I figure that for most, the top of our reading to do list for this weekend is the latest edition of THE HATCHET ! I am sure it will be another great issue ! Yea Stef & Co. !
I hope to have something on Book Four of APD, within the next day or so. I am determined to get through this book. What thoughts do the rest of you have on it so far ?
Tracy...
BORDEN BOOK CLUB (LINCOLN / BOOK FOUR)
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
BORDEN BOOK CLUB (LINCOLN / BOOK FOUR)
I'm defying gravity and you can't pull me down.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
Oh Kat...I would never want you to recuse yourself...never. You have too much knowledge and information to share.
I definitely agree with making The Hatchet priority one for now. Lincoln is not going away anytime soon. We can get back to her later.
Tracy...
I definitely agree with making The Hatchet priority one for now. Lincoln is not going away anytime soon. We can get back to her later.
Tracy...
I'm defying gravity and you can't pull me down.
-
terrie
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:54 pm
- Real Name:
- Contact:
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
OK...I know we have been away from this one for a while, but...LOL...I am determined to get through this book. I almost looking forward to the next one. Here are some of my thoughts on Book 4.
Tracy...
Tracy...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I'm defying gravity and you can't pull me down.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Thank you for your comments on this section of the Lincoln book, Tracy.
I read this assignments selection and have some notes, these being maybe 1/2 of them for now. I was checking the veracity of Lincoln's claims.
pg. 202- That Lizzie,in jail, was "taken out almost daily for refreshing strolls in the open air."
--I couldn't find this in the Evening Standard, Sept. 27th. That newspaper writes that Mrs. Livermore opines that Lizzie cannot get out into the open air and that she can "pace up and down the dreary corridor" but it is said the sun shines into her room for a good part of the day, in the women's wing.
pg. 203- On the 18th of August, Charles Peckham gave himself up- this is true, see Witness Statements, 43.
pg. 203- that Joseph Lemay was called at the trial but his testimony was not allowed to the jury- this is true, Trial 1454.
pg. 205- That Lizzie found Abby's body and her dress was then stained and so she changed it. --This is probably a Lincoln invention.
pg. 207- In the "You have Given Me Away" section: Lincoln uses the phrase "What he ought to know for your defense" and this is supposedly in The Globe. I found it in the Evening Stanbdard- so this is correct, as to what the newspaper quoted. She quotes and compares this to Porter's "...what I thought he ought to know." And this is correct. Porter does leave out "for your defense"- but it's all newspaper talk anyway- I can't find the last bit in testimony.
pg. 207- Lincoln says Jennings goes out and gets Adams on the 24th right after this supposed dispute between Emma and Lizzie which took place on the eve of the Preliminary Hearing. However, the Evening Standard has Melvin Adams in the courtroom on the 22nd, the day of the postponment.
pg. 208- "If you sign these papers..." said by Buck. This is true as offered as hearsay in the Trial, 1232.
pg. 210- The quotes from Phillips are correct, but not quite in order, but Lincoln retains the sense of it- so this is true.
pg. 211- Lincoln says the Preliminary Hearing lasted 6 days but it lasted 7.
--So far these were things I thought I ought to check and things I did not check up until this page, I didn't find a need for checking.
I read this assignments selection and have some notes, these being maybe 1/2 of them for now. I was checking the veracity of Lincoln's claims.
pg. 202- That Lizzie,in jail, was "taken out almost daily for refreshing strolls in the open air."
--I couldn't find this in the Evening Standard, Sept. 27th. That newspaper writes that Mrs. Livermore opines that Lizzie cannot get out into the open air and that she can "pace up and down the dreary corridor" but it is said the sun shines into her room for a good part of the day, in the women's wing.
pg. 203- On the 18th of August, Charles Peckham gave himself up- this is true, see Witness Statements, 43.
pg. 203- that Joseph Lemay was called at the trial but his testimony was not allowed to the jury- this is true, Trial 1454.
pg. 205- That Lizzie found Abby's body and her dress was then stained and so she changed it. --This is probably a Lincoln invention.
pg. 207- In the "You have Given Me Away" section: Lincoln uses the phrase "What he ought to know for your defense" and this is supposedly in The Globe. I found it in the Evening Stanbdard- so this is correct, as to what the newspaper quoted. She quotes and compares this to Porter's "...what I thought he ought to know." And this is correct. Porter does leave out "for your defense"- but it's all newspaper talk anyway- I can't find the last bit in testimony.
pg. 207- Lincoln says Jennings goes out and gets Adams on the 24th right after this supposed dispute between Emma and Lizzie which took place on the eve of the Preliminary Hearing. However, the Evening Standard has Melvin Adams in the courtroom on the 22nd, the day of the postponment.
pg. 208- "If you sign these papers..." said by Buck. This is true as offered as hearsay in the Trial, 1232.
pg. 210- The quotes from Phillips are correct, but not quite in order, but Lincoln retains the sense of it- so this is true.
pg. 211- Lincoln says the Preliminary Hearing lasted 6 days but it lasted 7.
--So far these were things I thought I ought to check and things I did not check up until this page, I didn't find a need for checking.
-
Allen
- Posts: 3409
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
Kat, about Charles Peckham giving himself up, there is also a story in the New York Times about that which I have a copy of. I am a little behind in this due to my school assignments, as I am still going over my own comments, and what comments I wanted to make in response to what you all have said, I should have mine by later today or tonight. I'm trying to keep up, but as long as school is in I'll probably stay behind you all a bit. 
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
This next bit is a little complicated. I don't know if it is essential information, but here is the comparison of Lincoln and the newspaper about what made Lizzie sob at the Preliminary Hearing:
Chapter 26 -
68. (Pg. 215-216) During Jennings’s summary: “Lizzie’s mouth shook. Then her whole body was wracked with sudden, convulsive sobbing. She spread her hands and pressed them over her face, but she could not hide the tears that poured over it.
