Poll on the evidence

[Harry]

Most of us are not lawyers nor legal experts but we are entitled to our opinion.

As we know, Lizzie's Inquest testimony was ruled inadmissible and the alleged attempt to purchase poison was not submitted to the jury. This poll asks your opinion on both.

As usual, no one's answer is revealed unless they wish to post it themselves.

[FairhavenGuy]

Admitting both might have changed the outcome of the trial, but I think the court was correct in disallowing both the poison testimony and Lizzie's Inquest statements.

Technically speaking, Lizzie was on trial for killing Abby and Andrew with an axe, so the alleged attempt to purchase poison provides no evidence one way or another with regard to the prosecution's charge against her. So it was correct not to admit it.

In a trial situation, a defendant has the right not to testify. Lizzie chose not to testify on her own behalf. Admitting her inquest testimony would have circumvented that legal right.

[Smudgeman]

Before I vote, can someone refresh my memory? Was Lizzie's Inquest Testimony given before she had an attorney? That makes a big difference in my opinion.

[SteveS.]

I voted the court was right in not allowing both also. I agree exactly with FairhavenGuy on all points. If i am being charged with killing someone with a gun but the day before the murder I tried to buy a rope...does that mean I had intent to hang the victim? NO! same principle for the poison buying attempt. I had argued this point on another thread here somewhere. If after medically examining the stomachs of both victoms and there was evidence of poisoning, then YES, it should be admited at her trial but since there was no evidence of poisoning there isnt a legal connection of the two. And her inquest testimony would have been exactly as if she was testifying and since she had a right at her trial NOT to testify against herself then NO...her testimony should not be admitted.

[Constantine]

I voted that both should have been admitted. Even if the axe (or hatchet) was the means actually employed, the attempt to purchase poison is a clear indication of Lizzie's intent to kill. I suppose more of a case could be made for the exclusion of the inquest testimony, but in my opinion this is a technicality for exclusion of evidence that would have been of help in determining the truth (and isn't that what a trial should be about?).

I recommend Sullivan on the subject. He also was in favor of admission of both these matters and gives extensive and, in my opinion, persuasuve arguments for his opinions.

[doug65oh]

I just did a search for the word counsel in the Evening Standard transcription, and it was first used on Monday, August 8, 1892. The story contained the following, concerning the Hanscom feller: As nearly as can be ascertained, Hanscom was not employed by Marshal Hilliard, acting under the instructions of Mayor Coughlin, but by the Misses Borden, who were advised by their counsel, Andrew J. Jennings, Esq.

If that newspaper item is correct, then Lizzie did have benefit of legal counsel prior to (and technically during) her inquest testimony. There was something more to the reasoning behind excluding the inquest testimony tho if I remember correctly. I don't recall the finer points of the gobbledygook at the moment, however.

[kssunflower]

I recall reading somewhere that the judges ruled in favor of excluding the inquest testimony because she was considered a prisoner charged with two murders at the time. Her testimony was not voluntary and there was no attorney present. Also, she had not been advised of her Fifth Amendment rights. I believe the state argued it should have been included because she was only a suspect at that point and had not made a confession.

[Kat]

I may be wrong, but back then I don't think people on trial took the stand at all. They were only asked if they wished to make a statement in their defense before the defense rests (or was it before the case goes to the jury?).

The inquest, of course is different.

Emma had Jennings come in as a lawyer on Friday, August 5th. When did Hanscom come in Har?

Have you guys read Wigmore and Davis documents on these issues? I remember when Stefani got hold of those!
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Borde ... eDavis.htm

[Kat]

I voted that the poison evidence be allowed in front of the jury because they were taken by the drug store in their view of the Fall River *attractions* and it's remarkable, but poison was even mentioned in the opening statement. . . The jury was exposed to the subject- It just was never proven through witnesses.
It is strange, that the subject was allowed, isn't it?

I voted I would disallow the inquest tho, as the intention of an inquest should not be to compel a person to incriminate themselves.

[Harry]

Partial quote:

Emma had Jennings come in as a lawyer on Friday, August 5th. When did Hanscom come in Har?

Pinkerton detective Hanscom arrived on Saturday, the 6th. He met with Jennings that day. He was at the house Sunday, the 7th. Lizzie didn't testify at the Inquest until the 9th so she would have had the benefit of his advice, if indeed he offered any.

