1. "The Note"
Posted by Kat on Mar-10th-04 at 2:34 AM

I'm re-reading Lundy, The Mystery Unveiled. and there is something he depends upon which is not so.  He says the doors were locked while Andrew was gone.
We know Bridget is outside vomitting when Andrew leaves, so at that time the side door screen is unhooked.  We know that when Bridget was finished washing windows, the screen was unlocked.  In fact it was unlocked earlier when she came inside to get the dipper.  So at any of these times, if Bridget was out of sight of the screen door, an "intruder" could enter.
However, Lundy makes a good case as to this intruder having to have watched the house to ascertain the movements of the family before he can strike.  So why enter after Andrew leaves if Andrew is the target?

Now , I'm thinking about Lizzie and "the Note".  Why didn't Lizzie imply that the person who brought this note might be the murderer?
If she invents a note, she must invent a note-bringer.  Why let the note-bringer leave (in her explanation to authorities)- why not have Abby, in Lizze's narrative, disappear after receiving a note?
Did Lizzie just not think of that, or is Bridget's presence a negative factor in Lizzie telling this story?
They both say they didn't see Abby after the dining room around 9 a.m. and Bridget knew nothing about a note.  So did Lizzie blow a chance to have the implication put foreward that the person who brought this note did the deed and hid in the house and also then killed Andrew?

It seems if we entertain the idea of an accomplice, we must include the ideas:
That Abby let the killer in
That Bridget knew everything which went on
That Lizzie brought the killer in Wednesday night when she came home (late).

If Lizzie was a "lookout" for this supposed killer, Lizzie can do the killing herself- she would be everywhere (s)he would be...why add a character just because we think she cannot kill?

If Lizzie invented the note-- why?

Why not just say "Mrs Borden told me she was going out"  without the need to be so specific?

Lincoln implies that Abby seldom left the home-- But this conflicts with witness statements.

Charles Cook (page 30, witness statements) says Abby occasionally accompanied Andrew to the "Borden Block"

Clearly she went out and about in town.  Lizzie stated herself that Abby did the food shopping.

Lincoln also states Abby was depressed and unhappy.  She paints a picture of Abby as being almost lethargic and useless, yet she kept an immaculate home.  A home she obviously took some pride in.  These are not signs of a woman eating her way into oblivion brought on by depression.

Mr and Mrs Bestcome Chace (witness statements, page 18) state Abby used her meager allowance of $200 a year to buy things for the home.  Specifically lace curtains for the parlor.  This shows some pride of ownership in her environment.

I think Abby was "shrewdly silent".  She was a woman who kept her eyes open and her mouth shut.

It is well documented that "the girls" and Abby did not get along very well, therefore it could have no surprise to anyone that she would tell Lizzie she was simply "going out" without providing detail.

(as an aside, the daylight robbery must have been an agony to Abby!  Her "meager" belongings and "petty cash", which I think was $50 was 25% of her yearly allowance!  A veritable fortune!  Also- she didn't have a embarrassingly low bank account either.)



(Message last edited Mar-10th-04  3:25 AM.)

Wouldn't they have noticed the sound of additional foot steps on the stairs?  How thick were they carpeted?  If they were carpeted at all I wonder if it was a runner with runner rods on each step?

Just a "by the way," here. Abby's allowance was equal to more than $3,800 today.

For an inflation calculator, try this for any dates between 1800 and 2002. (Maybe they'll update it to 2004 someday)

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

That makes me wonder -- Abby is usually thought to be
the victim of Emma & Lizzie being bitchy. I've always
thought she was probably the picked on stepmother but
where did that come from? The only time I can ever
remember seeing her as being anything but a mouse was
in The Legend movie. Where did Abby get the personality
we think she had? Lizzie called her mean -- maybe she
could have been a bit of a hateful cuss. Would The Girls
really have refused to eat at the same table with her if
she was such a sweetheart all the time?

THAT is a good point. Heavy rugs do muffle footsteps, unlike bare wood. (But I remember those stairs as bare wood; Kat, am I wrong?)

I think Abby would prefer to dine w/ Andy, her lord and master, rather than those spoiled bratty girls. (If they were such.)

SURELY you have heard of how a second wife will treat her husband's daughters? It wasn't just Cinderella.

I think Lizzie used the story of the note as a device to temporarily deflect any question Andrew, and even Bridget, might have had about "where is Abby?" When Lizzie told Andrew that Abby had gone out in response to a note there was perhaps an hour before Abby might be expected back in time for the meal at noon. I think Lizzie had plans for Andrew's immediate future but for at least a few minutes, until Bridget left the first floor, was not sure if those plans could be carried out. It must have been a tense and uncertain time for Lizzie.

When Abby was killed we know of only two survivors on the premises. These two survivors were Lizzie and Bridget. When Andrew was killed we know of only two survivors on the premises, again Lizzie and Bridget. Adding even one more person to this scene immeasurably complicates an already complicated situation, even if that additional person is only around for a few minutes. For such an individual to have already spent an hour or two in the house, or even to have been there since the previous night, seems to me almost beyond belief.