Mr. Jennings, his face lifted in the orator’s stance, did not notice; he went on steadily. ‘Blow after blow was showered upon them…’ Lizzie’s body shrank and tensed upon the sobs that it could not control and her hands sought desperately to cover her distorted mouth, her streaming eyes.” I just can’t make myself believe that Lizzie was reacting with this amount of physical intensity because she was guilty. I think she was recoiling with horror at having to hear once again, the awful description of Andrew and Abby’s death. I think if she was guilty…she would have just stared blankly…trying to ignore or block out what was being said.--Tracy
^^^^^^^
From Porter, inserted into the new revised Preliminary Hearing:
"We have had a description of the injuries, and I suggest that even the learned District Attorney himself cannot imagine that any person could have committed that crime unless his heart was as black with hatred as hell itself.
Blow after blow was showered upon them, cutting through blood, bone and flesh into the very brain."
--This came first, before Lincoln says Lizzie dissolved into sobbing. If we add the phrase, “heart was as black with hatred as hell itself”, we might find the reason why Lizzie became emotional- according to Lincoln.
--BTW: Lincoln has: “unless his heart was as black as hell.”
--The Evening Standard’s coverage has Lizzie sobbing at the point where Jennings described Lizzie as the youngest daughter and her childs fingers entwining with her father’s...(sentimental)
“Mr. Morse, having accounted for his time, leaves the others alone. The youngest daughter and the servant. And right here counsel called attention to the words 'youngest daughter.' She is the pet of the family; the one whose fingers were last clasped by the dead father, and the one whose head last rested against his breast.
Lizzie Here Burst Into Tears,
and Mr. Jennings was himself almost in tears.”
--Lincoln:
“ ‘Would it be the stranger, or would it be the one bound to the murdered man by ties of love? And, right here, what does it mean when we say the youngest daughter? The last one whose baby fingers have been lovingly entwined about her father's head? Is there nothing in the ties of love and affection?’
Lizzie had got herself in hand. She did not break again.”
.........
Basically, if we compare the newspaper with Lincoln, they have Lizzie sobbing over the depiction of her as the youngest daughter, the loving child of her father, and Lincoln has Lizzie breaking down when the criminal was described as having a heart “as black as hell.”
Chapter 26 -
68. (Pg. 215-216) During Jennings’s summary: “Lizzie’s mouth shook. Then her whole body was wracked with sudden, convulsive sobbing. She spread her hands and pressed them over her face, but she could not hide the tears that poured over it.
Mr. Jennings, his face lifted in the orator’s stance, did not notice; he went on steadily. ‘Blow after blow was showered upon them…’ Lizzie’s body shrank and tensed upon the sobs that it could not control and her hands sought desperately to cover her distorted mouth, her streaming eyes.” I just can’t make myself believe that Lizzie was reacting with this amount of physical intensity because she was guilty. I think she was recoiling with horror at having to hear once again, the awful description of Andrew and Abby’s death. I think if she was guilty…she would have just stared blankly…trying to ignore or block out what was being said.--Tracy
^^^^^^^
From Porter, inserted into the new revised Preliminary Hearing:
"We have had a description of the injuries, and I suggest that even the learned District Attorney himself cannot imagine that any person could have committed that crime unless his heart was as black with hatred as hell itself.
Blow after blow was showered upon them, cutting through blood, bone and flesh into the very brain."
--This came first, before Lincoln says Lizzie dissolved into sobbing. If we add the phrase, “heart was as black with hatred as hell itself”, we might find the reason why Lizzie became emotional- according to Lincoln.
--BTW: Lincoln has: “unless his heart was as black as hell.”
--The Evening Standard’s coverage has Lizzie sobbing at the point where Jennings described Lizzie as the youngest daughter and her childs fingers entwining with her father’s...(sentimental)
“Mr. Morse, having accounted for his time, leaves the others alone. The youngest daughter and the servant. And right here counsel called attention to the words 'youngest daughter.' She is the pet of the family; the one whose fingers were last clasped by the dead father, and the one whose head last rested against his breast.
Lizzie Here Burst Into Tears,
and Mr. Jennings was himself almost in tears.”
--Lincoln:
“ ‘Would it be the stranger, or would it be the one bound to the murdered man by ties of love? And, right here, what does it mean when we say the youngest daughter? The last one whose baby fingers have been lovingly entwined about her father's head? Is there nothing in the ties of love and affection?’
Lizzie had got herself in hand. She did not break again.”
.........
Basically, if we compare the newspaper with Lincoln, they have Lizzie sobbing over the depiction of her as the youngest daughter, the loving child of her father, and Lincoln has Lizzie breaking down when the criminal was described as having a heart “as black as hell.”
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
Thank you Kat for mentioning that the "heart was as black as hell" part came right before the part where I started writing. I should have included that. It certainly seems like that could be what started the sobbing. I need to start checking other sources against Lincoln. Your post reminded me of that. THANK YOU. Maybe I will be able to a more complete assessment of Book 5 and the Epilogue. I just want to know it all right now !...LOL.
Tracy...
Tracy...
I'm defying gravity and you can't pull me down.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
When it becomes a matter of Lincoln possibly giving a spin to a scene vs. what the newspapers say, it looks like Lincoln thinks she can get away with her own interpretation: that maybe no one will check.
We may be the first to check. There is much nuance missing from the Preliminary Hearing that I had my doubts that Lincoln would pass up a chance of twisting the story a bit her way.
Yes, comparing her with other sources is a good approach.
Since I am lucky to have a lot of newspapers, I figured I would look at them. I probably should have looked at a few.
We may be the first to check. There is much nuance missing from the Preliminary Hearing that I had my doubts that Lincoln would pass up a chance of twisting the story a bit her way.
Yes, comparing her with other sources is a good approach.
Since I am lucky to have a lot of newspapers, I figured I would look at them. I probably should have looked at a few.
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
Kat, you are certainly right about Lincoln never missing a chance to put her own flavor on the story.
