Full Version: "Lizzie Borden Took An Axe . . ."
It is almost the 114th anniversary of this horrible crime:
Link
The average person probably knows nothing more about this case than this famous bit of ghoulish verse:
But does the average person know that Lizzie was acquitted for the crime?
To be debated:
1. Do you have any opinion to offer on whether Lizzie Borden was really guilty of brutally murdering her father and stepmother?
More generally:
2. How should one react to a verdict with which one does not agree? What do you do if you feel that justice has not been served?
You can spend a night in the house where the murders took place:
Link
The gift shop sells a bobble-head doll of Lizzie, complete with bloody axe.
3. Is there something wrong with selling this doll, since Lizzie was acquitted of the murders? Does it make any difference that the crimes took place more than a century ago? Would it have been acceptable to sell a bobble-head doll of O. J. Simpson with a bloody knife after his first trial?
There have been many songs, stories, and movies based on the Borden murders.
4. When does a tragic incident in real life become acceptable material for fiction? When it is fair play to treat real people as fictional characters? Must a certain amount of time go by before this can happen?
Link
QUOTE
On August 4, 1892, Lizzie Borden discovered the body of her father at the home at 92 Second Street in Fall River. She called to the family's maid Bridget Sullivan (who had been resting in her third floor room) to "come downstairs...father is dead...somebody got in and murdered him." After the arrival of family friend Alice Russell and Dr. Bowen, neighbor Adelaide Churchill asked Lizzie where her mother was. "I don't know," Borden replied, continuing on "but what if she's been killed, too, for I thought I heard her come in." Russell suggested that someone look for Mrs. Borden, and Sullivan and Churchill were sent to the second floor. The two returned shortly thereafter confirming that Lizzie's stepmother was indeed upstairs and dead as well.
Both Bordens had been slain by multiple axe blows.
Both Bordens had been slain by multiple axe blows.
The average person probably knows nothing more about this case than this famous bit of ghoulish verse:
QUOTE
Lizzie Borden took an axe
And gave her mother forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done
She gave her father forty-one.
And gave her mother forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done
She gave her father forty-one.
But does the average person know that Lizzie was acquitted for the crime?
To be debated:
1. Do you have any opinion to offer on whether Lizzie Borden was really guilty of brutally murdering her father and stepmother?
More generally:
QUOTE
Many Fall River residents still believed in her guilt. As a result, she was ostracized to some degree. Lizzie and her sister Emma lived apart from 1905 until their deaths in 1927. After the trial, youngsters use to follow Lizzie as she walked and loudly repeat the poem "Lizzie Borden took an axe, etc".
2. How should one react to a verdict with which one does not agree? What do you do if you feel that justice has not been served?
You can spend a night in the house where the murders took place:
Link
The gift shop sells a bobble-head doll of Lizzie, complete with bloody axe.
3. Is there something wrong with selling this doll, since Lizzie was acquitted of the murders? Does it make any difference that the crimes took place more than a century ago? Would it have been acceptable to sell a bobble-head doll of O. J. Simpson with a bloody knife after his first trial?
There have been many songs, stories, and movies based on the Borden murders.
4. When does a tragic incident in real life become acceptable material for fiction? When it is fair play to treat real people as fictional characters? Must a certain amount of time go by before this can happen?
1. Do you have any opinion to offer on whether Lizzie Borden was really guilty of brutally murdering her father and stepmother?
Nope.
2. How should one react to a verdict with which one does not agree? What do you do if you feel that justice has not been served?
Live with it. Accept that you are not omnipotent and the jury may have had access to evidence you didn't have. Furthermore, you should seriously consider the possibility that you may be wrong for to not do so is to invite adverse consequences.
3. Is there something wrong with selling this doll, since Lizzie was acquitted of the murders? Does it make any difference that the crimes took place more than a century ago? Would it have been acceptable to sell a bobble-head doll of O. J. Simpson with a bloody knife after his first trial?
Well, its in incredibly bad taste I find. The glorification of a murder in the manner of selling dolls strikes me as being akin to enjoying the spectacle itself. No doubt we are all as blood thirsty as Romans if we look deep enough.
Nope.
2. How should one react to a verdict with which one does not agree? What do you do if you feel that justice has not been served?
