1. "Andrew's Body & Dr. Bowen"
Posted by Kat on Oct-16th-02 at 8:05 PM

Lizzie says Andrew changed his shoes when he came home.
Phil Harrington says Andrew had laced boots/shoes, and that the photo was wrong. 
George Pettee said his feet were crossed.

Then Dr. Bowen says Andrew's body slipped down in the photo--that he was higher up when he first saw him.
(This is my memory)

Dr. Bowen was called immediately to check the body of Andrew.  When Bridget was first summoned by Lizzie as to a catastrophe, she cautioned Bridget not to go into the sitting room, but to hurry over across the street for Bowen.

None of the women collecting in that house went in to see the body.

That means that , at the first, Dr. Bowen was alone with Andrew...sent Bridget up stairs after a sheet, and then covered the remains, and left to telegram Emma.
Dr. Bowen had sole possession of that body until Officer Allen comes.  He could have done just about anything to the room and to the body as a cover-up.

Maybe his nervous excitement he admitted to later was caused by this immediate summoning to "help" in the crime scene, and that's why, after his return, he was so crude as to offer tours of the body and the scene to all and sundry, from the adrenaline.

And Dr. Dolan said he moved the folded coat under Andrews head. I think it was Uncle John who said he was "nervous" but Bowen might have said so as well.  Bowen did seem in a state of excitement, not like a man who had observed many crime scenes.

He was a family doctor and I don't wonder this was the first family murder he has personally observed and been involved with.  If he had seen many deaths on the battlefield I wonder why his excitement...perhaps because it was so close to home, his neighbor and client?  Soon as he became aware of his central position in the crime scene he might have also felt a little territorial too and he could have had some pride in the fact he was there first.  That is almost what he did though, offer tours.  Even the man who previously owned the house dropped in, I think while Sawyer was up viewing the body, and got in because Sawyer was temporarily gone from his post.

None of the women wanted to linger about looking at the bodies. I wonder if part of that was deferment to the men and because none of them had an official position, they were only there to take charge of Lizzie or in Emma's case, returning home.

Anything in that room could have been changed by Bowen.
Hastily Lizzie could have asked his help.  He was the first and had charge, as you say.
Bowen could have moved the body, changed the position, put that coat there for all anyone will ever know.
He could have righted an overturned table, wiped up something...etc.

But why would Seabury Bowen implicate himself in such a way?  It sounds like he liked Lizzie, but, enough to alter a murder scene for her?  Do you think he could have done it innocently, like Lizzie said to him, 'O, I left my whatever in the sitting room, could you fetch it for me, I can't look at Father in that condition.'  Something like that? 

We should ask Arnold Brown because he seems to have an idea that Dr. Bowen was in on the cover-up....

But I like your idea better!

I also thought he acted suspiciously, and included him in my SUSPECT list, which can be found at LABVM/L:

DR. SEABURY BOWEN -- Washington D.C. Chief of Police, vol. iv., no.4, July / August, 1989:  "Death of a Massachusetts Trojan," pg. 34-45.  Also, Rebello, pg. 136:

"Richard Powers . . . a retired state prison guard and Maryland historian, posed the theory . . . that Dr. Seabury Bowen . . . who lived across the street . . . killed Andrew and Abby Borden and removed the murder weapon . . . in his doctor's bag.  Powers suggested there were ill feelings between the doctor and the Bordens." 
.......

Also, The Witness Statements, Fall River, MA, 1997, pg. 6: Dr. Bowen burns paper possibly with the name "Emma" on it in kitchen stove, in front of Harrington.
.......

Also, The Witness Statements, Fall River, MA, 1997, pg. 21:

"Doctor Bowen's character is at least suspicious", Mrs. Jane Grey [sic].
.......

Also, Michael Martins and Dennis Binette, eds., The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Lizzie A. Borden: The Knowlton Papers, 1892- 1893, Fall River Historical Society, 1994, letter #HK113, pg. 117, unsigned, dated Dec.2, 1892:

". . . on the day of the murder I was coming towards Fall River . . . I met Dr. Bowen and a young man in a Carrage, driveing so fast that . . . I thought at the time that someone was dieing . . . I am well acquainted with Him, but I never saw Him look so wild . . . it was about 15 minutes to eleven . . . the Doctor had hold of the reins with both hands, driving for dear life.  has Dr. Bowen ever been questioned were He was on the morning of the Murder.  this is the truth and nothing but the truth."
...............

--This last notation is referred to in Brown's correspondence with the LBQ at the Virtual Library:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/BrownControversy.htm

I've just tried to read that exchange of letters from the LBQ.  I have a theory that people who try to swamp me with a torrent of words don't really have much to say.  Perhaps my theory has just been proven.  I loved the phrase, "originally a Fall River native."  Does that mean he (Brown) was no longer a Fall River native?  I wasn't aware that one could change his/her place of birth after the fact!  Poor Arnold Brown...do you suppose his illness had anything to do with his extreme defensiveness?  I've always thought his book a great fun read, but not to be taken seriously with regard to facts.

I think Dr Bowen simply helped out poor Lizzie by going to tell Uncle John immediately what happened. I think Uncle John was on his way out of town. Dr Bowen was merely a Good Samaritan, and not part of any conspiracy or cover-up.

"Forensics Bob" here again to point out that Bowen may have innocently, if unfortunately, moved a few things around in the sitting room, if no policeman had as yet told him not to...if one of them ever did!  Long time ago, different ideas about crime scenes (I know, I sound like a broken record)! 

Forensics Bob,
I'd really like to know what you think might have been moved????

kat suggests ~We should ask Arnold Brown because he seems to have an idea that Dr. Bowen was in on the cover-up....<<<

we'll have to hire a medium for a seance...Martins informed me that not long before his death, Brown admitted to his book being mostly fiction.  the denominator was Bill Borden, the illegitimate son; but the rest of that story was dreamed up, hence not The Truth or The Final Chapter.

Just repeating what I was told by MM>

David

email: dnslilly@iglou.com

(Message last edited Oct-19th-02  11:26 PM.)

Well, I've been looking at Brown a bit lately and decided not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I figure his conjectures after studying the case can be as valid as anyone else's and so I may dismiss some of what he says, I don't necessarily dismiss all.
There is interesting stuff in there. 

(Message last edited Oct-20th-02  12:01 AM.)

Did AR Brown die of brain cancer? What effect does it have on a person in the months before death?

And is there any documentary proof for that claim?

