A Springfield, MA Rumor

This the place to have frank, but cordial, discussions of the Lizzie Borden case

Moderator: Adminlizzieborden

Post Reply
User avatar
Grace
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:36 pm
Real Name:

A Springfield, MA Rumor

Post by Grace »

****This is a complete rumor and in no way based on any hard evidence****

I am well acquanted with an attorney based in Western Massachusetts (I once worked for him and maintain a close friendship) and I recently had a conversation with him about my fascination with the Borden case as of late.

He told me, though I was already aware, about the case files stored at Robinsons offices in Springfield, and his exact wording was "Rumor has it the files prove beyond a doubt that she did it"

:shock: :shock: :shock: :lol:

Still, just a rumor...
User avatar
Shelley
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:22 pm
Real Name:
Location: CT
Contact:

Post by Shelley »

Wow- hot stuff!! I always believed there was something very very incriminating in those files or else they would have been published long ago.
augusta
Posts: 2231
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 11:27 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Augusta
Location: USA

Post by augusta »

Actually, the people at the law firm that did read them told the papers that there was "no smoking gun".

That does not make sense to me, that these people at the current firm got to read them and they were not Lizzie's attorney.

Myself, I wonder about something being in that Hip Bath collection from the Jennings family. There is something in there that Jennings was trying to keep very quiet, so that Lizzie could not be brought to trial again on a different charge.

Still, I am dying to see those Robinson files. I would think they contain a lot of "new" material.
User avatar
Angel
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:32 pm
Real Name:

Post by Angel »

I still say we should establish a Lizziegate mob and break in.
User avatar
Ad
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:24 pm
Real Name: Al Jones
Location: Blaine, WA

Post by Ad »

I agree; where do we join?

It would be nice to see these papers etc, before the next 100 years have passed

Is there any way (legal) to apply pressure. I know that it's been tried before, but there must be something that can be done.

Besides I'd like to have the counter part to the Knowlton book
User avatar
Shelley
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:22 pm
Real Name:
Location: CT
Contact:

Post by Shelley »

I have my black ski mask and S.W.A.T. gear- where do we rendez-vous?
JoAnne
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:56 pm
Real Name:
Location: Massachusetts

Post by JoAnne »

I'm practicing to jimmy a lock as we speak. By November I should be a cracker jack at it. Count me in!
Societygirl1892
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:13 am
Real Name:
Location: Naugatuck, CT
Contact:

A Pringfield, MA rumor

Post by Societygirl1892 »

I am so with you!
I don't get it, we can't take a look at the file, but any random attorney at that practice can? Doesn't seem right; doesn't seem fair. They are not her attorneys and if it is attorney/client priviledge (did I spell that right??) they're worrying about, then they've already broken it.
Personally, reading that file wouldn't change my obsession with the case. Whether it said definitively who did do it, I highly doubt it. I think the only thing we would find is that Lizzie aided and abetted or obstructed justice, and that is what she would have been charged with if the info came to light (per what Jennings said and/or was worried about) and probably found guilty of.
I wonder what the sentence would be for that? I know death by hanging was if she was found guilty of the murders, but would have happened if it came down that she was found guilty of conspiracy???
Pammie
Pammie :-)
User avatar
doug65oh
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:26 am
Real Name:

Post by doug65oh »

I think in the end it comes down to possession being 9/10ths of the law. As far as that Supreme Court ruling the “custodial” firm seems to have hung its hat on is concerned – I’ve forgotten the citation at this point but we discussed it here awhile back, it had to do with the late Vincent Foster. If memory serves, the only thing that ruling really said was that an attorney of record cannot be forced to effectively violate attorney/client privilege despite the fact that the client is deceased.

The business about who may have access to the Robinson files actually makes sense. It would only be a real issue (legally and ethically) if the attorney who read the files decided to squeal. If said squealage were to occur, the attorney could face professional penalties at the least.

A current edition of the Rules of Professional Conduct which apply to lawyers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may be found at http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/rpcnet.htm

As far as the sentencing question is concerned, if we could find an 1893 or so edition of the General Laws of Massachusetts, there might be clues (indeed should be clues) in there. For example, see http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/274-7.htm for modern penalties.
I staid the night for shelter at a farm behind the mountains, with a mother and son - two "old-believers." They did all the talking...
- Robert Frost
User avatar
Kat
Posts: 14767
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
Real Name:
Location: Central Florida

Post by Kat »

Here is a download on the interpretation of the ruling, as it affects the Borden file:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Kat
Posts: 14767
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
Real Name:
Location: Central Florida

Post by Kat »

I once called them up- to verify info in a Hatchet submission! :smile:
Post Reply