Did Lizzie have forensic knowledge?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:19 am

I have often wondered if Lizzie (assuming she was the killer) even knew about blood splatter....

I don't think she did....

To be perfectly honest-- I don't think I would have thought about it myself until I began to study this case....

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:02 am

There was the *story* that when Knowlton viewed the scene he found a book which opened to a page on prussic acid.
I think that's from Pearson.
I still don't quite get the tale of the blood spatter *tails*. Even from viewing such forensic info on TV. I sort of understand...I guess.

Maybe she was an idiot savant when it came to murder?
Whoever did it, got away with it, after all...

Actually, I can envision her reading up on poison, but not on "Evidence."

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:09 am

I think I have read that somewhere before also, I think in more than one source actually, but seems that the only one I remember offhand is Lincoln. She said that the spine of the book was broken, and opened to the page on prussic acid. Not sure what page I'll have to look it up now because its bothering me

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:27 am

It first came from Pearson and maybe Lincoln used it?
He is an early source of *Legends* about our Lizzie- some not so savory.

Masterpieces of Murder, "The End of the Borden Case: The Final Word", Gerald Gross editor, Bonanza Books, New York, Chapters dated 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1936. Gross edition copyright 1963.
This item appeared in an early Pearson work: see dates 1924-1936. The following is Pearson's re-recounting of an earlier offering, page 165:

"One of these attorneys, on entering the Borden house for the first time, found a book of recipes and prescriptions. He took it up, and it fell open in his hand - at a passage devoted to the subject of prussic acid."

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:33 am

Yes, it's in Lincoln (pg 62 ?):
"When Hosea Knowlton, the District Attorney, first entered that house, his eye fell on a book lying on one of the small
draped tables in the sitting room. A reader, as the Bordens were not, he picked it up idly. It was a book of household hints; its spine was broken and it fell open at a section on poisons, in fact at an article on prussic acid."

--We should probably check newspapers for Pearson's source...
I'm always interested in what came first.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:37 am

I would think then that Knowlton, or Moody, would mention that in their opening statement (?).

If it's true, that's big stuff. Someone should have been questioned about that on the stand (Lizzie at the inquest?). Unless it was ruled 'inadmissable'.

Hey, if something is 'inadmissable' can an attorney still talk about it in his opening or closing statement? The opposing team can object during the other's statement.

A while back, we talked about if Lizzie knew about the bodies not spurting blood once their heart stopped. We talked about how back then, she probably saw animals being butchered and might have known thru that.

She could have gotten that information from asking Dr. Bowen. Or from asking Uncle Morse or from Davis. I don't think she would have thought to ask it unless Morse or Davis told her that first. I don't know if that would be something that would be spelled right out and easy to find in a medical book back then. But I think that she did know, whether she was the murderer or the accomplice. Blood would have had to have been a concern ahead of time.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:48 pm

An attorney can sneak in "inadmissable" evidence.There are a few tricks for doing this.One way to do it is to ask a question or make a statement concerning the "inadmissable" evidence during the course of questioning a witness, in hopes the witness may answer the question, but an objection will of course be made by the opposition. The judge will then order it stricken from the record, and instruct the jury to disregard what they have heard. But, in reality, how many of you could follow that rule? Could you disregard something that you heard? That is one trick. Another trick could be to try and use it in an opening or closing statement. The judge can again order it stricken from the record and order the jury to "disregard". We have had discussions on this in class,but after reading your post I questioned my professor on the specifics of that subject, and this is what he told me.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:23 pm

Lizzie's inquest testimony is referred to in opening and so is the *Lizzie poison search* information. Both had not yet been ruled upon.
Maybe, to be more fair, they should not postpone these admissable/inadmissabe rulings until the moment the court is confronted with it- because the story gets into the record, and the jury's ears, even if it's not "evidence."