Guilty or Not Proven
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
Harry
- Posts: 4058
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:28 pm
- Real Name: harry
- Location: South Carolina
Guilty or Not Proven
The Scots have a verdict "Not Proven". Assuming such an option at Lizzie's trial how would you have voted?
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
-
DJ
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
- Real Name:
Yes, and it's my understanding that the "Not Proven" basically means, "We're almost positive you did it, so don't ever do it again, or you will swing. And, by the way, get out of town and keep a low profile from here on out."
There was an infamous Scottish murder case-- attractive young woman suspected of poisoning, I believe-- about forty years before Lizzie's case. She received the "not proven."
That's how I'm voting.
There was an infamous Scottish murder case-- attractive young woman suspected of poisoning, I believe-- about forty years before Lizzie's case. She received the "not proven."
That's how I'm voting.
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
I can't quite get away from Lizzie's behavior immediately after the murders and what she had to say. To my mind, it is inconsistent with innocence, and entirely consistent with guilt. I assume the jury had access to the previous court records along with the police notes. She had motive, means, and exclusive opportunity, so accessory with another primary party doesn't quite wash. I would have to say Guilty.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Fargo
- Posts: 976
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:43 pm
- Real Name:
-
Harry
- Posts: 4058
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:28 pm
- Real Name: harry
- Location: South Carolina
"Not Proven" was the verdict of a "special jury" sponsored by a newspaper, The New York Recorder. This is from Pearson's Studies in Murder , p110:
"The New York Recorder, for which Mr. Howard wrote his letters, tried the case in its columns more frankly than any of the other papers, and actually organized a "special jury" of more or less distinguished citizens, whose pictures were printed in a row every day. They were furnished verbatim reports of each day's proceedings, and on the last day of all were asked to vote "proven" or "not proven." This "jury" included the Rev. Dr. Edward Everett Hale, William Sulzer, Samuel Gompers, George Fred Williams, DeLancey Nicoll, Lucy Stone, and Albert A. Pope, and these with the other five, all voted "not proven."
Of interest is the inclusion of a woman, Mrs. Lucy Stone (1818-1893), on the panel. She was a prominent abolitionist and suffragist at the time.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/stone ... _stone.htm
"The New York Recorder, for which Mr. Howard wrote his letters, tried the case in its columns more frankly than any of the other papers, and actually organized a "special jury" of more or less distinguished citizens, whose pictures were printed in a row every day. They were furnished verbatim reports of each day's proceedings, and on the last day of all were asked to vote "proven" or "not proven." This "jury" included the Rev. Dr. Edward Everett Hale, William Sulzer, Samuel Gompers, George Fred Williams, DeLancey Nicoll, Lucy Stone, and Albert A. Pope, and these with the other five, all voted "not proven."
Of interest is the inclusion of a woman, Mrs. Lucy Stone (1818-1893), on the panel. She was a prominent abolitionist and suffragist at the time.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/stone ... _stone.htm
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
-
kssunflower
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:31 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Cindy
- Location: Kansas City
-
stargazer
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:23 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Jandolin Marks
- Location: Mohave Desert Arizona
- Contact:
-
diana
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:21 pm
- Real Name:
I envy those who are comfortable in their belief that Lizzie did it. I've been looking at this case since the '70's and still can’t say I believe wholeheartedly in her guilt.
The wording of Harry's question is important here. "Assuming such an option at Lizzie's trial how would you have voted?"
Is it an easy task to pronounce Lizzie guilty if we just read the trial? Remember a lot of our prejudice against her has been generated by rumour and innuendo and fanned by newspaper articles and books etc.
Who can forget the totally bogus Trickey/McHenry articles, for example? They were surely an attempt to prove that old adage 'if you throw enough mud at someone, some of it will stick'.
On September 16, 1997, U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and William H. Rehnquist presided over a Stanford Law School re-enactment of Lizzie's trial. When the Stanford audience voted at the end of the re-enactment -- those students and alumni of the law apparently had sufficient reasonable doubt -- and once again Lizzie Borden was vindicated.
So it might be interesting to read the trial from beginning to end and try to imagine -- if we were on the jury – is there anything in those proceedings that leads us to totally believe in Lizzie's guilt? If Lizzie was guilty, did the prosecution just screw it up?