Live with it. Accept that you are not omnipotent and the jury may have had access to evidence you didn't have. Furthermore, you should seriously consider the possibility that you may be wrong for to not do so is to invite adverse consequences.
3. Is there something wrong with selling this doll, since Lizzie was acquitted of the murders? Does it make any difference that the crimes took place more than a century ago? Would it have been acceptable to sell a bobble-head doll of O. J. Simpson with a bloody knife after his first trial?
Well, its in incredibly bad taste I find. The glorification of a murder in the manner of selling dolls strikes me as being akin to enjoying the spectacle itself. No doubt we are all as blood thirsty as Romans if we look deep enough.
I'm a Rhode Island native, so I'm pretty familiar with the whole Lizzie Borden mythos and incident. (Fall River is very close to the border of MA/RI.)
1. Do you have any opinion to offer on whether Lizzie Borden was really guilty of brutally murdering her father and stepmother?
I think that some serious cold case work could be done with modern forensics techniques and maybe they could figure it out. I know DNA and the like is limited due to the nature of these acts and that much of the evidence is probably not preserved.
2. How should one react to a verdict with which one does not agree? What do you do if you feel that justice has not been served?
I think the Fall River reactions are to be expected from a nasty (Victorian), and fairly uneducated people (the general populace of Fall River.) Of course, even today I doubt someone would not be ostracized if they were connected to such violent murders even after an acquittal.
Morally, one should allow the person to move on with their lives, and Lizzie proved for the rest of her life she was not a violent person, so what good would have incarceration have done? If she had committed the murders she more than paid for it with the misery I'm sure she lived with to the day she died over her parent's deaths.
Personally, yes I'm willing to allow someone to move on, to forgive and forget but I don't think most people are. People generally like being mean too much.
3. Is there something wrong with selling this doll, since Lizzie was acquitted of the murders? Does it make any difference that the crimes took place more than a century ago? Would it have been acceptable to sell a bobble-head doll of O. J. Simpson with a bloody knife after his first trial?
I think OJ shows how far as a society we've come, in that sort of celebration of real-life murderous intent just isn't really allowed to cement itself into society. Everyone knows that the right thing to do is to move on after OJ was acquitted, let the man live his life. If there's something wrong with the courts system, then work to fix that, not destroy a guy who managed to convince twelve sane people that there's a chance he's innocent.
Borden at this point, because of the rhyme, is part of the American mythos, not unlike the murderous "heroes" we have from the old west. Natural Born Killers does a great job of exploring America's obsession with killers, but I don't think there's been a signficant cultural following of a killer since Manson.
4. When does a tragic incident in real life become acceptable material for fiction? When it is fair play to treat real people as fictional characters? Must a certain amount of time go by before this can happen?
Well the TV Movie-Of-The-Week people would have you believe it's six months or less. But, I think it takes a few decades of healing before something like that can take hold. I think that if I did a comic on the Mary Bell incident, even if I fictionalized it and turned Bell into a hero, no one would bat an eye.
Of course the Borden phenomena is unique and totally unexpected. I don't think it's possible to control or replicate that kind of pop-culture rise. If I knew how to do it, I'd be very rich living here in LA-LA Land
1. Do you have any opinion to offer on whether Lizzie Borden was really guilty of brutally murdering her father and stepmother?
I think that some serious cold case work could be done with modern forensics techniques and maybe they could figure it out. I know DNA and the like is limited due to the nature of these acts and that much of the evidence is probably not preserved.
2. How should one react to a verdict with which one does not agree? What do you do if you feel that justice has not been served?
I think the Fall River reactions are to be expected from a nasty (Victorian), and fairly uneducated people (the general populace of Fall River.) Of course, even today I doubt someone would not be ostracized if they were connected to such violent murders even after an acquittal.
Morally, one should allow the person to move on with their lives, and Lizzie proved for the rest of her life she was not a violent person, so what good would have incarceration have done? If she had committed the murders she more than paid for it with the misery I'm sure she lived with to the day she died over her parent's deaths.
Personally, yes I'm willing to allow someone to move on, to forgive and forget but I don't think most people are. People generally like being mean too much.
3. Is there something wrong with selling this doll, since Lizzie was acquitted of the murders? Does it make any difference that the crimes took place more than a century ago? Would it have been acceptable to sell a bobble-head doll of O. J. Simpson with a bloody knife after his first trial?
