Legal question

[Harry]

From the very outset of the Borden case the prosecution knew that it's evidence was all circumstantial.

Repeated attempts to even get an indictment failed. With Lizzie's inquest testimony and Bence's poison they managed to secure a "Probably guilty" at the Preliminary hearing. It took Alice Russell's burning dress story to get the Grand Jury to indict Lizzie.

My question is this: Can the prosecution withdraw the charges and wait till they have more evidence? And how late, and at what stage, can that be done? In Lizzie's case it may not have made any difference as no additional material evidence was found but just as a general rule can it be done?

I guess what I am really asking is when would the rules for double jeopardy kick in? Upon the serving of the warrant itself? The physical arrest and taking into custody of the accused? The plea? The indictment? Naturally once the trial begins it's too late.

[FairhavenGuy]

I am not a lawyer, but I think double jeopardy involves the conclusion of a trial. There is no statute of limitations on murder, so if Lizzie hadn't been tried and evidence was developed in 1920, she could have been brought to trial.

Once there's an arrest, though, I think that a case is supposed to be brought to trial within a reasonable amount of time, so she couldn't have been arrested and held for years. She certainly could have been released, though, and re-arrested at a later date.

[doug65oh]

"....double jeopardy involves the conclusion of a trial. There is no statute of limitations on murder, so if Lizzie hadn't been tried and evidence was developed in 1920, she could have been brought to trial."

That's exactly right. The "double-jeopardy" protection guarantee *only* kicks in (so far as I'm aware or able to find out to this point) in the event that a defendant is arrested/indicted, tried, and adjudged "Not Guilty" ... If a jury "hangs" on a count, the prosecution has an option to retry the defendant ONLY for the offense (or charge) upon which the jury was unable to render a decision. (The upcoming retrial of Jayson Williams is an example of this. He can only be retried legally on the count that hung the jury.)

The preliminary hearing is another goat entirely, even today. If a full-blown criminal trial can be thought of as a "high jump," the preliminary hearing is more like a child playing skip-toe after a rain storm - the burden of proof is generally lighter, the standards of evidence sometimes looser. "Probably guilty" is the best the Commonwealth could have hoped for as a preliminary judgement - meaning only that the judge, hearing the evidence presented, found sufficient probable cause to transfer the case to a higher court for jury trial.

Not long ago, I heard a lawyer say something that astounded me, both for its silliness and also the logical truth of it: In most jurisdictions under current evidentiary/statutory rules, it's theoretically possible to indict a ham sandwich for murder. It doesn't take much at all.

[Harry]

As for the ham sandwich:

"Any prosecutor who wanted to could indict a ham sandwich."
— Former New York Court of Appeals Judge Sol Wachtler in 1985, seven years before a grand jury indicted him for sexual harassment."

I'm aware of the double jeopardy once the jury has reached a decision.

I'm not sure if the prosecution after they ask for and have an indictment issued, and the case goes to trial, that they can withdraw the indictment, ask that the trial be ended, and then later charge the defendant with the same crime.

Just tossing out these weird scenarios to get some discussions going.

[Audrey]

Interesting topic!

I called a lwayer friend of mine and he told me:

The prosecution can drop the charges and the judge can do so "without prejudice" which means the charges can later be reinstated. He told me this can happen but usually only if dramatic new evidence is found.

He did not know if this option existed in the 1890's and I did not ask him to take the time to look up the precedent.

I did find this interesting tidbit via a web search...


However, stretching the bounds of logic, the courts have decided that since the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns and therefore successive prosecutions based on the same underlying conduct do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if the prosecutions are brought by separate sovereigns. See, e.g., U.S. v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1438 (9th Cir.'94).


http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm

[doug65oh]

Thanks for the ham sandwich bit Harry - I'd never heard that sourced, just the allusion to it.

Okay I see what you're asking there I think; let's see if I have it right: Once a trial is underway, can charges be dropped - and then be refiled later?

Technically I think the answer is 'Yes' but there may be other factors involved there - I'll see what I can dig up.

[Gary]

Hi All

I am new here so be gentle with me. As a lawyer I enjoyed the ham sandwich comment. The grand Jury is regarded as a tool for the prosecuter. The defense is not allowed to present testimony, therefore you have a one sided presentation of evidence and the ham sandwich might be in trouble if the judge was off his rocker and allowed the prosecuter to proceed.

Best Regards Gary

[william]

Hello Gary, and welcome to the Forum.

