Lizzie Borden Audio
Lizzie Borden Audio is a new episodic series that appeals to lovers of the dark and macabre nature of a historical true crime investigation from the famous 1892 case. Told from multiple witnesses utilizing the primary source transcripts with short musical interludes, it is the first podcast made entirely from trial testimony with humorous bits of music to accent the absurd and sometimes comical nature of the crime. All work is nonfiction and comes from the trial, the published works of Borden scholars, and the newspapers of the time.
Lizzie Borden Audio
William Moody's Opening Analysis
A new experimental podcast where I try out a new format with no background music or host to educate and entertain your senses as two Lizzie Borden experts analyze Moody's compelling two-hour opening statement in 55 minutes without ads. Keep in mind, this was Moody's first murder case at the age of 40. Enable transcripts while you listen. Check out LizzieAndrewBorden.com and my YouTube Channel at Lizzie Borden Audio. My next podcast will be "The Inquest of Mrs. Churchill." See you next time, Lizzie lovers!
Okay, let's unpack this. We are stepping back in time, way back to June 6, 1893, New Bedford, Massachusetts. And picture this scene. It's described so vividly in the source material we're diving into today. You've got an old man and woman, husband and wife, brutally killed.
SPEAKER_01:In their own home.
SPEAKER_00:In their own home, on a busy street, broad daylight. Yeah. And the person accused, their own daughter.
SPEAKER_01:It's just shocking.
SPEAKER_00:Totally. A woman from a good family involved in her church, her character, well, completely unquestioned by the community until that moment. The sheer shock, you know, the apparent impossibility of it happening there like that. And then the accusation landing on her. It must have been just staggering.
SPEAKER_01:And what's really interesting is how the prosecutor, William H. Moody, he uses that exact contrast. Right from the get-go. He does it. Yeah, he doesn't ease into it. He hits the jury immediately with the horror of the crime, these vulnerable victims killed at home, and then, bam, juxtaposes that with who's accused. Someone seen as respectable, you know, family. It's
SPEAKER_00:a powerful move.
SPEAKER_01:Oh, absolutely. Classic opening statement stuff. Underscore the gravity, the almost unbelievable nature of it all. It forces the jury to really confront any preconceptions they might have about her character versus, well, the brutality of the acts.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. He's basically saying, look, I know this sounds crazy. I know who she seems to be, but look at the crime and then listen to the evidence I'm going to lay out. And for this deep dive, we've got something really special. Our source today, it's a rare document, the actual opening statement, delivered by that prosecutor, William H. Moody, in the 1893 trial of Lizzie Andrew Borden.
SPEAKER_01:And he wasn't just any lawyer.
SPEAKER_00:No way. Moody was a big deal. He later became a Supreme Court justice.
SPEAKER_01:This
SPEAKER_00:trial, though, this was his first major murder prosecution. Even finding these transcripts, you know, people like Edmund Pearson searching back in the 20s. It's amazing we can access them now and step right back into that courtroom.
SPEAKER_01:And that's the real value, isn't it? Getting his words exactly as the jury heard them. That first address is so pivotal. It's not a summary, not someone else's take. It's his direct presentation of the state's case. Their roadmap for the evidence completely unfiltered. The narrative he chose to build.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely. So our mission today for you listening and for us here is to walk you through Moody's opening statement point by point.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, let's dig in.
SPEAKER_00:We're going to pull out his key arguments, the evidence he promised he'd show, and the whole story he wove for that jury. Think of it like getting a direct download of the prosecution's theory, just as they laid it out Right.
SPEAKER_01:We're looking at his strategy, the details he zeroed in on, how he tried to convince those jurors she was guilty based only on this document, this opening.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. We're not here to retry the case, not declaring guilt or innocence. We're analyzing how the prosecution started their argument. how they framed it.
SPEAKER_01:And understanding that initial framing is just crucial. The opening statement, it's the prosecution's chance to set the stage, define the terms, create the lens, really, through which the jury sees everything else.
SPEAKER_00:It's their first shot of persuasion.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:Before the defense even gets up. Okay, so let's set the scene. New Bedford, Tuesday, June 6th, 1893. Second day of the trial, Superior Court. The source says, court formally convened at nine that morning.
SPEAKER_01:Pretty formal proceedings back then.
SPEAKER_00:Very. Jurors, the prisoner Lizzie Andrew Borden, they all answered when their names were called. Everyone central was present.
SPEAKER_01:That formality, you see it in the language of the documents, too. Different from how courts might operate today.
SPEAKER_00:Totally different. So after the roll call, the clerk of the court addresses the jury. He reads the indictment aloud. That's the formal charges, right?
SPEAKER_01:Yes. The specific accusations. Two counts of murder.
SPEAKER_00:One for Andrew Borden, one for Abby Borden. And after reading each count, the clerk says Lizzie had heretofore pleaded and said that thereof she is not guilty and for trial puts herself upon her country which country you are. Then you are now sworn to try the issue.
SPEAKER_01:That phrase, puts herself upon her country, it's old common law language. Powerful stuff.
SPEAKER_00:It really is.
SPEAKER_01:It signifies that right to be judged by your peers. Reminds those 12 jurors of the huge responsibility they have. They're the community's judgment in this.
SPEAKER_00:The clerk then gives them their final charge before the opening starts. Basically, find her guilty, say so. Not guilty, say so. And no more. Then the traditional words. Good men and true stand together and hearken to your evidence.
SPEAKER_01:A solemn moment. Focuses them purely on the evidence and the law. Nothing else.
SPEAKER_00:And with that, the stage is set. Mr. William H. Moody, Esquire, representing the Commonwealth, the state he steps up.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:Ready to make his opening statement to the judges, the foreman, the jury.
SPEAKER_01:And he starts, as you mentioned, by hitting that solemn importance right away, anchoring it in the crime, the shocking accusation.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, he needs to impress upon them the weight of it all, but also kind of guide how they're thinking about it from the start.
SPEAKER_02:Exactly.
SPEAKER_00:So he immediately tackles how difficult, how shocking this case is. He describes the crime again, vividly. Upon the fourth day of August of the last year, an old man and woman, husband and wife, each without a known enemy in the world.
SPEAKER_01:In their own home, upon a frequented street, within the sight and call of neighbors, under the light of day.
SPEAKER_00:And in the midst of its activities were, first one, then after an interval of an hour, another severally killed by unlawful human agency. He really emphasizes the victim's vulnerability, the public setting. How could this happen?
SPEAKER_01:He's building that initial sense of outrage, horror even. Presenting the crime is almost unthinkable in that context, which then makes the accused's identity even more central, more, well, from his view, compelling.
SPEAKER_00:And then, pivot. That stark contrast again. The accused. A woman of good social position, of hitherto unquestioned character, a member of a Christian church and active in its good works, the own daughter of one of the victims and the stepdaughter of the other. He explicitly acknowledges the conflict this creates.
SPEAKER_01:Right, and that's where he addresses the potential for prejudgment based on her background. He knows people would think, Lizzie Borden, no way.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. He says, for the sake of these crimes and for the sake of these accusations, every man may well pause... and carefully searches understanding and conscience for any vestige of prejudgment and, finding it, casts it aside as an unclean thing. He's telling them, put aside what you think you know about her character. Judge her on the evidence.