Of course, some think mistakes were made -- that Bence's testimony and Lizzie's inquest testimony should have been included in the trial, for example. But they weren't. And there are arguments to be made for and against how incriminating either of those would have been, had they been admitted.
In Bence's case, he initially told the police "I do not know her" (W.S. 8+) and claimed Lizzie had never been in the store before. (P.H.:279) but then he said he had "known her for some time" (I: 160). Lizzie's lawyer, Adams, later implies to the court that Bence told one of his neighbors he could not swear it was Miss Borden that he saw. (P.H.:286)
As far as Lizzie's testimony goes, we've gone back and forth on the forum as to whether the effects of shock and morphine could have caused the inconsistencies in her statements. Remember that Bridget's evidence about the same morning often slipped between what usually happened and what actually happened. Every day seems to have been like every other day in that household. Other than the 'flashbulb memory' moments surrounding the actual discovery of the murders, I think it would be quite easy for Lizzie to confuse the timing of breakfast, mundane chores, and just sitting around on that day with the same boring sequence of events on a less eventful day. Can any of us reconstruct our exact movements of five mornings ago with complete confidence in our ability to get everything right. I've tried this exercise myself a few times and come up short.
A big issue is trying to determine how much of people's almost universal belief in Lizzie Borden's guilt is based on hearsay. But let's be honest, almost all of what we know about what happened that August day is hearsay. So then it’s almost a game of who do you trust.
Witness statements are certainly polarized. The police describe Lizzie as cold and unfeeling. Yet at the inquest, Charles Sawyer, Adelaide Churchill and Alice Russell, use the words grief-stricken, distressed, dazed, hysterical, and in a state, to describe her demeanor that morning.
It’s a puzzle – which is why we’re all here, I guess....
The wording of Harry's question is important here. "Assuming such an option at Lizzie's trial how would you have voted?"
Is it an easy task to pronounce Lizzie guilty if we just read the trial? Remember a lot of our prejudice against her has been generated by rumour and innuendo and fanned by newspaper articles and books etc.
Who can forget the totally bogus Trickey/McHenry articles, for example? They were surely an attempt to prove that old adage 'if you throw enough mud at someone, some of it will stick'.
On September 16, 1997, U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and William H. Rehnquist presided over a Stanford Law School re-enactment of Lizzie's trial. When the Stanford audience voted at the end of the re-enactment -- those students and alumni of the law apparently had sufficient reasonable doubt -- and once again Lizzie Borden was vindicated.
So it might be interesting to read the trial from beginning to end and try to imagine -- if we were on the jury – is there anything in those proceedings that leads us to totally believe in Lizzie's guilt? If Lizzie was guilty, did the prosecution just screw it up?
Of course, some think mistakes were made -- that Bence's testimony and Lizzie's inquest testimony should have been included in the trial, for example. But they weren't. And there are arguments to be made for and against how incriminating either of those would have been, had they been admitted.
In Bence's case, he initially told the police "I do not know her" (W.S. 8+) and claimed Lizzie had never been in the store before. (P.H.:279) but then he said he had "known her for some time" (I: 160). Lizzie's lawyer, Adams, later implies to the court that Bence told one of his neighbors he could not swear it was Miss Borden that he saw. (P.H.:286)
As far as Lizzie's testimony goes, we've gone back and forth on the forum as to whether the effects of shock and morphine could have caused the inconsistencies in her statements. Remember that Bridget's evidence about the same morning often slipped between what usually happened and what actually happened. Every day seems to have been like every other day in that household. Other than the 'flashbulb memory' moments surrounding the actual discovery of the murders, I think it would be quite easy for Lizzie to confuse the timing of breakfast, mundane chores, and just sitting around on that day with the same boring sequence of events on a less eventful day. Can any of us reconstruct our exact movements of five mornings ago with complete confidence in our ability to get everything right. I've tried this exercise myself a few times and come up short.
A big issue is trying to determine how much of people's almost universal belief in Lizzie Borden's guilt is based on hearsay. But let's be honest, almost all of what we know about what happened that August day is hearsay. So then it’s almost a game of who do you trust.
Witness statements are certainly polarized. The police describe Lizzie as cold and unfeeling. Yet at the inquest, Charles Sawyer, Adelaide Churchill and Alice Russell, use the words grief-stricken, distressed, dazed, hysterical, and in a state, to describe her demeanor that morning.
