The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "Lubinsky"
Posted by Kat on Apr-12th-02 at 2:06 PM

I'm still picturing in my mind what we were discussing on the TOPIC thread "LIZZIE'S PHYSICAL APPEARANCE":

It got really long so I thought I'd start anew...

Hyman Lubinsky...

O.K. picture this...

He is 18 years old, Yiddish Russian, late for work, in a hurry.  Has to wait for his "team" of horses at the stables because they are "feeding".  He finally gets them harnessed to his wagon, and sets off down the hill of Second Street.  His wagon is "empty" of product, his horses are FRESH, he is headed downhill, no payload...he passes the Borden house on his right...

NOW:  Those of you who have been there, tell me this:

If he were passing that house and see's a woman just "4 or 5" paces from the east side of the steps to the kitchen, wouldn't that figure necessarily be almost right up against the house?  And wouldn't he have had to turn his head and even upper body AROUND to look over his right shoulder to even get a FIRST glimpse of her?
If he's going at a decent clip, how can he say she was "walking slowly"?  He would barely get a glimpse, would he, and way over his shoulder, at that?
Why would he be looking around anyway, when he had no product to sell, and his main intent was to fill his wagon?
Apparently the distance from the house to the barn at the closest angle is about 18 feet?
And the distance between the Borden house and the Churchill's was 28 feet--about the width of an alley way?
Then we have the TIME element:  If he and C. Gardner place him at the one exact spot at the one exact time he could have even barely got a glimpse of a woman close to the house over his shoulder, it was at 11:10 , about 40 SECONDS before Lizzie Finds The Body Of Her Father?

I'm finding this harder to believe as time goes on.

This is one of those "holy smokeski" this one is hard to swallow. 

According to Edward Radin, "Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story", 1961, pages 149-150: Lubinsky was on his way to his store to get his ice cream when he passed the Borden house and "saw a lady come out of the way from the barn right to the stairs back of the house".  When asked what color of dress the lady was wearing he replied, "a dark colored dress. She was walking toward the steps".

Lubinsky was "backed-up" by two more defense witnesses, Charles M. Gardner the stable owner who testified that Lubinsky left his stable between 1105 and 1110 am.  Lubinsky could not have left any earlier because Gardner was feeding the horse Lubinsky needed.

Gardner also testified that Lubinsky kept "yelling at him (Gardner) to hurry up" because he (Lubinsky) had arrived late at the stable and he had been hired by a traveling salesman, Charles V. Newhall, and Newhall had to catch the 1150am train to New Bedford.

Newhall took the stand and confirmed the story saying that he too was nervous about the time as he needed Lubinsky and the wagon to get him "to the bank to change a hundred dollar bill, call on a harness shop to get an order and then get to the station to make his train".

So now we have the scenerio you have painted Kat: Lubinsky is running behind schedule (he apparently overslept or something) and as you wonder if he were in a hurry to pick-up Newhall, make the appointed rounds with Newhall and get his ice cream for his afternoon deliveries how could he have been traveling "slow enough" to have made such an observation at the Borden house?

Traveling from south to north on Second Street and being able to see a "lady walking to the back steps" without being nearly 180 degrees about-face is nearly impossible.  Even today you must try your head like Linda Blair (Exorcist 1970) in order to see the side steps.

I share your puzzlement on this one too Ms. Kat...unless Hyman sat "side saddle" in the seat of wagon he could have never actually seen anyone in the "northeasterly" side yard if he were in such a hurry as two other witnesses testifies.

Anyone else have a theory...

BC

I'm glad to have your input, BC, as you have been there. 
What you said is what I had pictured in my mind.

One thing tho, I think it was Charles Gardner who had arranged to take the guy to the station.  Hyman was just late for work...Radin, pg.153-55.  (I haven't opened that book in gosh-knows-how-long!)

I just checked the Trial, and Lubinsky says it was 2 weeks before he told (Arthur) Phillips (defence).

Pg. 1420-21:  He did not testify at Inquest, Prelim., or Grand Jury.


(Message last edited Apr-13th-02  7:23 AM.)

Plus there's a tree, in full leaf...just as a person passes the Bordens house...

(Message last edited Apr-13th-02  11:08 AM.)

You can't figure out why a young man was looking at a good looking girl? It's obvious!!!

The point IS:
That I don't think Lubinsky could see ANYBODY that close to the house as he's tooling by, with a tree in the way

Kat: in re-reading Radin, paperback, pages 149-150, I find you are correct, Gardner was the one who had Newhall in his wagon, I mis-read the text.  But in any event as you point out, HOW could anyone, especially a person in a *HURRY* to get to his destination even come close to seeing any person in the side yard...ESPECIALLY with that tree in the middle of one's visual line of sight.



BC

Assuming Lubinsky could see past the tree, he would have had a very short time indeed to see anyone coming from the barn.

First, the barn has several doors. One faces the street. There are two side doors that face the back yard. One a privy door and one an entry door. I make the assumption Lizzie exited the barn from the side entry door. There is nothing that I could find in her Inquest testimony stating it was the side door however.

Attached is a portion of the yard plan (Rebello, page 45) showing the layout. Assuming this drawing to be correct, note that the barn extends past the side of the house. The path that leads from the side barn door to the back steps bends just at the corner of the house. This "jog" in the path is testified to by Lizzie at the Inquest. She stated she could not see the back steps from the yard because of this jog. (page 76-77)

The drawing also shows it is impossible to see the side barn door from the street. One would almost have to be standing at the foot of the east side of the steps to be seen and then only briefly while they either climbed the steps or paused.

This testimony by Lubinsky (page 1409-1410 Trial):

Q.  What was she doing?
A.  She was walking.
Q.  In which direction?
A.  She was walking very slow.
Q.  Which way, towards the steps or away from them?
A.  She was going down on the stairs toward the house.
Q.  Toward the steps?
A.  Toward the steps.
Q.  Did you see her go in the house?
A.  I don't know; I couldn't tell this.

There was no way Lubinsky could have seen her walking any distance. Pages 1415-1417 have more similar type Q&A's on cross-examination.

(Message last edited Apr-14th-02  1:53 PM.)

Gosh!  You're RIGHT!!
It's only 16 feet to the Churchill fence!

Also, add a tree to that scematic...
Thanks Harry.

Unlike the line drawings used by a PBS program for the JFK assassination, that picture has no trees marked down. Sitting a few feet from the road would allow clearance to see down the yard.
Nobody claimed he was paid for perjury, did they? Only mistaken about the time (as I remember it). I think his testimony is correct.

This seems as good a time as any to bring up an obscure fact that I found in Rebello several months ago.  Rebello's Profile of Hyman Lubinsky states (page 88) that from 1917-1919, Lubinsky's address was 230 Second Street in Fall River.  The houses had been renumbered in 1896, and 230 was the number of the old Borden residence (previously 92 Second Street).  Emma and Lizzie owned the house and leased it to others until June of 1918, when they sold it to John W. Dunn (Rebello, p. 557).  So, in a manner of speaking, the Borden sisters were actually Lubinsky's landladies for a time.  Odd coincidence, isn't it?  I wonder what kind of rent he paid?

That was COOL!

Coincidence...Cover-up...Pay-Off? 


(Message last edited Apr-15th-02  4:07 PM.)

Holy Smokski...I completely missed that one...back to the books.

BC

With everyone contributing, we almost have an LBQ article here!

Thanks to EveryOne!

I think you're right Kat, we just might have a winner for the LBQ here. 

I looked up Rebello page 88 and was spooked...I had just read that page when I was citing Lubinsky's statements from Radin.

Somehow I completely missed reading that he lived in the Borden house.
I wonder what "arrangement" if any the "girls" had with him.  Maybe Jennings needed his testimony badly enough to "take care" of him later.  Even though it was quite a bit later, from 1892 to 1917.

Lubinsky must of come pesting for reparation for his part in the trial.  After all the *color* of the dress was crucial for Lizzie's whereabouts at the hour of A.J.'s death.



BC

Well, just because Lubinsky rented from the sisters doesn't mean he lived there for free. Plus, one year after he leased the house, they sold it to Dunn.

Also, he was just a boarder, right? According to Rebello, p. 34., the "Resident" of the house from 1899-1920 was Marcus A. Townsend, carpenter.

Apparently, it went back to a multi-family dwelling. Or apartment building?

Does anyone know how and why someone would sell a house for "one dollar and other valuable considerations" as the sisters did to Dunn in 1918? Is that for tax purposes or did they owe him or what? I have never bought or sold property before and cannot fathom this type of transaction.

When I posted the initial info from Rebello, I was well aware that the house was actually being rented by the Borden sisters to someone other than Lubinsky.  That's why I said they were his landladies "in a manner of speaking."  It's possible, I suppose, that neither Emma nor Lizzie even knew Lubinsky was living in their old home.  Emma, of course, had left Fall River well before that time.  Lubinsky had been married (again, according to Rebello), but by 1920 he was divorced.  Since his tenancy in the Borden house was shortly before the 1920 Federal Census listed him as "divorced," it may be that he was boarding there after the breakup of his marriage.  Rebello doesn't provide the dates of Lubinsky's marriage.  Lubinsky also lived on Ferry Street at one time (1912), but Emma and Lizzie had sold their Ferry Street property years before that.  Lubinsky died in 1923, at the age of 49.  If we want to be very fanciful, we might surmise that the Bordens prevailed on Marcus Townsend, their tenant, to take in their old friend, Mr. Lubinsky, who may already have been suffering from tuberculosis, unable to work and alone in the world.  That's probably reaching a little further than I would want to, however.

The picture attached is of 92 Second Street in 1892. It probably represents the maximum view Lubinsky would have had. Any further up the street the tree would have impeded his view. Any further down the street, the shrubbery in Mrs. Churchill's yard would have come into play.

The gap between the barn and the house is because of the angle the photo was taken at. The gap would not be visible further up the street. The person Lubinsky claimed to have seen would have had to appear from that gap.

Here is the backyard looking out. See how hard it would have been to see what Lubinsky said he saw?

It sure does. Also, the closer you were to the barn the less you could be seen or you could see the street.  Churchill's house and flowers also block the street from this angle.

Speaking of the yard, just what was Uncle John doing when he made his second trip to the yard? He's just back for a little while and he leaves the house for a 3 to 4 hour walk around the back yard. That must have been a mighty big back yard.

His testimony from the Preliminary:

Q.  How long did you remain out in the yard, Mr. Morse?
A.  I do not know but I was out there three or four hours.
Q.  Did you notice anybody going into the barn while you were out there, or soon after you got out there?
A.  I did not.
Q.  Did you remain in some particular place, or did you go around in different parts of the yard?
A.  I was walking around in different parts.
Q.  You did not really notice what people were doing?
A.  No sir I did not.

The crowds by this time must have been fairly large and boisterous. He is, again, completely oblivious to what is going on around him. Yet, this is the same guy who can remember a badge number on a trolley conductor.  Pshaw!

Exactly!!!  How is that Uncle walked up Second Street from the Pleasant Street interection just off his trolly ride from Weybosset and see the dozens of people.

The exact number of onlookers may not be truly known, as I have yet to find any testimony of any person who took an actual head count, but by all accounts all participants claim the crowd was growing by the minute.

Uncle dearest must have had one heck of a case of visual myopia not to have seen the crowd let alone Charles Sawyer standing guard at the back door.  And not to have directly entered the house but rather mill around in the backyard "eating pears"...pleeeezzzzzzzz.

After my feelings of Billy Borden as the who-dun-it...I like the Uncle or better still a joint venture...Billy AND Uncle.  At my recent overnight at the B & B, Eleanor the day manager related a story of the Boston pychic who felt the "presence" of two tall thin men having an argument in the kitchen.

Presumably neither of them were Andrew J., makes one wonder....

BC

Morse is a completely suspicious character. He makes some rather unbelievable statements and nobody really gives him heck for it. Like the one you quoted about being in the yard for several hours. He is totally cryptic one moment and sharp and sure the next (alibi). Also, he skips town 10 days after Lizzie is indicted, returning to testify in 1893 and then going away to Iowa again. I guess his visits were to see Andrew after all (or Abby---now wouldn't that be a kick in the pants if he was having an affair with her!)

Morse's insistance that the cellar door was open when he arrived even when everyone else testified that it was closed makes no sense either. We can't assume he was an idiot or had some odd brain problem that would make him strange---nobody mentions this that is. He is not in sync with anyone else in that family after the murders.

I think that Morse was indeed a sharp character. There has to be some reason, other than his non-conforming personality, for his actions.

He certainly was no fool. Andrew relied upon him for advice. Granted it was free but I think Andrew must have been a sharp judge of character himself. Morse also left quite a sum of money in his will so he wasn't without knowledge of how to handle money. He also seems to have been well respected in Iowa.

I loved the way he tried to con them paying him car fare from Iowa to appear at the trial when he was "knocking about" South Dartmouth at the time.

It's very strange that he's outside when the police are all over Lizzie inside the house. Even Harrington warned Lizzie not to be making statements until she felt better. Morse should have taken charge for the family and rounded up Jennings. Surely he must have known Lizzie would be suspected or at least have to answer a multitude of questions.

A question to verify photo in post #18.
Lubinsky is travelling south to north, is he not?
Going downhill, and the Borden's are *downhill* from the stables?
So the view presented would be AFTER he has passed the house on his RIGHT, and looking way back over his shoulder?

Correct on all questions Kat. There is really not much to see nor time to see it in if the horse is moving at a trot.

Hello Harry,
I am in complete agreement with your observations re Lubinsky's trip past 92 Second Street.

I did the math on this at one time and discovered when Lubinsky passed the house, his maximum window of view would be no greater than 7 feet.
If the horse and wagon were proceeding at 5 MPH, the total time he could have viewed the "mystery woman" would be approximately one second, and this from a distance of approximately 74 feet with his view at least partially obscured by a tree in full leaf!
Bill

Excellent Bill!  That's the number I was searching for. That window of opportunity. I was trying to mentally project lines from the barn out to the street, taking into account the tree and the Churchill property.

Add to that, he was in a moving vehicle. I believe Morse said Second street had been "macadamized" or paved. From the one or two pictures of Second street it looks fairly smooth. Still, we don't know the condition of the wagon itself as to whether it rode steady.

Now what I don't understand is how the Jury missed this.
I understand their trip to the property and around the area and to the drugstore was the second day of the trial, and Lubinsky was a defence witness, probably on the 10th day(?)--admittedly a weeks difference, but STILL...

[Edit coming...]
I hate to follow my own post with a post...so I thought I'd edit this one with a further thought:

I was reading William Roughhead, and it just came to me, that if we succeed in demolishing Lubinsky and his testimony, we also place even MORE doubt on Brown and his Ellen Eagan story.  If a book is based somewhat on these two people, and we find that there is not too much credence to either's story, Brown kind of sags in the middle doesn't he?

Anyone who has read Brown recently:  Can you define some of the "ramifications"?

(Message last edited Apr-18th-02  3:30 PM.)

Isn't "5 MPH" a rather fast pace for a horse on a hot August day? Even if they just left the barn? Wouldn't a walking horse be more like 2.5 MPH? Remember, this is a wagon, not a trotting race.

Uncle John's description of the "open cellar door" is to obviously provide a way out for a killer. You should know that an open door is likely to be closed to keep the heat out in August, especially in a house where doors are always kept locked! (WHO were they afraid of?)

I believe that Lizzie's message to Uncle John (delivered by the DR.) was to get him back to provide advice to this unexpected mess. I believe the murders were unplanned, but the cover-up was planned.

I think Lizzie would turn in Billy (murderer cannot inherit) or whoever she saw. Except when this would result in a wider scandal that besmirched the whole family. That month old message about "hereditary madness" reminded me of last year's books on "Royal Babylon" (?) and the Howard Hughes biography. Then or now, many families keep their secrets (unless on the Jenny Jones show etc.)

I do not believe there was a conspiracy to murder Abby and Andy; because the prosecutor, judges, and Establishment would not have condoned it. (Call me trusting?). But I can see them making a bundle to keep "innocent" Lizzie off the gallows.

Well, I guess THAT answered my question...

Kat, I would doubt that the jury on their brief visit conducted any experiments as to what they could see from the street or vice-versa. Rebello lists their itinerary (pages 240-241). They covered a lot of places in a relatively short time, less than a half day. Also, they would have had no idea as to what Lubinsky would testify to

The "view" as it was called, occurred the second day of the trial after Moody's opening statement and Kieran's testimony. The instructions to the jurors by Mason were pretty explicit (beginning on page 97, trial):

"I desire to say to the jury a single word. This view is not at all for the purpose of receiving any testimony at the view. You are only to observe the physical objects that shall be called to your attention. Counsel will not be at liberty to address you in any other way than to call your attention to the objects which you are desired to observe. It will not be proper for you to ask questions of counsel with reference to anything that is seen. The testimony with reference to all that you see will be given here upon the stand; and you are to keep together. All of you are to see everything that any of you see. You are not to separate at all to make independent observations individually, but you as a jury are to see all that is called to your attention. You will observe the strict oath which the officers have taken, and you will be exceedingly careful that no others address than those that the officers have permission to allow to address you; and when the view is completed you will return to the officers, and come into court at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. The officers now will suffer the jury to obtain luncheon before leaving upon the train."