Paying off officals and an illigitmat brother?

[snokkums]

I was reading an old post in the archives posted on March 18th, 2002 titled: "Did Lizzie pavy off high ranking officals?"

Here's the post: "I read Arnold Browns book. How could he theorize that Lizzie paid off the DA, the judge, with out some kind of back up? Was there a "silent Government" set up in the Melon house? Where are the records of this? Could Lizzies illegitimate brother commit the crime? Regardless, I still think she played a large roll in the murders, even if she actually didn't commit the murders."

One question I have is, did Lizzie have an illegitamate brother, and could it have been possible that she did bribe a high ranking offical? I mean the evidance was overwhemling aganst her. She should have been found quilty. So why didn't the jury, unless someone was being paid off.

[kssunflower]

William Borden was somehow related to Lizzie, but not Andrew's son. This has been discussed in another thread, but I don't remember all the details.

[doug65oh]

The allegation of illegitmacy re: Andrew & William S. Borden was entirely theoretical - a supposition completely without factual basis, as Mr. Brown himself admitted. There's a video snippet of that interview floating around somewhere, probably also archived.

[Kat]

One question I have is, did Lizzie have an illegitamate brother, and could it have been possible that she did bribe a high ranking offical? I mean the evidance was overwhemling aganst her. She should have been found quilty. So why didn't the jury, unless someone was being paid off.

--partial quote italics mine

What is the overwhelming evidence? I can see motive and oportunity. But there's no physical evidence. But she also did not have 'sole opportunity" as Bridget also had that.

[Yooper]

I can find no reason to believe Lizzie had an illegitimate brother. Arnold Brown simply needed to rationalize a compelling motive for someone other than Lizzie.

The evidence was entirely circumstantial, but if it is overwhelming, why are we still discussing the "question"?

I don't think a bribe was necessary. I believe Dewey's charge to the jury played a major role in the outcome of the trial. Dewey owed his position on the bench to Robinson, who appointed Dewey to that position while Robinson was Governor of Massachusetts. Justices of the Superior Court are appointed for "life or for good behavior" (!), according to Sullivan. Robinson may have merely called in a favor.

[mbhenty]

The Billy Borden story is like a scrap of sticky tape. You get it on your finger and no matter how much you shake and shake your hand, it just sticks.

Though many consider Arnold Brown a quack, I think that would be an error.

I believe that Arnold Brown was truly convinced that he was right. Even he admits that he can't prove the paternity.

The mistake Brown makes is to fill in some of the missing info and assume.

A perfect example is the claim he makes about BB walking off with the will after killing the Borden's

I truly believe that Brown wants to believe the account he is trying to sell us, not because he is trying to put one over on everyone or because he wanted to write a book, but because it is such a great story for which he uncovered just enough information to make it work. I believe he believes it.

I met Arnold Brown. We only exchanged a couple of sentences, but I walked away believing that in the most part, he was a decent bloke.

Below is an excellent, excellent documentary about the author AB and his killer BB. Worth watching.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjPheZbl ... L&index=23

[doug65oh]

I agree Yooper, but I think it also illustrates an inherent sociological element to the law – in this or any other case – that folks often overlook or just plain ignore: Today we look at certain peripheral aspects (like Justin Dewey’s participation in the case) and almost immediately recognize the ethical conflict involved – not so much in fact as in appearance, so to say. Accessible contemporary sources are few, but I have to wonder how much the public at large and legal professionals understood about such things in the 1890s. Could we not say with some merit that Lizzie benefited as much from the perception that certain professionals (doctors, lawyers, judges, priests) were above reproach as she did from the jury’s apparent reluctance to hang a woman based solely on the evidence presented at New Bedford?

[Yooper]

I think that the general public is more knowledgeable today compared to 100-odd years ago. They might be quicker to focus on a specific conflict and understand the ramifications of it than their grandfathers did. A professional's contemporaries would be very quick to recognize an error in judgment, then or now. The legal community would have realized how far Dewey had stuck his neck out, in addition to the probable reason why. I think the prevailing political atmosphere, with a reluctance to sentence a woman to death as a part of it, kept people from pursuing the issue.

[1bigsteve]

I was reading an old post in the archives posted on March 18th, 2002 titled: "Did Lizzie pavy off high ranking officals?"

Here's the post: "I read Arnold Browns book. How could he theorize that Lizzie paid off the DA, the judge, with out some kind of back up? Was there a "silent Government" set up in the Melon house? Where are the records of this? Could Lizzies illegitimate brother commit the crime? Regardless, I still think she played a large roll in the murders, even if she actually didn't commit the murders."

One question I have is, did Lizzie have an illegitamate brother, and could it have been possible that she did bribe a high ranking offical? I mean the evidance was overwhemling aganst her. She should have been found quilty. So why didn't the jury, unless someone was being paid off.