I think OJ shows how far as a society we've come, in that sort of celebration of real-life murderous intent just isn't really allowed to cement itself into society. Everyone knows that the right thing to do is to move on after OJ was acquitted, let the man live his life. If there's something wrong with the courts system, then work to fix that, not destroy a guy who managed to convince twelve sane people that there's a chance he's innocent.
Borden at this point, because of the rhyme, is part of the American mythos, not unlike the murderous "heroes" we have from the old west. Natural Born Killers does a great job of exploring America's obsession with killers, but I don't think there's been a signficant cultural following of a killer since Manson.
4. When does a tragic incident in real life become acceptable material for fiction? When it is fair play to treat real people as fictional characters? Must a certain amount of time go by before this can happen?
Well the TV Movie-Of-The-Week people would have you believe it's six months or less. But, I think it takes a few decades of healing before something like that can take hold. I think that if I did a comic on the Mary Bell incident, even if I fictionalized it and turned Bell into a hero, no one would bat an eye.
Of course the Borden phenomena is unique and totally unexpected. I don't think it's possible to control or replicate that kind of pop-culture rise. If I knew how to do it, I'd be very rich living here in LA-LA Land
Do you have any opinion to offer on whether Lizzie Borden was really guilty of brutally murdering her father and stepmother?
There wasn't any hard evidence available to prove that she did commit the crime. Both the confiscated dress, her shoes, and a pair of stockings were examined, and they only found one small spot of blood on the white skirt that was the size of a pinhead. The examiner indicated that it could have been the remnants of menstrual blood, but it certainly wasn't enough to suggest that she had murdered her parents with an axe. She did later destroy a second dress in a kitchen fire, claiming that it was covered in paint. I would say that's an extremely suspicious act, but since the dress had been destroyed, it's impossible to know whether or not it was the garment worn during the murders. Additionally, when the courts asked the witnesses about the dress, there didn't really appear to be any solid conclusion regarding what Lizzie was actually wearing that day...not surprising as I'm sure that most people didn't pay close attention to her choice in clothing.
They also removed a hatchet and two axes from the home, which appeared to have either blood or rust stains on them, but an examination by a chemist determined that there was no blood on any of them. Had they been used to murder Lizzie's parents, they would have had to have been cleaned very thouroughly to remove any blood to the point that the chemist wouldn't have been able to detect it. This would have been extremely difficult, because the blood would have lodged between the handle and the metal portion of the hatchet.
The thing that I find most suspicious is Lizzie's claim that during the time that her father would have been murdered, she was in the barn looking for fishing weights and eating pears. It's not the activities themselves that are so strange, but apparently the day was extremely hot, and the barn was the most sweltering place to be on a hot day. It's seems rather implausible that she would stand up there for twenty minutes eating three pears and looking out the window when she could have searched for what she was looking for and then went back outside into the yard to eat her pears. (Who eats three pears in one sitting?) Again, there's no evidence to prove that this didn't happen, but it's rather suspicous, particularly when you consider that it's the place she would have to be in order to not see someone going into the house.
On the other hand, she was completely clean and in order after the murders, and I would imagine that it would be difficult to clean yourself up to that degree during such a short period of time, particularly since they didn't have the same type of plumbing technology that we do. The shower was invented in the early 1800s, but showers as we know them today, didn't really come about until the late 1800s, and I'm not sure when they became common place in the home... If she cleaned herself up in the home, it seems that there would be some evidence left behind, and maybe there was. There's nothing about that in the actual case files that I could find.
Whether or not Lizzie commited the murder, and I do believe that it's an impossible decision to make with the evidence that's currently available, the court really didn't have any proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Her acquittal seems to have been a reasonable action.
How should one react to a verdict with which one does not agree? What do you do if you feel that justice has not been served?
I don't think there's much to be done once the court has made its decision, particularly when a person has been aquitted...double jeopardy and all that...
On the otherhand, if they've been convicted, there's always the option of continuing an investigation to attempt to absolve them of their guilt.
Is there something wrong with selling this doll, since Lizzie was acquitted of the murders? Does it make any difference that the crimes took place more than a century ago? Would it have been acceptable to sell a bobble-head doll of O. J. Simpson with a bloody knife after his first trial?
