Prussic Acid

[Darrowfan]

I think Allen is certain that if the Borden jury had been allowed to hear Bence's testimony, they would have convicted Lizzie. I'm not so sure. As I have pointed out before, the newspapers carried stories about the drug store incident, and I'm certain that some of the jurors probably knew about the allegation. My feeling is that the jury simply wasn't going to convict Lizzie unless some eyewitness could swear to actually seeing her commit the crimes, or unless there was some other strong DIRECT evidence against her.

As far as damning evidence goes, I think that dress burning business, which the jury was allowed to hear, is more damning that the prussic acid business. With the dress burning, there is a strong suggestion that Lizzie was seeking to destroy evidence. But the jury apparently wasn't even impressed with that.

[Allen]

I studied the reliability of witness testimony. I had to write papers on it. I'm well aware it can be inaccurate. Especially if there is a stress factor involved. People are not able to focus as well under stress. Or if they just get a quick look at someone. But if I walk up to to the check out counter in the store and chat with the lady as she is ringing me up I could recognize her again afterward. My attention was called to her. We spoke. Witness testimony can also be accurate. And to discount eyewitness testimony unless it's someone well known to the person doesn't make sense. Most victims of crimes such as robbery, and other assorted crimes, have never seen the perpetrator before. Do we completely discount their descriptions because the person was not well known to them? Eyewitness testimony can be faulty, yes. There have been cases of mistaken identity. But also in most cases that you used as an example the person only had a quick look or was under some kind of stress. Such as the towers collapsing. They didn't just stand and have a conversation with someone about whether or not they could purchase something. Looking directly at the person the whole time. And you keep saying witch hunt. I'm not sure how it can be compared to a witch hunt. That analogy just doesn't work for me. They put Bence in sight of Lizzie so he could see and hear her, and he said yes that is the woman.

And if I am going to be that hard to identify afterward I might have to re-evaluate the idea of a life of crime.

Allen, I'm not trying to be difficult. If you were robbed, and the cops caught someone nearby, and there was no other evidence other than you saying "that's the guy" he would never be convicted. You say most victims of crime have never seen their attacker before, and that is true, BUT they would never be convicted if the only evidence is you saying "That's him". Witness testimony must be coupled with some other evidence. A receipt for something else she bought at the same time with her signature perhaps. If they were old friends, yes, but seeing her once, and having someone say That is Lizzie Borden (third party hearsay)...no. Too flimsy.

I know about procedures and how things work. Yes, in most cases there must be other evidence. But also a perpetrator may never be caught until the victim says that's him, and then the police build their case from there with other evidence. It would be nice if they could pick a perpetrator out of the air without witnesses a lot of the time, or if the guy just walked in and confessed, but that's most often just not how things work. If witness testimony was that flimsy and unreliable police would not waste so much of their time interviewing every possible person who may know or have seen anything about the crime. And no I do not know that the jury would have convicted Lizzie based on the prussic acid evidence. But I do think they should have been trusted with making their own decision about it. And we may never know what the full extent of the evidence was the state was intending to present because it was suppressed.

[Allen]

Another thought about the inquest is that witnesses were actually paid witness fees to appear. They were paid for their trouble of attending and also for any mileage they incurred. Any out of pocket fees for out of towners for lodging were also reimbursed. I'm also not clear on why knowing someone's name makes it easier to identify them by what they look like. And even in the arguments of Robinson for exclusion, Lizzie's own lawyer, he never actually denied that it was Lizzie who attempted to buy the poison. He simply tried to cast doubt on the reason for the purchase.