Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [40Whacks] Legal issues

Expand Messages
  • WestList@AOL.com
    In a message dated 6/7/2002 4:16:18 PM Central Standard Time, ... I m not a lawyer, and I really don t understand why the druggist s testimony was
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 7, 2002
      In a message dated 6/7/2002 4:16:18 PM Central Standard Time, Laura4991@... writes:


      On a
      similar note I think they were correct in excluding the druggist's testimony
      too, and I think if the identical case happened today, a modern court would
      make the same two critical rulings. Of course to the rest of us, this
      inadmissible evidence paints a pretty damning picture of our Miss Lizzie but
      under the legal standards of the time - still the same basic ones that apply
      today - I don't think it's even arguably admissible and maybe that's why the
      prosecutor knew going in that he couldn't get a conviction.


      I'm not a lawyer, and I really don't understand why the druggist's
      testimony was inadmissible.  I believe it was ruled inadmissible
      because it dealt with a purported attempt to purchase prussic
      acid -- a poison -- when the murder was committed by a means
      other than poison.  Even so, doesn't the testimony serve to
      establish that the murder was being planned, regardless of the
      means that were ultimately used?  If so, why isn't it admissible?

      Any way I could get a brief explanation of this point of law -- without
      going into too much "legalese"?

      Thanks.



    • Muriel Arnold
      Hi gang: I m not a lawyer and was surprised the poison episode was not admitted, saying it was too far back in time!!!. No matter. According to Lizzie, she
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 7, 2002
        Hi gang:
        I'm not a lawyer and was surprised the poison episode was not admitted, saying it was too far back in time!!!.  No matter.  According to Lizzie, she did not even know where Smith's drugstore was.  That was possible, as I don't know where all the drugstores are around here either.
        Let's look at it in another way.  All the druggists in Fall River and surrounding areas that she was known to have gone to during the two weeks preceeding Mr. and Mrs. Borden's deaths were checked with negative results. 
        What no author ever mentioned was that a State Inspector McCaffrey and his wife were in town checking to see if she could get some druggist to sell her something which could not be sold without a prescription.
        They had even checked a Miss Carrie Poole in New Bedford to verify that Lizzie had spent several days with her when Lizzie and Emma had left Fall River together and parted in New Bedford.  They concluded Carrie Poole was mad.
        Muriel
        Muriel Arnold
         
        Author of  Lizzie Borden Hands of Time
        For more information
        muriela@...
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:32 PM
        Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Legal issues

        In a message dated 6/7/2002 4:16:18 PM Central Standard Time, Laura4991@... writes:


        On a
        similar note I think they were correct in excluding the druggist's testimony
        too, and I think if the identical case happened today, a modern court would
        make the same two critical rulings. Of course to the rest of us, this
        inadmissible evidence paints a pretty damning picture of our Miss Lizzie but
        under the legal standards of the time - still the same basic ones that apply
        today - I don't think it's even arguably admissible and maybe that's why the
        prosecutor knew going in that he couldn't get a conviction.


        I'm not a lawyer, and I really don't understand why the druggist's
        testimony was inadmissible.  I believe it was ruled inadmissible
        because it dealt with a purported attempt to purchase prussic
        acid -- a poison -- when the murder was committed by a means
        other than poison.  Even so, doesn't the testimony serve to
        establish that the murder was being planned, regardless of the
        means that were ultimately used?  If so, why isn't it admissible?

        Any way I could get a brief explanation of this point of law -- without
        going into too much "legalese"?

        Thanks.





        ---WHODUNIT???---

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • Muriel Arnold
        Patsy: The most incriminating evidence was what Knowlton dreamed up. I m hoping that Tesch, when he goes, makes the expirement about being unable to hear what
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 7, 2002
          Patsy:
          The most incriminating evidence was what Knowlton dreamed up.  I'm hoping that Tesch, when he goes, makes the expirement about being unable to hear what goes on in another room when the door is closed.
          Why is it that no one found it strange that when Mrs. Borden's body hit the floor, (with a thud which much have shaken the house), Lizzie didn't hear it, yet, Bridget, washing windows outside, on the opposite side of the house, heard it but had paid no attention to it?
          What about the bruises on Mrs. Borden's face?  Doesn't that suggest that she must have fallen to her knees first, then her face got bruised as it slid against the carpet ?
          Muriel
          Muriel Arnold
           
          Author of  Lizzie Borden Hands of Time
          For more information
          muriela@...
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 6:53 PM
          Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Legal issues

          Hi Laura,
          Had a great laugh over your infiltration remark.  Thank you for taking the time to review the legal aspects of the case.  Tell me what do you think was the most
          incriminating piece of evidence?

          Patsy


          ---WHODUNIT???---

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        • Patsy751@aol.com
          In a message dated 06/07/2002 11:44:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Lizzie SAID she ddiin t hear it....that doesn t mean she didnn t. Patsy
          Message 4 of 7 , Jun 8, 2002
            In a message dated 06/07/2002 11:44:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, muriela@... writes:


            Why is it that no one found it strange that when Mrs. Borden's body hit the floor, (with a thud which much have shaken the house), Lizzie didn't hear it


            Lizzie SAID she ddiin't hear it....that doesn't mean she didnn't.

            Patsy
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.