Would the jury have convicted Lizzie?

[Harry]

William asked a good question in another thread.

"If all of the evidence had been admitted, do you think the jury would have found Lizzie guilty?"

The poison testimony and Lizzie's Inquest testimony were admitted at the Preliminary hearing and Judge Blaisdell, not a jury, found her "probably guilty".

[doug65oh]

Harry, is the presumption here that (aside from the poison and inquest testimony being presented) that all else would remain the same? Even though I think Bence might have swayed the jurors, or at least shaken their resolve, it’s still difficult to see them finding her guilty.

[Harry]

Yes, Doug, everything else stays the same.

[kssunflower]

I have to agree with Doug on this. Because of the social mores of the time, even though each juror may have had their doubts as to Lizzie's innocence, it was just best to proclaim her not guilty.

[Constantine]

As Sullivan pointed out--rightly, I think--the evidence that was in fact heard should have been sufficient for a conviction. That being the case, I don't think even the additional evidence would have been sufficient for unanimity, though I think it would have swayed some jurors. I voted for a hung jury.

[Fargo]

If all the evidence had been admitted I still don't think there would have been a conviction., because:

1. Society did not want to believe that Lizzie was Guilty.

2 .The Inquest testimony, in some ways would not have told the Jury anything that they did not already know. The Jury already knew that Lizzie was at home when both of the murders occurred.

3. As for Lizzie's several contradictions in her Inquest testimony, they are so numerous that the Defense would probably have been able to explain them away by the drugs that had been given to Lizzie.

4. As for the Prussic Acid, if the Defense could have shown that Lizzie had a legitimate reason for buying it, then the Jury might have believed that it was just a bad coincidence.

[SteveS.]

I also don't think they would have convicted her for all the same reasons as has been allready stated.
1. I don't think those 12 men tried and true were about to convict the rich, society girl daughter of the deceased.
2. Lizzie's lawyers would definitely explain away her inconsistencies at the inquest with more emphasis on Dr. Bowen's drugging her with morphine.
3. Eli Bence would definitely have given the defense a run for their money but I think the defense could prove either that Lizzie had a ligitimate reason for the poison purchase or that she never tried to buy it...Eli was misstaken and again more emphasis on the fact that neither murder victim had any trace of poison in their stomachs.

[nbcatlover]

I agree that the social mores of the time would have prevented the jury from convicting a church-going woman from a respectable family.

I also believe that the defense would have had to do a lot more work to present more witnesses to present the contrary point of view.

[Kat]

I haven't voted yet, nor made up my mind. Knowlton told the court late in the trial, when they were arguing the point of allowing or ruling out poison testimony, that he could show other attempts to buy poison- so I don't know if he had been allowed to show that covers the question of *everything else being the same?*
If the poison testimony had been allowed, it might have opened a door to further info and affected the outcome after all. We don't know what might have come in that door.

Trial
Page 1242

MR. ROBINSON. I understand that the offer does not include facts to show that there was any sale.

MR. MOODY. No, sir.

MR. ROBINSON. And we perhaps may anticipate, but I believe it may be fair to ask whether there is any evidence of any sale to this defendant?

MR. KNOWLTON. No, sir.

MR. ROBINSON. In any other place?

MR. KNOWLTON. No, sir. It would be fair to say we have evidence to show some attempt to purchase prussic acid in another place, with the same negative results.

MR. ROBINSON. You propose to bring evidence upon attempts, but no success?.

MR. KNOWLTON. Yes, sir.

[Fargo]

I guess there would be no way of finding out what the other attempts at buying poison might have been unless some of the prosecution's notes on the subject still exist somewhere.

[Fargo]

double post

[Kat]

I still haven't voted, and I hope I didn't bring the discussion to a halt with my comments. If I have, then I will provide what else I was looking at last night, while trying to decide, and that is that both sides got to introduce poison into their statements within the jury's hearing. Of course, opening and closing statements are not evidence, but the jury was exposed to a lot considering they were not to weigh it in their deliberations. (They were even shown Smith's drug store, for gosh sakes, in their visit to Fall River.) I guess I'm thinking along the lines that poison was part of this case.

Moody Opening at the trial:
51
. . .Upon Tuesday night, August 2nd, an illness occurred in the household. Mr. and Mrs. Borden were taken suddenly ill with a violent retching and vomiting sickness, and it is said to a less degree the prisoner herself was effected by this illness. Bridget Sullivan was not. Upon the Wednesday morning Mr. and Mrs. Borden rose feeling, of course, in the condition that people would be in after a night of that character, and Mrs. Borden consulted a physician
(52)
with reference to her condition. Upon the noon of Wednesday, which you will keep in mind was the very day before these homicides, the prisoner went to a drug-store in Fall River, the situation of which will be pointed out to you, and there asked the clerk for ten cents worth of prussic acid for the purpose of cleaning a seal-skin cape. She was told that that was a poison which was not sold except on the prescription of a physician, and after some little talk went away. I think, gentlemen, you will be satisfied that there can be no question that the person who made this application for this deadly poison was the prisoner. There were three persons in the drug store, two of whom knew her by name and sight,---one of these too knew her as the daughter of Andrew J. Borden and the third recognized her at once as he saw her. Upon the evening of the Wednesday the prisoner made a call, not in itself unusual or peculiar, upon a friend of hers, Miss Emma [sic] Russell. And we shall commend to your careful attention what occurred during that interview. It will appear that the prisoner had been intending to spend a vacation with a party of her friends at Marion and had made some arrangement about going to Marion, and the talk between the two friends started upon that topic. The prisoner said, "I have made up my mind, Alice, to take your advice and go to Marion, and I have written there to them that I shall go; but I cannot help feeling depressed; I cannot help feeling that something is going to happen to me. I cannot shake it off." "Last night", she said, "we were
(53)
all sick. Mr. and Mrs. Borden were quite sick and vomited. I did not vomit, and we are afraid that we have been poisoned. The girl did not eat the baker's bread and we did, and we think it may have been the baker's bread." "No," said Miss Russell, "if it had been that, some other people would have been sick in the same way."
(54)
"Well, it might have been the milk, our milk is left outside upon the steps." "What time is your milk left?" "At four o'clock in the morning." "It is light then, and no one would dare to come in and do it at that time." "Well," said the prisoner, "probably that is so." . . .

