do with their bludgeoning.

I think today she still would not have been convicted, even with the inclusion of these two elements because of the same reasons I just mentioned.

Would those things be more likely to be deemed admissiable today?

Yes, that's certainly true that circumstantial evidence is nothing to be ignored. It is strange that in this case they had nothing else on her, tho. I would think that if the crime happened today, modern forensics would have given us more clews, and she would not have been as highly protected by her sex and her good name.

[irina]

Interesting discussion to reintroduce 10 years after it was written.

[Curryong]

Yes indeed! The prosecution case was lamentably weak, of course. No blood-stained clothing to pore over, a brave attempt, no more, to introduce the handleless hatchet as THE weapon of choice, and no cross-examination, for legal reasons, of Lizzie in the witness box. When you add a maiden lady of hitherto blameless life and an all-male jury, plus the Bertha Manchester murder just before the trial began and it's no wonder Knowlton felt defeated before he'd begun!
I wonder whether the rumoured sum Robinson pocketed for leading Lizzie's defence team was true? Whatever, he certainly earned every cent!

[debbiediablo]

In some of Pillsbury's letters to Knowlton, I think he mentions he doctor, saying in essence he was under a doctor's care. But nowhere have I read what he had. Interesting, Kat, to know he lived a pretty long life.

Was anyone's inquest testimony allowed in? After all, none of the witnesses had any counsel to represent them, so none of the inquest testimony should have been allowed, I'm thinking.

I think if Lizzie's inquest testimony would have been allowed in, the Dr. Bowen/morphine would have been brought up and Robinson would have made a long speech to the jury making Lizzie sound like a pathetic patient who was inebriated, which she may have been. But still, the jury would have heard what she said, and even tho there was the element of her being possibly whacked out of her gourd, once the jury hears something - right or wrong - it's too late. They've already heard it and they can't help but remember it. Sometimes in a trial, a lawyer will bring up a question to a witness, even tho he/she knows full well it's gonna be objected to. The attorney just wants the jury to hear the question to plant a seed in their mind. And that could have happened if the jury had read her inquest testimony. But I think in the long run, they would have let it go because of the "little girl", as Robinson sometimes referred to her as, alone on the stand on morphine.

If the jury would have heard the poison testimony of Eli Bence + the two guys who were in the drug store and said the same thing he did - that would have been of great interest, I should think. But I think the judge would have cautioned the jury - and Robinson - would have cautioned the jury strongly about it not being the way the Bordens were killed and would probably talk them into believing it had nothing whatsoever to do with their bludgeoning.

I think today she still would not have been convicted, even with the inclusion of these two elements because of the same reasons I just mentioned.

Would those things be more likely to be deemed admissiable today?

Yes, that's certainly true that circumstantial evidence is nothing to be ignored. It is strange that in this case they had nothing else on her, tho. I would think that if the crime happened today, modern forensics would have given us more clews, and she would not have been as highly protected by her sex and her good name.

The inquest testimony was not allowed because the Court ruled that Lizzie was in custody, had asked for an attorney and was not allowed one, and and that the testimony was, in fact, custodial interrogation where questioning must end and the suspect must be afforded legal representation the moment he/she asks. The Court ruled that being told to stay in/around the house was no different than being arrested, that police could not circumvent the law just because she was confined to a house rather than the jail. Custody is custody no matter where it takes place. Seventy-three years later this was addressed (and agreed with) by Miranda v. Arizona. Her inquest testimony would be excluded today. The other witnesses were not in custody, neither house nor jail arrest, therefore none of them were entitled to a lawyer. Nor was their testimony excluded because it was not obtained illegally.

The Bence testimony would be allowed today. This decision was viewed as strange back then and still is. Any prosecuting attorney worth his salt would make valid the point that prussic acid is another way of killing people, and it's use for anything else is highly limited. The Court seemed only to want the remote possibility that prussic acid could be used for something else in a household, like it would kill bugs...not to mention the people who were killing the bugs. Never mind that the furrier didn't use it for furs! This decision is pro-defendant, just like the charge to the jury. I can see a sign in the pharmacy now: "Prussic Acid Doesn't kill People; People Kill People!"

[irina]

OOOOH! I like that! Prussic acid doesn't kill people. People kill people.~~~That's a good one.

One thing about this thread, it starts with Harry, bless his soul; and has a comment by our new author Augusta. It's a bit of history in its own way.

[Franz]

... Some think that the reason they didn't try anyone else after Lizzie's acquittal was because Lizzie was the murderer. I don't agree. Well, she may have been the murderer - I'm not saying that. But they had no more evidence on anyone else. They could have tried Bridget, but it would have come out the same as Lizzie's trial...

I agree.

