The Laugh

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:07 am

Hello, I am a newcomer here. I have always wondered why nobody ever took much interest in why Lizzie was laughing while she was upstairs. Briget said she heard Lizzie laugh, yet she was never questioned as to why? I know that in the Legend, she laughs as she sees Abby lying dead in the guest room. But if I remember correctly, in her testimony, she states the door to the guest room was closed while she was upstairs. Any thoughts on this?

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:41 am

...I work for lawyers, and they couldn't ask Bridget "why" Lizzie was laughing. it would be nothing more than an opinion, and would be pounced on by the opposition as such.

Welcome to Lizzie-land!

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:45 pm

that hasn't been discussed in a long time but i've wondered about it lately myself. this laugh is used to great horrific effect in the movie -- and show lizzie to be a monster.

but anyway -- there should be a clue of some sort buried in this. if lizzie actually did the murder or was even at that moment aware that someone else had done so -- for her to actually laugh about it is practically insane. and lizzie is NOT by her subsequent behavior what you can call insane.

it could be simply that she is laughing at bridget's trouble with the door.

not that i know, of course.

perhaps someone is upstairs with her and she's laughing at what she is getting away with as father comes in and does not know abby's body is there. (she would not necessarily see it if the door was open.)

but that lizzie stands up there as father comes in and glances over and laughs at part 1 of her work -- that really is classic macabre -- and remarkably, it's not even that someone dreamed it up, it is a definite possibility right there in the evidence we KNOW.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:59 pm

Yup, Eugene, whether Lizzie had killed Abby or hadn't, she might have been doing nothing more sinister than chortling over Bridget's trouble at the door.

One thing I remember bringing up some time ago was the question of whether we know if Lizzie knew WHO was knocking to be let in. If she HAD killed Abby, and thought she'd have time to go out and (in her mind, ignorant of forensics) establish an alibi, and all of a sudden she heard Papa bellowing for the door to be opened, hysterical laughter might not be out of character. I can recall standing out on a sand bar with my mother and sister when the tide was turning, and hearing my sister get the giggles when we all started to slip beneath the waves.

goldenpixie · Post by **goldenpixie** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:58 pm

Didn't Bridget testify that she more or less swore under her breath when she couldn't get the door opened? I would imagine it was rather improper for a lady to swear, so perhaps that's what made Lizzie laugh? (other than that she was admiring her handiwork on Abby and thinking various thoughts about never having to deal with HER attitude anymore...)

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:27 pm

I guess I find it strange that if Lizzie just finished hacking up her stepmother , she would laugh to call attention to herself especially if she did not know who was at the door.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:47 pm

Didn't Bridget testify that she more or less swore under her breath when she couldn't get the door opened?

Goldenpixie, I personally feel that perhaps Bridget let another word slip, but, she gives the word as "Pshaw".

From Bridget's Preliminary testimony:

Q. What did you say?
A. I went to the door, and let Mr. Borden in.

Q. What did you say?
A. Say to who?

Q. When you were opening the door. I'm am waiting Miss Sullivan.
A. I let Mr. Borden in. I got puzzled at the door, I said "Oh pshaw" at the door. Miss Lizzie laughed up stairs.

Q. That is all you said "Oh, pshaw"?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Why did you object to telling me that? Did you consider that to be all wrong?
A. No Sir.

Q. That is all, and everything you said "Oh pshaw"?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. And she laughed?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. In her room?
A. Either in her room, or in the hall. I do not know which.