As a lawyer your expertise could be of great value when a question of law arises during our discussions

I sure hope you can hang around and be our legal mentor!

[Gary]

Hi William

Thanks for the welcome. I hope to stick around.

Best Regards
Gary

[Harry]

Hello Gary, and welcome aboard.

As William says most of us have just a layman's grasp of the law. Not that we just want you for your special knowledge. No forum can thrive without new blood so new Bordenite's are always welcome.

Don't forget to visit the web site as well and take advantage of the free goodies there.

Harry

[Susan]

Hi Gary! Welcome to the forum. As the others have stated, new blood is always welcome. It will be interesting to see your take on things, as a new member and a lawyer to boot. Do you have an opinion as to whether Lizzie was guilty or not, despite the outcome of the trial?

[Gary]

Hi Susan and Harry


I would have to say that If I were the prosecuter I would likely argue that either she was quilty of the murders herself or that she was present and aware of the murders as they were taking place. If the former is true she would likely be tried for murder in the first degree. If the latter was the case she would likely be tried as an accomplice or accessory to murder.

I would base my conclusions at least partly on the fact that she was at the top of the stairs when Andrew was admitted to the house. As I understand the layout of the house, she would have had to go up the front stairs to get to the front of the second level. The stairs turn toward the room Abby's body would have been situated in and I would argue that there is a very good chance these circumstances would have caused her to know of the presence of the body.

I will give it some more thought and rethink the facts.

Just as an afterthought, the vast majority of crimes are solved by circumstantial evidence. Absent a confession which can be corroborated by the facts and/or an eyewitness all that is all a prosecuter has left is circumstantial evidence.

Best Regards
Gary

[Susan]

Thats usually my take, either Lizzie did it herself, or she knew who did and possibly aided them. I haven't visited the Second Street home yet, I'd have a clearer idea I think being there, but, I don't think Lizzie could have been in and around the house without knowing something was up. Yes, circumstantial evidence is pretty much what we are working with on this case, it can be maddening at times. But, if they had more of what we have today with forensics, we might not have this case to mull over.

[Kat]

Hello Gary!
Yay! A new member weighing in!

I watched CSI last Thursday night (on my battery-powered 5" black and white TV) and they were in the Prelim phase and the prosecution only wanted to show the knife and bloody towel it was wrapped in, found in the defendent's car. They didn't have to have all the evidence processed and ready for this hearing.
Well, it turned out to be inadmissable as the officer did not obtain a search warrant and thus this highly incriminating evidence was thrown out as "fruit of the poison etc."

They asked for a 24 hour continuance and the defendent was remanded back into custody to await that period and if the state could not come up with something legally worthwhile against him the judge said he'd "walk."

The question asked originally reminded me of this.

I think once a person is indicted by a grand jury the case must go to trial.
Anything up to and including a prelim, a person can probaly have charges dismissed.
This is just my sense of things. It may not be so- but the grand jury indictment probably, I think, cannot be dismissed, unless, say, the accused dies.

[Gary]

Hi kAT

Thanks for the welcome.

A prosecuter has no obligation to present all of his evidence to get his case to proceed to trial. He only needs to produce what he feels will be sufficient to get the case heard. Many times his staff and the police are still in the process of gathering and putting all their evidence together.

A knife and bloody towel found in the defendants vehicle are sound circumstancial evidence against that person. I would expect the prosecution also had gathered blood DNA from the Knife and towel which matched that of the deceased. If the DNA did not match the prosecutor would have been forced to inform the defense based on the obligation incumbent upon the prosecution to present exculpatory evidence to the other side. My guess would be that the defense would already have conducted their own tests.

It sounds to me like the defense would be preparing to plea bargain the charge down to lessor degree of murder when they discovered to their great good fortune that a procedural error had been made in the process of gathering the evidence. "Poisoned fruit" cannot be redeemed. At least not at the trial stage.

The judge on CSI was exactly right. If nothing else can be produced on short notice to implicate the defendant, he walks.

It fascinates me to think what we would have learned if our modern forensics knowledge were available in the Borden trial.

As an aside, the police can search a car without a warrant if the individual consents. The police tend to get this consent by telling the person that if he dosen't consent, they can obtain a warrent promptly. Often the police are bluffing and know that no judge would issue a search warrant based on the specific circumstances of the traffic stop.