[I thought AR Brown merely said Dr Bowen took a msg to Uncle John?]

(Message last edited Oct-20th-02  2:23 PM.)

David, are you saying that M. Martins believes Andrew really did have an illegitimate son?  (I hate that word "illegitimate," because it should be the parents who are called that, and not the offspring.)  I'm not sure what you mean by "denominator" in this context.  If he does believe that, I'd certainly like to know where he got his information.

~ are you saying that M. Martins believes Andrew really did have an illegitimate son?  <<<<

I'm saying that Martins told me (I can send you either an audio tape, video tape or CDR of the recording, if you want it), to the best of my recollection as I haven't listened to the sound portion of the vid I shot, that A.R. Brown did an interview shortly before he died and "admitted" that he'd taken the idea of Bill Borden and embellished it. he realized that turned the book into a novel/fiction but that he'd chosen to write it anyway.

I'd have to see what I wrote about a denominator - don't recall at the moment.  if you can send it to me or post it I'll be glad to respond.

Dave

email: dnslilly@iglou.com

Brown, pg. 168--[Alice has not yet arrived and Bridget and Addie have gone upstairs with the key to retrieve a sheet at Bowen's request];
"...Admittedly, this time span was probably no more than a minute, but many words and many things can pass between two people in sixty seconds. Whatever passed between them [he and Lizzie] in those precious seconds was important enough to chase Dr. Bowen from the premises immediately and then later force him to reconstruct his testimony for the final trial to ensure that this time element, as small as it was, and the opportunities it offered disappeared."

If Bowen did send a message to Morse, it seems that it was an act of far-reaching ramifications.  He becomes accessory, and once he is That, he becomes capable of anything, including tailoring his testimony which would obfuscate everything so that the truth was never known...as in obstruction of justice.

From that leaping-off place I find him then capable or willing to tamper with the crime scene, or remove the weapon from the premises...

--As to of what Mr. Brown died, I do not know.

David:
I was responding to your message #11 on this thread.  In it, you said, "Martins informed me that not long before his death, Brown admitted to his book being mostly fiction.  The denominator was Billy Borden, the illegitimate son, but most of that story was dreamed up, hence not the Truth or the Final Chapter."  I (perhaps wrongly) construed this to mean that the chief true element of this fictional account was Billy Borden, the illegitimate son.  I realized that I really wasn't sure what you (or Martins) meant by "denominator" in this context, so that I might be misunderstanding what you were trying to say. My dictionary says it means "person or thing that denominates (names); shared characteristic; usual level; standard." I'm also curious about who was interviewing Arnold Brown when he recanted.  Was it Martins himself?  The last thing I had heard about Brown prior to his death was that he was still claiming his book was gospel and was readying another book for publication to prove that point. I've heard from more than one source that he had confessed to perpetrating a hoax, but don't remember to whom he unburdened himself.

I always wonder about unsigned letters. If the person really did see Dr. Bowen and thought it important enough, did he not have the "courage" so to speak, of Alice Russell, who "told all" regardless of repercusions on herself?  Does the unsigned letter mean that mean that the letter came through the mail with no return name or address as well?  Or does that mean that the letter arrived with no envelope?  Or does that mean that it was slid under the door? If the person who saw Dr. Bowen driving wildly was coming into Fall River, I assume that he "passed" Dr. Bowen going the other direction, out of town, and if that is so and it was 11:45 how did Dr. Bowen get back to the Borden house about that time...didn't he get back about that time?  And it doesn't make sense that Dr. Bowen was out on the road in the carriage at that time to meet Uncle John because Uncle John was already back at the Borden house at that time. To me the directions and timing is off.

~The denominator was Billy Borden, the illegitimate son, but most of that story was dreamed up, hence not the Truth or the Final Chapter."<<<<

Okay, I meant that the bottom line (shoulda said common denominator and even that might've been confusing) - the basis for that particular version  of the whole Borden murder story was Bill Borden.

~I'm also curious about who was interviewing Arnold Brown when he recanted.  Was it Martins himself? <<<

If I recall correctly, Martins saw the interview on TV (probably on the...History Channel...since he's a history guy).  I won't swear on the accuracy of that because I was excited to be conversing with him on said topic.  I'd have to listen to the audio portion of my tape to confirm it.  He also said not to pay any attention to documentaries on TLC because they put entertainment above accuracy (If I remember correctly).


Dave

email: dnslilly@iglou.com

Thanks, Dave.  That answers my questions.  I know there actually was a William Borden, but it's unlikely he was Andrew's out-of-wedlock son.  I also know the same idea was suggested by someone who wrote Hosea Knowlton a letter, claiming that he himself was Andrew Borden's son.  His name wasn't William Borden, though.  I also read (I believe in "Proceedings") that a story made the rounds in Fall River's Irish community that Andrew Borden had an illegitimate son.  Who knows where the story came from.  I tend to think it was one of the fanciful tales that were spread after the murders, to explain why Abby and Andrew could have been so brutally murdered and why (maybe) Lizzie wasn't the only one who would want them dead.  If Brown was interviewed on TV and said his book was mostly fiction, that doesn't seem to be generally known.  I'd certainly like to know just what the setting was for this confession.  I certainly don't think The Learning Channel is the only venue where entertainment value is held more important than sticking to the facts. 

Carol, do you have a copy of the Knowlton Papers?
If not, I will transcribe the whole letter as I left out some co-ordinates that may help you to figure the route taken.
.
The writer mentions "I was coming towards Fall River from the Shove Mill...[they were] driving so fast that I turned around to look after them....I met them near the Slade School house..."

I like the way you question everthing.  Sorry to leave out things that might be helpful to you.

The writer does say he is well acquainted with Him (Bowen).
That brings up a few inferences:

Yes, it is right to question annon. letters!
and
This person Knows Bowen yet thinks him Capable of being involved with this crime?
(If this person was a friend, he may want to write in a "TIP" as a good citizen, w/o Bowen knowing...or this person, of course could be a crank., or some one who wants to malign the man.  But there doesn't seem to be much interest in collecting a reward?)

BTW:  The note is :
"Letter, handwritten in ink, enclosed in holograph envelope."
"Dated Dec. 2nd/92"    Seems like the day after the Indictment of Lizzie by the grand jury...
Oh, and the time stated is 10:45 which I thought was interesting, because that was near Andrew's murder time.

