1. "Bowen's Route To Andrew"
Posted by Kat on Apr-7th-03 at 6:55 PM

I was picturing Dr. Bowen rushing across the street to see what was wrong at the Borden house.  He thought they were worse.  But he spoke pretty "quick" when he first saw Lizzie.  Implied he was in a rush to find out.

Then I realized, he went the furthest route to get to Andrew, and I wondered why--what this might mean.
Basically he was led by Lizzie to the body of her father.
And took him on the route she says she took in coming in from outside...which happens to be the longest path to the body!


Dr. Bowen had 3 choices of routes as far as I can see.

-He could go to the side door, go inside and go through the kitchen door , just look in at the kitchen door, actually, and see Andrew.

-He could follow Lizzie down the kitchen hall, turn into the dining room door, pass through the length of the dining room, and enter the sitting room from that vantage point.  (This was the route Lizzie took him on).

-Then there is a concerned and hurried DOCTOR's route, which is directly to the patient:  Through the front door, staight through the front entry and boom there is Andrew directly in his line of sight!


So why did he go that way?
In his testimony he actually, with no prodding, specifies how he ended up going the way he did.  Nobody asked him, but he did make sure to offer the info.


Here is a chart of the possible routes for a Doctor to take to get to a patient.  Again, the question is why?
(He says the kitchen door is always closed, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work!)



(Message last edited Apr-7th-03  6:57 PM.)

why did he not go to the front door in the first place?  i forget who told him of the trouble across the street?  could they have mentioned that lizzie and mrs. churchill were in the kitchen? 

why not go directly from the kitchen to the sitting room?  he said he knew that door was always kept shut.  (according to bridget though, andrew used that door)  i noticed in the movie when lizzie tells mrs. churchill he's in the sitting room, she opens the door from the kitchen.  (i know mrs. churchill did not really, but it does show the common sense route in that situation.)

i guess he would have had no idea where the body was before speaking to lizzie.  it appears he is given to understand lizzie is in the kitchen.  why lizzie would need to lead him down the path of her discovery (as she told it) i don't know.  she could have simply said, "he's in the sitting room."

this is sort of like my question about lizzie leaving the door open in going to the barn to hunt for something.  it doesn't look like much but you can't leave any stone unturned. 

if we could get more input, something might click.

It almost makes me wonder if Dr. Bowen was going there in the capacity of a doctor or a concerned family friend?  In my opinion if it was a medical call like the one on Wednesday, Bowen would use the front door.  As a concerned friend I feel he would go to the section of the house where he knew family members to be at, the kitchen.  I have a feeling like he went to the Borden house that day in both frames of mind.  And his following Lizzie to the body, perhaps he had no idea where Lizzie was leading him at the moment until they got to the dining room door into the sitting room and she said, he is in there. 

The front door isn't directly across the street from Bowen, however, and the side door is a more direct entrance to the house for him coming from where he did.

If the front gate to the side of the house is open and the front door gate is closed, then he would have just naturally rushed into the open gate. And if Lizzie was at the door, and he saw her, he would go to her first as the person who called him. Wouldn't he?

Assuming the gate was open, it's possible considering where Bowen lived in relation to the Borden's.  That's an interesting view.
Bowen was there Wednesday tho, as Susan pointed out, and he did go to the front door: (Inquest, Bowen, 116)

"I thought if they did not call me I would go over and make a friendly call. I went over after breakfast. I think Bridget let me in. I am very sure it was the front door. "

So even as a friendly call, he used the front door.  Maybe the presitige and personality of a Doctor would make sure he did enter by a front door.

The ladies there at the time, he says he met in the hall.
How would he know they were in the kitchen?
Yes, it's true he couldn't know where the body was, but he didn't know there was a body.  It seems the Wednesday trip over would be repeated.

What's most srtiking is how nervous he sounds during this exchange at the Inquest.  He also Offers all this info without being asked.
People tend to do that to forestall the very question they don't want asked.

When I transferred the testimony onto the floorplan it appears I didn't get it all.  It was my first time.
Here is the rest of what Bowen said:

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 says “Lizzie what is the matter?” I spoke pretty quick. I says “what is the matter Lizzie?
..............
Q.  That conversation took place immediately?
A.  That took place immediately, the first thing. I says “where is he?” The door was shut, as it usually is. I never saw it open hardly, between the kitchen and the sitting room. I went through the dining room.

Q.  You said “where is he”, what answer did she give?
A.  In the sitting room. She beckoned along through the dining room. I went through the dining room to the door between the dining room and the sitting room, that was directly at the head of the sofa. As soon as I got at the door, I could see the whole room, and saw him. Of course I was prepared for something awful, as I did not hear him, and there was no sound. ....

-Bridget says she thinks Lizzie was in the kitchen when Bridget returned from fetching Alice.  Bridget says Bowen had just stepped out of his carriage as she was coming. (We don't know where his carriage stopped).
As far as we know, Mrs. Churchill is there but she is inside the door with Lizzie at first because Lizzie was sitting on the interior stair.
Here is something strange that Mrs. Churchill says (Inq., 128):

"Very soon Dr. Bowen came in, and I said to him “he is in the sitting room.” Dr. Bowen went directly to the door that opens from the kitchen into the dining room, at the right of the door as you come into the back entry, just beyond it,....."

So after your responses and spurring me to look further, it seems as if Bowen was at the threshold of choosing which way to go, the dining room way or the kitchen way, but Lizzie "beckons" him to enter through the dining room door.  The ladies follow and  Lizzie plops down on the lounge that is there, seemingly awaiting the doctor's verdict.

