1. "Where was Bowen going?"
Posted by harry on Jun-5th-03 at 9:59 PM

After Dr. Bowen covered up Andrew with the sheet and told the ladies that Andrew was dead, he left the house.

There is a difference in his Prelim testimony and his Trial testimony of this event:

Page 402 Prelim:

Q.  Whether you went away?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Where did you go?
A.  As I was going out, Miss Lizzie asked me if I would not telephone or telegraph to her sister. I said I would do anything for her that I could.
Q.  You did telegraph, or cause a telegram to be sent?
A.  Yes Sir.

Page 305 Trial:

Q.  What occurred after the sheet was brought back and was used upon the body?
A.  Miss Lizzie Borden asked me if I would telegraph to her sister Emma.
Q.  And in consequence of that, did you go to the telegraph office?
A.  Yes, sir.

In his Prelim testimony he was already leaving when Lizzie asked him, and in the trial he went because Lizzie asked him. He went to his house first, checked the train schedules to see what train Emma could take, went to the telegraph office, to a druggists, and then he returned to the house.

Not a significant thing but just curious.



(Message last edited Jun-5th-03  10:15 PM.)

That's an interesting inconsistency between those two statements by Bowen.

If you go back further and look at his Inquest testimony -- he  implies that he was leaving to tell the police about what had happened. Yet his testimony shows he didn't do that. 

He discusses going into the sitting room to see Andrew, determining that he was dead, and then says:

"There was an inquiry made, I dont know whether I made it, somebody said, where is Mrs. Borden, where is Mrs. Borden? Lizzie said, I think, I think she said “she had a note this morning to go and see a sick friend”. That is all; such a serious affair as that, I did not stop, and could not do anything, I was satisfied of that. In that time I said I must go and get some of the officers right off, perhaps I said I would get the officers. Lizzie said that Emma was in Fairhaven, and wanted me to telegraph to her. Before I went out she said if you telegraph to her, perhaps she will come on this noon train. I went directly across to my house, and told my wife, and told her about telegraphing. I was satisfied she could not come on the noon train direct, so my boy drove me down to the telegraph office, and I telegraphed to Miss Emma Borden.

Q.  You had not then heard that the mother had been killed too?
A.  No Sir. Then I went across to Baker’s drug store, I motioned the boy to come along. I stopped two or three minutes there and told them of it. When I came out, I got in my carriage again and drove directly to the house again and stopped at Mr. Borden’s door and went in." (Inquest,118)

Later in his testimony, he is queried about when he informed the police:

"Q.  You notified the police office?
A.  I notified somebody there to get the police, I told them at the house.

Q.  When you came back?
A.  Yes Sir, at the house."(Inquest, 120)

So, if his reason for leaving was to notify the authorities -- it seems to have slipped his mind until he got back to the house.

Thank you Diana for the info. Good stuff.

Officer Allen testified he was there before Bowen put the sheet on Andrew. He passed through the sitting room on his way to examine the front door. Bowen knew Allen was there because according to Allen it was Bowen who met him at the door.

Allen left before Bowen, to go back to the police station to get help, leaving Sawyer behind to guard the side door.  There was no need for Bowen to notify the police and he made no attempt to do so.

Curiouser and curiouser.

None of the men, Allen, Bowen or Sawyer searched the second floor or the cellar. Then Bowen sends for the sheet and it's Bridget and Addie that go up to get it. How chivalrous.

Is the question then, why was Bowen so quick to want to leave?
He was going to alert police but you say Allen was already doing that and Bowen Did not do that.
And it was suggested that he telegraph Emma as he was already ready to go out.
So WHY was he going out?

Then there is the *slip* of "Telephone or telegraph" in that Prelim. testimony.
Was he really meant to go *telephone* after all?

(Message last edited Jun-6th-03  8:02 AM.)

His Prelim testimony seems to indicate he was on his way out when asked to notify Emma. Where or why?

Bowen's leaving doesn't seem to have anything to do with notifying the police. Allen was already there and I can't believe he didn't know Allen was a policeman.  Allen said Bowen met him at the door and I can see no reason for Allen lying.

I have to find out if Allen was in uniform or not. Even if he wasn't he most probably identified himself as an officer.

Bowen's Inquest testimony seems to be the most inaccurate of all and that is when you would assume the events were more fresh in his mind.

Speaking of uniforms, it would be helpful to know just which officers were in uniform that morning and which were in civies.

Harry, are you thinking Bowen was hiding something?  Hatchet in the bag, perhaps?

Maybe his 1st instinct was just to go across the street home to let them know what happened & that he'd be tied up for the rest of the day.

I really don't have any definite suspicion of Bowen but he was one of the only people to leave the house before the major contingent of police began to arrive. Of course he had his "boy" drive him so he wasn't alone, at least while in the carriage.

If he was going to remove a hatchet or some other instrument he did have the opportunity.

What was so important that he stopped in the drug store for?  Did he already have the Bromo Caffeine he administered to Lizzie or did he pick it up then?

His behavior on the morning of the 4th was to say the least peculiar.

Prelim
Bowen
Page 414

A.  So far as I remember.
Q.  So far as you remember now?
A.  So far as I remember. I did not intend to have her disturbed until the medical Examiner was there. I intended to notify him as soon as I could.
Q.  So far as you can remember the position in which Dr. Dolan found her, was the same position in which you found her?
A.  So far as I know.
Q.  Did officer Allen get there before you?
A.  I do not know the man. I should not know him, if he was here. As I was going out the first time, I think I said I wished someone would notify the police.
Q.  Do you know whether officer Allen came there before you did the second time?
A.  I do not. I know this fact, that Mr. Sawyer said that some officer was there; and I satisfied myself that the police were notified.
Q.  Had got there before you got back the second time?
A.  I satisfied myself that the police were notified of the event by the presence of a police officer, who was not, I think in uniform.
Q.  Before you went off the first time?
A.  Before I left the first time.