A bobble-head doll is certainly in bad taste whether it be in the likeness of O.J. Simpson or Lizzie Borden, but I do think that time can remove the stigma a bit. As smorpheus said, this case has become a part of American mythos not unlike the way that other tragedies have become a part of the mythos of various countries. Jack the Ripper immediately comes to mind.
Historically, investigators didn't have the same kind of technology that we have now, and studying these cases can be fascinating because there are so many questions that have been left unanswered. Additionally, there's a certain romanticism involved in learning about other time periods, particularly the macabre aspects of those time periods. That may sound morbid, but look at the beauty of the murder ballad... These are horrible tales that have been put to song, but they evoke a particularly strong emotion in the listener...everything from horror, to sadness, to compassion, etc...the full range of what makes us human.
When does a tragic incident in real life become acceptable material for fiction? When it is fair play to treat real people as fictional characters? Must a certain amount of time go by before this can happen?
For me, I need a good stretch of time before I can delve into stories like this. I'm a person who refuses to watch movies or read books about modern serial killers because I find them to be far too disturbing, but if an event happened in the distant past and perhaps even up into the turn of the century, it doesn't effect me in the same way. There's enough separation...and perhaps, a difference in the media that was available and the way that it was presented, that I just seem to handle it differently. I can offer no better explanation than that.
I really don't know how I would answer this question for society as a whole. I just tend to monitor my own intake of information.
Edited to fix my formatting.
There wasn't any hard evidence available to prove that she did commit the crime. Both the confiscated dress, her shoes, and a pair of stockings were examined, and they only found one small spot of blood on the white skirt that was the size of a pinhead. The examiner indicated that it could have been the remnants of menstrual blood, but it certainly wasn't enough to suggest that she had murdered her parents with an axe. She did later destroy a second dress in a kitchen fire, claiming that it was covered in paint. I would say that's an extremely suspicious act, but since the dress had been destroyed, it's impossible to know whether or not it was the garment worn during the murders. Additionally, when the courts asked the witnesses about the dress, there didn't really appear to be any solid conclusion regarding what Lizzie was actually wearing that day...not surprising as I'm sure that most people didn't pay close attention to her choice in clothing.
They also removed a hatchet and two axes from the home, which appeared to have either blood or rust stains on them, but an examination by a chemist determined that there was no blood on any of them. Had they been used to murder Lizzie's parents, they would have had to have been cleaned very thouroughly to remove any blood to the point that the chemist wouldn't have been able to detect it. This would have been extremely difficult, because the blood would have lodged between the handle and the metal portion of the hatchet.
The thing that I find most suspicious is Lizzie's claim that during the time that her father would have been murdered, she was in the barn looking for fishing weights and eating pears. It's not the activities themselves that are so strange, but apparently the day was extremely hot, and the barn was the most sweltering place to be on a hot day. It's seems rather implausible that she would stand up there for twenty minutes eating three pears and looking out the window when she could have searched for what she was looking for and then went back outside into the yard to eat her pears. (Who eats three pears in one sitting?) Again, there's no evidence to prove that this didn't happen, but it's rather suspicous, particularly when you consider that it's the place she would have to be in order to not see someone going into the house.
On the other hand, she was completely clean and in order after the murders, and I would imagine that it would be difficult to clean yourself up to that degree during such a short period of time, particularly since they didn't have the same type of plumbing technology that we do. The shower was invented in the early 1800s, but showers as we know them today, didn't really come about until the late 1800s, and I'm not sure when they became common place in the home... If she cleaned herself up in the home, it seems that there would be some evidence left behind, and maybe there was. There's nothing about that in the actual case files that I could find.
Whether or not Lizzie commited the murder, and I do believe that it's an impossible decision to make with the evidence that's currently available, the court really didn't have any proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Her acquittal seems to have been a reasonable action.
How should one react to a verdict with which one does not agree? What do you do if you feel that justice has not been served?
I don't think there's much to be done once the court has made its decision, particularly when a person has been aquitted...double jeopardy and all that...
On the otherhand, if they've been convicted, there's always the option of continuing an investigation to attempt to absolve them of their guilt.
Is there something wrong with selling this doll, since Lizzie was acquitted of the murders? Does it make any difference that the crimes took place more than a century ago? Would it have been acceptable to sell a bobble-head doll of O. J. Simpson with a bloody knife after his first trial?