Best Regards
Gary

[Gary]

Kat

I forgot to mention that an indictment cannot be quashed, unless new exculpatory evidence is brought to light, the defendant dies, someone else confessed with corroboration or the judge grants a pre-trial motion to dismiss the case.

Gary

[Kat]

Oh OK, that sounds good.
Was I sort of right?
It makes sense.
I suppose another scenario might be the defendent pleads to a lesser charge or turns state evidence against another and is granted immunity. Those are the rest of the reason's I could think of to not go to trial on the indictment as written.

During the trial, does the judge, tho, have a say after the state presents its case, that there is not enough and calls for charges to be dismissed if the defence asks and he agrees?

I've wondered about a plea bargin in Lizzie's case and there were no intimations of such a thing- just the possibility of an insanity defense which seems to have been the prosecution's only hope which fizzled.

[Kat]

BTW: On CSI, the original guy was innocent- he was set up by the guy at his car wash, where the evidence was planted in his car.
The full perusal of all the evidence pointed away from the defendent and the CSI went where the evidence pointed.
It was very satisfying to see them change course when they were being so pressured by the victim's family.

[Gary]

Hi Kat

Thats a good question. After the case has gone to trial and the prosecution has rested, the defense can make a motion for a directed verdict to dismiss the case on the grounds that the prosection has not met its burden of proof. The prosecution has to present evidence sufficient for the judge to find that there is enough evidence incriminating the defendant to present a reasonable question of guilt to the jury.

To preserve the issue on appeal as to whether the judge should have directed a verdict for the defense, many lawyers make the motion as a precaution.

In the Borden case Judge Dewey made it clear that he felt there was virtually nothing that the prosecution presented which could raise a legitimate question of the possiblity of quilt on the part of Lizzie. If he had been asked to direct a verdict for Lizzie at the conclusion of the states case, I am sure he would have done so. Failing that he elected to present a jury charge which turned out to be little more than an argument demanding acquital.

Best Regards
Gary

[Kat]

OH! That makes a lot of sense too!
Amazing how the bare-bones Law makes sense.

I hadn't thought of that defense motion to dismiss after the prosecution had made their first case as a foot in the door of an appeal- I don't think they had *automatic appeal* in 1893- though there might have been some sort of proceedure for some sort of appeal to the Governor?

We didn't get Appeal until Scotland and England did, c. 1920, do you know?

[Gary]

Hi

I think there may have been motions for clemency before the right to appeal came into being. I'm not sure when we got the right to appeal. Just as our law is closely tied to the English common law, the ability to appeal would have come after The practice began in the U.K. This would have been well after 1893.

Best Regards
Gary

[Kat]

Thank you!

I wonder if there is an opinion as to why there were no police questioned at the inquest?
It seems Mr. Sawyer, who was put on the door, and was a housepainter, was the only representative of the force, tho he was civilian and put there by Officer Allen. Not even Allen was questioned. I've always wondered about this.

Here is the list of witnesses, not including Ellen Eagan, or "Allen" Eagan (W.S., 14):

Lizzie
Morse
Emma
Bowen
Churchill
Hiram Harrington
Sawyer
Mrs. Tripp
Alice Russell
Sarah Whitehead
Hannah Gifford
Eli Bence
Frank Kilroy
Frederick Hart

[Harry]

Wow, what a great discovery Kat! That's something we missed before.

Looking into what an Inquest is(or in this case was) was quite a confusing trip. I checked my dated Funk & Wagnalls (1983) and it had this to say:

"In criminal law the term usually refers to an investigation into the cause of sudden or violent death of a person, or of the death of a prisoner in jail. The inquest is conducted by the coroner, or other qualified official, and a jury. If foul play is suspected as the cause of death, the coroner and the jury may investigate to determine the identity of the murderer. Witnesses may be summoned and compelled to give testimony. If the testimony warrants a verdict, a charge of homicide may be returned by the jury against one or more individuals. Persons so charged are held for indictment by a grand jury."

That sounds exactly like the Preliminary hearing in the Borden case with the exception that the coroner (or in the Borden case, Medical Examiner) was not in charge of the hearing.

[Kat]

I can only think Dolan wasn't in charge because he was still new, only in office a year with one other homicide to his credit and that was domestic violence, open & shut.
You'd think he would have held inquests tho on other deaths during that time.

Another difference between an inquest and preliminary hearing is that at a preliminary hearing one's counsel can be present and there is cross-examination.
Did Bridget have benefit of counsel at the Prelim?