--It sounds like Bowen wanted to leave to notify the Medical Examiner.  I wouldn't have thought of that right away, but I suppose a Doctor thinks like that?
The sequence of when everyone came is at:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/SequenceofEvents.htm

Bowen comes, Allen comes and Allen leaves, Bowen leaves, Sawyer stays, Allen is not in uniform.
--This was always very confusing.

Prelim, Donnelley says Doherty was there that he recognized.  It sounds as though He was in uniform.  Then after this Donnelley had been up in the barn, 12:15, he saw 7 or 8 police in uniforms, one Gillian ordered him out and there was another he recognized-Chase.

(Message last edited Jun-6th-03  3:09 PM.)

Didn't Dr Bowen go to where JVM was visiting? JVM then returned to the house, after noting facts on his return. AR Brown explains his first stop, and maybe a visit to Harrington's blacksmith shop and barn. Does anyone reject this statement?
We know JVM first stopped in the back yard, ate some pears (no dinner expected), before he went in. Was he thinking of what story to tell to shield the people known to be in the house?
"Its all a mystery to me."

Yes I doubt it because there wasn't enough time.
We made a map of where all these stops would be, remember?

This has nothing to do with Bowen's comings and goings, but, from rereading his trial testimony I noticed something, forgive me if this has been brought up before.  From Dr. Bowen's Trial testimony while he is looking at a photo of Andrew on the sofa, he seems to be stating that the sofa is moved towards the middle of the dining room door and that it should be further to the right, closer to the kitchen door, centered beneath that print that is hanging overhead.

Q. Is there any change in the position of the sofa from it's position as you saw it?
A. It shows here so that it is out from the door.  It was even with the door.  It shows here, the way it was taken probably, in that direction.

Q. Now will you state the same thing so the gentlemen on this side of the panel can hear?
A. The sofa shows so it was out from the middle of the door here, and the head of the sofa was even with the door.

Q. (By Mr. Adams) The door frame?
A. The door frame.

It sounds to me like Dr. Bowen is trying to say in his odd way that the photo is of the sofa with the arm moved so it would be in the middle of the opening of the dining room door.  The arm should be even with the door frame, I assume on the outer side of the door frame.  So, the crime scene photo we have of Andrew iswith a moved sofa. 



From what I can see, if the sofa was positioned where it should be, the middle of the back of the sofa would be where that carved shell piece is on the top right side of the sofa.  It looks like it would be centered under the artwork!       

Hmmm.  I'm wondering if the angle from which this shot is taken only makes it appear as if the sofa was shifted.  Or, perhaps the small size of the room made it necessary for them to shift the sofa in order to get the full shot.

You'd think from an aesthetic point of view, the Bordens would centre the sofa under the picture.  Might not have been the case, tho.

Oh that sofa again!
One curved arm looking bigger than the other is indicative of false perspective.
However, it seems to me we should judge true position by that small threshold rug at the door to the kitchen.
Since we know that door was used less often, or had less traffic, than the dining room door, the sofa should be closer to obstructing THAT door, if it is going to obstruct any door.

--BTW, on Antiques Roadshow I saw a couch like this that actually had the arms that would drop down to a flat surface.  Have you heard of that or seen it?

Cool.  1 of those certainly would have been more comfortable for poor old lanky Andy.

Yes Kat, I'm sure you are sick to death of this sofa

Kat: A friend of mine has an Empire sofa with arms that could be lowered and raised. It was a bit older than the Bordens' sofa. It was such a massive piece of furniture, he nicknamed it "Brunhilde." 

I think the pic Harry posted of Nikki Sixx & Donna D'errico 
visiting the B&B makes the depth of the room & couch apparent.
I don't guess the room shrunk.

I think it was on the British Road Show.  (Do you watch that?)
The lady was recovering it hersef!.  It had been always in her family and she loved it enough to take the time, months mind you, to fashion the re-upolstering herself.  It was becoming a hobby of hers.  But that's why we actually got to see the original mechanism which raised and lowered the arm.  It was stripped there.
I can't remember if both arms did that or only one.

I did think of our Andy, Tina-Kate!

Do we know for certain THIS sofa didn't do that?  Is there a way to tell just by looking at the photo?

(Message last edited Jun-7th-03  12:43 PM.)

Kat, I saw that Antiques Roadshow too, very innovative design of that sofa with the drop arms, I'm sure Andrew would have been much more comfortable!

Okay, sounds like everyone is sick to death of the sofa, but, I had to take one last whack at this.  I don't have Adobe photoshop, just a simple paint program, so, it was like drawing with my feet.  I got rid of the Prince Albert coat and tried to put in the rest of the sofa that we normally can't see.  Then I put in the rest of the door and door jamb, from what I can see, it looks like if the sofa was even with the door jamb the left arm of the sofa should end where I put the X.  What say you Gentlepeople of the jury? 





(Message last edited Jun-7th-03  4:43 PM.)

WOW!  You can think spatially!
I'm IMPRESSED!

Yeah -- me too! That took some work!