What actually happened inside the Borden house between 9:00 and 11:15 that morning will probably never be fully explained. And the period from 10:30 to 11:15 is the true "black hole" of activity during the whole morning. I agree with Knowlton that if we understood the reason(s) Abby was killed we would understand the Borden mystery; I also think that if we had a true accounting of those 45 minutes bracketing Andrew's demise we would understand the mystery, too.

the thing about her note story that is most striking is how she tries so hard to avoid mentioning it in the inquest.  the way knowlton approaches it, it sounds like bridget had told him that lizzie had talked about the note.  finally, lizzie states clearly that because of abby's mention of her note -- this is why she did not question not seeing her in the house -- she assumed she had gone out because of it.  this would have been a better story to start with, but she did not want to say it.  nor did she want to say several other things she reportedly said right after the murder.  i wonder now if there was in fact a note of some sort for someone.  then i wonder if it ties in with something else lizzie does when she contradicts herself or has to "invent" something.  when she retracts her story that she was upstairs when andrew came home, she explains she was remembering a former incident when bridget opened the door.  i've wondered if this is a large part of her method.  like going out to the barn -- she would be consistent with this "method" if she was actually recalling some time when she had in fact gone out there for lead for fixing a screen.  then the screen becomes a sinker when she has time to think that she can't identify this screen that needs fixing. 

as far as an intruder entering that morning -- if someone else is in there, isn't it far more likely they got in that night?  and the fact that emma is gone would give her opportunity for secreting someone in her room?  and consider the angle that morse's visit is truly an unfortunate occurrence -- the thing that puts abby up in the guest room in the first place - something lizzie would not have counted on.  and abby is therefore killed because she hears/sees something and is waiting to tell this to andrew? 

Audrey--  The specificity of the note details strikes a chord from several threads back on how Lizzie would compulsively give unrelated and unnecessary details in her account of the day.  It seems to have been a pattern with her under questioning--on points that matter most (reality) she answers in monosyllables, but when on safer ground (invention) she may supply elaborate detail to give authenticity to the story.  I've always thought the note would have to have been real or a foolish invention.  But who knows what a person might say, innocent or guilty, just after a double homicide?  You and Kat both raise some interesting questions. . . .

--Lyddie

I wonder if Gramma has an explanation about the note?

Gramma has no hidden insight here! But I do have my own opinion. I think the story of the note was a ruse to cover something else, like someone coming to the door, in case it had been noticed. Or maybe, as it has been mentioned, a way of covering not "noticing" Abby was dead when it should have been the wife that was notified first of Andrew's demise.
In my humble opinion there was no note. If someone was expecting Abby to show up don't you think they would have come forward and said she never appeared?

Gramma

Haulover, your points are confirmed in my opinion, by the first pages of Lizzie's inquest testimony. In fact, she is very frugal in her words about how she interacted with Abby in her first account.  As the questioning goes on, she (Lizzie) gets more elaborate.  At the first recounting, it seems like Lizzie came downstairs and really didn't say much to anybody, and only saw them in passing (if at all).  Only when pressed does she mention the note and also gives a report about Abby talking about the weather, going out to get the meat for dinner, etc.  In fact, when she first reports this conversation she does not mention the note at all, just that Abby was going out the get the dinner. Only when she is question again about what Abby spoke about does she add something about the note. Your idea that Lizzie conflated events from past occurrences makes sense. I am of the strong opinion that there was no note. As Gramma says, the people who called for her would certainly have wondered why she didn't come, and Abby certainly was not dressed for an outing.  I also think (upon rereading the inquest) that it is very unclear when and why Abby would have gone up to the guest room several times that morning.

Also, re Lizzie's inquest testimony: I realize that the administration of morphine may mess up someone's head to some degree, and I recognize that people's memories about exact items of clothing, patterns on dresses, etc. can be sketchy after the fact...BUT when something earth-shatteringly traumatic happens, people seem to remember EVERY EXACT DETAIL about what they (themselves) were doing at the time.  I can still tell you exactly where I was standing, who I was playing with, the weather we were having and the fact that my sister called out to us with rollers in her hair when Kennedy was shot.  I can still tell you in painful detail every single action I performed immediately before and after my mother had a devastaing stroke at home.  I can tell you who was there, what I said and did, the feelings I felt. Now I don't remember what I was wearing, but I do remember crucial, signficant details and what is more, every time I remember or repeat the story IT IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME.  I simply cannot accept the fact that Lizzie's recounting of the events of that fateful day (especially her own activity) is an authentic recounting.

Lizzie was the only one who had knowledge of the "note."

After more than one hundred years, the note has never been found.

No one saw, or knew the name of the "boy" who made the delivery.

No one knew he name of the "sick" note writer.

Neither the writer nor the deliverer of the note, ever came forth to be identified.

Hey! Is it just possible the note never existed? Why would Lizzie lie about a note? The possibilities that can be drawn are illuminating.

(Message last edited Mar-11th-04  1:04 PM.)

We do know that Abby was in the habit of shopping for dinner. Her absence could have been easily explained by her habits. Note that Andy never questioned this, as far as we know.

AR Brown's solution ties the note to the waiting buggy outside, and why the sender never showed up. It seems logical and rational to me.

Can anyone then explain why Lizzie made up this story, and why Bridget went along with it (if she did)?
...
Didn't Knowlton say he could solve the case IF he knew what was discussed the night before?

(Message last edited Mar-11th-04  1:15 PM.)

Ray is right about one thing..... According to testimony Andrew never asked for more details about the note.  Obviously this testimony may be false and he may have... But whatever the case he was not disturbed enough about her absence to go looking for her.  If he had been very upset and suspicious I doubt he would lay down for a nap.


(Message last edited Mar-11th-04  2:25 PM.)

Hey! Is it just possible the note never existed? Why would Lizzie lie about a note? The possibilities that can be drawn are illuminating.

They are indeed. The first question raised in my mind regarding the “note” relates to the general character of Abby Borden. Given what we know of it, if there was a note sent at all indicating distress or sickness (limiting this to a neighbor or someone within Abby’s “circle”) would it have been her normal habit to respond to it? Porter, at page 54, gives us the following:

“Talking about the family relations, she remarked that things didn't go in the house as they should, and that she wanted to leave and had threatened to do so, several times in the past two years. “But Mrs. Borden,” she declared, “was a lovely woman, and I remained there because she wanted me to.” This statement may have been made within the “servant/mistress” context, but it does at least suggest that Abby Borden was more than the “horrid old thing” Lizzie described to Mrs. Gifford. (Doherty & Harrington, Witness Statements p. 10.)