I agree with Constantine on the poison testimony being allowed. In light of the Bordens being sick with similar symptoms to poisoning one can make a case for its inclusion.

I would not be in favor of Lizzie's inquest statement being allowed. Even though she did not have a lawyer with her (no one else did either) the police were said to have a warrant (unsigned) in their pocket for her arrest while she was testifying. The defense was not made aware of this warrant. To me that's a clear violation of her right not to testify against herself.

[augusta]

Smudgeman - Well, the Borden Family attorney, Jennings, was right there with Lizzie at the time of the inquest. I cannot remember if he was sitting in the audience. But you better believe he was counseling her before she took the stand and between breaks out in the hall. I believe he had a good talk with her since the time she was notified she would have to testify. Was he signed on formally as her attorney? I would think not then, but he was in that building when she testified. He did not speak during the Inquest, as you can tell by reading the transcript.

I think one of the things the judge based his ruling on also was that she was flying on Bowen's morphine when she testified.

The poison episode, I dunno. There was stuff in the newspaper back then about a woman going around doing a sting operation on prussic acid in the drugstores, who it was said looked like Lizzie. If the poison part had been introduced, the defense would have put that woman on the stand (if there was a woman - it is incredibly coincidental) and would have counted for nil anyway.

As it was, I think there were two reasons the poison stuff was thrown out. A) It was too far removed from the murders. And B) The court established by putting someone on the stand outside of the presence of the jury that said that yes, you really can kill insects with prussic acid. It was a farce, of course. If you just inhaled the fumes it would kill you. Of course it could kill bugs.

I voted as a person - not as the law student I pretend to be - that the jury should hear everything - the poison stuff and be able to read the Inquest. Still, tho, if Lizzie was on that morphine ... that does bother me. I have been on heavy pain medication (morphine-based) and had to go to meetings, and there were entire topics covered that I could not recall being discussed when I heard about them on another day. I was so not with it. [/i]

[Debbie]

I had to vote to leave out both.
They, the Marshall and company, had a warrant for Lizzie at the time and she was denied her attorney. I feel that she was in effect under arrest at that time, although not technically.
As far as the poison goes, I think that should have been left out. She wasn't charged with poisoning anyone and who's to say it was even Lizzie the the druggist saw that day. One of the worst witnesses can be an eye witness and he could have been mistaken.

[doug65oh]

The logic is actually pretty well cut and dried if you think about it. The means and manner of death as stated in the formal indictment is what set the tempo (and decided the dance step, so to speak.) Like it or not, the Commonwealth was stuck with the sharp instrument tango no matter what else they had in favor of other means or methods.

The one element that doesn't make any sense at all (at least to me) is the "remoteness in time" aspect. Within 24 hours of the attempt to purchase the prussic, two elderly people turn up dead as Dodos, and an inmate of the household wherein the carnage took place just might have been she who raised a royal ruckus the day before because the druggist wouldn't sell her any prussic acid.

See what I mean? Identification isn't the real problem. The fact of Bence's recollection would be the real skunk at the cat show it seems to me.

The inquest? Strictly constitutional ground there, whether it's the Commonwealth's constitution of 1780 or the U.S. constitution as amended ca. 15 December 1791.

[Smudgeman]

I voted to admit both testimony and attempt to buy poison. If I were on the jury, I would want to know what she had to say initially, and the poison attempt gives you a sense of what was going in her mind at the time. She had intent to kill if the poison accusation could be proved. I agree with Constantine that the purpose of the trial was to get at the truth, I get a little irritated by lawyers who find a way to hide it or avoid it. I have a problem with our justice system sometimes when "evidence" is allowed or not allowed. As a juror, I would want to have everything laid out for me to decide, not just bits and pieces.

[Harry]

Interesting results so far.

We favor the poison testimony being admitted by a 12 to 6 vote. That's 67% for, 33% against.

We vote 7 to 11 on her inquest testimony being admitted. That's 39% for, 61% against.

[Kat]

Has anyone knowledge of whether in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1893, a prisoner in a felony murder trial was even allowed on the stand to testify?

Oh yes, as a juror, ideally I would want to know everything- not just what might be allowed, not allowed, or preplanned and agreed upon ahead of time amongst both sides as to what would be brought up or admitted. Too bad it doesn't work that way, but there's probably a reason. I used to say there should be professional jurors.