Good job, Susan.  Altho I'm not so sure this proves anything.  The camera lens could create a distortion...so many factors.  Perhaps someday someone visiting @ the B&B could do an actual experiment.

I was wondering if the Borden house furniture might have come from Borden & Almy?  The style seems contemporary to the time B&A was in business.  The Ad in Rebello (page 52) states they sold "lounges".

I don't think Bowen was looking for the medical examiner when he first left. That testimony appears to refer to Mrs. Borden's body and not having it disturbed until he can get the M.E.  Bowen had returned from his trip by then.

I don't believe it was to get the bromo-caffeine.  He states this in the trial:

"Q.  Did you carry some bromo caffeine over there?
A.  I carried some in a bottle over there to be taken."

The "over there" wording would tend to make me believe he brought it from his house.

Maybe I'm just assuming it was some sort of medicine since he stopped at a druggist before he came back.

As a side note, Bowen says he got back to the house at about 11:40. That was the time that Morse said he arrived at the house.

Thanks all.  No, it doesn't prove anything, but, I think it helps to be able to see what you can't in any of those photos of Andrew with the Prince Albert draped as it is over that part of the sofa.  To me, the sofa does look moved, I guess I'm the only one.  Oh well, it was worth a try. 

(Message last edited Jun-7th-03  10:27 PM.)

I figured from Bowen's response that thinking as a doctor he would want the medical examiner (coronor) just as much for Andrew as for Abby.  That he could have made that same determination as soon as he covered Andrew, and to also make sure he wasn't moved.
I thought Morse arrived at quarter of?  (Oh, he does say 20 of OR quarter of)*
He made a huge slip in one hearing giving his arrival time as early by an Hour!
*But there was no crowd there when Bowen returned, but there was when Morse came:

Inquest
Bowen
120

Q.  Your horse was there all ready?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  You notified the police office?
A.  I notified somebody there to get the police, I told them at the house.
Q.  When you came back?
A.  Yes Sir, at the house.
Q.  The second time you came to the house the crowd had not begun to collect?
A.  I dont remember of seeing anybody on the sidewalk, there was no carriage there as I drove up under the tree close to the door.
Q.  You do not remember of seeing Morse when you got back the second time?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Nor when you got down from up stairs?
A.  No Sir, not directly. I did not see him for some little time, I dont know when.
Q.  Had the crowd begun to collect a great deal when he came?
A.  Yes, a good many were there, I cant say who, people that I knew; I knew almost everybody that came in.

Morse's testimony at the trial, page 150, about his return time shows that screw up on the hour Kat.

"Q.  Now, caring nothing about the intermediate time, can you tell us about what hour you arrived on your return?
A.  I think about twenty minutes to eleven.
Q.  You don't mean eleven, do you?
A.  Twelve.
Q.  About twenty minutes of twelve?
A.  Yes, sir."

Bowen was in the house when Morse went in.  Of course Bowen could have arrived while Morse was munching away on pears in the back yard on the southeast side of the house.

Would the difference of 5 minutes collect a crowd?
Because if it could, and you say Bowen arrived back at 11:40 (BTW, where is that?), and no crowd, and then Morse comes 11:45, and there's a crowd?
Suppose that's possible?

(Message last edited Jun-7th-03  11:18 PM.)

Morse said he arrived at 11:40 according to his trial testimony.

Bowen said 11:40 at the trial, page 321+:

"Q.  I understand.  I didn't mean to assume that you passed by there after you said that you drove back, stopping at Mr. Baker's drug store.  In your opinion, it took you how many minutes to drive back?
A.  Not more than two minutes.
Q.  Not more than two minutes.  Then in round numbers it is safe to say you arrived back at the Borden house for your second visit, the visit at which you first saw Mrs. Borden, was about 11.35, isn't it?
A.  I should say I spent four or five minutes in Mr. Baker's store.
Q.  Then it would be 11.40 perhaps that you got back to the house?
A.  Yes, sir.

Bowen is basing his estimate on the telegram he sent at 11:32.

First photo is Susan.
Last photo is modern.
Don't know the scale of old sofa to reproduced sofa.
Also note last photo taken sort of straught on.

(Message last edited Jun-7th-03  11:23 PM.)

Yes, thanks Har!
It seems as if Morse fudged his times and you found out.
At the Inquest Morse allowed it might be 11:45.
I think the "no-crowd, Bowen return".
"Crowd, Morse returned", settles that.
5 minutes minimum difference between Morse Trial and Morse Inquest?

Great comparisons, Kat.

The original sofa does seem a tad longer.  That room is really small.  I found it claustrophobic.

The more I think about this, the more I believe the sofa & Andrew were moved to allow for the photographer to get a full shot.  Cameras in those days had a lot more limitations & were bulky.  Looks like the photographer set up his tripod in the SE corner & they needed Andrew & sofa moved toward the NW in order to get the full shot.

Thanks, Kat.  That helps to see the 2 sofas together.  If the reproduction piece of art on the wall is the same size as the original is, it can be used as a basis of measurement, it sure does make the new sofa look shorter in length.  And its definitely not as tall as the old sofa.

I noticed with the new sofa that they put the arm right up to the edge of the door opening, I'm assuming when it was said that it was flush with the door jamb that the outer edge was meant, not the inner edge.

Also, I noticed with the original sofa that the wheels appear to be facing in a direction which looks as though it was pushed towards the kitchen door.  Strange. 

I'll bet Lizzie ad Abby could care less where that sofa was as long as they had that A/C thermostat on the wall above it!

From Stef or Harry or both?



