1. "Two dresses?"
Posted by girliemac on Apr-12th-03 at 4:37 PM

I've always been curious about the fact that 1-1/2 hours elapsed between the two murders.  If Lizzie killed Abbie she would have blood all over her dress.  That means she would have to remove it in case a neighbour came to the door, Bridget comes downstairs, or Morse comes home - any number of possibilities.  Would she put a bloody dress back on to kill her father?  Wasn't she standing at the top of the stairs when Bridget fumbled with the lock to let the father in?  It seems to me I read where Lizzie laughed at Bridget. At this point, wouldn't she have a clean dress on?  After killing Andrew, she would have to dispose of another bloody dress wouldn't she?  Perhaps I have this all wrong.  It's been several years since I read the last book and I have ready many books about the case over the years but details sometimes get foggy over time.  Has anyone any ideas about this to set my mind at rest once and for all?

Oh, my-- you came about a dress and would like your mind put to rest?
I think we have been discussing the dresses of Lizzie for 3 years and others here for longer.
We have a fabric expert and a costume expert and an artist etc.  If we cannot agree on a dress, I don't know if it will ever happen.

I do wonder sometimes why some think there were 2 dresses that got bloody.
I can see some thinking a bloody dress is disposed of and another one takes it's place to kill Andrew.  Is this what you mean?
Because I couldn't see the point of using up 2 whole dresses.
I think if Lizzie did get blood on her if she did the deed, that she could change out of that Abby-killing dress, store it, and don it again is she has to, to do in Andrew.
I don't necessarilly believe this but I don't see why it couldn't be this way.
Our Fabric lover also tells us tho, that those dresses of the times were hard to get into and out of.
But if those outfits were each in 2 pieces, maybe Lizzie can mix and match a skirt with a blouse-waist, and use pieces of clothing as needed.
I know a bunch here have heard this before from me, but hey!  I got to girliemac first!

BTW:  Welcome!

Thank you Kat.  I know from reading the messages in the forum that you are very knowledgeable about the case.  I'm a newbie on this web site and am not aware of all the discourse about the dress. How foolish of me to think I was the only one that thought there may have been another dress. It's an interesting thought though.  It's just that I can't imagine putting on a bloody dress again in order to kill another person but then, I've not been in that position.  It seems there was always a fire going in the old wood stove back then because it was their only means of cooking.  It would be easy to drop a dress in there and get another one. Knowing Lizzie's love of fine things I'm sure she had a large wardrobe.

I would think if a number of people thought what you are alluding to, then there might very well be something to it!
The thing is, it's not foolish, if there is a consensus of opinion.
Personally I think those dresses are yards and yards and yards of material But I never thought of that until Edisto talked about it.  She can visualize the practical problems of disposing of something like that.

But now are we talking 2 dresses or 3 or 4?
Are you interested in one dress to kill Abby & one to kill Andrew and then one of those was disposed of Thursday before Andrew returned and then does that leave the second dress the one burned Sunday?

And then there is the bengaline she turned in to the court.

What do you think of all those dresses?  ANY ideas are welcome on the dresses, believe me!
(It gets confusing).

I would only consider two dresses, both burned the same day if that wood stove was fired up (or even smoldering).  We have to consider the police searched everywhere for any blood-stained clothing and found none. Where would she have hidden a bloody dress (or two)? It's possible the dress she burned on Sunday that she said had paint on it may have had paint on it.  Will we ever know?  She must have been one cool cookie!  I'm no expert on Victorian dresses but I do know that day dresses were simple and not as voluminous as evening wear that indeed used many, many yards of material. Dark shades were the norm for day wear and the Bengaline may have been only one of several navy dresses.  It wasn't uncommon to buy bolts of material on sale and have 3 or 4 dresses made from the same material. I'm sure Edisto would agree with me on this. I would welcome some more opinions on this topic because I am still of the opinion she wouldn't walk around with a bloody dress on for 1-1/2 hours and change back into a bloody dress to kill her father.  

So Lizzie might have burned 3 dresses?
Well, Emma was in charge of Lizzie's dress inventory so we can't exactly rely on Her for a true number.  So anything is possible there as to how many dresses Lizzie really had.
There was a letter, I think to Knowlton?  Where there is interest in checking the ashes of the furnace down in the cellar for hooks and eyes and things of that nature.
Does that ring any bells with anyone?
Maybe the furnace would be a quicker more efficient way to burn clothing.

Anyway, your idea of several outfits from one bolt of cloth is a really good one.  I never thought of that as something that might be common back then!

What do you think of dresses coming in 2 parts?  A skirt and blouse-waist?
If Lizzie had a duplicate skirt, say, that would be cool to imagine!
Then if she kills Abby and the skirt gets bloody, she disposes of that and just changes her skirt!
Then if she kills Andrew and gets blood on her top, she changes that and VoiLA!  She still is dressed similarly as all morning and has only destroyed 2 items!
Hmmmm....

(Message last edited Apr-12th-03  10:23 PM.)

Somehow I can't imagine all the blood that must have been shed would  only land either on a skirt or on a blouse.  I think that so many blows of the axe would certainly splatter over most of the murderer, even the hair (which we know she had not washed, nor was it disheveled, according to the testimony.)  Is it possible we are barking up the wrong tree and this young woman was totally innocent?  Are we trying to make the facts fit the crime or make the facts fit our favorite suspect? In my heart I believe she is guilty but my gawd, I would love to know how she did it. The weapon was never found. How did she find the time to dispose of the dress and the weapon? It is really a who-dun-it.  I wish Agatha Christie was still alive; she'd figure it out. I visited the house in Fall River and it was sureal. Since then, this case has captured my imagination like nothing else I've ever known. After all these years, no one has figured it out.      

I just wrote a friend a note this evening telling her I enjoyed "Locked-Room" mysteries.
I can always figure out WHO but not HOW.
The HOW is the thing that just carries away my imagination....
You're so lucky to have visited the house.
Do you feel like telling of the experience?
We LOVE that here!

Maybe she did it wearing her chemise & then put her dress
back on over it & then cut the underclothes up & hid them
as menstrual towels & then noticed she had bloodied the
inside of her dress & had to burn it. Were menstrual rags
just regular cotton I wonder? Of course if she did do it
she could have been naked -- even if she was a modest
Victorian lady, she was still a lady on a killing spree &
probably didn't care about running around the house bare
bottomed.

And welcome Girliemac!

Thank you for the kind welcome Kimberley.  You know, you just might have something.  The chemise idea fits better than her being naked. She could throw a dress over the bloody chemise (if she knew she was going to kill Andrew and didn't want to spoil 2 sets of chemises,) then remove the dress for the 2nd killing and dispose of the chemise the way you said, as menstrual cloths.  As far as the cloths being cotton I imagine they would use anything that came to hand if it was absorbent.  Interesting point Kimberley.  I'll have to mull that over for a while.

Agatha Christie was alive until 1976, so she had many years in which to solve the Borden mystery.  As far as I know, she never managed to do so.  I think she did a better job of solving (fictional) mysteries in which she could control all the circumstances.  Much tidier than the Borden case.
I've never heard of the Victorian practice of buying a bolt of material and making several similar dresses from it.  I'm sure some people probably did that, just as some people today have little imagination and prefer to dress the same every day.  (I feel myself getting more and more like that.)  I've heard of people out on the prairies who would order a bolt of fabric from back east and make dresses, men's shirts, rompers for the kiddies, etc., from the same material.  Lizzie Borden, however, lived in a town that was known for its cotton cloth manufacturing.  She had many options, and I haven't read that she was in the habit of making several outfits from the same fabric.  It does seem that she liked the color blue and had many dresses in that color. 
As it happens, there were a couple of witnesses to the fact that Lizzie got paint on her Bedford cord dress shortly after it was made.  Of course, we don't know whether there was blood mingled in with that, because the police apparently overlooked the dress during their searches.  Maybe Lizzie helped them overlook it...  IMHO, Lizzie probably didn't spend the morning of August 4, 1892, burning most of her wardrobe in the kitchen range or the furnace.  She didn't have time, for one thing.  Also, she claimed the fire in the range had burned down too low to heat her flatirons, and that's pretty much what the police noticed when they looked into the stove.  Just a few coals and what looked like a roll of burnt paper.  If the Borden furnace had been operating on an August morning, that would probably have been obvious too. Whew!  Hot in here!
Lizzie's Bedford cord dress was described by Emma and by the dressmaker as being cut full and having many yards of inexpensive fabric in it.  It would have taken some time to burn.  Burning several such dresses would have been much more of a chore, even if they weren't cut as full.
I don't think Lizzie spent the early part of the morning wandering about the house in a blood-stained dress, because she was seen by both Bridget and Andrew, who would probably have noticed.  Just my opinion, of course.

It was in 1996 that I visited the Lizzie Borden house. The house itself and the street as well, look nothing like the house pictured in all the books.  The homes across from Lizzie's have been torn down and a large new building was built there (I think a bus terminal).   There is no fence around the property and the front of the house has had an addition attached to it which is being used as a print shop.  That totally spoils the look of the house which is a very modest frame home. The barn has long since been torn down and the property looks small. It was very eerie going into the guest room where Mrs. Borden was killed and the room where Andrew met his fate.  Emma's room was very small.  Lizzie's was almost luxurious and nicely furnished.  The Borden's bedroom was very large and Mrs. Borden slept in a little room off the master bedroom. Bridget's room was very small.  The attic rooms are now large bedrooms and very nicely furnished.  I wouldn't care to stay in that house myself.  It gave me the creeps.  Seeing the actual kitchen and dining room put everything into perspective for me and I'm thrilled that I had the opportunity to go there. 

You are so right about Agatha Christie Edista (it was a tongue-in-cheek comment and not meant to be taken seriously).  It was a common practice to buy bolts of material on sale for day dresses.  They were basically just used around the home, not cut as full as evening wear and usually of inexpensive material.  Lizzie's Bedford Cord doesn't sound like a day dress to me if it was made of many yards of material.
I never suggested that Lizzie burned 'most of her wardrobe', just 2 dresses (that were probably old and worn anyway) and not burned at the same time.  The stove may not have been hot enough to heat the flat-irons but live embers flare up very quickly if fed.  Anyone who grew up with a wood/coal burning stove would know about that.  You also say you don't think Lizzie spent the morning wandering around the house in a bloodstained dress.  No one suggested that she did and that's entirely my point.  What do you think she did with the dress she wore to kill Abby. She must have put on a clean dress because, as you say, she was seen by Bridget and Andrew. That makes two dresses. I would welcome your thoughts.  You did bring up some very valid points.  I'm like everyone else.  Just trying to figure out the mystery and looking at any and all possibilities. I really like Kimberley's idea of the chemise but it makes me cringe to think she would walk around in a blood stained chemise even with a dress over it. It could be the answer though.

Hi Girliemac, welcome to the forum! 

From reading the blood evidence on the LABVM&L site, there didn't seem to be much blood that flew around, just random spatters.  Most of the blood on the murder scenes were from whatever had oozed out of the bodies onto the floor.  So, I don't think personally that Lizzie's dress would have been all that bloodstained, just lightly spattered. 

Go here for blood evidence: http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/BloodEvidence.htm

But I was thinking that no matter what dress Lizzie was wearing if she did it, the blood would have soaked through her clothing and into her underwear.  She would have a dress, a chemise, possibly a corset, and 2 petticoats to dispose of too.

The elder Bordens clothes were buried in the back yard with assorted bloody towels and such and for some reason there are 2 bloody aprons that are buried.  We know one was Abby's, she was found in it.  The other one we have speculated about in the past, perhaps one of the doctors asked for one for his impromptu autopsy.  Then there was the thought that Lizzie may have worn an apron over her clothing.  If it was one of those bib aprons, it would have covered quite a bit of her clothing, but, not all.  Its always interesting to read someone else's take on these things, so, keep on posting. 

Do you have a source for the info that Victorian ladies routinely made several day dresses from the same bolt of fabric?  I'm asking seriously, because I don't recall having read about that custom, and I've been avidly studying antiques of all kinds for many years.  It sounds as if that would equate to wearing a sort of "uniform" to do everyday chores.  Also, I have a good deal of experience with wood-burning ranges -- not that I've done much cooking on one myself, but both of my grandmothers used them, and I visited their homes often in the 1930s and 40s. My role was usually limited to handing 'em sticks of wood to put into the stove, and I certainly don't recall any clothing or other rags being burned in either stove, however. 
(BTW, is "Edista" the feminine form of Edisto?) 

The dresses wouldn't have to look like uniforms Edista - they could be in different styles.  Probably only two dresses could be cut out of a bolt if there was a lot of material required. It would depend on the pattern. I have a feeling that Lizzie would rather spend her wad on finery for social affairs and not be too particular about her daywear. I have read many books over the years regarding the Victorian era and yes, it was common to buy bolts of fabric for more than one dress.  At any rate, that's not the topic.  I wanted your opinion as to what she wore if she committed two murders and how she disposed of them, or it, or whatever she wore.  Any ideas?  

Sorry Edisto if I spelled your name wrong.  It wasn't intentional. About the wood stove - I doubt that your grandparents had any reason to burn a blood stained dress.  There's no rule that says you can't burn whatever you want to burn if that's the only way you can dispose of it.

Thank you Susan for the nice welcome.  I wrote a nice long letter and hit the wrong button and lost it.  The web site you directed me to was very interesting.  It seems that Lizzie didn't have a great deal of blood on her at all.  One spot was found and it was minute.  Amazing that two murders would produce such little blood but that's what the evidence was.  I doubt that very small spots of blood would even show that much on a navy dress because blood is so dark when it dries. I found it very interesting that the aprons were buried and there were two of them.  Mrs. Bordens' being one and how did the other one get there?  If Lizzie wore a bib apron, where did she put it after the crime.  Surely she didn't have time to bury it.  But, then again, if there wasn't a great deal of blood perhaps the apron wouldn't be noticed - hidden in plain view on a hanger in the kitchen behind a door perhaps?.........Hmmmm 

Thank you Susan for the nice welcome.  I wrote a nice long letter and hit the wrong button and lost it.  The web site you directed me to was very interesting.  It seems that Lizzie didn't have a great deal of blood on her at all.  One spot was found and it was minute.  Amazing that two murders would produce such little blood but that's what the evidence was.  I doubt that very small spots of blood would even show that much on a navy dress because blood is so dark when it dries. I found it very interesting that the aprons were buried and there were two of them.  Mrs. Bordens' being one and how did the other one get there?  If Lizzie wore a bib apron, where did she put it after the crime.  Surely she didn't have time to bury it.  But, then again, if there wasn't a great deal of blood perhaps the apron wouldn't be noticed - hidden in plain view on a hanger in the kitchen behind a door perhaps?.........Hmmmm 

(Message last edited Apr-13th-03  5:27 PM.)

May I make a helpful suggestion?  Possibly you might want to spend some time going over the archives of this Forum.  They contain a lot of helpful information about subjects that have been discussed previously.

I have read read many books about the case and the authors all look at the evidence from different perspectives, just the same as on this website. That's what makes the case so interesting.  I have been looking through the archives but there is a lot to read and I'm new to this site.  It's interesting to get other opinions and gives us much to consider. If the archives have already covered the subject of two dresses being worn I haven't come across it yet. If you know this subject has been covered previously perhaps you can refer me to the article and if you have read previous opinions on this subject what are your thoughts?  This thread is really about the two dresses but you don't seem to want to offer any input. I'm sure you're very knowledgeable and your opinion would be appreciated. 

What books have you read?  Those who post here have their own favorites, of course, but most of us give extra weight to primary sources and accounts that aren't "novelized" as many of the books are.  A particular favorite seems to be Len Rebello's "Lizzie Borden/Past and Present."  Have you read that one?  The Forum archives have a search feature.  Since one of the dresses involved was probably Lizzie's Bedford cord, I searched on those words and came up with 25 entries from just one recent part of the archives.  The dress question is one that has been gone over many times on this Forum and another (defunct) board that some of us are familiar with.