Q. Was not she in her own room?
A. I do not know.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:16 pm

The laugh upstairs has always struck me as an involuntary, nervous outburst. It may have been caused by Bridget's curse or it may have benn caused by simply stepping out of one room or the other at exactly the wrong moment--when two people were at the foot of the stairs.

goldenpixie · Post by **goldenpixie** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:53 pm

:) Thanks for the transcript snippet. I personally think that if *I* heard someone say "pshaw* I'd pee my pants I'd be laughing so hard....

jamfaws · Post by **jamfaws** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:40 am

Of course we don’t know what sort of laugh it was, was it a nervous laugh? a belly laugh? a snigger? Could be a number of different laughs, but it is an important part of the case, if you are to believe Lizzie and Bridgett both had something to do with it, that theory would full flat on its face wouldn’t it? Bridgett places Lizzie right next to the scene of the first? Crime, also I’m not sure if Bridgett was confused where the laugh came from, it seems she was pre-occupied with getting the door open, maybe Lizzie was behind her in the hall? It would have happened so very quickly, I know I’ve been mistaken many times where I thought I’d seen or heard something, and once the crimes were discovered hysteria would have set in most of the peoples minds, especially as in the early days everyone thought that their was a murderous axe man walking the streets of Fall River!
Another point I wanted to make was, if it was Lizzie who killed Abby, why would she put herself anywhere near the scene of the crime, especially at that moment, it could have been Uncle John at the door, I’m not at all sure Abby was killed when it is assumed she was, but if she had died after Andrew it could have possible devastation, financially towards the family (except Abbys) Of course who do you believe Bridgett for telling the laugh story and putting Lizzie near the scene of the crime? (and in doing so incriminating her) and pointing the finger of suspicion away from herself, or do you believe Lizzie’s Yes I was, No I wasn’t upstairs story? actually I personally think that if she was innocent, Lizzie changed where she was because even she could see that it looked suspicious, after all her life WAS on the line here.
Of course there is the further possibility that it wasn’t Lizzie who laughed, Bridgett only claimed she HEARD Lizzie laugh, she didn’t actually see her, so in any case she wouldn’t have been able to place exactly where she was (unless she had eyes in the back of her head) also I’m wondering could not the laugh have come from Andrew on the other side of the door? I know it sounds stupid, and she should know the difference from Male to Female, but it’s just a thought, not at the precise moment, but on being questioned later, maybe she got muddled and it was really Andrew she heard laugh and NOT Lizzie?

Another theory is that Bridgett is the killer (I’d be surprised if she was) and she puts Lizzie right next to Abby, in an all so innocent way, (and she made a huge fuss on going up stairs, even before the body of Abby was discovered), I don’t know, this whole laughing business is bugging me, but like most of the case we will never know the true answer for sure!
But both Lizzie and Bridgett gave the same whereabouts when first questioned, Lizzie was coming downstairs, while Bridgett opened the door when Andrew came home, then Lizzie changed her mind.

LIZZIE
Inquest August 10th, 1892 (Rebello page 84)

Knowlton: Now, I call your attention to the fact that yesterday you told me, with some explicitness, that when your father came in, you were just coming downstairs.

Lizzie: No, I did not, I beg your pardon.

Knowlton: That you were on the stairs at the time your father was let in, you said with some explicitness, Do you now say you did not say so?

Lizzie: I said I thought first I was on the stairs; then I remembered I was in the Kitchen when he came in.

Knowlton: First you thought you were in the kitchen; afterwards, you remembered you were on the stairs?

Lizzie: As I said; I thought I was on the stairs. Then I said I knew I was in the kitchen. I still say that now. I was in the kitchen

BRIDGETT
Preliminary Hearing, Stenographer’s Minutes (Rebello page 84)

Q: Up to the time you let Mr Borden in, had you see Miss Lizzie?
A: She was upstairs at the time I let her in.
Q: Where Upstairs?
A: She might be in the hall, for I heard her laugh.
Q: Up the back or front stairs?
A: The front stairs

Trial (Rebello page 85

Q: What did you do with reference to the lock with the key?
A: I unlocked it (to let Andrew Borden in the front door) As I unlocked it, I said “Oh Pshaw,” and Miss Lizzie laughed, upstairs. Her Father was out there on the door step. She (Lizzie) was upstairs
Q: Upstairs, could you tell whereabouts upstairs she was when she laughed?
A: Well, she must be either in the entry or on top of the stairs. I can’t tell which.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:25 am

There are numerous instances of Lizzie laughing at the hearings and trial. Even under the duress of being tried for a horrific double murder of her blood father and step-mother, on more than one occasion, she laughed out loud so it doesn't appear it was that unusual for her.