I can't tell.  They look pointed toward the viewer but I may be wrong.

(Message last edited Jun-8th-03  11:14 PM.)

But, from looking at those wheels, don't you get the impression that they pulled the sofa over and out from the wall and then pushed it towards the kitchen wall and back up against the dining room wall.  Thats what I'm seeing. 

That sounds like where it started from!

I'll say this...They would have to move the sofa to find that blood, but when did they move it is a question?
To get a better picture, we've been told.
Was the sitting room as wide as the guest room, because there they had to put the camera in the doorway, right, to get the picture?
If there was not enough room in the sitting room to accomodate the camera (no doorway on that side of the room) than it seems reasonable to think they would have to move the object they wanted to photograph, because they could not back up the camera any farther.

Of course it is possible for a crowd to collect in just 5 minutes!!
It was around lunch time, and people were going to lunch.

Ever wonder why NY city parades are scheduled during noon to 1pm? THAT'S when the streets are filled w/ people on their lunch hour! (If you ever worked in Manhattan, you'd know this.)
...
For the chronic picky people, note the difference as to whether the parade is for N Yorkers, or guests. Remember the parade for the returned prisoners of Iran in 1981? NEVER park a car near a parade route; people will stand on them for a better view!

The next time somebody important is honored by a "ticker tape parade" just note that it falls on a weekday.

(Message last edited Jun-10th-03  4:03 PM.)

I'm not sure how wide the sitting room was as compared to the guest room.  Abby was closer, I guess they would have move the camera further to get all of her in that shot without the bed.  Andrew on the sofa is up against the wall, unless, I didn't quite think of this until now, but, what if they shot the picture of Andrew through the one window of the sitting room to get all that they did of him? 

Here are floorplans from "Porter".
When measured to fit a canvas, I found that the guest room was 1/4" larger than the sitting room.
See how the Parlour overlaps into the space of the sitting room.
That corresponds to the guest room overlapping space of Lizzie's room.
Porter shows the guest room door not opposite the bureau where the mirror caught the camera reflection (as to placement), but Rebello's floorplan, pg. 49, does.





(Message last edited Jun-10th-03  1:07 AM.)

Thanks for posting that, Kat.  I'm never quite sure with the floorplans as to how accurate they are drawn out.  In Porter's plan, the guest room is slightly bigger.  So, did you like the idea of the camera coming in the window, or just being set on the window sill to take the pics of Andrew? 

Porter's drawings make it look as if the second floor of the house is actually slightly shorter front-to-back than the first floor.  That seems unlikely -- or maybe it's just an optical illusion???  My suspicion would be that the drawings are inaccurate in several particulars.
I would love to have a to-scale dollhouse representing 92 Second Street.  It would cost a fortune to have one made, but wouldn't it be fun to be able to move things around in three dimensions?

Yes!  Oh, Edisto, you have read my mind, I've always thought of making such a thing, or, at least dioramas of the guest room and the sitting room.  And you know I'd be moving Andrew's sofa so that it was centered under that artwork!! 

Actually, most, if not all parades in Manhattan (where I work) are on holidays or weekends, but I'd guess your point about scheduling the events about lunchtime is correct for those days where offices are open, like Veterans' Day.

Quite often, I see antique dollhouse dolls on eBay (and at doll shows such as the one I attended last weekend).  There are little maids, butlers (the Bordens didn't have one of those, of course) and other people of all ages.  It's also possible to find antique furniture similar to what was in the Borden house.  I had a friend (now deceased), who collected antique dollhouses.  She had built an entire wing onto her house in which to display them.  She would sometimes spend $500 for one tiny piece of antique furniture.
I'm not into things of that scale, but I'd imagine eBay would have lots of them for sale.  I'm going to check from time to time.
(Hmmm...I just did my first check, and was I wrong!  There's almost nothing of that nature on eBay.  I guess the stuff is mingled in with the regular-size dolls.  eBay does things differently from any other venue.  There's no other place where you can claim a modern copy is an antique and get away with it!)

(Message last edited Jun-10th-03  3:18 PM.)

You could hire a model maker, or carpenter to do this.
I'll bet you'll pay something for this. Any carpenters handy?
Or use that thin foam board to make it with glue?

Speaking only for myself, I don't think I'd be satisfied with a 92 Second Street dollhouse made of foamboard.  I insist on real wood.
Hmmm...I'm not a carpenter myself, but now that I think of it, I do have a close relative who is.  He specializes in antique properties too.

Those truly miniature house doll houses can get quite expensive!  I've gone to hobby shops where they display kit houses that are put together of these Victorian monstosities that are as big as a bureau, which I don't have the room or pocketbook for.  But, they are quite lovely!

I used to have a vaguely Victorian doll house made of wood when I was a little girl, nothing elaborate, about 6 or 7 rooms, but, the house did have a back on it that you had to undo a catch to open.  The furniture was rather simple, most "carvings" on the wood were painted on, but, I did love my little house and family of dolls.  My mom loves to tell me that I used to tell her as I played with it, that I loved housework!  And when I was a mommy how I would clean my house and decorate it.  My, how times have changed!   

I remember Tina-Kate telling me the parlor was larger than the sitting room, and it shot down my theory as to why the funeral wasn't held in there.
Now I'm told it's not?
(Sorry Tina-Kate if it wasn't you.)
I had checked at that time, every book with a floor-plan, and found that to be true.
So why has that changed?