One convention that some of us observe is to make it clear when we are voicing our own opinions, versus established facts.  For example, I visited the B&B at 92 Second Street in late 1998.  My husband and I spent two nights in the guest room where Abby was found slain.  My opinion of it was quite different from yours, so I should make it clear that I'm voicing my opinion, rather than fact.  Others here have visited much more recently and have their own opinions too.

Weren't there blood spatters on the wall above the couch where Andy was sitting when he got hit? The distribution should indicate where his head was.
I assume he was sitting up on the couch, with "nemesis" sitting on his right until the end. Agree?

Thanks for the tip Edisto.  I will do a search and find out what others think about the dress.  Since its been hashed and rehashed time and time again, I am being redundant so I'll discontinue my posting.  I did read Lizzie Borden/Past & Present but didn't remember the author's name. My books have always been from the library so I don't have them around for very long.  The first book I read, years ago, was Victoria Lincoln's book which got me hooked.  I also read Arnold Brown's book and some others over the years, some that weren't memorable and others with titles I can't remember. I'm sure you've read many more.  About the Lizzie Borden house, it wouldn't be unusual for my opinion to differ from yours.  Memories fade with time and I was only in the home for about an hour.  It's hard to absorb everything in such a short time.  You stayed overnight so would definitly have a different opinion. That must have been awesome. I will discontinue my posting but perhaps you can answer Ray's message about the blood splatters since you would be much more knowledgeable than I. I will direct him/her to the web site Susan supplied me though which covered the blood splatters in great detail. Thanks for chatting with me.

I'm not certain if Andrew was sitting up or lying down when he was hit but since his coat was folded and placed under his head, I always thought he was lying down.  As far as his 'nemesis' sitting on his  right, I have never heard that.  There is a web site that Susan gave me on message #14 that describes the blood splatters in great detail. There seemed to more blood dripping from the head wound onto the carpet and smaller splatters around the room.

I certainly wouldn't suggest that anyone give up posting just because a subject has been addressed before.  If you've got something fresh or new to add, I'm sure it's always welcome here.  Even if an idea isn't fresh or new, everyone's entitled to his/her opinion.  I was suggesting the archives as a place to find some of the opinions that have been expressed in the past so that they don't need to be set forth again. I fear almost everything having to do with Lizzie Borden has been kicked around over and over -- not only here but in other venues as well.

Your probably right about the subject being kicked around and I guess it always will.  Fascinating isn't it?  Everyone loves a mystery. 

You happen to all be promoting MY Blood Evidence List at LizzieAndrewBorden.com 
I never got so much attention!

Inductive reasoning from common sense.

A folded coat is seldom used as a jacket.

The position of Andy (feet and seat facing forward) suggest to me he was sitting up when unexpectedly whacked (no disturbances from a struggle!). Try lying on a couch this was and see how GREAT it feels!

Blood spatters found on the wall over the central part of the couch, picture too.

If he was found on the floor, would we think he napped there? I think Lizzie's story of helping him rest was to explain his position. His off-center position suggests that someone else was sitting beside him.

I hope my aging memory doesn't make me wrong in these fact? But you will understand where I draw my conclusions from.


(Message last edited Apr-14th-03  5:54 PM.)

Thanks Ray for implying you are giving an opinion based on your own conclusions.

It sets an example for opinions to be expressed as such.
That is a minimum requirement. 
With that stated, therories are welcome!

You seem to have answered your own question.  You think the jacket was folded as a prop?  You could be right but in the frenzy of the moment when killing someone with an axe would anyone think of a minor detail like that?  Would it matter if he was lying down or sitting up?  He's still dead! 

This is my opinion, folks, not fact!  When I look at that photo of Andrew on the sofa, it looks to me as if he was about to get up. 
I do think he was reclining there, taking a rest before dinner.  I don't think any "Nemesis" sat down beside him.  I do believe he might have sensed that something was about to happen to him and tried to move out of the way before that first blow struck. Maybe he heard a "whoosh" as the weapon cut through the air.  Maybe he sensed somone standing in the doorway behind his head.  Why he folded his coat and placed it under his head I've never been able to figure out (assuming he's the one who put it there).  He was said to be a well-groomed man, even if he did wear "shocking bad hats" and dress a bit out of the current fashion.  I doubt if he owned several similar coats, so it seems peculiar that he wouldn't have carefully hung it up before lying down.  Maybe he just felt so tired and ill that he couldn't spare the time...If Lizzie was trying to be all that helpful, why didn't she hang it up for him?

I thought I was through with posting Edisto but someone is always tantalizing me with their theories.  Your impression of the murder scene is brilliant and I agree that he was trying to sit up because he sensed or heard something behind him. I've never heard that put into words before but you nailed it right on the head.  There would be a sound of motion in the air with an axe being swung and possibly a small grunt from the exertion.  The 'nemesis' who attacked would have to be standing I think to have enough leverage to strike with the axe. It would be hard to wield an axe sitting beside someone and where would the axe be hidden? I thought Lizzie placed the folded jacket under his head for a reason - she wanted to coax him into lying down for the attack.  It seems more reasonable that she came up from behind him when he lay on the sofa. 

This has always bugged me too, Andrew folding his coat for
a pillow.  Apparently the house had pillows and such
comforts, it is hard to believe Andrew would fold up his coat
(or Lizzie would) for a pillow. 

I've just done a search about the folded jacket and it seems there was also a pillow on the sofa on top of the jacket.  Would it serve any purpose to put a jacket under the pillow as well?  Talk about a conundrum!  I must go to a website with a picture of Andrew on that sofa because I don't recall seeing a pillow under his head.  I recall seeing the dark object referred to as his Prince Albert but not a pillow.  Must check that out thoroughly.

Prelim.
Dr. Dolan
Page 89

Q.  Describe its position exactly.
A.  At the head of the sofa, which was to the west, there was a Prince Albert coat folded up, that was placed on top of, I think an afghan, some knit cover, and on that was placed a small sofa cushion with a piece of the tidy on it; on that rested Mr. Borden’s head. His two feet were on the floor; and he lay in the position as if he had been asleep.


--Under Andrew's head there was:
a "tidy"  on top of a
small sofa cushion   on top of  the
folded Prince Albert coat    on top of an
afghan

WOW - I think he would have had a stiff neck if he ever woke up. That shoots down my theory that Lizzie was trying to coax him to lie down when he already had a pillow.  Could the pillow have been just a small decorator pillow and not very plump?  These details seem insignificant but because they are hard to explain they are all the more intriguing. We would know the full story if we could only figure them out.   You guys on this website are doing a far better job than the police and detectives did one hundred years ago.

Girliemac, this is the site that the blood evidence came from, everything you could possibly want to know or see on the Borden case.  Actually, this forum is part of the site.  Heres a link to it:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/TableofContents.htm

Rays, from the blood evidence supplied for Andrew, it seems that it all came from him while he was laying down.  As Kat has stated before, the first strike is free, in other words, the first strike is bloodless, after that is when the blood starts to spatter.  So, it is possible that Andrew was sitting up when struck the first blow.  Perhaps Andrew fell asleep sitting up, hence his odd posture after death?  Since there were no signs of struggle it sounds to me as if he was sleeping. 

I remember one book as saying Emma cleaned off the bloodstains on the wall, including a few on that picture. THAT implies Andy's head was upright for one of the blows, AND, that Andy was NOT struck while his head was on the arm of the sofa. The blows on the left side of his face suggest a right-handed killer. (Or a left handed killer if laying down.)

Since I do not have the event on videotape, I am using my reasone and deduction (some may call it opinion).

The antimacassar over the pillow on top of the jacket certainly looks like Andy intended to take a nap. But the position of his lower body, feet forward implies he was sitting upright. Was he trying to rise when hit? That seems possible too. Remember: no signs of struggle, or defense wounds on hands. He was taken by surprise, and never expected it. And you can read into this.

This talk about Andrew's position on the sofa reminds me of something that I've been wondering about.

In William Kunstler's book, 'First Degree' (Oceana Publ. NY 1960) there is a portion of a report, in quotes, attributed to Dr. Bowen that says:  "Mr. Borden lay partly on his right side, with his coat thrown over the arm of the sofa ... his feet rested on the carpet.  It was his custom to lie that way.  I am satisfied that he was asleep when he received the first blow, which was necessarily fatal ..."  [emphasis mine]

Now this is in quotes -- which indicates a prior source.  But I can't figure out what that would be.  It's not in Bowen's testimony at the inquest, prelim, or trial -- it doesn't appear in the Witness Statements.  Could it be from newspaper reports?  Ring a bell with anyone?

Diana, it is credited to Dr. Bowen in an alleged interview printed in the August 6, 1892 Evening Standard, pg 2.

It is a rather detailed article and surprisingly accurate for so early in the investigation, and even more so when compared to other early newspaper articles.

(Message last edited Apr-15th-03  5:04 PM.)

Thank you, Harry.  I was counting on you!  That is an interesting article.  Full of fascinating tidbits.

Never mind the source, just who witnessed Andy's custom of laying in that position? Try it yourself and see if you get a back ache. (Your age may vary.)

It just dawned on me that all those "props" under andrew's head may in fact have been placed there (even by him) to AVOID a backache (or an ache somewhere else).  we know he wore a truss--could this mean that he felt pain in certain positions?  People seeking relief will often take unusual measures, like rolling up a coat to put behind them--if it makes them feel better.  Someone said once that we could use a doctor to help us--I am no doctor, but we do know that Andrew had a hernia--maybe it was acting up that day, considering that he may have strained it by vomiting, having diarrhea, etc.
Also--something else just popped into my head.  WHY DID LIZZIE CHANGE HER DRESS THAT DAY?  She says, "they thought I should change," or something to that effect, but WHY?  If she was wearing the bengaline (or India silk) which would have been perfectly appropriate for daytime wear (dark blue), and if that dress was neither soiled, nor ruffled in any way, WHY WOULD ANYONE EVEN THINK TO SUGGEST THAT SHE SHOULD CHANGE HER CLOTHES? If anything, if she truly was wearing the bengaline, she was much more appropriately dressed to face policemen, etc. than if she were wearing a pink wrapper!!

I have been to that site Susan and it's remarkable.  I spent at least 3 hours scanning the various links and will need to spend much more time perusing it. There is so much to absorb.  I tend to agree with Edisto that Andrew attempted to sit up when he sensed someone, or something behind him that unsettled him. It's strange how we sometimes sense impending disaster or some vibes that alert us to danger.  It's probably a throwback to our prehistoric animal traits. I guess we'll never know.  Does anyone know if there was any definitive theory given by the coronor or the physicians who studied the evidence? 

The remarks attributed to Dr. Bowen are interesting Diana. "It was his custom to lie that like that?  Was he that close to the family that he would pop in once in a while and Andrew would happen to be napping? Everytime I see that picture of Andrew with his head down and his legs on the floor I would think, how uncomfortable!!! It makes my back ache just to look at him.  I wonder if Lizzie was ever asked if that was Andrew's usual resting position.  Sometimes Dr. Bowen seems to color his testimony in favor of the young spinster.  An affair going on maybe?  No - that's nonsense (isn't it?)  I really have to do some research.   I'm off to do my homework.

I think you may be on to something, Robert Harry.  I've tried laying on my sofa in that position and I get a pull along my left lower back, but, not painful.  Perhaps if Andrew put his legs up it put pressure on his hernia?  Or, perhaps Abby gave him a tongue-lashing one day for putting his dirty shoes on the furniture?  If that was Andrew's normal way to lie on the sofa as per Diana's post, there must be some reason for it.

According to the way I've heard it explained, that Bengaline dress was a 'going out' or 'street' dress, something nice to be seen in public wearing.  Since Lizzie wasn't going out anymore, she changed into her house dress, which sounds quite gaudy to me.  But, I believe it was stylish enough to receive visitors in.

Girliemac, glad you're enjoying the site.  I know when I first found it I spent many hours perusing there. 

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/NBES8-6-1892b.htm

The Evening Standard—Saturday, August 6, 1892 Page 2

"FALL RIVER’S TRAGEDY.


..."Dr. Bowen's Testimony.

Dr. Bowen's testimony, as given yesterday, bears out this idea. He said: “When I reached my home, and before I entered it, my wife said to me, 'You are wanted at the Bordens. Something terrible has happened.' Without waiting to learn what the trouble was I hurried across the street and entered the house by the side door, which leads to the kitchen...

...By conservative calculation, I believe it was not over 20 minutes after they said that the fatal blows were inflicted. Alone I walked into the sitting room, and there I saw the body of Mr. Borden on a sofa. I determined to make a thorough investigation without delay, and proceeded. The sofa on which Mr. Borden reclined was mahogany with hair cloth covering, such as was commonly manufactured for a high class parlor furniture 40 years ago. The dead man lay partly on his right side with his coat thrown over the arm of the sofa at his head. He wore a blouse coat, and his feet rested on the carpet, as if he did not care to put his shoes on the upholstered covering. It was his custom to lie in that way."

--This IS a news account.  It says Dr. Bowen "testimony" yesterday.  What that means, is as Harry stated, Bowen was probably interviewed, and that would be *the day before* this article, which would be August 5th, only the day After the crimes.  So it is merely a statement.
--as to Dr. Bowen's frequency as a visitor at the Borden home in order to know Andrew's *habits*:

Inquest
Dr. Bowen
122
Q.  Did you ever hear Lizzie say anything about her step mother?
A.  I dont think I ever did.

Q.  How did she address her, do you remember?
A.  Well, I dont know, I am sure I dont remember. I never was in the house, except on business affairs, and connected with sickness.
-------------
Prelim., Bridget, pg. 9:
Andrew kept his outdoor coat in the dining room

Pg. 61-2:
Andrew's "cardigan jacket" was kept "In the sitting room, as you go into the sitting room from the kitchen;  there was a nail there..."(by the stove.)

Pg. 62:
In the sitting room closet were kept "old coats", the implication being that they were Mr. Borden's.

--Apparently Andrew woud come home, store his outdoor coat (The Prince Albert) in the dining room, and switch to his inside jacket, which he kept on a nail by the door into the sitting room from the kitchen.
--Inquest
Lizzie
69
Q. When you went out to the barn, where did you leave your father?
A. He had laid down on the sitting room lounge, taken off his shoes, and put on his slippers, and taken off his coat and put on the reefer. I asked him if he wanted the window left that way.
--Uncle Hiram says Lizzie told him she had helped Andrew:

Lizzie Borden:  A Case Book of Family and Crime in the 1890's, edited by Williams, Smithburn, and Peterson, 1980, pg. 42-44.

"Fall River Daily Herald, Aug. 6, 1892:

"...She was in the kitchen at the time, she said, but went into the sitting room when her father arrived.  She was very solicitous concerning him, and assisted him to remove his coat and put on his dressing-gown;  asked concernedly how he felt, as he had been weak from a cholera morbus attack the day before.  She told me she helped him to get a comfortable reclining position on the lounge, and asked him if he did not wish the blinds closed to keep out the sun, so he could have a nice nap.  She pressed him to allow her to place an afghan over him, but he said he did not need it.  Then she asked him tenderly several times if he was perfectly comfortable, if there was anything she could do for him, and upon receiving assurance to the negative she withdrew..."

[PRIVY] :
http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=8&topid=424&ut=1019688668
.................
Ray:  Emma cleaned the Parlour Door.  Dr. Dolan was cranky that she did it without his approval.  I don't recall that she cleaned anything else.


(Message last edited Apr-15th-03  9:51 PM.)

Why do you say that Mrs. Borden slept in a little room off the master bedroom?  Isn't the room off the master bedroom was where the desk, safe and Mrs. B's clothes were. Was there a little bed in there too? This would be a new clue as to the relationship between Mrs. B and Mr. B, if they slept in different beds.  Wouldn't it be just like Andrew, if this was true, to keep the big bed for himself. If Mrs. B had to sleep on a cot in the closet she would have been really ticked off.

