The Trial of Lizzie Borden(19)

Still others accused the police of persecution: they penned indignant letters to Marshal Hilliard and the papers. For example, Taunton resident Dr. S. P. Hubbard wrote: “I think the whole lot of you fellows better put your heads in soak . . . The idea of trying to fasten the Butchery of Mr. Borden on his daughter and letting the fellow escape . . . is outrageous in the extreme. He has had time to get to California.” Mr. Edward Parkhurst went further: “It is high time some one should inform you what an asinine servant of the law you are making of yourself. A coat of tar and feathers would be your just desserts [sic].” Hilliard defended himself against the suspicions of bias toward Lizzie Borden, urging the public to “suspend judgment”: “I have chased down more than 100 outside clews in 10 days . . . it was not until all the evidence was in that action was taken . . . she has not been imprisoned in haste nor without a full understanding of what her arrest means.”

Some in Fall River shared the outrage of Lizzie Borden’s far-flung supporters; others took a more jaundiced view, discerning the unstated prejudice in the concern about arresting “a lady.” When the bodies were discovered, the immediate and universal reaction was horror. But once the initial shock had passed, the local reactions revealed the discontent and division in Fall River. An anonymous correspondent berated the police: “You do not show much energy or interest in investigating the Borden murder—probably if the suspected parties were poor mill hands you would not stand on ceremony with them.” Indeed, as the Fall River Daily Herald reported, “A remark that is going the rounds is that if the parties at present suspected were poor people they would have been locked up before now.” For the Irish-Catholic paper of choice, the Fall River Daily Globe, and its readers, the contrasting treatment of Lizzie Borden and Bridget Sullivan was especially galling. While other newspapers praised Lizzie Borden for her “calm” and “self-possession,” the paper wondered at her coolness, describing her as “wearing a mask of stoical indifference that fit her like a glove.” It waited impatiently for the mask to slip.





Chapter 4


A MOST REMARKABLE WOMAN





Taunton Jail, showing the garden, 1892, courtesy of Fall River Historical Society



As defense counsel, Andrew Jennings worked to serve Lizzie’s interests inside and outside the courtroom. According to the New Bedford Evening Standard, Jennings lay “awake nights forming plans” for Lizzie Borden’s defense. He assumed the mantle of Lizzie’s protector and spokesman, directing his client and her friends not to talk to newspapers. In one instance, he even stood in for her dead father. When Curtis Piece, whom Lizzie Borden had previously met at Westport and who the police briefly and mistakenly suspected was her mystery lover, importuned Lizzie for permission to visit her in jail, Jennings sent a strongly worded rebuke. “Dear Sir,” he wrote, “For your sympathy . . . she is grateful but she is at a loss to understand why you should presume upon her unfortunate position to open correspondence with her, or write to Sheriff Wright asking for an interview. She does not wish to see you, nor to receive letters from you. She has not, ’tis true, a father to appeal to, or family to compel you to cease your attempts to force yourself upon her notice; but there are others who can and will supply his place.”





SUPPOSE A MAN




* * *



Jennings knew he had a formidable adversary in District Attorney Hosea Knowlton. Jennings had already lost his bid to represent Lizzie at the inquest. Their next clash came with the announcement that Judge Blaisdell—the judge who had presided over the inquest (and who had denied Jennings’s request to assist his client at that proceeding)—would also preside over Borden’s preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing, under Massachusetts law, was held to determine that the prosecution had sufficient evidence of a serious crime to try the defendant in superior court. The rationale for the hearing was essentially jurisdictional. The district court tried only minor crimes, misdemeanors, or felonies punishable with little to no jail time. Serious crimes—almost all felonies—required the judge to “bind over” the accused person for a trial in superior court. But, unlike the inquest, this was not a secret, one-sided proceeding. The prosecution did not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as at a trial, but it did need to show “probable cause.” Whether or not Knowlton chose to reveal his entire hand, it provided the defense with its first meaningful look at the evidence against Lizzie Borden and an opportunity to contest it.

At Judge Blaisdell’s announcement, Jennings “jumped to his feet.” He exclaimed: “The difference between this proceeding and the inquest is apparent and glaring.” Jennings said that the judge must be prejudiced against the defendant because of his prior knowledge of the evidence against her, evidence that might well not be admitted at trial. District Attorney Hosea Knowlton protested that the inquest and the arraignment were two entirely separate legal proceedings. In his “cool, metallic voice,” he argued: “There is nothing extraordinary in these proceedings . . . More than twenty times within my memory has this proceeding had an exact parallel.” The Fall River Daily Herald facetiously suggested a face-saving compromise: “This is a splendid time to take a vacation, why should his honor not cast off the mantle of justice for a while and seek the health-giving ozone of the mountains or the seaside?” Blaisdell, however, was impervious to such criticism. “A man of advanced years” who had “served in both branches of the State legislature” in addition to being the former mayor of Fall River. Blaisdell ignored the Herald and rejected Jennings’s argument.