They both have been called crimes of the centuries. Both
involved brutal bloody murders, high profile suspects and sensational media
coverage not just locally, but nationally and even worldwide. And that is not where
the similarities end. In fact, that is just the beginning when talking about
two of the most famous murderers who were found not guilty. Yes, Lizzie Borden
and O.J.Simpson should have been convicted but even 100 years between trials
couldn’t keep social circumstances and media frenzy from allowing both to get
away with murder.
The
similarities of the cases are striking. The gruesome bloody murders of Abby and
Andrew Borden occurred August 4, 1892. Just over 100 years later on June 12,
1994 Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were both savagely stabbed to
death. The murders resembled the plot of a horror movie, and that is what set
the tone for the trials, whether the two suspects in question could have
committed such brutal acts.
While
inquiring how both were acquitted it’s important to recognize the insight of
the defense for each trial. The attorneys for both were able to look at the big
picture, feed a gossip hungry society and have a sense of where the media would
fit into their defense. In addition, their defense strategy within cultural
context greatly reinforced their case.
Criminal justice recognizes means,
motive and opportunity as the key aspects needed to convict a person beyond a
reasonable doubt. After authorities investigated these crimes it was determined
the suspects fully met the criteria. Lizzie Borden had killed her father and
stepmother and O.J.Simpson had killed his ex-wife and her friend. While there
were no eye witnesses to either crime, much of the evidence in both cases was viewed
as strong in the minds of many historians (Linder). Furthermore, far-fetched
alibis were presented on behalf of both suspects; O.J. practicing golf shots at
night in his yard and Lizzie searching for fishing sinkers in a barn loft on an
excruciatingly hot August day (Eaton).
Lizzie
Borden, during her inquest testimony and questioning had many inconsistencies and
problems with her answers. In addition, she had tried to buy prussic acid, a
potent poison, the day before the murders. However, these significant pieces of
information, including her entire inquest testimony were not allowed in the actual
trial (Linder). Furthermore, the blue dress Lizzie was wearing the day of the
murder was burned days after the crime because it was said to be covered in
paint. Her alibi of being in the barn looking for lead sinkers raised more questions
as police stated there were no footprints on the dusty floor where she was
supposed to have been (Linder). The case against her mounted and a grand jury convened
and indicted her.
O.J.Simpson
was linked to this crime from the outset mainly due to physical evidence. There
was hair, fiber and blood evidence linking Simpson to the crime, including
socks in Simpson’s home with blood matching his ex-wife. Additionally, a left
bloody glove found at the murder scene matched a right glove found at Simpson’s
residence (Linder). But perhaps the strangest twist in this case was the infamous
Bronco chase. On June 17, 1994, as he was about to be arrested, O.J. left a rambling
note that most viewed as a suicide note (Linder) and fled in his white Ford
Bronco. With his friend Al Cowlings driving, they went on a slow “police chase”
till he returned home with police following and was arrested. This very odd act
convinced many people of his guilt and became a cultural event; “Where were you
during O.J.’s Bronco chase?”
In these trials it was demonstrated how cultural and social factors could convince a jury to overlook evidence and arrive at verdicts that shook the nation. In the case of Lizzie Borden, it was late 19th century Fall River, MA that influenced the trial. The defense, to their credit, worked within that ideology. Her lead attorney was former governor George Dexter Robinson and he received $25,000 of Lizzie’s $40,000 legal fees in addition to becoming a celebrity at the trial. The defense established that it was unthinkable to imagine a church going woman of means, doing charitable work, free to enjoy her leisure at her father’s residence being capable of this massacre. It was stated,” To suggest a woman of good family, blameless life, and unimpeachable character could possibly commit two such murders is to suggest something so rare…. almost unknown to criminology” (Robertson, 11). Fall River was in denial, because if Lizzie was guilty, then perhaps any apparently proper middle class woman might be equally capable of such violence (Robertson, 2). At the trial, her feminine demeanor, virtuous poses, and appearance of the dutiful daughter was too much for the prosecution to overcome especially with their portrayal of her as a Jekyll and Hyde personality (Linder). The press got behind her as were many feminists who visited her in jail and rallied for a representative jury. She became the silent star of the show. In fact, even the judge, as he charged the jury preparing to deliberate told them they should take into account Lizzie's exceptional Christian character, which entitled her to every inference in her favor (Linder). Lizzie Borden never took the stand in her defense. The jury convened about 90 minutes and returned a not guilty verdict. The New York Times, after the verdict, commended the jury on their promptness in acquitting Lizzie. They also blasted the Police and Prosecution for bringing the indictment in the first place.