I may have misstated that fact Carol.  I think it was the guide that told us that because I would have no reason to think about it. It was Abby's dressing room but my memory fails me as to what was where in that room. I seem to remember a small cot in there.  It may be that she would lie down in the afternoon for a nap rather than messing up the larger bed.   I would overlook my comment because I really have no way of verifying that.  Funny though, how it came to mind when I was thinking about the house. I guess there's no way we can find out is there?  I asked my husband if he remembers and he doesn't. Edisto was there overnight and more recently than I so she may have a better memory than mine.

There was no bed in Abby's dressing room. There was only one bed for Mr. and Mrs. Borden, and that one was in the main room.

In the dressing room was a linen cabinet, Andrew's desk, Andrew's safe, and Abby's dresser.

Currently, however, there is a bed there. The owners have turned it into a small bedroom. It is about the same size as Emma's room, which in my opinion is a teeny tiny room, not big enough for a grown person to live in.

Here is a layout of the second floor done by the Virtual Lizzie Borden House site by N.A.F. McNelly:



(Message last edited Apr-16th-03  7:23 PM.)

Thanks for clearing up my hazy memory Stephanie.  I just couldn't be certain.  It's possible the new owners had a bed in that dressing room when I was there. I thought I recalled seeing one.

Wow that was a really long post!
It took about an hour an a half.
Didn't get much attention.
There was our homework, all done.

Wow!  There were certainly a lot of different terms for the type of indoor jacket Andrew was in the habit of wearing.  Let's see, it was a "reefer," a "cardigan," and now a "blouse."  I think the newspapers did a lot of "supposin'" when they wrote up their interviews, and they sometimes tripped themselves up.  Here's the intimate friend of the Bordens', familiar even with Andrew's napping habits, who later says he visited them only on business occasions.  Of course, if you're a doctor, you might be in the habit of visiting folks who are recllining on the sofa, I guess.

Newspaper reporters were NOT allowed in the house. A good reporter will create a good story, even if not present to observe the details. He will question others, and distill their remarks. IMO

Aren't a lot of local newspaper stories derived from later police reports, or other second-hand stories?

There is an obvious answer: the dress was not good enough for all the visitors. Or it was messed-up by a sudden vomiting (the usual event when you've seen your first dead body - remember that scene from "Quincy ME"?).

There were reporters on the property and in the house almost as soon as the first police.

Trial
John Manning, "Reporter of the Fall River Globe"
pg. 1478+
...Q.  What time should you judge it was, Mr. Manning, when you received your information.
A.  Between 25 minutes and half past eleven.
..........
...I had been there some two or three minutes, and Dr. Bowen came in. I bade him good morning. He passed in, and I wasn't allowed to go in with him. Shortly after he went in, Officer Doherty came along. Mr. Wixon was with him. They passed in, and I went with them.
Q.  Well, did you look through the house more or less?
A.  Yes, sir. Passed through the corridor leading from the steps to the kitchen, and Miss Borden was sitting on a chair. Mrs. Churchill and Miss Russell were standing beside her. One was fanning her---didn't notice her particularly. I turned to the right, went into the sitting room. Mr. Borden was lying on the sofa; a sheet was covering him. Dr. Bowen called the officers' attention to him, took the sheet down and used his fingers in describing the wounds. I didn't notice them particularly, Dr Bowen and the officer and Mr. Wixon, and Dr. Bowen stood near the man. I drew back toward the wall. The blood seemed fresh. There were some few spots around the wall. At that time it didn't strike me that there was much blood there as would be in an ordinary killing.

--He then went up stairs and viewed the body of Abby.
_________

Trial
Walter Stevens
Pg. 1384
...Q.  Were you reporter for the Daily News at Fall River at the time of the Borden murder?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Did you go up there that morning?
A.  Yes, sir.
..........
....A.  I arrived there with officer Mullaly.
.....
Q.  Go into the house at all?
A.  I went into the house, yes, very soon. I don't remember just all that I did before I went into the house.

Q.  You went into the house very soon after you got there, did you say?
A.  Yes, sir. I didn't spend very much time in the yard before I entered the house.
_____________

Abby and Andrew had vomitting Tuesday night.  Bridget vomitted Thursday morning about 9 a.m., but Alice, at Trial, 376, says Lizzie said she didn't vomit, Tuesday night.
If you are implying Lizzie vomited Thursday, and so changed her dress, that is not in any testimony, and is imagination, and hopefully designated as such.
If it's meant that Bridget changed her dress Thursday because she vomitted, Bridget didn't change until very late in the day, certainly afterLizzie changed.

Morse has Andrew reclining on the sofa when he comes to visit Wednesday:

Prelim.
Morse
237
Q.  How did you find Mr. Borden’s health that day? [Wed.]
A.  He was sick, indisposed, laying on the lounge.

Q.  That is when you got there?
A.  That is when I got there.

Q.  You left him so when you went away?
A.  Well, he was sitting up before I went away, sitting there talking.

I wonder what kind of *patient* Andrew would be when he was sick?

I was reading Porter today & came across the only mention I've ever heard of Lizzie vomiting...right after she was arrested for murder.

My impression of a sick Andrew would be stoic, but ornery.

I think it's in the Evening Standard?

Wasn't it the usual practice to wear a house dress in the AM when doing chores, then change for afternoon leisure?
All I know is what I read in the books, and of those times.
It is NOT just in my imagination. I hope you agree.

It might be possible that Dr. Bowen observed Andrew's resting habits on a sofa when he was downstreet on business too.  Maybe Dr. Bowen happened to be there at times over the years when Andrew dropped in at businesses or banks on his route and needed to rest a bit, there were sofas or lounges available and he took up the odd positioning on them because of his health problems.

Exactly what were Andrew's health problems that would have caused him to need to lie down in various places of business on his daily rounds?  I ask because his autopsy seemed to show him in good health, other than the fact that he was dead!  I note that he apparently wore a truss, so he must have had a rupture of some kind, but what other chronic problems did he have?

Yes Ray, and maybe even wore an apron.
I am only quibbling over a supposition that Lizzie vomitted.
We don't know that and it's confusing because it sounds like fact.

I was thinking today:
I wore a housedress that I put on when I got up.
I changed into a *street dress* to go out in the car.
When I came home I changed my street shoes for Rockport Walkers and took my walk.
Then upon returning I put back on my housedress.
Even our mom had aprons until the 1980's.  She used to wear one to groom the kitties.

I don't think he lied completely down or necessarily had chronic problems, but when on the sofa he would lean over to one side.  He was known to have false teeth of some variety which might not have been comfortable and yes, did wear that truss.  Also he was old.  Sometimes old men who are stiff find it convenient or necessary to lean to one side when they are seated. Sometimes they just lean. Andrew appears to me to be a stiff man in posture. Dr. Bowen could have observed him in a leaning position many times such as he was found in on the day of his death.

Well, I've certainly gotta agree that Andrew was probably quite stiff in a couple of the pix I've seen (the shot on the sofa and the autopsy one).  I guess we old folks (I'm now about the age Andrew was when he died) do tend to be incredibly stiff and lean when we walk and sit, don't we?  We're also pathetically dumb, or at least some folks think so.  Actually, the only portraits I've seen of a live Andrew were head shots, so I couldn't tell too much about his posture.

I think I read that rigor mortis sets in after an hour or more, then lasts for about 12 hours. Why the word "stiff" as to a dead body?

Wouldn't the shock of seeing your father hacked to death in your own home cause something like vomit? Or realizing that you could've been the third victim if you were'nt out in the back yard eating pears?

The photo I have seen of Andrew in old age shows almost half his body, almost to his waist looking slightly to the left.  He's got a dark jacket on, white shirt and bow tie. His face looks rather set and he doesn't look that flexible a man to me otherwise. Of course, he might have been waiting rather long for the camera flash and tensed up. The other photo of him is in death and I am not sure when rigor mortis sets in but I thought that was long after the 3 pm photo was taken. His hands are still clenched. So if he wasn't stiff due to rigor mortis maybe he was on the couch in that peculiar position due to the possibility he couldn't easily or comfortably rest with his knees bent while on his side. And Dr. Bowen or Dr. Dolan one of them said he was a little higher up when they found him.

If Andrew was sleepy and rather inflexible anyway because of his age and not able to quickly gather his wits and bound up to grab the wrist of the murderer or dodge to the side once he side the hatchet coming down, that might be the cause of no defensive wounds on Andrew. Something to consider.

Being stiff isn't a criticism of Andrew, just something that naturally happens in age.  I'm stiffer than I used to be too and can't climb up the cherry tree like the monkey I used to be.

edisto:

for some reason that strikes me as so funny.  i'm laughing out loud.  i'm picturing andrew lying down in every office he visits. (sorry)

the way my back as been lately, i have wanted to lie down in business meetings too.

maybe he had Chronic Leaning Syndrome.

?

I found your source Ray:

Radin, Edward. Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1961.

Pg. 76, hardbound:
"Later, when she wearied of hearing the same question repeated by each officer who sought her out, she bluntly stated, that she was getting tired and asked that they be brief---an arrogant attitude not calculated to make friends of the, investigators. Shortly afterward she became nauseated** and Dr. Bowen gave her the first of several sedatives."

**There is no testimony or statement on this point, of which we know.  It might be artistic license...

--Lizzie had changed her dress by then... maybe an hour before the bromocaffeine.
--I believe Lizzie changed by noon, and Bowen gave her medicine between "1 and 2", Thursday (T. 326)

(Message last edited Apr-25th-03  4:20 PM.)

Wonder if that quote came from the Trial (Fleet), who said of the search of Lizzie's room, "...she wanted us to hurry up, that is, get out of there, this was making her sick..."?

so there is a secondary source that she possibly threw up on herself.  trouble with radin, though, is there is a lot of that which can't be verified.  what lizzie says about it is:  "they thought i should."

You know, Haulover, a thought came to mind about this just now.  Lizzie didn't specify the "they", just that "they thought she should", perhaps it was the ladies that were in the house?  I don't think any of the men would think of such a thing at that time, but that Bengaline dress sounds hot to me, silk over linen.  If it was just silk I wouldn't give it a second thought, but the two combined makes it sound heavy.

Then theres the thought that it was stated by Emma that all of Lizzie's dress were cut snug.  Perhaps one of the ladies, say Mrs. Churchill said to Lizzie, "You look flush, dear, why don't you change out of that hot dress?  You look ready to faint away."  And Alice Russell may have picked up on that sentiment,"Yes, Lizzie, why don't you go and change into a wrapper and go lie down?"  Just something that popped into my head.  Yes, our Lizzie can be vague and vexing! 

Fleet
Witness Statements
pg. 2
"Saw Lizzie two hours later, wanted to search her room. Dr. Bowen was in. She did now want to be bothered, would make her sick. Told her that I must search on account of the murders; otherwise should not be doing my duty. She then allowed the search to go on."
..............
Preliminary
Fleet
359
." So he said something to her, and then opened the door, and I went in. I spoke to her and told her that I had got to search the house. She says "how long will it take you?" I says "it wont take me long. I have got to search it though." "I do hope you will get through soon", she says, "it will make me sick." I said in the meantime "you say Miss Borden, that you went out in the barn this morning, and remained out a half an hour". She says "no sir I do not." "What do you say then"? "I say that I went out in the barn, and was out there from twenty minutes to a half an hour."
..................
Trial
Fleet
492
Q.  You explained that.  When you rapped at the door Dr. Bowen wanted to know if you must come in, or something of that kind?
A.  He opened the door and wanted to know what was wanted.

Q.  And stood at the door, as of course he would in opening the door and talking to you. There was nothing unusual about that?
A.  No, no further than he seemed to be holding the fort; that is all.

Q.  Is that an answer to my question?
A.  I should think it about applied to the manner in which he was doing the business.

Q.  You looked at it that way?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Was he doing anything more than standing with his hand on the door?
A.  Yes, sir; standing with his hand on the door and with the door ajar about eight inches, and as though there was somebody inside there. I didn't know but Lizzie might be sick, if you take it in that way, or something the matter, he was so afraid about it.

Q.  She was in there, wasn't she?
A.  She was.

Q.  And Mrs. Holmes was there?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Very well.  And the conversation was had and then you were admitted?
A.  We were, yes.

Q.  And did she say she hoped you would get through soon because it would make her sick?
A.  Words to that effect, yes.

Q.  You remember that this time she said it would make her tired, and now do you remember at the former trial you said it would make her sick?  Do you remember anything about the exact words that were used?
A.  I think she said she wanted us to hurry up, that is, get out of there, this was making her sick. I think before that said she was getting tired of this, this was making her sick.
.............
Trial
Charles Wilson
638
Q.  Will you describe what occurred at the door?
A.  Mr. Fleet knocked at the door and Dr. Bowen came to it, and he says,  "Wait a minute," and he went back and then came to the door and asked if it was absolutely necessary to search the room.  Mr. Fleet said it was, and we went in, and she said if it was---let me see---that if it was, to search the room and she hoped we would be as quick as we could about it, that she could not stand it much longer, that she was sick. That is as near as I recollect the words.
...................

--Sounds like Lizzie preferred not to have her room searched.
She sent Alice away and was alone in the two rooms for a couple of minutes when Lizzie first went up.
--I still think that Radin was using *artistic license* to actually say Lizzie was nauseous.  There had been so much talk of vomitting prior to Thursday that I think if Lizzie meant vomit she would have said vomit.  It's a good point, tho, Tina-Kate.  About Lizzie saying it would make her sick--but she is saying no to speaking with any more officers, and *sick* was repeated sometimes in the future tense.
Doesn't one vomit automatically at the scene of carnage and not an hour later?  And I also think that if Lizzie was sick to her stomach Tuesday night and heard the elder Brodens vomitting in their room, that WOULD make her vomit, and that didn't do it either.
--Also, my dictionary gives a secondary interpretation of nauseous as "disgust & loathing".


(Message last edited Apr-25th-03  9:53 PM.)

Alice would remember telling Lizzie to change.  She sounds so surprised that Lizzie had on the pink wrapper after sending her downstairs to speak to Dr. Bowen.

I think this would need to be looked up.  I don't think anybody can be found who suggested to Lizzie to change.

Alice had tried to loosen Lizzie's top and was told by Lizzie that she *was not faint*, specifically.

Also, The dress Lizzie had on that morning was already loose in the blouse top, somewhere about the top buttons, probably, and it sounds as if the blouse came loose from the skirt, like untucked, maybe, according to Alice. [Trial, 382&383]

You are most probably right, Kat.  Just a little thought that entered my head.  But, you know who would probably remember if asked would be Mrs. Churchill, she remembered putting her hand on Lizzie's arm and illustrated it for the courtroom when she asked where Lizzie's father was.

The ladies were all fanning Lizzie and putting cool cloths on her, I'm wondering what all was said at that point between the women?  I can't picture it being a silent moment.  Yes, Lizzie said she wasn't faint, but, she must have looked hot and possibly felt warm to the touch.  I'm trying to figure how Lizzie could make that statement about "they" without a "they" to back it up.  Its not like some of her other statements where its her word against one other persons, such as Bridget's.  I wonder if one of the ladies made an offhand comment that Lizzie looked warm and it became in her mind that she should change into something cooler? 

I am only saying here that it might be helpful to look up this while speculating.  What does Mrs. Churchill say?

Isn't there another example of a mysterious "they", if a "they" is being looked for?

Yes Kat, I guess I wasn't clear.  That was what I meant -- Radin wrote Lizzie became nauseated, but in fact, he was giving his own interpretation of the source documents.

Sometimes I'm glad I haven't read a lot of the books.

It was a good point you made about identifying Lizzie being sick in her room with the possibility of Radin's interpretation.
It brought out a lot of stuff and now we have combined references together in one spot.
That was helpful.

i thought lizzie was referring to the ladies, but i've wondered if they actually said it.  didn't she make it sound like the ladies were taking care of her, directing her, taking her here and there?  i'm suspicious when she makes herself sound like a victim.