Susan, the theory being (which I am repeating--I don't know about ancient photography) that the sitting room picture was taken more from the southeast corner of the room which has caused all this distortion, like a fish eye look.
If the camera was in the doorway of the guest room, there was not the distortion because A.  The room was bigger to begin with and B. because the camera could be placed even farther away by putting it in the open doorway.  Gaining several feet probably gave less distortion because the angle was straight on, whereas in the sitting room the angle was odd.

So I doubt it was outside.  Just because the distortion is proof it was not.

If we have photo expert or someone who understands angles and such please feel free to speak up and illuminate this conversatiion.
This is just my amature opinion.

I hope I didn't shoot down 1 of yr theories Kat!  However, I'm sure the parlour is larger than the sitting room, esp in E to W length.  The numerous doors (5-6 @ the time) plus that mantle also make the sitting room more cramped.

The house I grew up in was the exact floor plan of the Bordens,
I can picture every room. My folks big room was in front, that
would be the Borden's guest room.  I don't understand why
they didn't use that room for the "Master bedroom".  The back
of the house was the "maid's quarters" with her own stairs (we
didn't have a maid but that was the history of the house).
In the garage was the "butler's quarters" upstairs, the garage
(or barn) was fixed nice for the butler.  I think a lot of
Victorian houses were of the same style.  I can picture Lizzie
at the top of the stairs, If I were there in my house, I could
not see my folk's bedroom from the stairs because the door was
just a bit further from view.  I have vacation at end of August
and I might take a trip to Fall River, I am DYING to stay in
that house!

Kat, I can check with a friend of mine who used to be a professional photographer and I can put photography questions to him, he loves to talk shop with a fellow artist.  Any other questions you can think of besides the distance away to get rid of distortion?

I can't get this photo to come up of the full shot of the sitting room, can you post it?  I'd like to get a look at all thats going on in this one.
 

I think it might be helpful to compare it with that full unedited shot of Abby and the guest room.


NJ, if you go to the B&B, could you give a trip report when you come back?  I love reading different people's takes on the Borden house, some think its small, some think its bigger than they thought it was going to be.

Where in your parents house was your bedroom?  Where Lizzie's was? 

The most obvious distortion I noticed way back when, was the arms of the sofa are very different in size.
Of course I didn't know Why, just that I had seen that and remarked at that.  Then an expert or someone who knew this stuff explained about the angle of view.  We do have a female member here who knows old photography.  If she answers the call, cool.
If you ask your friend, that's cool too.
Anyone else with an idea about this?

I've been in The House about five or six times, and I would guess that the sitting room, cleared of furniture, would have more room for two caskets and mourners than the more squarish parlor would.  I've sat in the sitting room with about thirty people to listen to a lecture and to enjoy a recreation, and it feels like the parlor would not have been as comfy for that.

These are just my impressions.

You should go!  You'll never regret it.  The tab is rather steep, especially since several of the guest rooms don't have private baths; however, that didn't prove to be as much of a problem as I would have thought.  I believe the rooms on the third floor are somewhat more reasonable.  It does pay to stay at the house itself, because guests get privileges that the day-tour people don't.  The most fun I had was to sit around with the other guests and the crew at the house one night and discuss the case until the wee hours.  That's what got me hooked.  (My own opinion is that the house is roomier and more cheerful than I would have imagined.)

I think I have my sister talked into going to the B&B with
me, the pull is all those great outlet stores (I hope they
are still there!) It's been 10 years since I've been there so
I'm hoping there is still lots to do.  When we were there I
only saw the outside of the Borden house, didn't get the tour.
  Susan, my room was
where Emma's was, how did you guess?  Later my Dad finished
off the attic and I moved up there, the back staircase went
from kitchen to attic.  Also my friends and I had a "clubhouse"
in the upstairs of the garage, situated exactly where the
Borden barn was, except our property went beyond the garage to
the next street over behind the garage.  That is why I envision someone easily able to go out from the barn the other way, not on second street.

From LABVM/L, Crime Library, Evidence, "Crime Scene Photos".

Cool, NJ, I hope you get to go, it sounds like the trip of a lifetime for a Bordenite!  So, did your room open out into a bigger room like Emma's or onto a hallway?  It sounds like a great place to grow up in, especially with the clubhouse. 

The arms of the couch are different sizes



(Message last edited Jun-12th-03  12:52 AM.)

How bizarre is that?!

Wonder if it was a Borden & Almy reject?  Waste not, want not.

A nasty thought just occurred to me.  Say she planned to get him on that unbalanced old sofa as a kind of humiliation.

I don't know...sometimes I see Lizzie as a fiendish artist in a way.

(Message last edited Jun-12th-03  1:12 AM.)

This was an example of distortion in the photo.
I sure wish the person who told me this right here on this forum would pipe up.
OR any person who has an opinion or knowledge on distortion?

I agree there's distortion, but the way you just outlined with yr diagram (more great work, Kat) it appears to be more than distortion; it really does look unbalanced.

Just had a thought:  does anyone with that "morphing" software think it could be used to bring out a more balanced view of the scene?

(Message last edited Jun-12th-03  1:33 AM.)

There really isn't that much distortion caused by the angle. The right pillow, as you face the sofa, is substantially larger.

The decoration on the wood is not the same on both sides. This enlargement shows the details a little better.



(Message last edited Jun-12th-03  1:37 AM.)

Kat, from what I see in the photo, there is a great deal of distortion going on.  Look at the door to the dining room, its the same size opening as the door to the parlor, but, not in this picture it isn't!

Compare it with one of Stefani's pics of the room.