In these trials it was demonstrated how cultural and social factors could convince a jury to overlook evidence and arrive at verdicts that shook the nation. In the case of Lizzie Borden, it was late 19th century Fall River, MA that influenced the trial. The defense, to their credit, worked within that ideology. Her lead attorney was former governor George Dexter Robinson and he received $25,000 of Lizzie’s $40,000 legal fees in addition to becoming a celebrity at the trial. The defense established that it was unthinkable to imagine a church going woman of means, doing charitable work, free to enjoy her leisure at her father’s residence being capable of this massacre. It was stated,” To suggest a woman of good family, blameless life, and unimpeachable character could possibly commit two such murders is to suggest something so rare…. almost unknown to criminology” (Robertson, 11). Fall River was in denial, because if Lizzie was guilty, then perhaps any apparently proper middle class woman might be equally capable of such violence (Robertson, 2). At the trial, her feminine demeanor, virtuous poses, and appearance of the dutiful daughter was too much for the prosecution to overcome especially with their portrayal of her as a Jekyll and Hyde personality (Linder). The press got behind her as were many feminists who visited her in jail and rallied for a representative jury. She became the silent star of the show. In fact, even the judge, as he charged the jury preparing to deliberate told them they should take into account Lizzie's exceptional Christian character, which entitled her to every inference in her favor (Linder). Lizzie Borden never took the stand in her defense. The jury convened about 90 minutes and returned a not guilty verdict. The New York Times, after the verdict, commended the jury on their promptness in acquitting Lizzie. They also blasted the Police and Prosecution for bringing the indictment in the first place.
Similarly, O.J.Simpson’s defense team did not allow him to testify. It has been reported his
“dream team’ as they were called cost him between 3 and 6 million dollars. Like the Borden trial, this time it was 1990’s Los Angeles that influenced the
case. Just as gender and wealth played a part in Fall River 100 years earlier, race
and wealth were the players in this trial. On the heels of the Rodney King
trial and subsequent riots in LA in 1992 (Wingate), many African-Americans and other citizens alike, had lost respect and trust in the Police. Therefore, at the heart of the defense
was race. This trial, was a “show” as it was televised live, allowing everyone
involved to be seen by all of America and the world. It was a showcase for the
defense team and for the former football hero turned accused murderer. Defense
attorney Johnnie Cochran was able to expose lead detective Mark Fuhrman as a
racist and convinced the jury and much of the public that evidence could have
been planted during the investigation. In addition, Fuhrman didn’t help his
cause by citing the Fifth Amendment during his testimony (Linder). As Cochran magnified
the relationship between African-Americans and the police, many critics accused
him of playing an unethical “race card” (Wingate) but for African-Americans it
was not unethical and it wasn’t a “card”, but a way of life. A few years
earlier, they had seen four police officers acquitted in the videotaped beating
of Rodney King. The polarized climate in Los Angeles at that time cannot be
understated. Furthermore, defense attorney Barry Sheck, an expert in the new
field of DNA evidence supported the possibility that evidence was compromised
during the collection process by police. The defense was not arguing the
existence of the evidence, but the integrity and reliability of it and how it
was obtained. Finally, there was a severe
blunder by the prosecution when they let O.J.Simpson try on the gloves that
were in evidence and they didn’t fit (Linder). This high priced defense team
did its job. In spite of all the evidence which clearly pointed to Simpson, the
jury came back with a not guilty verdict in less than 4 hours. In this modern
era of opinion polls, Gallup reported in 1995, 78% of blacks and 42% of whites
said the verdict was correct and only 22% of people polled said race had no
effect on the verdict (Linder).
Many
similarities were uncovered in researching these cases but perhaps the most
startling was what happened to both suspects after their acquittals. As the
public had time to digest these cases, both Borden and Simpson, wealthy and
celebrity in status, were ostracized by their local communities. Lizzie Borden
went on to inherit much wealth from her father and purchased a huge mansion in
the wealthy part of town on “the hill” and named it Maplecroft (Linder). O.J.Simpson spent much of his time after the criminal trial involved in a civil
trial which he was found guilty of wrongful death (Linder). Even though Simpson
vowed to find the real killer, no other killer was ever found. The same can be
said in the deaths of Andrew and Abby Borden. No other killer or killers were
ever found. Borden lived alone and never married till her death in 1927 at the
age of 67. Simpson, plagued with financial and legal problems for years following
his trial, is currently in prison for kidnapping and robbery charges from a
2007 case in Las Vegas.
Both of
these people were found not guilty despite damaging evidence to the contrary
and both are remembered by a couple of lasting images and quotes. The O.J. trial
cannot be discussed without recalling that image of him unsuccessfully trying
to squeeze his hands into the murder gloves in the courtroom with Cochran
stating, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” (Linder). Lizzie was immortalized
through a child’s rhyme written at the time of the trial; “Lizzie Borden took
an axe, gave her mother forty whacks, when she saw what she had done, she gave
her father forty-one” (Linder).
Works Cited
Eaton, William.
"Just like oj's trial but without kato." American Journalism
Review. 17 (1995): n. page. Web. http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001654734
Linder, Doug.
"The Trial of Lizzie Borden." Famous
Trials . N.p., 2004. Web.
Linder, Doug. "The Trial of O J Simpson." Famous
Trials. N.p., 2000. Web
Robertson, Cara.
"Representing "Miss Lizzie": Cultural convictions in the trial
of Lizzie Borden." Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities. (1996):
1-53. Retrieved from, http://campus.westlaw.com.library.esc.edu/result
Wingate, Keith. "The
O.J.Simpson Trial: Seeing the elephant." The University of California, Hastings College of the Law. N.p., 2009.
Web http://www.uchastings.edu/racism-race/oJ.html
No comments:
Post a Comment