Newcomer

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:39 am

Hi

I'm Gary from South Carolina and I just wanted to introduce myself. I am an attorney who has practiced mainly civil law for the South Carolina Center for Equal Justice during my career. I'm sorry to say I am not a criminal attorney, but I have a reasonable knowledge of the workings of the criminal justice system.

My greatest interest lies in unsolved historical crimes.

All The Best
Gary

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:52 pm

Hello, Gary, and welcome! I don't think any of us are lawyers, so maybe you can give us some new insights! One thing you'll find here is a lot of kindred interest in criminal history.

Hope you're well away from the coast: many of our forum friends are in the line of fire (again) and probably battening down the hatches. My thoughts are with you all.

--Lyddie

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 8:05 pm

Hi again, Gary! As always, great to see new blood in the ranks of Bordenites! I think you have helped so much already with some of the legal questions that have come up, we are truely lucky to have you aboard.

As Lyddie stated, if you are in the line of fire, my thoughts go out to you, hope all will be fine.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:16 pm

Hi!
I often describe this case to people as a Cold Case. It's unsolved, and because of that, should be investigated. The Borden's never got justice for the crimes committed against them.
For anyone who loves this case who has family members who wonder what the fascination is, just tell them it's a "Cold Case!"

What other unsolved crimes are members interested in?

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:47 am

Hi

My favorite cases would have to be called historical cold cases and cases in which justice was not served. Other cases I am interested in would include Jack The Ripper; the Elizabeth Short case, AKA- The Black Dahlia case; the Cleveland Torso Murders; the case of Winnie Ruth Judd and the trunk murders; The William Desmond Taylor murder; The Lindbergh baby kidnapping and the execution of Richard Hauptmann (he never used the name Bruno); The Hall-Mills murder case also known as the preacher and the choir singer murders. I could name more but I think I am getting carried away.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:30 pm

Thanks!
I figured Jack the R. because you were conversant with current theory.

I love the Smutty Nose murders- I don't know why.
I also am very interested in Jack the R.
And the Bertha Manchester case. I don't particularly believe they got the right guy for that.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 6:49 pm

I have a lot of problems with the fact that Correiro did not speak any English and was just thrust into the teeth of the American judicial system. I wonder if he was at least provided with an interpretor?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:48 pm

His uncle was an advocate for his people in the community and talked Jose C. into giving himself up. The investigation and autopsy were populated by all the same people as our characters in the Borden case.
Jose languished in jail almost a year before trial- or somewhere around there.
I'd think if he gave himself up, he must have had some belief in the system and he might find justice, but no.

He was pardoned after like 20 years and deported to the Azores.
I found out that back then, in order to spring someone from jail to deport them, they only had "Pardon" by the governor as their legal tool- so that a pardon does not mean the state regrets incarcerating him and is letting him go free.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 10:06 pm

Gary @ Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:49 pm wrote:I have a lot of problems with the fact that Correiro did not speak any English and was just thrust into the teeth of the American judicial system. I wonder if he was at least provided with an interpretor?

Gary, this is from the June 5, 1893 New Bedford Evening Standard:

"CORREIRO ARRAIGNED.

His Case Continued This Morning Until
Thursday, June 15.

(By Associated Press.)
Fall River, June 5. --- Joseph Correiro was arraigned it before Judge John J. McDonough in the second district court this morning charged with homicide, causing the death of Bertha M. Manchester. Through the interpreter he entered a plea of not guilty, and announced himself ready for trial. Assistant Marshal Fleet asked for a continuance on the part of the government, as many of the officers and important witnesses were in New Bedford attending the Borden trial. The case was continued until Thursday, June 15."

And later in that same article:

"His case was the first called, and Dr. Dutro, a local physician, acted as interpreter and translated to the prisoner the rather lengthy charge. He listened attentively throughout its reading, and at its close smiled faintly and pleaded not guilty. "

He was arraigned the same day Lizzie's jury was being selected.

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:04 pm

Welcome to the Forum, Gary. Your interest sounds like a "who's who" of classic and/or unsolved American murder cases. A week or so ago someone told me that a new book was out "solving" the Elizabeth Short/Black Dahlia case. I had not heard of this new book; has anyone seen it?

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:51 am

Save your money, Doug, I found it quite underwhelming. Your library probably has it: Black Dahlia: Avenger, by Steve Hodel, 2003. Hodel thinks his father did it (like Janice Knowlton, who thought her dad did it). I think Hodel had issues with his dad, who ran with an artsy crowd, including Man Ray and John Huston. The guy sounds like a creep--had orgies involving his own daughter, etc. But I find Hodel's Dahlia evidence shaky at best. Hodel is a retired cop, who believes his father and a pal were responsible for a whole series of murders for a kind of sadistic art's sake. I didn't buy his story. Did anyone else?

--Lyddie[/i]

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 1:04 pm

Doug and Lyddie

I agree with Lyddie. The Dahlia Avenger book, which has recently been reprinted with some additional information and photos, is a very poor read. I was 'underwhelmed' just as Lyddie indicated she was.

There is a locked file drawer at the L.A.P.D. with the autopsy and other very relavent material which has never been released to the public. Until a good researcher gets a chance to go through it, I will not be satisfied that we have the information we need to even begin to solve this case.

Gary

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 1:06 pm

Harry

Thanks for the quotes regarding my question about the Bertha Manchester case.

Gary

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:20 pm

I believe *the interpreter* was Correia's uncle, Jacinto Muniz:

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:10 pm

Hi Gary, welcome aboard! I have what is probably a stupid question. JV Morse, Dr Bowen, etc were witnesses for the prosecution's case, but were not called by the defence. Would they have been subpoenaed to appear for the prosecution as witnesses for the Govt's side, ie had no choice which side for whom to appear?