--I was wondering today if she knew that was the killer's path, that had snuck up behind Andrew as he was there on the lounge, and that Bowen's movements through that same path would cover clues or confound the crime scene.  None of the women went in there, not that way, or any other way, until Lizzie went upstairs.


(Message last edited Apr-8th-03  6:29 AM.)

BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE, EVEN TODAY!
A lot of people will only enter and exit by the back door. The front door is only for special occasions. What is your experience?

If you live in an apartment, there is only one entry.

Are you trying to make sure I hear you in Florida?
My experience so far, is that Dr. Bowen enters by the front door.
This day he didn't.

Can you hear me now? Good!
I just want people to use their common sense, everyday experience in evaluating the events of August 1893. Not that they witnessed a murder, but just how people acted.

i have three doors, but i rarely use anything but the front door. the reason for this is the layout of my house.  it's a foyer-split.  so the front door puts me closest to anywhere i'd want to go.  the downstairs side door opens to the wash room and storage, and for the back door you have to go up 12 steps to enter the kitchen.  i never enter the locked house from anywhere but the front -- though i sometimes go out the kitchen or the downstairs door if i'm coming right back in (sort of like the screen door at the bordens, i guess)

but there are many people i visit where i know to use a side entrance instead of the front.  typically because the front door opens to a formal living room they rarely use.

but i think the point was that bowen typically used the front door.  i re-read some of his testimony today.  using someone's side or back door indicates a familiarity with the household.  but he doesn't sound like they were that close.

Andrew went right to the front door, apparently most people did
use the front door.  But it makes sense, someone said if the
gate by the side door was open and people were around there, Bowen
would instinctively go to that door. 
  Why did he take the longest route to Andrew?  Could be nothing yet
could be important, I'm glad I found this site to dig into every
little thing, hey we may come up with something!

There is testimony that Andrew went to the side door first, but it was locked, then he went to the front door and had to either ring or fiddle with the knob as it was locked. The testimony comes from someone seeing him round the house from the side to the front.

From the witness statements:

Mrs. Dr. Kelly. “Left the house to go to the dentist’s, looked at the clock just before going out, 10.35. Saw Mr. Borden coming around the north west corner of the house, going towards the front door, saw him put a key in the door. He had a small package in his hand. From the way was coming, I think he was at the side door first.” The time when Mrs. Kelly left the house is also fixed by the work girl at 10.35.

It might be that Mrs. Kelly is assuming Andrew went to the side door first, but she didn't see it.  The statement was not on oath.
So I checked her Inquest test. (where she is Not;   I think that's odd as she was the last outside person to see Andrew alive).
Anyway she was not at Inquest but at Prelim. & Trial.
There she is sworn and doesn't give her opinion that Andrew was coming around the corner of the house from first trying the screen door.

That may be because of reason's I can't imagine..or maybe she was coached not to give opinion, or maybe even coached not to imply at all that Andrew couldn't enter at the screen door.
As I rthink about it, it may be because one of Lizzie's alibi's (The last one?) was that she was right there in the kitchen eating pears and looking at a magazine.(Inq., 68)..so if Andrew tried that door, wouldn't she jump up and let him in?

He couuld very well have been coming from  trying the screen door, but it doesn't suit Lizzie's testimony.

Other than that I like to think he could have been coming from the privy in the back of the barn.  He had his parcel...maybe it was a folded newspaper.  Maybe that was a routine of his?

I'm beginning to wonder, after you said Bowen didn't know where the body was, if since we think he thought Andrew was *worse*, the doctor would go to the side door because he thought it was nearest to Andrew's bedroom?
If he expected his *patient* to be worse, he might assume Andrew was in his bed?
I don't think there was any congregation on the side steps that would attract his attention.  I always thought of him as a front-door-man.

i hadn't thought of that, but it works.  i wasn't sure what bowen was thinking, what mrs. told him.

about that parcel:  i probably got this from radin, i'll have to check, but someone has said that was an old lock he picked up in town somewhere and put in a large envelope. ?

A lot of people believe the parcel was the lock.
But we don't find a parcel in the house after the murders and if the lock was there with statements saying he took it, woud they probably look for it in the house?
The parcel can be all kinds of things.  I like to imagine what else it might have been, or what was in it.
Maybe it has something to do with the *wrappers* which Lizzie finally says she addressed Thursday?  The wrapping of the parcel hidden in plain sight amongst the wrappers being addressed?
I don't know much about this.

i've thought of that one too.  lizzie is sitting in kitchen eating a pear, reading a  magazine.  andrew tried the door.  maybe while she's thinking of what she should do, andrew decides not to make a fuss and just use his key at the front door.  then maggie who has "gone upstairs" (check me, i may not have this quite in order, i went over it last night, but her inquest is the damnedest thing) appears at the front door to let in andrew.  she hears maggie let him in, hears their voices (maggie says they never spoke, but nevermind that for now).  then lizzie is in the sitting room with her father.  maggie is nowhere.

but i have considered this as evidence that lizzie was not in the kitchen when he came home, but upstairs.  add to this maggie hearing her laugh behind her, recognizing the voice.  lizzie laughing at her irish-accented curse word? 

but notice lizzie's explanation for her switch here.  on some other day, she had been on the stairs when maggie let someone in.  isn't it maggie who lets in at the front door dr. bowen on wednesday?  doesn't lizzie explain when she's coming in the front door wednesday that the locking of that door was her own business?  and doesn't maggie say that she had no business with the front door?

these two always stalemate each other.  and we're back to why, and something is missing.

 

This is sounding like a bad dream, isn't it?
Where you're in a room playing with your dog and then next you're swimming in the ocean but you never have to explain how you got there!

I thought if it was Andrew's proclamation that the doors be locked always, then maybe the ladies of the house made a compromise that he couldn't come "halooing" at the back door, that it just wasn't done.  So after a gentle knock or two, he was required to let himself in the front way...(someone may be resting?)