Do you know of another "They" incident with Lizzie claiming "They" thought she should such-and-such?

Glad to be of help if I can.

Actually, reading that part of Fleet in various places made me raise my eyebrows.  My take on it was that it was a prime example of Lizzie's self-centredness, i.e. "Just hurry up & get the hell outta here you pests.  Yr making me sick."

Wouldn't vomiting result in red face and feeling hot? What's your experience? Would this be expected in such an emotional state?

Note in English (American?) "sick" means vomiting, "ill" refers to sickness. Or so I read.

Offhand, I don't recall Lizzie claiming "they" thought or suggested anything other than that 1 time.  Yr question made me chuckle, & I thought, "Who are they -- invisible friends, the voices in her head, the demons who possessed her?" 

I DO know of a few examples of the use of the general, non-specific "they":  

Mrs Churchill:

(2nd Interview, Witness Statements) --  (Mrs C asks Lizzie) "Where is yr mother?" Lizzie, "...I don't know but they killed her too."

(Inquest pg 128)

I said "where is yr mother"?  She says "I don't know, she had a note to go and see someone that was sick this morning, but I don't know but they have killed her too."

Lizzie:

Inquest pg 57 (re A&A's bdrm):  "...but Thurs they broke the door open."

pg 67

Q - So it would have been exxtremely difficult for anybody to have gone through the kitchen and dining room and front hall, without your seeing them?

A - They could have gone from the kitchen into the sitting room while I was in the dining room, if there was anybody to go.

Pg 89

Q - Did you afterwards go into the room where your father was found killed, any more than to go through it to go upstairs?

A - When they took me upstairs they took me through that room.

Emma:

Inquest, pg 112

A - A friend came to us, and told us that they heard him say that he thought of giving us the homestead on Ferry Street, and advised us to ask for it.

Alice Russell:

Inquest, pg 149

She (Liz) says "if they have to have an undertaker, as I suppose they will, have Winwood.

(Message last edited Apr-26th-03  10:58 AM.)

Perhaps Lizzie frequently says "they" when she remembers more than one person said something or did something. The "they" then would refer to more than one person being involved in her memory of the event, such as in the time the police went into her room to search, it was more than one policeman; when the Borden's were murdered she thought it must be more than one person involved, when she went up to change it was more than one person who thought she should, in her concepts. 

The 1 I find most interesting is the last one:

(Alice Russell: Inquest, pg 149) --

(Liz) says "if they have to have an undertaker, as I suppose they will, have Winwood".

Wouldn't she herself be included in this particular "they"?  She makes it sounds like something others require (or perhaps, she means the bodies?)

Thanks, Tina-Kate, you beat me to the punch finding the "theys" for Kat.  I like your idea of the voices in Lizzie's head being the "They".    With these "theys" there is an explanation for who "they" are:

(Inquest pg 128)

I said "where is yr mother"?  She says "I don't know, she had a note to go and see someone that was sick this morning, but I don't know but they have killed her too."

This "they" is in reference to whoever the murderer(s) is/are.

A - They could have gone from the kitchen into the sitting room while I was in the dining room, if there was anybody to go.

The murderer again.

Inquest pg 57 (re A&A's bdrm):  "...but Thurs they broke the door open."

This "they" is the police.

A - When they took me upstairs they took me through that room.

This one is odd, as far as I know, only Alice Russell took Lizzie up to her room, no "they" but "she".

She (Liz) says "if they have to have an undertaker, as I suppose they will, have Winwood.

This one is in reference to Andrew and Abby.

This is one of those odd ones where there is no explanation exactly for who the "they" is in Lizzie's Inquest testimony:

Q. What dress did you wear the day they were killed?
A. I had on a navy blue, sort of bengaline or India silk, with a navy blue blouse.  In the afternoon they thought I had better change it.  I put on a pink wrapper.

Who was at the Borden house at the time that she put on the pink wrapper?  Bridget, Mrs. Churchill, Alice Russell, Dr. Bowen, possibly Mrs. Bowen, Charles Sawyer, and John Morse if I haven't left anyone out.

From Alice Russell's Inquest testimony, page 148:

Q. Where then?
A. I don't know whether I suggested, or who suggested, her going upstairs; but I know she went up stairs.

Q. Did you go up with her?
A. I don't remember that.

To me it sounds as though there were small things, trivial things that Alice may have said or done or heard that she doesn't remember.  Could it be possible that it was she that suggested going up and changing and not remember it?  That would make her a "they" in Lizzie speak. 

In common speech today, "they" refers to the unknown.
They killed JFK.
They raised or lowered interest rates.
They put up XXX as the candidate.
Etc.

Someone once said, "They sure get around, don't They?" 

WOW!  You guys did a really GOOD job!

The original question has been who told LIzzie to go change because Rays thought Lizzie had vomitted.
The final answer being that Lizzie didn't vomit on herself that we know of, nor vomit that day at all.
One can assume that if one wishes but it is so far, not fact.

I think by the time Alice says she might have suggested Lizzie go upstairs, or someone else suggested or whatever, Alice herself is desperate to shield Lizzie if she can.  She knows a lot that we will never know about that day and those days following before she left to go home Monday.

Alice is the one who suggested that Mrs. Borden must have put the note in the fire if it could not be found.  And Lizzie agreed.  And then ever after it seemed as if a note could have been brought, but burned.  She is really helping Lizzie with that one!

Besides, it's odd, but Alice doesn't really remember the sequence of Lizzie going upstairs.  She was with the officers who broke open the door into Lizzie's room before Lizzie was in it.  Alice remembers being with them through some cursory search and then the next thing she knows Lizzie is in her room.  Then Alice is sent down to Bowen, then comes back to find Lizzie in that inappropriate PINK wrapper.

As I said, tho, you guys, that was impressive work!  Finding all the "they's" was cool!
I only really off the top of my head remembered the They who warned the girls to ask for the Ferry Street house.

That one still bothers me.  All those other "theys" can easily be explained, this one wasn't checked into.  I'm surprised that Lizzie's statement about this was let to slip by so easily, I mean, even she wasn't stopped and questioned about it.

If no one in that group of people told Lizzie she ought to go change her dress, then that is one big out-and-out lie that could have easily been checked on.  Would Lizzie take such a big risk on something like that so early on in the game? 

Addie Churchill on the changing of the dress, (T-352):

Q.  Well, I will not undertake to press it.  Did you suggest any change of dress?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Did any one in your presence or hearing?
A.  No, sir.

Addie didn't miss too much. 

Ah, thank you for finding that, Harry!  How did I overlook that?  So, "they" were asked about telling Lizzie to change!  Wow, this is one area where Lizzie contradicts a few people instead of just one.  I guess Tina-Kate was right, the "they" that told her to change were the voices in her head. 

Oh you guys constantly amaze me.
So helpful!
Thanks Har!

'(Liz) says "if they have to have an undertaker, as I suppose they will, have Winwood".'

The they in this case could refer to the people doing autopsies, the medical examiners in the Borden house Aug. 4th that brought Abby down and got the bodies set out on the tables. How was Lizzie to know that those examiners wouldn't be doing the whole preparation for burial. To me she is questioning that in her mind and coming up with that statement.  For her to refer to the bodies as such is a little cavalier.

"A - When they took me upstairs they took me through that room.

This one is odd, as far as I know, only Alice Russell took Lizzie up to her room, no "they" but "she"."

How do you know that only Alice Russell went upstairs with Lizzie?

Well, we can never be 100% sure, but, from Alice Russell's testimony later on in the Trial she clarifies Lizzie's statement:  From Trial Volume 1, page 383/i405

Q. Will you state what that conversation was?
A. She said,"When it is necessary for an undertaker I want Winwood."

I think the choice of undertakers would always be the family's decision and not left up to doctors.

Once again, there is no 100% guarantee that Alice was the only one to take Lizzie up to her room, but, there is Charles Sawyer's testimony from the Inquest, page 140:

Q. Was Miss Lizzie present at the time Miss Russell told you that?
A. No, she had been sent up to her room at this time. When they came down and reported that her mother had been killed, she apparently went off into some kind of swoon or hysterical fit, I don't know exactly what, and Dr. Bowen said she had better be carried up to her room.

Q. What room was she taken to?
A. I don't know, I didn't go up.

Q. Was it the front or back way?
A. I could not say that, either.

Q. Who went up with her?
A. I think Miss Russell.

Just by going by Mrs. Churchill's statements too, it seems as though Alice took charge of taking care of Lizzie.  She was the one who told Lizzie not to talk, she suggested to her to go to the dining room to get out of the heat.  Mrs. Churchill had left the house before Lizzie went up, so, we don't have her testimony on that, she'd probably remember exactly what happened. 

Ah, and I found this too in Alice's Trial testimony, Trial Volume 1, page 387/i409:

Q. By the way, before passing away from it, had you suggested to Miss Lizzie Borden to change her dress?
A. No, sir.

Q. Had you heard anyone suggest it?
A. No, sir, I never remember of it.

Inquest
Alice
148
Q.  How long did you remain there with her?
A.  Remain where?
Q.  In the dining room.
A.  I havn't any idea.
Q.  Where then?
A.  I dont know whether I suggested, or who suggested, her going up stairs; but I know she went up stairs.
Q.  Did you go up with her?
A.  I dont remember that.
Q.  Were you up stairs?
A.  Yes Sir. I was up there. I think if I did not go with her, I
must have been there very soon after.
Q.  Did she go straight to her room, so far as you remember?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did she take off any of her clothes?
A.  I dont know what I was doing, but I came into the room, and found her fastening a pink wrapper on.
Q.  Did she change her shoes or stockings?
A.  No Sir, she could not have done that, I was not out of the room long enough.

--That was an interesting find, but Sawyer was wrong.
Alice was searching with the officers downstairs when Lizzie went up, and joined her shortly. 
But Lizzie was out of Alice's sight long enough to go to her room, unlock it, enter Emma's room (locked or unlocked??) and change her clothes, but not, she thinks, her shoes and stockings.

When I have time to later on today I will go through it, but, from Trial I get the impression that Abby was found, Mrs. Bowen is sent home, Morse arrived, Addie goes home, Dr. Bowen orders Lizzie to her room and leaves.  Alice(?) takes Lizzie to her room, Lizzie starts talking about undertakers, Alice goes to get Dr. Bowen to come back, goes back upstairs and finds Lizzie just tying the bow on the pink dress.  Alice was downstairs doing a search with the police?  I don't recall that? 

From the testimony of Sawyer that you posted it seems to me as though both he and Lizzie are saying the same thing, that Lizzie was told by others to go up to her room and someone helped her get up there. Who that someone was isn't clear. Alice doesn't seem to know if she herself want up with Lizzie or not but she also agrees that someone suggested Lizzie go up.  Therefore, I don't see anything odd about Lizzie referring to "they" in this case.

The two quotes from Alice Russell that were posted regarding the undertaker were spoken in testimony at two different occasions. Alice's memory of what Lizzie exactly said is vague so she does not testify the same way twice.  Both refer to the time she was upstairs with Lizzie after Lizzie got up there to change:

Inquest: pg. 149 when her memory is supposed to be fresher:
Alice says (Liz) says "if they have to have an undertaker, as I suppose they will, have Winwood".'

Trial: 383/i405 almost a year later:
Alice says:
Q: Now was there some conversation there in consequence of which you left the room?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you state what that conversation was?
A: She said, "When it is necessary for an undertaker, I want Winwood.

Since both these testimonies refer to the same conversation upstairs it might just be Alice who is confusing because she can't remember exactly what Lizzie said. It might have been better if she had said Lizzie said "something like" to make it clearer she isn't sure at trial.

In the inquest statement Lizzie appears to be saying to me through Alice that someone--the medical examiners, the powers that be etc. who have control of the bodies in the house--will be done at some point and either they or someone else would be requiring an undertaker. She is therefore telling Alice that she is aware of that and Winwood would be the person she wants.

At the trial Lizzie appears to me to be saying through Alice that at the point when an undertaker is required she definitely wants them to get Winwood. She is asserting her wishes for sure and making sure that she doesn't want anyone else deciding. If she had just killed them why would she be so attentive to wanting a certain undertaker, wouldn't she just be swooning and unconcerned?

Also yes it is usually left to the families wishes as to who the undertaker should be BUT this was a murder case with bodies under the care of other people at the house and I think Lizzie was trying to make it known that the medical and police officials shouldn't just be going ahead and doing things without her approval, consent, etc. And she had every right to be suspicious.  Later it was proved that the bodies weren't buried after the funeral and the heads were removed without the knowlege or consent of the family. Things were done behind her back. The fact that in the trial questioning of Alice the preceeding questions lead me to believe that Alice left in "consequence" as the attorney says of what Lizzie told her to go down and make sure the medical/police officials knew her wishes. And it is shown that Alice went down and talked to Dr. Bowen right aftre the conversation as the testimony continues.

That was well done, Susan.  Can you make a short timeline of that with source?
This part is always confusing, mainly because Alice is confused.

As to Alice sort of helping in the search, maybe she was just following them around, like supervising, or making sure nothing was taken?    But Alice was with them for a bit:  If Lizzie went up stairs at the same time Alice was in the parlour with the officers, then she didn't go up with Lizzie.

Prelim.
Alice
294+
Q.  After she lay down on the lounge [dining room], did you do anything for her then?
A.  I think perhaps I fanned her; I think so.

Q.  Nothing was given her, no medicines, or anything of that kind?
A.  No Sir, I do not think there was, I do not remember of seeing any medicine around.

Q.  Do you recollect whether she went up stairs before the officers came or not?
A.  She did not.

Q.  Do you remember the time when the officers first went up stairs?
A.  No, I do not.

Q.  I do not mean the time of day, but do you remember?
A.  No, I do not remember.

Q.  How do you know she did not go up stairs before they did?

A.  Because I remember of her talking, the officers asking her questions in the kitchen.

Q.  Do you know about their going up stairs after that?
A.  Yes, they went up stairs.

Q.  Then you recollect about their going up stairs?
A.  I do not recollect about their going, I remember of being in some of the rooms with them. Then part of it drops out of my memory; I cannot connect it.

Q.  Did you go up with them?
A.  I do not remember that.

Q.  Do you remember whether they went up the back or front stairs?
A.  I do not remember anything about it.

Q.  Do you remember anything they did up stairs?
A.  I remember being up in Mr. And Mrs. Borden's rooms with some officer, I remember their asking me about the rooms that went out of it. The door into Miss Lizzie's room was hooked. They pulled the screw out, I judged. I remember I asked them to let me look in first; I did not know what the condition of the room was. I pulled the portiere aside, and looked in, and said it is all right, and they went in. I do not recollect whether I went in or not.

Q.  Do you know whether they searched it or not?
A.  I do not.

Q.  Do you know Officer Doherty by sight?
A.  I do now.

Q.  Was he one of them?
A.  I have not the faintest idea.

Q.  How many were there of them?
A.  It seems to me there were three.

Q.  At any rate they were up in Miss Lizzie's room before she went up stairs at all?
A. Yes Sir.

Q.  And were up stairs around there?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  Do you know whether they went into other rooms or not?
A.  I remember going into the parlor with these officers, with some officers.

Q.  Was that before Lizzie went up stairs?
A.  I think it was about the same time. I had an idea they were making the first search through the house, looking for whoever might be in it, or whoever they might find.

Q.  That was before Lizzie went up stairs?
A.  The other part was; but the parlor I am not positive of.

It is possible that I assumed hastily with who the "they" is that Lizzie is refering to. But, I would think that Lizzie would state to Alice that if it was the doctors or police who would want to know what undertaker Lizzie wanted to have she would have said something like,"If they (the doctors or police) ask which undertaker's services are wanted, tell them Winwood."  It is totally possible as you state that Lizzie was refering to them, but, to me, it still is not very clear.  And who would benefit from the administrations of the undertaker, certainly not the doctors, but, Andrew and Abby would.  I will have to check where I read it before, but, from what I recall, Winwood was The undertaker.  I think he did all the upper crust funeral arrangements.  If that is so, Lizzie wasn't quite swooning and was thinking clearly enough that she wanted the best undertaker her money could buy.