I just don't understand WHY, if she is such a noted author, would she do things she claimed was done by others, (leaving the total truth out of the story)...unless she didn't even realize what she was doing ? Was she so CLOSE to the story that she truly thought some details were HERS to tell...that what she told WAS the truth in her mind ? I mean she claims to have done SO MUCH research...mentioning that Pearson's "editorial judgement" was that of an outsider...so in a sense she seems to say on some things; "I can add THIS...not mention THAT, because I am an insider...from the hill...I KNEW Lizzie Borden." (Book 1 - Chapter 2 - pgs. 29-31)
Tracy...
I just don't understand WHY, if she is such a noted author, would she do things she claimed was done by others, (leaving the total truth out of the story)...unless she didn't even realize what she was doing ? Was she so CLOSE to the story that she truly thought some details were HERS to tell...that what she told WAS the truth in her mind ? I mean she claims to have done SO MUCH research...mentioning that Pearson's "editorial judgement" was that of an outsider...so in a sense she seems to say on some things; "I can add THIS...not mention THAT, because I am an insider...from the hill...I KNEW Lizzie Borden." (Book 1 - Chapter 2 - pgs. 29-31)
Tracy...
I'm defying gravity and you can't pull me down.
-
Allen
- Posts: 3409
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
Alot of the comments I had originally wanted to make have been covered by you all already. There were only a few things I wanted to add about Book 4.
On page 214:
Over their heavy napkins, women wore ruffled drawers to the knee and short white petticoats under the underskirt; I remember. A widish smear caused by a heavy period was quite possible; a small, clear edged spot, so placed, would have been wildly improbable even if it had come from the inside, not the outside, of the garment.
However, men judged the case, and have judged it ever since.
( It was, incidentally, a woman who wrote to Knowlton that the bloodless dress on a daughter who had just found her father lying in his blood was a suspicious circumstance and not the opposite).I have always though that the blood on the underskirt could not have possibly been due to Lizzie's "fleas". This seems like too many layers for a little perfectly shaped blood droplet to have been made through. A smear maybe, but not a little perfectly formed droplet.
Page 217:
Then, most unfortunately, he warmed to his theme: " Where did she get rid of the weapons? Are they any shoebuttons in the fire? Is there any smell of burnt clothing? NO! I can only imagine what he felt when the dress burning was brought to light, after making that statement.
Page 226:
I believe Mr. Jennings knew only what Emma had told him- that Lizzie had changed her dress. After he had risked antagonizing Bridget at the preliminary investigation, I believe that she also told him that Bridget was in on the secret. I do not believe that Mr. Jennings bribed Bridget to keep quiet about the dress before the trial, or suspected that she was being bribed. Emma probably saw to this- and without embarrassing him with any knowledge of it. What evidence do we have the Bridget was bribed at all? Do we even know for sure what Bridget knew and did not know? She turns some pretty big assumptions into fact making these statements about the bribery. Especially when she goes on to say that Emma could have sent the money to Bridget in cash at the jail.
On page 214:
Over their heavy napkins, women wore ruffled drawers to the knee and short white petticoats under the underskirt; I remember. A widish smear caused by a heavy period was quite possible; a small, clear edged spot, so placed, would have been wildly improbable even if it had come from the inside, not the outside, of the garment.
However, men judged the case, and have judged it ever since.
( It was, incidentally, a woman who wrote to Knowlton that the bloodless dress on a daughter who had just found her father lying in his blood was a suspicious circumstance and not the opposite).I have always though that the blood on the underskirt could not have possibly been due to Lizzie's "fleas". This seems like too many layers for a little perfectly shaped blood droplet to have been made through. A smear maybe, but not a little perfectly formed droplet.
Page 217:
Then, most unfortunately, he warmed to his theme: " Where did she get rid of the weapons? Are they any shoebuttons in the fire? Is there any smell of burnt clothing? NO! I can only imagine what he felt when the dress burning was brought to light, after making that statement.
Page 226:
I believe Mr. Jennings knew only what Emma had told him- that Lizzie had changed her dress. After he had risked antagonizing Bridget at the preliminary investigation, I believe that she also told him that Bridget was in on the secret. I do not believe that Mr. Jennings bribed Bridget to keep quiet about the dress before the trial, or suspected that she was being bribed. Emma probably saw to this- and without embarrassing him with any knowledge of it. What evidence do we have the Bridget was bribed at all? Do we even know for sure what Bridget knew and did not know? She turns some pretty big assumptions into fact making these statements about the bribery. Especially when she goes on to say that Emma could have sent the money to Bridget in cash at the jail.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
I am sorry you feel that way Nancie. My feelings are my own, I assure you. I do depend on (and appreciate) people from this board, who are far more knowledgable than myself, to correct my many mistakes and to teach me more about the details and nuances I need to be aware of as I study this case. I have in previous posts, stated my opinion on Lizzie's guilt/innocence, and I believe that in some of my 500+ posts, my opinions and thoughts have been very clear.Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:48 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy it seems like you just go with the "cheerletters" opinions, like you don't have your
own thoughts I'm one who dosen't thiink Lizzie done it!
I am not sure what you mean by
What is/who is a "cheerletter" ?you just go with the "cheerletters" opinions,
Please feel free to PM me anytime if you feel I am not 'up to code' with my thoughts/opinions/posts.
Thank you,
Tracy...
I'm defying gravity and you can't pull me down.
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
-
Harry
- Posts: 4061
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:28 pm
- Real Name: harry
- Location: South Carolina
On page 211, Lincoln writes:
"Dr. Dolan was the first witness. Shown a photograph of the body, he pointed out how it had sagged from when he first saw it; the head was no longer propped high on the arm of the sofa. "
Seems to me it wasn't Dr. Dolan but Dr. Bowen who was shown the photo (Preliminary, page 402) and noted the sagging of the body.
"Dr. Dolan was the first witness. Shown a photograph of the body, he pointed out how it had sagged from when he first saw it; the head was no longer propped high on the arm of the sofa. "
Seems to me it wasn't Dr. Dolan but Dr. Bowen who was shown the photo (Preliminary, page 402) and noted the sagging of the body.
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Yes that's right Harry, and Lincoln included "Dolan" info about the coat:
"The Prince Albert, formerly wedged deep beneath the head, had also become disarranged. The rest of his evidence you know."