But if he can't get in the front, and has to be let in (We know Lizzie didn't undo the locks that morning) then maybe it was planned to keep him locked out so that someone hiding or Lizzie or Bridget would have advanced warning of his arrival to prepare themselves for killing Andrew..Then it doesn't matter where Lizzie was as long as that guest room door WAS closed as she claims.

I think Rays just prefers to use caps instead of smiley faces to underscore his mood or make his points.

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 says “Lizzie what is the matter?” I spoke pretty quick. I says “what is the matter Lizzie?

I think Dr. Bowen says in his testimony why he went to the back door, "I would get in there quicker".  He was "in a hurry" and so this means to me Mrs. Bowen told him it was a very serious matter and he needed to hot foot it over there, formality to the winds, therefore, no front door approach.

Also, in living across from the Borden's all those years, the Bowen's would have noticed that in the summer the back door was a quick in and out door for the family to use, in other words, it WAS often open and a quick access to the house.

Inside Dr. Bowen, since he must have been aware of the door lock situation, might have assumed that since he said he was aware that door wasn't frequently open, that the kitchen door to the sitting room was locked.  Also, he was in a house where the owner was there too, Lizzie, and it was appropriate for her to lead the doctor to the body through the path she took.

Some suggest the white box taken from the bank contained either money, or a deed. I think the former, since a deed would be registered and contain public information. If Andy signed it before he died, the person receiving it would have confessed to "being the last person who say him alive" (the functional definition of the murderer).

If Uncle John came to set up a meeting w/ Wm S Borden, after a note drew Abby away, then things fall into place. Something went awry in the guest bedroom. I believe Abby was a very nice person - to her kin. But she may have not had a high regard for the man snuck into her home?

Yes, you are right. An important person like a Dr would call on the front door. "Tradesmen use the back door." And yes, the layout of the home will influence this. I know from me experience, and from visiting realtives, we always use the back or side door. Front door is for special events. Like strangers visiting.

I have a front door that opens into the living room &
usually that is where strangers knock -- the side door
opens into the kitchen & that is the "family" door --
if anyone has ever been here much that is where they
come in at. Maybe Dr. Bowen was an old family friend &
less just a doctor so he used the side door if he saw
that was the one the family used most often?

that's a good point in that andrew apparently expected to be able to enter the front door with his key.

if lizzie has killed abby, she would do well to leave that door thoroughly locked. it may have been locked against ANYONE who might knock.  then again it could be a signal. 

the back door though.  if lizzie was in there eating a pear, she might have latched it.  but more probably it was bridget who latched it when she came in.

i just thought of something.  maybe lizzie planned to leave the house through the front door, and thus leave the door in such a way that andrew could have entered.  then it would have been andrew and bridget in the house for a while with abby's dead body.  not to mention the return of morse.  then you've got 3 suspects with lizzie not among them.  i guess this kind of speculation is worth something if only to figure out exactly what lizzie's thinking was if it's true that she planned to get out.

What white box taken from the bank?
I don't think I've heard of this.  Do we know where the parcel came from?
..............
The only scene that has been created out of the imagination of authors that has to do with Lizzie expecting to be away before Andrew returned, (or was killed or was found), was her own statement to Bridget to lock the door if she went out, because she, Lizzie, might be going out as well.  I don't see a whole alibi created from this statement, having Lizzie dressed in her Bombazine coming stately down the stairs, after gathering her hat, and pulling on her gloves, to go out (shoplifting?), and accidently Andrew comes home *early*.  There is no proof to any of this.
(I know you didn't say this...but I have heard or read of it. )
.........
Why would Lizzie leave Bridget or Morse to find the bodies if she later goes to great pains  to assure the investigators that Bridget didn't do it, nor did Morse?

(Message last edited Apr-10th-03  11:56 PM.)

i think knowlton authored the theory that lizzie meant to get out but andrew unexpectedly came home.  i think that's where it started.  victoria lincoln used it. 

i've never been able to completely believe it.

to your last question, i don't know.  that's where she sounds like she knows who did it.  i'm inclined to believe more what she says there in the aftermath, as opposed to what she says in her inquest. 

i think we agree that her inquest is a complete mess.  if there is anything i have decided it is that lizzie is withholding information.  i find it hard to believe how anyone could study it and come to any other conclusion, yet i've noted that some do.  i wonder why.

You're probably right about Knowton and thanks for pointing it out.
He had to get it from somewhere tho?
I suppose there are statements of which we are unaware.

I try not to read the opening and closings, which I admit limit me, so that is my weak spot.  I just can't stand knowing they were misrepresenting the story and were lax with the facts and their own timelines--Both sides!
Also that they could just bring up poison and stuff that is later excluded or not allowed.  That drives me crazy.  It IS almost like reading Lincoln.  odd.

You say you have decided that Lizzie is withholding information and can't figure out why anyone else would not think the same.

It's quite possible many if not all of the people at the various legal proceedings were withholding information. Sometimes it is innocent and sometimes not.  You can withhold information by deliberately not saying, by not giving a complete statement, by answering a question with an "I cannot say," and other various kinds of remarks, and information can be withheld simply because the attorney never followed up or asked in the first place the right or pertinent questions, and by the person not knowing what it was they were supposed to say in answer to a question (someone may forget or not think it important to add something, such as when Lizzie said she came in and put her hat down, she was never asked down on what, and how would she know it was important?)

