The Trial of Lizzie Borden Part 3

Day 12
June 19, 1893

CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE

In his closing argument, Governor Robinson made the following points:
  • The jury's task is to determine the guilt or innocence of Lizzie Borden, not to solve the crime. Jurors must not be swayed in their opinion by any police statements or evidence which had been excluded by the court's rulings. Lizzie Borden's life is in the balance, and rather the true killer never be caught than Lizzie be sent to her death for a crime she did not commit.
  • The Commonwealth did not prove any of what they claimed they would prove:
    • that Lizzie was preparing a dangerous weapon before the murders;
    • that Lizzie attempted to purchase prussic acid to harm her family; or
    • that Lizzie contradicted herself at her inquest testimony
  • There is no direct evidence against Lizzie Borden
    • No handle for the handle-less hatchet;
    • No blood upon her person;
    • Nothing to link her directly to a murder weapon;
    • Her presence in the house is not incriminating, as it was her house, and she was free to move about as she saw fit; and
    • Her presence on the second floor does not prove her guilt
  • Since there is no direct evidence linking her to the crime, but there is circumstantial evidence, the Commonwealth put a lot of weight on motive.
  • The story about Mrs. Borden and the note could have been true. Mrs. Churchill testified that Bridget told her the story, and that Lizzie may have heard the story from Bridget. This does not mean that Bridget is guilty of the crime.
  • Lizzie's story about going to the barn is not proven false by any contradictions in her statements, either about how much time she spent there or by her stated reasons for going thus.
  • Lizzie's stories about hearing a groan or a scraping noise are not proof that she was lying. Those noises could have been made anywhere, from the street, for example.
  • A guilty party with a false story would be more consistent in their details, while an innocent person who is struggling to remember may alter their story in slight details, as Lizzie did.
  • Andrew Borden could not be blamed for being old fashioned and modest in his lifestyle. Characterizing the living conditions of the Borden family as creating a possible motive for murder is a gross exaggeration.
  • There is nothing criminal about a thirty-two year-old woman not wishing to call her step-mother "Mother".
  • Lizzie Borden is not a Saint, and could very well have said something mean about her step-mother, but that doesn't mean that she would murder her.
  • The Commonwealth did not prove that there was division in the family. Both Bridget and Emma testified as to the conditions inside the house and relations between the family members, and nothing showed any motive for murder.
  • The excessive use of locks in the house could easily be explained by the circumstances that Andrew had valuables in the house, and he was responding to the robbery he had experienced the previous spring.
  • The entire family's becoming sick at the same time is a not uncommon occurrence.
  • Lizzie called for Bridget shortly after discovering the body, an act that suggests fear and innocence.
  • Lizzie's visit to Alice Russell on the evening before the murders and the confessions she made of her fears and premonitions to Alice during that visit are actions inconsistent with someone who is guilty of the murders.
  • Lizzie and Alice's visit to the cellar was perfectly innocent.
  • The Commonwealth attempted to prove that Lizzie lied by presenting to the police the dress she wore. The Commonwealth contended that Lizzie had burned the Bedford Cord dress that she had on the morning of the murders; but many witnesses testified that when she wore that dress on the morning of the murders, there was no blood on it. Why would she burn a dress with the motive of getting rid of blood-stained evidence if there was no blood on it? Further, the defense had also produced a dress-maker and a house painter, as well as Emma Borden, who verified the story that Lizzie had stained a dress with paint and was thus seeking to get rid of the dress by burning it.
  • Hannah Reagan's story is completely discredited.
  • The handle-less hatchet was dismissed and treated casually as evidence until Professor Wood declared that the other hatchets and axes were unlikely to have been the murder weapon. It was then that the handle-less hatchet was suddenly thrust into the case as being significant. Even if the killer had washed the blade, the blood would have flowed into very narrow places, including the broken wood of the handle, but not a trace of blood had been found.
  • Because the side door was unlocked and the screen door unlatched during the times of the murders, a killer could have gotten into the house while Bridget was doing the outside windows and Lizzie was moving about the house, going up and down stairs, etc. Perhaps the killer murdered Mrs. Borden while hunting for Andrew, and then killed Andrew at the next opportunity.
  • Officer Medley's examination of the barn was discredited by the testimony of others that they had been in the barn before Medley.
  • If Lizzie committed the murders, she no doubt would have had to change her dress several times that morning, once after Abby's murder to remove the bloody dress, then again before Andrew's murder to put on the bloody dress again (unless there were two blood-stained dresses), and then again after Andrew's murder and before raising the alarm to Bridget. Besides, she would have had to divide her time between the cellar where there was running water with which to clean herself and the murder weapon, and the upstairs bedroom where she could change her dress.
  • A final plea is directed to the jury to deliver a verdict of Not Guilty and to return Lizzie to her "bloodstained and wrecked" home.
CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