I can't really see Lizzie bribing anyone, at least not from a jail cell. I can just see Lizzie saying something like, "Well, if you vote for my innocence I'll pay you $$$. But, you'll have to wait until I get out to pay you, if I get out and if I get the money. OK?" Lizzie wasn't exactly bargaining from a position of strength.

As far as Lizzie having a illigitimate brother I don't know. But even if she did I doubt he would have had the cash to bribe anyone. I think the jury came to their conclusion because there was no hard evidence against her. I doubt the jury would have stretched a woman's throat on the "evidence" they had. I would have came to the same conclusion they did. I'm in full support of the death penalty but I need to see the hard evidence. They probably felt the same way.

-1bigsteve (o:

[snokkums]

I think that I am at the point of that the jury had an idea that Lizzie did do it or had some knowledge of who did, but because the police and prosceution didn't do a good job of investagating, they cme to the conclusion she was innocence.

And, I too, OneBigSteve, I want to see all the hard evidence before I put the death penalty on someone. Then I know they are quilty and I don't have a guilty conceince.

[stargazer]

I was thinking : Had Lizzie been found guilty, and executed, (or insane asylum,) wouldn't Emma have been legally in control of all the Borden riches ? Perhaps, some of the jurors felt that Lizzie had killed the Bordens, but they may have been worried about Emma. Was Lizzie a better business person ? Would Emma have taken much of the $$ away from Fall River ? Do any of you think that Lizzie forgave a lot of debts, and made up for her father's hard nosed attitudes, and miserly ways ? Just a thought.

[Yooper]

If Lizzie had been found guilty of first degree murder in Massachusetts at the time, she would have been executed, the law mandated the death sentence for the crime. I doubt that the law would recognize a right by Lizzie to an inheritance gained through murder, so I don't think she could have left her share to anyone if she never received it. Emma would likely have inherited the entire estate.

If Lizzie had been found not guilty by reason of insanity and institutionalized, it could be that some or all of her care would have come from the estate, but I don't know how the law reads on that.

The question before the court was not the distribution of the Borden estate, it was whether or not Lizzie committed the murders. It was not up to them to decide whether or not Emma was qualified to manage a large estate, or who was a better business person.

Emma seemed to be in no particular hurry to leave Fall River initially, although she did later. I doubt that she would have gone to live elsewhere unless there had been some compelling reason.

I haven't read anything about debts being owed to Lizzie or whether she was in the habit of letting people off the hook. Her will seems to show that she distributed her wealth to a variety of recipients, for whatever that is worth.

It could be argued that if Lizzie was guilty of the murders, she inherited all of Andrew's cut-throat business acumen, and then some!

[Harry]

It is interesting that the jury had the option of deciding Lizzie guilty of second degree murder. Justice Dewey in his instructions to the jury prior to their vote has this to say:

Page 1888:

"... The defendant is being tried before you on a written accusation, termed an indictment, which contains two charges or counts; one count by the use of the usual legal language in substance charges her with the murder of Andrew J. Borden, and the other count charges her with the murder of Abby D. Borden in Fall River in this county on August 4th, 1892. Chapter 202 of the Public Statutes contains these sections: "Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or in the commission of or attempt to commit a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty is murder in the first degree. Murder not appearing to be in the first degree, is murder in the second degree.
The degree of murder shall be found by the jury" --- in connection with rendering their verdict, if they find against the defendant. The Government claims that the killing of Mr. and Mrs. Borden, by whomsoever done, was done with premeditated, deliberate malice aforethought within the meaning of the statute and it was murder in the first degree. ..."

Then on page 1919:

"... If you find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, the Foreman, in reply to the inquiry of the clerk, will say, "Guilty of murder in the first degree", and so as to murder in the second degree, if you find that to be the degree of murder. As to the second count, if the finding is the same, the answer should be the same. If, on the other hand, your finding is "Not guilty," the Foreman should so reply to each inquiry. ..."

I'm not saying that the evidence supported second degree nor that the jury would so find but they did have the option.

[Yooper]

I don't think second degree murder was ever a viable logical option in the Borden case. There were two murders separated by a time interval. Unless the murderer carried a hatchet at all times, the hatchet had to be retrieved for use, allowing an option to continue or not. The murderer had plenty of time to summon help if Abby's murder could somehow be described as accidental or involuntary or anything other than premeditated.

The distinctions between first and second degree murder were brought about in 1858 as the result of difficulty in convicting a woman of murder in Massachusetts. The differences between the two were defined and a mandatory sentence of life in prison was the penalty for second degree murder.