[diana]

In Fall River Tragedy, Edwin Porter says those present during Bridget’s inquest testimony were: Judge Blaisdell, Knowlton, Rufus Hilliard, District Officers Seaver and Rhodes, M.E. Dolan, Annie White, and a couple of police officials “who were among the first called to the house of the Bordens”. (p.54)

So, it looks from this as though, even though they didn't testify, the police were well represented at the inquest (and I would think their presence must surely have had an intimidating effect on Bridget).

Although we know from the record that Knowlton was the examiner -- do we know for sure that Dolan did not oversee the proceedings?

[Kat]

Dolan was treated like a surly newcomer and made to look inept about his notes on the autopsies, and he complained later that his papers were not entered into the court system when he first submitted them.
They showed him no extra respect nor asked him any questions about conducting the inquest.
I don't think he conducted one on the Bertha Manchester case either?
I think they had a pushy District Attorney and Judge, in Knowlton and Blaisdell.
Maybe technically, this was not an inquest at all: I mean who was representing the court; to whom were they presenting the testimony?

Hoffman says Blaisdell "Presided" and issued the arrest warrant.
Did he?

[Harry]

On the warrant it gets rather confusing but Judge Blaisdell probbly did have it issued. At least the final warrant that was served on Lizzie. There had been I believe at least one warrant issued prior to the final one but it was never served. Whether that one was by Bliaisdell I couldn't find anything.

What led me to believe otherwise was this paragraph that appeared in the August 18 Evening Standard:

"The community learned yesterday that Judge Blaisdell, who has been under fire, had nothing to do with Miss Lizzie Borden's arrest. He simply presided at the inquest, as he was compelled to do. When District Attorney Knowlton had concluded his examination of a certain witness on the day the inquest came to a close, Miss Borden was in the matron's room. The district attorney went to the marshal's private office to compare some portions of the testimony given by the servant with the story which Miss Borden had told. Judge Blaisdell left the building for a few moments, and returned, as he supposed, to resume the inquiry. He was met by the district attorney, who said: "Judge, I propose to arrest Lizzie Borden." At this point Judge Blaisdell's connection with the case ceased. He will pick up the threads at the beginning again next Monday morning. The district attorney ordered the arrest and attended to the writing and serving of the warrant which has seemed to certain delicate constitutions to be a very brutal instrument.

I confused the authorization for the warrant with the preparation and serving of the warrant.

[Kat]

Thanks for being clear, Har!

Rebello:

Page 152

"THE INQUEST was held from Tuesday through Thursday, August 9-11, 1892"

"The private inquest was held at the Fall River Police Station. Judge Josiah C. Blaisdell presided. Lizzie's attorney, Andrew J. Jennings, was not allowed to attend. Lizzie's testimony would later be judged inadmissible at her trial in June 1893. Under the law of Massachusetts, it is the discretion of the magistrate who holds an inquest after the suspicious death of any persons to make it public or private. The statute simply says, 'The inquest may be private.' (Fall River Evening News, Tuesday, August 16, 1892). The law in effect at the time of the Borden murders 'strongly suggested but did not absolutely require complete secrecy of hearings. It was changed in no substantial way until 1969, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Edward M. Kennedy v. James A Boyle, as he is the Justice of the District Court of Duke County who ruled inquests must be closed to the public and to the news media; that witnesses be advised by counsel when testifying; and, with some minor qualifications, that the district judge's report and all inquest documents must remain impounded.' (Sullivan, Robert, Goodbye Lizzie Borden, 1971: 44.)

On August 11, 1892, one week after the Bordens were murdered, Marshal Hilliard approached Miss Borden and said, 'I have a warrant for your arrest, for the murder of Andrew J. Borden. Do you wish to read it?' Andrew J. Jennings waived the reading and Lizzie said, 'You need not read it.'"

--Who issued the warrant?

Rebello, 247:
"...that when Lizzie Borden was brought before the inquest she was practically under arrest, by virtue of the fact that Marshal Hilliard had a warrant in his pocket for that purpose, sworn to by him and made out by the clerk of the Second District Court."

[diana]

Yes, thanks Harry. I'd forgotten that Jennings filed a complaint because Blaisdell presided at both the inquest and the preliminary hearing.