Thanks for the additional info, Kat.  Yes, I do have a copy of the Knowlton letters book. What page is the letter on?  I don't know what a holograph envelope is.

This story doesn't seem like something anyone would make up yet why would this person wait so long to tell it and if it is a straightforward statement, why not put their name on it?  That leads me to think there is an additional element involved, that perhaps  the person knew Dr. Bowen for a long time but not maybe as a friend since the information they were imparting implied Dr. Bowen was involved somehow. A friend or confidant would have gone to Dr. Bowen and asked him what he was doing driving like crazy that morning at that time and said he was seen. At least Alice did go to the Borden sisters and talk about the dress incident before she acted. Someone at the Emery house was reported to the police or newspapers that Uncle John left as Dr. Bowen came in...(Masterton, Lizzie Didn't Do it.) But if the Emery house was on the route described as to or from Shove Mill, I don't know.

Michael Martins and Dennis Binette, eds., The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Lizzie A. Borden: The Knowlton Papers, 1892- 1893, Fall River Historical Society, 1994, letter #HK113, pg. 117, unsigned, dated Dec.2, 1892:

Holograph I think refers to "in your own handwriting" like a Holograph will?

We need a map!
And yes, I agree that a good friend would ask the Dr. first.

Thanks for the page #, Kat. I think that both attorneys, the defense and prosecution, didn't like Bowen.  In Moody's opening statement he says, "It is to be regretted that Dr. Bowen, a witness accustomed to oservation, was the family physician and friend, and therefore affected,naturally, by this dreadful series of murders, for we might expect from him something of accurate observation, but Dr. Bowen thought Mrs. Borden had died of fright, and so expressed himself at the time."

Dr. Bowen later said that he never said that, that the policemen who said he did were wrong.  He said that on approaching the body he thought she might have died of fright but when he actually saw the body he was assured she was murdered.  Something is strange about that too.

Also in Robinson's closing statement for the defense he mentions that Dr. Bowen was seen by Harrington putting the fragments of a note into the stove at the Borden house but goes on to say that it was most likely something that had nothing to do with the case.  But I think he mentioned that because he wanted to let the jury know that Dr. Bowen had done it and the important part was A NOTE was involved and he was bent on having the jury believe in a note that arrived that morning to prove Lizzie didn't lie about it.

Dr. Bowen was getting in trouble many times that morning.

Yes, that's always been one of my favorite parts of the witness statements.  It's Doherty, in his August 4th report, who claims that Bowen said: "Mrs. Borden is lying dead upstairs.  I suppose she saw the killing of her husband, and ran upstairs, and died with fright".  Doherty, himself, then goes upstairs and sees Abby is lying in a pool of blood.  He then "informed the Doctor of the fact and he expressed much surprise". (Witness statements, p.4)

It is very strange.  Why would Doherty lie about this?

OOO, you guys are good.
Here is an excerpt from the N.Y. Times of Monday, Aug. 8th, 1892, from Fall River Aug. 7th:

"...Strange as it may seem, the police do not put much faith in the statements made by Dr. Bowen, who was the first physician on the scene.  He saw Mrs. Borden dead when he visited the house the first time, but he did not discover that she had died from murderous wounds until his attention was called to the blood on her hair.  According to statements of the authorities, he does not speak with that freedom that might be expected of a man in his professional position."

[Excerpt courtesy of Harry Widdows]

And then we have:
Evening Standard article, Fri. Aug. 5, 1892: 2
"Have A Clew"

"...Dr. Bowen is positive that Mrs. Borden must have entered the room where Mr. Borden sat just as the murderer finished his bloody work, and that the fiend chased her up stairs to her room, where he struck her down, as the blows were inflicted by a person who stood beside her."

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/NBES8-5-1892b.htm
[H.W.]

--things were Reported wrongly in these first days.

And, if you think of it, isn't that pretty much what Lizzie (if guilty) was hoping the world would believe, that the murders happened one directly after the other?  Lay people were not as sophisticated about the importance and detection of time of death as we media-saturated (pardon the pun!) wretches are today.  Poor Dr. Bowen. I bet he was very shaken up, especially when he recalled Abby's visit.  But then, as I get older, you may remember I'm holding more and more to the idea that the family circle knew what had happened, and closed ranks to protect baby Lizzie.  Who knew they couldn't count on Alice to keep her mouth shut (God bless her)?



 

I think the newspapers reported things wrongly for a long time, not just at first.  I recall having checked the trial testimony, and perhaps other documents, to find out for sure when Dr. Bowen learned  about Abby's death.  It wasn't till he returned from his trip to the drugstore and the telegraph office, so he sent the message off to Emma without knowing there had been TWO murders at the Borden house.  Since the good doctor had been instructed not to shock the old person at the house where Emma was staying, I've always wondered what that telegram said: "Emma - stop - return home immediately - stop - there's been a minor mishap - stop - Dr. Bowen - stop"?  I've also wondered if that note he threw into the stove wasn't a reminder to himself as to Emma's address in Fairhaven and what to put (and not to put) into his message to her. 

AS the famous quote says "I stepped over a thousand bodies during the war" and know that Abby was killed first over an hour earlier. Her blood is black, clotted, and dry to the touch; her body is cooler too.
(I don't remember the police officer's name.)

"Dying of fright" is a rationalization of reality. Often said in medieval times when somebody was found dead w/o even a scratch.
Nowadays, a post mortem will show a heart attack brought on by stress. Yes, a sudden scare will drive up blood pressure, etc.

Its NOT lying!!! Different people interpret the same set of facts depending on their own experience. The "iron horse" is one way of looking at a locomotive.

Besides, how can you perfectly trust every sentence in a newspaper report, then or now?

(Message last edited Oct-26th-02  3:58 PM.)

Can ANYONE imagine old and fat Abby bounding up those stairs, chased by a madman? Maybe the Dr made a joke that was misunderstood? Like when he asked Mrs Churchill (?) in to see the bloody body?

Has anyone ever had a panic attack? That is a perfect example
of getting scared enough to die of fright. I don't know how
people find murder victims without just keeling over.

So I wonder with all Dr. Bowen's confusion and being a witness for the prosecution why he was at Lizzie dinner party to celebrate her innocent verdict....I believe I read that.  Something in what he did or said must have proved valuable to her defense and aquittal. The sisters seemed to have retained him but got rid of Alice.