It’s a puzzle – which is why we’re all here, I guess....
-
stargazer
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:23 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Jandolin Marks
- Location: Mohave Desert Arizona
- Contact:
Lizzie's behavior at her trial would have to be very different. She's being watched like she's under a microscope, and of course she wants the jury and audience to feel her "pain" by osmosis. Theatrics. Didn't she swoon when the skulls were brought out ? Did Emma swoon ? Probably not.
Neglect is a one way street to nowhere
-
Kat
- Posts: 14767
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
That was good you guys, and thanks Diana!
I voted Not Proven.
As for Lizzie swooning when the skulls (sic) were brought out- that was made up and I guess that's not even hearsay.
Was Emma in the courtroom before her own testimony? I think witnesses could not attend until they had testified and Emma was a defense witness, so that was late in the case.
"Not Proven" means to me that I don't think there was enough direct evidence to say she did it without a reasonable doubt, yet she must have had something to do with it either before, during, or after- therefore she's not *not guilty*.
I voted Not Proven.
As for Lizzie swooning when the skulls (sic) were brought out- that was made up and I guess that's not even hearsay.
Was Emma in the courtroom before her own testimony? I think witnesses could not attend until they had testified and Emma was a defense witness, so that was late in the case.
"Not Proven" means to me that I don't think there was enough direct evidence to say she did it without a reasonable doubt, yet she must have had something to do with it either before, during, or after- therefore she's not *not guilty*.
-
Constantine
- Posts: 865
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:54 pm
- Real Name: Constantine Coutroulos
- Location: New York, New York
Guilty. Even with the exclusion of the prussic acid testimony and Lizzie's inquest testimony, I think there was more than enough evidence.
A man ... wants to give his wife ... the interest in a little homestead where her sister lives. How wicked to have found fault with it. How petty to have found fault with it. (Hosea Knowlton in his closing argument.)
-
Allen
- Posts: 3408
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
I just have one thing I'd like to state in answer to diana's post. I do not believe morphine or the aspirin like bromo caffeine had much to do with Lizzie's story changing. Her inconsistancies began before either had ever been administered. They began with Mrs. Churchill and seemed to grow from there. They began within minutes of the crime.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
xyjw
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:45 pm
- Real Name:
I believe Lizzie is guilty but if I had to be on her jury I would have to vote not proven. I've always thought the state didn't quite make their case so I could never let someone face a death penalty without knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is something about this case (and it may be something different for each person) that keeps it being examined and re-examined.
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
Lizzie wasn't prescribed a sufficient dose of morphine at any time to cause problems. She was originally prescribed 1/8 grain, the minimum effective dose for about a 125 lb. person. This was later doubled to 1/4 grain, the maximum amount for the same size individual. She was never prescribed a double dose of morphine, that would have been 1/2 grain, double the maximum amount, which might cause hallucinations, etc. The entire exchange which leads to the misinformation was some very effective legal slight-of-hand by the defense, and I'm surprised Dr. Bowen didn't correct the attorney at the time.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Kat
- Posts: 14767
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
-- Kat (I put *sic* because I was quoting another's post and wanted to show the assumption as not correct altho it is legend)As for Lizzie swooning when the skulls (sic) were brought out- that was made up and I guess that's not even hearsay.
Abbie's skull was not in the courtroom, and Andrew's was kept put away. Demonstration was made on a replica of Andrew's skull, and beforehand Lizzie had been excused from being in the courtroom.
When she swooned was after Moody's opening statement, I believe.
-
snokkums
- Posts: 2543
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:09 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Robin
- Location: fayetteville nc,but from milwaukee
- Contact:
-
mbhenty
- Posts: 4474
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:20 am
- Real Name:
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.
The prosecution had absolutely NOTHING
What appeared as failure was their meager attempt at grabbing for straws.
They had no weapon.
Lizzie never left (or was seen leaving) the property. The axe did not just walk away on its own merits, unless the maid was in on it. Lizzie was innocent of the murders, and if not, indirectly guilty of the crime.
They had no proof of blood.
They had no case.
The only information available was circumstantial and not strong enough to carry a guilty verdict.
They didn't do a good job in presenting the case because they had NOTHING.
What little they had, they tried to twist and make fit. (like the axe they presented)
The problem was with the police. Fleet and the missing handle was of no help.
Did the police (Flleet) tamper with evidence?