If it was Lizzie, was she laughing at the sight of a dead Abby or at the expectation of killing her father? It would seem to me a person so perverse would not be in a "normal" state but Lizzie appears a few minutes later and converses normally with her father.

Prior to Saturday's showing of the documentary with Stefani and Kat they had a show on Deacon Brodie. Brodie is thought to be the person Robert Louis Stevenson based his story "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde". I recognize it is a work of fiction, but Lizzie, if the murderess, certainly would have had to have a similar ability to switch personalities. Knowingly or unknowingly.

jamfaws · Post by **jamfaws** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:15 am

If we take it for just this instance as “A Fact” Lizzie killed Abby and Andrew, then we can see a very bold Lizzie, knowing she did what she did, coming down the stairs, laughing at Bridgett’s trouble with the door, greeting her father as if “Nothing” was out of the ordinary, so much so he doesn’t notice something is dreadfully wrong, he takes her word for it that Abby went out, I guess there is no reason why he would go to the guest room, or Bridgett for that matter, Emma is out of town and Uncle John is out all day, still when you think about it, if Lizzie was the murderer she is taking a huge chance that A: Andrew doesn’t question her more about Abby, or twig something is up and go look for her B: that he would have a nap on the sofa C: that Uncle John does not come back early (or had she thought he had left for good?) and D: that Bridgett would keep out of the way long enough for her to kill her father, so if it was Lizzie she took a huge chance in being caught, although if it was her she did it successfully. Although the crime was shocking and court case sensational I think it’s amazing that 112 years later people are still discussing it and that it will never be solved (even if someone along the line has, excuse the pun, “Hit the nail on the head” and given us the right answer.
One more thing if Abby was murdered by Lizzie around 9:15am Lizzie is left for an awfully long time to ponder what she did, after all this would have been her first murder, and an horrific one at that, could somebody do that in such a rage as another personality and successful turn back into their normal self and then back again a couple of hours later to do the same thing to someone they loved? Even Dr Jekyl realised he had changed!

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:24 pm

...Smudgey, if guilty, Lizzie hadn't "just finished" slaughtering Abby; almost an hour or so had gone by.

I think we may need to open our minds about the whole "rage" issue. Lizzie may have planned to kill Abby, but may still have attacked her with rage, or she may have become enraged as she attacked - was Abby crying out, or had she seen Lizzie approaching (first wound, facing her attacker?) and started to resist?

And did Lizzie, as Lincoln put it in probably the most valuable of her suppositions, think she'd simply get dressed and go out for an alibi-establishing stroll? Remember: Lizzie had no way of knowing that the relative time of Abby's death could be deduced. She did not live in the era of cable and LAW & ORDER reruns. Did Andrew's early return home and his subsequent questions after Maggie had gone up to her room ("Really, Lizzie - where is your stepmother? I always know when you're lying to me!") lead to his death?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:48 pm

" if Lizzie was the murderer she is taking a huge chance that A: Andrew doesn’t question her more about Abby, or twig something is up and go look for her B: that he would have a nap on the sofa C: that Uncle John does not come back early (or had she thought he had left for good?) and D: that Bridgett would keep out of the way long enough for her to kill her father, so if it was Lizzie she took a huge chance in being caught, although if it was her she did it successfully."--jamfaws

This is true. But so would the murderer have these spontaneous advantages , if it was not Lizzie. Lizzie, closer to the family unit, might be better prepared to take advantage in these instances than a stranger would.

It's interesting about Uncle John, because he does come to visit with no extra clothing or overnight gear and he does say he could have left on the 6 o'clock train on Wednesday (?).

Q. When you came from New Bedford to Fall River did you have any set time to go back?
A. Not particular, no. I told Mr. Davis I would try to get back the next day. He says you will be gone two days, I guess, I will give you that. I could have gone back the night before at six o’clock or half past.--Inquest, Morse, 102

Morse's friends, the Davis', say to a reporter that he was possibly expected back Thursday.