SPEAKER_01:It's a really smart opening move. He knows the defense will likely lean heavily on her character, her standing in the community, so he tries to neutralize that right away, frames it as something they have to reject to do their duty. Focus on the facts. not who she should be.
SPEAKER_00:Right. And he lays out his role right then, the purpose of the opening. His duty, he says, is to state to you so much of the history and so much of the evidence as shall best enable you to understand the claim of the government and to appreciate the force and application of the testimony.
SPEAKER_01:He's giving them the interpretive key. Here's our theory. Here's how the evidence you're about to hear fits into that picture. It's the framework.
SPEAKER_00:And he promises to do it in the plainest, simplest, and most direct manner. avoiding unnecessary details. Although, well, as we'll see, his definition of unnecessary still involved a ton of detail.
SPEAKER_01:Oh, definitely. He uses that opportunity to paint a very specific, very detailed picture designed to lead the jury his way before witness one even takes the stand.
SPEAKER_00:Okay, let's dive into that detailed picture, starting with the Borden family, the household, as Moody describes them. Andrew Jackson Borden, the father, a man of considerable property.
SPEAKER_01:How much did Moody say?
SPEAKER_00:He estimated between$250,000 and$300,000 back then, which was, you know, a lot of money, maybe$8,$10 million today. He notes Borden was retired but still had the habit of saving, and the family lived on a somewhat narrow scale, considering his wealth.
SPEAKER_01:That contrast is interesting, isn't it? Wealthy but frugal. Moody plants that early, maybe subtly hinting at potential motives related to money inheritance, though he doesn't explicitly say that here, just sets the financial scene.
SPEAKER_00:Then he details Andrew's marriages. First wife? Sarah died maybe 27, 28 years before him, left two daughters, Lizzie Andrew Borden, the youngest, only two or three when her mother died, and Emma Borden, about 10 years older than Lizzie. Not long after Sarah died, Andrew married Abby Durfee Gray. This second marriage lasted over 25 years. No children from this marriage, Moody notes.
SPEAKER_01:So that sets up the core unit. Father, two daughters from the first marriage, and the stepmother. He highlights that step relationship right away.
SPEAKER_00:He describes Abby, the stepmother, About six years younger than Andrew, so around 64. Physically, Andrew was spare, thin, somewhat tall. Abby described pretty plainly as a short, fat woman weighing in the neighborhood of 200 pounds.
SPEAKER_01:Again, seemingly minor details, these descriptions. But they helped the jury visualize the victims. Maybe later it ties into the injuries, the physical nature of the crime. He doesn't draw the line yet, though.
SPEAKER_00:Then the house itself, 92 Second Street, Fall River, lived there 20 years. He stresses the location frequented street near City Hall, a thoroughfare for people in carriages.
SPEAKER_01:Emphasizing how busy the street was really reinforces the audacity of the crime or the careful timing needed, not some isolated place. Suggests the killer either wasn't worried about being seen
SPEAKER_00:or... It was already inside.
SPEAKER_01:Exactly.
SPEAKER_00:He gives the geography. Second street runs north-south, slight incline south, house on the east side, names the neighbors. Dr. Kelly South, Mrs. Churchill North, Dr. Chagnon diagonally and back.
SPEAKER_01:Important to establish neighbors. They often become key witnesses, timelines, seeing people, hearing things.
SPEAKER_00:Exterior security, picket fence, two gates out front, in the backyard, by the barn, a highboard fence with barbed wire top and bottom.
SPEAKER_01:Fences, barbed wire, suggests trying to keep people out, maintain privacy, especially from the rear, might be relevant later when they discuss intruder theories.
SPEAKER_00:And he's very explicit. Three exterior doors, three entrances, and only three besides windows. Front door from sidewalk to hall, side door north side facing Churchill's into an entryway near the kitchen, and a third door exactly in the rear leading down to the cellar with a porch. He doesn't initially list a main floor rear exterior door here, though Bridget later uses a screen door there.
SPEAKER_01:Carefully detailing every known entrance. Crucial for the prosecution. They're trying to account for how someone could get in or out, setting the stage to argue only someone inside could do it undetected.
SPEAKER_00:Okay, here's where it gets really interesting. Moody shifts to the claimed underlying tension. The unkindly feeling, as he puts it, between Lizzie and her stepmother Abby.
SPEAKER_01:The motive.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, and he's upfront about proving the full extent being hard because, quote, those who know the most about that feeling except the prisoner are dead. So they can only offer suggestive glimpses.
SPEAKER_01:Right. He's preparing the jury for circumstantial evidence on this point, acknowledging the difficulty but promising these suggestive glimpses.
SPEAKER_00:He traces the alleged start of it all to a property dispute maybe five years earlier. Claims Andrew Borden gave some property or money, a benefaction, to one of Mrs. Borden's relatives. And because of that, the daughters felt they deserved something too, an offset to balance things out financially.
SPEAKER_01:Ah, so back to the money angle. Not just vague bad feelings, he's alleging a specific root. Perceived financial unfairness, maybe resentment over how Mr. Borden was handling his assets, pitting daughters against stepmother.
SPEAKER_00:And he claims this whole discussion caused a big shift. From then on, Lizzie substantially ceased, calling Abby... That
SPEAKER_01:change in address, stopping using mother, Moody presents that as a clear symbol of the breakdown, an outward sign of the bad blood.
SPEAKER_00:And he promises anecdotes from witnesses to back this up, like the family's cloak maker. Supposedly about a year before the murders, the cloak maker called Abby mother and Lizzie supposedly snapped back. Don't call her mother. She's a mean thing and we hate her. We have little to do with her as possible. Wow. Yeah. And Lizzie apparently added they sometimes ate together but tried not to, preferred staying in their rooms.
SPEAKER_01:That quote, we hate her. If the jury believes that witness, that's incredibly potent evidence for motive. Way beyond just dislike. Paints a picture of real hostility.
SPEAKER_00:He gives another example, this one after the murders. An officer asks Lizzie when she last saw her mother, bodies, still in the house. And she corrects him. She is not my mother. She is my stepmother. My mother is dead. Moody presents this correction, in that moment, as highly significant of the feeling between them.
SPEAKER_01:Again, suggesting the depth of the rift. Even in crisis, her focus is on that distinction. Suggests deliberate emotional distance, maybe a lingering resentment.
SPEAKER_00:And he hammers this division home, saying, based on how the family lived, although they occupied the same household, there was built up between them by locks and bolts and bars, almost an impassable wall. Not just feelings, actual physical barriers inside the house.
SPEAKER_01:That phrase, impassable wall, is strong. But then he makes it concrete. Locks and bolts and bars. Tells the jury the bad feelings weren't just emotional, they physically divided the shared space. And he's about to use the house layout to show exactly what he means.