Could the missing handle have gone missing with the help of Fleet?
Could the missing handle have proven that the axe they presented was not the murder weapon, thus Fleet made sure it disappeared?
With no help from the fall river police......., the prosecution had NOTHING....
-
twinsrwe
- Posts: 4457
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:49 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Judy
- Location: Wisconsin
I voted Not Proven. I believe Lizzie was guilty, but there just wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To my way of thinking, her behavior the day of the murders was beyond odd. She called for Bridget - how did she know Bridget wasn’t the killer? She sent Bridget out of the house, while she stayed in the house – how did she know it was safe for her to be in the house alone? If Lizzie was not the murderer, she definitely knew who the killer was.
In remembrance of my beloved son:
"Vaya Con Dios" (Spanish for: "Go with God"), by Anne Murray ( https://tinyurl.com/y8nvqqx9 )
“God has you in heaven, but I have you in my heart.” ~ TobyMac (https://tinyurl.com/rakc5nd )
"Vaya Con Dios" (Spanish for: "Go with God"), by Anne Murray ( https://tinyurl.com/y8nvqqx9 )
“God has you in heaven, but I have you in my heart.” ~ TobyMac (https://tinyurl.com/rakc5nd )
-
snokkums
- Posts: 2543
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:09 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Robin
- Location: fayetteville nc,but from milwaukee
- Contact:
-
SallyG
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:49 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Sally Glynn
- Location: Gainesville, Florida
- Contact:
Two people had opportunity...Lizzie and Bridget. Only one of them had motive, and that was Lizzie! Lizzie went out of her way to say that it was not Bridget who did the murders, so that leaves only Lizzie! Of course it's possible that she arranged for someone to commit the murders, and they miraculously managed to commit them both, then escape without anyone seeing them. But that still puts Lizzie in the same situation...she used murder to get rid of her parents.
Not living back in that time and place, we don't know the thoughts and feelings of the town, but they obviously felt that Lizzie was responsible for the deaths of Andrew and Abby. They may not have wanted to see her executed for it, but they effectively shunned her for the rest of her life! Perhaps they felt that while Andrew was alive, Lizzie was getting a raw deal, but they still could not condone murder as a way of alleviating the situation.
If Lizzie had been found, hatchet in hand, with blood on her, they would not have had much choice in finding her guilty. Lacking evidence, they probably still knew she was guilty, but they could avoid giving her the death penalty. Shunning her was probably, in their minds, just as effective a means of justice. Lizzie knew she did it, everyone else knew she did it, and they, for the most part, wanted nothing to do with her. She was a social outcast. She never got what she wanted most...acceptance in Fall River upper class society.
One thing I could never understand is why Lizzie did not pack up herself and her money and move somewhere else where she could enjoy life and be accepted...after she changed her name. Perhaps staying was Lizzies acceptance of the consequences of her behavior.
Not living back in that time and place, we don't know the thoughts and feelings of the town, but they obviously felt that Lizzie was responsible for the deaths of Andrew and Abby. They may not have wanted to see her executed for it, but they effectively shunned her for the rest of her life! Perhaps they felt that while Andrew was alive, Lizzie was getting a raw deal, but they still could not condone murder as a way of alleviating the situation.
If Lizzie had been found, hatchet in hand, with blood on her, they would not have had much choice in finding her guilty. Lacking evidence, they probably still knew she was guilty, but they could avoid giving her the death penalty. Shunning her was probably, in their minds, just as effective a means of justice. Lizzie knew she did it, everyone else knew she did it, and they, for the most part, wanted nothing to do with her. She was a social outcast. She never got what she wanted most...acceptance in Fall River upper class society.
One thing I could never understand is why Lizzie did not pack up herself and her money and move somewhere else where she could enjoy life and be accepted...after she changed her name. Perhaps staying was Lizzies acceptance of the consequences of her behavior.
-
Harry
- Posts: 4058
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:28 pm
- Real Name: harry
- Location: South Carolina
Very interesting post, SallyG. Why she stayed in FR has always puzzled me as well.
"Not Proven", although not a jury option, is exactly what she ended up getting. It is still in effect to this day. I think the public voted "Not Proven" guilty, not "Not Proven" innocent.
Thanks to all who voted.
"Not Proven", although not a jury option, is exactly what she ended up getting. It is still in effect to this day. I think the public voted "Not Proven" guilty, not "Not Proven" innocent.