. . .And so the talk went. That, I beg you to keep in your minds, was with Miss Russell---Alice M. Russell.
--------

Robinson's Closing:
1632
. . .You must not say anything but what you are going to do, and you must tell them that and that only. And I shall expect the learned District Attorney to withdraw the things that Brother Moody said he was going to prove, because he has not proved them. The Court room ought not to echo still that utterance of the gentleman who opened this case because they tend to create a prejudice against the defendant. Now let me tell you about that so that you will understand it: Mr. Moody said that the Government was going to claim and prove that this defendant was preparing a dangerous weapon on August the 3rd, the day before the murders. You heard him say that. I did. He said it. They have not proved it, have they? Was there a thing about it in the evidence? You have heard some discussion that we have had at the bar because, in order that there should be no prejudice, you have been asked to step
(1633)
aside, and many of those things which have been offered in good faith have not been proved because the Court has said they are not proper to be proved in this case. They have nothing to do with it. They will only mislead the Jury, and the Jury shall not hear them in this case. Whenever another case arises, if these things are pertinent and proper, they shall be heard, but not now.

Now the Commonwealth came with the idea of putting these things before you, I say with good intention, but the Court says no, though your intention is good, it is not proper, and we will not complicate this thing. It will create a bias against the prisoner which may divert the course of justice and that shall not be introduced here, it has no right here, though you mean to be right. Now there is no proof at all, Gentlemen, about any dangerous weapon having been prepared on the 3rd of August. And to make it more specific, Mr. Moody said in his opening that they would prove that this young woman went out to buy a poison on August 3rd. You have not heard any such evidence; it is not proved, the Court did not allow it to be proved and it is not in the case. Now you will not go to the jury-room with the thought if it had been allowed, you would have considered that it was proved. But it was not allowed, no such evidence came before you, and I shall expect the District Attorney, man fashion, to get up and say so, and I think you will, and I shall be disappointed in him if he does not. He will tell you that upon that subject
(1634)
and that the case is not touched at all.
. . .
. . . you say No, I want my rights. I am here under the protection of the law, and I call upon those twelve men, decent men under their oaths to stand by me and see that I am not wronged. So you will leave those things out, Gentlemen. No poison in this case, no
(1635)
prussic acid, no preparation of a weapon by this woman, no statement made by her under oath in this trial or anywhere that you know anything about or have any right to consider. I do not care what you have read.

. . .
(1694)
. . . There was talk about poison and poison was feared in the family because all had been made sick.

_________

[Kat]

I think I've just talked myself into voting no.

[SteveS.]

Just one other thing I wanted to point out in regard to the poison purchase attempt and Lizzie's inquest testimony. There wasn't radio or telivision for entertainment back then and most cities Fall River or New Bedford's size had at least 2 if not more newspapers being printed daily plus weekly newspapers. They read ALOT during that time period and this was MAJOR news back in 1892. It was read and discussed by just about everyone. I am sure it was read and discussed by most if not all the jurors diring the 10 months before the trial and the poison purchase attempt and Lizzie's inquest testimony had to have been read, discussed and known about in some form by the jurors before the trial even began so even though neither was allowed to be introduced as evidence in the trial it was well known about at the time.

[1bigsteve]

No, I don't think they would have decided her guilty. The poison purchase may have made her look guilty but it didn't prove she was guilty. I think Lizzie was involved in the murders but I would want to see solid proof before declaring her guilty.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

I don't know that the inquest testimony of Lizzie showed up in the papers prior to that day June 12, 1893 when it was released for publication in the Evening Standard. It says "Lizzie's Story...printed for the first time."
The jury was sequestered.

Yes the poison story could probably have been published and read by any potential juror, before the trial began. The jury selection process at the beginning of the trial transcript, and questions asked them, might illuminate this point.

[Yooper]

If the additional evidence had been allowed, I think it would likely have changed a few minds. While there was an aversion to convicting a woman of murder on circumstantial evidence, I think the additional evidence was strong enough to disallow using the circumstantial nature of the existing evidence (as presented at the trial) as a scapegoat to cover for the lack of hard evidence. As it was, the jurors could say there was not enough hard evidence absolutely linking Lizzie to the crime, and this justified an acquittal in their minds. If mindset could be inferred from the poison testimony, and evasion from the Inquest testimony, it would probably provide enough evidence to sway at least a couple of jurors. This is all simply based upon the evidence being available to the jurors and without elaboration in court to clarify it. If both evidence and elaboration were allowed, the trial might have had a different outcome completely. I voted for a hung jury.