Lizzie apparently had the idea of burial on her mind shortly after Andrew was found:

From the Witness Statements, second interview of Mrs. Churchill, page 11: (Note, this is after Mrs. Churchill had ran across the street on her errand from Lizzie.)

"When I returned the first thing I recollect she, (Lizzie) said is, O, I shall have to go to the cemetary myself. No, the undertaker will do that, was my reply."

Yes, Alice did go find Dr. Bowen, but, I think it was because Lizzie was upset and she wanted him to take care of her as well as pass the info on about the undertaker.

From Dr. Bowen's Trial document, page 325:

Q. Did you get a message, or did Miss Russell come to you with a word from Miss Lizzie?
A. Yes, sir, I went to her room.

Q. What did you prescribe?
A. I did not prescribe.

Q. What did you give?
A. I gave a preparation called Bromo Caffeine.

Q. For what purpose?
A. For quieting nervous excitement and headache.

Q. To bring on quiet to allay nervous excitement?
A. Yes, sir.

Maybe Lizzie said more to Alice than we'll ever know and Alice may have thought it all crazy talk, that Lizzie was over-excited and decided to get Dr. Bowen over to give her a sedative. 

Kat, just found this in the Inquest, Alice's testimony, page 152:

Q. Which stair way did you go up when she went to her room?
A. The front stair way.

Q. Do you remember of Lizzie going into the room where her father lay dead, after you got there?
A. No sir. We had to pass through; we passed through this way.

Q. Did you go into the hall?
A. We had to, and we had to go through the sitting room; and we went right so.  That is all she was in the room, I am positive of, until he was removed.

Q. Passed through the corner?
A. Yes.

Q. Did she go into the room where her mother was?
A. No Sir.

So, it sounds to me as if Alice went on the cursory search with the police while one of the officers questioned Lizzie in the kitchen.  Dr. Bowen says Lizzie should go to her room before he leaves and Alice takes Lizzie through the corner of the sitting room upstairs to her room.  I don't know that Alice went into the room with her at this point, it sounds as though the conversation about the undertaker took place just outside Lizzie's door.  I want to know why Uncle John didn't take over the task of bringing Lizzie up or at least join them?  He had already seen the bodies and didn't seem none the worse  for wear and if Lizzie did faint, he would have been strong enough to catch her, I don't know about Alice, she sounds rather frail.

And yes, I could try to do a timeline of what went on that day.  It is very confusing as to who was there and doing what, people coming and going, coming and going.  I've looked over so many source documents at this point my head and eyes are spinning I don't even know what your name is. 

Wasn't it after Lizzie had sent Alice to find Bowen, and she was alone, that she changed into the pink wrapper?

Then when Alice came back up Lizzie was just exiting Emma's room.

I always thought that a little suspicious.  Was it just a ruse to get Alice out of the way for a few minutes? Or just a coincidence? 

Susan, you may have found Alice taking Lizzie through the sitting room but there isn't in your transcription a word about going upstairs with her.  The parlour is right there leading into that front entryway.
That may be where Alice detoured to go to the parlour as Lizzie went upstairs.
And Har is right about his sequence.
And Dr. Bowen did not perscribe for Lizzie until 1 or 1:30.
This time frame of Lizzie changing her dress was nearer noon.
Alice was coming up to Lizzie, heard her request to find Bowen and went down to do that errand.  That was about the undertaker.  She had to wait to get his attention.  Then Alice goes to Lizzie and Lizzie has changed.  She was alone when that happened, as far as we know.

I have a timeline already as the sequence of events until Allen is told of the finding of Abby's body and leaves again.
I wondered if you could do a quick sequence just giving source as to the post you made (#100) to which I referred, originally.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/SequenceofEvents.htm

Q. Which stair way did you go up when she went to her room?
A. The front stair way.

Kat,perhaps I am misreading the question to Alice, but, this is how I read this:

Which stair way did you (Alice & Lizzie) go up when she (Lizzie) went (up)to her room?  In other words, what stair way did the both of you take when Lizzie went to go to her room as per the doctor's orders.

If it was just Lizzie, shouldn't the question be, What stair way did she go up when she went to her room?  If am misreading this, do you see where my confusion is coming from? 

No you're right.  You're obviously not misreading.
This IS very confusing.  After all was said and read I had the idea that Lizzie was not so much as taken to her room, but rather slipped up there while Alice was on a *search*.

It's funny tho, in the same transcription Alice says oh Lizzie didn't go in the sitting room and then proceeds to tell exactly how Lizzie went through the sitting room!  Making a point, sounding nervous, that Lizzie did not go into the sitting room she was sure,
until Andrew was removed..

OK for now.  I'll be on the lookout for more.
Tell me though where Bowen sent her to her room.?
The rest of my post, per Bowen going up to give med. at 1-1:30, whereas Lizzie changed nearer noon, is correct.

(How can Alice be in the parlour with officers and taking Lizzie upstairs at the same time does not make sense...)

(Message last edited Apr-29th-03  2:46 AM.)

Yes, it is confusing.  Found more than I bargained for in my Dr. Bowen search, from Dr. Bowen's Trial document, page 325

Q. Did you see her in the dining-room at any time?
A. She went in a few minutes into the dining-room, and she threw herself on the lounge at the end of the dining-room.

Q. Did you give her any direction then or shortly after that?
A. I told her at that time---Miss Russell went in with her at that time, and I told her she better go to her room.

Q. And did she start to go there?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How did she go?
A. She went through the dining-room and the corner of the sitting-room and the front hall up stairs.

Q. At that time I suppose Mr. Borden's body was covered with sheets?
A. Yes, sir.

But, nowhere in his statements does Dr. Bowen mention that Alice left with Lizzie through the corner of the sitting room and on through the house.  Curiouser and curiouser. 

Thanks for finding Bowen sending her to her room, and you are very open-minded to still be wondering how to prove if Alice went with Lizzie up stairs.  You did not *rest on your laurels*.  You still questioned.
I'm proud of you!
BECAUSE:
Guess what?
Your copy of the Inquest, Pt. 2, has one word wrong.

I never thought I would check up on your citation, but I seemed to just know what I knew and I was surprised there was such a difference in what I knew I knew and what your transcrption said.
So I did go to my hard copy of Alice at Inquest, pg. 152 and compared it to the Word. doc. or PDF Inquest.
Here is the hard copy version:

Q.  Which stair way did she go up when she went to her room?
A.  The front stair way.

I happen to have the same Inquest doc. that you do, and it is dated Oct. 31, 2001.  I also am lucky to have the testimony of Alice broken out into another separate document, which is dated June 11, 2002.  The latter dated doc. is the same, on that page, that sentence, as the hard copy.
Mystery solved.
You did do a good job.

I guess I would suggest if anyone has the Inquest pt. 2 in Word, to check that page, 152 and make that change.


(Message last edited Apr-29th-03  3:52 AM.)

So, it sounds as if we have no "they" to have taken Lizzie upstairs afterall.  By Alice's testimony she walked her through the sitting room.  Well, at least you can see where I got the idea from that Alice was the one to have done that.  Ah, but what a glorious hunt, I think you brought out the lioness in me, I enjoyed it!

Now, how do I go about correcting that in my Inquest pdf.?  When I click on the page all I have is a little grabby hand.  Or, would it just be easier to download a newer version of it from Stefani's site? 

Whatever Lizzie really stated to Alice we will never know, which is why I thought Alice should have said "Lizzie said something like" because in both quotes about the same conversation Alice quotes Lizzie differently. It was Alice in all the quoting who mentions the undertaker, and she could have inserted that word on her own, thinking that is what she remembered Lizzie saying.  But it is the attorney's question about Alice going out of the room in consequence of the talk about the undertaker's that makes me think Lizzie wanted to make sure the professionals in the house caring for the bodies knew Lizzie wanted Winwood in particular. Also I don't think Lizzie would have specified Winwood unless she thought there was a possibility that someone might get another undertaker. I'm not sure that Lizzie chose Winwood because he was the best money could buy or because he was the one she thought her father would have wanted, maybe both.

"From the Witness Statements, second interview of Mrs. Churchill, page 11: (Note, this is after Mrs. Churchill had ran across the street on her errand from Lizzie.)

"When I returned the first thing I recollect she, (Lizzie) said is, O, I shall have to go to the cemetary myself. No, the undertaker will do that, was my reply."

This quote you found is very interesting because it can offer further suggestion that Lizzie didn't do the murders.  It doesn't seem to me something a murderess would say. I don't think the killer would be concerned about the care of the bodies after death when the killer had just finished the gruesome acts. The murderer wouldn't be concerned about going to a cemetery, that's no big deal after just hacking someone to death.

Carol, I found my source for Winwood (or Winward as I've seen him listed as sometimes) being the best in 2 of the authors.

A Private Disgrace by Victoria Lincoln, page 116:

(Note, Lincoln has Alice walking Lizzie upstairs to her room, she may have read the same testimony I did.  )

"Lizzie was silent on the difficult way, but at the door of her room she spoke, placidly.  "When it is necessary for an undertaker, I want Winward."  Winward did all the best funerals.  Nobody on the hill would have had anyone else, though Miss Russell and Mrs. Churchill, in their modest circumstances, might well ahve thought him overpriced.  Lizzie thought of that sort of thing."

Lizzie Borden by Arnold R. Brown, page 302:

"Winward's Undertaking Rooms is the same establishment that Lizzie Borden requested for her parents.  It is comforting to know that in 1901 a mere six dollars would guarantee an unknown suicide the services of Fall River's finest "undertaking rooms." "

I'm hoping that someone has something from Rebello on him to yeah or nea this whether Winwood or Winward was the best.  Also, why would Lizzie know the name of an undertaker in advance, especially if he was the best?

Whats odd about Lizzie's statement to Mrs. Churchill about having to go to the cemetary herself, to me meaning alone, is that if innocent, Lizzie doesn't know Abby is dead yet.  Mrs. Churchill and Bridget hadn't found her yet.  Why would Lizzie have to take over the undertaking procedures herself when by all rights, Abby was still alive and just out of the house?  It sounds a little fishy to me. 

I think Lizzie would have known undertakers names because her father was one for so long and she must have been familiar with them because of that.

Susan, I thought about Lizzie saying such a thing at that time too, being before Abby was found, and thought that since she was in shock after just finding her father that her mind, instead of dwelling on the sight of him, went to the responsibilities she now had as being the only family member in the house at that time. She thought Abby was out, she knew Emma was out-of-town, Uncle John was no where in sight, and so she thought she might have to go to the cemetery immediately, before anyone of those people came back.  

Otherwise, if it is a fishy statement, and she said it because she knew Abby was dead too, it is a grotesquely comical statement, that after hacking to death her father and stepmother she is concerned she will have to take care of the burials too.

But maybe human memory is wrong here too and the quote attributed to Lizzie by Mrs.  Churchill isn't really what Lizzie said, it is sort of what she said and we don't have the rest of the conversation. That she was concerned about the burial at that moment seems more out of concern than making up a cover story or a slip.  But who knows really.

Rebello has three references to James E. Winward (as he spells it).  None of them refers specifically to his duties as undertaker for Abby and Andrew, nor is there any mention of his status as a "society" undertaker.  Two of the references have to do with his having taken charge of the bloody sofa on which Andrew was found, which was stored in his "rooms" until it was needed in court.  The third relates to his testimony that he couldn't remember a gold ring on Andrew's finger.  Just this once, I might take Victoria Lincoln seriously, because she was a Fall River insider and probably knew who the "good" undertaker was.
When I was a high-schooler in North Carolina, I knew who all the undertakers in town were.  The best-known was Rogers and Breece.  Breece's daughter, Mary Lee, was my sister's best friend.  We had a little jingle that we sang:

"Rest in pieces
At Rogers and Breece's."

(Poor Mary Lee...)

I've been trying to find this since yesterday just to throw it into the pot.
Actually, Edisto helped out, as it was near her citation that she posted!

Rebello:
Page 424

"Webb, Barb, "Stalking Miss Lizzie Borden," In Cross Reference: Fairfax County (Virginia) Public Library Newsletter, January 9, 1991, 2.

Barb Webb 'a victim of selective catastrophe syndrome' recalled her visit to Fall River and the Fall River Historical Society. It was there a woman stood beside her and said, 'She did it, you know. My grandfather was the undertaker. And she had that funeral all planned. She knew exactly how many wagons and horses and everything. It was not a last minute, rush job. She had been planning it for some for some time.' "

"Note: Mr. James E. Winward was the undertaker who prepared the bodies and conducted the funeral for Abby and Andrew Borden. Mr. Winward testified at the preliminary hearing and Borden trial in 1893. Mr. Winward was unable to recall if Andrew Borden had a gold ring on his finger. (Trial: 1496)"

--I don't know what is meant by 'a victim of selective catastrophe syndrome' ...

Kat, thanks for refreshing my memory re that Barb Webb quote.

(I still haven't had the time to do my fine-toothing of Rebello, due to work & various distractions, grrr).

I like that, as it fits into my "gut" re how much pre-meditation went into everything.  Lizzie did have a lot of time on her hands, to fantasize, picture & plan what she would do if she got her own way.

Well, yes, that is a possibility that Lizzie knew of undertakers due to her father being one, but, why Winwards?  Shes never had to call an undertaker before and what of Emma's take on who she would want?  I would think she would want to discuss it first.

If Lizzie was in shock and frightened, I would think the last thing on her mind would be the cemetary and undertakers.  Right after this when Dr. Bowen shows up Lizzie asks him to send a telegram to Emma asking him to be gentle with the news as there is an elderly woman who is feeble staying there and the news might upset her.  That sounds a little to precise to me for someone who is in shock.  I would think her first thought if innocent would be, someone must find Mrs. Borden.  Please Mrs. Churchill, have someone go over to the Whiteheads' and see if she is there.  Second would be, get the police.  I don't think Lizzie ever requested for them that day.

Well, either guilty or innocent, perhaps Lizzie's thought was, I want these bodies out of here!  I don't want to see what was done to my father and stepmother....or, I don't want the evidence of what I've done staring me in the face.

As for human memory, I believe that the witness statements are the closest we are ever going to come to what was said that day.  And Addie Churchill is a pretty sharp lady, she didn't miss much and her story is pretty consistent throughout.  She gives the same story in her Inquest testimony, page 128:

"Soon after I got back she says,"I shall have to go to the cemetary myself."  "O, no," I says, "Lizzie, the undertaker will attend to all such things as that for you; they generally do."

Slight elaboration on what Mrs. Churchill said herself, but, the story is the same, Lizzie is going to have to go to the cemetary herself.  I still find it an odd time to be showing concern about that when later on Lizzie tries to say that she said she didn't know that her father was dead and only said stabbed or hurt. 

Thanks, Edisto and Kat, for the input.  Hmmm, did Lizzie really have to order up a funeral cortege and knew the exact amount of horses she wanted in it?  Wish we could find more to that whole bit.   

Andrew had been out of the Undertaking business 14 years when he died.  That's 1/3 of Lizzie's life. 
Actually he retired then, but we don't know if his business still encompassed undertaking.  It might have been earlier than that.

(Message last edited May-1st-03  2:10 AM.)

Yes, Kat, I realize that myself. Thanks for posting that, probably should have myself.  My question to that would be, how long was Winward in business for?  Could he have been Andrew's competition towards the end of Andrew's career as an undertaker?  Or, could we be back to square one with Lizzie knowing Winward did all the best funerals in town because as Alice stated that "Lizzie and Emma would have liked to have been cultured girls"; and cultured girls used Winward? 