Doesn't the door to the dining room look bigger now?  Odd.
Just read a page on distortion in photos of the 1800s, apparently it was the shape of the lens that caused it, things to the outer edges of the lens got distorted.  So, I guess wherever the center of the lens was aimed was the most accurate part of the picture, I'm guessing Andrew's head?  Apparently this wasn't corrected until 1893!  We missed by one year of getting fairly accurate photos of the murder scenes!  Here is a link to the site:
http://www.cookeoptics.com/history/history01.html

(Message last edited Jun-12th-03  2:05 AM.)

Those are good observations, Susan.
I haven't gone to the *distortion* site yet.  I thought we can figure this out logically first ourselves.
Your idea of the door sizes does seem another factor in the distortion.
We should look at doors and angles in the modern pics of the B&B.  That's a good idea for comparison.

Meanwhile I have been mulling the *problem* with the fooorplans over, as a place to start.  I don't think there is such a big problem at all, that we can't use these floorplans.  They are basically the same.  A cabinet not shown in one, but shown in another etc. can't hurt our estimated depiction of the true plan.

Rebello has a scheme, pg. 45, where he shows the outside measurements of the house as 27' wide (N to S), and 47' long (E to W).  I used to think the house was about 20' wide with standard size, equal rooms inside at 10' & 10'.  That's not true.

Every plan shows an overlap of the parlour into the sitting room space.  The doors show this objectively.  We have to admit the parlour is wider than the sitting room if it overlaps.
Now, as to the other end, or at the length of the S.R., the kitchen projects into that room in the form of the deep-set stove contraption which corresponds to the mantle area mentioned here also.  The dining room is longer than the S.R., as well.
Of course this is repeated upstairs.

Here are some illustrations:





If the guestroom then is larger than the sitting room, then the camera in the doorway, places it farther away from the body of Abby who is 5'3" and the object of the photo, giving a picture with less distortion , while attempting to capture as much of the room as possible.  Also we must cionsider that the light source is in front of the lens, glaring right at it, in Abby's case.

Then we remove to the Sitting room where the room is smaller, the object being photographed is a larger person, at 5'11", the light source is behind and still a photo must capture as much of the room as possible, besides it's main objective of capturing the corpse.
--Smaller room, bigger subject vs. larger room, smaller subject.

(Message last edited Jun-12th-03  12:25 PM.)

After putting this all together here I noticed a Gawd-Awful Symmetry.

Each corpse is basically positioned in the same spot of each respective room!

(Message last edited Jun-12th-03  12:56 PM.)

Wow, creepy find, Kat!  I wonder if there is a reason behind it or not?

One thing I noticed with the Abby photo which cuts down on the distortion is that there is alot less room shot and more carpeting.  The carpeting is kind of hard to tell how distorted it is or isn't, I think.  Plus as you stated, all that glare which deletes some of the room too.

I did notice in Andrew's pic, there seems to be a light source coming west side of the room going towards Andrew's head.  There is a shadow along the right hand side of the sofa. 

Yea.  He's found lying face-up, head pointed West.
She's found face-down, head facing East.
Both in those same area's of N.E. wall
It started to seem like a Scott Peterson or Jeffery McDonald defense: That ole' Satanic Cult, whatever.
I wonder what the odds of that were, the bodies found that way?

(Message last edited Jun-12th-03  11:48 PM.)

Modern photo, top-John Clark LABVM/L-Galleries

I lined up the sofa arms and the door molding, present & past.



(Message last edited Jun-13th-03  9:40 PM.)

Yes, Susan, the distortion is more apparent every new thing I try.
That sofa that Andrew is on is 7 feet 1 inch long.
What do you estimate is the reproduction?

--Oh and I meant to add:  It looks like the caster on the front left foot
(to our right) is turned out, and that the sofa on that side is not up against the wall.  It looks pulled out a bit.
Is that what you meant?

(Message last edited Jun-14th-03  12:52 AM.)

To me the reproduction looks to be about 5 feet something to about 6 feet long from end to end, more of a love seat than a sofa.  The Borden's sofa looks like it could accommodate 3 people comfortably.

Yes, the castor is moved so that it is turned out, like the sofa is or was, pushed back.  Hard to tell if that side of the sofa is in contact with the wall or not?  Could just be the distortion that makes it look as though it is out from the wall.  But, it does look like it is coming towards us more. 

Thanks to Bobcookbobcook for his "Centered Sofa" photo's!
Premiere Here:
Can we get from this a better idea about the regular daily placement of the original sofa?



(Message last edited Jun-15th-03  4:49 PM.)

Thanks, Kat and Bob.  That makes more sense seeing it like that and the one arm still looks to be flush with the door jamb of the dining room door.  It must have been cramped quarters going through the kitchen door there though. 

Here is the dining room door side of the *centered* sofa, modern day; By Bobcookbobcook:



From the middle pic it looks like there is maybe a foot distance between each arm and the door molding on each side.
That might be like a 5 1/2 foot sofa?
The real one was 7'.
That wall must be, what, 9 feet maybe?

(Message last edited Jun-15th-03  9:45 PM.)

Yes, that is what I got in the past when we had discussed this on another thread.  If the old sofa was 7 feet, it looked like there was about another 3 feet to the kitchen door from the end of the sofa.  Do we have the exact dimensions of that room?  If you add the dining room door, its about 32" to 36" for that opening, so, about another 3 feet.  Plus that bit of wall space to the left of the dining room door, it looks to be about another 2 and a half feet.  14 and a half feet long?  Maybe 15? 