[doug65oh]

Art. XII. No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or no offence until the same if fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself; and every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his counsel at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.

Ayup... Article XII of the Commonwealth's Constitution of 1780 covered that in explicit detail, as the bolded portion of the first section of the article indicates.

I could swear though Kat that I do recall (admittedly vaguely at the moment) reading somewhere - in an old legal journal article - that at some point within the last 400 years or so, defendants were not permitted to give evidence at trial. The general idea behind that prohibition was a presumption that any defendant on trial would be more than willing to commit perjury under oath if it meant saving his or indeed her own neck.

I can't be exactly sure of that though because at the time we had been discussing jurors rather than defendants. At one time, if a jury returned a verdict which the presiding judge(s) felt was inconsistent with evidence presented during the trial (regardless of the verdict) the court had the power to set the jury verdict aside and then put the jurors on trial. The charge in that instance? Perjury.

I'll have to hunt around a bit more and see what I can find. The journal articles came from a reference librarian at the New England School of Law at Boston, in response to a question about trial practice and juries ca. 1893. The format was pdf - of which I have just about 3,000 on this beast at present. Harry, I sent you copies of that I think. Do you recall it?

[Kat]

Cool-- thank you so much Doug-Oh! If anyone could find that, I figured it'd be you! It's appreciated.

[doug65oh]

On the subject of inquests. they can be odd even in our own time. In 1954, Sam Sheppard actually faced circumstances not unlike Lizzie Borden's in 1892. At one point during the coroner's inquest (which was apparently carried live on television) Sheppard's attorney Bill Corrigan tried to get some additional documents placed into the record; Dr. Sam Gerber (the Cuyahoga County coroner conducting the inquest) had Corrigan ejected from the room! It only got worse from there, to say the least.

The grisly details of that circus are set forth in the Supreme Court's 1966 ruling reversing Dr. Sheppard's conviction. The opinion is fairly easy to find, at http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/f ... ppard.html among other places. Scroll down to the paragraph that begins On the 20th, the "editorial artillery" opened fire ....

[Kat]

I think I recall in the Ripper case, certain people's views were over-ridden by the coroner who got away with it as he was almighty in that *court*.

[doug65oh]

I seem to recall that too now that you mention it. If I remember correctly the feller you're referring to was actually a "civilian" coroner, Mr. Wynne E. Baxter.

A friend of mine actually worked for Sam Gerber in the coroner's office many years ago. (He was the county coroner over there for 50 years.)
She described him once as a mixture of Marcus Welby, MD and General MacArthur!:lol: He was also a practicing attorney, which seems particularly odd in light of his conduct at the Sheppard inquest. He must have skipped the lectures on the 5th amendment!

[Kat]

Hey there's a new vote. Your percentages are changing Har!

[Harry]

I've been doing a little research on what happened with Lizzie's attendance at the Inquest.

This was in the New Bedford Evening Standard dated Aug. 10th covering events of the 9th, Tuesday, the first day of the Inquest.

"City Marshal Hilliard does not ordinarily serve subpoenas, but he served one on this occasion. It was a regular summons to appear as a witness at an inquest. ....... The city marshal served his paper, which summoned Miss Borden to the inquest, and soon after, that young lady, Mrs. Brigham, the city marshal and Officer Harrington drove away from the house. They arrived at the police station at 2 o'clock."

At this point in time Lizzie had already been told she was suspected and the escort to the court room by two police officers certainly emphasized this. Jennings was not present when the summons was served but immediately tried to be admitted to the court room during Lizzie's testimony.

All this sounds like a strong case for the her inquest testimony being excluded.

[FairhavenGuy]

I'm bothered just a bit by the fact that as of now, more of our members have voted to violate Lizzie's constitutional rights than to uphold them. . .

[SteveS.]

Even though I voted to NOT admit either, I think the voting so far isnt so much to violate Lizzie's constitutional rights as it is to add more information to help solve this double murder. .......I hope so anyways!

[Harry]

At this time, they are in favor of the inquest testimony not being allowed, 12-8.

On the poison they favor its admittance, 13-7.

[Constantine]

I'm bothered just a bit by the fact that as of now, more of our members have voted to violate Lizzie's constitutional rights than to uphold them. . .

