Miss Lucy Collett who sat on the veranda of Dr. Chagnon’s residence most of the forenoon testified that she saw no one pass out across the Chagnon yard. Thomas Bolles was washing a carriage in Mrs. Churchill’s yard and saw no one. Patrick McGowan, Joseph Desrosiers and John Denny, stone cutters, were at work all the forenoon in John Crowe’s stone yard adjoining and back of the Borden premises, and they each swore that they saw no one pass out that way. Mrs. Hannah Reagan, matron of the Central Police Station and who had the care of Miss Borden at the time of the preliminary trial said: “On the 24th of August Emma came in to see Lizzie in the morning; I was in the room, cleaning up; she spoke with her sister and I went into a toilet room and hearing loud talk, looked out and saw Lizzie lying on her side and Emma bending down over her. Lizzie said: ‘You have given me away, Emma, but I don’t care, I won’t give in one inch,’ measuring on her finger. Emma said: ‘Oh, Lizzie, I didn’t;’ at the same time sitting down; they sat there until 11 o’clock, when Mr. Jennings came, but Lizzie made no talk at all with her sister after; never opened her mouth to her; when I first heard the noise of loud talking I was about four feet away, in a closet; when Emma left that morning there was nothing said by either and no ‘good-bye’ exchanged.” This testimony created a decided sensation.
Cross-examined by Mr. Jennings—“Emma remained there in that room until you came, and when you came you said to Emma, ‘Have you told her all?’ and Emma said she had told her all she had to tell; Emma came back again in the afternoon, but I can’t tell just when; Mr. Buck was there, I am quite sure; he came every day. When Miss Emma came in the afternoon I can’t tell; there was no one there in the morning but her sister and you; I don’t remember whether Mrs. Holmes, Miss Annie Holmes or Mrs. Brigham were there or not; I know that Miss Borden looked more excited when you (Mr. Jennings) left the room than she did before. I do remember something about an egg one afternoon; it was over the fact that I said an egg could be broken one way and not another, and I made a bet with Mrs. Brigham about it; Lizzie took the egg and tried to break it her way, and failing, said this was the first time she ever attempted to do anything and didn’t succeed; when I spoke of the affair between the sisters I spoke of it as a quarrel; this was before the first hearing. I don’t know whether the story of the quarrel was published in the morning papers; I was asked about it by reporters; it was that very afternoon, and also in the morning; I never told any reporter that it was all a lie, that there wasn’t a word of truth in it; Mr. Buck spoke to me about it in my room, but I never told him it wasn’t true; I never said a word to Mrs. Holmes about it. There was a paper drawn up subsequently, in relation to this story, it was brought to me by Mr. Buck.” (Statement was here read, in which it was set forth that there had not been a quarrel between the sisters, and that she had never said so.) She said she never expressed a willingness to sign the paper, and that Marshal Hilliard never said a word to her about signing the paper; he never said, to her remembrance, “If you sign that paper you sign it against my express orders.” Mr. Buck never asked her about signing the paper if the marshal was willing. “The marshal told me to go to my room; there was no one in the room when I went back for I had the door locked and the key in my pocket; I never said to the marshal that I’d rather leave my place than have such lies told about me; I never had any conversation with Mrs. Holmes about this paper; I never said to Mrs. Holmes in referring to the story, ‘You know they didn’t quarrel because you were here and we were talking about the egg.’ The reporter to whom I told the story in the afternoon was Mr. Porter of the Fall River Globe; I never saw the contents of any paper, but Mr. Buck came to me and said he had heard of such a report, that he had seen it in a paper, and I said, ‘You can’t always believe all you
see in the papers;’ he wanted me to sign the paper; said that if I did it would be all right between the sisters; I said I would go and see the marshal about it. We went down to the marshal’s office and he told me to go to my room, told Mr. Buck to mind his own business, and he would attend to his; the marshal said then what story I had to tell I would tell in court; I do not remember your (Mr. Jennings) being in the marshal’s room and I don’t remember your conversation with him; I never heard you say to the marshal ‘If you refuse to let this woman sign this paper, I’ll publish you to the world.’”
Eli Bence, a drug clerk, was then called. He was prepared to tell the story of how the prisoner attempted to buy ten cents worth of hydrocianic acid from him on the day before the murders, but Gov. Robinson objected. The Jury was sent out and counsel argued the question of the admissibility of the testimony. The State claimed that it would show the state of Miss Borden’s mind the day before the homicides. The Judges decided that it was incompetent and therefore must be ruled out. This was the second prop knocked from under the Government’s case. This ended the testimony for the prosecution and the case rested.
CHAPTER XXIX.
Eleventh Day of the Trial.