"A daughter of Mr. Davis, who was present during this conversation, stated that Morse wore a light gray suit and that it was his intention of returning home last night."--Evening Standard, August 5th, 1892

I think it is possible, if no conspiracy existed between the girls and Morse, that they did not know when Morse was leaving town to return to the Davis'.
Even Mrs. Emery thought he was leaving to go to New Bedford when he left her house Thursday midmorning.

"She asked him to remain to dinner, but he declined saying something about going to New Bedford, to which place they understood be was going after leaving the house."--Witness Statments, 29

However- Morse may have made it clear his intentions as to a schedule, with a co-conspirator- yet left it as a mystery to everyone else, so he could turn up or not turn up, as the situation demanded.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:14 pm

A thought came to my mind about the laugh, has anyone tried to experiment while at the Lizzie B&B to see if while you were upstairs in or by Lizzie's room if you could hear someone facing the front door saying, "Oh pshaw"? And for that matter, tried laughing in Lizzie's room and see if it could be heard downstairs? It might give us some answers.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:20 pm

When I moved to America I lived in Boston. Lots of people said (and probably still say) "Oh pshaw". I thought they were saying a woman's name: Opal Shaw and began using it....

MON DIEU!

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:45 pm

You can hear from the landing, you can hear from the entrance, and if Lizzie's door was open, you could've heard something down at the front door.

It isn't really WHAT Maggie said as compared to HOW she said it, for our purposes. On the other hand, if she did swear (or even if she didn't), it could've set Lizzie off.

william · Post by **william** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:08 pm

Hi Bob,

I believe Bridget used the expression "pshaw!" when she opened te door for Andrew. In spite of what you may have read, a nice Irish girl seldom employed epithets to make her point. Unfortunately her male counterpart didn't follow this good example.
I had two maiden Irish aunts who lived with us. They were constantly
"pshawing" it all over the place, but I never heard them curse.
Of course, as I'm certain a gentlemen of your breeding knows, the "p"
is silient.
Good times,
Bill

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:21 pm

I 'shaw do!

Fondly,
Bob

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:58 pm

You can hear from the landing, you can hear from the entrance, and if Lizzie's door was open, you could've heard something down at the front door.

Thanks, Bob, good to know. So, then its entirely possible that Lizzie did hear Bridget and was laughing at her "pshaw". Maybe it was a case of Bridget had no idea where Lizzie was and said it quite angrily, setting Lizzie off? Or, perhaps it might have been a warning in a way to Bridget, I just heard you and whomever is at the door probably did too?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:49 pm

Your surmise, Susan, reminds me of something. Maybe Lizzie made that noise so that the others would know she was there?

When I walk around my neighborhood sometimes it gets dark and neighbors are bringing their pails down to the curb and I don't want to come upon them out of the dark and so I start giving a little cough and shuffling my feet (Tho I never shuffle in real life

) so they are not surprised. It's like a courtesy, plus I don't wish to scare them. They are coming from the light into the dark.
It would be like Andrew coming in from the light into the darkened house. Maybe Lizzie wanted Bridget and Andrew to know she was there.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:38 am

Ya' know, I wonder if Andrew did hear Lizzie's laugh that day? If he was just coming in the door to hear that laugh coming from upstairs, what were his thoughts on that?

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:40 am

The idea that Lizzie's laugh might've been nothing more than a not-unfriendly signal to a servant to "cool it," I mean. Brilliant!

mspitstop · Post by **mspitstop** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:20 pm

i believe that lizzie is wrong about where she was when mr. b came home. and that she was heading back downstairs and laughed at bridget's swearing..even if she just said "pshaw" that was considered vulgar in those days (let alone what she might really have said!)
mrs. kelly testified that she saw mr. borden come around from the side of the house and go to the front door, which has always indicated to me that the side door was latched, no one was in the kitchen to hear his attempt at entry and so he went around to come in the front door.
lizzie could be lying at the inquest or mistaken, take your pick, but there is some peripheral evidence to pick at some truths.