Sorry, I had another immediate thought. Dr. Dolan's testimony, perhaps it was at the Preliminary Hearing rather than the trial, he said that both Borden's had died of shock...he qualified that to mean the shock of receiving the blows.  Later information came in a to the carotid artery being cut in Mr. B. as a fatal wound. But it is possible that Dr. Bowen was thinking along the lines Dr. Dolan also elaborated on, died of fright and died of shock could mean the same thing and not mean what really happened medically speaking, yet hear we have doctors making these statements.

I always thought shock meant blood loss. And then you
could be 'in shock'.


4 : a state of profound depression of the vital processes associated with reduced blood volume and pressure and caused usually by severe especially crushing injuries, hemorrhage, or burns

(Message last edited Oct-26th-02  5:19 PM.)

From Dr. Dolan's Autopsy Report testimony Aug. 25, 1892:
Q: I might as well ask it now, as any time, it may be an absurd question too, in an ordinary point of view; what did you find to be the cause of death?
A: Shock
Q: That you use in the medical sense?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: What do you mean by that? Perhaps your Honor understands what it means.
A. (Court) Yes, shock from the wounds, as I understand it, Mr. Attorney.
Q:  Shock from the wounds?
A: Yes Sir.

That's very interesting Diana.  Doherty is one of the more believeable characters in this whole drama. I can see no reason why he would lie. His statement regarding Bowen was made on the 4th so it was fresh in his mind.

I think Dr. Bowen, caught up in the excitement, probably did take but a cursory glance at Abby that first view. I don't think that he mentions if the room was dark and I don't remember him opening any of the blinds.

Edisto:  My dear you are brilliant!  Of course I always thought so but here is some interesting speculation on your part which Shines:

Heres what HIt me, after reading your post...

Dr. Bowen's daughter was out of town that day.  Mrs. Dr. Bowen was watching for her arrival out the window, on & off that morning. 
Dr. Bowen went to his house to check the train schedule before going off to send the telegram to Emma.

So the notes in his hands back at the murder scene could very well have been notations as to What to write Emma in a telegram that would be discreet...and the address of Emmer as to Where she was staying...and it Would necessarily Have Emma's Name on it.

The "My daughter going through somewhere" could have meant that he had included his daughter's route home by train in notes he carried, including any transfers she may have had to make.  Maybe those notes also helped him in giving Directions to Emma on her best and quickest return route.  He may have logged that for her as a man might do giving a girl specific directions.

He may even had been charged by his wife, that IF he were available when their daughter's train was due, to pick her up if he was nearby at the right time, therefore he would be carrying these instructions.



Witness Statements
Pg. 6
Harrington

"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."

--we now have a reasonable explanation for the notes of Bowen.  Thank you.

(Message last edited Oct-26th-02  9:29 PM.)

But, wasn't Dr. Bowen said to have been trying to fit the little scraps together as if he didn't know what was on the scraps and was trying to piece it together so that he could read it?  If it was his own note, why would he need to do that? 

Because he's a bit absent minded?
Dolan also had trouble with his notes from that day.
He almost got in trouble with the court for *losing* his and not supplying them with an *official* autopsy report , by a certain date.
Dr. Bowen probably had tons of pieces of paper stuffed in his pockets...notes on his patients, etc.
He may have developed the habit of cleaning out his pockets of unnecessary items when the task was complete, like I might clean out my purse of receipts.
[BTW:  they are called *scraps* and *pieces* not little scraps, etc]

(Message last edited Oct-27th-02  1:20 AM.)

Could there be any explanation for why Lizzie wants to imply that the murders happened near the same time?  Is this the crux of the matter...the pivotal point?

She does say she thought she heard Mrs. Borden come in, around the time Lizzie had her women audience around her.
That's like saying "She's just come home...please go look".
What would be the reason?

Yikes, I had a double post, I guess I will use this space since it is here.

Perhaps Lizzie wanted Abby's murder to be discovered so she could get it all over with at once.  If everyone left, who would be the most apt to find Abby's body in the guest room, Alice?  John Morse?  Bridget normally didn't go up the front stairs, so, she would be out of the picture.  So, unless Lizzie had them search for Abby then and there, who would find Abby later?  No one would be sleeping in the elder Borden's bedroom that night because as far as they all knew at the time, Abby was still alive.                                                                       I don't think Lizzie knew at the time that John Morse would be back for sure, so, that would leave Lizzie, Emma, and Alice alone in the house with the chance that Alice would stay and sleep in the guest room and she would have discovered Abby.  And we saw how nervous poor Alice was already, why do that to her?

(Message last edited Oct-27th-02  4:24 PM.)

Sorry, my mistake on the 'small scraps', you are correct on the reference of them only being called 'scraps'.  I was just going by Harrington's testimony where he referred to them as being 'very small'.  From the Trial Volume 1, page 566, Philip Harrington on the stand:

Q. Did anything occur with reference to the stove in the kitchen?
A. Yes, sir.  Just as I went to pass by Dr. Bowen, between him and the stove, I saw some scraps of note paper in his hand.  I asked him what they were.

Q. You say you saw Dr. Bowen with some scraps of note paper in his hand?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where was he standing?
A. He was standing a little west of the door that led into the rear hall or entryway.

Pg 567/i588

Q. Go on and desribe what was done and what you and Dr. Bowen said, not what anyone else did.
A. I asked him what they were, referring to the pieces of paper, and he said, "Oh, I guess it is nothing."

       MR. ROBINSON.  I cannot let this go in unless you give me an assurance that it has nothing whatever to do with it.

       MR. KNOWLTON.  It has nothing to do with the case at all.

       MR. ROBINSON.  You claim the paper has no significance?

       MR. KNOWLTON   Well, he said it had no significance.

(My note here, why did they just trust Dr. Bowen's word?)

       THE WITNESS    So he started to arrange them so as to determine what was on them, or to learn their contents. They were very small and it was rather difficult, but on one piece, on the upper left-hand corner, was the word "Emma."  And that was written in lead pencil, as well as other pieces I saw.

Q. Now then, what did you do with that paper?
A. I asked him again what they contained, and he said,"Oh, I think it is nothing.  It is something, I think, about my daughter going through somewhere."  He then turned slightly to his left and took the lid from the stove and threw the papers in, or the pieces in.

Now why would you think that Dr. Bowen would choose then and there to clean out his pockets, in the middle of a crime scene and crime investigation?  That just doesn't sit right with me!  And, that he wouldn't show Harrington what was on the papers or scraps.  Yes, it very well may have been private correspondance, but, they were on a crime scene, don't you think for his sake he would have shown Harrington what was there to satisfy him and then burn the papers?  To me, its suspicious.

