Congress boot as found via goodle image search

http://podiatry.curtin.edu.au/boot.html




(Message last edited Mar-28th-04  11:57 AM.)

That'd be the sort of boot or shoe I see - thanks, Audrey!

Doug

Yes, that is always a problem in eyewitness testimony. "Mistaken or lying without anything to corroborate." Haven't we all been so sure in memory when the pictures say different? Human frailty.

Cool picture, Auds!  I think the case of the unlaced shoe may be solved.  Witnesses may have simply notices that there were no loosened laces sprawling about in imitation of their owner; hence, they might jump to the mistaken conclusion that he wore laced shoes!

--Lyddie

OK, I am new at discussing case details, but didn't Lizzie testify that before she went to the barn she saw him taking off his shoes ?  So, maybe what she was saying was, Andrew was starting to take his shoes off and she saw very clearly which shoes they were.  Congress shoes. (Oh God, please let me be a little close on this so I don't look like an idiot in front of all the people)

Tracy...

OK, I am new at discussing case details, but didn't Lizzie testify that before she went to the barn she saw him taking off his shoes ?  So, maybe what she was saying was, Andrew was starting to take his shoes off and she saw very clearly which shoes they were.  Congress shoes. (Oh God, please let me be a little close on this so I don't look like an idiot in front of all the people)

Tracy...

And one more little favor please God...remind me to hit the post message button JUST ONCE !!!

That happens to everyone!
It's good to see you back Tracie!

Yes Lizzie said she saw slippers.
Inquest
Lizzie
69
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.
Q. Where did you leave him?
A. On the sofa.
Q. Was he asleep?
A. No sir.
Q. Was he reading?
A. No sir.
Q. What was the last thing you said to him?
A. I asked him if he wanted the window left that way. Then I went into the kitchen, and from there to the barn.


We had talked about this here.  I won't  hold anyone to any agreement on what this means.  We had thought the congress boots, looking old and scuffed, with elastic sides, might be what that household considered his slippers (because they slip on)- but it really is open to interpretation.
My opinion of Harrington was that he stood his ground on things and wanted to appear forcecful in his investigative techniques.
He probably knew Lizzie- not as a friend, but knew her from around.
He said he didn't like her.
Now he is positive, contradicting a photo, that Andrew had on laced shoes.  He didn't back down.  I don't know what his superiors thought about that.

(Message last edited Mar-30th-04  12:49 AM.)

Thanks for being so nice Kat !  I really need to get into the Primary Sources CD I bought via the Hatchet. Whew...being new is hard !...LOL.

Tracy...

Does anyoned think Lizzie claimed to put on his slippers to appear more loving and kind to him???

I thought of that too. I have to give the young man credit for the way he held up under questioning during the trial.

So far as I could tell, the shoes were the one and only thing he got wrong; and even when hard pressed on the shoes: "That was not my impression, Sir" was as far as he'd go. A mistake is a mistake - but if you're going to make one, make it a small one, which relatively speaking, the shoe error was. Within the context of his previous acquaintance with Andrew Borden, Harrington may have been a wee bit thrown by what he saw in the house that day.

I've always thought that the "I don't like that girl" comment was... uttered almost half to himself, coming as it did after his interview with Lizzie as he was trying to piece things together in his mind. His earlier cautioning of Lizzie, it almost seemed as though he went out of his way to try to make things easier for her. Interesting, compared to the second interview of Mrs. Churchill. (The picture I have there is that of a canary being chased by a cat, whistling and singing like mad!)

It would be interesting to know what the Marshal thought about Harrington's day in court. Wonder if there might be something somewhere in his (Hilliard's) papers - if they've ever yet been collected and published.

Harrington died "unexpectedly" as I understand it, in RI, not long after the trial. Do we know why?

Doug

That could well be, Audrey - it's certainly the general impression I have so far. That was one thing that struck me about Hiram's interview of the 6th that's posted on the website. It's as though he's either read or heard the story of the "kindnesses" and is saying 'Lizzie?? Do that?? Oh hogwash, she would not have done those things in a million years.'

Doug

Interesting window on the sole?????
From "Scrabbletown" by Alice Brayton   pg 19

"There was quite a bit of trade with shoemakers; local men. Enoch Babbit who lived in Berkeley was in the habit of sending down a few shoes every once in a while. In 1830, he brought Israel 9 pairs of boots to sell on commission of ten percent. But in 1831 he wrote he was so busy he could not make any more shoes for Israel. He sent down twelve pairs three months earlier. Anthony Morse who lived in Scrabbletown was employed by Israel to mend shoes brought into the stores of Scrabbletown and Egypt. A certain Mr. Chace of Swansea made shoes to order. "If Mr. Chace has no shoes that is raised higher in the instep than is common, he must make a pair of morocco walking shoes. But calfskin shoes made by John S. Russel were more in demand. The calves were born on the farm."

Gramma

(Message last edited Mar-30th-04  11:32 AM.)

Perhaps that is just his biased opinion? WHY didn't he like Lizzie? Because she did what Daddy told her to do?
To contradict Lizzie's testimony you would have to get more than one person to say Andy wearing other shoes that morning. WHAT would Andy normally wear weekdays?
(I remember years ago, and today, when people would wear best shoes to Church on Sundays.)

Isn't that SOP (standard operating procedure) nowadays?
I was a trial juror 30 years ago. The police created a sketch of the suspect from the defendant's initial testimony. During the trial the police artist swore that the defendant "looked like" this sketch. He obviously didn't, and this destroyed credibility BECAUSE he kept insisting it was a close match when it wasn't!
Being "too sure" in a vague description can do this.

Why are you worried, Tracie?  You made perfect sense. And no one thinks you're an idiot!

--Lyddie

eh... relax Tracy - you're alright

Doug

Gramma, can you tell if the name CHASE and the name CHACE were interchangeable, or if people confused the two spellings?
I was very interested in your post.

Thanks Doug and Lyddie !  I really am learning a lot from reading your posts.  I am like a kid in a candy store with all the Lizzie stuff there is to learn from...but sometimes one must slow down so it all can be enjoyed as well.  Thanks for helping me.

Tracy...

Kat,
The answer is yes and no. If a clerk is writing it it may turn up any way possible. If the family  is the one writing it, some were very particular whether the "c" or the "s" was used. In this case I would say the spelling is probably very flexible.
The point of the post was not the Chace reference, though. It was a good addition, as was the Russel. The point was Anthony Morse, father of Sarah and John V. Morse mending shoes for customers of Israel Brayton!
Wonder if those shoes Andrew is wearing were mended by Lizzie's grampa? Or did he get a new pair from Chace or Russel. Do you suppose Alice was related to John S.?
By the way, you won't find Anthony Morse in the index of the book!

Gramma