I don't think this was covered by Dolan either?
I don't think anyone could know about the state of the coat between the time it was put there and when it might have been removed, used and replaced there.
"The Prince Albert, formerly wedged deep beneath the head, had also become disarranged. The rest of his evidence you know."
I don't think this was covered by Dolan either?
I don't think anyone could know about the state of the coat between the time it was put there and when it might have been removed, used and replaced there.
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
Harry is this what you are talking about ? I am looking to see if I can Dolan saying anything similar.
Prelim. Dr. Bowen
(402)
Q. Did you see Bridget there?
A. Bridget was there before I left the house.
Q. You do not remember she was when you came the first time?
A. When I went to the door, I do not remember certainly.
Q. What was the position of Mr. Borden on this sofa at this time when you saw him, because, as I
understand it, you were the first person who came in there?
A. He was lying on the right side of his face. The head of the lounge or sofa was near the door
leading from the dining room to the sitting room.
Q. With his head towards the hall?
A. Yes, the front hall door.
Q. Calling your attention to Photograph No. 5, and the position there, I ask you how the position
which you saw him in, varies from that, if it does at all?
A. The only difference I can see, I think the whole form has sunk down, has slipped down. I do not
think the head is quite as high now as it was when I first saw him. The only way I can explain that, is
that by walking through the room, he may have settled down some way.
Q. Settled down into the sofa, up towards the foot of the sofa a little?
A. I thought the head was a little higher up on the arm.
Q. On that part of the arm where it makes the curve to the back of the head?
A. Yes Sir. Under the head was a coat, I think, and a sofa pillow that he was lying on.
Tracy...
Prelim. Dr. Bowen
(402)
Q. Did you see Bridget there?
A. Bridget was there before I left the house.
Q. You do not remember she was when you came the first time?
A. When I went to the door, I do not remember certainly.
Q. What was the position of Mr. Borden on this sofa at this time when you saw him, because, as I
understand it, you were the first person who came in there?
A. He was lying on the right side of his face. The head of the lounge or sofa was near the door
leading from the dining room to the sitting room.
Q. With his head towards the hall?
A. Yes, the front hall door.
Q. Calling your attention to Photograph No. 5, and the position there, I ask you how the position
which you saw him in, varies from that, if it does at all?
A. The only difference I can see, I think the whole form has sunk down, has slipped down. I do not
think the head is quite as high now as it was when I first saw him. The only way I can explain that, is
that by walking through the room, he may have settled down some way.
Q. Settled down into the sofa, up towards the foot of the sofa a little?
A. I thought the head was a little higher up on the arm.
Q. On that part of the arm where it makes the curve to the back of the head?
A. Yes Sir. Under the head was a coat, I think, and a sofa pillow that he was lying on.
Tracy...
I'm defying gravity and you can't pull me down.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Yes good points Allen.
I was wondering if Lincoln is the source for the beginning of what I think might be a myth about Lizzie saying she had fleas meaning she was having her period. No one has ever heard that terminology before- that we have canvassed.
I think when Lizzie said she had fleas she literally meant she had fleas and that might be a way- from scratching- that she got a spot of blood on the outside of her petticoat.
I was wondering if Lincoln is the source for the beginning of what I think might be a myth about Lizzie saying she had fleas meaning she was having her period. No one has ever heard that terminology before- that we have canvassed.
I think when Lizzie said she had fleas she literally meant she had fleas and that might be a way- from scratching- that she got a spot of blood on the outside of her petticoat.
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
Kat,
I found this article on fleas. I have only taken a cursory look at it, but if you scroll down a bit, it talks about fleas carrying bubonic plague via rats. Do you know if rats were common around Fall River at that time ? around the Borden house ?
http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanit ... l/ch24.htm
Tracy...
I found this article on fleas. I have only taken a cursory look at it, but if you scroll down a bit, it talks about fleas carrying bubonic plague via rats. Do you know if rats were common around Fall River at that time ? around the Borden house ?
http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanit ... l/ch24.htm
Tracy...
I'm defying gravity and you can't pull me down.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I don't know that I would like to read about fleas.
Anyone who has raised cats knows about the little buggers.
I've been lucky in that I haven't had any for about 10 years though I still have cats.
If that horse was gone a year, there may be fleas in the barn. I don't know if horses get fleas -or pigeons for that matter- but any stray cat could bring them in as well.
Andrew could bring them in from the barn. Bridget said she hadn't known Lizzie to go to the barn I think in the past 3 months.
Sorry my post about fleas passed yours, Tracy- I didn't see you there. My browser is slow tonight.
Anyone who has raised cats knows about the little buggers.
I've been lucky in that I haven't had any for about 10 years though I still have cats.
If that horse was gone a year, there may be fleas in the barn. I don't know if horses get fleas -or pigeons for that matter- but any stray cat could bring them in as well.
Andrew could bring them in from the barn. Bridget said she hadn't known Lizzie to go to the barn I think in the past 3 months.
Sorry my post about fleas passed yours, Tracy- I didn't see you there. My browser is slow tonight.
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
Oh Kat...no problem at all ! You brought up a good point where the blood spot could have come from. If fleas aren't the reason for the spot, is it possible that the spot came from another time where Lizzie had been near blood ? Is it known for sure that it came from around the day or so of the the murders ?
Tracy...
Tracy...
I'm defying gravity and you can't pull me down.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I think a flea bite was a flea bite, not a menstrual period. Lizzie was so matter of fact about it- I kind of believed her... and a period would leave a different sort of mark I think. I picture Lizzie quickly hiking up her skirt to pinch at a flea. If you don't pinch it dead it only hops away to breed more fleas. It could be flea guts or her own blood it sucked before the mark got there.
Anyway, if it was something else, she could have (what we might call) turned her underskirt. Worn it rightside out for a few days and then wrong side out until wash day.