SPEAKER_00:Okay, yeah, the house layout. Moody spends a lot of time on this. Admits it's hard to explain verbally, says the jury will eventually see it themselves, but insists it's crucial for understanding the testimony. He
SPEAKER_01:knows the physical space is central to his opportunity argument. He needs the jury visualizing this house as a kind of closed system, restricted movement, makes an outside intruder seem less likely, points the finger inside.
SPEAKER_00:He says it's a common design. Narrow end of the street, rectangular, no L. Originally built as a double tenement, which helps explain some weird internal divisions. Upstairs mostly mirrors downstairs, but with key exceptions.
SPEAKER_01:Right. Those exceptions and internal divisions are exactly what he focuses on.
SPEAKER_00:Okay. First floor, main front hall from the front door, two doors off it, parlor, front and W corner, and sitting room. Back of hall, south side under Lizzie's room. Main stairs go up from this hall.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, simple enough. Front hall connects to front rooms and stairs.
SPEAKER_00:Now moving back, it gets different. Turn left from the sitting room into the dining room. That's on the north side, under Emma's room and a closet upstairs. From the dining room, a door leads to the kitchen at the very back.
SPEAKER_01:So downstairs, you can move from front to back. Hall to sitting room, sitting room to dining room, dining room to kitchen. There's a path, though it requires specific turns.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. Now, second floor. Stairs wind up, face north into the upper hallway. Three doors off this upper hall. Large closet, the guest chamber over the parlor where Mrs. Borden was found, and Lizzie's bedroom towards the rear over the sitting room.
SPEAKER_01:And he points out crucially that from the top of those winding stairs, you can look directly into the guest chamber door.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, chilling detail. Now, Lizzie's bedroom. According to Moody, it's a hub. Door to the left as you enter leads to Emma's room. And importantly, Moody says Emma's room has no other entrance. Only way in is through Lizzie's room.
SPEAKER_01:So Lizzie's room controls access to Emma's.
SPEAKER_00:And at the rear of Lizzie's room, opposite the entrance, another door. This one leads into Mr. and Mrs. Borden's room, which is over the kitchen.
SPEAKER_01:So her room also connects or potentially connects to her parents' room.
SPEAKER_00:Potentially. Because this is where Moody details that impassable wall of locks. He seats the door between the guest chamber where Abby died. And Lizzie's room was a door which always, including the day of this homicide, was kept locked on both sides. says Lizzie even had a desk against her side, not a practicable opening.
SPEAKER_01:That's huge for the prosecution's argument. If that door was locked and blocked, no easy way between the murder room and Lizzie's room or the main upstairs hall. You'd have to go a much longer way around, likely downstairs and back up, or maybe through other locked rooms if possible.
SPEAKER_00:Right. He says clearly, from the front upper hall, you can only get to the closet, guest chamber, or Lizzie's room. All access to the other part of the house is cut off, not by the natural construction, but by the way in which the house was kept.
SPEAKER_01:He's hammering that point. These aren't design flaws. They're deliberate barriers set up by the family, reinforces that internal division idea.
SPEAKER_00:And the locking continues. The door between Lizzie's room and Mr. and Mrs. Borden's room, at the back, over the kitchen, was always kept locked on both sides. Hook lock on Lizzie's side, bolt lock on their side. Moody promises ample and complete proof this door was locked both ways all morning until after the alarm.
SPEAKER_01:So access between Lizzie and her parents' room also blocked, locked on both sides, isolates that rear upstairs room even more.
SPEAKER_00:And finally, the door out of Mr. and Mrs. Borden's room, their only door out leading to the upper rear entryway over the kitchen entry downstairs. Moody claims this door was also locked all through this day up to and beyond the time of the homicide. Promises clear proof. Okay, this seems critical,
SPEAKER_01:if a bit confusing to picture. If their door to the rear entry was locked, and their door to Lizzie's room was locked both ways. How did they access the rest of the house? Moody seems to be arguing they were essentially locked into their own section upstairs, making access to them very difficult except perhaps via that rear road, which he implies was also secured. The result, a very isolated rear upstairs.
SPEAKER_00:He sums up the difference. Downstairs, free communication two ways, from kitchen to front. Key point, downstairs,
SPEAKER_01:movement possible. Upstairs, internal routes connecting front, guest room, middle Lizzie's room, and rear, parents' room, were deliberately blocked by locks. That isolation is crucial for his argument against an outsider who wouldn't know this complex artificial setup.
SPEAKER_00:Okay, let's shift to the day before. Wednesday, August 3rd, who's in the house? Mr. and Mrs. Borden, Bridget Sullivan, the servant, been there nearly three years, and Lizzie, Emma's away in Fairhaven.
SPEAKER_01:Establishes who was present? Fundamental for the timeline, opportunity.
SPEAKER_00:Plus, a visitor staying over. John V. Morse. Andrew Borden's brother-in-law from his first wife. So, Lizzie and Emma's uncle. Arrive Wednesday afternoon, stayed for dinner, slept there.
SPEAKER_01:Another person in the house the night before. Another potential witness to dynamics, events leading up to Thursday?
SPEAKER_00:Moody then brings up something significant from Tuesday night into Wednesday morning. Sudden, violent illness. Mr. and Mrs. Borden get sick, retching and vomiting. Lizzie, affected to a lesser degree. Bridget, not sick at all. Mrs. Borden even saw a doctor Wednesday morning about it. Suspected cause? Baker's bread or milk.
SPEAKER_01:Hmm. That sudden illness, hitting some but not others. The prosecution presents that as suspicious. Suggestive of poisoning, even if blamed on bad food initially.
SPEAKER_00:And Moody connects this suspicion directly to the next thing he describes. He claims that upon the noon of Wednesday, the day before the murders, Lizzie went to a Fall River drugstore, asked the clerk for 10 cents worth of prussic acid for the purpose of cleaning a seal skin cape.
SPEAKER_01:Prussic acid? Wow, that's deadly.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. She was refused, obviously. Poison needed a prescription.
SPEAKER_01:That alleged attempt to buy poison the day before the murders, if proven, that's incredibly damaging. Trying to get it under a flimsy excuse like cleaning a cape sounds like trying to get poison without raising alarm, shows interest in a potent toxin.
SPEAKER_00:Moody is very direct. Tells the jury, I think, gentlemen, you will be satisfied. No question that the person who made this application was the prisoner. Promises proof. From three drugstore witnesses, two knew her, one recognized her.
SPEAKER_01:He's presenting this as powerful evidence of men's rea guilty mind and intent maybe to get a means of killing. Placed strategically just hours before the murders. Suggests preparation even if final method wasn't poison.
SPEAKER_00:Then Wednesday evening, hours before the murders. Moody says Lizzie visited her friend Alice M. Russell. Tells the jury, commend to your careful attention what occurred during that interview. Context seems normal. Lizzie planning vacation decided to take Alice's advice and go.
SPEAKER_01:But the prosecution clearly sees this conversation as revealing something important about Lizzie's state of mind, her plans, right before everything happened.
SPEAKER_00:According to Moody's preview of Alice's testimony, Lizzie felt depressed. Had a feeling something is going to happen to me. Mentioned the illness, feared poisoning, brought up the baker's bread or milk idea. Alice apparently dismissed the bread idea.