The hard part for me is not that people withhold information, but what information they withheld was important.

i'm talking about what lizzie says in her inquest.  for example, bridget has detailed memory of interacting with lizzie after her father came home while she washed windows.  on the other hand, lizzie says she never even saw maggie then.. how could maggie let andrew in and lizzie never even see her thereafter?  i don't know what is the truth, but this is clearly not the truth.  how closely have you studied her inquest?  her answers about abby's whereabouts also are totally unbelievable.  lizzie may be innocent of the crimes.  truly i can't decide, but i think you need to be more objective about this particular area.  i think you provide a valuable counter for those who would indiscriminately beat up on lizzie because it's easy to do.  i don't do that.  but i'm with knowlton about the way she tries to account for herself.  it just doesn't work.

Who is beating up Lizzie, indiscrimately? Someone here?

  Good one, Kat.  Perhaps if Andrew took Lizzie on a few more trips behind the woodshed and gave her a good thrashing, he may have died in his sleep...well, of natural causes. 

no regular poster actually is.  i say "for those who would" -- whoever they may be, whenever they may appear.  my point is that i don't see how anyone could study her inquest in detail and really think about it and believe in her veracity.  whether she killed them or not, that is.  well, of course, you know that.  but i'm surprised that some people seem to buy it.  i don't, and i don't see how anybody could.

I have been reading the Roughead letters with/to Pearson.
Roughead is Scottish.
He thinks (as well as his learned countrymen who are in the Law), that Lizzie's Inquest testimony  should have been allowed at the Trial.
(pg.44 &45), Chronicles of Murder:
"...On reading Porter's report of the trial I am even more struck with the ruling of your judges re the prussic acid, and the admission of her statement at the inquest.  Were they got at?  It seems inconceivably unjust to the prosecutor to have excluded such vital testimony."
.......

Pearson's reply, 46,in part:
"...About the judges in the Borden case, there was no suspicion of corruption.  One or two of them were old men;  one had grown-up daughters, and the thought of parricide horrified him so as to upset his powers of logical reasoning.

...Sectarian influence was exerted on her behalf, and a committee of ministers actually waited upon the Chief Justice before the trial....

...Lawyers whom I know say that many American courts would have excluded the inquest testimony;  about the poison, there is less agreement."...

I think E Pearson is wrong again. Parricide may be horrible, but convicting an innocent young girl is even more horrible. I think it was very likely that Judge Dewey etc would do what they thought right to get an innocent Lizzie off. Agree?

Not that judges wouldn't take bribes, then or now, but more likely in a low profile civil case? What is YOUR experience? Read about this in the newspapers, or is it unknown?

If the story in W Masterton's book about a sting operation going on with a woman who resembled Lizzie is true, this is reason enough to throw out the testimony.
The judges may have known the truth withheld from the public: "a woman who resembled Lizzie is trying to get pharmacists to break the law".

I must admit that Roughead's reaction was to reading Porter's Trial,which may have had a bias to begin with.

And Pearson's reply is sort of simplistic.

But I happen to admire both these writers.

I don't admire E Pearson at all. He is too bloodthirsty and a death penalty freak. (I'm not opposed to the death penalty in itself, but to its use as a spectacle to amuse some sick pathetic individuals who seem to get all excited by this act.) Especially for a librarian or desk jockey.

E Radin, a better journalist, did write a book on the numerous cases where a convicted murderer was really not guilty.

...
I have dealt with a few librarians, mostly women. They all seem too kind hearted to get turned on by a death sentence. But this topic never came up. What is YOUR experiences?

(Message last edited Apr-16th-03  5:00 PM.)

Yes I know how you feel about Pearson and do  you have a dislike for Librarians?

William Rougheads Chronicles Of Murder, Richard Whittington-Egan, 1991, Lochar Publishing, Ltd, pgs. 27-8.:
On Pearson-
"Having received his formal education in the public schools of Newburyport, he was sent to Hopkinson's School in Boston, to be prepared for entrance to Harvard.  In 1898 he duly took up a place at the universirty, where, incindentally, he became a contributor to the Advocate, and graduated BA in 1902.  His specialist education was completed by a further two years at the New York State Library School, at Albany, whence he emerged in 1904 with the additional degree of BLS - Bachelor of Library Science.  Thus equipped, he went off at the age of twenty-five to join the staff of the Washington, DC Public Library as reference librarian.

Although promoted to assistant librarian within a twelve month period, and profoundly devoted to books per se, Pearson was able to summon up little particular interest in the mechanics of Library work.  What did interest him was the weekly column, 'The Librarian', which he originated, and, from March 1906 to May 1920, conducted in the Boston Evening Transcript....

...Six years later, in 1914, the Pearsons moved to New York, where Edmund had accepted a post as cataloguer at the New York Public Library.  He was to remain there until 1927, becoming successively reference librarian, and editor of New York Library publications."

--He went on to become a literary editor and writer, 8 books by 1923.
--He wrote:  "The study of murder is the study of the human heart in it's darkest, strangest moments."
--I won't compare him to Radin, if you won't.  I don't look at it as a contest.

(Message last edited Apr-14th-03  7:19 PM.)

by the way, kat, i failed to mention -- but i don't want you to think i didn't get the joke or appreciate your artwork.  haha

i didn't do that to her, though.  she was struck by a falling pear.

That's a venus fly-trap question Haulover. Your getting frustrated again. Your remarks about what you consider my lack of attention to reading the inquest are what is called an oreo-critique. Sandwiched inbetween your two objections to how you see my appraisal of Lizzie's inquest testimony is one nice compliment...at least I supply the forum with a counterpoint to Lizzie beaters.  Ha! Ha!  Do you really think that my being "more objective" would make me come around to your way of thinking, and is that the right way to think? I might come around to an even stranger interpretation.

Anyway, I'll re-read Lizzie's inquest again just for you. Here's $1.50 for a Starbucks coffee. When you get back all refreshed we can talk again.

