Poll on the evidence

[Constantine]

More from Wigmore (with quote from the Boston Herald) (emphasis added):

The daily papers of the time corroborate the natural inference from the agreed facts, that Mr. Jennings had ample opportunity of conference. (1) Is there any lawyer in these United States who has a scintilla of a doubt, not merely that her counsel fully informed the accused of her rights, but that they talked over the expediencies, and that he allowed her to go on the stand because he deliberately concluded that it was the best policy for her, by so doing, to avoid all appearance of concealment or guilt? And yet the ruling of the Court allowed them to blow hot and cold, --- to go on the stand when there was something to gain and to remain silent when the testimony proved dangerous to use. It would seem that, as a matter of law, the fact that an accused person, whether under arrest or not, has had the benefit of counsel’s advice ought to make subsequent statements competent as far as regards the free will of the witness.

(1) “Miss Borden could decline to answer the questions put to her if she wished, ‘by advice of counsel I decline to answer’ being sufficient. Lawyer Jennings is too astute a lawyer to order that, however, although he threatened to yesterday. He knows that it would greatly prejudice his client’s case and probably result in an early arrest. --- Boston Herald, August 10, 1892.”

[nbcatlover]

I haven't been on the forum much (been busy planning a 40th high school reunion--OUCH!).

I think both pieces of "evidence" were rightly kept from the jury. I've read some of the early Evening-Standard reports and it's frequently mention that Lizzie has been ill since the murders occurred. Her confused statements are more understandable if you can accept as fact that she was in shock and then medicated with narcotics.

As far as the poison issue, I remember reading somewhere that a policeman's wife was going around to pharmacies to see if they were selling poisons illegally. Someone once told me that I should investigate the photo of the Lizzie look-a-like who has the large hands because that was the policeman's wife. This is all smoke-and-mirrors until more research is done...but to me, there is room for reasonable doubt of Bence's eye-witness identification (with no disrespect to Mr. Bence). Eye-witness identification may be well-intended but is frequently inaccurate.

Lastly, do you really see Lizzie up in the attic, checking her sealskin cape for moths in August? Bridget would be more apt to have been the one sent to check them out in the summer heat. People have so much trouble imagining her up in the loft in the barn!

[nbcatlover]

Oops!--a double post

[Harry]

Interesting results so far.

15 to 9 in favor of admitting the poison testimony.

15 to 9 against admitting her inquest testimony.

Personally I would have thought the differences would have been greater in both questions.

[Kat]

Thanks for the summation, Har!