I also recall reading, though it may have been one of the authors, that Dr. Bowen was standing above the wastebasket in the kitchen, almost as if he fished those scraps out of the trash to read. 


(Message last edited Nov-2nd-02  2:50 PM.)

i was hoping you would find a reference to what you claimed.
I really wanted to see that--I figured you did know, but I thought it better to be sure.  It was helpful to see that testimony.  It adds a dimension.
This thing with Fleet, though, is bothersome to me.  That it was FLEET.  Still, it's valid.
I would hope Bowen told the truth that those notes were nothing, and had naught to do with the case.
"My daughter going through somewhere" never made ANY sense to me until I realized a train schedule interpretation.
You ask why burn something at a crime scene.
Why did Lizzie burn a dress?
Why did doctors traipse around the house with the victim's blood on their shoes. [edit:  Proceedings, 217]  Why did they wash their hands in a basin in the Guest Room and not document the fact?[edit:  W.S.22]
Why wasn't a full autopsy done?
Why wasn't the house secured?
Why was the press allowed in the house within the first hour?
More?
Bowen was scattered and shocked.  He of all of these people making mistakes at that crime scene was a friendly neighbor and HE I can understand acting oddly after witnessing his friends crushed countenance absent-mindedly tthrowing out his scraps of paper.
Just one interesting way to look at it.

(Message last edited Oct-29th-02  2:12 AM.)

Yes, I will agree, Harrington does come across as a bumbling fool at times, but, he does seem to be trying to get the truth across to the best of his abilities.  Oh, forgot to add that had the little note burning scenario not come about, I don't think that Harrington would have even thought to have checked in the stove and seen the burnt rolled document or paper!

I've never quite understood Robinson's statement that this note burning had to have nothing to do with the case in order to be told?  Hunh?  I thought that it would have to have something to do with the case in order to be stated in court. 

I was thinking that if Dr. Bowen made a note that was to be sent as a telegram wouldn't he have left that at the telegram office?  And if not and he written on the back of a note he had had in his pocket and had torn it up absent-mindedly and put it back in his pocket and then thought better of just tossing it without checking what was written on the back, why couldn't he just have shared that with Harrington.  Oh, I just took this out of my pocket, it was my note for the telegram to send for Emma.  Yes, perhaps he was in shock and wasn't thinking very clearly.  But, still, very strange behaviour!  I would think Dr. Bowen would have had more pressing matters at hand than rummaging through his pockets and cleaning them out at the time.  Just my opinion. 

 

(Message last edited Nov-2nd-02  2:51 PM.)

A Casebook of Family and Crime, Williams, et.al:  Pg.18:
Fleets Notes, quoting Lizzie, Aug. 4th:
"...Man came here this morning about nine o'clock, I think he wanted to hire a store talked English did not see him, heard father shut the door and think the man went away."....

Okay.
A man came, according to Lizzie, at a time that was very near Abby's muder time.
A) Andrew could have let the murderer in.
B) Morse may have been seen to leave by the side door but then was re-admitted by Andrew at the front, (in a plot?)
C) Lizzie was the one who let a man in, but is covering herself.
D) There was no man?
E) Did any man come forward to say he was there at 9 a.m.?
F) Someone brought a note.

(Message last edited Oct-28th-02  2:51 AM.)

I recall reading about this and its not clear to me whether someone came to talk to Andrew or a note was delivered, but, that the door was slammed shut around nine in the morning, supposedly there are witness statements to that effect.  I will check into whether or not I can find them.

A) I don't think Andrew would leave a strange man in the house that he was just arguing with, I think he would have escorted him out.
B) That is a possibility, but, why make such a show of Morse leaving only to let him in again?  Morse could have just stayed later, if it was something to hide from Lizzie, she was still upstairs at the time.
C) Possible, but, wouldn't Bridget have heard the bell in the kitchen?  Why was she not asked about this at the Inquest, whether someone had come there or not on the murder morning, or, was she already outside at the time?
D)  Also a good possibility.  Some strange man to argue with Andrew on the morning of his murder that no one else saw and only Lizzie heard.
E) No!  No man came forward, but, if it was legit and you were that man, would you admit to being there that morning?
F) Lincoln insists that someone brought a note at this time to get Abby out of the house and Lizzie intercepted it and already knew what was up.  Its possible, but, what did happen to that note?  Wouldn't it have led credence to Lizzie's story of Abby having a note if there was actually a note laying around the house somewhere?  But if it was there, the police would have found out where Abby was expected or who had sent the note and the jig would have been up if there was any hanky-panky going on around 92 Second Street!

A) I don't know as they were arguing.  I am going by the Fleet quote of Lizzie as to Aug. 4th.
I mean to wonder if ANDREW hired a hit on Abby...let in the murderer and then left himself.
B) Morse leaving only to return would in effect fool Bridget who saw him leave but then was about her business cleaning up her kitchen supposedly until 9:30 when she commenced to gather her gear for window-washing.  Also Abby would think Morse had left.  He says he didn't see her since 8:30 or so when he thought she went into the front hall.  Lizzie could have been anywhere as she is the one speaking this stuff...
C) No bell is rung.  Person expected, under these curcumstances...
D--see "A"
E
F
sounds reasonable...

I want to make it clear that my original supposition (and it was only that) was that Dr. Bowen might have written himself a note about how to reach Emma with a telegram and (perhaps) what to tell her.  I wasn't suggesting that he composed the telegram on the scrap of paper.  He might well have written his note on a piece of paper that he already had in his pocket, since he might not have wanted to ask Lizzie or Bridget to fetch a piece of paper for him.  The paper he used could well have been a note that he had written about his daughter's train schedule, which would explain his comment about "my daughter going through somewhere."  However, I don't think we will ever know the real facts with regard to the burnt pieces of paper.  Mine is just one possible explanation.  As an aside: this morning I was researching the value of some autographs and other documents.  Can you imagine what the value of those pieces of paper would be if they hadn't been destroyed and if someone had later found them in Dr. Bowen's pocket?  Wouldn't that be a fabulous document to own?  I seriously doubt, however, that it would solve the Borden case.

A) Sorry, I transposed Lizzie's Inquest story of Andrew having trouble with a man for Fleet's testimony, my bad!  Well, that would bring a whole new dimension to the case if Andrew had hired a hitman to take out Abby!  For sassing him when he chased Dr. Bowen away?  For being too old and fat for him when he had his eye on some delectable young thing?
B) But, why hide Morse being there from Bridget?  The goings on in the house weren't her business, would she really care if Morse was still around?  And Abby could have come downstairs again and seen Morse re-entering the house at any time, too risky.  Unless the moment he came in he went upstairs and did poor Abby in?
C) But, for show sake, since Lizzie apparently heard Andrew talking to this man who spoke english, wouldn't he have at least knocked?  Unless Andrew was hovering by the front door waiting and peeking out one of those little windows to see when his appointment would arrive.
D)
E)
F) It does sound reasonable, but, its from Lincoln which is circumspect already!  But, as to Lizzie hearing and knowing what was up in that house, I think yes, she seems to have heard quite abit up in her room.

Boy, that Andrew hiring a hitman to kill Abby adds a
rather stunning new dimension to the case. I never thought along
those lines, I had assumed they were "happily" married, you
know, as happy as anyone could married to either one of them,
but Abby never seemed all that bad. It is strange to think that
everyone could have been in on it including Andrew himself.

I don't think Andrew would have hired a hit man to kill Abby, but he might have made a trade, a basket of eggs for the deed.  Ha!

More seriously, I agree with Susan on the note business regarding Dr. Bowen. Here is a physician who has supposedly got in his pocket very small pieces of paper which a policeman sees him piecing together in order to read.  Although the comment that he might have many scraps of paper in his pocket makes sense, why would a physician tear any note into small pieces and put them back into his pocket and then take them out again in order to read them?

The note having the name Emma, perhaps, on the top left where a salutation might be expected to appear is suspicious if the note had something to do with his daughter.  Maybe it wasn't at the top of the note if the police officer didn't see it exactly right.  It might be that if Dr. Bowen is right that he was also sending his daughter a telegram telling her of the murder of Andrew or telling his daughter to get in touch with Emma. We don't know where his daughter was "coming through" from, do we?  Or at least I don't.  And maybe the fact the daughter didn't arrive when Mrs. Bowen was looking for her meant she was held up somewhere, and what if it was where Emma was or near there?

Also, Lizzie said, around the time Andrew's body was covered up and after Bowen left, that she thought she heard Abby come in, but that doesn't mean she heard Abby come in THEN. It means that, I think, she heard Abby come in SOMETIME that morning. She never does say what time.

Also which door did the man come to who Andrew supposedly saw at 9 am Aug. 4th.  Then never say which door in the testimony do they (?), everyone supposes it is the front door.




 

Don't you mean a basket of cracked eggs?

I read your post & I thought of Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder,
how about blackmailing someone to do it?

I was wondering whether Dr. Bowen's note had writing on both sides of the paper.  On one side perhaps the address Emma was staying at so he would know where to send the telegram. On the other side something concerning his daughter.  All kinds of possibilities.  Poor choice of time to be burning something though.  Ask Lizzie about that.

Well, I'm glad you replied Edisto, and made yourself clear. I did take your ball & run but I am very satisfied at least about that dang phrase that I'd always wondered about :  "My daughter going through somewhere".  I never thought of her train trip or the scheduling before!
At least you didn't deny you were brilliant!
You were inspiring after all.
..........
Bowen burning papers in front of the police leads me to think it was innocuous.  There was certainly no hurry to dispose of these notes.  They weren't going to SEARCH him, after all.
I don't recall that these notes were described as *torn* into small pieces.  Unless there's a reference to that?

Lizzie telling Andrew that Abby was OUT at about 10:45 a.m., only to mention sometime around 11:30 that she thought she had heard her come in, still fits the timing limit as to imply that the two elder Bordens were murdered at or near the same time...from 10:50 to 11:30.  Less than forty minutes...or less than 10 if we consider the real timing of Lizzie's mentioning Abby as now being in the house.


B) Had to hide Morse's return from Bridget.  His leaving, and her witnessing his leaving, was crucial to his alibi which holds unto this day!  But he had from..what...8:45 to 9:30 (W.S) to get to Weybosset Street?  Abby killed at 9 fits this parameter.  Plus it would explain how he knew Abby had given an order to wash windows to Bridget, because he was hiding for a short period before Abby went off on her own upstairs to her doom.

Kat, that was my assumption that the scraps were torn up pieces of paper.  Dr. Bwen was trying to fit very small scraps of paper together to read what the note was according to Fleet's testimony, that leads me to believe that it was torn up into tiny scraps, almost like a jigsaw puzzle.

B)  I like it, it sounds reasonable and makes perfect sense!  But, to me that would make it Lizzie who had to have let Morse back in, she and Emma would profit from Abby's death, I don't think Andrew would unless he just wanted to get rid of her for some reason.  But, why in the house?  Why not get her out of the house with a note to go on a sick call and waylay her on the way?

Carol, I think you're right about no door being mentioned, I guess just assumption on our parts.

Maybe Abby was hard to get out of the house, she never
went anywhere much, did she? If they took or lured her
away it seems like it would look odd that she was killed
on one of only a few trips out. I'm liking thinking about
old Andy doing it & getting it done to himself. Hmmm! Cheating
husbands!

These pieces are getting tinier and tinier and torn up or ripped and Bowen is trying to put them back together again?
I don't think I read that testimony?

Yea, Lizzie could have made up that Andrew had seen a man that morning.  But, she couldn't know that he wouldn't mention the man accidently while downtown? So she has to mention it for consistency's sake?
But since when was she ever consistent?
Yea, It could be either way...

I think the simplest solution is generally best. Dr Bowen did destroy a note he had. Did it really say "Emma" on it? Was it his daughter's name? We only have the testimony of one person, no corroboration at all.
AR Brown says Lizzie sent Dr Bowen out to notify Uncle John of the murders, and get him to return. She was overwhelmed by the events. Doesn't this sound rational? No matter what else might be covered by this?
If someone visited you, then a death occurred, wouldn't you call them back? If only to tell them the news.

I think the simplest solution is true. AR Brown says the note was to get her out of the house (so Andy could meet in private). Note that Abby Borden Whitehead Potter was to have spent the day there, but it was cancelled the day before. ABWP's Mom went to the clambake, a social event of the day.

I do not think the note was to draw her upstairs to the guest room to be killed, even if that is a possibility.

Kat -- perhaps it's this testimony on page 6 of the Witness Statements?  Philip Harrington claims: "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."

Later in the same paragraph, Harrington also says that Bowen took the lid off the kitchen stove and "dropped the pieces in".

I understand the phrasing but I seem to picture putting like note with like...as in ..I've got a bunch of notes..(I really do) and they are out of order.  Some are behind others but I want to straighten them out and put them in order to double check them before I throw them away.
I have little notes scraps all over the place.  In a file I have sraps that are a book review!  Notes taken while starting a Lizzie book and I didn't know I was going to take a note...I grab whats handy and pretty soon that is filled and I grab something else.
I actually end up writing Over old writing!  And I have ample paper.
I think it's an absent-minded thing to do.

I thought about dumping some of my notes on the table and taking a picture to show you my little scaps!
And Bowen is Almost a Cancer!
BTW:  I just noticed his birthday is July 20th to Lizzie's July 19th.

I know what you mean, Kat.  I do the same -- I have grocery receipts covered with questions stuck in some of my Lizzie books because I didn't want to break my train of thought by searching out a clean piece of paper.

So I guess it's definitely a matter of interpretation as to whether the 'scraps' Bowen was checking were torn pieces of the same message -- or a bunch of different messages.

Yes, cracked eggs is even better.  Perhaps cracked with a little tiny tiny hatchet.

If no one indicated whether the pieces of notepaper Dr. Bowen was piecing together to read were or were not torn, I would assume torn up because to have the pieces cut up would be even more bizarre. Not many people today even cut up notes. That somehow any note is in pieces adds to the mystery because it would be so simple to just crush up a note and toss it into the fire.  For some reason Dr. Bowen was needing to see what the note said or he wouldn't have been rearranging the pieces. 

Interesting thought about the note having two sides.  But then if it was in pieces no one would have been able to see a reverse side unless it was taped or glued together and turned over, which no one mentions. 

Well, the whole event caught the attention of the policeman, Harrington, I think, for which I give him a gold star for observation, even if he didn't follow that up with confiscation.

If some of you think that these scraps of paper of Bowen's were important to the crime, do you have a theory as to what those scraps were or how this scene ties in?

Well, if it wasn't Dr. Bowen's own note addressed to Emmer, what was he doing with possibly a torn up note of Lizzie's to Emmer?  As was suggested earlier, Dr. Bowen arrived at the scene first and could have done a myriad of things to the crime scene.  Including digging through the wastebaskets and removing possible incriminating notes and burning them before the police got to them?

Thats the only reason I can think of for those scraps to be important to the crime.  And Dr. Bowen's behaviour, he seemed reluctant to let the police see what was on the scraps and when they got close to him to look at it, he turned and dumped them in the stove saying it was nothing, I think it was something about my daughter going through somewhere.  Weird!  So, he burned either one torn-up note, or a bunch of notes on small scraps and wouldn't let the officers look at them. 

(Message last edited Oct-31st-02  1:18 AM.)

I think those pieces of paper were important to the "investigation" if not the crime itself. The fact that Harrington observed this piecing together of paper and was alerted enough to consider it important enough to mention later is important.

That we, unless I have forgotten some testimony, do not know where the pieces originated from, Dr. Bowen's pocket or somewhere in the house, is important to know.

The fact that Dr. Bowen himself, when alert to the fact that Harrington was watching him piece together the note and yet did not offer to give them to Harrington is suspicious.  This has many connotations to me...I wonder what passed between the two men in this instance which was not verbalized. One of the men at the time in silence bowed to the other. Dr. Bowen seems to have held the upper hand, perhaps this is because of his rank as a physician or because he was older.  Harrington did not feel it his duty or right to override Dr. Bowen by seizing the note pieces or ask for him to show them to him.  I find this odd.

By this time of day there were many people who were aware Lizzie said there had been a note and here is a note in physical form, not to mention the fact that several people had been searching for the note or aware it was important to locate it.

 

It seemed to me that a Doctor would superceed a policeman in that the doctor could command respect and defference by anyone, and also his age and reputation would probably also cause him to be catered to.  He could have privledged information there on his notes that could not be questioned by the law without a search warrant.  Even if there was no such thing back then, the attitude would be similar, I think.  as privleged as a lawyer.
So I do think he was handled gently and respectfully by the police because of his status.
But also, we at least should remember that it was as late as 12:25 p.m. when this note collating occurred and it did occur In the Kitchen, while present were also, besides Harrington:  Asst. Marshal Fleet, Dr. Dolan, Bridget, and "several others."  That they did speak about it, and that Harrington says, "If I recollect correctly it was addressed to Emma, but about that I am not sure."  (That's 2 "maybe's" in that one sentence...)

I think it's mainly the timing which makes me wonder at how this could possibly be suspicious.  It was so late into the discovery of the crime, and the Doctor had already left, gone on errands and returned. Why carry something incriminating around when he could have tossed it off his carriage into the gutter.  I'm sure they littered back then.
He also left to go home to eat...which I think was around 1 pm., but am having trouble finding that.
.....................
More Notes:
 
Trial
Dr. Bowen
pg. 323+

Q.  Were you present with Dr. Dolan when any autopsy or examination or official examination for the purpose of getting at the cause of death was made?

A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And did you take some notes for him?
A.  I took notes in the morning, if you refer to that.

Q.  Well, I ask if at any time?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And you say you took notes in the morning, and you mean by morning before one o'clock or before twelve?
A.  I mean about twelve.

Q.  And those notes concerned which body?
A.  Mrs. Borden's.

--If the pieces Dr. Bowen burned were suspicious to you all, I thought you might think it was "The Note."  If it was "the Note", any thought on it's origin, and how it concerned Dr. Bowen?

I've always gotten the impression that the note that Dr. Bowen had was something that Lizzie had written to Emma.  He found it in the wastebasket and incriminating or not, burned it.  I've never felt it was the note myself.  Wasn't there a letter that went to Fairhaven for Emma that was returned back to the Second Street house because of her returning after the murders?  I seem to recall that there was.  Has anyone else heard or read of this? 

I believe Lizzie testified at the inquest about that letter to Emma.  However, Emma was still in Fairhaven and that letter was in the mail at the time Dr. Bowen was burning this "note" (or whatever it was) in the stove, so Lizzie's letter to Emma probably wouldn't be a candidate.  I certainly hope Dr. Bowen didn't find a note written by Lizzie and burn it without letting the police know!  That might be suppressing evidence.  I've always thought (and this is just my opinion) that Dr. Bowen, when he saw the police were interested in what he was burning, attempted to piece it back together to show it wasn't anything incriminating.  How successful he was we'll probably never know, but the police seemed to be satisfied.

