The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1892-09-02
JUDGE BLAIsDELL's DECISION.

The decision Of Judge Blaisdell that
Lizzie A. Borden is probably guilty :"
of the murder of her father and step
mother is the final word in hearing
which has attracted the attention OF the
whole civilized world. And whatever
plying sentiment or honest conviction
the public may have, 1t is now neces-
sary to recognize i'm the decision the ex-
preston of legal authority and submit
to it's dicta.
Since the days of the inquest the prob
able decision of the court has been pre-
dicted by all who were conversant with
the facts of the case and the require
ments of the law. It does not come
Unexpectedly. The public has been long
prepared for it. While, however, this
expectation has been almost certainty,
the spirit of mercy has inspired the con-
slant hope that the light of the evidence
would dispel the darkness of suspicion
and free the daughter from the un-
natural charge Of having murdered her
parents. But the futility of that hope
became moe and more evident as each
day passed. II is true that all of the
government theories proved vain until
at last only Lizzie's own evidence was
left to sustain the suspicion against her.
Whatever may be the general opinion
in regard to the methods by which that
evidence was obtained, and whatever
allowance must be. made for natural and
inevitable lapses of memory as to minor
details, it contained some statements
the logical conclusion Of which could not
be avoided.
The question to be decided by Judge
Blaisdell was not whether Lizzie Borden
is guilty or innocent. He was not even
to decide whether she is probably guilty
or innocent, although the legal phrase
ology Of his decision uses those very
words. 1t was his simple duty TO weigh
the evidence and to decide whether the
probabilities of the suspicion were not
greater than the probabilities of her en-
tire innocence. Ii so, he was not to ad-
judge her guilty or innocent, but SIM
ply to remand her to the grand jury.
That he was not eager to do
this has been plain to all, and
indeed until yesterday when Attorney
Knowlton presented his array of facts
and suspicious circumstances, there
has been a slight possibility that he
| could not maintain his case. But when
his speech was ended there was but one
conclusion to reach. Lizzie's mysteri-
ous visit to the barn, the yet undiscov-
cred note, and her confession of her
presence at the house, the absence of
any claim on her part that anyone else
was there, were dwelt upon with such
minuteness aud logical clearness that
the conviction forced itself upon the
audience that the question of Lizzie's
implication in the crime must have fur
ther investigation.
The prosecutions plea is that Lizzie
was there when the murders were COM
mitted, and that no one else was there
The first OF these is a confessed fact, the
second is shown by inference from cir.
cumstantial evidence. The defence
assert that direct evidences of Lizzie's
guilt are wanting, but they do not claim
she was not on the premises at the time
Of the murders. They assert that some
one else might have been there too, but
they do not prove that some one else was
there they 90 not even claim that any
one else was there. And until they or
the officers do find some one else who
was present. the finger Of suspicion must
point to Lizzie, however unreasonable