Circumstantial Evidence

When District Attorney Hosea Knowlton presented his closing argument at Lizzie Borden’s 1893 trial, he admitted that the case against her was entirely circumstantial. But in his closing, he ably defended the value of circumstantial evidence in supporting what he considered to be the “array of impregnable facts” he had presented to the jury through numerous days of testimony.

“Murder is the work of stealth and craft, in which there are not only no witnesses, but the traces are attempted to be obliterated,” he began, making it seem almost logical that there was no direct evidence against the defendant. He suggested the jury would have no choice but to find Lizzie guilty because of “the presentation of circumstances from which one is irresistibly driven to [that] conclusion.”

He then subtly acknowledged that not all the circumstances in the case against Lizzie pointed toward guilt and introduced analogy to explain how stray bits of evidence that pointed to Lizzie’s innocence were unimportant overall.

“It is like the refuse that floats upon the surface of the stream. You stand upon the banks of the river, and you see a chip go by. That is only a circumstance. You see another chip go by. That is another circumstance. You see a chip in front of you going the other way. That is only another circumstance. By and by, you see a hundred in the great body of the stream, all moving one way, and a dozen or two in this little eddy in front of you going the other way. The chain is not complete: some of the chips go upstream; but you would not have any doubt, you would not hesitate for a moment, Mr. Foreman, to say that you knew which way the current of that river was, and yet, you have not put your hand in the water, you have only seen things from which you inferred it, and even the things themselves did not all go the same way.”

Knowlton made what seems to be a helpful way to look at the evidence in the case; however, he failed to acknowledge that most of the circumstances he declared as “evidence” against Lizzie were not as clear and sharp as a footprint in the sand. Rather, each circumstance could potentially be interpreted either way, depending on whether one looked through a lens of guilt or through a lens of innocence.

For example, Lizzie burned a paint-stained dress, her Bedford Cord, three days after the murders, and one day after the police thoroughly searched the house and informed Lizzie that she was a suspect. Knowlton claimed this suspicious circumstance and its suspicious timing revealed that Lizzie had burned the dress because it was likely spattered with the blood of her victims. Further, because the police failed to find a dress stained with either blood or paint, Lizzie must have hidden that dress from police before burning it. This overt destruction of evidence, according to Knowlton, was obviously a chip flowing in the direction of guilt.

Yet the defense brought Lizzie’s seamstress to the stand to testify that the Bedford Cord was indeed paint-stained, and that she knew Lizzie to habitually burn dresses that were no longer wearable. Lizzie’s sister Emma also testified to seeing the Bedford Cord hanging in their closet after the police were done searching, taking up a nail she wanted for herself, and told Lizzie at that time she should get rid of the dress. Lizzie then burned the dress the next morning, in front of witnesses, with police officers visible through the windows. From the perspective of the defense, this chip could reasonably be said to be flowing in neither direction at all.

As we can see, circumstantial evidence is often construed from the beholder’s eye. The chips in this river aren’t objectively flowing in a direction that can be agreed upon by all who view them. Like so many things in this perplexing case, a circumstance that appears to be an argument for guilt can be turned on its head and used as an argument for innocence.

The Defense’s Take

When Governor George Robinson, Lizzie’s lead attorney, stepped up to deliver his closing, he employed his own analogy to make it clear to the jury that circumstances are not always what they seem. “You reason from seeing a man going in somewhere, and you say, ‘he has gone in there for that particular business, because they do that business there,’ whether it is banking or insurance or grocery. Well, you may be right, or you may be wrong.” The man could be going in to see his son who works there. He could be stepping in to escape the cold or to find a place to sit and tie his shoes. We can’t reason why with certainty.

When you are presented with circumstances in a trial, said Robinson, “You need to bring to it your clearest perception and your strictest honesty, and look to see whether it fits in, whether it is all right, and whether it has not run against this corner and that corner and knocked itself to pieces; whether the circumstances are all in, and whether something has not been left out; whether the chain is not broken with which it is ought to bind this defendant.”

Even direct evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony could not necessarily be relied upon, said Robinson, because people are prone to mistakes, or “the man who gives the direct evidence may be a miserable liar.” Robinson would ask the jury, again and again, not to jump to conclusions about the individual circumstances presented to them by the prosecution, but to look at each one within the context of known facts, without presuming Lizzie’s guilt beforehand.

Author’s Take

When Judge Justin Dewey delivered his charge to the jury on how to consider the case, he pointed out that its circumstantial nature called for particularly careful deliberation. He also offered yet more analogies to help jury members understand exactly how to consider the testimony they had heard.

Dewey first pointed out that many considered circumstantial evidence to be akin to links in a chain leading to an inescapable conclusion; but, if one link in that chain was broken the entire chain is broken, and the conclusion invalid. He seemed not to prefer that way of looking at it and introduced another analogy that was not all that different than Knowlton’s. He said circumstantial evidence might be better thought of as strands in a cord or a cable.

“Some of the strands or cords may give way and yet the cable may not be broken but may bear the strain put upon it. So it is with the process of proof by circumstantial evidence. Important but not absolutely essential facts may fail to be established, and the loss of them, while it may weaken, may not destroy the force of the remaining evidence.” Like Dewey, I like the cord analogy best, although again, what one side might consider a strong strand in the cord might be little more than airy spun sugar to the other side.

I can, of course, use the loom of guilt to weave any number of circumstantial strands into a cord that makes the case against Lizzie look very strong indeed. Knowlton did exactly that in the courtroom, even if he had to use heavy exaggeration and leaps of illogic to give certain strands the appearance of solidity. (Lizzie chose not to address Abby as “Mother” and also once called her a “mean, good-for-nothing thing?” That was spun by Knowlton into a cancerous hatred for Abby that demanded not only her blood but Andrew’s blood, too.) From the guilt perspective, circumstances that more obviously point to innocence, such as the lack of blood anywhere on Lizzie right after her father’s murder, make little difference to the total strength of the cord.

But if one starts with the presumption of innocence, as Dewey also asked the jury to do, these strands of evidence are not nearly so compelling. Yes, there are suspicious circumstances to consider (such as the burned dress), but very few of them can be said to be, in Dewey’s words, “proven as fact,” or be considered inarguable signs of guilt.

Meanwhile, from where I sit, those circumstances that appear to be strong  (such as Lizzie’s story of the note) are too few to bear the weight of guilt, and they fray quickly from the stress. But that’s me. Many others pull on that cord of evidence, wispy strands and all, and find it bears the weight of guilt just fine.