In his closing argument, District Attorney Knowlton made the following points:
  • The crimes were indeed terrible, and our instincts revolt against the idea that they were carried out by a woman, but women are indeed capable of such acts, as proven by history and literature.
  • In bringing the case before the jury, the Commonwealth summoned friends, family, neighbors, even Lizzie's personal physician. They also brought witnesses from the ranks of the police and law enforcement, men who were overwhelmed by the scope of the crime, as to the horrific nature of which they had little experience.
  • Circumstantial evidence is just as valuable as direct evidence. Most murders are committed secretly, in stealth, and are sought to be concealed by the perpetrator; and most cases involve circumstantial evidence. No one directly saw Lizzie Borden burn the Bedford Cord dress, and yet it was burned and no one questions it. The acts and circumstances leading up to the burning and those after the burning are proof enough that the dress was burned.
  • There is no scientific doubt that Abby and Andrew Borden were killed some time apart from each other, and the idea that the killer entered the house unseen and hid for upwards of ninety minutes is absurd.
  • Abby Borden didn't have an enemy in the world, except Lizzie. Only Lizzie would have had a motive to want to harm Abby.
  • The excessive use of locks in the house is very significant. The fact that front door was unexpectedly locked (with all three locks) the morning of the murders was suggestive of an assassin who wouldn't want to box himself into the house, but the sign of someone inside the house who was familiar with its protocol.
  • A killer could not have killed Abby Borden in the way in which she was slain without making some noise, whether it was Abby's body hitting the floor, or her screaming, or the repeated blows of the hatchet. It is unlikely that Lizzie would not have heard a thing if she were inside the house at the time the slaying happened.
  • Abby Borden never received a note from a sick friend. All Bridget knew about the note came from Lizzie as the sole author of the story. Such a note would not make sense: why would a killer try to get Abby out of the house if he was going to assassinate her? If a note really was used to get Abby out of the house in order to kill Andrew, why not try to get Lizzie and Bridget out of the house?
Day 13
June 20, 1893

CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH (Continued)

In the continuation of his closing argument, District Attorney Knowlton made the following points:
  • The Commonwealth does not need to show motive, but to prove that Lizzie committed the murders;
  • Lizzie's alibi is clearly fabricated:
    • Why would she commence ironing at the hottest point of the day?
    • Why would she stop ironing the moment that Bridget Sullivan goes upstairs to rest?
    • How could she have spent 20 minutes in the barn, a space that had not been opened in a year, in the sweltering heat?
    • Why would she choose to spend time in the incredibly hot barn just at the very moment an assassin struck her father?
    • The defense did not produce anything plausible for Lizzie's alibi, such as showing that the screen door needed fixing, or producing the sinkers or fishing line that Lizzie was allegedly tending to in the barn;
  • The testimony of Mr. Lubinsky is suspect because the evidence suggests he was pulling his team before the Borden house much later than he stated, and that the woman he saw in the yard could easily have also been Mrs. Churchill or Alice Russell;
  • Lizzie's cold demeanor in the aftermath of the murders is highly suspect. While other people expressed fear of being in the house, Lizzie, upon discovery of her father's body, didn't even leave the house, and sent Bridget to get Dr. Bowen and Alice Russell, two trusted family friends, rather than raising an alarm that would summon the police. Mrs. Churchill and others only found out about the murders by chance (Churchill saw Bridget in the street). It seemed as if Lizzie was trying to contain and control the events right after the alarm;
  • Likewise, Lizzie did not hesitate to go into the dark cellar that evening. Even Alice Russell was clearly scared to follow her into the wash cellar;
  • Mrs. Churchill and Dr. Bowen, who were clearly loyal to Lizzie, failed to identify the dress that Lizzie had given to the police as the one she had worn that morning. But their responses were such that they seemed to be dodging the issue, to avoid clearly answering the question ("Was that the dress she on that morning?"), as if they were aware their answers could incriminate their friend;
  • The police search of the house did not produce a dress stained with paint, which means it must have been hidden. But if it was only paint, why hide it? The Commonwealth is not concerned with proving how Lizzie may have covered up the crime; its burden is to prove that she committed the murders;
  • Hannah Reagan was wrong to tell the story of the Lizzie-Emma fight to the newspapers, and her denial of it was probably due to her realizing of how wrong it had been;
  • The handle-less hatchet was indeed treated casually and put away as if it were insignificant, simply because another hatchet had been found covered with what looked like blood and hair. When the forensics showed that the blood and hair was not human, attention was then given to the handle-less hatchet, which now looked more promising as a murder weapon due to the break in the wood and the observation that, at the time it was found, it had been freshly cleaned;
  • Much evidence points to the conclusion that the killer was a member of the household, including the fact that no blood was found trailed along hallways, in closets, or from room-to-room; that the killer knew exactly when to strike and how Lizzie and Bridget were moving about the house; that no murder weapon had been found and it was unlikely that a murder weapon left the house after the murders;
  • Abby Borden never received a note to go out as Lizzie claimed. Why would someone who wanted to kill Abby write her a note summoning her out of the house? And if the killer was targeting Andrew, why would he only try to get Abby out of the house, leaving Lizzie and Bridget?
  • The defense has produced nothing substantive. They have only produced absurd and impossible alibis, thin assaults on the stories of Hannah Reagan and Officer Medley, drunken men in the street, and dogs knocking about in yards.
LIZZIE BORDEN SPEAKS

After the conclusion of Knowlton's summary, Lizzie Borden was asked if she wanted to add any words. Her reply was: "I am innocent. I leave it to my counsel to speak for me."

Upon this, the Justices gave a charge to the jury and then dismissed them.

THE VERDICT

At approximately 4:30 p.m., the justices resumed their seats, the jury was brought in, and a verdict of Not Guilty was returned. At approximately 4:38 p.m., the Court was adjourned.