Rays, I agree with you about the prussic acid sting situation.  If there was one going on then the clerks at the drug store would have been shown up.

One book (?) that I read said that cyanide is rarely used for poisoning because it works so quickly. Many poisoners also pile up a body count before they are caught. Neither happened here.

I don't believe it was Lizzie, and maybe the Court knew better and so threw out the evidence rather than expose the ongoing sting. Just like many of those judges who throw out charges. This often means that the defendant agreed to cooperate with the police, and named names, and got his arrest overturned in a manner that doesn't stamp him as a stool-pigeon!

Moody's Timeline--Prosecution--From the Trial

"Not far from 9:30 a.m."

Mrs. Borden "apparently" told Lizzie about making up bed in spare room and would go back up to put two pillowcases on..."and she was killed within a very few moments after she left the room (D.R.), because no living person saw Mrs. Borden from that time until her death, except the assailant." (pg.65).

"Bridget went into the kitchen and dining room and sitting room to close the windows in the sitting room and dining room and there was nobody there - neither the prisoner nor Mrs. Borden." (pg.66).

9:30- 10:05 a.m.

Mr. Borden "was at the banks, between half past nine and a little after ten o'clock." (pg.67).

10:29- 10:31 a.m.

"I am not quite sure which (time)- he was at the store of a Mr. Clegg, who fixes the exact time."

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Borden is headed "in the direction of his home,"..."a moment or two's walk...to his house."

10:33 a.m.(?)

Mrs. Kelly see's him at his front door "at 27 or 28 minutes of 11 which cannot be reconciled with the other time that I have stated here,"..."the clock by which she obtained this time was not one which could be depended upon." (pg.67-68).

10:40 a.m.

"...Real fact is that at 20 minutes to 11 Mr. Borden started to his house, which was but a moment or two's walk away." (pg.68).

10:45 a.m.

"...Could not have been far from 10:45 when Mr. Borden returned." (pg.70).

Bridget "had partly washed one of the two sitting room windows (inside) when somebody was heard at the front door." (pg.67).

"Bridget let him in." (pg.68).

"The prisoner from the hall above made some laugh or exclamation."

Mr. Borden went to dining room.

Lizzie asked if there was any mail.

Mr. Borden heard from Lizzie that Mrs. Borden had gone out; she had a note from "somebody who was sick."

Mr. Borden took his key and went upstairs.

Mr. Borden came down. (pg.68).

Bridget had finished the sitting room windows and was starting on the dining room windows. (pg.69).

Prisoner again appeared from front part of house, got ironing board and began to iron handkerchiefs.

Told Bridget about note.

Asked her if she was going out.

Bridget finished her work and was about to go upstairs when Lizzie told her of "cheap sale of goods downtown."

Bridget went upstairs. (pg.69).

11:15 a.m.

Call came to the" Marshal of Fall River", who gave directions to an officer...(who) looked at his watch and found that it was 11:15. (pg.70).

10:45- 11:15 a.m.

"Therefore the time between Bridget's going up stairs and coming down again must be diminished on the one side by the time consumed by the washing of a window and a half in the sitting room and two windows in the dining room and the putting away of the cloth and the water. On the other side the half hour between eleven o'clock and half past eleven must be diminished by the acts of Bridget and the acts of Mrs. Churchill and the acts of Cunningham which I have described.* I shall not attempt to fix that time; you can fix it better and measure it better yourselves when you come to hear the evidence of what was done by Bridget between the time Mr. Borden came and the noise was heard up stairs and what was done between the time when the alarm took place and the alarm reached the station house and the Marshal of Fall River." (pg.71).

*(Mrs. Churchill is called over from next door, arrives to find Lizzie wants someone to go for a doctor, and she hurries away "diagonally across the street" to the stables to give the alarm and is seen and overheard by Cunningham, who phones the police and newspapers.). (pg.70).


----------
Bridget's Timeline--Preliminary Hearing:

9- 9:30 a.m. — Bridget cleaned her kitchen. (pg. 13).

Shut 1 sitting room window and 2 dining room windows in preparation of washing windows. (pg. 15).

Did not see Lizzie. (pg. 15).

Did not go in the parlor at all. (pg. 15).

9:30 a.m. — Bridget started to get her implements together to wash windows outside. (pg. 13).

Lizzie appeared at back screen door to inquire if Bridget was about to wash windows, while Bridget was just outside. (pg. 12).

10:20 a.m. — Bridget "got (back) in the house". (pg. 17).

"Got the hand basin and went in the sitting room, and started to wash the sitting room windows inside." (pg. 18).

"Part of 1 window washed when Mr. Borden came." (pg. 18).

10:30- 10:40 a.m. — Mr. Borden at the front door. (pg. 19).

"It might be later than half past ten; I could not tell."- Bridget. (pg. 19).

Bridget heard Lizzie laugh from up the front stairs. (pg. 19).

Previous to this, had not seen Lizzie or Mrs. Borden during the intermediate time. (pg. 19).

10:35- 10:45 a.m. — Bridget saw Lizzie 5 to 10 minutes after Mr. Borden came in. (pg. 20).

"She (Lizzie) came through the front hall...She came through the sitting room, I was in the sitting room." (pg. 20).

Lizzie then went into the dining room, where Mr. Borden was. (pg. 20).

Bridget heard Lizzie" telling her father very slowly that her mother got a note . . . and had gone out." (pg. 20).

10:45- 10:55 a.m. — Mr. Borden went up to his room. (pg. 21).

Mr. Borden returned to sitting room. (pg. 21).

Lizzie got out ironing board and put it on dining room table and started to iron while Bridget was finishing the last window in the dining room. (pg. 22).