[PossumPie]

Murder trials are NOT about whether someone killed or did not kill. They are about whether the state can PROVE someone killed or not. I know it is a subtle difference, but being found "not guilty" is not the same as being "innocent" It is all about how well your lawyer argued the case and/or how well the state did. We would like to think it is a good system that works, but truth isn't important in the courtroom. O.J. Simpson killed his wife. He admitted it later. BUT Johnny Cochran was a great lawyer, bought and paid for, and got him off. Later, a civil suit found him guilty.

The state should have never gone to trial in the Borden case given the poor police work and lack of evidence. Once tried, Lizzie could have stood on the courthouse steps and told the world that they are suckers, that yes indeed she killed her father and step-mother, and she could not be tried again. Of course that would be stupid for reasons of reputation, and possibility of civil suits from Abby's family. The "Lizzie was guilty" folks here are at a disadvantage. It is hard to argue that she did it when we ALL admit there is not enough evidence to PROVE it. In my heart, I believe she killed them. She had the best motive of anyone, she had the best opportunity, and she benefited financially for the rest of her life by their death. If she didn't kill them, she should praise whoever did, because they set her comfortable for life...but it cannot be proven. Whoever did murder them got away free and clear, and whatever their motive was, they succeeded. The only losers here were Mr. and Mrs. Borden.

[Franz]

If I am not mistaken, there are only two sentences: guilty, not guilty. If so, even if the jury thinks a defendent innocent, they will have any other choice but a "not guilty" sentence, won't they?

[Curryong]

That is so Franz, that is the legal format. However, it's not a jury's job to make up their minds as to whether a person is innocent or not, just whether the State (or Crown) has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the British and the Australian system jurors are not allowed to discuss their findings afterwards or write about them. Under the US system they are allowed, however, and in high profile cases members of the jury do sometimes explain after the trial how they came to their verdict.

[Franz]

Thank you Curryong. The system of jurors makes me a little perplex. If I lived in one of those countries and if I were chosen (casually, right? riguardless my education level and my law knowledge) as juror, I might feel my responsability too big for me.

Does any member of the forum have the experience of being a juror, especially in a murder case? It should be very interesting to hear them telling their experience.

[twinsrwe]

Murder trials are NOT about whether someone killed or did not kill. They are about whether the state can PROVE someone killed or not. I know it is a subtle difference, but being found "not guilty" is not the same as being "innocent" It is all about how well your lawyer argued the case and/or how well the state did. We would like to think it is a good system that works, but truth isn't important in the courtroom. O.J. Simpson killed his wife. He admitted it later. BUT Johnny Cochran was a great lawyer, bought and paid for, and got him off. Later, a civil suit found him guilty.

The state should have never gone to trial in the Borden case given the poor police work and lack of evidence. Once tried, Lizzie could have stood on the courthouse steps and told the world that they are suckers, that yes indeed she killed her father and step-mother, and she could not be tried again. Of course that would be stupid for reasons of reputation, and possibility of civil suits from Abby's family. The "Lizzie was guilty" folks here are at a disadvantage. It is hard to argue that she did it when we ALL admit there is not enough evidence to PROVE it. In my heart, I believe she killed them. She had the best motive of anyone, she had the best opportunity, and she benefited financially for the rest of her life by their death. If she didn't kill them, she should praise whoever did, because they set her comfortable for life...but it cannot be proven. Whoever did murder them got away free and clear, and whatever their motive was, they succeeded. The only losers here were Mr. and Mrs. Borden.

Alright, Possum! Excellent post!!!

Murder trials are NOT about whether someone killed or did not kill. They are about whether the state can PROVE someone killed or not. I know it is a subtle difference, but being found "not guilty" is not the same as being "innocent" …

I agree. Just because the state could not PROVE Lizzie killed her father and step-mother, does not mean she was innocent. Like you, I believe she did kill both Andrew and Abby.

Some people believe Lizzie was totally ‘innocent’ which is not true. If she was not guilty of killing Andrew and Abby, then she WAS guilty of giving false and misleading information, which is an obstruction of justice. According to the Webster’s New World Law Dictionary, the legal definition for obstruction of justice is: Delaying or impeding the timely and orderly administration of the legal system in some way, such as by giving false or misleading information, withholding information from legal authorities, or attempting to influence a witness or a juror. A criminal act in most jurisdictions. (underlining is mine.)

http://www.yourdictionary.com/obstruction-of-justice

[twinsrwe]

... Does any member of the forum have the experience of being a juror, especially in a murder case? It should be very interesting to hear them telling their experience.

Yes, that would be interesting, Franz. Unfortunately, I have never served as a juror in a murder trial. Although, I did serve as a witness for the prosecution in a murder trial.

[debbiediablo]

I've been a trial juror twice and on a Grand Jury once. The trials involved assault and battery and a tort suit to recover damages for destroyed property. I can't talk about the Grand Jury other than to say it was an unforgettable experience and that I'd do it again.

[irina]

Franz: The "sentence" is what the judge decides to do with a person who is convicted~prison, probation, death, etc.