I've been thinking about that parlour and it seems as though the Girls opened that up and started using it almost right away.
Does this seem to signal their acceptance and knowledge that NOW the house is their's to use as they wish?
(It seems that might take a while, psychologically, to adapt to the idea.)

I also have a question, as to Lizzie's mind-set...that has to do with the hook in her bedroom.  The hook which was on her side of the shared bedroom door with the elder Bordens.
Why does anyone think she put that hook back up, or screwed it back in, after that door had been forced open Thursday?

Now that is a great question Kat. Why did she put that hook back in?

Was it just supposed to be temporary while the police were there. Couldn't have them barging in while she was in her portiere.

Also Emma took over the Borden's bedroom in a hurry too. Rousted poor Alice out.  The bodies were barely buried and Emma was moving in their room.

Of course, would YOU want to continue to sleep in a small room (no cross ventilation) that was about the size of the 2nd floor closet?
Nobody died in that room!
I once knew of a family whose spare bedroom went unused because somebody died of natural causes in it.

I think thats a great question too, Kat.  To me, when the elder Bordens were alive, Andrew had that key to that door, he was the one in control.  Lizzie, by putting that hook into the door, in her own pitiable way, became in control of her room.  Perhaps it was an act of defiance originally, the elder Bordens could unlock that door, but, still couldn't get into Lizzie's room.  She spoke of always keeping her door locked so that no one could have thrown anything in there.  When the elder Bordens were murdered and that door was unlocked between the rooms who had the key?  Who was in control of it?  Emma?  Lizzie?  I'm thinking Emma by Lizzie's actions of rescrewing the hook back in the door once it gets pulled out.  It puts her back in control of her space again or makes her feel like she is in control of it.  Thats my take on the hook and eye. 

Actually that hook & loop will not stop any adult from getting in; it just leaves a sign of forced entry. Or maybe if they put the loop back in, it would look like an oversight?
Maybe Lizzie was afraid of SOMEBODY sneaking in from the cellar, up the back stairs, and into her room? Yes, the locked door to the Borden's bedroom was another barrier.
Is Lizzie the only person here whose parents may have snooped in her room?

I've been thinking about what was pointed out here.
Lizzie screwing that hook back in.
Regaining control of her space, after cops forced the door- Authority figures forcing their way in, like a (nother?) violation?
She puts that back in defiance...no one can enter except if *I* say so?
Or what about a Lizzie that is so worried about not having control, (if she *lost it* and killed)...what if she is regressing to an earlier time when that hook meant something.
Not exactly *taking back her power* like a woman, but more like trying to return to the way things were before?  As in desparation?  Eventually Lizzie would probably give up that habit of locking and /or hooking her doors.
(But Thursday that was all still new...)

BTW:  What if it is Emma's Hook After all?

(Message last edited Jun-18th-03  6:03 PM.)

Yes, Rays, I agree, thats why I called it pitiable, Lizzie thinking that hook was going to keep people out.  We saw what happened when the police wanted to get into her room from that door.


Kat, thats an interesting take on the hook and eye.  Lizzie replacing it almost as if she is eradicating what had transpired in the house that day.  Even if it was originally Emma who put it there, Lizzie is aware of its existence and seems to want it back in place promptly.  I myself was looking at it from the perspective that before Andrew and Abby died, Andrew held all the cards, he had the power.  Having that hook and eye was to me like Lizzie thumbing her nose at Andrew, you may have the key to that door, but, you still can't get in, I now have the power.  Women were so powerless in those times, I get the feeling that anything Lizzie could do to get a leg up, she'd do it. 

Yes I can see it be either way.

I pictured rather melodramatically I must admit, Lizzie crying and leaning on the wall next the door and trying quickly to put the hook back in, quickly to keep her anxieties at bay, to get it back the way it was.

But with Alice as a witness, of course we have no idea of Lizzie's state when she did do that. 
It might just as well have been a calm and measured action.
It might even have been that when the officer forced the door it no longer fit the frame properly and to keep it closed at all, ever, it would now need the flimsy hook.

(Message last edited Jun-18th-03  10:02 PM.)

Well of course you might recall an earlier thread in which I put my two cents worth on my theory of that lounge/sofa/couch (albeit todays version is a replica) that Father Dearest was, no pun intended, laid to rest upon.

It is my ascertion, or rather my tale and I'm stickin' to it...that in 1892 on August 4th that lounge/sofa was CENTERED to the wall behind it.  Way back when (in that other thread) I professed that all Victorian housewives/ladies and Abby certainly fit this mold, were rather particular about symmetry of furnishings.

One need only visit the local Victorian museum/historical society house to bare this out, that these women of the era placed, either by themselves or by directive to the maid, placed chairs, bookshelves, pictures, grandfather clocks, sofas, bureaus, and the like "centered" when confronted with the likes of two doorways should as we have in the sitting room of 92 Second Street.

The sofa was moved frontwards for photographs of the dearly departed as he lie waiting the Medical Examiner and from those photos we of present day automatically assume that the sofa/lounge was NOT CENTERED but rather closest to the dining room door.

Well...now that's my story and the rest is history...

BC

YEA!!!!

Yes, Bob, that is my feeling too.  I really wish we had crime scene photos that were untouched, nothing moved or altered.  It really is helpful to see all to get a better understanding of the case. 

going to try to attach a scan of the sketch in the Globe,
it shows the sofa uncentered but I think it must be
an optical thing...
  sorry the attachment won't go, under properties it says
327KB, any suggestions on making it fit for attaching?