“Where is your mother? She had a note to go and see someone who is sick. I dont know but they killed her too.” Mrs. Churchill, second interview, 8th August. (Doherty & Harrington, Witness Statements p. 11.)

Bridget said on October 1: “When I returned from Miss Russell’s, I asked Lizzie if I would go to Mrs. Whitehead’s to see if Mrs. Borden was there. It was then Lizzie said, no, I think I heard her come in.” (Doherty & Harrington, Witness Statements p. 22.)



Why would Lizzie lie about a note? The only conclusion I can draw logically says:

1. The lie was “necessary” in her mind; she knew the second body was in the upstairs guestroom, but was not prepared yet psychologically for its discovery. 'She's had a note and has gone out' or some such comment would pacify Andrew well enough that he would lie down rather than question the oddity and perhaps seek her out.

Or …

2. The lie was part of a larger ruse, designed to give someone else sufficient opportunity to get out of the area.





Doug

You know, Lizzie could have skipped the note story, later telling Andrew that Abby was waiting upstairs in the guestroom for him- and an unknown attacker could then fell Andrew too in the same place.  If Bridget was as unaware of that murder as she seems to be about the first- heck those 2 might still be up there now!

The fascinating thing is that we have half a dozen possibilities laid out here, all pointing  in at least slightly different directions, yet they all have some validity.  I think the note was false; it seems to have been a bad idea; and yet it sends the heads of sleuths spinning to this day.  Maybe the note idea was crazy like a fox!

--Lyddie

you're right.  she never sounds like someone dazed or doped.  and she gets better at fighting him as it goes on.  prime example toward the end -- i almost want to applaud her the way she turns it on knowlton -- when she is up in the barn, knowlton is sure she is going to say she is at the back of the barn where she can't see the front yard (understandably, i mean, what else?)  but lizzie defies his logic -- says, no she was at the front where she could see the yard.  she won't budge, but then of course she gradually makes her way to the back where the sinkers were.  she decreases the amount of time that someone could have left or entered the back of the house without her seeing -- yet she steadfastly holds onto it.  she stands up to him best during her most unbelievable testimony.  she even corrects him about the pears -- i beg your pardon, i did not take them from the tree.  from the ground then, wherever, thank you for correcting me.

She was a pistol....

It was almost as if she had the mindset "I am Lizzie Borden!  How DARE they quesiton my word".

I used to wonder at how explicitly Lizzie remembered moving that loft curtain which faced WEST- which window faced the road- which might have been a signal to someone saying "I am out in the barn now and the coast is clear!"

Footnote to Message #16:
" 'Once A Week,' the New York Journal, offered a reward of $500 for the writer of the note and the Fall River News implored its readers to unite in one effort in the cause of justice, and if possible, find the note and deliver it into the editor's hands. The missive, however, was not found. Miss Lizzie A. Borden seemingly put an end to that theory when she told Dr. Dolan that she had attempted to find the note and being unsucessful, she feared it had been been burned in the kitchen stove.  Not one of the household seemed to be able to give more than a general idea of the contents of the note. It was from a friend who was ill, but as neither the friend or the note could be found by the united efforts of the police and members of the family, the matter was dropped early in the investigation."
(The Fall River Tragedy, E.H. Porter pp.39-40)

Harrington I believe it is, recorded the following:

"After leaving her, I went down in the kitchen where was Dr. Bowen, Asst. Fleet, Dr. Dolan, Bridget and several others. Dr. Bowen had scraps of paper in his hand, on which there was some writing. He and I spoke about them, and he tried to put some of them together. He said “it is nothing, it is something about, I think, my daughter going through somewhere.” If I recollect correctly, it was
addressed to Emma; but about that I am not sure. The Doctor then said “it does not amount to anything, and taking the lid off the kitchen stove, he dropped the pieces in. There was very little fire in the stove, and the ashes which were on top looked as though paper had been burned there." (Witness Statements at page 6.)

It's hard not to wonder about Bowen sometimes. What business is it of his to be burning anything in the house - much less a letter, note or paper addressed to a member of the household who was at that point still pink with life and in Fairhaven some 15 miles away?

'Seabury, ya bother me, son' as Foghorn Leghorn might have put it.

Doug

I agree Doug, always wondered what Bowen was burning and why he
wasn't scrutinized more thoroughly. 
Also have wondered if maybe the word "note" was taken differently
back then regarding a sick call. Rather than as we know a note to be
written words on a piece of paper, could "she got a note" have maybe
just meant "she got word somehow..."  ?
Lizzie crazy as a fox, that is a good one!

I agree with you guys about the note. Really, that burning is more incriminating than the burning of the dress, because it is done before the crime scene has been investigated.  At least, Lizzie gave the police a chance at the dress before she burned it!

--Lyddie

The thing which Bowen burned may have had nothing to do with the case.
If we believe him, he says it's about his daughter going thru somewhere.
His daughter was out of town and due in that forenoon.  Mrs. Dr. Bowen tells of checking out the window for her arrival.  It's just as possible that it was instructions as to her itinerary, and that if he found himself with the time and near the station, he might pick her up.  He had his own life.  Plus, as a doctor, I'd think his notes would be privledged.
Just another way to look at Bowen burning something...

"If we believe him, he says it's about his daughter going thru somewhere."

Kat,
Your key word was "IF we believe...", but if he was deliberately burning evidence the question is SHOULD we believe him?
An awful lot of research now is being done under the assumption that people did not lie under oath. Well, I have a totally different belief about that. In those days, without the forensics we have today, it was possible to lie well and get away with it, especially if it came down to  "he said....she said".

As Doug so aptly put it.....
"'Seabury, ya bother me, son' as Foghorn Leghorn might have put it. "

Gramma

It appears that Dr. Bowen held this note in his hands, read it, tore it up, and dropped it in the stove in sight of at least four other people including the Medical Examiner, the Assistant Marshal, and Officer Harrington. If this note somehow incriminated Lizzie and Bowen destroyed it to protect her we should accept that he did this knowing that Abby and possibly Andrew were among his patients (and just prior Bowen had examined the bloody bodies of both victims); that Mrs. Bowen was fond of Abby; that Bowen's father-in-law, Southard Miller, was a long-time friend of Andrew who had once been Andrew's employer; that the Bowens and Millers were twenty year neighbors of the Borden family; and that Seabury Bowen himself was a well-educated, active, and apparently well-regarded physician and professional man in Fall River with his reputation to protect. Would he spontaneously, or even intentionally, destroy evidence under and given all these circumstances? Yes, it is possible, but how probable is it?

(Message last edited Mar-13th-04  11:41 AM.)

  Plus, as a doctor, I'd think his notes would be
>privledged.

Good point about the doctor’s privilege, Kat. But…apparently, Seabury would not have that umbrella protection if the case were happening today. General Laws of Massachusetts Chapter 233, §20B specifically limits application of the doctor/patient privilege to psychotherapists and their patients. Trying to get a handle on what (if any) similar protections Bowen might have had under 1893 laws.

WHY should anyone suspect the good family doctor? Disposing of paper in the stove was common practice, according to Masterton.
WHY would the family doctor try to hide anyone's guilt? Let us just assume the truth was told, and not imagine things to an unlikely action.

Doctor Bowen sure chose an odd time to clean out his pocket of a note about his daughter "going through somewhere".

Maybe he was fastidious to a fault?

In the Witness Statements, page 8, we have Mrs Bowen sitting at the window waiting for her daughter to arrive HOME.  When she did not arrive by 10.55am Mrs Bowen assumed she was not coming HOME that day and left the window.

Unless DR Bowen had come into possession of a note while away from home and had not informed his wife as such upon returning home (entirely likely considering the brouhaha unfolding across the street) wouldn't he have been expecting her that day on the forenoon train? 

It was stated (or assumed) he had been on calls that morning while his wife was watching for the daughter's arrival.  Has any consideration been given to the possibility that she was waiting for her husband to arrive home with the daughter as he had gone to the station to meet her train?  If this is the case-- he very well may have had a note in his possession she had sent to him via another passenger on the train alerting him of her new arrival time?


(Message last edited Mar-13th-04  4:20 PM.)

Isn't the doctor/patient confidentiality concept a mid- to late 20th century one?

If Bowen was in fact burning a note from his DAUGHTER, then his timing was just as lousy as Lizzie's was when she set that imfamous blue dress to light. Both incidents may have been totally innocent but because they happened when they did, they are both heavily shrouded in a cloud of suspicion.

Didn't Dr. Bowen go home before running out to send a telegram to Emma?
Wasn't he checking train times?
By then his daughter might not be coming, but he may have had a notation of train times in his pocket when he left his house.  He may have had a list of patients or a schedule of his errands and meetings that day.
A piece of note which may have said "Emma" (of which the witness is not sure) could be written directions as to where Emma was staying.  Someone would have had to fill him in on this for a telegram to be delivered to her in Fairhaven.

If his notes were not priviledged, at least his honor and reputation in his profession as a Doctor would be treated with upmost respect by the authorities, I would think

You can read the Hippocratic Oath to see about "confidentiality". As true then as today. Note about not repeating words heard when tending a patient. IF the Royal Highness let something slip, there would be only one way to keep the physician silent.
...
WHO then had any suspicion about the Doctor? He also had an alibi.

(Message last edited Mar-15th-04  7:15 PM.)

I agree that doctors WOULD be treated with utmost respect, but I'm not at all sure they SHOULD be.  Seabury had an obligation not to dispose of ANY paper in the Borden stove.  It further contaminated the crime scene at the very least. As for his position, it should be disregarded.  Many doctors have killed.  I don't think this one did, but I think his actions were consistent throughout that morning--inept.

--Lyddie

I look at him as being part of the "old boy network".
Obviously those guys ran everything and they are going to respect Bowen, at least in front of others.
Ineptness would cover just about everyone investigating the case.  Bowen wasn't any worse or any better.  And they are not going to tell Bowen you can't burn that here.
It took an underling to make a note of it.
He died young, too.

I think you are projecting current practices to 112 years ago.
But you are right since it allows people to speculate on something that seemed innocent enough (until the prosecution was grasping at straws).

I think there is a sentence in Macchiavelli's "Letter to the Prince" about not mistaking incompetence for treachery. Surely we've all experienced foul-ups in the real world?

Two things here makes me wonder.

1. Bowen burning something.

2. Lincons witness who saw someone knock on the front dorr, saw the front door open and saw the door be slamed in the face of the person who knocked on it.

If Lincon is rigth here I find the note story very beliveble (but of chorse, it HAD to be a note to Lincone to be rigth...).

Is there possible to get in touch with Victoria Lincon to day??

Jimmy, she died in 1981.

What a shame. And no one seams to know a this mysterus person she points to is.

If whats Licons wrote on page 79 i her book is rigth, this would explane a lot. But why is she not giving us any namnes??? Two witnesses an not a single namne...I dont like it a bit!

(Message last edited Mar-24th-04  10:34 AM.)

Lizzie says herself that a man came to the door at 9.
Masterton thinks it was Jonathan Clegg because he had an English accent.
Dr. Bowen came to the door Wednesday morning and some think Lizzie, and authors are confusing the days.

According to Bridget's trial testimony, Lizzie first announces the note when she asks her father about the mail, within Bridget's earshot.

Shortly thereafter, Andrew comes through the kitchen door into the sitting room, gets his key, and goes upstairs to his room.

Then, when Andrew comes back down, Lizzie announces the note a second time, this time to Bridget, within earshot of Andrew.

So Lizzie has seen to it that everybody (alive) in the house knows a note came.

But could Andrew, having gone to his room, realized that something wasn't right? Abby hadn't changed her shoes, or hadn't hung her dusting apron over the chair of her dresser, or had left behind her purse?

Then after Lizzie's second announcement about note, and after Bridget had hung up her cloths and had gone upstairs, Andrew called Lizzie into the sitting room and says "Lizzie. . . are you sure Mrs. Borden is out? Tell me more about this note."*

*If AR Brown can fabricate dialogue, I can too. . .

(Message last edited Mar-25th-04  3:35 PM.)

Good points. But how many men would notice the point about the shoes, if true? Or the lack of an apron?

You're right we might not be the most observant creatures about what pair of shoes someone's wearing, but there could have been some relatively obvious indication in the bedroom. Let's say Andrew counted out a bit of change for Abby to use for buying the dinner things, and there it is still up in the bedroom.

Also, Andrew would know better than anyone how well or unwell Abby may have felt that morning. "It would take a team of mules to drag me out of the house today. You might have to settle for molasses cookies for dinner, Andrew. . ."

Andrew had a keen mind.  While he may not notice the fact that she did not change her shoes--there may have been other signs he would notice.  As above-- an apron on a chair or hook.  Remember-- this is the man who put on a "cardigan" to empty his slop pail during the summer. 

***Then after Lizzie's second announcement about note, and after Bridget had hung up her cloths and had gone upstairs, Andrew called Lizzie into the sitting room and says "Lizzie. . . are you sure Mrs. Borden is out? Tell me more about this note."*

*If AR Brown can fabricate dialogue, I can too. . .***

i like your thinking.  a creative approach toward a solution is the best we can do -- that is, if you question the truth of the lizzie legend.

knowlton created the lizzie borden legend -- by expounding on what he said was not essential to his case -- the motive. how ironic.

and it is astonishing how the authors finding lizzie not guilty and someone else guilty -- astonishing how flimsy their cases are.

but what is then even more astonishing is how difficult it is to find a plausible story with someone else as killer in there with her -- even given complete creative freedom. 

i've tried, i've wanted -- to find lizzie singularly guilty..........but there are too many problems with that in terms of evidence and/or "no evidence."  where i currently rest on this is that something absolutely vital is missing, and that without it, it is not possible to solve the case.  i'm almost convinced that if i could solve it using imagination that produced a PLAUSIBLE story -- then i would have it or at least be close to it.  but i'm struck at how difficult this is.

i'm not saying lizzie is "innocent."  she was there for each murder.  she definitely had an issue about a dress -- she gave the police something she did not wear that morning. 

the real issue toward solving it is that something is missing.  an imaginative flight that tied all the bits and pieces and strange nuances together would be a step in the right direction.  let me put it this way:  it would be a brilliant piece of work.

One of the most perplexing issues of this case (to mine own self at least) relates to the general character of Lizzie, and how relatively little is the information we have about it. What we do have – it almost strikes me that there’s nothing but suspicion of Lizzie; almost no one in the police witness statements for example, comes forward to say in not so many words “no…it simply cannot be Lizzie, such a thing is utterly beyond her ken!”

The statement of Hiram Harrington for instance – it may be the late hour, but it’s hard not to take his words as utterly damning:

“When the perpetrator of this foul deed is found, it will be one of the household. I had a long talk with Lizzie yesterday, Thursday, the day of the murder, and I am not at all satisfied with statement or demeanor. She was too solicitous about his comfort, and showed a side of character I never knew or even suspected her to possess. She helped him off with one coat and on with another, and assisted him in an easy incline on the sofa, and desired to place a afghan over him, and also to adjust the shutters so the light would not disturb his slumber. This is something she could not do, even if she felt; and no one who knows her, could be made believe it. She is very strong willed, and will fight for what she considers her rights. She went to the barn, where she stayed twenty minutes, or half an hour, looking for some lead from which to make sinkers for fishing lines, as she was going to Marion next week.” (Doherty & Harrington, Witness Statements, pg. 11)

It seems clear here that old Hiram is certainly not defending Lizzie in any sense of the word. And am I rusty, or was this an uncle of Lizzie's?

I have the distinct impression that Hiram just may have uttered another (unrecorded) word after “…to Marion next week,” and that word might well have been “Hogwash!” or something stronger yet.


Doug

Don't you know that Hiram Harrington was on the outs w/ Andy, and his girls?
...
Yes, but Emma did not receive him at home. Was Emma more rebelious than Lizzie? Doesn't this mean that Emma, at least, stayed friends with her Father's sister, Aunt Lauranna (yes, I probably messed up this name again).

(Message last edited Mar-26th-04  11:50 AM.)

>Don't you know that Hiram Harrington was on the outs w/
>Andy, and his girls?

Every source I have read states he got on quite nicely with Emma, as she continued to see him after his falling out with Andrew.  Lizzie did not continue to associate with him. 

I think this comes from E Porter's book and newspaper article.
Didn't others note that Hiram Harrington was only in the house for a few minutes? Some say this was just a way to get back at Lizzie for her snubs. But Lizzie was more Daddy's girl than the older Emma, who did visit her Aunt Lauranna (name?) after Andy's fight w/ Hiram.

Does anyone know of the exact reason for the break-up between Hiram and Andy? Or even of the stated reasons (cover story)? Note that this will solve anything.

I had not heard that rumor, no. I did find however, an article on the web site detailing an interview with Hiram Harrington - the "Close In Money Matters" article from the 6th. (Harrington & Doherty reference a different newspaper, but the Daily Herald article matches Hiram's statement almost word-for-word as they give it.)

Taking that as we find it, it appears that Hiram was no fan of Andrew Borden, implying that the old boy was as cheap as a nickel cigar, so to speak. I've never seen any source which mentions or even vaguely implies animosity between Hiram and the Borden girls- except for that news interview and the police statement, which damn Lizzie so effectively.

That's what I was getting at initially - the comments made by Hiram and others (friends and family alike) would suggest that Lizzie likely knew well the meaning of the words "With friends like these, I'll never need an enemy!"


Doug

Chapter 4, Fall River Tragedy, you mean Ray? starting at page 24 is what I'm looking at presently.

Doug

Inquest
Hiram Harrington
134
Q.  Were you on familiar terms with all the household?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Were you with any of them?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Which of them were you not?
A.  All except Mr. Borden.
Q.  Mr. Borden himself?
A.  Mr. Borden himself.
Q.  You and he did not speak? You and he were unfriendly? You and he were not on good terms?
A.  We never had no words, or anything of that kind. Some years ago I thought he was hard, and I cut his acquaintance; that is, he came to my house, and I would leave the room; and he very soon saw I cut his acquaintance; and he did mine.
Q.  But you continued on good terms with the rest of the family?
A.  Yes, friendly to them.
Q.  That takes in the wife and the daughters?
A.  Yes.
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.
Q.  Did Lizzie?
A.  Lizzie has, yes.
Q.  What has Lizzie said about it?
A.  I dont know as I could put anything together now to tell you, any more than to tell you there was some difficulty some way. She thought she equivocated. I dont know as I could put enough of it together now, I can just give you an idea. I cant remember words that were passed at the time, any more than just this much, that she thought she equivocated.
Q.  About what, did she say?
A.  In regard to something about Bertie, that is, Mrs. Whitehead, a half sister of Mrs. Borden. I think it was something about helping her, or that her father had bought the property. The general construction I have got of what she said, and from what little I learned, was that he had bought the property and gave it to his wife; and of course that meant giving it to her half sister.
Q.  Did Lizzie speak about it to you more than once?
A.  Sometimes it has been mentioned in a joking way, about the difficulties. I dont know as I could put enough together to say really what was passed.
Q.  How long ago was the last time she said anything about it?
A.  I think last Winter sometime. I have not seen her at the house for, I might say all Summer, and I have inquired of my wife how it was that Lizzie had not been down. Emma has always come. And the reply I would get from her was that Lizzie was into everything, that is, the works in the church, and her time was occupied; that is what I would get from her.
Q.  When she spoke about it last Winter, what did she say about it?
A.  I dont know as I could tell any more than to speak kind of sneeringly of Mrs. Borden. She always called her Mrs. Borden or Mrs. B. I dont know as I could remember anything to put together to make any sense.
Q.  Did she speak in an unfriendly way of her?
A.  Unfriendly, yes.
Q.  You never heard Mrs. Borden say anything about it at all?
A.  Never mention it. I have heard my wife say that Abby never mentioned it.
Q.  But it was understood there was trouble in the family?
A.  O, yes there has been I guess. For several years, I guess, of his early marriage with her, everything was very, very pleasant, uncommonly so for a step mother.
Q.  This trouble is of recent years?
A.  Quite a number of years, I should think. They were rather reticent about telling these affairs, although sometimes it would crop out.
Q.  You don’t know of anybody that was hostile to Mr. Borden?
A.  Not a person.
Q.  Nor Mrs. Borden?
A.  Nor Mrs. Borden.
Q.  Was that the step sister that married Whitehead?
A.  A half sister of Mrs. Borden.
Q.  That is the one that married Whitehead that you have been telling about?
A.  Yes Sir.
______
Inquest
Emma:
111
Q.  I did not hear the answer, if you did make one, to the question I put, whether you knew of anybody that was on bad terms with your father?
A.  There was one man he did not speak to.
Q.  Who was that?
A.  Mr. Harrington.
Q.  A connection of his first wife?
A.  No Sir, his sister’s husband.
Q.  Did that extend to his siter as well as the husband?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  She was on good terms with the family.
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Came there to visit?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  He did not come?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  He did not come to the house?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  But she did?
A.  Yes Sir. He has been to the door to call my sister or I.
Q.  He was not particularly on bad terms with you or your sister?
A.  No Sir.
____

Trial
Emma
1555
Q.  What relatives of your father lived in Fall River?
A.  He had a great many cousins and only one sister and no brother.

Q.  What was the sister's name?
A.  Mrs. Harrington.

Q.  Where did Mrs. Harrington live?
A.  On Franklin Street.

Q.  Did you go there?
A.  Yes.

Q.  Did you go there much the last year?
A.  Yes.

Q.  And before that?
A.  Yes.

Q.  Did he come to the house?
A.  Mr. Harrington?

Q.  Yes.
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Did Mrs. Harrington come to the house?
A.  Sometimes.

Q.  Mr. Harrington did not come?
A.  No, sir.  Once or twice, perhaps three or four times, he came to the door to inquire for either my sister or I.

"Cheap as a nickel cigar"? Maybe today. But AR Brown says that 5 cents bought a loaf of bread. (Weight unknown.)
Loafs of whole-wheat bread go for around $1.50 at supermarkets here.
I think you could get a good nickel cigar in the early 1950s.

From AR Brown (as I remember it): Hiram was not welcome at Andy's home, so the Harringtons reciprocated. But the girls loved their aunt.
Did anyone here experience something like this when young?

I don't need  Brown - the Hiram testimony I posted says that.


(Message last edited Mar-28th-04  2:57 AM.)

Yes, but AR Brown, like everyone else after WW One, gets his info from the published books and newspapers. I does come down to picking and choosing from the printed facts, public and private.

What do you think of David Kent's "40 Whacks"?

Since I read testimony and you don't, something I have noticed is that hardly any author gets the testimony transcribed correctly in their books or articles.

But the Trial Transcript leads to one conclusion: Not Guilty.
E Radin accused E Pearson of a "hoax" due to his one-sided quotes from the Trial Transcript. Those who very much believe is something may tend to overlook discrepancies in the testimony, or even shadows in an old photograph. Errare humanum est.