SPEAKER_01:Ambiguous, isn't it? Could be genuine fear. Or, from the prosecution view, maybe planting ideas, creating potential alternative explanations for... Well,
SPEAKER_00:for disaster. And she specifically aired fears about her father. Told Alice, father's been having so much trouble, I'm afraid that some of them will do something to him. I expect nothing but that the building will be burned down over our heads. Then she listed past incidents. Barn broken into twice. Alice thought just boys after pigeons, house broken into in daylight, saw a man lurking about recently, ran off, fathered a recent angry dispute with a man about a store, turned him out.
SPEAKER_01:So Moody presents this as Lizzie predicting doom, cataloging potential external enemies, threats to her father. The prosecution sees this not as genuine fear, but as Lizzie building a narrative of outside danger before the murders happened, laying groundwork, potential alternative suspects she could point to later.
SPEAKER_00:Moody explicitly tells the jury, That, I beg you to keep in your minds, was with Ms. Russell, Alice M. Russell. He wants them locked onto this conversation when Alice testifies.
SPEAKER_01:He's flagging it as key circumstantial evidence, suggests it reveals her state of mind, her awareness of threats, real or maybe fabricated, maybe even manipulating perceptions before the crime. It's a very damning spin from their perspective.
SPEAKER_00:Okay, now the day itself, Thursday, August 4th, who's there? Bridget? Mr. and Mrs. Borden? Lizzie? John Moore's left early.
SPEAKER_01:So the core group plus the servant.
SPEAKER_00:Moody details the doors again. Focusing on limited entry. Front door. Locked three-way spring latch. Bolt. Key lock. Locked by Lizzie the night before, he says. Cellar door. Closed. Since Tuesday, remain closed all through Wednesday night and on Thursday morning, including up to and beyond these homicides. Promises ample proof.
SPEAKER_01:Two main entrances securely fastened from inside. suggests controlled access.
SPEAKER_00:The rear door, the back way, locked by Bridget Wednesday night. Warning, she unlocked it for milk, locked it again. Then opened the outer wooden door for the day, just relying on the screen door hook inside because it was hot. When she went out later, she just re-hooked the screen, didn't re-lock the wooden door.
SPEAKER_01:So the back door seems less secure, just the screen hook. But Moody's overall point seems to be access was generally controlled from within, makes a random intruder less likely unless they broke a window, which she doesn't mention.
SPEAKER_00:He walks him through the morning timeline based on Bridget's expected testimony. She's up first, a little after six, down back way, cellar for fuel, builds kitchen fire.
SPEAKER_01:Day starts with the servant's routine, establishes early movements.
SPEAKER_00:Goes to rear door, gets milk, unlocks, locks again, opens outer door, relies on screen. Mrs. Borden down a little before seven. Then Mr. Borden. He goes to the yard, empty slot pail, unlocks barn door. Bridget sees him do this.
SPEAKER_01:Ordinary tasks, placing people, movements.
SPEAKER_00:Breakfast, a little after seven. Mr., Mrs. Borden, Mr. Morse eat. Bridget eats later, separately. Morse leaves first, quarter of eight. Mr. Borden lets him out the front, locks the screen door after him.
SPEAKER_01:Morse's departure confirmed. Remove him from the house during the critical times.
SPEAKER_00:Soon after Mr. Morse went away, Lizzie comes down, eats breakfast alone in the kitchen. While she's there, Mr. Borden goes upstairs. Then, while Borden's upstairs and Lizzie's in the kitchen, Bridget goes out to the yard, feels sick, needs to vomit. Gone some moments.
SPEAKER_01:An important window. Mr. Borden upstairs, Lizzie downstairs, servant outside. Potential opportunities depending on how long everyone was where.
SPEAKER_00:When Bridget comes back, Mr. Borden had apparently gone downtown. Lizzie's not in the kitchen anymore. Mrs. Borden is in the dining room, dusting. Mrs. Borden talks to Bridget about washing windows. Then, Moody says, Mrs. Borden told Lizzie that after making the spare room bed, the guest chamber, she was going upstairs to put pillowcases on pillows. A trifling duty takes less than a minute.
SPEAKER_01:Accounts for Mrs. Borden's movements just before her death. Downstairs, discusses chores, mentions going upstairs to the guest chamber for a quick task.
SPEAKER_00:Moody makes a critical claim about her timing, says this was not far from half past nine o'clock. And upon the evidence, you will be satisfied that she never left that room alive. Killed within a very few moments after she left the room because no living person saw Mrs. Borden from that time until her death, except the assailant.
SPEAKER_01:That's the prosecution's proposed time for Mrs. Borden's death. Shortly after 9.30 a.m., upstairs in the guest chamber. And crucially, Moody asserts no one else saw her after she went up, implying only the killer had access. Fist with his description of locked internal doors blocking that room off.
SPEAKER_00:He then details Bridget's window washing. Gets stuff from barn cellar. At the rear screen door, about to go out, Lizzie appears. Bridget says no need to lock, she's coming right back. Lizzie said nothing. Moody thinks the door wasn't locked then.
SPEAKER_01:Small interaction shows Bridget's movements, the state of the back door potentially unlocked while she's outside.
SPEAKER_00:Bridget closes windows inside kitchen, dining, sitting room, finds no one either, neither the prisoner nor Mrs. Borden, downstairs, then washes outside windows, sitting room first, south side, out of sight of screen door, then front windows, street side, then parlor and dining room windows, north side, Churchill side. During all the time, she saw neither Mrs. Borden nor the prisoner, That
SPEAKER_01:sequence, Bridget outside or busy downstairs, creates a big block of time, roughly 9.30 until Mr. Borden returns, during which he doesn't see Abby or Lizzie. For the prosecution, this is the key window for Mrs. Borden's murder. Abby's upstairs, Bridget's occupied, and doesn't see Lizzie downstairs, leaves Lizzie as the only one unaccounted for with potential access upstairs, assuming those locked doors are believed.
SPEAKER_00:Mr. Borden's return starts the next critical phase. Bridget finishes outside, comes in the back screen door, hooks it, starts washing inside windows in the sitting room. Then somebody was heard at the front door. It's Mr. Borden.
SPEAKER_01:His arrival sets the stage for his death and the discovery.
SPEAKER_00:Moody tries to pin down his arrival time. Reconstructs his morning downtown. Left home 9 to 9.30. Banks 9.30 after 10. Clegg's door 10.29 or 10.31. Moody says Clegg will fix the time. Left his own store, short walk home at 20 minutes of 11. 1040 a.m.
SPEAKER_01:So the prosecution uses his business stops to put him back at the house very close to 1040 a.m.
SPEAKER_00:He notes a potential conflict with Mrs. Kelly, the neighbor. She saw Borden on the sidewalk with his key around 10.32 or 10.33. Moody tackles this head on, suggesting Kelly's clock was unreliable, trusting the 1040 store departure time more.
SPEAKER_01:Smart move. Preemptively addresses conflicting testimony. Tells the jury why they should trust his timing evidence over the neighbor's clock.