The constitutional rights of a murderess are not high on my list of worries.

[FairhavenGuy]

Constantine, she was an accused murderess who was, in fact, found not guilty by a jury.

I'm sure that if you were accused of murder you might feel differently about it.

Yes, Harry, I realized after I posted that the majority favored withholding the inquest testimony. It was the 8 in favor of admitting both vs. the 7 opposed to admitting both that I was thinking of.

[Constantine]

It is very likely because of the excluded evidence that she was found not guilty. If it was not as incriminating as it was, her counsel would not have foujht for its exclusion.

This reminds me of an episode of The Practice in which a a chopped-up nun is found in a young man's closet. Because of an irregularity in the way the search was conducted, the judge reluctantly frees him.

It bugs me when trials are conducted as contests between prosecution and defense where arbitrary rules are more important than truth and justice.

[snokkums]

I think eveything should be admitted. That way, the jury has no doubt one way or the other as quilt or innocence.

[Constantine]

As a matter of fact, Lizzie's constitutional rights would not have been violated if her inquest testimony were admitted, as Sullivan points out.

Her right to remain silent didn't start at the trial; it was there from the get-go. She did not have to testify at the inquest and would no doubt have been told so by her counsel.

However, once she opened her mouth, anything she said was fair game (as were Lizzie's remarks as reported by Hannah Gifford and Alice Russell).

[Kat]

This is what they started with at the trial:

Page 774a

The following stipulation was filed with the Court on Saturday, June 10, and made a part of the record:

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Bristol ss. Superior Court. June, 1893.

COMMONWEALTH v. LIZZIE A. BORDEN

Agreed Statement

1. The declarations offered are the testimony under oath of the accused in a judicial proceeding, namely, an inquest as to the cause of death of the two persons named in the indictment now on trial, duly notified and held by and before the District Court in Fall River, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Statutes.

2. The defendant was not then under arrest, but three days before the time of giving such testimony was notified by the City Marshal and Mayor of Fall River that she was suspected of committing the crimes charged in the indictment on trial; and the house and the inmates, including the defendant, were thereafter until her arrest under the constant observation of police officers of Fall River specially detailed for that purpose and stationed around the house.

3. That before she so testified she was duly summoned by a subpoena to attend said inquest and testify thereat.

Page 774b

4. That before she so testified she requested, through her counsel, A. J.. Jennings, of the District Attorney and of the Judge to preside and presiding at said inquest, the privilege to have her said counsel there present, which request was refused by both the District Attorney and the Judge, and said counsel was not present.

5. That when her testimony so given was concluded she was not allowed to leave the Court House, and was about two hours afterward placed under arrest upon a warrant issued upon the charge and accusation of having committed the crimes set forth in this indictment. Said warrant was issued upon a complaint sworn to before the clerk of said District Court acting as Justice of the Peace under the statute, which was returnable to said District Court, by said City Marshal after the conclusion of the testimony of the defendant at the inquest, being the same complaint upon which the defendant was tried before said District Court and held to answer before the grand jury. Said City Marshal was present at the inquest when the defendant testified.

6. Prior to said inquest, to wit, on the day next before she was summoned as above stated, a complaint charging her with the murder of the two persons as to whose deaths the inquest was held was sworn to by said City Marshal before the same Justice of the Peace and clerk and a warrant issued thereon returnable like said first named warrant for the

Page 774c

arrest of the defendant, and placed in the hands of said City Marshal. The City Marshal did not serve this warrant and the defendant was not informed of it. No action was taken on said warrant, but the same was returned after the conclusion of the defendant's testimony and before the issuance of the warrant upon which she was arrested.

7. That before giving her testimony as above, she was not cautioned by said Court or said District Attorney that she was not obliged to testify to anything which might criminate herself; but said counsel was informed by the said District Attorney that he could, before defendant testified, confer with her in relation thereto, and he did.

8. The nature and character of the testimony offered may be considered by the Court in determining the question of its admissibility.

9. All rights as to the competency of all or any of the above agreed facts are reserved.

HOSEA M. KNOWLTON, District Attorney.
LIZZIE A. BORDEN.
GEORGE D. ROBINSON, A. J. JENNINGS, MELVIN O. ADAMS, of counsel for defendant.