Jimmy S. Windeskog · Post by **Jimmy S. Windeskog** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:13 am

In Browns version the laughing is done by Bill Borden, just after he killed Abby.

Lincon thinks the laug came from Lizzie becouse Bridget was sworeing over the lock. This time I belive Lincon

connecticuthills · Post by **connecticuthills** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:46 pm

hi everyone
i dont post often but i enjoy this forum often.
my sister and i experimented giggling on the stair way when we went to the Borden house.
you can hear clearly.
I think Lizzie is a certifiable sociopath.
totoally devoid of feelings
not much different from scott peterson. In this day and age with a legal inquest and a bloody dress ( the one she burnt) Lizzie would be
on death row. Or would she be? hmmm that opens up another subject.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:02 am

Harry and I were talking about the possibly of a good appeal on Scott Peterson's part.
We wondered if Lizzie had been convicted, if she had grounds for appeal. (That's if they had appeal in 1893- which I don't think they did.)
I think the prosecution had grounds for appeal in the Borden case!

(If that were ever possible) I think Lizzie had all the rulings her way...

The bloody dress is an unknown, but any DNA testing probably would have solved this case, don't you think?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:21 am

Masssachusetts did have an appellate court system back then, dating at least as far back to 1850 if not indeed earlier than that. It didn't work at all like appellate courts today, however: It appears that defendants got one shot at appeal, and that was that.

To better illustrate, in the instance of the defendant below... the murder of Dr. George Parkman was alleged to have occured on or about the 23rd of November 1849; the Suffolk County grand jury returned an indictment in early January of 1850. Dr. Webster was tried in mid-March before the Supreme Judicial Court.

On the 20th day of August, 1850, Dr. John Webster was executed - just under nine months as I count, after Parkman was murdered.

(The other week I just got a "Notable Trials" edition of the Commonwealth v. John W. Webster trial transcript. In the introduction, it says that following his conviction, Dr. Webster appealed, only to have the appeal denied.)

This was the same case, incidentally, which Albert Mason referred to on page 3 of the trial transcript, before voir dire of the jurors began.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:11 am

Thanks!
Was that an appeal to the Governor, do you know?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:42 am

Nope...the appeal was heard - and denied by - Lemuel Shaw, Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. There was an appeal to the Governor for commutation of Webster's sentence to life in prison, but that effort failed.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:43 pm

If Webster was tried before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (of Mass.) and then convicted, why would it be called an "appellate court system" if he asked for the verdict to be reviewed? Isn't he just asking the judge of the court which convicted him to reconsider?
Technically, is this an "appeal?" I thought there was only a Governor's appeal back then. Who wrote the intro to your famous trials book and can you be more specific?
Thanks!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:55 pm

The introduction to the "Notable Trials" edition of the Commonwealth v. Webster transcript was written by Alan Dershowitz.

Actually the question you raise, Kat, regarding the failed judicial appeal is the same irony that Dershowitz noted - that Webster in effect was appealing to the Justice who convicted him. But...where else could he go, judicially? (The top legal beagles of the Commonwealth had already "whizzed" on his proverbial hydrant, so to speak.)

At any rate, the introduction does mention that an appeal was made (presumably to the Governor) for commutation of Webster's death sentence. No time line is given but it's infered that at some point between the application and Webster's death by hanging, a confession by Webster to a Reverend Putnam was...yep, you guessed it, published in the newspapers...so the necktie party was held five months after trial.

I would think the most the Governor could have done was to knock down the penalty, particularly in light of the published confession. Why Didn't he? Would you risk a very public dispute with the Chief Justice of your own state supreme court? Lem Shaw (as Dershowitz noted) may have been the real-life model for Captain Vere in Herman Melville's Billy Budd. Terrible thing to do to your father-in-law, huh??

The sites below may help a little. The second has what appears to be a transcription of a pamphlet focusing on the illegality of the trial in one or another respect.
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Criminals/00000021.htm
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/webster.htm

As "Trials of the Century" go, this one was probably it.

