Ladies and Gentlemen Your theories please

[theebmonique]

Knowing and “aiding and abetting” are two different things. A person cannot be charged as an accessory simply because he/she knows something. As for obstructing justice, the state or commonwealth would have to prove an individual on the witness stand was concealing information and that would be next to impossible.

Perhaps the reason Lizzie did not tell her father about her fears is because he already knew. There is some evidence he acted “strangely” in the days leading up to the murders.

Lenore,

May I ask what your experience in the legal system is, as I have none. What were the laws in Massachusetts at that time and would they have been the same in 1892 as they are now for this type of case ? Also, what was it that Andrew did that was considered "acting strangely" by others in Fall River ?

[Lenore]

Among other things, I perform legal research for various attorneys, draft pleadings (including appeals), demand letters to insurance companies, etc.

“Aiding and abetting” derives from ancient common law and was adopted by the American colonies.

I’m not absolutely certain, but I think it was Victoria Lincoln who mentions that a day or so before the murders, the treasurer of one of Fall River’s textile mills met Andrew Borden on the street and asked if he was going to his farm in Swansea to escape the heat. Borden indicated there was trouble in his house and he couldn’t go anywhere until it was settled. (The man who had the encounter with Borden thought it strange because Borden never discussed personal matters.) There was also the white package people saw Andrew carrying when he returned home the morning of August 4. Some claim it contained a broken lock but that makes no sense whatsoever. Whatever it contained, neither the item, the paper in which it was wrapped, (nor the broken lock) was ever found.

[theebmonique]

Wow ! That is great...so does that mean you are a paralegal ? We love having people with a working legal expertise here on the forum.

I’m not absolutely certain, but I think it was Victoria Lincoln who mentions that a day or so before the murders, the treasurer of one of Fall River’s textile mills met Andrew Borden on the street and asked if he was going to his farm in Swansea to escape the heat. Borden indicated there was trouble in his house and he couldn’t go anywhere until it was settled. (The man who had the encounter with Borden thought it strange because Borden never discussed personal matters.)

Yes, Slick had that in her book. She names the man as Ben Read, who she thought may be her courtesy "Uncle". (Chapter 6, pg. 60)

There was also the white package people saw Andrew carrying when he returned home the morning of August 4. Some claim it contained a broken lock but that makes no sense whatsoever. Whatever it contained, neither the item, the paper in which it was wrapped, (nor the broken lock) was ever found.

Also according Ms. Slick, it was a hatter named Clegg, who rented a store from Andrew, that saw him passing by and he "hurried out and caught him for a further word" about renting a second store. "Andrew stepped inside his door for a moment. Two of Clegg's countrymen, Mather and Shortsleeves by name, were doing a little carpentry in the front of the shop. As Andrew left, the had the pleasure of watching him exhibit his character as the town's living legend. A broken lock was lying on the floor, and Andrew stooped, salvaged it prudently, and dropped it into his pocket." (Chapter 9, pgs. 81-82) Then further on pg. 82 she states: "Andrew had been seen to pocket a lock, and a neighbor had mentioned passing him with an undescribed 'something' in his hand wrapped in white paper." I am not able at this pont to see that she mentions who the neighbor is specifically. Could "a neighbor" have possibly been Mrs. Kelly, who Lincoln states that on that day, (Chapter 9, pg. 84) "passed him on her way to the dentist." ?


Tracy...

[Allen]

(Trial testimony Jonathan Clegg page 172)

Q. Where did you first see Mr. Borden on the morning of August 4th?
A. In my store, 6 North Main Street.

Q. Did you see him before he came into the store?
A. I called him into the store. I wished to see him that morning.

Q. Where was he when you called him into the store?
A. The opposite side of the street. I was wanting to see him specially that morning.

Q. Did you have some talk with him in your store?
A. Yes, sir.

-------------------------------------------------------------
(page 173)

Q. At that time Mr. Clegg you were having some dealing with him with reference to hiring another store?
A. I had already hired it. I was to make arrangements.

Q. And that store is where?
A. 92 South Main Street.


(Trial Testimony Joseph Shortsleeves page 176)

Q. On the 4th of August , 1892 , were you at work upon the store that is now occupied by Mr. Clegg?
A. Yes, sir.

Q.The store that is on what street?
A. On Main street, sir.


(page 177)

Q. Did you see Mr. Borden on the morning of August 4th?
A. Yes, sir.

Q.Where did you see him?
A. I saw him coming up South Main street from the City Hall towards where we were working.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. When he came to your shop, what did he do?
A. He came into the front door, went to the back part of the store, picked up a lock that had been on the front store door. It was all broken to pieces. He looked at it, laid it down again, went up stairs, then went from the back part of the shop up to the front part of the shop upstairs over our head; was there a few moments, and came down again and picked the lock up and walked out.


(Trial Testimony James Mather page 184)

Q. On the 4th day of August 1892, where were you working?
A. I was working up in Jonathan Cleggs store, fixing it for him.

page 185:

Q. Do you recall on the morning a person coming there that was told to you to be Mr. Borden?
A. Mr. Shortsleeves is the one that told me it was Mr. Borden.

(page 186)

Q. Did he do anything or have any conversation with anyone?
A. He spoke to Mr. Shortsleeves that time.

Q. Then what did he do?
A. He went then inside and picked up a lock, and then went out again.

[Kat]

Kat, as I mentioned in another thread, I believe municipal water was available in Fall River as early as 1869. The water in the Andrew Borden House at the time he purchased it was provided by hand-pumps. He had the upstairs pump which was located in what was later called the “sink” room removed. The second floor sink was still there when the printing company owned the building. Gas was available, primarily for lighting, yet, Andrew Borden relied on kerosene lamps and he refused to install a telephone. The stove was also antiquated for the day and had no reservoir for hearing water so water had to be heated on top of the stove.

Knowing and “aiding and abetting” are two different things. A person cannot be charged as an accessory simply because he/she knows something. As for obstructing justice, the state or commonwealth would have to prove an individual on the witness stand was concealing information and that would be next to impossible.

Perhaps the reason Lizzie did not tell her father about her fears is because he already knew. There is some evidence he acted “strangely” in the days leading up to the murders.

I have given my source for the city water question (1874) at:
viewtopic.php?t=786&start=50

Please consider posting with some source as otherwise there is confusion, and duplication of effort.
Thanks!

I think if they wanted to bad enought they very well could have hit Lizzie with these other charges. Provable or otherwise. Phillips pretty much says in his Defense that her files were protected because of the status of an open case.