---Here is the trial ruling after many pages of argument:

Page 830

MASON, C. J. The propriety of examining the prisoner at the inquest, and of all that occurred in connection therewith, is entirely distinct from the question of the admissibility of her statements in that examination. It is with the latter question only that this Court has to deal.

The common law regards this species of evidence with distrust. Statements made by one accused of crime are admissible against him only when it is affirmatively established that they were voluntarily made. It has been held that statements of the accused as a witness under oath at an inquest before he had been arrested or charged with the crime under investigation, may be voluntary and admissible against him in his subsequent trial, and the mere fact that at the time of his testimony at the inquest he was aware that he was suspected of the crime does not make them otherwise. But we are of opinion both upon principle and authority that if the accused was at the time of such testimony under arrest, charged with the crime in question, the statements so made are not voluntary and are inadmissible at the trial.

The common law regards substance more than form. The principle involved cannot be evaded by avoiding the form of arrest if the witness at the time of such testimony is practically in custody. From the agreed facts and the facts otherwise in evidence, it is plain that the prisoner at the time of her testimony was, so far as relates to this question,

Page 831

as effectually in custody as if the formal precept had been served; and, without dwelling on other circumstances which distinguish the facts of this case from those of cases on which the Government relies, we are all of opinion that this consideration is decisive, and the evidence is excluded.

--All transcription by Harry

[Constantine]

I may have misunderstood Sullivan. (Obviously one or both of us goofed royally--at least in part.) I will consult him, Wigmore and Davis again on the question. It was certainly Sullivan's opinion that Lizzie's testimony should not have been excluded under Massachusetts law, then or now. (I have not changed my opinion.)

[Kat]

Maybe Sullivan goofed? What's the verdict?

[SteveS.]

The judges ruling to not allow the inquest testimony was based on the 'opinion" by the judges that Lizzie was was in effect in custody at the time her testimony was given at the inquest. The judge went on to say they are of that 'opinion' by principle and authority. So there you go.....we can all have our own 'opinions' on the matter and argue it like we do til the cows come home, but they had the final authority on the matter. Did he goof? Basically it's the same argument. If you agree with the decision...then he didn't goof, and if you disagree with the decision...then he did. OK....I say put the question to all our lawyers on the forum as far as what is their experience and knowledge of the law concerning inquest testimony being admited in trial from that time up to today? Inquests are still going on aren't they?.....is a defendent's testimony admissable as evidence at trial?

[SteveS.]

Sorry for the double posts but maybe the whole thing boils down to that pesky warrant that the city marshall allready had in his possesion at the inquest. Sounds like they jumped the gun there.

[doug65oh]

Well, in that particular instance the whole thing would have hinged on what did (or did not) constitute "probable cause" for obtaining and executing a warrant in 1892. No matter how pesky it might have been – as far as the defense was concerned – the circumstances under which it was obtained might well have been S.O.P. That is to say, at least as far as simple logic is concerned, an agent acting in and for the Commonwealth would have sought a hearing before a judge or magistrate and at that hearing said in effect “All right Sir, this is what we know or believe at this time. Is this information sufficient to support arresting Miss Borden?” The magistrate would be the final arbiter, at least to that point in the process.

Now, if it could be proven, or a good argument made, that the warrant was issued based in whole or in part upon imprecations from the defendant’s own mouth during the inquest, the whole business goes tumbling out the third floor attic window; it clearly violates both the Commonwealth’s Constitution (Section 1 of Article XII) as well as similar guarantees afforded by the federal Constitution.

Was Jennings admitted into the courtroom during Lizzie's testimony do we know?

[SteveS.]

Doug650h

Now, if it could be proven, or a good argument made, that the warrant was issued based in whole or in part upon imprecations from the defendant’s own mouth during the inquest, the whole business goes tumbling out the third floor attic window; it clearly violates both the Commonwealth’s Constitution (Section 1 of Article XII) as well as similar guarantees afforded by the federal Constitution.

Was Jennings admitted into the courtroom during Lizzie's testimony do we know?

If i am understanding correctly Doug, what you are saying then my answer is YES the warrant was based on what she said during the inquest
I quote Kat and The following stipulation was filed with the Court on Saturday, June 10, and made a part of the record:

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Bristol ss. Superior Court. June, 1893.

