Customer Reviews

Goodbye Lizzie Borden: The Story of the Trial of America's Most Famous Murderess (Penguin True Crime)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Sullivan, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge, did a meticulous review of the transcript. He discusses legal and factual issues in a cogent and clear fashion. For lawyers, it is by far the best book on the case.

He concludes that Lizzie committed the crime, possibly out of material motives (she could have feared that her father was about to convey property to her stepmother). Seems plausible to me. There sure was a lot of circumstantial evidence against her. Those who think she's innocent ought to read her testimony before the coroner. It's hard to explain that testimony except to say that it's a pack of lies designed to cover up a murder. Because of a dubious ruling by the trial judges, the prior testimony was not admitted at trial and, needless to say, Lizzie did not open the door by taking the stand. The verdict was a triumph for the reasonable doubt standard, backed up by an all-male jury's conviction that a respectable woman couldn't do such a thing.

Robert Sullivan makes a strong case that Lizzie Borden might have gotten off, even if she committed the crime. Oddly enough for a judge, he confuses this with proving that she did commit it. Sullivan starts off with the assumption that she was guilty, briskly rejects any other possibilities, and lo and behold, he finds her to be guilty.

I would recommend this book to anyone with a strong interest in the case. It has all sorts of information that is not included elsewhere about a similar crime that could have thrown off suspicion, the backgrounds of the jurors, etc.

Sullivan simply rejects the idea that anyone else could have done it. The suggestion that it might have be Bridget Sullivan is quickly dismissed without examinaton: "Bridget didn't do it."

I feel informed, but not at all convinced. I recommend Kent's Forty Whacks: New Evidence in the Life and Legend of Lizzie Borden as the best book that I have ever read on the subject, and Edgar Radin's Lizzie Borden: The untold story (A Dell book) as the second.

This is an analysis of the Borden case from a legal point of view by a former judge. The facts are well-presented and the legal insights and arguments are convincing, but the impartial reader will sense and be annoyed by the author's clear bias against Lizzie throughout much of the book. The book would have been strengthened by a fairer ad more even-handed, two-sided approach. Even so, it's an excellent piece of factual and analytical work.

David Rehak
author of "Did Lizzie Borden Axe For It?"

Robert Sullivan graduated from Harvard, Boston College Law School, and was a Justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court. He is the only lawyer and judge to write about this case, based on the trial transcript. He also provides more historical details about the Fall River of 1892. He interviewed Abby Borden Whitehead Potter (the niece) who was born in 1883 and recalled the events in 1972. His conclusion was that there could be no other murderer than Lizzie Borden. But no bloodstained dress or hatchet was ever found! This book is based on the known facts; Arnold R. Brown solved the murders by getting the unknown facts.

Robert Sullivan is puzzled by the trial, and the actions of the judges and prosecutors. He believes the judges were "incorrupt". Public opinion came to believe that Lizzie was guilty, and paid off the judges and prosecutors to be found "not guilty". Arnold R. Brown showed that Lizzie was truly guiltless of the murders, and paid off the judges and prosecutors to be found not guilty! The book reprints Judge Justin Dewey's charge to the jury; it is as true today as then.

"... In direct evidence witnesses testify that they have actual and immediate knowledge of the matter to be proved, so the main thing to be determined is whether the witnesses are worthy of belief. The chief difficulty with this kind of evidence is that the witnesses may be false or mistaken, while the nature of the case may be such that there are no means of discovering the falsehood or mistake.

In circumstantial evidence the facts relied upon are usually various and testified to by a large number of witnesses.... When the evidence comes from several witnesses and different sources, it is thought that there is more difficulty in arranging it so as to exscape detection if it is false or founded on mistake....

... expert testimony constitutes a class of evidence which the law requires you to subject to careful scrutiny. It is a matter of frequent observation to see experts of good standing expressing conflicting and irreconcilable views upon questions arising at a trial. They sometimes manifest a strong bias or partisan spirit in favor of the party employing them. They often exhibit a disposition to put forward theories rather than to verify or establish or illustrate the facts.... The jury has the full right to consider them, .., to give to the testimony of the experts such value and weight as it seems to deserve."