During the forenoon of the eleventh day, Andrew J. Jennings Esq., presented the defendant’s case as follows: “May it please your honors, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the jury,—I want to make a personal allusion before referring directly to the case. One of the victims of the murder charged in this indictment was for many years my client and my personal friend. I had known him since my boyhood. I had known his oldest daughter for the same length of time; and I want to say right here and now, if I manifest more feeling than perhaps you think necessary in making an opening statement for the defence in this case you will ascribe it to that cause. The counsel, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, does not cease to be a man when he becomes a lawyer. Fact and fiction have furnished many extraordinary examples of crime that have shocked the feelings and staggered the reason of men, but I think no one has ever surpassed in its mystery the case that you are now considering. The brutal character of the wounds is only equalled by the audacity, by the time and the place chosen here: and, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, it needed but the accusation of the youngest daughter of one of the victims to make this the act, as it would seem to most men, of an insane person or a fiend. I do not propose to go into details about the character of those wounds or the appearance that was presented. I think you have heard sufficiently about that already. But, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, knowing what they were, the person who is arrested for doing the deed which I have characterized as I have was the youngest daughter of one of the victims themselves. A young woman, thirty-two years of age, up to that time of spotless character and reputation, who had spent her life nearly in that immediate neighborhood, who had moved in and out of that old house for twenty or twenty-one years, living there with her father and with her step-mother and with her sister—this crime that shocked the whole civilized world, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, seemed from the very first to be laid at her door by those who represented the government
in the investigation of the case. We shall show you that this young woman as I have said had apparently led an honorable, spotless life: she was a member of the church: she was interested in the church matters: she was connected with various organizations for charitable work: she was ever ready to help in any good thing, in any good deed, and yet for some reason or other the government in its investigation seemed to fasten the crime upon her. Now a crime like this naturally awakens at its first result a sort of a selfish fear in men. There is really an outcry of human hearts to have somebody punished for the crime. But, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, no matter how much you may want somebody punished for the crime, it is the guilty and not the innocent that you want. The law of blood for blood and life for life, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, even in its most stringent form in the past, never, except in barbarous and uncivilized nations, called for the blood of the innocent in return for the blood or life of the murdered one. Our law—and it is the law that you have sworn to apply to the evidence in this case—presumes every man innocent until he is proved guilty, not guilty until he is proved innocent. I know you may say it is the duty of the State to vindicate the death of one of its citizens. Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, it is a higher duty, and one recognized by the law of this State, that it shall protect the lives of its living citizens. The law of Massachusetts to-day draws about every person accused of this crime or any other the circle of the presumption of his or her innocence, and allows no juryman or jury to cross it until they have fulfilled the conditions required: until they show that it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she is the guilty party, they are not allowed to cross the line and take the life of the party who is accused. The commonwealth here has charged that Lizzie Andrew Borden, in a certain way, at a certain time, killed Andrew Jackson Borden and Abby Durfee Borden with malice aforethought. And that alone is the question that you are to answer: Did she on that day commit that deed? Did she commit it in the way alleged, or to put it in its other form, have they satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it? And what is a reasonable doubt? Well, I saw a definition, and it struck me it was a very good one. A reasonable doubt is a doubt for which you can give a reason. If you can conceive of any other hypothesis that will exclude the guilt of this prisoner and make it possible or probable that somebody else might have done this deed, then you have got a reasonable doubt in your mind. Now, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, I want to say a word about
the kind of evidence. There are two kinds of evidence, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the testimony of persons who have seen, heard or felt the thing or things about which they are testifying. They are telling you something which they have observed or perceived by their senses. For instance, if this was a case of murder by stabbing, and a man should come before you and testify that he saw the prisoner strike the murdered person with a knife, that is direct evidence; that tends directly to connect the prisoner with the crime itself. Circumstantial evidence is entirely different and I want to say right here, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen—I call your attention to it now, and I do not think that the commonwealth will question the statement when I make it—that there is not one particle of direct evidence in this case from beginning to end against Lizzie Andrew Borden. There is not a spot of blood, there is not a weapon that they have connected with her in any way, shape or fashion. They have not had her hand touch it, or her eye see it, or her ear hear it. There is not, I say, a particle of direct testimony in the case connecting her with this crime. It is wholly and absolutely circumstantial. In proving a murder it is necessary for the government to prove that all of the facts existed which to your minds make you morally certain that the murder must have followed from it. In other words, in circumstantial evidence it is simply an opinion on your part, it is simply an inference drawn by you as to the facts that are proved as to whether the essential issue has been proved or not.” Here Mr. Jennings cited several cases intended to show how uncertain is circumstantial evidence. Continuing he said: “It is not then, as I said before I started upon this long talk about circumstantial evidence, and I hope you will pardon me, for I think it is very important that you get this point in your mind, it is not for you to unravel the mystery of how he died. It is not for you to withhold your decision until you have satisfied your mind as to how it was done, and just who did it. It is, have they furnished the proof, the proof that the law requires, that Lizzie Andrew Borden did it, and that there is absolutely no opportunity for anybody else. Now, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, I have taken a little more time than I intended to in discussing the question of circumstantial evidence. I have said that it was necessary for them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the allegation of the indictment. Circumstantial evidence has often been likened to a chain. These facts which have to be proven in order to allow you to draw the inference