Anyway, if it was something else, she could have (what we might call) turned her underskirt. Worn it rightside out for a few days and then wrong side out until wash day.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Lincoln
211
"Next, Thomas Kieran, an engineer, read off the measurements of the house and grounds and the distance to the banks downstreet. He further deposed that Miss Brigham, standing on the landing, had been unable to see a man lying on the floor where Abby had lain. Few newspapers found this experiment worth reporting at the time and none at the final trial; but a recent defense of Lizzie has sharply criticized its deletion in the editing of those two thousand pages. (Dr. Bowen carelessly mentioned that he could see the body from the landing)."
--I'm not quite sure what is meant here, but I did recall that Bowen ultimately decided that he was at least in the doorway of the guest room when he spotted Abby's body. At the Inquest he equivocates, but at the Prelim and Trial he is pretty clear.
It was shown to be so- that the body could be seen from about the doorway to the room, but not from the landing in front of Lizzie's bedroom door.
Trial
Kieran
111
Q. How was it when you stood upon the floor of the hall upstairs, in front of the door which we will call Miss Lizzie's room?
A. I couldn't see him. [The man lying where Abby had lain].
____________
Inquest
Bowen
118
Q. Up the front stairs?
A. Yes, went up the front stairs. As I got at the top of the stairs, as soon as I got up on the second story, I could look right over the deb, and I saw her lying there flat, prone. My thought was, that she had run up there and fainted. I went right around the foot of the bed and satisfied myself in an instant that she was not living. I dont know whether I got hold of her pulse, but I satisfied myself some way, I dont know how, that she was not living. I went right down stairs again and told them Mrs. Borden was dead, killed the same instant, I think I said that.
Q. When you looked over the bed and saw the form on the floor, where were you, in the hall way?
A. I think I must have been. I dont think I should probably have
119 (26)
looked until I got up to the top of the stairs. I could, if I had been looking, have looked as soon as my head got level, I might then have seen her under the bed. I went directly up fast, and as soon as I looked in the door, I looked over the bed.
Q. So where she was lying, you could see it from the head of the stairs?
A. Not exactly. You would have to come up the head of the stairs and go back a little.
_________
Prelim
Bowen
403
Q. You got to the front hall, and went up stairs?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. When you got up stairs yourself, what did you see?
A. As I was going into the door, I could look over the bed and see the prostrate form of a lady, a woman.
______
Trial
Bowen
307
A. She said I had better go up and see. I went directly through the dining-room and the corner of the sitting-room into the front hall, up the stairs --- front stairs --- and
Page 308
stopped a moment at the door of the front chamber --- guest chamber, front bedroom. At that point I looked over the bed and saw the prostrate form of Mrs. Borden.
Q. Where were you standing, Doctor, when you saw the form of Mrs. Borden?
A. Directly in the door of the room.
Q. What did you say?
A. I went around the back of the bed --- that is, the foot of the bed --- and between the form and the bed, and place my hand on her head. It was a little dark in the room, somewhat dark, not very light. I placed my hand on her head and found there were wounds in the head. Then I placed my --- felt of her pulse --- that is, felt of the wrist, and found she was dead.
211
"Next, Thomas Kieran, an engineer, read off the measurements of the house and grounds and the distance to the banks downstreet. He further deposed that Miss Brigham, standing on the landing, had been unable to see a man lying on the floor where Abby had lain. Few newspapers found this experiment worth reporting at the time and none at the final trial; but a recent defense of Lizzie has sharply criticized its deletion in the editing of those two thousand pages. (Dr. Bowen carelessly mentioned that he could see the body from the landing)."
--I'm not quite sure what is meant here, but I did recall that Bowen ultimately decided that he was at least in the doorway of the guest room when he spotted Abby's body. At the Inquest he equivocates, but at the Prelim and Trial he is pretty clear.
It was shown to be so- that the body could be seen from about the doorway to the room, but not from the landing in front of Lizzie's bedroom door.
Trial
Kieran
111
Q. How was it when you stood upon the floor of the hall upstairs, in front of the door which we will call Miss Lizzie's room?
A. I couldn't see him. [The man lying where Abby had lain].
____________
Inquest
Bowen
118
Q. Up the front stairs?
A. Yes, went up the front stairs. As I got at the top of the stairs, as soon as I got up on the second story, I could look right over the deb, and I saw her lying there flat, prone. My thought was, that she had run up there and fainted. I went right around the foot of the bed and satisfied myself in an instant that she was not living. I dont know whether I got hold of her pulse, but I satisfied myself some way, I dont know how, that she was not living. I went right down stairs again and told them Mrs. Borden was dead, killed the same instant, I think I said that.
Q. When you looked over the bed and saw the form on the floor, where were you, in the hall way?
A. I think I must have been. I dont think I should probably have
119 (26)
looked until I got up to the top of the stairs. I could, if I had been looking, have looked as soon as my head got level, I might then have seen her under the bed. I went directly up fast, and as soon as I looked in the door, I looked over the bed.
Q. So where she was lying, you could see it from the head of the stairs?
A. Not exactly. You would have to come up the head of the stairs and go back a little.
_________
Prelim
Bowen
403
Q. You got to the front hall, and went up stairs?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. When you got up stairs yourself, what did you see?
A. As I was going into the door, I could look over the bed and see the prostrate form of a lady, a woman.
______
Trial
Bowen
307
A. She said I had better go up and see. I went directly through the dining-room and the corner of the sitting-room into the front hall, up the stairs --- front stairs --- and
Page 308
stopped a moment at the door of the front chamber --- guest chamber, front bedroom. At that point I looked over the bed and saw the prostrate form of Mrs. Borden.
Q. Where were you standing, Doctor, when you saw the form of Mrs. Borden?
A. Directly in the door of the room.
Q. What did you say?
A. I went around the back of the bed --- that is, the foot of the bed --- and between the form and the bed, and place my hand on her head. It was a little dark in the room, somewhat dark, not very light. I placed my hand on her head and found there were wounds in the head. Then I placed my --- felt of her pulse --- that is, felt of the wrist, and found she was dead.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Checking up on Lincoln:
212- Robinsky letter checked to be out of Waltham- yes- Evening Standard, dated August 25, 1892.