SPEAKER_00:Describes the front door when Mr. Borden arrives. Contrary to the usual custom, locked with the key bolted and the spring lock engaged. Bordy uses his key, expects to get in, makes noise, but can't. Bridget has to come let him in, unfastening all those locks. He supposedly commented on the difficulty.
SPEAKER_01:The door being unusually secured from inside, presented as significant, implies someone inside deliberately locked it up tight. Security. Or maybe trying to prevent entry, delay discovery, Bridget having to undo multiple locks reinforces it.
SPEAKER_00:And here's another striking detail Moody drops right here. The prisoner from the hall above made some laugh or an exclamation, Moody adds chillingly. At that time, gentlemen, Mrs. Borden's body lay within plain view of that hall, dead probably for more than an hour.
SPEAKER_01:That alleged reaction, laughter from upstairs while her father struggles with the locks, stepmother dead nearby. The prosecution presents that as incredibly odd, cold, suggestive of guilt or at least a disturbing lack of appropriate reaction.
SPEAKER_00:After getting in, Mr. Borden goes into the dining room. Lizzie comes to him, asks about mail, and then, Moody claims, tells him, Mrs. Burden has gone out. She had a note from somebody who was sick. Moody calls this, flat out, a lie, intended for no purpose except to stifle inquiry as to the whereabouts of Mrs. Borden.
SPEAKER_01:This is key evidence of Lizzie allegedly lying about Abby's presence right when her father gets back. If the jury believes she said this and believes Abby was already dead upstairs... It's direct evidence of deception, knowledge of the crime. The detail about the note adds a plausible but supposedly fabricated explanation.
SPEAKER_00:After this, Mr. Borden takes his key, goes upstairs, comes back down. Bridget finishes sitting room windows, goes to dining room. While Bridget watches those windows, Moody says, The prisoner again appeared from the front part of the house, went to the kitchen, got an ironing board, and began to iron her handkerchiefs. Repeats the note story to Bridget while in the kitchen.
SPEAKER_01:So Lizzie is shown going about ordinary tasks, ironing right after her father's return, stepmother supposedly dead upstairs, and repeating the fake note story to Bridget. Presented as trying to appear normal, reinforce the false story, not showing concern or alarm.
SPEAKER_00:She also asks Bridget about going out later, tells her to be careful with locks because Lizzie may go out myself. Again, repeats, Mrs. Borden is out. Got a note. Bridget finishes dining room windows, puts stuff away, about to go upstairs. Lizzie mentions a cheap sale of goods downtown, cloth at eight cents a yard. Bridget says she might go. Then Bridget goes upstairs.
SPEAKER_01:That interaction about going out, the sale, prosecution could frame that as Lizzie subtly encouraging Bridget to leave. Clear the house after her father's return. Presented as calculated, normal behavior masking hidden events.
SPEAKER_00:Moody suggests all this after Mr. Borden came in happened fast. less time than perhaps it has taken me to tell it, tells the jury to measure time by what was done, not just witness estimates, implying the sequence of actions is more reliable than clocks.
SPEAKER_01:Setting expectations, focus on the events unlocking, going upstairs, talking, ironing, not just potentially shaky time estimates.
SPEAKER_00:After Bridget went upstairs, Moody says, nothing more that happened until the alarm is given to her. He then describes the post-alarm sequence to help fix the time. Bridget sent for Dr. Bowen across street, Returns, sent immediately for Ms. Russell, long distance away. As Bridget leaves, Mrs. Churchill, neighbor, comes over. Lizzie talks to Churchill. Churchill runs to stable, gets Cunningham to phone the marshal. Officer gets directions, checks watch. Quarter past 11, 1115 a.m.
SPEAKER_01:Establishes when the general alarm reached authorities, 1115 a.m. Combined with Mr. Borden's return around 10.40, 10.45, that sets the window for his murder. And the discovery, raising the alarm.
SPEAKER_00:Moody points out, Borden returned around 10.45. Alarm hit station 11-4-15. The time between Bridget going upstairs and the alarm being raised has to fit in that window, minus time for her downstairs work and all the post-alarm actions. Aaron's, Churchill, phone call. He leaves it to the jury to fix the time, but the implication is, Borden's death and discovery happened pretty quickly after 10.45.
SPEAKER_01:So the prosecution timeline. Mrs. Borden killed shortly after 9.30 a.m. Mr. Borden killed sometime between 10.45 and maybe 11.00. Followed immediately by the alarm around 11.15. That double window with significant time between deaths is crucial.
SPEAKER_00:Now, Moody really zooms in on Lizzie's behavior, her statements right after finding her father. He says the first thing that instinctively leaped to the lips of everyone asking her was, where were you? Says this happened even before thought of the suspicion crossed her head, just because she was the last one known to be with her father.
SPEAKER_01:Presented as the most natural question, Moody frames it as innocent inquiry, but uses it to highlight Lizzie being the only other person known to be there when her father died.
SPEAKER_00:He highlights her initial statements about where she was, claims they're contradictory. To Bridget, upon alarm. I was out in the backyard. I heard a groan. He came in. Found my father. Not sure if she said sick, killed, or dead. To Mrs. Churchill. I was out in the barn going for a piece of iron when I heard a distressed noise. Came in. Found my father dead. To Officer Mully. I went out into the barn, heard a peculiar noise, something like a scraping noise, and came in.
SPEAKER_01:These early accounts all have her outside. Yard or barn, drawn inside by a sound, groan, distress noise, scraping noise, leading to the discovery.
SPEAKER_00:But Moody says as inquiry begins to multiply, another story comes into view. She repeats it again and again and finally repeats it under oath. After Bridget went upstairs, she went out to the barn and into the loft of the barn to get lead to make sinkers.
SPEAKER_01:A significantly different later story. Specific location barn loft. Specific mundane purpose getting lead for fishing sinkers. Contrasts with being outside generally and drawn in by a noise.
SPEAKER_00:He contrasts this detailed later story explicitly. Later version. Went to loft. Opened window, ate pears, looked for lead, came down, checked kitchen stove fire, found it low, put hat down, started upstairs to wait for Bridget to build noon fire. And only then, as she went upstairs, did she accidentally discover her father.
SPEAKER_01:That shift is presented as crucial. Early stories. The sound of the homicide alerts her, brings her running. Later, sworn story. No mention of hearing anything alarming. Returns coolly, does chores. Checks fire, puts down hat, accidentally finds father while just going upstairs for another reason.
SPEAKER_00:Moody calls this vitally different. Not just words, but how she found the body. In the one case, she was alarmed by the noise of the homicide. In the other, she came coolly, deliberately about her business and accidentally discovered the homicide.
SPEAKER_01:For the prosecution, that contradiction screams consciousness of guilt. Why change the story? Why invent being drawn in by a sound if that's not what happened? They argue the later story was fabricated to explain why she didn't react or raise alarm during her father's murder because, in their theory, she was busy committing it.
SPEAKER_00:He then brings in evidence to undermine the Bar and Loft story. Points out August 4th was one of the very hottest days. Loft would be almost stifling. Officer Medley went there soon after the alarm, heard she claimed she was up there, observed the loft floor, thickly covered with dust, put his hands down, drew them across, saw clear marks, stepped up himself, counted steps, came down, saw plainly every footstep which he made.