Lizzie was a young woman engaged in various activities, she was a Treas./Sec. of one group, a teacher at another, and from what she and others have said, out most of the days away from home. So she would be involved in the life of the town, aware of who was in business where and I don't think it odd at all that she would know who the undertakers were in town and either have her own favorite or know who was her father's favorite.

The quote from the daughter of the Undertaker sounds to me like malicious gossip. By the time Emma came back they had been to the lawyer and talked over the affairs of the funeral, no doubt with Uncle John as well as others, so it is not that far out that they all would have been able to prepare for the horses, buggies, etc. in one day. That doesn't sound incriminating.

Lizzie was only stating on Thursday what her views were, she wanted Win---.  She had to voice the opinion at that time because Emma came home much later, after the time when the choice might have been taken out of Lizzie's hands lest she not have spoken up for all we know.  I have never been in that degree of shock so am not able to speak for how people in shock act, I suppose each acts differently.

Going from the point where Lizzie is presumed innocent, I think that Lizzie was correct in first sending for the doctor, she knew something had happened to her father of a very serious nature, stabbed or maybe killed, she said both things to various people or those people didn't remember exactly which she said. Perhaps she even sent for the doctor for herself too.  She thought Abby was out which is why she didn't send for her, she didn't know out where, just somewhere a note had told her to go, so where would she send anyone for Abby? Sending for the doctor, immediately across the street, then for her friend Alice and not the police makes sense, because if the police were required the doctor would determine that.

Depending on which way you view Lizzie, a case can be made either way.

From the first 2 witness' on the scene, Bridget and Mrs. Churchill, Lizzie had told them that her father had been killed, he was dead,not stabbed or hurt, but killed, past the point of a doctor's help.

Preliminary Volume 1  Bridget Sullivan's testimony page 27:

Q. ---when she called to you.  What did she say?
A. She holloed to me.  Of course I knew that something was the matter, she holloed so loud.  I asked her what was the matter.  She said,"come down quick," that her father was dead.

From the Inquest, Mrs. Churchill's testimony page 128:

Q. How did she show that?
A. Perhaps she rubbed her head.  I knew something was wrong, of course, by the appearance.  I opened one of the south windows, one had a screen in and the other did not, I says,"what is the matter Lizzie?"  She said,"O, Mrs. Churchill, do come over, somebody has killed Father."  I went right through the house  and went out the front door and went over.  When I got there she sat on the second stair which is right at the right of the screen door as you come in, the back stairs.   

I suppose Lizzie could have wanted a doctor for herself?  And Miss Russell for the support of a close friend.  But, not once did Lizzie say, someone get the police.  Why wouldn't the police be required?  Why would a doctor's approval be necessary?  Someone had done something to her father, someone hurt him, someone killed him.  Sounds like a crime to me, time for the police.  Even if her father was still alive when found and she was innocent, wouldn't it be best to get the police as soon as possible to apprehend the criminal who had did this to her father? 

Yes, I totally agree with you, Carol, there are certain points in this crime that can be viewed both ways, an innocent Lizzie and a guilty one.  But, there are always points in it that don't gel with me, this is one of them. 

I have two thoughts, still taking the tact that one would take if Lizzie is supposed innocent about her calling for a doctor and not the police.

Lizzie says she didn't go into the sitting room, but just looked in and saw her father. If she didn't do it then she assumed he was dead, he might not have been, given a layman's look at the face but it was a pretty good probability. A doctor would be able to make sure he was beyond saving. It is a doctor who pronounces persons dead, not the police usually. She wasn't absolutely sure, but it was a reasonable conclusion in those few seconds before she rushed out.

Second, I am not sure that men and women in particular during those times when there was no real police force as we know it today, would think of calling the police first. The police were mainly for handling drunks and gamblers, etc. Forces at that time were not like today. And I am not sure that Lizzie was aware that most of the police were away at a picnic, but it is a thought to consider.

Even today when people call 911 after a gunshot or serious dispute, etc., most of them ask for medical help even in a fatal shooting because they don't know the person is dead for sure, but they may think so. At least the 911 calls I have heard (on TV) indicate that the operator starts asking questions about the condition of the victim and advise the person what to do, THEN dispatch the police. I am not positive on that, but I think most people ask 911 for medical help first and the police are also called, but that is today society.

Also I have been thinking that when Bridget and Mrs. Churchill went across the street looking for aid, they asked for help but (and I haven't reviewed the testimony on this) they did not ask for the police in particular either. It was the man (Carpenter) who rushed across the street to his phone and called the police, it seemed it was his own idea. And when Mrs. Bowen told Dr. Bowen he was needed over at the Borden house, I got from what I remember of his testimony that Mrs. Bowen didn't tell him Mr. Borden was dead, only that it was something serious.

I am sure one of the witnesses Lizzie talked to said she thought her father was stabbed then changed it to killed. Perhaps this was Mrs. Churchill.  Also we don't have Bridget's inquest testimony in which she might have clarified what Lizzie said better. Bridget's memory is also faulty in that she didn't remember she said in the inquest that Lizzie cried.  The attorney had that portion read out at trial so people would know that and Bridget still insisted she never said that.

 

Did I miss something? When the topic of dress changes was brought up I suggested that Lizzie threw up due to the emotional stress, etc. That would explain her red face and why they were fanning her. Because a faint would imply a white face.

Ever smell a garment w/ puke on it? I'm sure Lizzie would change under those circumstances. The exception would be if she worked in a barn; who would smell it then?

I found the testimony: Dr. Bowen, Inquest page 117:
Q: Did Miss Lizzie speak to you?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Tell exactly what happened now.
A: I went to the door, and I met them in the hall.  I went in the side door, I thought I would get in there quicker. I was so much in a hurry I happened to go that way. I met Miss Lizzie in the hall, and Bridget. I ays to Lizzie what is the matter? She said she was afraid her father had been STABBED OR HURT. I think the word stabbed was used.....

Also, later on that same page:
A: As soon as I got at the door, I could see the whole room and saw him. Of course I was prpared for something awful, as I did not hear him and there was no sound. He lay there still, unrecognizable, his face was cut in such a manner I never should have known who it was. I stepped ina second, looked around the room to see if there was any disturbance. It struck me like a flash to see if there was anything left in the room (whatever does that mean-my comment?) Then I went right back again, and told them that their father was dead. I took hold of his pulse, and found he was dead, satisfied myself. I DID NOT KNOW THAT HE WAS WHEN I SAW HIM. I TOOK HOLD OF HIS PULSE AND FOUND HE WAS PULSELESS (my caps). Then I went back and informed them that he was dead.

This means to me that if even the doctor couldn't tell Andrew was dead before he took the pulse, how could Lizzie possibly have known. So to call a doctor seems reasonable rather than the police first to me.

Haven't checked Dr. Bowen's trial testimony on this, but this is his most recent testimony to the crime. He could have changed it.

"Common sense" today: if you found your Dad lying down and bleeding, wouldn't you FIRST call your family Doctor from across the street?
I don't think Lizzie was wrong or guilty in doing this.
The call for the police was placed by the corner newsdealer(?) who noticed some commotion at the house.

From Lizzie's Inquest testimony, she said she did go into the sitting room, page 77:

Q. What did you do then?
A. Opened the sitting room door, and went into the sitting room, or pushed it open; it was not latched. (Note, my emphasis-Susan)

So, it sounds like our Lizzie must have gotten a pretty good look at Andrew's face at that point.  Yes, a doctor would be needed to make the final pronouncement, but, Lizzie seems to already have made that decision and told the first 2 witness' so, father has been killed.  Why she changed her story or Dr. Bowen remembered it wrong, that Lizzie said stabbed when he came to the house is anyones' guess.

Why Lizzie didn't let Bridget go in and look when she wanted to after Lizzie said that her father was killed is odd to me.  If Lizzie didn't know for sure if Andrew was dead or not, she could have had Bridget check, why stop her?  "Oh, Maggie, don't go in.  I have got to have a doctor quick. Go over.  I have got to have the doctor."  Why?  What was all so pressing about having to have the doctor that instant?  If Lizzie was sick, she could vomit without the doctor's help.  If she was faint, she could do that too.  Nothing life threatening was going on with Lizzie at the moment. If it was for Andrew, she already said he was dead, why would a few more minutes be an issue?

I just did a search on the history of police, by the 1890s it sounds as though the were pretty well established as the police we know today.

Early American Policing
Modern American police departments were first created in the 19th century
1838 first police force created in Boston
1844 New York Police Department created
1856 Philadelphia Police Department created
Local politics and politicians often controlled these early urban police departments
local politics determined hiring and promotion
getting hired and getting promoted was more a function of who you knew rather than what you knew
Early American police work was primitive in nature
most officers patrolled on foot
corruption and brutality were everyday occurrences
there was little formal training or supervision
the major role of the police was maintaining order

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Complaints and Problems with the police are something that is not new.
There are problems that police have been trying to get over since the beginning
Bribery of police officers
Lack of training
Lack of control (minimal supervision)
Political control of departments
Lack of education
Brutality (difficult for police to get backup support)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


20th Century Police Reforms - attempts to get over some of the problems of policing
Policing became more technologically sophisticated around the turn of the century.
police uniforms were first introduced in 1853
importance: police could be identified as police, to identify corruption and brutality
the first telegraph police boxes were installed in 1867
importance: police administrators could have some supervision over officers
in 1910 the first police car was introduced in Akron, Ohio
importance: supervisors could check up on officers out in the field easier
importance: brutality is reduced because it is easier to get backup (more officers to the scene)
Police officers salaries were increased a great deal in this time period
importance: officer with good salary won't need to take bribes to make a good living
Administrative review boards were first established in the early 1900s
removed control of police from local political influence and put it in the hands of bureaucrats
importance: lessened the effects of political influence on hiring and promotion
importance: held police accountable for their actions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Professionalism in Policing
Traced to the founding of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in 1893
advocated centralized organizational structures and record keeping
importance: curb the power of precinct captains who were often under political control
August Vollmer Police Chief of Berkeley, California PD in the 1910's
Strong proponent of police professionalism which stressed:
strict adherence to departmental rules
high levels of training and education
Vollmer encouraged university training for police officers
strict discipline
organization along militaristic lines
importance:
all of these factors are aimed at reducing corruption and to increase control over the police
create incorruptible crime fighters that do not question the authority of the central command.

From this site: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/just/just110/police1.html

Yes, it is probable that Lizzie knew that the main portion of the police force was out of town as it was an annual event, there was still a skeleton police force in town that did show up eventually.  I'm sure that normally there was a cop on the beat somewhere in their neighborhood.  And there were detectives involved with the case eventually too.  Why no call for police, why no fear that the killer could still be loose, or even in the house?  Bridget and Mrs. Churchill did exactly as Lizzie asked them to do, I'm sure if she had mentioned the police to them, they would have gone for them too.  

That was very well-done, Susan.
It's impressive the amount of info there.
Thanks.

(Just an aside I remembered at your last question--  Even Sawyer standing guard was apprehensive as to whether the perp was still in the house , eventually bolting the interior cellar door, because he felt insecure--that someone might be in there.)
..................
Also Inquest Sawyer, 136:
Q.  What was the first you saw that attracted your attention with reference to this matter?
A.  I was in the machine shop opposite where I live, and a gentleman came in there, a drummer from Providence, and he reported that a man named Borden just above there had been stabbed.

--It appears word on the street before Sawyer  got there was there had been a stabbing.

susan:

i agree with you.  lizzie's first statements were that father was dead.  she changed it to:  father is hurt.  just like, in her inquest she tries to avoid telling of a note.  and tries to deny she asked someone to look for mrs. borden.  and denies she heard anything, after first talking about that groan, distressing or scraping sound.  by the time of her inquest, she knew much less than she apparently did in the immediate aftermath.  she must have had a reason for making these changes.

Notes from Trial --

(Page 522 & page 540) Phil. Harrington was promoted from patrolman to captain Feb. 10, 1893.

(Page 551) Pat. Doherty also promoted to captain in interim between murder & trial.

(Page 635) F. Edson also promoted in Feb '93.

(Page 671) Medley was promoted in Dec '92.

-- & I'm sure there are more, but these were the few I noted. 

Does anyone know (or have a theory) as to why the officers in this case received promotions between the murders & the trial?  It seems esp strange because none of them found anything more than circumstantial evidence against Lizzie.

You're welcome, Kat.  Carol's statement made me wonder if we were indeed dealing with the Keystone Kops or an honest to goodness police force.  It sounds as though it was a pretty regular police force in Fall River at the time, though, some of the officers probably could have had a go in the movies.

Yes, we have talked about this before, upon finding someone in your house mangled would you have just stayed in the house or ran out screaming.  I know my thought would be, what happened here and ohmigawd, I could be next!  Out of everyone that was at the house that day, Sawyer and Bridget seem to be the only ones concerned that the killer could still be in the house, "I am not going up stairs alone."

Haulover, it sounds as the day goes on, Lizzie has more time to mull over what she has said and decides to alter things.  Really, how would Lizzie know if Andrew was dead or not unless she went and shook him calling his name and he didn't respond or that she did it herself and saw him expire?  If her tale to Bridget and Mrs. Churchill was that father is all cut up, I don't know how bad it is, please get the doctor to check on him, quick; that would be a different story.  But, she said dead and still needs a doctor quick.  If Lizzie thought that possibly Andrew was still alive, why not try to tend to him?  It was her father!  Even if she wasn't trained in nursing, she could have held his hand and told him help was on the way, hold tight.

Tina-Kate, thats a very good question. Could the promotions be for all the hard work that was involved in the Borden case and they did get someone in jail for the crimes, Lizzie.  Would that mean that the officers did their job and well?  The only other thought that comes to mind would be that for their amount of time and service on the police force, they were all due for a promotion and it just happened to be coincidentally at that time? 

A.  I went to the door, and I met them in the hall, I went in the side door, I thought I would get in there quicker, I was so much in a hurry I happened to go that way. I met Miss Lizzie in the hall, and Bridget. I says “Lizzie what is the matter?” I spoke pretty quick. I says “what is the matter Lizzie?” She said she was afraid her father had been stabbed or hurt. I think the word stabbed was used.   .....
--Inquest transcription, Dr. Bowen, page 117.
.................          ..............        ...............
A: I went to the door, and I met them in the hall.  I went in the side door, I thought I would get in there quicker. I was so much in a hurry I happened to go that way. I met Miss Lizzie in the hall, and Bridget. I ays to Lizzie what is the matter? She said she was afraid her father had been STABBED OR HURT. I think the word stabbed was used.....
--This is post #125, "The Infamous They"

Please note first transcription is correction to full testimony, of post #125, though both are partial, in that there is more to come.

Interesting that Mullaly didn't get a promotion, he was the only one who disagreed with Fleet...about seeing the missing handle of the handleless hatchet in the box.

If Lizzie did go into the sitting room she doesn't say she went in very far, just at the door, which I suppose she considered going into the room. She didn't go across the room or through the room, just far enough to see her father, one step, two steps?

IF Lizzie was innocent it doesn't matter whether said her father was stabbed, killed, dead, hurt etc. at the outset, the point is she didn't know exactly what state he was in at that first moment of viewing the body and she wanted to get some help over to the house, help for the man if he was still alive and help for him if he wasn't from a doctor who could make sure and that help would most likely come from a doctor not a policeman.

She says in the Inquest, pg. 78
Q: Did you notice that he had been cut?
A: Yes; that is what made me afraid.
Q: Did you notice that he was dead?
A: I did not know whether he was or not?

To me if Lizzie was innocent she could have said killed first as she did because he looked so bad she assumed in that first flash he must be dead, and that death was from foul play therefore the word killed. 

If Lizzie was afraid at seeing her father in such a state, it seems reasonable for her to run for help and not sit there taking his pulse, and administrating to him herself while the killer might still be lurking about. She ran to the outermost part of the house for Bridget, which makes sense to me.