212 -Bence identified Lizzie partly by her "low and shaky voice"- yes, but Lincoln also states that Bence/Kilroy/Hart were taken to stand below the Borden windows to hear her voice, but that is not the information which comes to us through testimony. We have Bence only brought into the kitchen doorway and Lizzie questioned by Harrington in order for her answers to be heard by Bence so he could identify her partly by voice. Bence admits it was "low" and "tremulous."
--Since Lincoln wrote:
"The police, on first hearing Mr. Bence's story, had taken him along with Hart and Kilroy to stand below the windows of the Borden house and listen to Lizzie's voice; it was a stupid way to fix an identification, and the defense pounced upon it, attempting to make it appear that Mr. Bence had only recognized Lizzie by her voice heard through the window. The attempt fell flat and the defense knew better than to attempt it at the trial."
--and Bence was not placed under the window, nor do we gain the impression her voice was the only way Bence could identify Lizzie, this makes no sense, and no specific point.
212- Robinsky letter checked to be out of Waltham- yes- Evening Standard, dated August 25, 1892.
212 -Bence identified Lizzie partly by her "low and shaky voice"- yes, but Lincoln also states that Bence/Kilroy/Hart were taken to stand below the Borden windows to hear her voice, but that is not the information which comes to us through testimony. We have Bence only brought into the kitchen doorway and Lizzie questioned by Harrington in order for her answers to be heard by Bence so he could identify her partly by voice. Bence admits it was "low" and "tremulous."
--Since Lincoln wrote:
"The police, on first hearing Mr. Bence's story, had taken him along with Hart and Kilroy to stand below the windows of the Borden house and listen to Lizzie's voice; it was a stupid way to fix an identification, and the defense pounced upon it, attempting to make it appear that Mr. Bence had only recognized Lizzie by her voice heard through the window. The attempt fell flat and the defense knew better than to attempt it at the trial."
--and Bence was not placed under the window, nor do we gain the impression her voice was the only way Bence could identify Lizzie, this makes no sense, and no specific point.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
To be fair, Ms. Lincoln may be counting days differently than I do- that's possible.
I figure the crime happened on Thursday, day1-
then counting:
Friday, day 2
Saturday, day 3
Sunday, day 4
Monday, day 5
Tuesday, day 6,
Wednesday, day 7
She might not be considered wrong, but her days count is not "inclusive."
I don't mean to seem nit-picky, I'm just checking her out.
I figure the crime happened on Thursday, day1-
then counting:
Friday, day 2
Saturday, day 3
Sunday, day 4
Monday, day 5
Tuesday, day 6,
Wednesday, day 7
She might not be considered wrong, but her days count is not "inclusive."
I don't mean to seem nit-picky, I'm just checking her out.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
This is my last snag in this section. Did the book prior to this suggest Bridget as the culprit? And can anyone verify this last part that Knowlton suggested this "alternative possibility" to the judge?
Lincoln 224:
"However, he said to Pillsbury in the letter just mentioned: 'Nothing has developed which satisfies either of us that she is innocent; neither of us can escape the conclusion that she must have had some knowledge of the occurrence.' (He was still willing to believe that Lizzie and Bridget had pulled it off together, with Bridget wielding the axe; the fact that Lizzie had provided Bridget with an alibi for the death of Abby seemed to argue that they were in it together, and so, of course, did Lizzie's obvious fear that Bridget would let something slip about the earliest morning and the hour when Andrew came home. Knowlton was never sure. At the end of the trial he requested that the judge suggest to the jury the alternative possibility of Bridget's guilt and Lizzie's part as accessory to it)."
Lincoln 224:
"However, he said to Pillsbury in the letter just mentioned: 'Nothing has developed which satisfies either of us that she is innocent; neither of us can escape the conclusion that she must have had some knowledge of the occurrence.' (He was still willing to believe that Lizzie and Bridget had pulled it off together, with Bridget wielding the axe; the fact that Lizzie had provided Bridget with an alibi for the death of Abby seemed to argue that they were in it together, and so, of course, did Lizzie's obvious fear that Bridget would let something slip about the earliest morning and the hour when Andrew came home. Knowlton was never sure. At the end of the trial he requested that the judge suggest to the jury the alternative possibility of Bridget's guilt and Lizzie's part as accessory to it)."
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
Kat,
I will check back in Book 3 for any suggestions of Bridget's guilt, plus I will see if I can find anything in the KP's. I am painting my bedroom and refinishing the hardwood floors this weekend, so I will check inbetween coats of paint and varnish. Thank you so much for your comments in the book club. Your wealth of knowledge is very much appreciated.
Tracy...
I will check back in Book 3 for any suggestions of Bridget's guilt, plus I will see if I can find anything in the KP's. I am painting my bedroom and refinishing the hardwood floors this weekend, so I will check inbetween coats of paint and varnish. Thank you so much for your comments in the book club. Your wealth of knowledge is very much appreciated.
Tracy...
I'm defying gravity and you can't pull me down.
-
Harry
- Posts: 4061
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:28 pm
- Real Name: harry
- Location: South Carolina
The idea of the prosecution suggesting Lizzie acted as an accomplice, or had an accomplice, is contained in Justice Dewey's charge to the jury. These paragraphs are from pages 1914-1915, part II of the Trial transcript:
"Now, gentlemen, I have been asked by the counsel for the Commonwealth to give you instruction upon another view of this case, a view, so far as I remember, not suggested in the opening, or in the evidence, or hardly in the closing argument for the Commonwealth. And yet the evidence is of such a nature that it seems to us that, as a matter of law, the Government is entitled to have some instruction given you on this point; as a matter of fact, it would be entirely for you to consider whether the claim of the Government upon the matter to which I am going to refer is consistent with the claim which it has argued to you; whether the Government has not put this case to you, practically, upon the idea that the defendant did these acts with her own hands.