(Message last edited Jun-22nd-03  7:41 PM.)

Is it a view we have not seen?

You need to reduce the file size.

Someone with a PC can explain it.

Otherwise you can arrange to send it to someone and they can reduce it for you.

Here is a Globe drawing, from LABVM/L, but it does not specify which Globe.  Note pic is backward by the writing.  Apparently it was published the other way 'round.  (This is the better depiction of the room, than the original publication.)



(Message last edited Jun-22nd-03  8:14 PM.)

Thanks for the attempt, nj.
This is not the drawing, I take it?

In this Owen Haskell book his floorplans have the second story rooms different sizes than their corresponding rooms on the first floor.
They are all  different!
Is this possible?

No, that is not the drawing, it was just a simple
sketch showing that the couch was not centered under
the picture.  If anyone wants to try to post it, I'll
email it to them (nanciejanew@aol.com) it is not a big
deal though. 

It is a mirror imgage. Done to prevent copying? Or just a mistake?

These images are from the Sourcebook, pgs. 42-3, probably Fall River Herald.  The drawing shows the sofa arms Different sizes.
Of course, the artist may have been drawing from the photo, but puts the sofa more centered in our perspective, yet still shows the sofa arms as not equal in size to each other.
I'm beginning to think "perspective" could not cause such acute distortion, but that this sofa has an unusual design which has one arm larger than the other.




(Message last edited Jul-1st-03  6:23 PM.)

I don't know if this helps any, but, from the Preliminary Volume 2, Dr. Dolan's testimony, page 113:

Q. You went into the sitting room out of the kitchen?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. That brought you where Mr. Borden was lying upon this sofa, which I understand is an ordinary hair cloth sofa, having two arms one on each end, and both alike?
A. Yes Sir. 

Maybe they went through our confusion too with this picture and tried to clarify this point? 

Eventually they had the sofa.
But not until before the trial.
The papers state it was removed from the house, Saturday* to Winward's warehouse.
It was stored and re-covered, supposedly returned to the Borden house
before the trial.
It was brought to the trial in New Bedford, then to the guard room at the police station and then returned to #92.  -Rebello, News reports dated Aug. 5th, 6th, 16th, and then finally June 22, 1893.

It seems they didn't have the sofa during the Preliminary, and wasn't that also the time the remaining family would no longer allow the state into the home after more evidence?

*Saturday's removal was probably due partly to the funeral services to be conducted in that sitting room that morning.

I don't think those arms are equal.  I'll pull a "Harrington."
Good find, Susan.

(Message last edited Jul-1st-03  10:43 PM.)

Well, here's a nice contradiction:

"By Associated Press From Fall River
Fall River, Mass., Aug. 16* - Rev. J. Walter JUBB, pastor of the Central Congregational Church, of which Lizzie BORDEN is a member, characterizes Judge BLAISDELL's action in sitting on the bench while presiding at the inquest, as ?adecent. He proposes to use every means to have another judge on the bench at the preliminary hearing.

The police have decided that thirteen minutes elapsed from the time Bridget SULLIVAN asked Mr. BORDEN how he was until she was called down stairs by Miss Lizzie to give an alarm about the murder of her father. The sofa on which Mr. BORDEN was murdered was taken to the Central police station this morning, and will be kept there until after the trial. The police are now hunting for a man who was seen twice in the neighborhood of the BORDEN house, August 1st and August 4th."

--I doubt That bloody sofa would have been allowed to stay in that murder house from Aug. 4 to Aug. 16th.  It would Smell, for one thing, and probably collect maggots.  It seems it would have to have been removed before the funeral.  Jeesh!  Nothing's simple, is it?
*Aug. 16th was probably the date in Rebello, where the other news item says the sofa had been re-covered with some material and returned.


(Message last edited Jul-1st-03  11:23 PM.)

Thanks, it was something I had noticed while looking for something else.

Okay, another thought entered my mind, if the one end of the sofa is a smaller, lower arm, why would Andrew choose to lay down at that end of the sofa?  And, have to add all that stuff to prop himself up higher when he could have lay down with his head on the bigger arm and possibly use less props?  If it was me, I'd opt for the bigger arm to lay back against. 

A drawing is not a picture, the artist's imagination may change things.

I'd say the artist in the newspaper did a very credible job of recreating the scene on the sofa (from the photo?).
The arms of the sofa are too disparate.  They are not the same size, in my opinion.

Susan, I was discussing your question with another member and we thought maybe Andrew did not lie on the higher side because it might be too uncomfotable to sleep.  That side might be a *lounging* side.  Also he had a right side hernia which might dictate on which side he would lie to be most comfortable (you had talked about this before), or maybe Andrew wanted to face toward the kitchen rather that the entry door.  The pillow and the afghan would be normal objects on the couch to make him comfortable.  The coat did not belong there, we're pretty sure.




(Message last edited Jul-2nd-03  8:58 PM.)

Perhaps the difference in size is due to perspective, like looking at railroad tracks that seem to narrow in the distance. IMO
Unless you can find measurements (Kieran's logs?) to settle this question. But the real question is: is this relevant to guilt?

You do know that with a "field camera" you can adjust the position of the lens to correct perspective? Any book on photography can explain this phenomenon. Like with a wide-angle lens placed close to an object, or a roof line.

It looks to me that the camera is planted across from the right side of the sofa, and the left side of the couch is further away, and hence smaller in size. Can you prove me wrong?

I'm getting bored with these irrelevant questions. Time for vacation?