Thanks for your diligence in posting all that about the police. It doesn't change the facts. The fact remains that the individual police officers of that time and departments were not trained in cases of the Borden's magnitude, the attorneys went into that in their closing statements, big mistakes were made. I think that not many people of that day would first call for the police in such a situation, especially women, they would want to call for aid for the victim which is what Lizzie did. That was my main point. I think the Fall River police department of that time didn't prove itself to be qualified to run such an investigation and they proved it.  A lot of what you quoted proves my point.

***If Lizzie was afraid at seeing her father in such a state, it seems reasonable for her to run for help and not sit there taking his pulse, and administrating to him herself while the killer might still be lurking about. She ran to the outermost part of the house for Bridget, which makes sense to me. ***

the thing is she did not flee the house.  she stayed inside.  if she had no idea of what was going on, why stay inside even if at the back door?  knowing that the mysterious killer could get her there?  and at a doorway, at that; knowing the killer, if still inside, would need to get out?

If?  If you believe Lizzie innocent, why question her testimony?  She herself stated that she went into the sitting room on her way up to go sit in her bedroom.  At the very least, Lizzie would have to have taken a step into the room to get past the doorjamb to see enough of Andrew on the sofa and view the condition of his face.  Here is an image from Stefani's site, the sofa arm through the dining room door.
  Now from looking at the crime scene photos of where Andrew's head was at, and where it may have been, Dr. Bowen said the body had moved down.  Andrew's head would probably be just below where the antimacassar is on the arm.  (Note-I know this is not the actual sofa) From this vantage point, all Lizzie would have seen was the crown of Andrew's head.  She needed to go through the doorway into the room in order to be at the right angle to see the front and side of his face that had been hacked.

And that is fishy too about Lizzie going up to her room and leaving her ironing for later on the dining room table.  Where would the elder Bordens, if still alive, go to eat their dinner?(Lunch) In the dining room on the dining room table that is covered with Lizzie's ironing things.  It sounds almost as if she expected to not to have to move those things.

But, it does matter what Lizzie said directly upon finding her father, innocent or guilty!  It shows the state of mind she was in directly at that point in time.  If she thought he was dead, why the hurry for the doctor?  She told the first 2 witness' that Andrew was killed, he was dead, beyond resusitation.

I stated nothing about Lizzie sitting there taking Andrew's pulse whatsoever.  I had said, after she sent Bridget for the doctor, if she thought that Andrew was helpable, why didn't she go back into the sitting room and see what was up with him?  If the man was laying there still alive and bleeding, why shouldn't she go and comfort her father?  Tell him not to worry, help was on the way?  And if she was too squeamish about this, why not let Bridget go into the room when she wanted to, she could have yayed or nayed whether Andrew was indeed dead or not.  Or, Bridget could have sat with him while Lizzie got the lead out of her butt and ran across the street to get Dr. Bowen herself.

But, Lizzie's running to one of the outermost parts of the house put her at the side door, an exit.  If the killer wanted to exit the house, he could be on his way towards that door.  Theres also the back stairway the killer could come down and get to Lizzie and the cellar stairway was there too.  Pretty dangerous spot to be in if you are trying to put yourself out of harm's way.  Even Mr. Sawyer didn't feel safe in that entryway until he closed and bolted the cellar door.

The facts?  Where is it written that none of the police officers in Fall River were never trained on what to do in a murder case?  There were other murders in Fall River long before the Bordens were murdered.  Perhaps none of the victims were as prominent as the Bordens which is what gave this case its magnitude.  Of course George Robinson is going to state that the police were fools, they made mistakes, they talked meanly to Lizzie, hes the defense, that is what he is paid to do.  And Hosea Knowlton agrees that they made mistakes, I even agree that they made mistakes.  They are human beings, human beings make mistakes, we are not perfect.  Even today with all the training that police officers get, they still botch investigations. 

Do you think then that she should have made herself "flee" the house?
If she had done that would not be saying that she was trying to flee the scene of her crime? One answer to your question about why she stayed at the back door would be when she came in from the barn she said the screen door was wide open. Upon seeing her father she got scared and ran for Bridget, who was upstairs, inside, and called for her from the staircase. Lizzie might have put together seeing her father in such a state and the screen door opened such she might have assumed, without conscious thought even, that the killer had already departed the house through that open screen door.

In any case, I don't think that it was a very important thought in anyone's mind at that time whether the killer might be still in the house.  Lizzie stayed at the back door, Dr. Bowen left the house in the care of females when he went to send the telegram and two of those ladies even went upstairs by themselves to look for Abby, Officer Allen didn't do but a quick look about downstairs before he left the women in the charge of just a neighbor, Sawyer, and he was the only person to take any precaution (by locking the basement door).

I don't believe I was questioning Lizzie's testimony, I was trying to determine the meaning of what she said. I don't know that she was innocent, I am trying to put forth my opinion of what transpired from the point of view of her being innocent.

The photo is of a very pretty doiley and modern sofe but it doesn't tell me about what Lizzie's vision of her father was from her height at the door, etc. It looks like the photo was taken from inside the dining room door frame further back from where Lizzie said she was.  From videos, pictures etc. I have a pretty good idea of what the crime scene looked like and where someone would stand if they could see Andrew. And I believe from what Lizzie said she could see her father's face from being but one or two steps inside the sitting room door because she said she turned right around and went out. I believe it was the blood, the red, that caught her attention by just peering over the sofe from her height of 5'4".

It wouldn't have taken but a moment for Bridget to move the small portable table ironing board to the kitchen when the family set down to eat dinner at noon. Wasn't the table already set?  I thought that was the way they did things in the Borden house, they left the table set for the next meal, so it was already all full of the table necessities for the noon meal if this was so. There was only a small corner of the table she used for the ironing.

It matters that Lizzie said her father was killed or dead only, I believe, if a person thinks her guilty. Taking the proposition Lizzie is innocent then she first THOUGHT (her perception without taking pulse, etc.) he was killed or dead because he looked so bad. She didn't KNOW he was dead in that flash of first seeing him. Thus sending for the doctor, who could determine the real state of affairs.  She reported to folks what she thought had happened not what she knew happened, if she was innocent. On the other hand if she had done the crime and as such knew he was dead then she could be accused of covering up in that she sent for the doctor.

I am not sure that Lizzie had as you say any "lead in her butt." She had a servant to send for help, she wanted to guard her house.

"Where is it written that none of the police officers in Fall River were never trained on what to do in a murder case?"

I didn't say that. One or several officers might have had some experience with murder but not murder of this magnitude and not the ones who were on this investigation certainly.

Your quote - my CAPS:  
"Complaints and Problems with the police are something that is not new. There are problems that police have been trying to get over since the beginning
Bribery of police officers
LACK OF TRAINING
Lack of control (minimal supervision)
Political control of departments
LACK OF EDUCATION
Brutality (difficult for police to get backup support)"

In addition I quote from "Crime and Punishment in American History" page 360:

"Professionalizing did not come easily; or at one great gulp....An important asepct of the process was to cut the cords that tied the police to local politicians....The police became part of the civil service in New York in 1883, in Chicago in 1895.  By 1915 122 of the nation's 204 largest police departments were under civil service....the requirements of the job were not that arduous.  In Boston, in 1930 a budding policeman had to be not less than twenty-five nor more than thirty-five years old, "not less than 5 ft.8 inches in height in bare feet," and "not less than 135 pounds without clothing."  Boston also required at least an elementary school education, with extra points for anything beyond that. Of course, a policeman also had to pass a civil service exam."

So if in large scale Boston (compared to nearby smaller Fall River)
in 1930 (40 years after the Borden murders)the requirements for a police officer was only a high school education and professionalism was only started to be thought of in 1910 (your quote) even out in California, then where is it stated that any of these rather ordinary men in Fall River had any sufficient training to handle a case of the magnitude of the Borden's double crime? It isn't that everyone makes mistakes, it is just a historical fact that policemen of the time were not schooled or had the experience to handle such crimes well. Your ball.

Also I disagree with you on one other point.  I think that it was more than the prominence of the Bordens that made this a crime of magnitude, it was also the nature of the way they were killed, the place of death being their own home in the center of the city, that the daughter was accused, that no one else was thereafter pursued, and that they were killed such a time apart.

Lizzie never said the door was *wide* open.
Inquest
Lizzie
83
Q. When you went out to the barn did you leave the door shut, the screen door?
A. I left it shut.
Q. When you came back did you find it shut or open?
A. No, sir; I found it open.



(Message last edited May-4th-03  6:32 PM.)

With that picture all I'm asking you to do is imagine someone's head propped up on the arm, just below the antimacassar.  What would you see?  The top, back of someones head, you would have to go into the room a bit to be able to see over the arm and see the person's face.

Lizzie never mentioned how many steps she took into the sitting room, just that she went into it.  For all we know, she could have gone in the room to the door to the front hall and turned then and looked.

Yes, it would have taken Bridget a but a few moments to take the ironing board off the table and the sprinkling bottle and the hankies.  But, this is one of the few chores that Lizzie does besides taking care of her room, why leave it for someone else to clean up, especially knowing that dinner will be served soon.  And yes, from Bridget's testimony, the dining room table was already set for dinner.  Which makes me curious about how many place settings are put out on the table.

If Lizzie didn't know that her father was dead, why did she tell the first 2 witness' to the scene that he was?  Not, "I think father may be killed", but instead, "killed", dead.  She didn't tell Bridget that father is hurt very bad, get the doctor for him, she said,"I need the doctor."  I am going by what Lizzie said.  If Lizzie didn't know for sure what was wrong with her father other than his face was cut, why didn't she say so?  Fathers been hacked, or cut, or hurt and I don't know but that he might be dead.  Something like that?

What would Lizzie need to guard the house from?  Robbers?  Murderers?  A crime had already just happened and with people in and about the house.  If Bridget stayed in the house and Lizzie went across the street, there would be someone in the house to guard it as you say.  And from the sounds of it, Lizzie was pretty lazy with other work around the house other than cleaning her room.  And as the Borden's servant, I don't think running willy-nilly through the streets of Fall River to fetch people was listed in Bridget's job description.  She kindly listed what her job duties were for us.

Thank you for posting the police info, but, all that sounds as though it was the standard, but, not the rule.  My point was; do we have any written information on the Fall River police officers.  Do we know anything about Fleet, Harrington, etc.  How much schooling did they have?  How much training?  I am really curious about this and would like to know.  Until that time, we can cast aspersions at them, but, we do not know the facts about them.

What you say about what gave the crime its magnitude may all be true, but, my thought was suppose it was an ax murder over in the Portuguese section of town; would there be as much interest in the case and would it have made front page news? 

Found where the term *wide-open* is used.  It might have been confusing.  It has to do with Morse and the cellar door.

Prelim.
Morse
256
Q.  Did you notice at all the cellar door, whether it was open or shut?
A.  I think when I came from the back of the house, when I got the pears, I think it was open; I wont be sure, but I think it was.
Q.  When you first went back of the house?
A.  Yes sir.
Q.  Wide open, or only partly open?
A.  Well I could not say.
Q.  Did you notice whether the barn door was open or shut?
A.  I think it was open.

If I saw my father lying on the couch with blood on his face, I would check him personally, not go yell for the maid.
I would then know he was dead, probably killed and I would run screaming from the house as I called my mother's name.
Just my opinion of what I would do.

Rebello, pg. 149+ has info on the officers promoted after the case.  I had always read they were due for promotion anyway.  Couldn't quite tell you where that comes from, though.
They all died at an early age, anyway.  Maybe the stress of being in the police [Medley in an auto accident].  If so, they certainly deserved any promotions they did get, after all.  Living relatives of some of the officers, I do know, were proud of them.  [Like Hilliard & Doherty]

John Fleet
Fleet was born in Lancaster, England, 1848. worked at the American Linen Mills, was in the U.S. Navy, serving in the Civil War, worked in the Fall River Boiler Co., & went on to become a painter and house decorator. Mr. Fleet was appointed to the police force in 1877, and became a sergeant in 1883, assistant city marshal in 1886 and city marshal in 1909. He retired from the police force in 1915.
He was married and had 4 sons and a daughter.

"He was a member of St. John's Episcopal Church. He was also a member of the Richard Borden Post, Mt. Hope Lodge Masons, Mt. Hope Lodge of Odd Fellows, and Puritan Lodge. Mr. Fleet died unexpectedly of a heart attack in Fall River on May 10, 1916."
[He was only 68.]

..."Fall River Daily Globe, May 10, 1916: 1.
...Fall River Evening News, May 13, 1916: 1."

-----------------------

William H. Medley
Medley was born in Oldham, England, 1853, and came to the
United States in 1869. He worked in the textile mills in Lowell, Mass.

"In 1876, he came to Fall River, worked at the Weetamoe and Granite Mills and became prominent in the Mulespinner's Union. He was a contributor to The Labor Standard, a union publication in Fall River. At the age of twenty-seven, Mr. Medley was appointed to the police department as a day steward on February 2, 1880; a night steward in 1881 at the Central Police Station; and patrolman from 1882-1892. One of the first important cases in which he appeared as a witness was the Borden case; several phases of which were investigated by Officer Medley. Eight months after the Borden trial, he was appointed to inspector with the rank of lieutenant. In 1910, he was appointed assistant city marshal. He remained in that position until the retirement of Marshal John Fleet. The title 'city marshal' was abolished September 17, 1915, and changed to chief of police. Mr. Medley was then appointed Chief of Police in September 1915. Chief Medley was a member of several police associations, Philanthropic Burial Society, Star Lodge, Knights of Pythias, the Masonic Fraternity and St. Paul's Methodist Episcopal Church.

Chief William H. Medley, along with his wife Mary and daughter Kathleen, were involved in a serious car accident at the corner of Locust and Linden Streets in Fall River on September 14, 1917. Chief Medley died three days later. Burial took place in Lowell, Massachusetts. He was survived by his wife and daughter."

[Basically, Medley became the First Chief of Police of Fall River.  I bet Fall River is proud of him, too.  He died at 64]
... Fall River Daily Globe, September 14, 1917: 10.
... Fall River Daily Globe, September 15, 1917: 1., etc..."

-----------------

John Minnehan
Minnehan was from Portsmouth, Rhode Island, in the grocery business with the firm of Tallman, Minnehan & Earle, then the liquor business.
He was a police officer in Somerset, Mass., for 4 years.

"He returned to Fall River and was appointed a police officer on November 7, 1889. He was the patrolman who was assigned to follow John V. Morse after the Borden murders. Patrolman Minnehan died in Fall River on June 9, 1893, at the age of forty eight."  [Pneumonia]
He had a wife and son and daughter.

"Fall River Daily Globe, February 9, 1893: 8.
Fall River Daily Globe, June 9, 1893: 8."...etc...

-------------------

Captain Philip Harrington
Philip Harrington was born in Fall River, April 17, 1859.

"He was educated in the local public schools. As a young boy, he worked at his father's grocery story, a messenger boy for the Western Union Telegram and apprentice as a cabinet maker at the firm of Borden & Almy for three years. Later, he attended St. Lawrence College in Canton, New York, and remained there for two years."

He didn't finish because he returned to Fall River to help his father who had financial problems. He was a clerk and salesman for Congdon, Carpenter & Company, a wholesale firm of iron workers, and also in the paint and wallpaper business with Mr. Mark Sullivan.

"In 1883, he was appointed to the police department by Mayor Henry Braley. Mr. Harrington was appointed captain on February 10, 1893, by Mayor John W. Coughlin. He testified at the preliminary hearing and trial as to his investigation the day of the murders.

Captain Harrington married Miss Kate Connell of Fall River on October 11, 1893. This was his second marriage. Almost three weeks after his wedding, Captain Harrington died in Newport, Rhode Island, on October 28, 1893. He was thirty-four years old at the time of his death. He was survived by his widow, a brother Charles Harrington and a sister. ..."

.."Fall River Evening News, October 28, 1893: 1.
...Fall River Daily Globe, October 28, 1893: 4."..etc...