Thanks to all who voted.
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
-
stargazer
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:23 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Jandolin Marks
- Location: Mohave Desert Arizona
- Contact:
-
Harry
- Posts: 4058
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:28 pm
- Real Name: harry
- Location: South Carolina
Here's a listing of the jurors and their professions. (From Rebello)
George Potter, farmer
William F Dean, farmer
John Wilbur. farmer, housewright and road surveyor
Frederick C Wilbur, carpenter and cabinet maker
Lemuel K Wilbur, farmer
William Westcott, farmer
Louis B Hodges, iron moulder
Augustus Swift, businessman, proprietor of Acushnet Iron Co
Frank G Cole, jeweler / workman
John C. Finn. painter
Charles I. Richards, real estate and town assessor
Allen H. Wordell. retailer of farm tools and produce
George Potter, farmer
William F Dean, farmer
John Wilbur. farmer, housewright and road surveyor
Frederick C Wilbur, carpenter and cabinet maker
Lemuel K Wilbur, farmer
William Westcott, farmer
Louis B Hodges, iron moulder
Augustus Swift, businessman, proprietor of Acushnet Iron Co
Frank G Cole, jeweler / workman
John C. Finn. painter
Charles I. Richards, real estate and town assessor
Allen H. Wordell. retailer of farm tools and produce
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
Here's a link to some background information on the Not Proven verdict:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers ... -02710.pdf
It seems to generate some controversy. I think the problem lies in the difference between a moral and a legal resolution. The term "innocent" is a moral judgment, legally there is no difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". The Borden case is a classic example of the difference. We could say that because Emma was miles away and that fact could be corroborated, she could clearly and beyond any doubt at all be considered innocent because it was impossible for her to have actually committed the murders. In the legal sense Emma was not guilty, but it is a moot point because she was never prosecuted for the crime. Her lack of physical involvement could be proven. Lizzie had motive, means, and exclusive opportunity, her lack of involvement was less clear cut.
The finding of "not proven" allows a jury to arrive at a perhaps more palatable conclusion in the case of just enough reasonable doubt to avoid conviction. It sounds like: "we really think you're guilty, but we can't technically prove it", or secondarily, "we really can't believe you're innocent". This implies that innocence or lack of guilt must be proven. What it ultimately does is to attach a social stigma to the verdict, there is really no other reason for it. From a logical standpoint, either you're guilty, or you're not. One person or group of people is directly responsible for a given crime, the rest of humanity is not. Since innocence or lack of guilt is assumed and need not be proven, there is no logical need for a "not proven" verdict. In my personal opinion, if a person or group of people must agonize over reasonable doubt, it is probably unreasonable doubt.
Just the fact that a case comes to trial must have some stigma attached, given the legal process necessary to bring that about. In the Borden case there was an inquest, a preliminary hearing, and a grand jury. All of these needed to arrive at a finding of probable guilt in order for the case to progress to the trial stage. Sometimes evidence can turn up exonerating the accused just before or during the trial, but in Lizzie's case the difference was in evidence suppressed at trial which was allowed at the three preliminary proceedings.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers ... -02710.pdf
It seems to generate some controversy. I think the problem lies in the difference between a moral and a legal resolution. The term "innocent" is a moral judgment, legally there is no difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". The Borden case is a classic example of the difference. We could say that because Emma was miles away and that fact could be corroborated, she could clearly and beyond any doubt at all be considered innocent because it was impossible for her to have actually committed the murders. In the legal sense Emma was not guilty, but it is a moot point because she was never prosecuted for the crime. Her lack of physical involvement could be proven. Lizzie had motive, means, and exclusive opportunity, her lack of involvement was less clear cut.
The finding of "not proven" allows a jury to arrive at a perhaps more palatable conclusion in the case of just enough reasonable doubt to avoid conviction. It sounds like: "we really think you're guilty, but we can't technically prove it", or secondarily, "we really can't believe you're innocent". This implies that innocence or lack of guilt must be proven. What it ultimately does is to attach a social stigma to the verdict, there is really no other reason for it. From a logical standpoint, either you're guilty, or you're not. One person or group of people is directly responsible for a given crime, the rest of humanity is not. Since innocence or lack of guilt is assumed and need not be proven, there is no logical need for a "not proven" verdict. In my personal opinion, if a person or group of people must agonize over reasonable doubt, it is probably unreasonable doubt.
