Lizzie Borden Trial - Case Study Example

Sur 19 December Lizzie Borden Trial Introduction: The Lizzie Borden Trial presents the case of the murders of the parents of Lizzie Borden and Emma Borden in a significantly ruthless manner. It was in the year 1892 that the Bordens were murdered in their home brutally axed and killed into pieces. The trial in the year 1893 was a result of the younger daughter of the Bordens, Lizzie, being doubted to be the murderer of her parents (Linder). The present study reflects the case of the trial summarizing the prosecution as well as the defense sides of the trial. The Prosecution of the Trial: Within a few days of the two murders that occurred in the Borden family August 4, 1892, certain evidences had started hinting on the fact that Lizzie Borden might have killed her parents. Thus the trial started. However, the prosecution team led by District Attorney Knowlton and Thomas Moody failed to prove their evidences to have sufficient value against the defense team’s presentations. The different evidences that the prosecution had to present before the jury included a blue dress that Lizzie had tried to burn, as said by witness, Alice Russell, followed by the contradictory statements made by Lizzie, the statement of the maid who had seen Lizzie in the blue dress, as well as Lizzie being the only person present in the home when the murders took place. The prosecution team also tried to focus on the fact that the relation between Lizzie and her step-mother, who was one of the victims, was not good. Witnesses had provided mixed responses in this regard while one was supporting a good relation and others clearly mentioning that Lizzie herself did not bother to accept her as her mother. Moreover, the team had got proofs that before the murder had taken place, Lizzie was found to purchase prussic acid that acts like a poison in the human body (Linder). Witnesses had also made statements for the team of prosecution stating that Lizzie was worried for her father and his wellbeing and that after the murders; Lizzie had doubts over the tenants with whom her father supposedly had some issues. Even regarding the dress that Lizzie had burnt, she had given an explanation that the dress was covered with paints. The prosecution team had tried to focus on the above mentioned issues and determine that Lizzie could be the only person who could be responsible for the murder of her parents. Her purchase of the poison, her being the only person present during the time of the murders, her not being able to explain about the whereabouts of her mother, her burning a dress, as well as her providing the investigation team with contradictory statements were the primary factors on which the prosecution team had presented their views and charges against Lizzie Borden during the sessions of the trial (Linder). However, what the prosecution team had lacked in this session was to efficiently prove with these evidences that it could be only Lizzie and no one else who could have killed the Bordens. This lack of proof was taken advantage of by the defense team who won the case since they questioned the prosecution team on all the evidences that they had presented and which they became unable to respond with proofs as discussed in the next section. The Defense of the Trial: The defense team for Lizzie Borden included Andrew Jennings and George Robinson who was the former Governor of Massachusetts. The defense team was able to win the case since they took advantage of the lack of proof on the evidences that the prosecution team had presented in front of the jury. There were several contradictory statements provided by the witnesses that the defense team brought into focus. They also questioned the value of the evidences that the prosecution team had focused on. If the prosecution team had provided the burning of the dress by Lizzie as evidence, the defense team defended by saying that a criminal would not do such an act openly keeping an eye-witness to remain as evidence (Linder). The defense team quite successfully proved that the statements regarding the different timings of the murder or Lizzie’s discovering the murder and the maid hearing Lizzie’s cry, were not relevantly significant or matching with the incident. Moreover, the defense team presented, before the jury, some of the witnesses who stated the presence of other people around or in the house before the murder had taken place. A neighbor had also come for breakfast with Mr. Borden in the morning. Also, one of the most significant evidence that the defense team had with them was the statement of Emma who was the elder sister of Lizzie. Emma had clearly stated that the relation between Lizzie and her father was very good and that they shared a bond between them. Also, with her step-mother Lizzie had a normal relation. This statement by Emma was a great support for the defense of Lizzie. The defense team had few witnesses of its own but the questions it had arisen against the evidences presented by the prosecution team led the prosecution team to be unable to prove their charges against Lizzie Borden (Linder). The defense team through their points against the prosecutions team’s witnesses and evidences, as well as through their own witnesses proved that the two murders could not in any way prove Lizzie Borden to be the murderer. The evidences that were presented by the prosecution team lacked sufficient proof that could ensure that there was no other person who could be doubted for the murders. In fact the defense team presented witnesses with evidences of others who were seen around the house on the morning or one or two days before the murder had taken place. Thus the defense team could come to a conclusion that Lizzie Borden was not the murderer since any proof of blood stains, or instrument with which the murder might have been committed, could not be obtained (Linder). In addition to this, in those days people could not believe that a lady could perform such severe acts. Thus the jury presented its opinion and views in support of the defense team, since the prosecution team’s evidences and witnesses lacked proof, and Lizzie was released to be a non-guilty person. Conclusion: The case clearly presents that although the prosecution team had several evidences that hinted on Lizzie being the murderer of her parents, but they could not use the evidences efficiently to prove the case. On the other hand, the defense team proved to win since they took advantage of the prosecution team’s lack of proof and questioned them that the prosecutors could not respond to. Also they presented few witnesses that stressed on the fact that the murder could have been done by any other person. Lizzie thus got relief from the case and moved on with her life after the incident. References 1) Linder, Doug, The Trial of Lizzie Borden, umkc, 2004, December 19, 2011, from: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/LizzieBorden/bordenaccount.html Read More