Guilty/not-guilty comes from the "finding" of the jury, or sometimes the judge. Some countries~South Africa appears to be this way with Oscar Pistorius~use judge tribunals or some version of that. I think this is Napoleonic law. The US system is based on the British system and is also founded on British common law.

I have done jury duty twice. The first time, over thirty years ago, there was a murder trial coming up and there was a big questionnaire to fill out, about how we thought about different things in law and life. It wasn't a death penalty case. In death penalty cases prospective jurors are frequently "qualified" so that no one like me~absolutely opposed to the death penalty~can be on the jury and skew the decision. I got pneumonia during that term and never served on a jury.

Prior to a trial lawyers from both sides as well as the defendant question and get to know jurors. This is called voir dire. In Lizzie's trial there was a news item that said she helped question prospective jurors. From the perspective of a juror, it is about lots of questions and thinking about those things in different ways. The trial is about facts and persuasion. Frequently the facts can be disputed. Something may well have happened but how and why and by whom? Mr. and Mrs. Borden were horribly murdered but who did it and how? As forensic science improves, especially DNA, the facts are easier to prove. If a woman is raped and murdered for example and there is semen present ,and the DNA identifies a certain man, it is much easier to prove he did it. Of course defense lawyers can argue that the man had sexual relations with the woman. It is always humorous when a suspect says he never saw the victim & therefore is innocent, and his DNA is all over the crime scene and inside the victim in the case of a sex crime.

[Franz]

Thank you for your enlightment, Irina.

Maybe the correct term is verdict? Verdict and sentence these two words when translated in Chinese are sometimes the same word.

[debbiediablo]

As biased as Dewey's charge to the jury appears (charge meaning directions on how to consider the case) the Court could have ordered a directed verdict of not guilty (but never guilty) meaning the Court determines that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contraryof not guilty. Once the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, the Court can also rule to set aside the verdict. This can be taken on appeal to a higher court by the prosecution. The Court can never set aside a not guilty verdict. Given that Knowlton himself thought the State had no case (even though he was personally convinced that Lizzie did it) perhaps the charge to the jury isn't as far-fethched as it seems.

[irina]

Interesting lesson in words, Franz. After you published your article I had the idea you were Asian.

A REALLY simple point in our law based on British common law, is what a "reasonable man (person)" would find. This may be more important in civil cases than criminal. For instance considering Hinkley, the guy who shot President Reagan and was caught doing it~no "reasonable man" could find him not guilty. Maybe not-guilty by reason of insanity, but no reasonable person could say he is not guilty. As we can see from the forum here, many reasonable people can't PROVE Lizzie's innocence or guilt. We can only argue our cases based on our perspectives, education, experience, general knowledge, personalities... In a way we are all members of a jury, still discussing the case from both sides. Legally under US law we must find her not-guilty but this does not solve the case.

An interesting legal point is in Judaic Law and I think about this in the Jack the Ripper case. Some police believed the Ripper was a Jew, some of his associates knew of his guilt, but that his family members would not turn in a fellow Jew. If any of this is true (I don't think Jack was a Jew BTW), Judaic Law would be against turning in anyone with just circumstantial evidence. For example if you see a person enter a home, there is a bunch of shooting, you see the person walk out and subsequently it is found that everyone in the house was shot dead, you don't give your information. The reason is that Judaic Law requires a person to actually witness the act before giving testimony. It does not allow for circumstantial evidence. Think about that applied to modern criminal cases.

[debbiediablo]

Totally correct Irina. For the most part the reason Lizzie remains so popular is most of us think she did it but we just cannot figure out how!! Where's the hatchet? Why no blood evidence on her person? So we take a fine tooth comb through the information in hopes of finding that which can convince us individually.

[Curryong]

And long may we all continue to debate and dig up information on Lizzie and her relatives and friends etc., and discuss it again and again!

Many,if not most cases, could be described as circumstantial, so thank heavens verdicts do not depend upon eye-witness testimony alone! Hardly anyone would be convicted! By the way, I don't believe JTR was a Jew either, though I do think he was probably a local.

[Catbooks]

The Bence testimony would be allowed today. This decision was viewed as strange back then and still is. Any prosecuting attorney worth his salt would make valid the point that prussic acid is another way of killing people, and it's use for anything else is highly limited. The Court seemed only to want the remote possibility that prussic acid could be used for something else in a household, like it would kill bugs...not to mention the people who were killing the bugs. Never mind that the furrier didn't use it for furs! This decision is pro-defendant, just like the charge to the jury. I can see a sign in the pharmacy now: "Prussic Acid Doesn't kill People; People Kill People!"

that's a relief. i was just re-reading an old thread about that, and doing some serious head-scratching over why it was disallowed. too remote in time? the day before the murders?! with poison being known as women's method of choice for murder?