If there's any irony at all, it would have to be this - That out of an extremely questionable trial came some very good practice:

The instruction on pre-trial jury voir dire, which Chief Justice Mason alluded to during jury selection at New Bedford;

The charge on circumstantial evidence. (The Borden jury instructions in spots have Webster's footprints all over them!)

The standard instruction on homicide, which is still used in Massachusetts courts today. (It's used elsewhere too in some form or other, but Dershowitz doesn't say that in his introduction.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:24 pm

Thanks again.
I was wondering if the intro writer was using phraseology which might be confusing to us as to his definition of
*Appeal.*
I agree and understand the concept of appealing to the Governor, but I still am confused as to what you called *an appellate court* system?
Is that specifically named as a common legal process, independent of asking the Governor for clemency?
Sorry to be so dense, but I thought we followed sometime after Scottish law was established and the appeals process was not in place in Scotland or England until after 1910-- maybe 1920 here?
In England one could *appeal* to the Home Secretary, which usually was refused unless it was a very high-profile case, and then it would at least be reviewed. I'm not sure what criteria was used to sort out individual dispensations.
Can you help me here?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:15 am

Dense?? Nahhh...

I think I see what you're saying though. I'll have to sniff about a bit to see if I can find out more. I'm curious now too!!

My understanding is that the early appellate system in the United States in the nineteenth century worked more or less the same as now, except for one thing: In capital cases, the condemned defendant got exactly one appellate (judicial) review, and that was that. Anything more?? Sorry Charlie! You lose... Get off the merry-go-round and take your medicine!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 2:17 am

Well, I found something that's sort of helpful in answering the question (or isn't helpful, depending on your point of view.) The Judiciary Act of 1789 established thirteen district courts of appeal, twelve of which exercised regional jurisdiction, while jurisdiction of the thirteenth was to be national.

Unfortunately there's not much of an explanation given that would be immediately helpful to our understanding of just how the system worked. (I'll keep looking; guess that's why Appellate law is a specialty, huh??)

The official title is "The Judiciary Act of 1789, or An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States." September 24, 1789, U. S. Statutes 1:73.

The text is at: http://courses.smsu.edu/ftm922f/Documen ... ct1789.htm

You had I think, Kat, mentioned an option of direct appeal to the Governor. One of the only examples thus far I've been able to find with any direct bearing on your question was the Special Court of Oyer and Terminer, created by William Phips, Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, for the purpose of trying the witchcraft cases of 1692.

Interesting...the first time I searched for '"Court of Oyer and Terminer" Massachusetts' 6 results popped up; the second time I tried, a moment ago, there were 628 hits!

At any rate...from at least Steptember 24, 1789, there was an appellate framework in place. In Lizzie's case, however, had she been convicted on the two counts of capital murder, her next stop would most certainly have been the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. (It's still like that even today.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:28 pm

Thanks for still looking!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:42 pm

Saright.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:09 am

Judiciary Act of 1789

Definition: 1789 law that created the Judicial Branch of the federal government. Among the things provided for in the Act:

1.the number of members of the Supreme Court (6)
2.the number of lower district courts (13)
3.the idea that the Supreme Court can settle disputes between states
4.the idea that a decision by the Supreme Court is final.

This act of the First Congress established the structure of the federal judiciary, the basic structure of which has remained intact. The Constitution stipulated only that the federal court system should consist of (1) a Supreme Court having original jurisdiction in certain cases and (2) "such inferior Courts as the Congress may ... establish." Congress could have declined to create lower courts, making state courts rule first on almost all federal issues. Such cases would then appear before the single federal court. Instead, the 1789 act created two lower levels of courts. Federal district courts, each with a district judge, composed the lowest level. Their district boundaries generally matched state lines. Every federal district also fell within the circuit of one of the three second-level courts, the circuit courts. Two Supreme Court justices and one district judge composed each circuit court bench; they traveled to each district to hear cases twice a year. When cases involved parties from differing states, they usually received their first hearing in the circuit courts. Occasionally, circuit courts also heard appeals from district courts. In addition to creating courts, the 1789 act granted the Supreme Court a controversial power to order federal officials to carry out their legal responsibilities.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:16 pm

That's interesting. Can you give your source, please?
Thanks!
There might be more there I'd like to look up...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 7:16 pm

I took a little from two separate sources and added them together.
Unfortunately I couldn't find the link for the first half of my post but I did find the link for the second.I usually keep my links so I can go back and look at them myself but for some reason some of them were missing...