A bobble-head doll is certainly in bad taste whether it be in the likeness of O.J. Simpson or Lizzie Borden, but I do think that time can remove the stigma a bit. As smorpheus said, this case has become a part of American mythos not unlike the way that other tragedies have become a part of the mythos of various countries. Jack the Ripper immediately comes to mind.
Historically, investigators didn't have the same kind of technology that we have now, and studying these cases can be fascinating because there are so many questions that have been left unanswered. Additionally, there's a certain romanticism involved in learning about other time periods, particularly the macabre aspects of those time periods. That may sound morbid, but look at the beauty of the murder ballad... These are horrible tales that have been put to song, but they evoke a particularly strong emotion in the listener...everything from horror, to sadness, to compassion, etc...the full range of what makes us human.
When does a tragic incident in real life become acceptable material for fiction? When it is fair play to treat real people as fictional characters? Must a certain amount of time go by before this can happen?
For me, I need a good stretch of time before I can delve into stories like this. I'm a person who refuses to watch movies or read books about modern serial killers because I find them to be far too disturbing, but if an event happened in the distant past and perhaps even up into the turn of the century, it doesn't effect me in the same way. There's enough separation...and perhaps, a difference in the media that was available and the way that it was presented, that I just seem to handle it differently. I can offer no better explanation than that.
I really don't know how I would answer this question for society as a whole. I just tend to monitor my own intake of information.
Edited to fix my formatting.
Do you have any opinion to offer on whether Lizzie Borden was really guilty of brutally murdering her father and stepmother?
Lizzie Borden was found not guilty for several reasons:
1. There was no weapon found. There was an axe found without a handle that was recently covered in ashes. Quite suspicious.
2. The judge and jury were sympathetic to her. One judge was appointed to the Superior Court by one of Lizzie's lawyers. The judges excluded certain evidence that would have made a difference in her case, namely that she tried to buy poison at at least one drug store the day before the murders and that her testimony to the police was contradictory (she claimed to be in the barn loft, which was found dusty and undisturbed) she claimed her step mother had received a note (no note was found).
3. The prosecutors were reluctant at best. The Bordens were the richest people in town and Lizzie herself was a church going woman. Lizzie had the support of the papers, the well-to-do and the churches in town.
A couple of things strike me as odd in this case (although, admittedly, circumstantial):
1. Lizzie went to her doctor and neighbor and complained that she and her father were being poisoned. She had tried to buy poison the day before at a drug store.
2. Lizzie's story of where she was at the time of her father's murder did not check out. The barn loft was undisturbed. She also claimed that her stepmother had left the house (she found her father first and only later did they look for the stepmother). Her stepmother had not left that morning.
3. Her father was re-writing his will, allegedly to give the majority of his half million dollar fortune to his second wife. The Borden girls would only get about $10,000 each.
4. Lizzie was discovered burning a dress a few days after the murder. Various accounts claim that since the policemen were men, they would not have thoroughly searched her clothes closet for a silk dress, having been instructed to look for a cotton dress. I'm not sure if this is true or not. Certainly, no blood stained dress was found by the police.
5. If her stepmother was killed an hour or more before her father, then Lizzie was in the house at the time. Her stepmother was a large woman (over 200 lbs) and certainly Lizzie would have heard her being murdered or falling to the ground after being hit. Modern forensic experts doubt the fact that the stepmother was killed an hour before the father, however, due to the iffy nature of the methods used by the contemporary experts to determine this (food contents of the stomach, congealed blood, body temperature).
I can't fault the jury in this case. They did not see what I consider to be some pretty damning evidence: Lizzie tried to buy poison (and was denied) and her statements to the police were contradictory.
Lizzie Borden was found not guilty for several reasons:
1. There was no weapon found. There was an axe found without a handle that was recently covered in ashes. Quite suspicious.
2. The judge and jury were sympathetic to her. One judge was appointed to the Superior Court by one of Lizzie's lawyers. The judges excluded certain evidence that would have made a difference in her case, namely that she tried to buy poison at at least one drug store the day before the murders and that her testimony to the police was contradictory (she claimed to be in the barn loft, which was found dusty and undisturbed) she claimed her step mother had received a note (no note was found).
3. The prosecutors were reluctant at best. The Bordens were the richest people in town and Lizzie herself was a church going woman. Lizzie had the support of the papers, the well-to-do and the churches in town.