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:52 pm

Cont'd -- I understand both sides get a shot @ every witness by cross -- is it just that the prosecution gets to state its case 1st & therefore will call up each witness they want 1st, & then the defence will call or recall when they make their case? I suppose this is a procedural question.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:54 pm

Hi Tina-Kate

Both sides exchange a list of witnesses that they plan to call for the trial. Once a witness has been used by either side they are free to be questioned by the opposite side on cross-examination. If someone that the defense wanted to use as a witness was subpeonaed or listed as a witness by the prosecution, but was not actually called, the defense would still have the right to bring that witness in to testify on direct examination.

I believe most jurisdictions use the same general rules of procedure.

Hope that helps.
Gary

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:31 pm

Thanks, Gary. I suppose I had the general idea, but not being educated in trial law, I get confused when I hear phrases like "Witness for the prosecution". Good to have you around!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:32 am

At the Preliminary hearing, Dr. Bowen and Marshal Hilliard, among others, were called as witnesses by the defense!

Of course, at the Preliminary the prosecution did not have to present their entire case, just enough of it to bind her over for the Grand Jury.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:03 am

& I guess Alice was the *star* witness there.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:50 pm

I think Bridget was more likely to be deemed a star witness at the Preliminary. Did Alice have much that was useful to say before The Trial?

And they didn't include Emma or Ellen Eagan or Mrs. Tripp or Hiram Harrington -
And they added the Chagnons.

I've wondered if Emma was still ill...and ill of what?

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:39 am

Didn't the whole dress burning thing get Alice lots of attention there -- or am I mistaken?

Good point re Hiram Harrington. Maybe the prosecution thought he was too hot-headed & subjective to prove useful?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 2:09 am

Alice didn't talk about the dress that we know of, until the grand jury. She probably had to have spoken about it sometime to the lawyers- maybe even both sides.
It seems, in the Prelim., as if Alice is saying *I don't know* as so many of her answers.

I've been thinking about what Alice said at the inquest about that stick under Andrew's bed. It was made a big deal of at the time.
Do you think the stick was placed there in readiness as a possible weapon? I don't know why it became important.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 11:19 am

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain to me about the Grand Jury. What exactly was that? For some reason, I have that all connected up to the prelim in my mind. It seems to be another (separate) stage of the proceedings. Was there ever a record of it?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:42 pm

Crime Library
Chronologies

Legal Chronology

AUG. 4, 1892    Murders of Andrew and Abby Borden

AUG. 6     Graveside Service

AUG. 6     Accusation Made By Mayor- Lizzie "suspect"

AUG. 8    Warrant Issued- not served

AUG. 9-11   INQUEST

AUG. 11   Lizzie Borden Arrested- ( on new warrant)

AUG. 12   Arraigned before judge due to "probable cause"- Lizzie pleaded "not guilty" -then Lizzie was sent to Taunton

AUG. 22 Lizzie was brought back to Fall River for the preliminary hearing, but it was postponed until the 25th.

AUG. 25-SEPT. 1    PRELIMINARY HEARING- Lizzie was found "Probably Guilty" and held for the grand jury to meet.

NOV. 7-21    GRAND JURY- Taunton- the jurers also heard other cases. They recessed, then December 1st they re-met.

DEC. 1    GRAND JURY- reconvened to hear Alice Russell's testimony about the dress-burning.

DEC. 2   INDICTED Lizzie. 3 Indictments: One for the murder of Andrew, one for the murder of Abby, and one for the murder of both. Lizzie was in Tauton jail, remained there until her arraignment in New Bedford.

MAY 8, 1893   ARRAIGNED- Superior Court- New Bedford

(Lizzie goes back to jail in Taunton. Thru her attorney, she asked if she might stay in Taunton awaiting trial as she was comfortable there. It was agreed.)

JUNE 5-20    TRIAL- acquittal

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:15 pm

Soryy to have been silent for so long, but we had a fire at our home when lightening struck our garage. No-one was hurt except for smoke inhalation. Thankfully, all our animals are fine.

Gary

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:14 pm

We had hurricanes, you get hit by lightening!!!
Jeesh! That's terrible!

Thanks for checking back in.
I sent you a PM.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:55 pm

Oh dear... I am happy everything is OK.

We had a house fire in 2000. It started in our den and we lost an entire room of belongings to fire and many other things to smoke. I never have been able to get the smoke smell out of some old quilts my husband's grandmother made.

It was unbeleivable. Were you able to remain in your home? I hope so!

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:41 pm

Glad you're okay, Gary.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:20 am

Hi

Thanks for your kind wishes. We have the burnt out portion of the house reconstructed and we are have been approved to move back into the house.

I've missed talking to everyone on the sciety Board. Once again thanks for the kind words and I am reminded that whatever does not kill us only makes us stronger.

I have been goung through my collection of true crime books and I cannot find Len's book.

Best Regards
Gary

P.S. many thanks for the PM Kat

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:32 pm

I'm just getting caught up after being away the past week. What an awful shame, Gary; I'm just glad it wasn't worse. You're the third person I've known who has had lightning damage. Fortunately, none entailed serious injuries or total property loss, but I know that it's a gruelling experience. And your Rebello gone missing??!! That is tough indeed.

--Lyddie

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:13 pm

Gary, glad to see you are back online and back in your house, how horrible! And now you can't find your Rebello, do you think it may have been lost in the fire? Hopefully it is just misplaced.