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/fac ... crac/8.htm

I also studied this just recently in the textbook for my class called "The United Stated to 1865" . After the United States won its freedom from Britain and became a separate country of its own, it had the task of creating for itself a new government, and a system of its own universal laws.The "Judiciary Act of 1789" established the federal court system for brand new United States of America.

I also thought this link might be helpful...

http://college.hmco.com/history/readers ... aryact.htm

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:17 am

I'm reading "ARE YOU THERE ALONE?, The Unspeakable Crime of Andrea Yates" by Suzanne O'Malley, Simon & Schuster, NY etc., 2004.

There is a part I will transcribe here about how badly Harris County, Texas court stenos may be doing their job.
Also, it was interesting to note how hard it was for the author, or anyone to get a trial transcript, even in time for an appeal. They had to prolong the deadline for appeal because the court stenographer was so tardy in supplying it! Also she charged $5 a page! The initial price in the early days was $60,000 and later reduced to $49,000. There is an economic problem with the defence's family trying to mount an appeal, when they've just borne the expense of a trial! Very interesting.

And:
Pg. 218
"No appeal, criminal or civil, can be filed without a printed transcript of the complete court proceeding, an expense that can be prohibitive, if not punitive. The trasnscript of the Yates trial was twelve thousand pages long..."

For our purposes, pg. 219:

"Harris County [Texas] seems to have singular difficulties with producing trial transcripts. In a recent bribery and conspiracy trial (the VitaPro case) of former State Prison Director Andy Collins and Canadian businessman Yank Barry, a court-ordered reconstruction of 950 pages of transcript contained, again according to columinst Thom Marshall, '393 words or phrases inaccurately transcribed, 42 inaccurate dollar amounts, names and numbers; 334 omissons of parts of trial events, and 29 incorrect attributions of statements made by the trial judge, attorneys or witnesses.'"

--Well, we've wondered if there were errors in the original stenographers type of the Borden case.
The author believes because of these reasons, videotape should be used in the courtroom.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:31 am

http://courses.smsu.edu/ftm922f/Documen ... ct1789.htm

Your link-Doug-Oh, I've been reading.

I'm still pondering this question. I think their definition of "Appeal" was different in the 1700's when these rules were written, than the natural order of events we think of now as a "Criminal Appeal."

I know we were always behind England and Scotland in our court systems.
I did find the date that an actual Court of Appeal was instigated in England and that was 1907.

In 1887 "There existed as yet no Court of Appeal." ...
..."The George Edalji case had led to the setting-up of the Court of Criminal Appeal in England in 1907." (pg. 177).

In 1931 the Court first used its powers to "quash" a murder conviction in the Wallace case. [In England]. (pg. 265).
--On Death's Bloody Trail, Brian Marriner, St. Martin's Press, N.Y., 1991

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 12:50 pm

If England did not instigate a court of appeal until 1907 then we were actually ahead of them, ours was officially established in 1891. The Court of Appeal was created to relieve the Supreme Court of some of it's duties to help ease its caseloads.The Supreme Court up until this point had been the Court where appeals were heard.If a verdict was considered unfair by either side, it could be appealed to the Supreme Court who could over- turn the verdict.But the Supreme Court also has the choice of whether or not they will hear your case.You could ask the Court to hear your case and make a ruling on the decision by the lower court, but they could deny hearing your case if they felt it did not present a need to be reviewed, and the ruling would stand.So in effect we did have a court system of appeals, it just wasn't called "the court of appeals".

"The first session of the Supreme Court was on February 1, 1790 in the Royal exchange in New York City."