Wow, Phil. Harrington died less than 6 months after Lizzie was acquitted!

Rebello doesn't say how he died, just a headline quote from the Fall River Globe --  "End of His Determined Struggle for His Life Comes Peacefully".  Sounds like a terminal illness.

One less adversary for Lizzie.  I'm beginning to think she had almost supernatural luck.

Yay!  Thank you, Kat!  Now thats the kind of information I was looking for! 

I have always thought (and I'm apparently alone in thinking this) that the door Lizzie said she opened was the door between the kitchen and the sitting room, not the door between the dining room and the sitting room.  I know she said that she entered the house and placed her hat on the dining table.  (That table must have been terribly littered with dishes, ironing board and large-brimmed sun hat. --And of course the woman Lubinsky saw in the yard wasn't wearing a hat.)  Even if she briefly entered the dining room, she could easily have doubled back (to check the flats once again?) and opened the door between kitchen and dining room.  That actually looks on Rebello's diagram as if it might have been fewer steps, and it would have afforded her a much better view of Andrew in all his gory glory.  I've been unable to find any reference to exactly which door Lizzie meant.  Does anyone else have one?
(This is meaningless, of course, if Lizzie wielded the hatchet.  Unless she was trained in axe-throwing, she would have needed to be up close and personal to do Andrew that much damage.)

Inquest
Lizzie
77+
Q. When you came down from the barn, what did you do then?
A. Came into the kitchen.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went into the dining room and laid down my hat.
Q. What did you do then?
A. Opened the sitting room door, and went into the sitting room, or pushed it open; it was not latched.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I found my father, and rushed to the foot of the stairs.
Q. What were you going into the sitting room for?
A. To go up stairs.
Q. What for?
A. To sit down.

--When Lizzie says she pushed the door open is when she loses me.  After that anything goes.  Bring on the kitchen door!

I remember when we had discussed this in the past, we never did quite figure out what Lizzie meant by pushed open the door.  I just went over to the galleries on Stefani's site just to refresh myself with the sitting room; it looks like every door into the sitting room opens out of it. 

They open out yes.  Toward the person in the next room.
I can hardly believe that all this time Lizzie never said it was the dining room door into the sitting room!!
Thanks, Edisto

Yes, Lizzie never did say that.  I've always operated under the assumption that Lizzie said she was in the dining room and laid down her hat on the table and then went to the sitting room door, meaning she was still in the dining room.

The question that comes to my mind then is this; if she went to go into the sitting room from the kitchen door, why would she go into the sitting room as she stated.  All Lizzie would have to had done was open that door and she would have a full view of the sofa and Andrew laid out on it with his face cut open.  That is assuming you put any trust in her words at all as to what she said she did. 

I was under the same impression.
But again we see that Lizzie also didn't say she put her hat on the table....

Yes, Lizzie didn't state that there, I think it might have been someone else that did, I'll have to check where I got that source from, probably Lincoln, brrrrrr.  For all we know, it could have been laid on the lounge in there, on an extra chair, or even on top of the china cabinet. 

Well, I can certainly imagine myself opening the door and taking a step or two to begin the trek through the sitting room, then discovering that Father was stabbed, hurt, or dead (depending on the witness).  To me, it isn't a stumbling block, but maybe to others it is.  I just don't think we have enough information to say for sure which door Lizzie was using.  Because the kitchen door would afford a better view, I'm assuming it was that one.  Others can draw their own conclusions, of course.
Isn't it odd that Lizzie wasn't asked which door it was?

edisto:

i think you may be on to something.  in viewing stefani's videos, i was reminded of how they had the couch positioned toward the door to the dining room -- even though it didn't "look right."  i wondered why.  if the door from the kitchen to the sitting room opened into the sitting room -- that is the obvious explanation, to give that door clearance when it's opened.  i understand that today that door opens into the kitchen?  but was that always so? 

if that door opened into the sitting room, that would explain how lizzie "pushed" it open. 

however, why would lizzie, from the dining room, decide to go upstairs by going back into the kitchen as opposed to going through the sitting room?

if dr. bowen entered the sitting room from the dining room, is the reason simply because that is where he found lizzie -- and that was the shorter route?

if lizzie put her hat in the dining room, and thought to "check her flats," then perhaps she might have opened the sitting room door from the kitchen. 

i notice when we try to trust something in lizzie's testimony, we find confusion. so who knows?  but isn't it true that entering that room from the kitchen gives her the clearest view of mr. borden?  isn't it possible that an "unsuspecting" person could pass from the dining room through the sitting room and not notice mr. borden's face?

i'm just wondering aloud, of course.  but is there another explanation for why they would keep that couch flush with the dining room door?

Reading Bowen at Inquest, he says he didn't go through that door from the kitchen, "that it was shut as it usually is" and that he "never saw it open hardly."
I suppose that's where I gained the impression Lizzie did not use that door, and also because she "beckoned" him "along through the dining room, to the door between the dining room and the sitting room".
It's about the farthest route to get to the patient, especially if Lizzie herself used the shorter route.
Why Bowen brings this up about the Kitchen door, is not understood by me.  He seems to just offer this info about the door.
The other 2 weird things here are:
First he gets inside the hall and he says he asks Lizzie what is the matter, at which point he says she tells him Andrew has been *stabbed or hurt.*  Then he proceeds to have a conversation!
I thought he was in a big hurry!?
They stand there and he asks if anybody had been around?  It sounds like he is thinking of a perpetrator here, and not a patient.  She tells him about tenant problems.  THEN she leads him the longest route to Andrew.
This doesn't make sense to me.  He can have it both ways?
He is so much in a hurry yet he stops to find out WHo may have done this before he checks his *stabbed* patient?  AND doesn't go bursting through the kitchen door into the sitting room?

The other odd thing is:
He says he wants to go notify the police.  Lizzie says oh go telegraph to Emma.  Which he does.  AND stops 2 or 3 minutes at Baker's store to talk about the killing and doesn't notify the police after all.  Some may think Bowen could have told the friends in the store to call the police but Bowen doesn't tell us that and we have no one stating that. 
They later went so far as to trace the time the telegram was sent, but still no one says he notified the police.
He says finally that he told someone at the house to notify the police.  (And the questioner asks When You Came Back?  And he says yes.)
(Bowen's account of the police changes at the Preliminary Hearing.)

I just checked through everything I have on the Borden and case and wouldn't you know it; the hat reference was from LINCOLN!

Pg. 193:

She went throught the kitchen to the dining room, where she took off her hat and laid it on the table.  She started through the sitting room on her way upstairs.

At least I know where it came from now.  It does sound like the most likely place for Lizzie to lay her hat down on, but, we don't know for sure.

Edisto, its possible, but, my head keeps on going back to the Legend movie when they have Mrs. Churchill's character open the door in the kitchen into the sitting room and theres Andrew in all his bloody glory.  The other thought that comes to my mind, if you believe Lizzie is innocent, is that Lizzie thinks her father is napping.  Which would be the quickest route for her to go upstairs without disturbing him any further than she has to? 

Isn't it interesting how we can all see this differently. I'm pretty spatially impaired when it comes to maps, diagrams etc. -- so I could be way off base here.  But when I go over the floor plan and read Lizzie's testimony -- I think she’s trying to say that she came into the kitchen -- then into the dining room through the door closest to the kitchen -- then walked through the dining room to the other dining room door on her way to the front hall stairs. (Going through the dining room would seem to me to be the route least likely to disturb her ailing father on the sitting room couch.) 

Then she discovers his condition when she glances at the couch to check on him as she passes through the sitting room.  (Like everyone, I have trouble with the push-pull door bit – although I thought we’d come to some kind of a resolution about that in a previous discussion?)

Well you can bet I never have.
That push-pull door thing took too much explaining and testing to be simple enough an answer for my needs.

Since I bring it up every couple of months, after Susan noticed it, I think I'm being pretty obvious about it. 


Where is it that a person claims Lizzie heard the groan *of her mother* and decided to investigate?
Is that a Trickey story do you think, or Nellie McHenry, maybe?
Still since the guest room door opens into the guest room (as in *push the door open it was not latched*) I don't think they allowed for the time difference in the two deaths when this rumor was started.
I don't mean to confuse anyone, just thinking aloud...cause I had a feeling it was the guest room door and Abby's body & Lizzie might have slipped up...

"BORDEN MURDER...
... Detective McHenry's Story of How
the Case was Worked Up.

   The Boston Globe to-day prints ..."

"Bridget swears that on the afternoon of the murder, about 6 o’clock, Lizzie said to her in a whisper, 'Keep your tongue still and don’t talk to these officers, and you can have all the money you want.' Bridget also says that when she came down stairs when called by Lizzie, immediately after the murder of Mr. Borden, she asked Lizzie where she was when her father was killed.  She says that Lizzie replied: 'I heard a groan up-stairs and went to see if anything was the matter with Mrs. Borden, and when I came back I found that my father was dead, too.' "
--Monday, October 10, 1892  Page 3

--I found this in the Evening Standard, and am posting so as not to confuse anyone about Lizzie & the *groan* of Abby.  It turns out to be a McHenry-Trickey planted story.

Yes, Diana, thats what I get too when I read Lizzie's Inquest testimony.  Maybe I am reading too much into it, but, I'm trying to envision Lizzie as innocent and what she would have done about going through the sitting room.  If shes guilty, it really doesn't matter what door she uses because she already knows what she will find in there.  But, if Lizzie wants to come across as innocent, she has to seem solicitous of her father's health.

For all I know, that may be Lizzie's tried and true, everyday route through the house.  Yes, as Kat stated, I don't think we ever came up with a satisfactory explanation for that push-pull thing. 

does anyone know why the sofa in the sitting room was pushed against the door to the dining room?

i remember that discussion.  i think i imagined that lizzie pushed open the guest room door to get the axe.

isn't it bridget who says that lizzie says she heard a groan, and bridget assumes she meant her father?

Bridget Sullivan is quoted as saying so:
Robinson's closing statement, page 1661-2/i684
".....Now Bridget Sullivan said, "I went right over to Dr. Bowen's, and when I came back I asked her 'Miss Lizzie, where was you?' I says, 'Didn't I leave the screen door hooked?' She says, 'I was out in the back yard and heard a groan and came in, and the screen door was WIDE open.'" (My Caps)

From Bridget Sullivan - Preliminary - pg 34:
Q: Yes. Miss Lizzie said she was out in the yard, and she heard a groan.
(Mr. Adams) Heard a groan, or heard her groan?
A: Heard her father groan I should think.
Q: What did you say to her before that?
A: I asked her where she was. She said she was out in the back yard. She heard a groan, and she came in, and the screen door was WIDE open.
(My Caps)

I suspect that the door from the kitchen to the sitting room was kept closed most of the time (Dr.Bowen's testimony)because that is where people gathered to talk or rest and they did not want to hear the kitchen noises such as Bridget working in the kitchen, or smell the kitchen smells, etc.  If Lizzie did not mean she entered the dining room door to the sitting room to see her father then I would think she would have stated that she put her hat down in the dining room, went back to the kitchen and then went into the sitting room.  She doesn't and it makes sense that she went the more straight forward route. 

I'm not too concerned Susan, about EXACTLY what Lizzie saw of her father's face or where she was EXACTLY standing in the room.  I am satisfied that she said she saw enough of it that she was horrified and immediately went for Bridget to help.

I've think my opinion is well established in the other posts about why Lizzie reported her father was killed or dead and the significance of those remarks.

My thought about Lizzie staying to guard the house was that her father was in it, severely hurt or maybe dead, and one of the women needed to stay there with it.  It makes more sense for me that Lizzie send Bridget across to get Dr. Bowen than she go herself. In today's world maybe the lady of the house might run across the street but not in Lizzie's time. The house was Lizzie's home, not Bridget's, it was Lizzie's father, not Bridget's, it was Lizzies responsibility to stay at the house, it was Bridget's responsibility to serve.  Am not convinced Lizzie was "lazy."

I don't believe anyone was "casting aspersions" on the Fall River Police force by stating the historical fact that they, along with other police forces of the day, were not prepared to handle such crimes. It's interesting to read the biographies of the individual officers but one doesn't really need to, if one studies how they handled the case, their testimony, etc. the inevitable result is that they simply weren't an exception to historical fact.

Am happy we agree on one point at least, that the prominence of the Borden's was only one factor in the magnitude of the case.

More of Lizzie's fondness for the term "they" --

From Rebello, page 159 --

"Lizzie's Turn to Come By and By" New Bedford Evening Standard, Monday, August 15, 1892

"Mrs Russell the [evening] matron in whose custody in Fall River Lizzie A. Borden passed the hours from the time of her arrest on Thursday until she was taken to Taunton Friday, was much impressed by her composure and entire absence of nervousness.  The prisoner impressed her as being a woman of considerable determination or one who was bound to have her own way.  Mrs Russell thinks eventually Miss Borden will break down, although she thinks she will maintain her composure until her trial.  She was not a troublesome charge.  During all the hours Mrs Russell was with Lizzie she never alluded to the crime but once, and that was just before her departure for Taunton "So they are going to take me to Taunton, are they?' asked Lizzie.  'I believe they are,' replied Mrs Russell...'Well,' continued Lizzie, 'They seem to do about as they please with me.'

'They were up to my house and brought me down here...to the inquest twice, and then they brought me here for a rest and I did not know what it all meant.  Now they are going to take me to jail.  They are having their own way with me now, but I will have mine by and by.'"

I'm wondering if in the 2nd paragraph she meant "arrest" and not "a rest" as quoted.

She did say she *didn't know what it all meant*.  "A Rest" is maybe what Emma told her,..you know..."Oh Lizzie let's just go down to the station house for a little rest..."  (Not a real quote)

BTW:  ESP ALERT!  I had just read this exact citation about 9 p.m. tonight.

ESP again

When I read things like this, I start wondering again if Lizzie was on more drugs than the Bowen morphine.  If someone said to me we were going to the station house for a little rest...I certainly wouldn't accept it in a docile, trusting but bewildered manner.

Yea, but then they have her saying;
" They are having their own way with me now, but I will have mine by and by.'"
I wonder if she did?

  Well, didn't Lizzie have her own by and by?  I mean, she did get off, or if you will, she did get away with murder.

I don't really have a sense that Lizzie did have her way by and by.
Somehow I feel like she thought it would be different, having her way.
Once she got her way (meaning just the ability to *go and do and have*, the way Alice puts it), the city and her friends and her neighbors and complete strangers and newspaper men and public opinion, pretty much denied her having her way.
Her way was probably to be accepted on the Hill, and exhonerated.  With some sympathy thrown in.
She never got that.
Her friends dropped away, her church no longer seemed welcoming, she was looked at suspiciously...a person can't ever survive that kind of treatment with happiness and contentment.
I think she made do, but I don't think she had her way.

I sure like that phrase...*I will have mine by and by*...

(Message last edited Jun-9th-03  5:30 PM.)

Yes, that sounds more likely what Lizzie meant by that statement.  Rather sad that if she actually thought she would get all that "by and by".  She must have been greatly disillusioned by what actually did transpire, even down to Emma leaving her. 

Yes I see hopes and dreams shattered and Lizzie just muddling through as best she could under the circumstances.
Having her fun out of town must have been bittersweet, but at least she might enjoy some secret knowledge while she was away.
Like knowing she is infamous yet anonymous in a big city.  There I see Lizbeth with a Mona Lisa smile!

"In the sweet by and by ....": song from that period?
Joe Hill parodied that as "pie in the sky by and by".

Isn't that phrase, in the song, used as *after death*?
Lizzie used (Supposedly) it for her future plans and aspirations.

(Message last edited Jun-10th-03  10:47 PM.)

IF you believe in a heavenly life after death, or punishment for sin, it could make a difference in one's behavior.
Does law come from morality? Does morality come from religion? What then when the people are irreligious opportunists (like Andy?)?