While both were in the dining room, Lizzie asked Bridget if she was going out that afternoon. (pg. 24).

Lizzie followed Bridget to the kitchen as she hung up her cloths and threw out her water, and told her about a sale of dress goods at Sargeants. (pg. 24, 25).

10:55 a.m. — "4 or 5 minutes to 11" a.m., Bridget went upstairs- knew by the length of time she was upstairs when "it struck 11 o'clock." (pg. 25).

11:10 a.m. — Lizzie "halloed" to Bridget . . . "so loud . . . Come down quick", that her father was dead. (pg. 27).

"I might be upstairs ten or fifteen minutes, as near as I can think, after I went up stairs." (pg. 27).


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

Lizzie at Inquest

 
Aug. 4, 1892, Thursday

8:45 - 8:50 a.m.

Lizzie comes down "a few minutes before nine." "I should say about a quarter" [before nine]. (pg. 56, 59).

Saw "Maggie" [Bridget] and Mrs. Borden; Morse "was not there." (pg. 56).

The family had already breakfasted.

Spoke to her father, and Mrs. Borden . . . "spoke to them all."

Did not mention Morse, nor inquire anything about him. (pg. 56).

"When I first came down stairs I went down cellar to the water closet." (pg. 63).

Mr. Borden was in the sitting room reading the paper. (pg. 58).

Mrs. Borden was in the dining room dusting. (pg. 58).

9:00 a.m.*

Mrs. Borden had left the guest room "all in order". (pg. 63).

She was going to put some fresh pillow slips on the small pillows at the foot of the bed and was going to close the room . . . "

"She had done that [made bed, dusted, etc.] when I came down."

It would take "about 2 minutes" to put on the pillow slips. (pg. 63).

Did not see her after Lizzie "went down in the morning and she [Mrs. Borden] was dusting the dining room." (pg. 62).

"I left her in the dining room." (pg. 62).

"I should have seen her if she had stayed down stairs; if she had gone to her room I would not have seen her." (pg. 63).

Mrs. Borden could have gone to her room while "I was down cellar." (pg. 65).

Lizzie did not see Mrs. Borden when Lizzie came back from down cellar. (pg. 65).

"I had supposed she had gone out." (pg. 66).

Lizzie gone [down cellar] a little more than 5 minutes. (pg. 66).

"Maggie" had "Just come in [while Mrs. Borden dusted the D. R.] the back door with the long pole, brush . . . she was going to wash the windows around the house. She said Mrs. Borden wanted her to." (pg. 58).

Lizzie did not have any coffee or tea; does not know if ate any cookies. (pg. 59).

When she got down the breakfast things were all put away "except the coffee pot; I am not sure if that was on the stove or not." (pg. 59).

The next thing that happened after Lizzie got down was "Maggie went out of doors to wash the windows . . . " and Mr. Borden "came out into the kitchen and said he did not know whether he would go down to the post office or not. And then I sprinkled some handkerchiefs to iron." (pg. 59).

"Maggie" went out after the brush before Mr. Borden went away. (pg. 59).

"After 9 o'clock"

"It must have been after 9 o'clock" when Mr. Borden went down town. (pg. 60).

"I was in the dining room . . . [when Mr. Borden started away] . . . I had just commenced . . . to iron." (pg. 59).

"About 10 a.m."

"My father did not go away . . . until somewhere about 10." (pg. 68).

Lizzie "had not commenced [to iron handkerchiefs], but [I] was getting the little ironing board and the flannel." (pg. 60).

Before Mr. Borden returned, Lizzie did not see "Maggie". (pg. 67).

After Mr. Borden went out Lizzie did not go up stairs at all. (pg. 67).

Lizzie carried some clean clothes up. (pg. 60).

Stayed "in my room long enough when I went up to sew a little piece of tape on a garment." (pg. 60).

The door to the guest room was closed. (pg. 64).

"He [Mr. Borden] came home after I came down stairs." (pg. 60).

"I think "Maggie" let him in." (pg. 61).

"After 10:00 a.m."

"It must have been after 10 [when he came home] because I think he told me he did not think he should go out until about 10." (pg. 83).

"He was not gone so very long." (pg. 84).

When the bell rang "I think [I was] in my room up stairs." (pg. 61).

"I was on the stairs coming down when she ["Maggie"] let him in."

"I don't think I had been up there over 5 minutes" [when Mr. Borden returned]. (pg. 61).

Mr. Borden was gone "not very long." (pg. 62)

"I was down in the kitchen . . . [when he returned] reading an old magazine" . . . "eating a pear." (pg. 60, 68).

"I am not sure whether I was there [kitchen] or in the dining room." (pg. 60).

Lizzie was in the kitchen when her father was let in. (pg. 67).

Lizzie was reading an old magazine "for perhaps 1/2 an hour" before going to the barn. (pg. 71).

After Mr. Borden came home Lizzie was in the sitting room with him. (pg. 66).

Lizzie did not iron any more after he came in. (p. 68).

Lizzie swears she did not see him go up stairs (to his room). (pg. 84, 85).

Lizzie did not see "Maggie" after she let Mr. Borden in. (pg. 69).

Lizzie "might have seen her ["Maggie"] and not know it." (pg. 70).

Lizzie doesn't know when Mr. Borden came home. (pg. 69).

Lizzie went right out to the barn-not less than 5 minutes [after Mr. Borden returned]. (pg. 84).

Lizzie got some pears first. (pg. 72).

Lizzie stayed under the pear tree 4 or 5 minutes. (pg. 88).

Lizzie was 15 or 20 minutes in the barn "trying to find lead for a sinker", and ate pears. (pg. 69, 77).

15 or 20 minutes after Mr. Borden came home Lizzie found him on the sofa. (pg. 69).