A couple of things strike me as odd in this case (although, admittedly, circumstantial):
1. Lizzie went to her doctor and neighbor and complained that she and her father were being poisoned. She had tried to buy poison the day before at a drug store.
2. Lizzie's story of where she was at the time of her father's murder did not check out. The barn loft was undisturbed. She also claimed that her stepmother had left the house (she found her father first and only later did they look for the stepmother). Her stepmother had not left that morning.
3. Her father was re-writing his will, allegedly to give the majority of his half million dollar fortune to his second wife. The Borden girls would only get about $10,000 each.
4. Lizzie was discovered burning a dress a few days after the murder. Various accounts claim that since the policemen were men, they would not have thoroughly searched her clothes closet for a silk dress, having been instructed to look for a cotton dress. I'm not sure if this is true or not. Certainly, no blood stained dress was found by the police.
5. If her stepmother was killed an hour or more before her father, then Lizzie was in the house at the time. Her stepmother was a large woman (over 200 lbs) and certainly Lizzie would have heard her being murdered or falling to the ground after being hit. Modern forensic experts doubt the fact that the stepmother was killed an hour before the father, however, due to the iffy nature of the methods used by the contemporary experts to determine this (food contents of the stomach, congealed blood, body temperature).
I can't fault the jury in this case. They did not see what I consider to be some pretty damning evidence: Lizzie tried to buy poison (and was denied) and her statements to the police were contradictory.
Regarding the poison...
On the morning of August 3rd, Abby Borden went to Dr. Bowen and claimed that she and her husband were being poisoned (beyond suspicious). She, her husband, and Bridget (the housekeeper) had all been violently ill.
Later in the day on August 3rd, Lizzie allegedly tried to buy the prussic acid from the chemist but was refused.
In the evening, she visited Alice Russel, who later claimed that Lizzie had indicated that she was worried that something terrible was going to happen to her father.
Is it possible that Lizzie had previously been poisoning her family with something more common than prussic acid, and then when she discovered that it was merely making the family sick, she attempted to buy the cyanide instead? When they questioned her about what she had eaten, she had been avoiding regular meals because she felt ill, but then she changed her mind and ate those silly pears (or so she says). Perhaps that was merely a cover up for her attempts at poisoning her family, and then when all attempts at poisoning failed, she ended up resorting to the axe.
It would make sense that she would initially try a cleaner method. Historically, women have not used brutal methods of murder as often as quieter, cleaner methods like poison...
On the morning of August 3rd, Abby Borden went to Dr. Bowen and claimed that she and her husband were being poisoned (beyond suspicious). She, her husband, and Bridget (the housekeeper) had all been violently ill.
Later in the day on August 3rd, Lizzie allegedly tried to buy the prussic acid from the chemist but was refused.
In the evening, she visited Alice Russel, who later claimed that Lizzie had indicated that she was worried that something terrible was going to happen to her father.
Is it possible that Lizzie had previously been poisoning her family with something more common than prussic acid, and then when she discovered that it was merely making the family sick, she attempted to buy the cyanide instead? When they questioned her about what she had eaten, she had been avoiding regular meals because she felt ill, but then she changed her mind and ate those silly pears (or so she says). Perhaps that was merely a cover up for her attempts at poisoning her family, and then when all attempts at poisoning failed, she ended up resorting to the axe.
It would make sense that she would initially try a cleaner method. Historically, women have not used brutal methods of murder as often as quieter, cleaner methods like poison...
QUOTE(Cyan @ Aug 1 2006, 02:38 AM) 
Is it possible that Lizzie had previously been poisoning her family with something more common than prussic acid, and then when she discovered that it was merely making the family sick, she attempted to buy the cyanide instead? When they questioned her about what she had eaten, she had been avoiding regular meals because she felt ill, but then she changed her mind and ate those silly pears (or so she says). Perhaps that was merely a cover up for her attempts at poisoning her family, and then when all attempts at poisoning failed, she ended up resorting to the axe.
It would make sense that she would initially try a cleaner method. Historically, women have not used brutal methods of murder as often as quieter, cleaner methods like poison...
I agree. When the doctor examined Mr. Borden the morning of the murders, he declared that he wasn't sick.
The fact that this key bit of evidence was never presented to the jury saved Borden in my estimation.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.