But it is a principle of law that a person may be indicted in just the form in which this defendant is indicted, that is, indicted as if she were charged with doing the act herself, and yet she may be convicted upon evidence which satisfies a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the act was done personally by another party, and that her relation to it was that of being present, aiding, abetting, sustaining, encouraging. If she stood in such a relation as that to the act, the act was done by some other person and she aided him, encouraged him, abetted him, was present somewhere, by virtue of an understanding with him, where she could render him assistance, and for the purpose of rendering assistance, then she would be a principal in the act just as much as the other party who might be acting.
But you notice the essential element. There must have been an understanding between her and her and this third party, if there was one, an agreement together for the commission of these crimes. She must have given her assent to it. She must have encouraged it. She must have been in a position where she could render assistance to the perpetrator, with his knowledge, by virtue of an understanding with him, and for the purpose of giving assistance either in the way of watching against some person's coining or furnishing him facilities for escape or in some other manner. The central idea of this proposition is that she must have been present by virtue of an agreement with the actor where she could render assistance of some kind, and for the purpose of rendering assistance. And if there was another party in this crime, and if she is proved beyond reasonable doubt to have sustained the relation to him in committing that crime which I have expressed to you, then she might be held under this indictment, because under such circumstances in the eye of the law, they both being in the sense of the law present, the act of one is the act of both."
I don't know if this is what Lincoln is referring to. No where in Dewey's charge is a specific person (ie: Bridget, according to Lincoln?) mentioned. Of course that would be expected since no formal charge was ever brought against another party.
I don't see how they can, in effect, modify the indictment after the trial was concluded. She was not charged with being an accomplice, and even though conviction as acting as one would result in the same punishment, it is not the crime for which she was tried. But Lizzie alone is the one charged with the "striking, beating, cutting, etc."
There has always been speculation that if further evidence had turned up indicating Lizzie's involvement as an accomplice, could she have been tried on that charge. Does Dewey, in mentioning that to the jury as part of their deliberation eliminate any future action against Lizzie under the double jeopardy clause?
"Now, gentlemen, I have been asked by the counsel for the Commonwealth to give you instruction upon another view of this case, a view, so far as I remember, not suggested in the opening, or in the evidence, or hardly in the closing argument for the Commonwealth. And yet the evidence is of such a nature that it seems to us that, as a matter of law, the Government is entitled to have some instruction given you on this point; as a matter of fact, it would be entirely for you to consider whether the claim of the Government upon the matter to which I am going to refer is consistent with the claim which it has argued to you; whether the Government has not put this case to you, practically, upon the idea that the defendant did these acts with her own hands.
But it is a principle of law that a person may be indicted in just the form in which this defendant is indicted, that is, indicted as if she were charged with doing the act herself, and yet she may be convicted upon evidence which satisfies a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the act was done personally by another party, and that her relation to it was that of being present, aiding, abetting, sustaining, encouraging. If she stood in such a relation as that to the act, the act was done by some other person and she aided him, encouraged him, abetted him, was present somewhere, by virtue of an understanding with him, where she could render him assistance, and for the purpose of rendering assistance, then she would be a principal in the act just as much as the other party who might be acting.
But you notice the essential element. There must have been an understanding between her and her and this third party, if there was one, an agreement together for the commission of these crimes. She must have given her assent to it. She must have encouraged it. She must have been in a position where she could render assistance to the perpetrator, with his knowledge, by virtue of an understanding with him, and for the purpose of giving assistance either in the way of watching against some person's coining or furnishing him facilities for escape or in some other manner. The central idea of this proposition is that she must have been present by virtue of an agreement with the actor where she could render assistance of some kind, and for the purpose of rendering assistance. And if there was another party in this crime, and if she is proved beyond reasonable doubt to have sustained the relation to him in committing that crime which I have expressed to you, then she might be held under this indictment, because under such circumstances in the eye of the law, they both being in the sense of the law present, the act of one is the act of both."
I don't know if this is what Lincoln is referring to. No where in Dewey's charge is a specific person (ie: Bridget, according to Lincoln?) mentioned. Of course that would be expected since no formal charge was ever brought against another party.
I don't see how they can, in effect, modify the indictment after the trial was concluded. She was not charged with being an accomplice, and even though conviction as acting as one would result in the same punishment, it is not the crime for which she was tried. But Lizzie alone is the one charged with the "striking, beating, cutting, etc."
There has always been speculation that if further evidence had turned up indicating Lizzie's involvement as an accomplice, could she have been tried on that charge. Does Dewey, in mentioning that to the jury as part of their deliberation eliminate any future action against Lizzie under the double jeopardy clause?
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Thanks Tracy- you sound busy!
But it seems Harry found what was meant.
Thanks Har!
It seems like Lincoln took the liberty of specifically naming Bridget here. I didn't think she could do that- but she did. That's why I wasn't sure where to look. It sounded surreal! In effect, any writer could name anyone here at this point, and get away with it!
Hmm. Very interesting.
Yes you're right, Har. The trial is over. Then a second party is introduced? Jeesh!
Sounds guilty to me! If I were on the jury and heard this bit, I'd start thinking hard!
The judge calls this a third party. Does he count the victims as party #1, then Lizzie as party #2, and then an accomplice as party #3?
And maybe someone learned in Mass. Law can help determine if this statement precluded Lizzie as ever being indicted as accessory later in these same murders? It sounds like the first indictment is all-inclusive - now.
But it seems Harry found what was meant.
Thanks Har!
It seems like Lincoln took the liberty of specifically naming Bridget here. I didn't think she could do that- but she did. That's why I wasn't sure where to look. It sounded surreal! In effect, any writer could name anyone here at this point, and get away with it!
Hmm. Very interesting.
Yes you're right, Har. The trial is over. Then a second party is introduced? Jeesh!
Sounds guilty to me! If I were on the jury and heard this bit, I'd start thinking hard!
The judge calls this a third party. Does he count the victims as party #1, then Lizzie as party #2, and then an accomplice as party #3?
And maybe someone learned in Mass. Law can help determine if this statement precluded Lizzie as ever being indicted as accessory later in these same murders? It sounds like the first indictment is all-inclusive - now.
-
doug65oh
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:26 am
- Real Name:
That charge by Justice Dewey is one of the most utterly confounding and confusing documents I've ever seen - for more reasons that that passage Harry found! 