--HUH?

damn, kat -- that is invaluable!  i was thinking of doing something similar, but what you have is much more ambitious.  i'm going to have to spend some time on it before replying -- but thanks for that effort.

have you noticed how unpredictable it is what we get into when you compare it to the original post?  however it comes is fine, so long as it's coming. 

i don't know why you think i'm hostile.  just read what i said and compare it to what you said, and tell me who is hostile.  my suggestion about objectivity is something you could have taken constructively and then explained to me why i'm wrong.  i pretty much stay frustrated about lizzie borden.  who isn't?  i don't have to tell you how difficult it is.  and i'm not interested in your coming around to my way of thinking.  if anything, i'm sick of my way of thinking, and i'm looking for something else.  i recall asking you to give me your take on lizzie's difficulty in explaining abby's whereabouts, and in particular, the way in which she finally tells of the note.  we all make our reputations here in terms of where we stand, and you've made it clear you don't think lizzie lies.  i disagree, but i would sincerely welcome an argument that shakes that position i currently occupy.

I had done the timelines and they are at the Museum/Library.
I'll tell you tho, going over them to highlight where Lizzie's stories go awry took about an hour.
It is SO confusing!

I think it was said here that it seemed as if Lizzie didn't ever expect to be questioned at all on any of this.  It almost seemed so when I was working this over.  This is more than just an innocent person forgetting where they were at such-and-such a time and date.  This is a real attempt to explain the inexplicable.  If she didn't know, she should have said, and stuck to that.  Why keep talking, changing stories, wandering in her verbiage, and expecting to be believed?!  It's almost audacious!
At some points Lizzie doesn't need to fish to find out & follow Bridget's timeline and that might be a place to concentrate, if Bridget is not suspected.

(BTW:  When I did the timelines I did not use Radin or Caplain or Rebello...just testmony.)

And she typed it with one finger! That's my sister! 

Kat that was wonderful. Really easy to follow, even though the testimony was not.

I am with you Haulover. I especially loved your line that you are tired of your way of thinking about the case! THAT IS EXACTLY why I have this forum. To provide a space for interested people to discuss this most amazing mystery. I love to hear other ways of thinking about it. My way doesn't answer all the necessary questions. I keep revising my theories. For a while I think she did it and then I don't after reading a new fact that doesn't gel with my other ideas.

It is ok with me if any of you have made up your minds. It is also ok with me if you haven't and are searching. I can learn from all of you! I want a new theory!

My take on Lizzie's inquest testimony is that she wanted to tell Knowlton the truth insofar as she could do it without incriminating herself.  Not a very odd position for her to take, no matter whether she was guilty or innocent.  (BTW, I tend to think Lizzie had something to do with the murders but did not herself do the hatchet job.) In trying to sidestep what looked like incriminating facts, she got tangled up.  For example, I don't think she initially realized that she could have been standing in the upstairs hallway and not been aware that Abby was lying dead on the floor of the guest room.  Therefore, she didn't dare to say she was standing in that hallway when Andrew came home.  She was hesitant to say she definitely wasn't there, however, so she vacillated back and forth until she was cornered into saying that a) the guest room door was closed when she last went upstairs, and b) she was downstairs when Andrew came home.
 
Bridget has always struck me as a somewhat devious character.  I think, for example, that she well knew there were tensions in the Borden household, but she wasn't tellin'.  That makes me wonder what else she was holding back or being less than candid about.  I don't necessarily think she was being paid off by the Borden "girls," but I don't think she told all she knew.  Her reason might have been the same as Lizzie's -- self-protection. 

If we can't rely on Lizzie or Bridget, who else is there?

Wasn't Bridget quoted as saying she didn't want to talk for fear that the man who killed "poor Mrs. Borden" might come and get her too?
Read WL Masterton's book.

Wow, I almost missed this!

I noticed something about Bridget and wondered if it meant anything?
In her timeline, she says she came in about 10:20, collected her hand basin, but had only washed 1/2 of one window by the time Andrew came home (about 10:40 a.m.--your time may vary).

It sounds as if there is about 20 minutes missing here.
Plus she says she never saw Lizzie from when Lizzie accosted her at the back screen door about 9:30 until After Andrew returned, nor did she see Mrs. Borden, nor did she see anyone about the place.

David Kent's "40 Whacks" gives his timeline (to the second) on Lizzie's alibi. I believe him, and Lizzie. I think Lizzie's first story was accurate (behind the house, eating pears). When she realized she could be a witness to Nemesis, and be eliminated, she changed her story to say "I saw and heard nothing!!!"

Bridget is no more "devious" than anyone who works for a corporation or government agency and KNOWS that she had to be very, very careful in what she says on the record.

I once told a relative to say "I was so busy working that I didn't notice anything going on"; some people in her office were taking long lunches, etc. If you become a witness, you are never again trusted by your coworkers. And the new management may distrust you as well for not speaking out earlier. Besides, its not your worry if some people have a special deal w/ the manager. Right?

I can see you never had the coffee I bought for you. In answer to you I said you were "frustrated" haulover, not "hostile" (your word.) In answer to your opinion that I should be more objective about Lizzie's inquest testimony, I don't think it is up to you to tell me or anyone else how I/we should take or review Lizzie's inquest testimony. What you need to do is just worry about how YOU take the testimony and present what YOU think. I am glad to see you have never claimed to be objective about the testimony.  

I appreciate that you want so badly for someone else to give you a new slant on the testimony, to present an "argument" to your position as you say.  To me you almost say such a thing because you are already confident no one can. When I am READY to discuss the Abby/ note situation I will if I choose to. 

