1. "What's that distressing noise?"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Aug-4th-03 at 11:13 AM

I better (slowly, as I don't do things in a hurry) head back from the barn - oh, there's a scraping noise, now!

I'm having deja-vu here.
What was the scraping noise?

I believe that Lizzie's first statement was that she heard a "groan" form the house. People questioned this, thinking of a noise from Andy. I think it was from the spring used to close screen doors.
You have to be well over fifty to remember these.

***You have to be well over fifty to remember these.***


wrong!!!  without witnesses, without sources -- i hereby affirm there were plenty of those doors around when this 42-year-old was a kid!  and arnold brown could not have possibly had a thing to do with it.
haha!!

(anyway, i thought brown thought what lizzie heard was someone vomitting.)

I said that because I don't remember them by the 1960s. Mostly replaced by those shock-absorber type of door closers.

Hehehe.  I'm 40 & got my arm pinched by 1 of those in the 70s...& still have a wee scar to prove it.

But what was the scraping noise?

Hatchet scraping bone??

The killer scraping the hatchet head against a rock to dislodge part of Andrew's eye that was still stuck on the edge? 

i've actually considered that was it.  first of all, the question is whether she really heard anything -- or if she was just trying to make her story sound "better."  i remember a while back kat saying something to the effect that "we ought to be able to figure out what this sound was."  i thought so too.  i'm tempted to believe that lizzie was trying to describe something BECAUSE it is not her usual "one dull answer."  groan...distressing...scraping -- that really is a good description of someone vomitting, isn't it?  question is who?  that's where brown's ellan character is supposed to come in, searching for a privy?  i've also considered that andrew groaned or made some sound when lizzie struck the first blow, and that she feared mrs. churchill or someone near could have heard through the windows.  that doesn't really hold though.  bridget claimed to have heard nothing -- not even the door.  i suppose lizzie herself could have thrown up, and she was describing that.

the problem (one of them anyway) is the difference in what lizzie reports between the morning of the murders and what she reports in her inquest.  it's as though she wants to take it all back now.  she is "pressured" into telling about the note.

one simple explanation is that lizzie is referring to a sound made by the deceased and the subsequent sound of the screen door opening -- but it's actually a fiction.  then by the time of the inquest, lizzie is smart enough to realize how badly she messed up, and the safest route is for her to deny hearing or seeing anything at all.

in the immediate aftermath, lizzie knows what has happened, knows abby is dead upstairs, etc., but that just leaves us with what we already know -- that lizzie did it or knows who did.

like that's really new, huh?

__________________

i don't remember which thread it's in, but kat's mention of water boiling on the stove, seen by bridget -- that's from the knowlton papers?  and that's about all?  i remember hearing or reading somewhere -- bridget was supposed to have seen an axe propped against the fireplace in the sitting room?  is there anything to that at all?

___________

i've read victoria lincoln again, and it strikes me that she (and for what i know the rest) knew less than we do when it comes to documented facts.  or else she knowingly takes literary liberties.  for example, we were talking about lizzie and alice's trip to the cellar.  lincoln deals with this by writing that there was one trip with the two of them, and that lizzie hid something then.  isn't that interesting?  in the book she states that she used trial records and two newspapers.  i can't tell if she had the witness statements.

The story of the boiling water supposedly came out during the grand jury hearings and are probably fabricated or sensationalized.  I think the hidden hatchet is there too?
See Evening Standard.

Still, what if, and I believe you've thought this before, haulover, the noises described by Lizzie were both real, and heard and experienced by her, and if we can figure out what they probably were we may see the crime or crimes through Lizzie's real memory.

--Maybe one noise was for Abby and one noise was for Andrew.
We still think she was not aware that the time-lag between murders would be so obvious.

There were rumors that Lizzie was aware of a groan from Abby.  I think these came very early in the case from avid and erroneous news reports.

A scraping sound.
How about a tired hatchet-wielder dragging the long-handled hatchet behind them down the stone steps into the cellar.  The arms were tired and the muscles trembling...
(I suppose they wiped the blade off first.)

that's an idea.  i did think of this distinction last night:  that a groan or a distress is a "human" sound and "scraping" isn't.  that fits with your suggestion.

however, let's back up a bit about whether lizzie knew she had a problem concerning the time differential in the murders.  i get a sneaking suspicion that she is playing with us from the grave on that one.

getting into lizzie's mind is the issue and it doesn't usually make sense at first.

but consider the fact that she wants abby's body discovered.  it's a fuzzy kind of thinking to my mind -- but doesn't this come from her fears that abby has been dead for too long?

then move into the future after she's had time to think:  i've always thought that she had a reason for saying that andrew left at 10 (as opposed to earlier, more like 9) -- and that what she's trying to do is close the gap, she's trying to delete some time.  lizzie's thinking defies reality and she's stubborn about it.  the different condition of the two bodies is self-explanatory.  yet lizzie sticks to her guns that they were murdered closer to the same time -- because she knows it isn't true.  doesn't this make sense when you look at her testimony overall?  (it's difficult to explain her thinking, i personally would not ever want to go there.)  in other words, if i'm making any sense about her way of handling the problem, she basically rejects reason and chooses to DENY  reality and instead she insists that her unreasonable story is nonetheless true.  the whole barn story is a good illustration.

i'm just not sure that it is true to say that lizzie is "oblivious" to the problems coming her way because she murdered abby nearly two hours ago -- but that her statements are formulated on that realization.  she's using a particular, rare form of "smart."  she dares not try to explain rationally.  but she actually "trusts" and "commits" herself to DENIAL.

now maybe i need to be "straightened out" about this -- perhaps she has succeeded in confusing me.  but i'm concerned that we are dumbing her down when we say that she did not recognize the problem of the time differential in the murders.

1. why, instead of leaving the house, as she suggested to maggie she might do, does she decide to discover the murder instead?
2. why is she anxious to have abby's body discovered?
3. why does she have andrew home longer that morning before he left (when in fact he is in town between 9 and 9:30)?
4. why does she volunteer the bit about asking abby if she'll change her dress before going out? (because she would have it that abby did go out in her house dress and was murdered upon her return)



  

a few other thoughts to follow that up with:

what are lizzie's choices in light of the facts?  doesn't she HAVE to indicate that a murderer came in and killed them both at the same time irregardless of the physical evidence? 

that "scraping sound."  how did people sharpen axe/hatchet blades then?  blood that could not be washed could be scraped?

I understand your premise.  But Lizzie may have other reasons to want Abby discovered when she is.
Her motive may be to have that happen before Morse returns, for whatever reason.

Let me look at what she did do:

She tells of a note which took Abby out of the house.
She has Andrew leaving later than 9...but having him leave at 10 can only seem to implicate Andrew, it doesn't affect Abby's death.
It's Andrew's time of return which is important.

Lizzie finds Andrew's body and then after the man leaves (Bowen) she gives the story that she thought she heard Abby come in.  Go look.  Gets girls to go look. Why didn't SHE look, come to think of it?  She could have led the pack...it was her stepmother & her house...in fact, Mrs. Churchill may not ever had been up the front stairs before, until that time.  But I digress.

So Lizzie has Abby *return* around or near the time of Mrs. Churchill coming over.  That would be AFTER Andrew was found killed.
Looking at it this way, seems to show that Lizzie not only was unaware of the differences in long-dead bodies compared to freshly killed, but that she might not have been aware of the legal aspects of inheritence laws.
Why would she say she thought Abby had come in?  That points to her believing Abby was more newly killed than Andrew.

The facts proved otherwise.

So do you mean she knew all along the differences but was just desperate to have Abby found in whatever way possible?  That is believable, and yes, then, she would have to deny the facts in her own mind...
That statement of hers was as dumb as the note.
I don't see those two things as smart.
She has to eventually explain them and they are inexplicable.
She has made 2 blunders, in my estimation.

--We really don't know where Andrew was between 9 and 9:30.
The Fall River Daily Herald, Aug. 4th, has him shaved at Leduc's at 9:30.
So where was Andrew before 9:30 and how could he be shaved at 9:30 when he was with Hart & Burrell? [Prelim.203-4]

i'm trying to think of a reason she would want abby discovered before morse came. did you have an inkling on this?

***She has Andrew leaving later than 9...but having him leave at 10 can only seem to implicate Andrew, it doesn't affect Abby's death.
It's Andrew's time of return which is important.***

having him leave at 10 serves another purpose though.  by keeping him at home as long as possible, she creates an alibi for herself during what would have been the time of abby's murder. 

***So Lizzie has Abby *return* around or near the time of Mrs. Churchill coming over.  That would be AFTER Andrew was found killed. ***

but this would be even more implausible, wouldn't it?  the killer has to escape the house while she is in it.  i presumed that the open screen door is the killer's escape before she ever enters.  i thought she might have meant to say that sometime earlier (before her barn trip) that she remembers she thought she might have heard abby come in. 

none of this is believable.  as you say, why didn't lizzie look for abby?  but nevermind that.  why not simply yell, "hey, mrs. borden, in case you haven't heard, there has been a murder down here!  in case you didn't hear me screaming at maggie!"  we're looking for "why?"

how can she explain any of this?  it's a total blunder.  so what can she do by the time she has to answer questions at the inquest?  distance herself as much as possible from everything -- including her own blunders.

i did have an idea today though while thinking about this.  what if lizzie's blunder that morning is even bigger than we tend to think?  i segued from here into something you reminded me of the other day -- lizzie's statement to maggie that she might go out herself, etc. -- question:   why did she tell her that?

could it be that lizzie came downstairs and spoke with both andrew and maggie, dressed for the street and wearing her hat, intending the whole time to leave just as she had indicated -- UNTIL maggie went upstairs, at which time she decided spur of the moment to kill andrew and "discover" the crime herself? 

i suggest this for two reasons:  1) it explains lizzie's statement to maggie about going out, and 2) that whereas at the time she did not mind being seen by maggie or talking to her, when it came down to the inquest she wanted nothing more than to delete that part.  (or put another way, that lizzie had in mind one of two options until maggie going upstairs decided it?)  had maggie lingered in the kitchen and started dinner, lizzie might have had no other choice but to leave the house? 

The question comes to my mind though of whether or not Andrew left the house after lunch to do more business rounds or was that it for the day?  I've read before that Andrew was semi-retired (whatever that means), so, maybe those few business rounds in the morning covered his day?

The way Lizzie puts it to Bridget, from Bridget's Trial testimony:

A. She said,"Maggie, are you going out this afternoon?"  I said,"I don't know; I might and I might not; I don't feel very well."

That sounds to me like Lizzie is fishing, hoping that Bridget will leave the house after lunch so that she can be alone with Andrew possibly?  Maybe Lizzie is still up in the air at this point on whether she should or has to dispatch Andrew?  Andrew already heard that Abby had a sick call, so, he could calmly eat his lunch alone that day.

Bridget's answer continued-She says, "If you go out, be sure and lock the door, for Mrs. Borden has gone out on a sick call and I may go out, too."  Says I, "Miss Lizzie, who is sick?"  "I don't know; she had a note this morning; it must be in town."

It does sound like Lizzie's original plan was just to leave the house.  But, no mention is made about what Andrew will be doing later, is it just assumed and unspoken by them that he will be gone for the rest of the day?  Or, does he stay home after lunch and take another nap before dinner also as his normal routine.  Lizzie possibly thinking ahead, if Bridget goes out, I could possibly do it then.

Then when Lizzie tells Bridget of the sale at Sargents, its almost as if she is trying to entice Bridget out of the house later, maybe so Lizzie can commit the second murder and give Bridget an alibi?  It sounds like at this point Lizzie has made up her mind that Andrew needs to die too and she has to get Bridget out of her way.  Bridget's answer to the dress sale is that she is going to have one.  Which to me sounds like Bridget does plan on leaving the house, but, shes going up for a rest before starting lunch.  Maybe the temptation is too great at that point to wait, get it done and over with, why wait til later?   

The thing is, Morse is supposed to be coming back for lunch.

And Lizzie says to Bridget she is "going out Thursday noon." (I. 72)

Dinner is at noon.
Morse was expected to eat at noon.
Andrew would be there at noon.
Abby is usually there at noon.
Bridget likes to lie down until probably about 11:30.

Sounds like Lizzie was implying she was merely going to skip  dinner and miss seeing Morse...both *again*.

I guess the question with that is; did Lizzie know that Morse was due back?  She wasn't downstairs until Morse had left, do you think someone may have mentioned it to Lizzie or that she was eavesdropping to hear? 

Was there anything in Lizie's first testimony that indicated she knew of Abby's body upstairs? As far as I know, she seemed to believe the story about Abby going on an errand. Was the errand unusual?

If JVM was due back at noon for dinner, why send Dr Bowen to recall him? (That's what the story sounds like to me.) Unless Lizzie really needed JVM for his advice as to what to do now?

Bridget, Prelim.:
Q.  Did you hear him say anything to Mr. Morse?
A.  I heard him ask him to come to dinner.

Q.  What did Mr. Morse say?
A.  I do not know.

Q.  That is when they were at the door?
A.  Yes Sir.

I was just talking to Stef about this question, Ray, and we think no one asked the maid that Thursday forenoon, what Morse's plans were.

After seeing Bridget's testimony I still question whether or not Lizzie knew that Morse was coming back for dinner.  Bridget was right there and she didn't have a clue, would Lizzie? 

Oh well, yea since Lizzie and Morse spent 8 hours Wednesday night within a few feet of each other's rooms.
Especially if they were in cahoots.
Besides Andrew could have mentioned at any time that he had advised Morse to visit the Emery's, and that Morse himself had said he had plans later that day, and that's why he visited his  western niece in the morning.
This is speculation, and if you want testimony to the effect that Lizzie knew Morse was returning for dinner, I don't know where that would be- just that it's possible .

Actually, I'm just trying to get someone's thoughts on whether they think Lizzie knew Morse was due back for dinner or not?  Because the way I'm seeing it is that if Morse and Lizzie are in cahoots, it doesn't matter and Lizzie can wait until Bridget leaves in the afternoon and murder Andrew with impunity. 

If they are not, thats where the timing of Andrew's murder becomes as issue.  If Andrew did mention it to Lizzie, and she had already decided that Andrew needed to die, she had a very small window of opportunity to do it in.

If Lizzie didn't know about Morse's return, once again, timing wouldn't be so much of an issue to her that day.

But, my thought is perhaps as Bridget was on her way upstairs and Lizzie mentioned the sale at Sargents, maybe Bridget made some mention at that point that Mr. Morse might be returning for dinner.  Lizzie can't wait for Bridget to leave the house in the afternoon then, shes upstairs in her room resting now.  Lizzie has to do it at this point in time.  Does that make any sense?   

That does make sense, Susan.  I also think Lizzie was doing a lot of eavesdropping.  With the us vs them atmosphere in the house, that was probably something she did often.  Easy to do in that house, considering all the closed, multiple doors.

I too think Lizzie eavesdropped.
I don't think that would tell her if Morse would be back to dinner Thursday tho, as not even Bridget cared enough at the time to hear his answer yet she had to fix enough food and set the table possibly for one more.  Unless Bridget knew there would be no dinner that day...either that or she really does not pay close attention?

If Morse is in on the murder plan of Andrew, or whether he's not, it still has to be accomplished before his possible return.  So yes there are time constraints there...and maybe they were imposed because Lizzie didn't know when or if Morse would return.  But Andrew still must be killed within a certain timeframe..whether it is by the time Bridget arises from her nap, or by the time Morse might be expected for dinner.  So that might make the latest time to kill Andrew as about 11:15, if one were choosing.

It's an interesting side-light here when we know Morse returned asking something like *My God How did this happen?*, maybe he meant ONE of the deaths and not the other?
I wonder which murder, then, was the surprise to him?

I agree with both you and Tina-Kate about the eavesdropping.  Lizzie herself admitted that she could hear Andrew, Morse and Abby's voices up in her room and shut the door as they annoyed her.

So, if Morse didn't come back to dinner that day and Bridget went out that afternoon, don't you think Lizzie could have still killed Andrew then?  Its because of when it happened that I'm trying to figure if that was Lizzie's only window of opportunity to do it that day.  Or, did it possibly have something to do with trying to time the murder closer to Abby's death? 

Thats an interesting take on Morse's comment upon returning to the Borden home.  Maybe it was only Abby that was supposed to go that day? 

I'm thinking she probably would have wanted to get both over & done with as soon as possible, in any case.  Even if she didn't know Morse was due back -- she did Andrew @ 1st opportunity.  Esp in wanting to get away with it...both murders done in a short space of time, she may have thought it less likely she'd be suspected.

If she was trying to do them in with poison intially, it could be she was frustrated with the failures of that method & getting impatient.  Hatchet is quick.

It could also be Morse's presence pushed her over into the hatchet method.  If he was in cohoots with Andrew in making arrangements to disperse his estate, I could really see how that would make her impatient to get the deed done.

Yes, there seems to be alot of different motivations for Lizzie to off Andrew when she did, though I imagine fear was the biggest one.  Thats what I think about when I try to place myself in that position, adrenaline pumping fear. 

I think of Morse as sort of a free-loader; getting a meal free before he leaves town may be some habit that Lizzie knows about her uncle.
That's not necessarily a bad thing...people fed their relatives when they dropped by and Lizzie of course knew he was in town (at least).
As long as Morse is in town, basically is what I mean when I conjecture that Lizzie would kill Andrew during that opportunity she had and also, thinking Morse could return for dinner, she would get that murder done as soon as possible, as Tina-Kate noted.
Actually, anyone murdering Andrew would suffer under the same time constraints*...not knowing when someone would show up...Morse, or even Emma, or a stranger who came to talk business.

*A difference here tho would be Lizzie could possibly influence Bridget as to where to be...as in Out.

Here's a twist to consider.  Lizzie kills Abby.  Then Lizzie kills Bridget. 

Lizzie tells the police Bridget killed Abby and she and Bridget got into a fight over it and Lizzie killed Bridget during the struggle.  She need not kill Bridget with a hatchet.

I think I've been watching too much Columbo. 


(Message last edited Aug-14th-03  5:40 PM.)

So do we have a Bridget Imposter ever after?
Lizzie'd have to hide the body.
That's probably why Emmer left.
Alice was lucky to make it through to next week!

Oh, the whole story would have to change.  This was more or less an alternative for Lizzie to consider instead of killing Andrew and Abby.

This way Lizzie would not have to kill Andrew if she could blame Abby on Bridget. Her story would be she killed Bridget when she caught her coming down stairs with blood all over her and the hatchet in her hand.  They struggled and Lizzie wrested the hatchet away from her. 

Obviously none of that would have taken place and Lizzie would have sneaked up on Bridget and hit her with something killing her. Sprinkle a little of Abby's blood on Bridget's clothing, muss up her own clothing and go out and do her "O, please Mrs. Churchill..." thing.  She could kill Bridget soon after doing in Abby cutting down the time gap.

No Rays I'm not serious.  Just having a little fun.

Thats why I keep on finding Lizzie at the helm of things, whether she did it or instigated the murders.  She knew the internal workings of that house, who was where and when, possible return times, etc.  How could an outsider waltz into that house and do what they did undetected by Lizzie and Bridget both?  And doesn't it seem from the onset of Andrew's murder to the rest of the day that Lizzie took charge.  Suggesting to people to do certain things, telling them to do others for her, find certain people for her, etc. 

So waht about this fantasy: Abby leaves with Andy, when they return they find both Lizzie and Bridget murdered in their separate rooms?
Who did it then?

There was a recent case where two young women, "close friends", were found murdered while visiting a relative's house.
Still under investigation.

The Tradition or Legend is that Bridget was paid-off to keep her mouth shut. Certainly the DA never did ask much of Bridget, like "did anyone ask you not to tell everything?". AR Brown notes that Bridget was told by the DA to ONLY answer the questions put to her. "Well orchestrated" Brown says.
I believe Lizzie was innocent of the murders. But she certainly knew more than she testified at the trial.

This is a question for all of you.
If Lizzie had been in the house, kitchen or her own room, would she have been the third victim?
Her absence from the house saved her life, like Bridget snoring (?) up in the attic.
In My Opinion.

I'm sorry that doesn't make total sense...if Bridget Was in the house, and she wasn't killed, I don't see your point about Lizzie possibly being a victim if she had been inside.

Yes, I can see how t looks like someone inside the house & family had to orchestrate events.  That goes back to our discussion about the killer having to be adaptable.
Only someone who knew the routines etc. could plan something like what happened.

(Message last edited Aug-15th-03  5:46 PM.)

I'm thinking it had to be a close family member, I don't even think Morse knew enough of the doings in the house to orchestrate things.  The only other alternative I can think of is a close family friend who has had time to observe the family and their habits, the Millers?  The Bowens?  Mrs. Churchill?  The Harringtons? 

What about Alice?
She was very careful to say she hadn't seen Abby in a long time.

Yes, I'm sorry, you're right, Alice Russell should have been added.  I guess my thought was contemporaries of the elder Bordens, people they may have had contact with and had in their home on a fairly regular basis. 

I don't know that any of these people were in the Borden's home, regularly...to notice routines...I could only think of Alice and Mrs. Dr. Bowen... as observers...tho Alice doesn't observe much that she talks about, does she?
Dr. Bowen doesn't seem to pay attention, and Hiram was not invited in.  I also get the impression that Lurana was a shut-in (at least in the times of the murders and trial) and the girls went to visit her at her house.

We should be on the look-out for references to people who visited that house.

Knowlton depicts Mrs. Churchill in his notes as not social with the Bordens.

I guess the seamstress, Hannah Gifford, was there a lot in the spring.  I think she is distantly related, like that Mrs. Cluny who worked there a week.

(Message last edited Aug-16th-03  9:11 PM.)

Yes, Alice says far too little for my tastes, whether she honestly couldn't recall or kept to herself for her own reasons, it bugs me!

Wasn't Dr. Bowen the one who was able to say that Andrew's position on the sofa was normal for him, that it was his regular habit to lay as such?  I wonder from Hiram's wording if he was not invited in or chose not to go in?  From what he says at the Inquest, Andrew would come over to visit his sister and Hiram would leave the room, "cutting his aquaintance" he called it.

Mrs. Gifford says she was never at the Borden house, she did her work in her shop.  You must be thinking of Mary Raymond?  The dressmaker? 

Hmmm, Mrs. Churchill, though I guess she wasn't in a social standing with the Bordens, she was a next door neighbor, I'm sure she saw and heard quite abit.  Could probably tell you about the comings and goings at that house.

So, after all this I come back full circle to Lizzie again, she had to be the one to orchestrate things, I can't think of anyone else that knows enough about the Borden's daily life outside of Bridget. 

Yes, it's Mary Raymond, that's correct.  I have Gifford in my notes at Inquest, and Raymond is at Trial, 1576, defense witness, as dressmaker.  That's funny because I've corrected that in the past! 

Prelim., 408, Bowen:
Q.  Did you see Lizzie at all that day?
A.  I think not.

Q.  Out of doors, or in?
A.  I do not remember as I did. I know my wife said she was going up the street, or going down street towards night, that was Miss Lizzie.

Q.  You did not see her during the day at all?
A.  No Sir. I remember that, because my wife accounted for Mr. Borden being out, and Lizzie being out, and I suppose they were all right.

--Bowen seems to me like the absent-minded professor.  He seems vague, like about the note he burned.  Bowen claimed he saw Lizzie going up the street or down the street Wednesday (He wasn't sure which, Trial 297&298) and here he admits Mrs. Dr. Bowen keeps track of the Borden's comings and goings, and has been there seldom except on business.  He may be used to seeing Andrew on the sofa when he comes, but can you tell me where Dr. Bowen says it's Andrew's *regular habit*?  (Thanks.)
--So I had added Mrs. Dr. Bowen onto the list of people who we know visited the house and who also kept some sort of track of people...