It is quite interesting that the option was left at the discretion of the jury. This allowed some "weasel room" for the courts in that they could prosecute for first degree murder when the evidence clearly supported nothing else thus fulfilling their obligation to the Commonwealth, while the jury could rationalize a reason for a watered down penalty based solely on gender and pandering to public sentiment. It covered everybody's butt!

[Kat]

Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.

HK093
Letter, typewritten, with comments handwritten in ink.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT,
COMMONWEALTH BUILDING,

Boston, Nov. 21, 1892.
Dear Mr. Attorney:-
As under the Robinson doctrine, I see no possible doubt that the whole transaction can be put in evidence in a trial for the killing of either, I incline, on reflection, toward two indictments, if there are to be any.

Has it ever occurred to you to put in a count or counts as accessory before & after? There is, to be sure, no affirmative evidence, at present, that any other person was concerned, but a great many people believe that she was in it, but that hers was not the hand that did it. I could easily believe this
if there were any evidence of it. Perhaps one indict for killing both & others for killing each will be best of all.

I write these suggestions now as they occur to me, and as you will have time to think of them. I wish the investigation just begun in the other line to be thoroughly, and, if possible, exhaustive, chiefly for the satisfaction of my own mind, as I doubt if it develops anything of consequence for any other purpose.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General.
Hon. H. M. Knowlton,
______________________________

HK094
Telegram, handwritten in ink.

THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

Nov 21 1892
Taunton MS 21
A E Pillsbury Atty Genl
Boston

Will Come to Boston tomorrow morning your office ten fifteen
Andrew J. Jennings

______________________________

HK095
Letter, handwritten in ink.

ANDREW J. JENNINGS,
COUNSELOR AT LAW,
SECTION G. GRANITE BLOCK.
Fall River, Mass., Nov. 22, 1892

Hon A. E. Pillsbury
Attorney General

My Dear Pillsbury
Since my talk with you I have been seriously con-
sidering your proposition and have come to the conclusion that I cannot consent to unite with you in the examination proposed.

I asked Adams opinion on the advisability of the course proposed without expressing any opinion of my own and also on my return home that of Mr Holmes who to a certain extent represents the Borden girls, without informing him that I had consulted Adams.

Both came to the same conclusion that in view of all the circumstances we could not do anything which suggested a doubt of her innocence and that the course proposed would not be wise or expedient on our part.

Sincerely Yours
Andrew J Jennings
______________________________

HK096
Letter, typewritten.

HOSEA M. KNOWLTON. ARTHUR E. PERRY.
COUNSELLORS AT LAW.
OFFICE:
38 NORTH WATER STREET.
{Dictated.}
NEW BEDFORD, MASS., November 22, 1892.

Hon. A. E. Pillsbury,
Attorney-General.

Dear Sir:-

I did not have time to write so fully as I desired
about the sanity business. I could do nothing whatever with Jennings. He took exactly the position I feared he would, and seemed to regard it as some sort of surrender if he consented to anything. We can make some investigations into the family matters without him, but it will not be so thorough as it would be if we had his assistance.

I note your suggestions about form of indictment, which I will adopt if we ever get so far; of which, however, I am far from certain.

Yours truly,
H. M. Knowlton
______________________________

Page 99

HK097
Letter, typewritten.

HOSEA M. KNOWLTON. ARTHUR E. PERRY.
COUNSELLORS AT LAW.
OFFICE:
38 NORTH WATER STREET.
{Dictated.}
NEW BEDFORD, MASS., November 22, 1892.

Hon. A. E. Pillsbury,
Attorney General.
Dear Sir:- I see no need of account for accessory.
If she did not do the killing, but only instigated some one else to, it can hardly be said that she was not so far present as to make her principal, for she was certainly in the house, and in hearing of both murders.

It had occurred to me, however, since I saw you, that the jury should be instructed as to the principles of law relating to principal and accessory; and, if you see no objection, I propose to state to them the law upon that subject.

I have already written you about Jennings, and you have probably seen him before this time.
Yours Truly,

H. M. Knowlton

[Yooper]

Assuming the letter from Jennings to Pillsbury refers to the possibility of a psychiatric examination, his reply was fairly predictable. If they wanted to defend Lizzie as not guilty by reason of insanity, she first had to admit responsibility for the murders. If the position was that Lizzie was innocent, then insanity had no bearing one way or the other.

They seemed to be examining several contingencies, including counts of accessory rather than principal. The trouble is, to prove guilt as an accessory, they might have had to prove who was the principal, an additional burden of proof for the prosecution. They would have needed to support the absurdity of an intruder to prove guilt as an accessory, which is counter productive to guilt as principal. The counts of principal and of accessory diverge at this point and they had to decide to proceed with either one or the other.

[Kat]

It's very interesting to get an idea of what was going on behind the scenes before trial.