In the event of an acquittal on double murder charges (ca. 1892) Lizzie was done...period. To effectively go back and retry her...say on a charge of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting the commission of a murder (which seems to be what Jusice Dewey is alluding to here), no can do that per the Fifth Amendment...
The key to all that mumbo-jumbo is here: "And if there was another party in this crime, and if she is proved beyond reasonable doubt to have sustained the relation to him in committing that crime which I have expressed to you, then she might be held under this indictment, because under such circumstances in the eye of the law, they both being in the sense of the law present, the act of one is the act of both."
In other words, if the evidence suggested that Lizzie was acting in consort to conspire, aid, or abet, then she would bear under the law a weight of guilt equal to that of the person who actually did the dirty deed, and should therefore be convicted.
Here's just a bit on the double-jeopardy concept as it applies under the Fifth Amendment. It comes from "THE CONSTITUTION of the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION avalable (free) at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html [For sake of time and your eyes, I've omitted the footnotes.]
'That a defendant may not be retried following an acquittal is ‘‘the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.’’
‘‘[T]he law attaches particular significance to an acquittal. To permit a second trial after an acquittal, however mistaken the acquittal may have been, would present an unacceptably high risk that the Government, with its vastly superior resources, might wear down the defendant so that ‘even though innocent he may be found guilty.’ ’’ While in other areas of double jeopardy doctrine consideration is given to the public-safety interest in having a criminal trial proceed to an error-free conclusion, no such balancing of interests is permitted with respect to acquittals, ‘‘no matter how erroneous,’’ no matter even if they were ‘‘egregiously erroneous.’’
The acquittal being final, there is no governmental appeal constitutionally possible from such a judgment. This was firmly established in Kepner v. United States, which arose under a Philippines appeals system in which the appellate court could make an independent review of the record, set aside the trial judge’s decision, and enter a judgment of conviction. Previously, under the due process clause, there was no barrier to state provision for prosecutorial appeals from acquittals. But there are instances in which the trial judge will dismiss the indictment or information without intending to acquit or in circumstances in which retrial would not be barred, and the prosecution, of course, has an interest in seeking on appeal to have errors corrected. Until 1971, however, the law providing for federal appeals was extremely difficult to apply and insulated from review many purportedly erroneous legal rulings, but in that year Congress enacted a new statute permitting appeals in all criminal cases in which indictments are dismissed, except in those cases in which the double jeopardy clause prohibits further prosecution. In part because of the new law, the Court has dealt in recent years with a large number of problems in this area.....'
The Borden trial is fascinating, but truth told I prefer our modern system - because nowadays judges put things to juries in plain English!
In the event of an acquittal on double murder charges (ca. 1892) Lizzie was done...period. To effectively go back and retry her...say on a charge of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting the commission of a murder (which seems to be what Jusice Dewey is alluding to here), no can do that per the Fifth Amendment...
The key to all that mumbo-jumbo is here: "And if there was another party in this crime, and if she is proved beyond reasonable doubt to have sustained the relation to him in committing that crime which I have expressed to you, then she might be held under this indictment, because under such circumstances in the eye of the law, they both being in the sense of the law present, the act of one is the act of both."
In other words, if the evidence suggested that Lizzie was acting in consort to conspire, aid, or abet, then she would bear under the law a weight of guilt equal to that of the person who actually did the dirty deed, and should therefore be convicted.
Here's just a bit on the double-jeopardy concept as it applies under the Fifth Amendment. It comes from "THE CONSTITUTION of the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION avalable (free) at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html [For sake of time and your eyes, I've omitted the footnotes.]
'That a defendant may not be retried following an acquittal is ‘‘the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.’’
‘‘[T]he law attaches particular significance to an acquittal. To permit a second trial after an acquittal, however mistaken the acquittal may have been, would present an unacceptably high risk that the Government, with its vastly superior resources, might wear down the defendant so that ‘even though innocent he may be found guilty.’ ’’ While in other areas of double jeopardy doctrine consideration is given to the public-safety interest in having a criminal trial proceed to an error-free conclusion, no such balancing of interests is permitted with respect to acquittals, ‘‘no matter how erroneous,’’ no matter even if they were ‘‘egregiously erroneous.’’
The acquittal being final, there is no governmental appeal constitutionally possible from such a judgment. This was firmly established in Kepner v. United States, which arose under a Philippines appeals system in which the appellate court could make an independent review of the record, set aside the trial judge’s decision, and enter a judgment of conviction. Previously, under the due process clause, there was no barrier to state provision for prosecutorial appeals from acquittals. But there are instances in which the trial judge will dismiss the indictment or information without intending to acquit or in circumstances in which retrial would not be barred, and the prosecution, of course, has an interest in seeking on appeal to have errors corrected. Until 1971, however, the law providing for federal appeals was extremely difficult to apply and insulated from review many purportedly erroneous legal rulings, but in that year Congress enacted a new statute permitting appeals in all criminal cases in which indictments are dismissed, except in those cases in which the double jeopardy clause prohibits further prosecution. In part because of the new law, the Court has dealt in recent years with a large number of problems in this area.....'
The Borden trial is fascinating, but truth told I prefer our modern system - because nowadays judges put things to juries in plain English!
-
doug65oh
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:26 am
- Real Name:
Well, theoretically yes she could although there's at least some question about the integrity of that prosecution, since it (the perjury allegation) would be based on information ruled inadmissible at trial. Then too, the perfect defense to such a charge would be to effectively question Lizzie's competence at the time the alleged perjured testimony was given, she having been on morphine at the time of inquest.
Partly it's a question of aesthetics, in a way. A post-acquittal prosecution (on charges of perjury for example) would make the Commonwealth look bad...as if they were out to serve a Borden bloodlust rather than the interests of justice.
Partly it's a question of aesthetics, in a way. A post-acquittal prosecution (on charges of perjury for example) would make the Commonwealth look bad...as if they were out to serve a Borden bloodlust rather than the interests of justice.
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah