1. "Lack of an alibi"
Posted by harry on Apr-9th-03 at 12:10 AM

There has always been much interest in Lizzie's alibi for the period when her father was murdered. 

Very little is asked of her as to account for her time for when Abby was murdered.

This is from her Inquest testimony:

Q.  How long was your father gone?
A.  I don't know, sir, not very long.
Q.  An hour?
A.  I should not think so.
Q.  Will you give me the best story you can, so far as your recollection serves you, of your time while he was gone?
A.  I sprinkled my handkerchiefs, and got my ironing board and took them in the dining room. I took the ironing board in the dining room and left the handkerchiefs in the kitchen on the table and whether I ate any cookies or not I don't remember. Then I sat down looking at the magazine waiting for the flats to heat. Then I went in the sitting room and got the Providence Journal, and took that into the kitchen. I don't recollect of doing anything else."

That's it.  Abby would have had to been killed during this period. As far as I can see Lizzie is never asked if she heard or saw anything during this period.  Since Bridget was outdoors and all Lizzie was doing was sitting and reading the house must havce been very quiet.

There doesn't seem to be any effort at all of pursuing Lizzie's alibi for Abby's death but a huge effort made for Andrews.

Maybe the prosecution sort of wanted the jury to not think too much about Abby's death. Since the ME thought that the person who killed her had straddled her body and should have gotten a lot of blood on them, and Lizzie had nothing on her, then they best not dwell on Abby's murder too much for fear the jury would dismiss it out of hand.

If you think about it, there was a way for Andrew's killer to shield themselves because of the placement of the killer above his head in the doorway to the dining room. But no testimony was heard that Lizzie had changed her clothes from the early morning. Since they couldn't prove she had on different clothes, they couldn't really prove she killed Abby. Just insinuate that they did not get along.

But this is just the inquest, the time when they are supposed to be gathering the evidence and testimony. No jury, just a few people in the room.

If not Lizzie, someone would have had to come in the house during that period and kill Abby.  They probably would have had to come in the front door since Lizzie says she spent most of the time in the kitchen. But the front door was locked or else the intruder locked it after he got in. That doesn't sound likely to me.

It just seems to me that have little interest in Lizzie's story for Abby's slaying.



(Message last edited Apr-9th-03  12:47 AM.)

Buried in Lizzie's Inquest testimony is something she lets slip which ties her to Abby again:

Q. You were always in the kitchen or dining room, excepting when you went upstairs?
A. I went upstairs before he went out.

Q. You mean you went up there to sew a button on?
A. I basted a piece of tape on.

Q. Do you remember you did not say that yesterday?
A. I don't think you asked me.  I told you yesterday I went up stairs directly after I came up from down cellar, with the clean clothes.

Q. You now say after your father went out, you did not go up stairs at all?
A. No sir, I did not.

So, according to Lizzie's testimony, she went downstairs and then to the cellar to visit the water closet when she first got up.  Then she takes clean clothes up to her room and sews on a piece of tape.  She came down according to Bridget a little before 9:00AM, so, she would have to be back up in her room around nine or so.  Abby was killed between 9 and 9:30 and Lizzie is right up there, right next door to the murder room.  Hmmmm.

I also think that there was more emphasis put on the murder of Andrew as he was a man, he had the money, he held the power.  Who was Abby?  A woman, his wife, she held no power, therefor, she wasn't as important in their eyes.  And wasn't there a seperate indictment for the murder of Andrew alone?  And then one for the murder of Andrew and Abby?  I think as a woman in that time period Abby just didn't rate as much.  Just my opinion. 

The first charge against Lizzie was for only the killing of her father.
Abby wasn't included until the grand jury indictment.
So possibly everyone is right.  Because the state figured they had more circumstancial evidence against Lizzie for Andrew's killing, they concentrated on that until the whole case was put before the grand jury in November.

But, if I think about what Harry says, it does seem as if Abby's death is the more suspicious, has more motive, has more witnesses to say the two women did not get along or even associate, that Lizzie was in the house when that murder occurred, could easily have cleaned up, etc. after because of the timing involved...so yes, I'd say, if I was the Attorney General, arrest Lizzie for the murder of ABBY, period, and let Andrew's murder work itself out.
That might have been a very good strategen, you're right Har, to point out how they fumbled the ball on that one!
And yea, I bet it did involve the status of Andrew, and as the man that they concentrated on his murder above the other.

BTW:  I stumbled onto the 3 Indictments today!  Of course they were right where they should be:  Knowlton Papers.
Pages 111, 113, and (I love the AND!) page 115.
One for Abby, One for Andrew, and One for Both Abby & Andrew.
Dated Dec. 6th, 1892.

i think they thought they had a better chance of getting her for andrew because:  first of all, lizzie "discovers" that body; they have damaging testimony from bridget that the man was apparently alive when she up to her room, lizzie was there, 10 minutes later the man is dead; lizzie's barn story so unlikely in several ways (conveniently gets her out of the house at the right time, took 3 pears up to a dirty hot barn loft to eat them maybe before looked for sinker, maybe after; brought back no sinker; there was lead at the door in the first place).

but i notice the main thrust of knowlton's case is that this was for the hatred of the stepmother, who was murdered first.  and andrew came home at the wrong time and messed up her plan.

So do you think Knowlton spead what little he had, too thin?

I think a jury would more likely see Lizzie in a different light if the prosecution put all their effort into proving Lizzie's abnimosity (?) to Abby--they might be able to believe that as a motive of a jealous daughter against a stepmother, whereas they just could not wrap their minds around a *beyond a reasonable doubt* that Lizzie killed her father for any motive whatever.

I just never thought about this angle before Har's post.

Yes, but the prosecution didn't have to prove motive.  The thrust of the case WAS against Lizzie but not as to motive.  They said Lizzie had it in for Abby because Lizzie's character was bad, it was her bad character that made her hate Abby and want the inheritance.

The prosecution said Lizzie killed her father because she realized she had become a criminal after killing Mrs. Borden and her father would have found out and known it was her who had done the deed so she couldn't let him live.

Robert Pinkerton is quoted (Masterton's book) as saying that "innocent people often change their stories in the retelling". I guess a guilty person decides on a story and sticks to it?
What is YOUR experience from the real world? (A teacher may have an advantage!)

My point wasn't that Lizzie switched her story there, Rays.  She actually did say that she went upstairs and did a little sewing the day before.  Its the time frame of what she said she did that morning is what I'm interested in.  Lizzie put herself upstairs right around the time that Abby was killed. 

i agree with your second paragraph.

i'm not sure what you're saying or in disagreement with me about in the first.  what i'm saying is that knowlton is saying lizzie's motive in murder is to destroy abby.  abby, the first murder, is the object of lizzie's hate.  in his closing argument has quite a bit to say about it -- how the hatred built up until it exploded, etc. 

it's exactly what victoria lincoln thought.  but i always had a problem with her theory that lizzie "loved her father" but could not "bear to have him know what she had done" so she killed him.  i read that as a kid and thought that.  common sense has to come to the rescue sometimes.  you just don't chop up someone you love.

if lizzie killed them both, i would say she did not love either of them and was completely selfish and lacking genuine feeling in her nature -- which is a theory i entertain sometimes.

i just think knowlton puts what he's got together to produce the most believeable story as to why lizzie would do this.  i'm thinking of his closing argument -- what he wants the jury to believe.  he claims the big key is in the significant time difference between the two murders.  he's saying lizzie got caught before she could get out of the house, and so had to decide, and had to improvise.  which makes sense when you look at how awkwardly lizzie explains herself in connection with andrew's demise.  in other words, this part was not planned but improvised; that she did the best she could do, but it wasn't really quite good enough.  it's sort of like this:  andrew's murder implicates lizzie most strongly, whereas abby's murder reveals her motive. 

i think we've discussed this before, but what i can't come to terms with is why in the world lizzie could not get out of the house before 10:30 or 10:45.  even if abby was killed as late as 9:30 or 9:45.  unless it's this:  that she was busy with a lot of clean-up which included burning in the stove.  maybe she burned the dress she was wearing and put on another and had to get a lot of water to clean herself.  but kept the hatchet planning to take it with her out of the house.

then father comes home.  she still has the hatchet. 

now here's a question.  the ash-covered blade in the cellar.  what would happen if lizzie put this blade in the stove fire?  could fire destroy all traces of blood in a way that water couldn't?  someone said it was as though a wet hatchet had been dipped in ashes.  say she washed it as well as she could and then burned it a while, leaving the handle in the fire.  but the remnant of the handle attached to it did not appear to be burned, did it?  oh well.  that knocks that theory out.

it still looks to me like the weapon was removed.  could she have put it on that barn roof easily enough?  could she have walked a block or two down the street and put it somewhere?  i doubt enough time for that.

i digress, but perhaps, as has been suggested, she really did put it in a sack and tell bridget to take it out of the house.  if you eliminate the presence of an outsider, that really makes the most sense, doesn't it?  how far away was the river, for example?  i've never understood why bowen would have been involved.

i'm still unsure about blood on the killer.  in abby's case:  if she fell pretty much as we see her, it looks like she went from standing to lying flat on her face in an instant.  she could have been dead then from shock, or nearly dead.  how much splatter would there really be on the killer then as the killer hacked further?  the splatter is away from the killer as the killer raises the axe.  and notice most of the blood is in a thick pool around the head -- not on the wall.  if the killer were being splattered "dramatically" (as in the movie) -- shouldn't there be blood spots farther down abby's back and buttocks?  but there aren't, are there?  the killer need not swing the axe over the head.  what are you thoughts on this?

The reference made to Lizzie burning a lot of material in the stove after the killing of Abby doesn't seem reasonable to me mainly because of buttons and hooks and eyes, things like that.  Also that's 6 to 10 YArds of material, I think.  Also she wouldn't take up Alice's suggestion that the note had been burned because wouldn't that lead the investigation straight to the stove and they would find this inordinate amount of ash and residue?

As to the hatchet blade being burned to remove the last remnents of blood after washing, maybe the handle was too wet to even burn but she could have held just the blade over a flame?  (Washed it either before or after the burning.)

Abby's muder reveals Lizzie's motive--is her motive then hatred or is it money?  Is there one motive for one and another motive for the other?

The hatchet is designed to be used most efficiently by inertia.  It is not necessary to raise it high;  the weight of the blade and the curve of the handle allows it  to fall or just drop onto an object--that's a 3 1/2 to 5 lb. hatchet, probably.

You can try this at home if you have a wood stove like the Bordens.
Wash (?) your hatchet, then put it into the stove fire. You will then have a burnt and scorched hatchet.
There NO SIGNS of this on the cellar hatchet. Because it was an old one, and the murder weapon was carried away. Either by the murderer (Wm S Borden), or wrapped in paper (like a package) and brought to Alice by a trusting and obedient servant. No other possibilities?

"i'm not sure what you're saying or in disagreement with me about in the first.  what i'm saying is that knowlton is saying lizzie's motive in murder is to destroy abby." 

What I'm saying is that Knowlton's argument was not on motive, it was about Lizzie's character. He is saying her character was so bad it moved her to kill someone she detested so she could claim the money.

Knowlton's Closing:
Page 1773/i796
"...It was the malice against Mrs. Borden that inspired the assassin.  It was Mrs. Borden whose life that wicked person sought, and all the motive that we have to consider, all we have to say about this case bears on her."

Page 1801/i827
"...Motive is not a part of the case of the Commonwealth.  We are called upon to prove that the thing was done, and our duty stops there.  We are not called upon to prove why it was done."

Page 1806/i832
"...But I do see, I do think I see, and I only suggest it as a course of comment upon the conduct of that young woman, for your consideration, and without undertaking to prove it, for, as I have undertaken to say again and again, motive is not part of our case."

Knowlton's trick of a job is to make someone appear guilty altho there is no evidence for it (as the jury decided). His own writing says he didn't expect the jury to convict, BUT they couldn't just let Lizzie walk away either. Not too different today, as in Robert Blake?

Lizzie was on trial for Andy's death, the one where she had an alibi, per Chaim Lubinsky. (The jury believed this.) Lizzie had no alibi for Abby's death, except she was down in the cellar on the throne. (I believe that, since it is farthest point from the front guest room.)

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

Lizzie says she went to the cellar when she first got down, at about a quarter to 9.
She says she was only gone 5 minutes.
Says she saw Abby And Andrew.
Says Abby was dusting the dining room about 9, as Lizzie left her.
Then she says Andrew was still there.
And that Andrew didn't leave until about 10.
She implies Bridget went to gather her washing-window stuff before Mr. Borden went away.
Bridget says she collected her stuff at 9:30.
So Lizzie has lost in her story 1/2 hour right there.
She loses another 1/2 hour by saying Andrew didn't leave until 10 !
Lizzie in the cellar when Abby was murdered is a Crock, because that means Abby was murdered before Andrew went away and at about 10 minutes to 5 minutes to 9, by Lizzie's own words.

actually you might have clarified something for me.  thanks for posting that.

maybe we're splitting hairs over the meaning of the word motive.  but in a sense, isn't that what knowlton was doing, and doesn't this show a major weakness in his rendition of what happened that day and why it happened?

he acknowledges he can't prove motive.  which is true.  there are a handfull of nasty remarks lizzie might have made.  that's about it.  there's not much there in the way of evidence.  certainly nothing beyond a reasonable doubt.

yet knowlton builds his whole case on his theory that lizzie was motivated by hatred of abby.  i don't have it handy to quote from it, but he makes an effort to convince that this hatred had been building and building and finally exploded in a fit of rage.  in this i am understanding the word "motive" to mean the impulse behind an action.

well, the question is -- can you separate lizzie's motive of hatred for abby with her desire for money?  if it's true that she hated her this much, believed her to be such a threat, it was related to the money.  if i had to narrow it down, i would say that her primary motive was for the money.  to accomplish that would be to get rid of them both.  if lizzie is guilty, i would say -- as you have suggested, that the doors are locked up so she'll know when he comes home -- that she planned to murder them both.  i've explored other possibilities, but my instincts are that if lizzie intended to only kill abby, she had time to get out of the house.  she could have taken the weapon and bloody clothing out of the house.  but she didn't.  it looks like the murderer is waiting.  the murderer spent less time hacking andrew, and this shows it was done more hurriedly.

if the real motive is for the money, this explains why she killed them both.

Lizzie is in control as to when both bodies are found.
She calls down Bridget upon Abdrew's death, and later says she thinks Abby has come in please go look?

So she is not so much in a hurry as we may think.
I'm not sure how to account for that.

i've noted that lizzie appears to be in control very much so.  either doing it or "supervising" it.

but isn't she automatically in a greater hurry and running a greater risk killing andrew? maggie is just upstairs.  morse could return at any minute.  she had to be thinking of that.

I think she has got an extra 10 minutes minimum, and she knows it.
Bridget says she usually gets down about 11:30, and that would be a nice time that day because she already knows what's for dinner.
Morse would know to stay away until 11:30 as well, if he is in on it.
A call went out at 11:15, meaning the finding of the body might have been at about 11:10-- It could have been easily prolonged until 11:20.
Lizzie may have worried unnecessarily that someone would come that she hadn't counted on, like a business associate of Andrew's.

That could be the reason for that triple locked front door again after Andrew came home.  Someone may knock and people of the Borden household knew that that spring lock doesn't always catch, the door could come open in the midst of the murder.  Lizzie probably came downstairs and saw to it that night lock and bolt were in use again.  Why would an outsider think about that? 

OOO.  Now I can see her come down those stairs and check that door.  Does she have a hatchet then?  Did she leave it buried in Abby's back and has just ascended to get it?
If so, she approaches Andrew from the entry way door into the sitting room, not sneaking up from the dining room door.

Isn't that the direction that Bridget said that she saw Lizzie come from?  I wouldn't think she would have the hatchet....yet.  Bridget must be enticed to go out, hmmmmm, not today.  But, I have come down knowing that Father is now home and Bridget is due for her midday nap.

You know, I never gave it much thought, but, where did Lizzie put the hatchet after murdering Abby?  Did she clean it up with some of her menstrual cloths so it would drip on the carpet?  Did she leave it in the guest room?   

If she attacked Andrew after entering from the dining room door, the hatchet could have been waiting hidden in the kitchen or the cellar?
But those were places Bridget frequented.
Where would she keep it?

After Bridget went upstairs is time for Lizzie to check the front door and go up the front stairs to get the hatchet from the guest room, then come down and do the deed.
It would probably take as long to equipt hersef as it would to (imaginarilly) walk to the barn.
She could keep it in the guest room safely because if Abby is found too soon so would be the hatchet and that might be OK. 
But she could also keep it in her room which she kept locked.
It would have to be CLEAN tho to be kept in her room.
OR.....
How about setting the hatchet head-down into the bloody pail in her room, awaiting Andrew's arrival?

I know she brought down a pail in the morning and set it in the kitchen, but it has been commented upon that no one says that was the bloody pail of cloths.  Just a pail, is all we know...

Could dipping the hatchet in the bloody water remove ALL bloodstains? The Harvard Doctors said "no blood on the axe".

You ask (my summary) if Knowlton doesn't show a major weakness in his rendition of what happened and why by his focusing so much on Lizzie's hatred of Abby.

Yes, and I don't think Knowlton wrote up a very good closing argument. Compared to the wording of Justice Dewey's piece Knowlton reads like a grade school theme, to me.  He completely discounts Andrews murder as being an afterthought to cover herself from Andrew knowing she did kill Abby.

If such is the case his argument that she was after the money doesn't work because he has not shown/proved that Lizzie knew that if Abby died first she would inherit. If Lizzie did kill Abby because of just hatred then she would just have just left the back door open and gone downtown for the rest of the morning, creating a situation that the house was completely accessible to an intruder for good lengths of time. Bridget would have been there alone doing windows and if she went out of the house she couldn't have hooked up the door herself. She would have been round the house out of view of the back door for half her window washing time. 

If Knowlton argument is correct then Lizzie had other options than wait for him to return home so he would have to kill him too.

Well, I wasn't going to suggest the hatchet in the pail with the bloody cloths as that was in Lincoln.  Though I think Lincoln stated that Lizzie kept the hatchet in her slop jar with the bloody cloths, but, I don't think that the slop jar was used for those napkins, it was for waste water and chamber pot emptying.  I think those napkins had a seperate container.

Yes, once Bridget went upstairs Lizzie probably would go check on the door and get the hatchet.  But......, she would have to go back through the sitting room to go anywhere else downstairs.  If Andrew was awake he might wonder what Lizzie was up to.  Hmmm. 

yes, that's always bugged me.  that if lizzie wanted to get out after killing abby, surely she had time to do so.  i've tried to think of what would detain her, but there is a flaw in every scenario i can think of. 

that's a nice grisly detail, kat.  the axe is in abby's back, and lizzie has to pull it out to reuse it. 

The logical answer is that "nemesis" was there to meet Andy, and waited for the meeting. After which he did leave the house.
The most common sense solution?

Didn't Robinson claim the differences in testimony between JV Morse, Lizzie, and Bridget showed that the small house could've hidden someone (they disagreed on who showed up and when).

I have to agree with you Ray although I don't call my man
"nemesis" I just call him the butcher.  Anxious to hear what
Jeffrey is going to post!

How'd this person get away?

From behind the property Lucy Collett was at Dr. Chagnon's and saw no one escaping.
All the men in Crowe's yard saw no one escaping.
Thomas Bolles washing Mrs. Churchill's carriage saw no one suspicious escaping.
The guys at the stables saw nothing suspicious.
Mrs. Kirby on Third St. saw no one.
Louis Hall at 81 Second Street was standing on Second Street in front of his office, and "in view of the Borden house, for some time before eleven o'clock, until Mrs. Churchill ran down"...and noted nothing suspicious.
Frederick Pickering "was on Second Street in view of the Borden house from 10.40 until ...Allen came up the street."
Even Mrs. Dr. Bowen was watching from her window diagonally across the street, intermittedly , and saw no one leaving the Borden house.
Witness Statements pages 19 & 20 are full of people who saw nothing suspicious, and were there hanging around.

(Message last edited Apr-16th-03  1:19 AM.)

They saw no one because he was "invisible" (in the sense of GK Chesterton's story, not HG Wells). He didn't attract any attention, just like some people on the street today. You "see" them, but you don't notice them. Just look at any busy street today.

Before the announcement of the murders, noone was really
paying any attention to the Borden house, just another day.
Someone could have gone out the cellar, over the fence or
hid in the barn or behind the lumber pile..  The incredible
chain of luck and coincidences may have been really a very
well-planned event that we aren't giving credit to the cast
of characters for pulling off so successfully!  When all the
neighbors are asked if they saw anything and answered No, that
is true because they weren't looking at the Borden house
every second for the butcher to escape, they were doing their
chores or whatever...

rays:

it more or less makes sense that someone could be lost in the crowd.  but my problem with this theory is that the killer is also invisible to me in terms of having sufficient evidence for his existence.  and our neverending problem is that lizzie is always and always will be there in the house for each murder.  i guess it's true to say that the only physical evidence we have is the person of lizzie herself inside the house. 

Bridget didn't see anybody either and she was saupposedly all around the house that day.  Factor in the amount of time she was out of view of the street, and there's not much time for anyone to sneak in while she is outside.
If neighbors don't notice, Bridget surely would?

Preliminary
Bridget
18
Q.  When you came in at that time [when finished ouside], did you see Miss Lizzie?
A.  I do not think I did. No Sir, I did not.

Q.  So as I understand you, you had not seen her after she came to the back screen door, as you began your work?
A.  No Sir, not to my memory.

Q.  Where she was, you do not know?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  You did not hear her either?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Did you see Mrs. Borden when you came inside and began to wash the sitting room windows?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Did you see any person around the house when you were washing the windows outside?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  In through the windows, did you see anybody, or did you see anybody in the yard?
A.  No Sir.

Well Bridget is one of the "cast of characters" that pulled this
off, she was told not to say anything.  Looking at her picture
gives me the creeps because she looks just like me!  I am also
Irish and try to picture what her life was like.  My ancestors, huge
large family, were all just hard workers and proud people but
hey, if someone says "we'll reward you with money if you keep your
mouth shut...."   Bridget lived in that house for what, 3 years,
she must have had a lot to say, but she said the minimum to get
through the ordeal and leave..

I have identified plenty of suspects.
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/SuspectsList.htm
There's 3 pages of them.
And if Lizzie & Bridget can't be believed, as was asked before,*who else is there*?  as in, who CAN we believe?

I think Dr. Handy was rather suspicious that day.  What about one of the *Witnesses* being the murderer?
A person known to be around there and accepted that he would be around there.
Can you imagine asking the person who lived a few doors down if he saw anything and he says no, and it was him what done the deed?
I've always wondered about that.

I don't remember mention of anyone seeing a "handyman"
with a wheelbarrow around the house? This might be a type
of invisible person nobody noticed, this is the young man
who had a crush on Lizzie according to the "epilogue" in
the Yankee Magazine story.

OK, this guy would NOT be invisible to Lizzie and Not be invisible to Bridget.
That story needs more support. 
Is there a footnote or *works cited* or a personal interview -  any reference to something that can be proved?

No, it is weak, I'll type it out and post it for feedback.

Someone talking over the back fence, and then washing windows, may not the best witness to any one particular person on the street.

Try this yourself. On a fairly busy street during the day, just stand and watch the people across the street. Does anyone stick out? Why did you notice this? Ordinary looking people shouldn't stand out.

I had a County neighborhood watch sign in my yard for 15 years and I took it seriously.
I have always watched over my neighborhood.
I walk my neighborhood as well.

I have sat out on my porch and looked at everybody.
I'll tell you certain people stick out like a sore thumb.
I watch them particularly.  You live someplace for 20 some odd years and you get to know your surroundings.

Once my neighbor across the street was laying sod.  He left off work about twilight and a car drove up and a man started putting sod in his trunk.  I let him see me watching him and he continued.  I figured either this was a very brazen theif or he knew what he was doing.  I decided he did have permission as I came up to ask.  He was very nonchalant & calm.  It turns out he was a neighbor and had permission and was thankful I would protect his friend's property in this way.  It's not nosey but it LOOKS nosey.

That Borden house had locks on the doors and instructions in safety in making sure the doors were always locked and Andrew even checked the cellar door himself on laundry days, bringing in the clothesline.  He had suffered 3 break-ins, 2 to the barn and one to the house.  Lizzie had apparently seen prowlers on several occasions.  This family was conditioned to be on the lookout, to know if they had locked doors after use, and probably to be aware of strange people hanging around.
If Lizzie was afraid the house would be burned down around them, and wished she could sleep with one eye open, I would say this was a household conscience of the out-of-place, and suspicious of people who hung around.
This wouldn't be a usual household, but an unusual one.

it's a psychologically "peculiar" household.  within the house is segregation.  and an obsession with locks.  and odd practices such as lizzie keeping her clothes closet locked.  and andrew keeping his bedroom key in the sitting room.  i'm pretty convinced that whatever is going on there is connected with the murders.  it appears that whatever it is gets worse in time and culminates in murder.

I was thinking about this *escalation* of events.
The way the Borden's lives are so plodding as most peoples, until a certain point and then events seem to gather importance and gain speed until a train wreck (the Borden's murder).

Then I thought, well, maybe ANY family, who never dreamed they would be in such a spotlight (nor did their friends, neighbors and relatives) so that nearer to the time of the murders people's memories are more finely tuned because it is closer in time to the Event.

So the feeling of a speeding car about to crash, gathering speed, might just be an illusion because more is known, remembered and documented nearer to the disaster.
Just my opinion, and I'm not quite sure it is that.
It might be a combination of peculiar and commonplace with some escalation thrown in?

It's something to think about -- the area where they were living wasn't the best part of town, but an increasingly commercial area with increasing traffic in all ways.  Brothels & bars closing in on them.  It was a time of economic prosperity & a growing desire to achieve the American Dream, & they were 1 street away from where all the action was.

If you think about all the cash Andrew had on him when he was murdered (& this was probably his habit, as he never knew when opportunity would strike, or he'd have to make change, etc.)...that compounded with the break-ins (the barn @ least, might have been outside jobs)... you can understand the need for careful security re the external doors.  However, the internal "over security" does suggest a lack of trust within, as without.

Didn't someone recently suggest the internal locking was an extention of the external (due to the theft in Abby/Andrew's room), i.e. to restrict an intruder's progress thru the house, esp the Master bdrm?

And let's not forget the barbed wire along top & bottom of the back fence.  Why not go all the way & put it all around, why just there? 

It does make you wonder re the dynamics of that household.  Lots of paranoia...

(Message last edited Apr-22nd-03  12:23 AM.)

When I was a child my Dad put barbed wire on the back fence. Not because we were rich like Andrew, just to keep it from being used as a short cut by other children (or a civil suit if one fell off the fence). "Let them walk around the block instead of a short cut through the back yard." No pear trees, either!

I thought of this example. Suppose there is a local butcher shop. People may be used to seeing the butcher outside, straw hat on head, bloody apron in front. He could walk down the street w/ little notice?
Did they sell meat from wagons in those days? Andy's Dad sold fish from a pushcart?

Sometimes I am just as suspicious of some of the *witnesses* as I am of the family.
When I made out that suspect list (41 or 42---3 pages on the Museum/Library) I was wary of those who DID hang around and DID give statements.
I also have reservations about :
Dr. Bowen
Dr. Handy
&
Andrew's nephew.

Wade's store was just two doors down.  I'm not sure what they sold, but I think proprieters on that street did hang out outside, when business was slow.
That CAN work both ways, I agree.  Standing outside for a breeze or strolling back to the shop a few doors away after murdering a couple of Bordens....it's somewhat possible.

(Message last edited Apr-25th-03  1:16 AM.)

"Standing outside for the breeze" reaffirms the claim (by the prosecution etc.) that it WAS a very hot day: 80F in the shade, over-dressed clothes for adults.

Note that the story of a "very hot day" was used by the prosecution to cast doubt on Lizzie's trip to the upper story of the barn.

As a young child, when visiting cousins, we often went up in the barn. I don't remember it as very hot (memory?), but this hay barn had ventilation.

Well I meant more like maybe the shop was close inside, and no open windows.  Or shoot the breeze with passers-by or even outside for a smoke.  Many definitions in my mind about a *breeze*.

Or, as it still is today, maybe a breeze just felt refreshing on a humid 82 degree day, when any non-air-conditioned shop might seem stuffy and oven-like.

I think the prosecution played up how hot it was to make it seem more unlikely that Lizzie had spent twenty minutes in a dusty hayloft, searching through odds and ends and eating pears.  Whatever the temperature, I think her clean dress and hands, if the witnesses were correct, help remove her from up there for such a length of time quite nicely - though, let's be real here, and play the devil's advocate for a moment.  If Lizzie really had been doing what she said she was, she very well might've run some water over her dirty, sticky hands in the sink room as she waited in the little side hallway near the screen door for Maggie to bring someone, and never thought to mention it.  Guilty or innocent, people omit things when questioned, or assume we'll fill in the blanks ("my hands were dirty, of course I washed them; who wouldn't?").

I like the way you think.

Also, in that line, we can add, the dress Lizzie turned over to the court as having been worn that day, had a smooch about the pocket.  Just  the right place to carry pear carcasses until she descended?

These facts pretty much says Lizzie told the truth when first asked: out in the back yard by the pear tree.
As for the clean hands etc. surely LAB wasn't a messy eater?
Try some 'common sense' on this: just watch some young men and women eat watermelon and note their techniques.

What "facts?"  Spell it out, rays, 'cause I'm not getting you, and this "common sense" thing is no help, since every time you say it you mean it in support of your Arnold Brown-friendly theory.  

Lizzie put herself in a dirty barn loft eating pears, at 11 in the morning in August..
THEN she supposedly moved some lumber away from a bench up there within proximity of a quarter ton of hay.  (maybe more or less).
Then she is clean and neat, hair not dissarranged, hands not dirty, and no one notices straw or dust on Lizzie's skirts or in her hair when witnesses come.  No one mentions a snag in a stocking or dirty shoes or a dusty hemline or edge of a petticoat.
This is inexplicable, and was the very subject of my first post ever on the old dark-rose, interjected into an aurgument between Ter and another.  I will never forget that.
It is still inexplicable, unless Lizzie cleaned up a bit...or else she never was in that barn.
It's being rather generous to Lizzie and to you, to allow for her innocent washing up but not mentioning it, before she *stumbles* upon the body of her father  (still clean, mind you...no theatrics like throwing herself upon his dying form etc...)

Thanks for the response, rays. Well, if you read my post again, you'll note that I had Lizzie possibly washing her hands AFTER she said she'd found Andrew and sent Maggie out, so that would've been AFTER any non-existent "throwing herself," as you say.

You know though, that your last post, which posits (tell me if I misunderstood) that the witnesses were right, and that Lizzie showed no sign of having been lurking about in a hot and dusty hayloft, does work to place her away from the murder your Nemesis committed.  It also works for those of us who think she did it herself and needed to get out behind the house to get rid of a weapon, or to throw up herself (who knows?), and then spotted that helpful ice-cream man peering at her.   

I define "common sense" as the simplest explanation based on what we know. Did LAB have clean hands? Either she washed, or never got them dirty; or people didn't notice! It is also considering the events using current examples. Do any of you know of a person who keeps a weapon by his bed? The police interviewed about "50 to 60" suspects. That's quite a lot.

I think "common sense" says LAB's first alibi (in back yard) corresponds to her condition when found. Ergo, no trip up to the barn and rooting around in dusty piles. So her story is a way to say"I didin't see anything".

Bob, that was me Kat in post #60, replying to Ray, post #58.

It did seem a partial re-iteration of what you wrote to Ray as well.

The washing of Lizzie's hands, you're correct, you did say after finding Andrew's body.

i pictured her washing as soon as she came in, IF she had been out to the barn.

I don't think I have ever been mistaken for Ray, before, tho...

It's interesting what people remember about things during an event of such magnitude (the discovery of the bodies). It seems as if the frenzy of excitement and the oddity of the event pushes simple observation out the window. Thus Alice Russell can't remember what Lizzie was wearing the morning of Aug. 4th, yet she can remember in detail and for sure that it was not the Bedford Cord, which dress she remembered in detail from Sunday morning.

Knowlton thinks it is a big strike against Lizzie that she said she was up in the barn loft and didn't have dirty hands or clothing, yet he doesn't make a similar statement when he explains that she hatcheted her father and no one saw blood on her, no hair in disarray or wet from cleaning blood off, etc. It seems to me it would be far easier for her to be clean from the barn episode (even without washing her hands) than to have murdered someone with blood splattering around.

Yes, "dust" can be wiped off with a (damp) rag. Unlike oily dirt.
Some women can't understand why you have to wipe the oily stains on a towel. Even after washing with a gritty soap, then ordinary soap. (Yes, there are some soaps that will do this job, but I didn't have them at the time.)

Searching for "hands" in Witness Statements, Inquest, Prelim. & Trial.

Mrs. Chuchill mentioned no "hands" at Inquest.  Alice Russell mentioned no *hands* at Inquest.  Oddly, Mrs. Dr. Bowen was not a witness at the Inquest.

Also, there were no Lizzie *hands* mentioned in the Witness Statements, after Search.

Here are Mrs. Churchill (* Lizzie-Hands*)...Prelim. & Trial

Alice Russell (*Lizzie-Hands*)...Prelim. & Trial

Mrs. Dr. Bowen (*Lizzie-Hands*)...Prelim. & Trial:

[Adding Sawyer, Prelim., 473]*

Prelim
Churchill
287
Q.  Now Mrs. Churchill, was there any sign of any blood upon Miss Lizzie that you observed at that time?
A.  Not that I saw.

Q.  On her face or hands?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Or her dress?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Or her hair?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Do you recollect how her hair was done up?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Was it done up in the usual way?
A.  Yes, the way she generally wore it.
.....................

Trial
Churchill
365+
Page 365 / i387

Q.  Was either of you fanning her?
A.  Not then.

Q.  At any time?
A.  I fanned her with a newspaper in the kitchen after Miss Russell came.

Q.  Did Miss Russell also attend to her in any way, fan her?
A.  Yes, Miss Russell sat down side of her, at her right side.

Q.  Was there anything else done to quiet her excitement?
A.  I don't remember; seems to me they gave her something to drink, I think so, and Miss Russell bathed her head.

Q.  And rubbed her hands?
A.  Yes, with water.

Q.  Did you participate in that at all?
A.  No, I don't remember.  I think I might have put some water there for her to wet the rag once, or went near the sink, I think.

....... Q.  You afterwards saw her with Miss Russell, and she was lying on the lounge?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  At that time did you see a particle of blood on her dress?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  On her hands?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  On her face?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Or any disarrangement of her hair?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Or anything about her shoes?
A.  I didn't notice her shoes at all.
......

.......Q.  Reclining and resting herself?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And her feet and shoes right up on the lounge just the same as a person does?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  In all that time you were round there you saw nothing whatever of that kind?
A.  No, sir.
__________________

Prelim.
Alice
293
Q.  How long did she stay there, do you think, after you came in?
A.  I think I asked her to sit right down.

Q.  Where did she sit down?
A.  In the rocking chair about the middle of the kitchen I think.

Q.  Was it while she was there that Mrs. Churchill was there fanning her, do you recollect about that?
A.  I remember that we fanned her with a paper, I do not remember who fanned her; I remember we were both there fanning her, or doing something.

Q.  Where were you standing?
A.  I think I was sitting.

Q.  Where were you sitting?
A.  Right beside her.

Q.  Did you notice whether there was any blood on her or not?
A.  I did not see anything.

Q.  On her hands?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Did you see her hands?
A.  Yes Sir, I rubbed them.

Q.  Were there any signs of any blood on them?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Did you observe her face?

Page 294

A.  I bathed her face.

Q.  Were there any signs of blood on it?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Or on her hair?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Was her hair done up, as usual?
A.  I think it must have been, or I would have noticed it.

Q.  Did you notice any signs of blood on that?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Did you notice any signs of blood on her clothing, or her dress?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Do you know who got her to go into the dining room, or how she came to go into the dining room?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  How was that?
A.  It was I.

Q.  What did she do?
A.  She lay on the lounge.

Q.  Did she lie at full length on the lounge?
A.  I think so.

Q.  Did you notice whether her shoes showed or not as she lay down there?
A.  I do not remember about her shoes.

Q.  Do you remember what kind of shoes she had on?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Do you remember what kind of shoes she usually wore in the morning?
A.  No Sir. I noticed nothing unusual that would attract my attention.

Q.  You noticed nothing at all about her dress or appearance unusual?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Did you notice whether she seemed to be panting from exertion, or anything of the kind?
A.  She was not panting.

Q.  After she lay down on the lounge, did you do anything for her then?
A.  I think perhaps I fanned her; I think so.

..................

Trial
Alice
398
Q.  So that you were in the dining room where it was a good deal cooler?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q. What was done with reference to Miss Lizzie?
A. I think I fanned her.  Is that what you mean?

Q.  I mean tell about that, if it was so.  What else did you see? I mean to have you tell me about that occurrence, whatever the fact is.
A.  That is all I remember.

Q.  Was she bathed, her hands and face?
A.  I don't remember whether I bathed her face. I don't think I bathed her face in there. It was in the kitchen I bathed her forehead.

Q.  Was she complaining and feeling badly?
A.  No.

Q.  Was she pale?
A.  I don't know.

Q.  I thought you said, you spoke of her sitting down as if she was going to faint
A.  I did not say that she fainted, but she sat down as though she was going to be faint, and I asked for a towel.

Q.  Was that furnished?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  She did not faint?
A.  No, sir, she did not faint.
______________________

Prelim.
Mrs. Dr. Bowen
479+
A.  I stood directly in front of her. Miss Russell was fanning her with a newspaper.
Q.  Did she appear agitated?
A.  She had her eyes closed, and her head on Miss Russell's shoulder I thought perhaps she was faint. She did not speak at first.  Miss Russell asked me to wet the end of the towel, as she was bathing Miss Lizzie's face.
Q.  Did you see any signs of blood on the towel after Miss Russell had bathed her face?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Did you see any blood on her hands?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Did Miss Russell bathe her hands?
A.  No Sir. Miss Russell said "rub her hands". Lizzie made the motion, no.
Q.  Shook her head?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  You saw her hair; was that disarranged, or not?
A.  Not at all.
Q.  It seemed as it usually did?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  How about her clothing, any spots of blood on it?
A.  I saw none.
Q.  What dress did she have on?
A.  A blouse waist of blue material, with a white spray, I should say, running through it.
Q.  A white spray?
A.  I thought it was.
Q.  What was the body of the dress?
A.  I did not notice particularly.
Q.  The ground of the blouse, you say it had a white spray?
A.  O, it was blue.
Q.  Light or dark blue?
A.  I should say quite a dark shade; I cannot tell; I was not looking for fashions then.
Q.  Do you know what skirt she had on?
A.  I do not. It was nothing more than an ordinary morning dress; I think I had seen her wear it before. I only noticed the dress skirt.
................

Trial
Mrs. Dr. Bowen
1584+
Q.  How near did you go to her?
A.  Stood directly in front of her.

Q.  Did you see anybody bathe her face or hands?
A.  I did not. Miss Russell asked me to wet a towel to bathe her face and hands, and Lizzie shook her head No.

Q.  Did you see anybody rub her hands?
A.  I did not.

Q.  Did you notice anything unusual about the appearance of her hands and face in respect to anything upon them?
A.  Nothing upon them, but I noticed how very white they were, her hands especially, as they laid against her dark dress, in her lap.

Q.  What kind of a dress?
A. A dark dress.

Q.  Can you describe the dress any more fully than that---a dark dress?
A.  It had a blouse waist, with a white design on it.

Q.  Had you ever seen the dress before?
A.  I noticed nothing unusual about her dress.

Q.  Whether or not that looks anything the waist she had on that morning? (Showing waist) 
A.  I should say it was.

Q.  Say it was what?
A.  The waist she had on.

Q.  What should you say as to the skirt?
A.  I did not notice the figure on the skirt,---that is what she usually wore in the morning?

Q.  Did you notice whether it was light or dark?
A.  It was dark.

Q.  Did you notice anything unusual about the appearance of her hair?
A.  No, sir, it was arranged as it usually was.

Q.  Did you see any blood on her hands, or face or any part of her?
A.  Not any.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

Q.  (By Mr. Knowlton.)  When you got there, Mrs. Bowen,  who was there?
A.  Mrs. Churchill, Miss Alice Russell, Miss Borden, Miss Lizzie Borden.

Q.  Who was at the door?
A.  Mr. Sawyer.

Q.  You noticed her hands, you say?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  They looked white?
A.  They did.

Q.  Did you notice that they were clean?
A.  Yes.

Q.  Clean and white?
A.  Clean and white.

Q.  The whole of the hands?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Nothing on them at all?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Did they present to you the appearance of having been out in a dusty barn?
A.  I did not notice anything upon them.

Q.  Noticed nothing of that kind whatever?
A.  No, sir, I was not thinking of it.

Q.  Clean and white, were they?
A.  I think they were.

Q.  Have you seen that box that has been referred to in the case that came from the barn?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  You have not looked at that?
A.  No, sir.
________________________
*Prelim.
Sawyer
473+
Q.  Where was Miss Lizzie when you first saw her?
A.  Sitting in a chair, not in the center of the kitchen, but very near the entry door.
Q.  How near did you go to her?
A.  I went within probably the nearest about three feet from her.
Q.  Did you look at her?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did you see any signs of blood on her?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Was her hair disarranged at all?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Were there any signs of blood on her hands?
A.  No Sir, not that I saw.
Q.  Did you see Miss Russell bathing her face or hands?
A.  I saw them ministering to her in different ways.
Q.  Did you see any blood on her dress, or any signs of anything of that kind?
A.  No Sir, nothing.




(Message last edited May-3rd-03  12:35 AM.)

Notice?

Churchill in Trial, says that Alice rubbed Lizzie's hands with Water.

Alice in Prelim., says she rubbed Lizzie's hands.

Alice in Trial, says she bathed Lizzie's "face" in the kitchen, but doesn't mention hands in that answer.

Mrs. Dr. Bowen in Prelim., says Lizzie made a head motion for *no* to her rubbing her hands, suggested by Alice.
[However, Mrs. Dr. Bowen was the last woman to come over just before they all moved to the dining room]

Hmm!

So, perhaps these good and loyal women, stressing Lizzie's clean, white, unbloodied hands, didn't realize that they were also playing against Lizzie's alibi (dusty old barn) - not that it eventually mattered, as we know.

As I've theorized above, guilty or innocent, Lizzie certainly may have rinsed her hands upon returning to the house, without ever having mentioned it - and she was never directly questioned about it at the inquest, was she? ;}

(Message last edited May-9th-03  4:32 PM.)