"But the Trial Transcript leads to one conclusion: Not Guilty."

If that were really the case, then it virtually eliminates the purpose and usefulness of reseach into this case - whether by scholars, or just common folk like us; implies that the whole exercise is pointless, little more than a waste of time.

Where would we be today if Pearson, Radin, Brown, Rebello, et al. had believed that?

The trial record (including the inquest) is what we have to work with, whether we accept the ultimate conclusion of the jury or not; provides a wealth of information that often serves as the springboard for a new theory. That's why we read it.

"But the Trial Transcript leads to one conclusion: Guilty." Interesting swap, isn't it? Virtually eliminates the need for courts of appeal.


Doug

I'll second that, Doug!  The trial led to a jury verdict of Not Guilty.  UNDER LAW she was innocent.  No one is disputing that fact.  But the fact of the verdict has nothing to do with the fact of actual guilt or innocence.  Sometimes juries are proved wrong. That's why we are all in here: to consider the evidence provided the jury--and some additional evidence it has been our good fortune to discover.  No amount of Latin condescension will turn our attempts into errors.  To err IS human, but why remind us of that when we haven't erred?

--Lyddie

Given the lack of bloody shoes, clothes, or sharp edged instrument (as in another case) what other reasonable explanation than 'not guilty'. Lizzie never left the crime scene. This also rules out Bridget as well.
Question: if neither L or B "did it", what is the next logical explanation? Could someone whose presence was hidden from the authorities have done it? Sounds logical to me!
You can call him "nobody" or "nemesis". Isn't such a violent murder the sign of a male?

Bridget left the crime scene 4 times Thursday AND she went to her room, still in the house, as Andrew is killed.  Meaning she can come down, after being in her room, after Andrew is found killed.  She could have been up there doing anything:  hiding a dress, cleaning up, secreting a hatchet.
Bridget & Lizzie both depend on the other to not tell where they were at certain times, or to act as if they did not take note.
It's disingenious to discount the maid.

I do disagree with you (another coincidence?).
NOBODY suspected Bridget after the first day! Lizzie said it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father. The police checked anyway. Emma and Uncle John had alibis. If neither young womad did it, WHO was left? "Nobody"?

Wrong.  Besides "Nobody" we have "Both."  I will not elaborate upon the countless apportioning of duties could be made for the two.  We also have both with outside help.

Besides those possibilities, we have many other possible intruders--other than William Borden.  What physical evidence do we have of his presence at the scene of the crimes?  None. What concrete proof have we of William's paternity?  None.  What we have is hearsay: very thin ice over which to carry a case.

--Lyddie 

I'm currently re-reading AR Brown, he states that he got his info from the Trial transcript, the Preliminary, and Henry Hawthorne.  He states that he has read some of the authors and picks and chooses from their books to illustrate his points. 

good.  i re-read it myself recently.  i had hoped to write a review of it, but i couldn't get interested in doing so.  one big obvious problem is that this H.H. text does not exist, apparently.  i thought i needed to read it again (the difference now being that i know so much more than i did then when it was first published).  the biggest problem is the conspiratorial overtones that supposedly explain everything, right down to the specific choice of words on the part of all.  the book is mainly about a conspiracy.  it does not explain exactly how the bastard did it under lizzie's nose, and it certainly does not explain her testimony.  and certain touches are clever enough in a way -- but plausible?  for ex., that it was really the bastard that bridget heard laughing upstairs as opposed to lizzie.  i find it hard to believe that she would not have recognized lizzie's voice.  actually, brown creates a compelling character -- but it does not explain lizzie's words or behavior.

" Lizzie never left the crime scene. This also rules out Bridget as well. "
Maybe it was an unfortunate choice of words on your part?
I have proof that Bridget left 4 times, in her own words.
That is indisputable- one "Errand", tho is never explained.

That is his right, and we all do the same. To pick and chose among the conflicting stories from the witnesses. We have that right since this case was never solved, except for the official jury duty.

Yes, Bridget was sent to call Dr Bowen, then to Alice's place. The police first arrived around 11:20, posted a guard on the house, then went back to the station to report; more police were sent.

I referred to the lack of bloody shoes, clothes, and murder weapon. This lack of evidence cleared OJ Simpson as well.
Bridget was sent to get Dr Bowen, and then Alice. I don't remember anything else before the police showed up to secure the scene.

Public opinion said that Bridget was paid off to help Lizzie. But nobody (?) can point to any testimony that was favorable to Lizzie.
The different stories told to the police that day show NO COLLUSION, unlike those guys in the drugstore (identical wordings). IMO

BUT, if Bridget didn't contradict Lizzie about her being up in the second floor laughing when Andy came home (I think Lizzie was in the kitchen reading), then that may have been the reason for any payoff.
Woe to any hired help that goes against rich employers, then or now.

I've marked some pages in the Brown book to possibly go over on the forum, something I don't think we've done before?  Points such as the one you've just touched on, Eugene, it should prove interesting. 


Ray, I was pointing out that Brown is one of the very few that had the Preliminary at his fingertips for his book, many of the authors did not. 

That is a great idea!

We need not limit it to Brown.

We could have a "book club" or sorts and devote a seperate thread to each of the various books and writings.  Hopefully, everyone will have access to the book we are discussing.

I encourage you to start a thread and we can get started on it right away!

Some have called AR Brown's book "fiction" and said he "made up quotes". Could anyone care to document this from the first 20 pages of the hardcover edition?
This is a serious charge against any author.

Can you provide the source for your Quote :  "made up quotes".

When I recently visited the B&B, one of the guestmasters mentioned Brown's theory which he discounts because of something Brown makes a big deal about in the book--and that is, Ellen Eagan's supposed memory of a horrible smell that Willie Borden had, because (it is said) of the urine of diseased horses.  If Ellen smelled it as she recovered from her fainting spell, why didn't anyone else who investigated the crime scene ever mention a horrible smell?  Certainly, if Willie spent the night holed up either in the barn or the house, the stench should have permeated the place.

i've asked exactly that myself.  i forget what ray said. 

My book's in my other office, but I'll give you a real live made up quote.

Brown has the Harrington and Doherty appearing together at Ellan Eagan's door(were they actually together the afternoon of the 10th, getting Ellen's story (though it's not recorded in their witness statements), then hurrying to the courthouse to tell Hilliard about it. (Harrington's notes say he brought an Allen Eagan to court to testify) Brown then has somebody, I'm supposing Hilliard, say several sentences, which are enclosed within quotation marks, ending with "Good work, boys. I'll remember it!" or somesuch. That is a made up quote, Ray. Brown then says that within 15 minutes, this Ellan Eagan statement had been passed on to others in the "silent government" and the next day Lizzie was placed under arrest. (Lizzie was placed under arrest the next day, but after a full day of other testimony by witnesses, including Eli Bence and others. Brown makes it appear as though Ellan Eagan's story led directly to Lizzie arrest.)

That one section of text has A) previously unrecorded events, B) a made up quote and C) a misleading manipulation of facts.

There's a new thread started elsewhere on Brown, Ray. So get ready for more of this.

Thanks for your help. I will look it up.
But if AR Brown used the testimony of Ellan Eagan as rememberd by Henry Hawthorne, Brown may not be guilty of "made up quotes". The problem may be in his sources.
...
IF his sources are not available, can we just trust this retired person who never wrote a book before in his life? I can.


(Message last edited Apr-2nd-04  3:26 PM.)

In a court of law, that testimony would be dismissed as hearsay evidence.  Surely you know this.

--Lyddie

I just can't figure out how Ellan Eagan could tell Henry Hawthorne what Hilliard said privately to Doherty and Harrington at the inquest. That quote has nothing to do with what Ellan Eagan could know.

Maybe Ellen was lying on the floor in the next room with a glass held to the wall.

--Lyddie

Common sense says this would work very well. WHAT'S YOUR EXPERIENCE?

None, but that's what the Trickey-McHenry story claims was the source of some of their info.  By the way, I got the entire morning edition on xerox.  Once I have the section pieced together, I will share with everybody.  It's like a jigsaw puzzle, and I don't have as much time these days as I did.

--Lyddie

(Message last edited Apr-3rd-04  11:51 PM.)

Thanks for responding, Haulover, but neither Ray nor anyone else (to my knowledge) has ever explained the supposed phenomenon that Ellen Eagan smelled a pungent, foul odor on William Borden, (and this was after the murders), whereas NO ONE EVER mentions anything about a foul odor in either the Borden house or barn, in either of which Willie is supposed to have not only been secreted overnight, but was present to commit one murder, then wait an hour and a half, and commit another one. If so, why no foul smell?

He sounds like SASQUATCH.

That's a good one, Kat. I'm sure you could "prove" that Bigfoot did it.  Maybe it wasn't Willie after all!!

Do they have any legends of those in New England?
Maybe the closest would be Canada?

The only thing I''ve ever heard of that comes close, is that there's supposed to be some sort of sea serpent in Lake Champlain!

Doug

Excuse the crudity, but the kids always say:  "You smelt it; you dealt it!"  Maybe Ellen didn't want anyone to know that she was the one to stink up the privy.  ORRRRRR, maybe my facetious theory in the last thread is not so facetious after all. . . . A clever bit of misdirection?

--Lyddie

Champ, the Wonder Serpent!!!!!  By the way, we're getting so waterlogged around here, we might see him go floating by!

--Lyddie

First, smell evaporates over time. Try farting in a room sometimes. You can try this at home!
There is also the phenomenon of "recalled memory" where things get improved over time.

>First, smell evaporates over time. Try farting in a room
>sometimes. You can try this at home!

>There is also the phenomenon of "recalled memory"
>where things get improved over time.

***makes a mental note to never accept an invitation to tea from Raymond on "experiment day"***

Thank you for your pleasant and refined comments.

I would never accept an invitation from those whose personality (as revealed in their writings) seem so objectionable. This does not apply to you, of course, since I don't know what state you live in.

>Thank you for your pleasant and refined comments.
>


"Allo?  Pot?  This is kettle... You are black"

Perhaps you forgot you were the one who introduced "farting" to the topic?

I was not the one who suggested forum members "cut the cheese" in their respective homes, stop watch in hand to calculate the amount of time the odor lingers....


I merely stated I would not wish to come to tea on the day you had set aside for such experiments.  Good sense is what I would call that.

Since you hinted... I live in Iowa.  If you ever get to the Midwest, do let me know.  My hospitality knows no bounds.

Hey don't forget Ogopogo who supposedly lurks in Lake Okanogan in Canada.

You mean y'all are having a huge discussion about lower
body gas noises & I missed it??? I thought I was the only
woman over the age of 5 who liked talking about it. One
of my favorite things to do is ask instant messenger
buddies "did you just fart?" and, of course, being guys,
they say no & then I reply "it must have been the cat"
and then I put up the little embarrassed smiley face. I
don't have any idea why that is so funny to me. I think
I must be a bit of a tomboy.

Maybe you were just brought up w/ older brothers on a farm?
People w/ big animals (horses, cows) hear it all the time? Even dogs.

Actually I'm an only child. But I did grow up around my
cousins & 3 out of 4 of them were male. Never been around
any big gassy animals either. I never knew when people said
babies had gas they meant "that" kind either. Not until I
was in T.J. Maxx with my cousin who was about 5 months old
at the time & she let one rip.

**{{Kim now shudders at the memory}}**

Such comments are considered rude and crude, unlike a sneeze or burp. Such are out standards, and I don't disagree with them.