Just the fact that a case comes to trial must have some stigma attached, given the legal process necessary to bring that about. In the Borden case there was an inquest, a preliminary hearing, and a grand jury. All of these needed to arrive at a finding of probable guilt in order for the case to progress to the trial stage. Sometimes evidence can turn up exonerating the accused just before or during the trial, but in Lizzie's case the difference was in evidence suppressed at trial which was allowed at the three preliminary proceedings.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
DJ
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
- Real Name:
Yes, yes, and yes ... there's certainly a stigma to being tried. Also, the woman was indicted by a grand jury, as you say, and jailed after the Inquest. No one else was ever charged with the crimes, much less tried for them.
These points must be borne in mind when the "But Lizzie was acquitted," statement is made.
Yes, and the suppression of key evidence at trial (the trip to Eli Bence's, which some people refuse to accept at all, when the owner and every worker in the store identified her).
Now-- don't rule Emma completely out, however. What if Lizzie had told her, "I'm going to kill Abby while you're gone." To what degree is Emma then culpable? (Same goes for Uncle John, if he was aware of Lizzie's intent, via Emma.)
There is a famous homicide case, from the 1940s, in this state. A woman was sent to the electric chair for a murder that was committed while she was out-of-state. However, the jury believed that she and her brother-in-law had hired the killer, although both defendants took the stand during trial and denied doing such. (The brother-in-law was electrocuted, too. Interestingly, the fellow who secured the trigger-man--a policeman (!!!) and nephew of them both-- was ultimately PARDONED by the governor!!!)
These points must be borne in mind when the "But Lizzie was acquitted," statement is made.
Yes, and the suppression of key evidence at trial (the trip to Eli Bence's, which some people refuse to accept at all, when the owner and every worker in the store identified her).
Now-- don't rule Emma completely out, however. What if Lizzie had told her, "I'm going to kill Abby while you're gone." To what degree is Emma then culpable? (Same goes for Uncle John, if he was aware of Lizzie's intent, via Emma.)
There is a famous homicide case, from the 1940s, in this state. A woman was sent to the electric chair for a murder that was committed while she was out-of-state. However, the jury believed that she and her brother-in-law had hired the killer, although both defendants took the stand during trial and denied doing such. (The brother-in-law was electrocuted, too. Interestingly, the fellow who secured the trigger-man--a policeman (!!!) and nephew of them both-- was ultimately PARDONED by the governor!!!)
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
If Lizzie had told Emma and/or Morse that she was going to kill Abby or Andrew or both, it doesn't make Emma or Morse guilty of murder. It might make them guilty of some form of negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, if it could be proven that they took Lizzie seriously and did nothing about it. They could simply deny that they thought she was serious about the threat.
Both Emma and Uncle John had solid alibis, so they were incapable of physically committing the murders, regardless of what they might have known beforehand. If it could be proven that they helped plan the murders or had done something to help commit the murders, they would be liable for their part.
Both Emma and Uncle John had solid alibis, so they were incapable of physically committing the murders, regardless of what they might have known beforehand. If it could be proven that they helped plan the murders or had done something to help commit the murders, they would be liable for their part.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
DJ
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
- Real Name:
Also, too, if Emma and Uncle John knew for sure that Lizzie committed the murders, then they were guilty of obstruction of justice, for not coming forward with said information.
Yes, if Emma and/or Uncle John had been told by Lizzie, "I'm going to kill Mrs. Borden," or some such, they would not necessarily have been guilty of something-- except withholding that information ex post facto.
Of course, the prosecution dropped the ball on so many important questions. Emma and Uncle John should have been asked, point blank,
"Did Lizzie at any time express an intent to kill one or both of her parents?"
Of course, they probably would have lied if she had, but then they would have committed bold-faced perjury.
Yes, if Emma and/or Uncle John had been told by Lizzie, "I'm going to kill Mrs. Borden," or some such, they would not necessarily have been guilty of something-- except withholding that information ex post facto.
Of course, the prosecution dropped the ball on so many important questions. Emma and Uncle John should have been asked, point blank,
"Did Lizzie at any time express an intent to kill one or both of her parents?"
Of course, they probably would have lied if she had, but then they would have committed bold-faced perjury.