SPEAKER_01:Circumstantial evidence using the loft's physical state. Prosecution argues, if Lizzie was recently up there that long, eating pears, finding lead, her movements should have left visible tracks in that thick dust. Medley's testimony aims to show his own recent steps left clear prints, while allegedly none attributable to Lizzie were seen, used to suggest her loft story was false.
SPEAKER_00:Moody notes other behavior he finds suspicious. When Bridget returned from getting Dr. Bowen, Lizzie was agitated about the screen door, but there'd been no scream, no alarm of any kind from Lizzie before that for either victim. She then sends Bridget on a much longer errand to Miss Russell, the friend she predicted disaster to. When Bridget asks logically, should she check for Mrs. Borden at Mrs. Whitehead's, Lizzie says, no, Bridget, no. I am almost sure I heard her come in. Moody stresses, no effort to communicate with Mrs. Borden up to then. Only later, after others arrive, does Lizzie ask Bridget to look for her.
SPEAKER_01:Presented as unnatural, indicative of guilt. Why no scream? Why no immediate concern or search for her stepmother, who she claimed was out? Why send the servant away on errands then? Prosecution argues it shows Lizzie already knew Abby was dead, was trying to control the scene, manage information.
SPEAKER_00:Mrs. Borden's body was found later. Bridget and Mrs. Churchill went up the front stairs, turned into the upper hall. Churchill looked in the guest chamber, saw Mrs. Borden's dead body as she looked under the bed.
SPEAKER_01:Describing the second discovery.
SPEAKER_00:Mentions Dr. Bowen, family doctor, friend, was among the first professionals there. Notes Bowen initially thought Mrs. Borden died of fright suggest this might affect the accuracy of his immediate observations.
SPEAKER_01:Seems like preemptively handling potential testimony from the doctor, if his initial thoughts, say about time or cause of death, didn't perfectly match the prosecution's later evidence.
SPEAKER_00:Moody highlights more of Lizzie's actions after people arrived. Says soon after, Lizzie passed from dining room through corner of sitting room without stopping to look at her dead father on the sofa. Went upstairs, passed the room where her stepmother lay dead without inquiry. Went into her own room, lay down. Soon after, without suggestion, changed her dress to a loose pink wrapper.
SPEAKER_01:These actions, not looking at her father, passing her dead stepmother's room without checking, retreating, changing clothes, unsolicited, presented as highly abnormal, suspicious for someone experiencing such tragedy, supposedly having just found one body. Changing clothes especially suggests hiding something, like blood.
SPEAKER_00:And finally, in this immediate aftermath sequence, while Alice Russell was with her in her bedroom, Lizzie supposedly said, I think I had better have Wynwood for Undertaker.
SPEAKER_01:Presented as another example of detached, maybe morbidly practical behavior in a crisis. While maybe practical in context after avoiding the bodies, changing clothes, prosecution could frame it as strangely composed, focused on logistics over grief. Unnatural for an innocent person, they'd argue.
SPEAKER_00:Okay, let's shift to the physical evidence Moody plans to use. He calls the relative time of the deaths a crucial point. Proof will show Mrs. Borden died sometime before Mr. Borden.
SPEAKER_01:Establishing the order of death is absolutely vital. If Mrs. Borden died first, it puts her death in that earlier window, around 9.30 a.m., when Moody claims only Lizzie was unaccounted for upstairs, separate from Bridget downstairs and Mr. Borden downtown.
SPEAKER_00:They'll rely on observations of the bodies by many witnesses. Mr. Borden's body, found later, freshly running blood, warm, not rigid. Mrs. Borden's body, found earlier, blood that was coagulated and hardened and dry. Body cold, stiffened in death. These signs, Moody argues, suggest Abby died significantly earlier. Plus, judgments of some professional men who saw the bodies there.
SPEAKER_01:Postmortem changes, blood coagulation, temperature rigor mortis indicate time since death. Moody promises testimony from multiple sources, including professionals, that these observations clearly pointed to Mrs. Borden dying earlier.
SPEAKER_00:Now the science bit. Moody introduces evidence from forensic analysis, specifically stomach contents. Professor Edward S. Wood, Harvard Medical School. Top forensic chemist then. Notes both Bordens ate breakfast, same time. Mrs. Borden's stomach, 11 ounces of food still digesting, 15 water, 45 food. Upper intestine had some partly digested food, lower intestine empty, Mr. Borden's stomach. Only six ounces, mostly water, a little solid food. Upper intestine empty, lower intestine contained the breakfasts that had been digested.
SPEAKER_01:That's significant for the time. Moody presents the comparison. Moody says experts...
SPEAKER_00:competent to give an opinion, will state that, upon those facts alone, Mrs. Borden must have died at least an hour before her husband. He explicitly links this scientific conclusion to her going upstairs around 9, town 30, and never leaving alive.
SPEAKER_01:That's the prosecution tying the science digestion state directly to their timeline. If believed, it strongly supports Abby dying well before Andrew, specifically in that window when they argue only Lizzie could have been with her upstairs.
SPEAKER_00:He also notes the blood spattering in these rooms would make it probable that one or more spatters would be upon the person or the clothing of the assailant.
SPEAKER_01:Right. Observation about expected blood spatter sets up the next crucial point. Lizzie's clothes. If the killer was close to those violent blows, blood on their clothing seems likely.
SPEAKER_00:Moody says the clothes Lizzie claims she wore, August 4th, shoes, stockings, dress, skirt, were produced a good many days after the homicide. Acknowledges most rigid examination by the most competent expert, Professor Wood again, found no marks of blood upon the dress. Skirt had one minute spot, but he dismisses it for now.
SPEAKER_01:That's a challenge for them, isn't it? If there was spatter and she wore these clothes, why no blood? Moody has to explain this apparent lack of direct evidence on the clothes presented.
SPEAKER_00:He immediately pivots, introduces contradictory descriptions of the dress she was wearing, says Lizzie usually wore a light blue calico cotton dress, dark navy blue figure in the mornings. But Dr. Bone described her in a cheap calico dress, a sort of drab colored dress. Mrs. Churchill says she wore a light blue ground with white in it, making it lighter blue, fixed navy blue figure without white. Crucially, when shown the dress produced at trial, Churchill will say, it is not the dress the prisoner had on upon the morning of the homicide.
SPEAKER_01:That discrepancy is key. Prosecution uses witnesses to argue the dress Lizzie produced wasn't the dress she wore that morning. Suggests the real dress was different. And that difference needs explaining.
SPEAKER_00:Which leads directly to maybe the most infamous evidence, the burnt dress incident. Moody sets the scene. Sunday morning, three days after murders. Saturday night, Mira Coughlin told Lizzie she was suspected. Bridget had left. Emma was back home. Alice Russell staying there too.
SPEAKER_01:Timing is crucial. Happens after Lizzie knows she's suspected, after the servant witness leaves. Happens with sister and friend present.