The last page gives the personal history of Robert Sullivan, a judge of the Massachusetts Superior Court, who presided over a hundred murder cases. The 'Bibliography' lists many books, few of which are readily available. It does not list the books by Edmund Pearson and Edward Radin which covered this case for general readers. The one best book since 1991 is David Kent's "Forty Whacks". The best solution is still Arnold Brown's book. Sullivan seems quite biased in Appendix III about "the purchase of possession of ... poison", given that Lizzie didn't purchase or possess a poison; the attempted purchaser could have been a look-alike. Professor Borchard's book was available to Sullivan. Many believed that Lizzie was guilty and paid off somebody to be found 'not guilty'. Arnold Brown explained why Lizzie did not commit the murders and paid off the authorities to be found 'not guilty'. An appointed judge should know how things work in politics. You can study Sullivan's picture and judge his personality for yourself. Agnes de Mille's book quoted the daughters of a physician about the murders: there was a secret that was never revealed.

The 'Preface' considers the fascination of the unsolved murders of the Bordens. It may be due to the logical paradox that Lizzie was the remaining prime suspect but she couldn't have done it. No blood spatter on her clothes, not murder weapon, being seen outside at the time of Andrew's death. The legend of a cold-blooded spinster killer seems to meet the inner need of people who believe it. Sullivan read the two-thousand page transcript on microfilm to give his own opinions in this book. The record cannot contain the actual environment seen and heard by the jury, who decided the facts in this case. A transcript doesn't capture the tone of the answers.

Sullivan's bias is show by his dependence on the words of 90-year old Abby Borden Whitehead Potter who was ten years old at the time, and was never interviewed by anyone. That is not an astonishing fact (p.4)! She was both a child and not a witness. The Great Depression saw the decline of Fall River in the 1920s (p.6). In the early 18th century the Bordens owned all of Fall River (p.7). In the 19th century industrial Fall River was the third largest city in the state. A few families formed the ruling class of Fall River (p.8). Why did Lizzie change her name (p.20)? Fashions change, "Lizzie" became the generic name for a servant (the 'tin lizzie'). Sullivan's story about the "Day of Horror" is biased against Lizzie. You have to read other books to know this. Sullivan's explanation of 19th century law is not exact. Massachusetts in 1877 was the first state to require Medical Examiners, used in Europe for decades (p.43).

Sullivan was puzzled over D.A. Knowlton's offer (p.54). Was this just a ruse to learn defense strategy? Lizzie was indicted only after Alice Russell testified again (p.55). Lizzie pled "not guilty" (p.56). The Fall River ruling class supported Lizzie (p.60). [Did they know the secret?] Sullivan's prejudice is shown by comments on ME Dolan's testimony (p.123). Sullivan comments on Jennings' statement on reasonable doubt (p.145). Sullivan's bias caused his error about the newspaper advertisement on page 37 (p.161). In his charge to the jury Judge Justin Dewey subtly argued for the defense (p.172). Dewey was never sanctioned for this; was it for the sake of justice? Sullivan's bias is shown on page 182. The "expert testimony" was against the facts known to the jurymen who slaughtered cows, pigs, and sheep on their farms. After the trial Knowlton was elected Attorney General of the state, and Jennings was elected D.A. of the county. Was this the reward for their actions in the trial?

This would have been a better book if Sullivan had squelched his bias in telling the story, but unloaded in a long final chapter. Many of his quibbles were answered in Arnold Brown's book, which solved the crime and explained the discrepancies. Unlike most authors over the past seven decades Brown was honest enough to admit he couldn't prove it. But no one else can, ever.

My book came and was what I had expected. My transaction was satisfactory.

Sullivan has some of the basic facts wrong, and a theory on the murderer that makes no sense at all. Cheap sensationalism.

If you only buy one book about the Llzzie Borden murder case, this is the one to have.

Probably the best and most lucid book on the subject. Judge Sullivan presents the facts of the case in a fair light without personal embellishments.