Thanks, for your interest in my opinion but just how much interest in discussing it with you do you think I have when you have already concluded that I am not being as objective as YOU think I should be and that you have already determined that you can't see how anyone could "believe in her (Lizzie's) veracity." You have already set it up so anyone who believes she said anything truthful is wrong.

You say that here on this forum we are making our reputations "on the terms of where we stand" and you think I have said that I "don't think Lizzie lies." I don't think I am here on this forum to make a reputation for myself.  And your conclusion as to what I think regarding lying is wrong.

I don't recall that I ever said that Lizzie never lied. I have never said Lizzie didn't appear confused.  I have questioned the conclusion that the whole lot of her testimony was contrived to cover up her murdering the Borden's that morning.  What I have done is present at times an alternative to your postings about certain aspects of the inquest testimony.  I have presented reasons why I thought certain portions of her testimony could be seen as not being lies, i.e. the sinker testimony wording. Other portions of her testimony can be considered in light of her interaction with the attorney, her memory, her being on drugs, her inattention to daily activities, etc.

I have questioned why Bridget's testimony was not considered withholding evidence yet Lizzie's testimony was. I have no answers for why Lizzie presented contradictory testimony to the timeline Bridget gave, and which is correct I don't know, perhaps the truth lies somewhere inbetween. If neither one was the murderer or in on them then it is possible both were right in their own memories and the reason things don't match up are not motivated by deception.

I am in a constant state of metamorphorsis about the Lizzie Borden case.

yeah, maybe we can have coffee sometime.

i didn't mean to ask you for anything, carol.  forget it.

I was just reviewing Kent and I see a timeline as to the time Bridget went upstairs and as to when the murder call was put out at 11:15.  Is that to which you refer?
He gives estimates as to how long it might take each player in the chain of events to complete their assigned role in the drama.
Anybody can do that.
And use testimony and common sense.
Why should I automatically accept Kent's timeline when I can have the fun of designing my own?  You can too.

(Besides, my notes in the margins disagreed with him by 3 minutes minimum.  He had some idea it was an 8 minute event and I could easily argue it as an 11 minute event.
But still, that is only for Andrew anyway.)

Still not under oath, but Jennings has a witness who says Andrew rang both doorbells  (?)

The Legend 100 Years After the Crime--
A Conference on the Lizzie Borden Case
Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA
Aug. 3-5, 1992
The Hip-Bath Collection, Barbara Ashton, p211

"e.  Mr. Benjamin T. Hart--saw Mr.  (B?) ringing bell when I went down to Pleasant St.  I saw time by City Hall clock and it was 10:40.  He rang doorbells both sides, no one came to door."

Did we figure out that there was a bell at each door?


(Message last edited May-5th-03  11:44 PM.)

According to Bridget's Trial testimony, there were 2 doorbells in the house, one in the kitchen and one upstairs in Mrs. Borden's room.  Bridget states that she only heard the one in the kitchen ring, so, the side door one may have been disconnected or redone so that it rang only the kitchen bell. 

According to Bridget's testimony for the murder day, she heard no bells rung:

Q. Will you describe what you heard that attracted your attention?
A. Well, I heard like a person at the door was trying to unlock the door and push it but could not, so I went to the front door and unlocked it.

Q. Did you hear the ringing of any bell?
A. No sir, I don't remember to hear any bell.

Later on in Bridget's testimony:

Q. The bell you did hear ring was downstairs?
A. I didn't hear any bell ring that morning.

That's odd and contradictory.
Anyway, someone saw Andrew go to both doors, I suppose is the gist.
That Mrs. Kelly implied he did but backed down from stating that at Trial.
This guy is not on the stand under oath. 
But apparently Andrew did try the side door, and that was when Lizzie was in the kitchen, supposedly.  No wonder Jennings, the defense, didn't call this guy.

BTW:  Is the bell in the kitchen a doorbell, or a bell?

Well, since the Borden home wasn't hooked up to electricity at the time, I don't think they had a doorbell system like ours today.  I've looked high and low and mostly came up with these kinds of doorbells:
 
The key portion goes on the outside of the door and the bell portion is mounted inside the door, not what we want according to Bridget.  Then I found this system, you pull the knob which is attached to a cable that goes through the walls of the house through a series of pulleys until it reachs the bell itself.  Perhaps the Bordens had a set-up like this?

Thanks for all that Susan.
That was cool.

I was confusing the dining room bell with a "bell".
Someone would ring a bell at table when Bridget was wanted.
I thought that might be a kitchen bell.

I think I get it now.  I think Harry had talked about the doorbells before, too.

Bridget at Trial, 267:
Q.  There is a bell that hangs there in Mrs. Borden's room, I suppose you know?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  An old bell?
A.  Yes, sir; I have seen it.

Q.  But that is not connected with the front door knob, is it?
A.  I don't know anything about it.

Q.  Did you ever hear it ring up there?
A.  No, sir; I don't remember.

Q.  The bell you did hear ring was downstairs?
A.  I didn't hear any bell that morning.

Q.  No, I don't mean any particular time.
A.  No, sir; in the kitchen.

Q.  But while you were there was that bell upstairs, to your knowledge, ever in use?
A.  No, sir; I don't know anything about the bell upstairs. Always the bell I heard was in the kitchen.

Q.  Well, that is it. All the bell you ever heard was in the kitchen?
A.  Yes, sir.

--It sounds like the questioner knows more about the bells than Bridget.  It sounds as if the front doorbell did not ring in Abby's room.  If the only bell Bridget heard was in the kitchen, then that must be the front doorbell, right?
It might be that the side door bell was disconnected, if it once rang in Abby's room....(?)  Surely, at times in her room upstairs above Abby, Bridget would have heard the *other* bell (in Mrs. Borden's room) if it was hooked up.