COMMONWEALTH v. LIZZIE A. BORDEN


5. That when her testimony so given was concluded she was not allowed to leave the Court House, and was about two hours afterward placed under arrest upon a warrant issued upon the charge and accusation of having committed the crimes set forth in this indictment. Said warrant was issued upon a complaint sworn to before the clerk of said District Court acting as Justice of the Peace under the statute, which was returnable to said District Court, by said City Marshal after the conclusion of the testimony of the defendant at the inquest, being the same complaint upon which the defendant was tried before said District Court and held to answer before the grand jury. Said City Marshal was present at the inquest when the defendant testified.


to answer the question of whether Jennings , her counsel, was present I again quote Kat's post. Thank you Kat

Kat Page 774b

4. That before she so testified she requested, through her counsel, A. J.. Jennings, of the District Attorney and of the Judge to preside and presiding at said inquest, the privilege to have her said counsel there present, which request was refused by both the District Attorney and the Judge, and said counsel was not present.

[doug65oh]

Okay, I see what you're saying now. Actually, at least according to the way it's written here, the warrant may actually have been issued before Lizzie opened her mouth. That's pure supposition though based on my own reading of plain language. Obtaining and actually serving a warrant are two different things. That "about two hours" is what really throws the matter into question. is that enough to toss the baby out with the bathwater? Don't know for sure because the timeline is imprecise.

But the real problem - enough to get baby, bathwater, and even the bath toys tossed to the four winds - is here:

4. That before she so testified she requested, through her counsel, A. J.. Jennings, of the District Attorney and of the Judge to preside and presiding at said inquest, the privilege to have her said counsel there present, which request was refused by both the District Attorney and the Judge, and said counsel was not present.

End of story - right then, and right there. The point on the warrant would then become moot, I should think. The Court had clear and firm ground on which to stand and to disallow Lizzie's inquest testimony.

It only takes one hook to hang your hat on - and that was all she wrote.

[Constantine]

No it isn't the end of the story. Her counsel still had the opportunity to advise her beforehand even if they weren't present.

[doug65oh]

okay...how?

[SteveS.]

I'm with you Doug on this one.

[Constantine]

My apologies for my entries, which are, frankly, sloppy. I will get back to Sullivan, Davis and Wigmore and research things better before posting to this thread again.

[doug65oh]

Eh, for my own part I say no apologies needed. This is one of the most fascinating elements of the whole case, and at times the most frustratingly difficult: that is to say trying to step back in time and understand as best we can the reasons behind certain rulings made by the court in the Borden matter. I’ll do that myself also – review Professor Wigmore and Judge Davis’ pieces – and Judge Sullivan’s commentary as to the inquest testimony. No harm, no foul. We just go back to the old drawing board eh?

[Constantine]

Eh, for my own part I say no apologies needed. . . . No harm, no foul. We just go back to the old drawing board eh?

Thanks! Right you are! As it turns out, I was right on the money. I just allowed myself to be intimidated (mostly by myself). I'll get back a little later.

[Constantine]

To begin with (from Wigmore):

. . . that . . . her counsel was not allowed to be present at the inquest on her behalf, and that she was not cautioned by the court as to her right not to criminate herself, but that her counsel was allowed to confer with her and did confer with her before she went upon the stand . . . .

Nyah-nyah nyah nyah-nyah!

[doug65oh]

Well, I recall reading that in Professor Wigmore’s article now that you refresh my memory. I’d be curious (and am curious) to know the exact wording of the “Public Statute” Wigmore refers to there. Not that we might ever discover that, but it would be nice to know. Oh well… The one possibility that makes any rational sense at all there is that there was some difference between ‘courts of inquest’ and 'courts of law', so to speak.

Under the circumstances, I wouldn’t expect Jennings to say anything other than “Go in there and answer the questions as truthfully as you can.”

[william]

If all of the evidence had been admitted, do you think the jury would have found Lizzie guilty?

[doug65oh]

you've asked an exceptionally interesting question there, William. To be perfectly honest about things, I don't think they would have convicted Lizzie under any circumstances. I do think though that putting Eli Bence on the stand might have caused them to deliberate quite a bit longer than they did.

[Harry]

If all of the evidence had been admitted, do you think the jury would have found Lizzie guilty?

Sounds like a good poll question, Bill. I'll start one in a separate thread.