SPEAKER_00:Sunday morning, Alice Russell enters kitchen. Officers outside watching. Lizzie's there, dress skirt on her arm, waist on a shelf. Moody describes this dress. Cotton dress, purchased in the spring. A light blue dress with a fixed navy blue spot on it. Points out this matches Churchill's description, the typical morning dress, likely worn Thursday.
SPEAKER_01:So the dress being burned matches the description of the dress witnesses claimed she wore that morning, the one allegedly not produced at trial.
SPEAKER_00:According to Moody, Emma sees her. Asks Lizzie, what are you going to do? Lizzie, I'm going to burn this dress. It's all covered with paint. Alice Russell turns away, comes back, finds Lizzie tearing the waist. Alice, maybe sensing the implication, says, Lizzie, I would not do that where people can see you. Lizzie just moves slightly out of sight to keep burning it.
SPEAKER_01:Presented as clear destruction of evidence, prosecution argues the paint excuse was flimsy. Real reason. Destroy potential blood evidence. Doing it even after Alice expressed concern warned her about being seen. Makes it look even more deliberate.
SPEAKER_00:Alice's concern continued. Monday, after talking to a Pinkerton detective, Alice told Lizzie, Lizzie, I'm afraid the burning of that dress was the worst thing that you could have done. Lizzie's response, per Moody, Oh, why did you let me do it then?
SPEAKER_01:That response, prosecution would frame that as almost an admission, suggests she understood it was problematic, maybe regretted it, not because it was innocent, but because it looked bad.
SPEAKER_00:Moody ties it back to police searches. Officers search for clothes. No clothing unconcealed covered with paint could have escaped their observation if it wasn't burned. Implication. Burned because it was covered with something incriminating, not just paint. Deliberate concealment from searching authorities.
SPEAKER_01:Incredibly powerful circumstantial evidence. If the jury believes the burnt dress was the dress from that morning, burned because it had evidence? Very tough for the defense.
SPEAKER_00:Now the weapons. Indictment says sharp cutting instrument. Description unknown. Moody says government must present info on potential weapons found on site.
SPEAKER_01:have to address the weapon, even if they can't pinpoint the exact one. Showing potential weapons were available in the house is part of arguing an insider did it.
SPEAKER_00:Two hatchets, two axes found. Moody dismisses the axes right away. So far out of the question, need not waste any time, presumably wrong size or type for the wounds.
SPEAKER_01:Rules out the obvious non-starters. Focuses attention.
SPEAKER_00:Initial focus on one hatchet. Had spots, thought to be blood. Moody admits visual ID is hard, even for Professor Wood. But most rigid examination found not the slightest evidence of bloodstain on either of those first hatchets. Apparent blood was something else.
SPEAKER_01:Interesting. He's upfront about evidence that looked promising but didn't hold up scientifically? Might build credibility when he presents science that does support his case? Shows thorough investigation.
SPEAKER_00:Notes ragged bits near handle blade and on handle of this innocent hatchet. Professor Wood will testify these hatchets could not in all probability have been used and have been washed. without blood catching on those ragged bits. His view. These are entirely innocent.
SPEAKER_01:So expert evidence not just that they lacked blood, but that given their state, effective cleaning was impossible. Therefore, lack of blood plus structure, likely not the weapon.
SPEAKER_00:But then, the handless hatchet, Moody says another weapon part, found day of homicide, attracted little attention initially found after what was thought to be a bloody hatchet had been discovered. Officers saw it, left it.
SPEAKER_01:Introduces another possibility. Less obvious potential weapon. Maybe significance missed at first?
SPEAKER_00:Condition when found. Handle fragment still in head. Covered with adhesion of ashes. Coarse dust. Not fine floating dust. Taken away Monday morning. Custody traced. Both hatchets rusty, but handleless ones rust. Uniform upon both sides and all parts, like from wet grass or dew. Suggests consistent moisture exposure.
SPEAKER_01:Ash and uniform rust. Presented as potentially significant. Ash. Hidden in fireplace bin. uniform rust, maybe washed then left somewhere damp to rust evenly, make it look unused, uncleaned recently.
SPEAKER_00:Professor Wood saw it soon after discovery. Moody says Wood will testify. While ragged bits on other hatchets would hold blood, ragged bits near blade entry on this one would detain absolutely no indications, implying this one was smoother, shaped so blood could be readily, effectually, and completely removed by washing soon after.
SPEAKER_01:Prosecution's argument for why this hatchet, despite being clean, could be the weapon suggests deliberate washing, structure allowed easy cleaning, unlike others, counters the no blood on any hatchet means hatchet wasn't used or killer took his argument.
SPEAKER_00:And critically, Professor Wood will say the break where the handle was missing, color changed by acid tests, was a new break, a fresh break, perhaps a day or might have been a month old, but not an old break.
SPEAKER_01:Handle break being recent is important. suggests handle deliberately removed or broken off near time of murders. Make weapon less identifiable, easier to hide, dispose of bloody handle separately.
SPEAKER_00:Moody then presents evidence linking this type of weapon to injuries. Refers to preserve parts of victim's skulls. Wounds show, undistakably, the weapon was sharp. And strikingly, Mr. Borden's skull shows chipping blows where the blade was exactly 312 inches, no more, no less. Moody proclaims, That is the exact measurement of the blade of that hatchet. The handless one.
SPEAKER_01:Powerful physical evidence, Link. Claiming weapon width from skull wounds exactly matches blade width of the handless hatchet found there. Strong, tangible connection. Even if not definitive proof, it was the weapon.
SPEAKER_00:But Moody's careful. Qualifies it immediately. The government does not insist that these homicides were committed by this handless hatchet. It may have been the weapon. It may well have been the weapon.
SPEAKER_01:Smart legal move. Presents strong circumstantial evidence it could be the weapon. Easy, clean, fresh break, blade match. But doesn't hang the whole case on proving this specific object was used. The bigger point is what happened to the bloody weapon.
SPEAKER_00:Which brings him to the one significant fact, emphasized. The bloody weapon was not found. Not by victims, not on premises, not nearby.
SPEAKER_01:The absence of the bloody weapon is itself evidence requires explanation what happened to it.
SPEAKER_00:Moody contrasts two possibilities for the jury based on this missing weapon. An intruder flying from his crimes with the bloody weapon through the streets of Fall River at noonday or the acts of an inmate familiar with its resources for destruction, obliteration and concealment.
SPEAKER_01:core of their argument on weapon and opportunity intruder fleeing busy street midday with bloody weapon less likely to escape dispose of it effectively nearby inmate familiar with house layout hiding spots like ash bin where handleless hatchet may be found much better position to hide destroy weapon quickly effectively explains why bloody weapon never found missing weapon points inwards
SPEAKER_00:he also points out lack of other motives no signs of struggle Not a thing, disturbed, no property taken, no drawers ransacked, Mr. Borden had money, watch, chain, rules out robbery. Also, nothing to indicate a motive of that sort, like sexual assault, though notes age is no protection, considered and ruled out.
SPEAKER_01:Eliminating other common motives, robbery, assault, narrows possibilities for why. Implicitly strengthens their focus on the stated motive. Alleged animosity, financial tension, valuables left untouched strongly suggests motive wasn't theft.