"Although the Court has changed over the past 200 years, its role has not.
The Court's duty is to answer questions in "cases and controversies".
(Article III Section II)This means that the court can only hear cases the deal with important legal issues in actual disputes with parties on both sides who have stakes in the outsome ( have been damaged etc.)"

"The U.S Supreme Court has the power to accept or reject cases brought to it for hearing.Through a 'writ of certiorari" , and individual asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of a lower court.If the court agrees to hear the case, if they "grant certiorari" both sides of the dispute are given the opportunity to present their arguments to the Court.

http://www.ccle.fourh.umn.edu/into_materials.pdf
===============================================

"The U.S. Court of Appeals, the first and ultimate tenant of the building, had been created twenty years earlier by an 1891 act of Congress to relieve the Supreme Court of much of its growing appellate duties and to remedy deficiencies in the cumbersome Circuit Court System, which was finally abolished in 1911."

"The nine courts of appeal were not to be trial courts or to exercise original jurisdiction. They were to be the indispensable middle rung in the three-tiered federal court system that had been envisioned since the First Judiciary Act of 1789 established federal courts, pursuant to Article III, section I of the Constitution. Below the courts of appeal were the U.S. district courts, which were trial courts for civil and criminal cases involving federal law. Above the courts of appeal was the Supreme Court. Many elements of the former circuit courts were embodied in the courts of appeal. "

"The 1891 Court of Appeals Act designated one city in each circuit where court would be held. In the Fifth Circuit, that was New Orleans, easily the principal city of the region. The court met in the Customs House on the corner of Canal and Decatur Streets. In June 1902, Congress authorized the Fifth Circuit to hold a term in a second city -- Atlanta, which was now the home of Senior Judge Pardee. Thus began a New Orleans-Atlanta polarity which characterized the Fifth Circuit for much of its history. Fort Worth and Montgomery were added later that year as additional places where the Court of Appeals would sit. "

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/about/appealshistory.php

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:08 pm

Thanks for all that.
If this was an act of Congress in 1891, do you know when or what year it first went into effect?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:41 pm

It went into effect in 1891.

"The U.S. courts of appeals were the first federal courts designed exclusively to hear cases on appeal from trial courts. In an effort to relieve the caseload burden in the Supreme Court and to handle a dramatic increase in federal filings, Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1891, established nine courts of appeals, one for each judicial circuit. The existing circuit judges and a newly-authorized judge in each circuit were the judges of the appellate courts. The circuit justice and district judges in the circuit also were authorized to sit on the three-person courts of appeals panels. Although the act preserved the Supreme Court justices' assignment to circuits, circuit riding was no longer mandatory, and few justices attended."

http://air.fjc.gov/history/ca_frm.html

RonRico · Post by **RonRico** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 8:48 pm

I ahve always thought that the "laugh" was either nervous or ironic laughter.

Nervous that her father had come home and she knew what needed to be done or ironic in that she had just had the thought "I've got to get out of here before father gets home."

The big question here to me is why did she wait so long to leave the house if she wanted to be away when Abby's body was discovered? It certainly didn't take much time from when she killed Andrew to when she called for help.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 10:27 pm

I've often wondered if the laugh Bridget says she heard from Lizzie was actually from Wednesday.

When Dr. Bowen came to see Andrew Wednesday morning, he saw who he thought was Lizzie going up the front stairs- and Bridget let him in.

Bowen used to be an escort occaisonally for Lizzie to church at times- like she may have had a small crush on him, or they were good friends. Wednesday she had on her faded and stained Bedford cord dress and may have scurried up stairs when she saw it was Bowen at the door, giggling because she was in a hurry not to be found in her "old" dress...and Bridget confused the days...

RonRico · Post by **RonRico** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 8:02 am

I have always thought of the "laugh", if it happened at all, as a nervous or ironic laugh. Nervous if she realized what she must now do since her father was home and she hadn't gotten out of the house yet or ironic if she had just thought "Oh, my I have to get out of here before father gets home" and at that moment he is at the door.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

The Laugh

The Laugh

Well...

Getting the giggles!

First of all...

Yup

Thankee, Bill!

Now, that's interesting!