At trial, Moody discussed the protocol for the inquest, quoting Chapter 26 of the Public Statutes:
"... the medical examiner, (1) upon view or personal inquiry in respect to a body that is found dead by violence, shall notify the justice of a district court, police, or municipal court, or the district attorney, and then follows the principal section, 13, where the provision is that 'The court or trial justice shall thereupon hold an inquest" (Trial, 775)

The August 8, 1892 Evening Standard mentions that Dolan had a short talk with Judge Blaisdell regarding an inquest, "but he made no formal report, and the date was not fixed". Then on the 9th of August, the Standard reported that: "late in the afternoon ... Medical Examiner Dolan submitted his official report of the murder to Judge Blaisdell". Blaisdell promised to read this and set a date for the inquest.

So that quote from the statute makes it appear that they followed protocol and it was justices and not medical examiners who conducted inquests at that time.

[Kat]

Thanks, that's good stuff! Hoping you would come through!

I wonder if that "official report" was merely the autopsy stuff they had argued about? Otherwise, if Dolan wrote
up a *Report* I'd sure like to see that! I hope that's not something missing.

[Harry]

Don't mean to keep beating this issue to death but I found where I read the information that Blaisdell did not issue the warrant for Lizzie's arrest. Page 139 of the Sourcebook, in a Fall River Herald newspaper article, dated ?, (probably August 22):

"Alluding to some of the criticisms which have been made by the press on an imperfect knowledge of facts, Marshal Hilliard called the reporter's attention to an editorial in a Boston paper of Saturday, in which the ground was taken that Judge Blaisdell having issued the warrant for the arrest of Lizzie Borden ought not in deference to the proprieties sit on the case. As a matter of fact he did not issue the warrant; did not know that it had been issued until after it had been decided to serve it. The warrant runs to "August B. Leonard, clerk of the second Bristol district court and justice of the peace."

As I have said before the more you read on this case the less you know for sure.

[Kat]

Very good, thank you. I knew the clerks name was out there somewhere!

So, he was a Justice of the Peace?

I understand anyone can get appointed Justice of the Peace, as long as the preceinct (sp) one lives in has a certain number in population to support the post! Might not hurt to be a Notary as well.

Anyone looking for a part-time job?

[Gary]

It sort of gets confusing when we talk about the distinctions between a modern inquest and the inquest that Lizzie underwent. Today the inquest is a determination of how the party died and a determination is made as to whether it was probable that homicide was involved.In the majority of jurisdictions today the coroner must be a doctor or medical examiner. As Harry points out the inquest may then lead to a grand jury.
Gary

[Gary]

In Lizzies day the inquest was much broader and as Sullvan points out in Goodbye Lizzie Borden, the inquest had much more of an investigative flavor to it. Blaisdell concluded that there was sufficient evidence to hold Lizzie for trial based on the indictment. This is the same as saying the judge found probable cause


As for the lack of a a strong police presence at certain points in the hearings I think it can be resolved by looking to the crime scene itself. With the discovery of the body of the Andrew Borden the crime scene turned into somewhat of a circus. People were coming and going; all kinds of evidence could have been removed, tampered with, or even destryoyed. This would not be likely to happen today since the police are the first on the scene and they know the value of preserving the integrity of that scene. If the crime scene is botched it will be pointed out to a jury by a good defense attorney.

[william]

Thanks Gary, for clearing the air. Prepare yourself for the multitudinous legal questions that are going to be coming your way!

[Gary]

William-I don't know if I cleared the air or made the case more confusing.

[Kat]

Legal Chronology

AUG. 4, 1892    Murders of Andrew and Abby Borden

AUG. 6     Graveside Service

AUG. 6     Accusation Made By Mayor- Lizzie "suspect" 

AUG. 8    Warrant Issued- not served

AUG. 9-11   INQUEST

AUG. 11   Lizzie Borden Arrested

AUG. 12   Arraigned- "probable cause"- pleaded "not guilty" - sent to Taunton

AUG. 25-SEPT. 1    PRELIMINARY HEARING

NOV. 7-21    GRAND JURY- Taunton (also heard other cases)

DEC. 1     GRAND JURY- reconvened (Alice Russell testimony)

DEC. 2    INDICTED

MAY 8, 1893   Arraigned- Superior Court- New Bedford

JUNE 5-20    TRIAL- acquittal 


http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... yLegal.htm

[Kat]

I'm reading the trial and just finished Prosecutor Moody's opening statement. Then it jumps to Kieran the engineer who took all the measurements.

Is there ever, or usually, an opening statement for the defense?

[Harry]

Kat, hopefully you didn't faint (ala Lizzie) after Moody's remarks.