SPEAKER_00:Crucially, Moody stresses, not the slightest evidence of the struggle. Assailant, able to approach each victim in broad daylight and without a struggle and without a murmur to lay them low. Mrs. Borden found between bureau and bed, head hacked. Mr. Borden on sofa, quote, Apparently he had passed from life to death without a struggle or a movement. Similar head wounds.
SPEAKER_01:Lack of struggle suggests victims caught unaware, instantly incapacitated, or maybe didn't see attacker as threat. Combined with broad daylight, busy house, points away from stranger attacked, poured someone who could approach without alarm or resistance. Someone known, comfortable.
SPEAKER_00:Regarding opportunity, Moody says it will appear no one was seen to escape. nor to enter that house on the morning of August 4th, calls this confirmatory evidence of the conclusive evidence of the opportunity in the house.
SPEAKER_01:No witnesses seeing anyone suspicious entering or leaving. Further supports the insider theory. Combined with locked doors sealed off internal areas, argues killer was already inside, didn't need to enter or make visible escape.
SPEAKER_00:So what does it all add up to? Moody wraps his opening by summarizing the key pillars of the Commonwealth's case, pulling all those details together.
SPEAKER_01:His final chance in the opening to consolidate the narrative leave the jury with the main takeaways from their perspective.
SPEAKER_00:Says they'll prove the unkindly feeling, the motive. Reiterates Wednesday, Lizzie, dwelling upon murder, preparing with prussic acid request, that evening predicting disaster and cataloging defenses with Alice Russell, suggests premeditation or deliberate false narrative creation.
SPEAKER_01:Presents motive and alleged preparation first. Links day before to the crimes.
SPEAKER_00:Stresses timing and isolation. From Mrs. Borden going upstairs until Lizzie came down an hour later from hall, leading only to her room and guest room, no other human being except the prisoner present. repeats this based on layout, locked doors, argues opportunity for Abby's murder lay solely with Lizzie. Similar point for Andrew's death timeframe.
SPEAKER_01:Directly addresses opportunity for both murders, especially Abby's earlier one, places Lizzie as the only one with presence and access during critical windows.
SPEAKER_00:Says these were acts of a human being, acts of someone with familiar knowledge of the interior, whereabouts and habits of occupants. Argues this knowledge used to pick time and place when victims were isolated, vulnerable.
SPEAKER_01:Explicitly rules out unfamiliar intruder lacking specific household knowledge. Reinforces insider argument.
SPEAKER_00:Reiterates they'll prove Lizzie made contradictory statements about her whereabouts and crucially gave a vitally different statement about the manner in which she discovered these homicides under oath versus initial accounts. And will prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of Mrs. Borden was a prior death.
SPEAKER_01:Alleged lies. Contradictory discovery story, scientific proof of death order, highlighted as major evidence pointing to defendant.
SPEAKER_00:Concludes summary, posing the central question, the challenge in a circumstantial case. We'll ask jury, if say you can, whether any other reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of this prisoner can account for the sad occurrences.
SPEAKER_01:Standard legal test for circumstantial evidence. Prosecution must convince jury their guilt theory is the only reasonable explanation fitting all evidence. If jury finds any other reasonable explanation, must acquit.
SPEAKER_00:Finally, Moody addresses jury directly, including remarks. Solemn instruction. Tell them, time for idle rumor, partial insufficient information, hasty and inexact reasoning is passed. Guidance must come by the law and the evidence only. Put aside outside influences.
SPEAKER_01:Crucial instruction. Decision based only on courtroom evidence, not public opinion, newspapers, speculation.
SPEAKER_00:Implores them. Keep minds open and receptive, as sworn, to the end. Says, if the evidence fails, God forbid that you should step one step against the law or be on the evidence to the injury of this prisoner.
SPEAKER_01:Formal acknowledgement of presumption of innocence, high standard of proof, presents himself as advocating justice based solely on evidence, even while laying out strong guilt case. If evidence doesn't meet standard, obligated to acquit.
SPEAKER_00:But immediately follows. If your mind's Considering all these circumstances are led irresistibly to the conclusion of her guilt, we ask you, in your verdict, to declare the truth. And by so doing, shall you make true deliverance of the great issue.
SPEAKER_01:Powerful closing. If evidence overwhelmingly convinces them of guilt, their duty is a guilty verdict. Frames conviction not as punishment, but declaring truth, fulfilling their responsibility.
SPEAKER_00:And with that, 1055 AM, Moody finishes opening for the Commonwealth. Court recessed. Jury returned after 11 to start hearing evidence.
SPEAKER_01:Gives us a really comprehensive look at the narrative, arguments, specific evidence points the prosecution planned to use, all delivered in that crucial first address.
SPEAKER_00:So let's quickly recap Moody's argument. Built on pillars, motive, animosity, financial tension with stepmother, opportunity, locked house, internal barriers restricting movement, only insider could do it, legit preparation, prussic acid request, Alice Russell conversation, physical evidence, Order of deaths via body, state, stomach contents, handless hatchet analysis could be weapon, easily cleaned, blade width match, burnt dress, suggesting destroyed evidence, and Lizzie's own alleged contradictory behavior statements, varying whereabouts, shifted discovery story versus barndust, odd actions after discovery like changing clothes, undertake her comment.
SPEAKER_01:He skillfully wove all those threads, created a detailed narrative aiming to point jury inevitably towards Lizzie's guilt based entirely on circumstance, timeline, physical evidence interpretation, her alleged actions and words. Masterclass in constructing a circumstantial case opening.
SPEAKER_00:The power of an opening like this. Huge. State's first best shot to define the story, frame the facts, create the lens for the jury. Moody's presentation, even just reading this, feels incredibly detailed, comprehensive, promising specific witnesses, forensic evidence for each claim.
SPEAKER_01:It's careful legal strategy. Anticipates defenses like an intruder tries to counter them up front. Lock doors. No forced entry. No robbery. Insider knowledge needed. Guiding perception before evidence is formally presented.
SPEAKER_00:And remember, listening, this was just one side. Powerful presentation of the prosecution's theory. Meticulously built from their evidence, their interpretation. We saw how carefully he used house details, timeline, forensics, Lizzie's reported words actions to build his case for guilt.
SPEAKER_01:Understanding this initial prosecution case is fundamental to understanding the trial dynamics that followed. The defense then faced the huge task of challenging every point, every piece of evidence.
SPEAKER_00:Which leaves us with a final thought, something to ponder from this source. Moody presents this seemingly airtight case, web of circumstance, motive, opportunity, contradiction, builds with such confidence, promises support. Thinking only about this opening, how does a defense lawyer even start unraveling that? Such a detailed, multifaceted argument. What points do you attack first? And even with all Moody's details, house, times, actions, science, what questions does his opening not answer? What aspects, even as he tells it, feel incomplete, leave room for doubt?
SPEAKER_01:Highlights the immense challenge for the defense, right? Not just refuting bits of evidence, but dismantling the whole cohesive guilt narrative the prosecution built right at the start.
SPEAKER_00:Indeed. Something to think about as we wrap this deep dive into the prosecution's opening in the historic trial, Lizzie Andrew Borden.