Trial, Bowen, 297:
Q.  Have you been the family physician for some time?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  For how long, sir?
A.  I should say a dozen years probably.
Q.  During that time have you had social as well as business, --- professional relations?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  Have you at all visited at the house?
A.  Very seldom except on business.
Q.  What has been your dealing with them largely, --- professional or social?
A.  About equal.
Q.  About equal?
A.  Yes, sir.

--I'm Giving Mrs. Dr. Bowen any credit in that family for observation and maybe knowing Habits of the family which is what we are referring to.
Yes, I do think Mrs. Churchill, after all, probably did know  some habits of the household , or at least observed them from her window, but has been a bit confused as to her memory of those habits...see window washing contradictions between Bridget & Mrs. Churchill.
But I'm also taking into account people who have spent time in the Borden house.  I don't know that Mrs. Churchill ever did.

I can think of two others...Alfred Johnson*, from the farm and Mrs. Tripp stayed there as well, tho she didn't see Abby her last visit.

*[Witness Statements, 37] "When I have been working at Mr. Borden’s, I have stayed there."


Here's Hiram's own words:
Inquest, 134
Q.  Did you go to the house any?
A.  No, I did not go to the house, any more than sometimes on business, that is, sometimes my wife wanted to send a letter or to invite the girls, or something of that kind, I would go to the house; sometimes I met him at the door, and have spoken.
Q.  Do you know what the relations were between the daughters and the mother?
A.  I did not go into the house; all I can tell is hear say, that is from them. The step mother never mentioned it in my presence.

--I think it was mutual antipathy on their parts.  Hiram seems to want to show that he would speak to Andrew if needed.
But Hiram, again, wouldn't know the household routine-- and he was Lizzie's Suspect

--So yea, we're back to Lizzie and Emma and Morse and Bridget...or maybe a friend of one of them who heard all about the household and whose name we don't know.


(Message last edited Aug-17th-03  7:43 PM.)

I believe it was something that was posted on the forum awhile ago, could be totally off.  The thread may have been the one where we were trying to figure out if Andrew had been sleeping while attacked or not.  Thats all I can remember about it. 

Well, it sounded familiar and Stef thought she recognized the reference as well.  I looked around.
I didn't know where to find it.  I was hoping you'd remember..but I know how that is...now I will look some more.  Thanks for the reply!

Well, that almost drove me crazy!  I knew I was the one who posted   a question about Bowen discussing Andrew's position on the couch.  And I knew my question had been answered.  But I couldn't remember anything else about it. Finally found it! 

In First Degree, Kunstler quotes Bowen as saying: "Mr.Borden lay partly on his right side, with his coat thrown over the arm of the sofa ... his feet rested on the carpet.  It was his custom to lie that way.  I am satisfied that he was asleep when he received the first blow, which was necessarily fatal..." 

Because it was in quotes, I knew there had to be a source for the quote -- but I couldn't find it.  Harry came up with it. Apparently Dr. Bowen is credited with saying this in an alleged interview printed in the August 6, 1892 Evening Standard, pg 2.

Thanks you guys!
I thought it was an author, but I wasn't going to look there.
An Author AND a newpaper citation!
Wow!  What bounty!

Thank you, Diana!  I recalled later that it may have been a newspaper report, for what they are worth, but, it was something about Dr. Bowen making a statement that that was how Andrew normally would lie on that sofa.  Ugh, I always remember what I read, but, not where I read it exactly!!! 

In Williams' book, page 32, Morse in an interview states:

"I walked from the station up to the house and rang the front door bell. Mrs. Borden opened it. She welcomed me and I went in. Andrew was then reclining on the sofa in about the same position he was found murdered.

So it seems that not only Dr. Bowen noticed the position was not unusual for Andrew.

Thanks, Harry!  That sounds pretty close to what I read, except I seem to recall that Bowen said this was his normal state on the sofa, as he had seen on other occasions.  Maybe my memory is just faulty?