After the goverment presented its case and rested, the defense made their opening statement and presented Lizzie's side. Jennings' argument beings on page 1305 in Volume II.

I don't know whether that is the norm to have their argument before each side presents evidence or whther they are presented before any evidence is introduced.

[Kat]

We didn't get Appeal until Scotland and England did, c. 1920, do you know?

Reading about Florence Maybrick, she ends up with a commuted sentence, from death to life at penal servitude by The Home Office, in England, in 1889. Then she got out after 15 years, and after visiting her mother in France, returned to the U.S. and lived in Connecticut until she died, October 23, 1941. Her husband, who she was convicted of killing, had been dead 52 years!

Anyway, then, since she had been living in America, the book states:
"For a time she was something of a celebrity and wrote a book called My Fifteen Lost Years. Soon after it was published, the Court of Criminal Appeal was established in 1907.

--I'm assuming this court was in England, as that was where she was tried.
So it would still be more years before it came here.

--Source: The Murders of the Black Museum 1870-1970, Gordon Honeycombe, Arrow Books (revised), 1984, London.

[Gary]

As you might know Florence Maybrick's husband James, whom she is said to have murdered, has been mentioned as a candidate for Jack The Ripper. It appears he was addicted to arsenic which was used as a pick-me-up in those days. He was an habitual user and probably poisened himself by increasing the dose to a fatal level.

The trial was a farce and was presided over by Judge Stephen, who was either insane or at best holding on to sanity by a thin string. After the trial in Liverpool in 1989 the public demanded a method by which trials could be reviewed.

Interestingly, Judge Stephen's son, J.K. Stephen has also been proposed as a candidate for Jack. He had a pathological hatred of women and was quite insane. As if that were not enough, J.K. was a tutor of Prince Edward
who has-you quessed it- also been proposed as a candidate for Jack The Ripper.

[lydiapinkham]

Hi again, Gary! Have you read the Maybrick- Ripper diary? I've followed it from the beginning and find the whole story fascinating. A part of me really wants it to be genuine because of the beautiful irony: Flo Maybrick getting sentenced for the murder of Jack the Ripper. No matter what, he was known to be an arsenic and strychnine eater, but Flo's infidelity pretty well sealed her fate with the jury. The diary is largely dismissed because Michael Barrett, the "discoverer," confessed to forgery. However, Barrett is an alcoholic and desperate enough for attention to get it any way he can. I don't really think he had the brains to do a forgery on such a level. His wife might have: she does have a fascination with Flo Maybrick (wrote a book about her recently and has a family connection with her.) The woman, however, has not tried to capitalize on the Ripper diary story, so its hard to say. Then there are the researchers and publishers, one of whom is quite a piece of work in himself. . . A very tangled web altogether. Ripper Diary: the Inside Story, 2003, has all the infight info--a pretty dull read that just shows what a brouhaha the whole dispute has become. The Maybrick dispute makes an intriguing footnote to the Ripper case. Sorry to gab so!

--Lyddie

[Gary]

Hi Lyddie

Yes, I've read the Diary and the Inside Story as well. You make several good observations. Michael Barnett was, in my opinion, incapable of writing the Diary, which experts have not been able to conclusively discount. Mr Barnett has made a confession and then recanted that confession and then gone on to claim he has found more pages of the diary. These pages fooled no-one. The Diary has been carbon dated to the early years of this century, the 1920's to be exact. So as you can imagine everyone is confused.

His wife may have had a motive to write it, but as you say she has not tried to profit from it. I do believe that it was passed down by her father, but I feel it was a forgery which was reproduced in a couple of sittings in the early years of this century.

I completely agree that Florence was on trial for adultury in the minds of the jurors.

Gary

[Kat]

Stef just read and brought me:
Jack the Ripper's Black Magic Ritual, Ivor Edwards, 2003
Ripper Diary The Inside Story, 2003, Seth Linder, Caroline Morris, and Keith Skinner
Jack the Ripper The American Connection, Includes The Diaries of James Maybrick, Shirley Harrison, 2003

These are the newest she could find.
She got them in NYC.
Of course we have about 12 other Ripper books including the first "Diary" one published.
Stef really liked the Magic Ritual one. The pictures are really good too.

[Gary]

My prized possession is a 1928 Ist edition copy of Leonard Matters' book Jack The Ripper, The first full length book about the murders.

I imagine you have read Phillip Sugden's book. It is generally accepted as the best book on the case.

Stay safe over the weekend.