From the evidence the police were never asked by Dr. Bowen to take the pieces of the note or look at them, nor did the police ask for them. Dr. Bowen just satisfied himself of what was on the pieces of note and then tossed them away. It was pure luck that the police officer saw the name Emma, or what he thought was Emma on one piece.
That Dr. Bowen wanted to see what was on the note makes me think that he didn't know, so therefore it wasn't from his family or something he had seen before.

Maybe he was just refreshing his memory after a "senior moment"?
You can speculate all you want, but he was never a suspect!!!

I've just read this thread over 1 & 1/2 times.  It was very good you guys!

And yes, Bowen is still suspect...

(Message last edited Nov-2nd-02  9:19 PM.)

Well, I think I've got a map.
Let's see if this works.
Harry found this a while ago...it is a panoramic view of Fall River, except it Zooms.  Meaning I had to find my area and then modify my view.  I am happy to say, I believe I found the area I was looking for in 2 Clicks!

We're looking at Second Street where the Borden house is.
We want Weybosset but I can only give directions according to Morse.  From his testimony I *think* it is a little street up near that big building at the top of the frame where the water is.  Morse says he went down to the post office when he left that morning, and "went  up Bedford St. to Third street and went from there to Pleasant street and up to Weybosset"...  (Inq. 103)

Dr. Bowen says he left Second Street to send the telegram and Rebello pg. 82, has him going to the Western Union Telegraph Co. at the corner of South Main and Pocasset St.  That is near those 4 big buildings that are running parallel and horizontily.
We have the annon. letter that says he was seen at 10:45 a.m. up by Shove Mill and the Slade School, but I can't seem to find the Slade School.  I found a Slade Pond, but no Slade School nearby...
We want to see if these 2 landmarks are near Weybosset St.  Bowen was rumored to have been seen at the Emery's there.  Would he even have time to run home, run his carriage to the Telegraph office, run to Weybosset Street and back to Second street in that small amount of time he allows?



(Message last edited Nov-5th-02  5:10 AM.)

Gee!  Cool map Kat!  I can just see Dr. Bowen racing around in his carriage!

I checked on MapQuest to see if I could find Weybosset Street, it is off of Pleasant Street, to the east of Quarry Street, close to the Quequechan river.



Second Street is west, it looks quite far from it.  There is a Slade Street that is south of Second Street.



(Message last edited Nov-5th-02  9:29 PM.)

I see a red square.  Is this a current map?  Do you think we'll be able to ascertain the part of town, with all the changes we've talked about?
I can't wait.  I'd like to see Weybosset!
Can we get it here, or a link perhaps?

Yes, this is a current map, but, you can still find Second Street, Rodman St., Borden St., etc.  Lets see if this link works, keep your fingers crossed.

Okay, thanks.
I've found Weybosset to be between Pleasant and Bedford.
So on the map of 1877 that street would be to the left of the  " V " where that water comes down into the picture, instead of to the right.

Prelim.
Morse
243
Q.  That is way up to the eastward?
A.  Perhaps a good mile up there.

A good mile is not too far, after all....


(Message last edited Nov-5th-02  10:04 PM.)

Rummaging around in the Trial--found Mr. Moody and his opening statement, pg. 78+, has Bowen tearing up a note, and confusing dress info.
I think this must be where some inaccuracies have entered into the account.  His opening is not evidence:

."... It will appear---and it was pure accident that this observation was made---that soon after the alarm an officer of Fall River was attracted by something that Dr. Bowen was doing to the stove,---I do not mean to suggest anything,---but the fact that he was tearing up a note and was going to put it into the stove; and he looked in and saw what there was, and found a large roll of what appeared to be burnt paper.

The prisoner had a calico, or cotton, dress, perhaps I ought to say, which she was in the habit of wearing mornings. It was a light blue dress with a fixed figure, a geometrical figure of some sort, and the figure was not white, but was navy blue,---a darker blue. Dr. Bowen has said, and I have no doubt will say here now, that she had on a cheap calico dress, a sort of a drab colored dress...."

--oh we must be careful about these opening and closing statements.  Granted, these guys may know something we don't and can't get it into a juror any other way than this...but it is not valid....or provable. It's just talk.

Yes, the prosecution used the testimony of their witnesses to say Lizzie was, as a fact, wearing that described garment. But, as you say, that is not evidence.  They were trying to show that Lizzie fooled the police by not giving them the right clothing because the bengaline silk didn't prove to have any blood on it. They were also trying to infer that the Bedford Cord she burned WAS the dress she wore and it probably did have blood on it which is why she burned it.

The defense went the other way, accusing the prosecution of the above and relying of their witnesses, Mrs. Bowen, who said she thought the dress in evidence might be the one Lizzie was wearing.

But the defense also, in Robinson's closing statement, tried to fool the jurors by going on and on for pages saying that the evidence showed Bridget heard about the note from Abby herself, when the evidence never says that, it says the opposite and it is easy to see it does.

But then the prosecution also withheld the fact the doctors found gilt in Abby's wounds which said the weapon was a new one from the factory.

So neither prosecution or defense were exactly truthful and the opening and closing statements need to be taken with a grain of salt.

The simplest way to contradict the erroneous belief that Lizzie had bloodstains on her dress is this: NO ONE there at that time said so!!! Or was everyone shielding Lizzie? If she did approach and get close to Dear Old Dad she could have gotten stained innocently?

AR Brown (and others?) said Andy was a "loathsome miser"; we all know he swindled widows and orphans in his funeral business. Could it have been the opinion that "Andy finally got what he deserved"?

About 10 years ago I saw a TV movie (based on a true incident). This guy in Missouri was a drug dealer and pimp who lured young girls into his business. One day as he was walking in the public square an aggrieved father walked behind him and shot him in the back, then dumped the pistol in the nearby wet concrete. Nobody talked!!! It was like one of those assassinations in wartime Europe or elsewhere.

Yes, I hope to be constantly reminding myself of just what you say....
I was thinking about this more today and was wondering about how these guys got away with stuff like taking the jury to the drug store where the alledged poison request by Lizzie happened!  Later this is all ruled inadmissable, but those lawyers got a lot of it in anyway!  I can't fathom how Lizzie was found not guilty with such specious evidence seemingly against her!  I can't picture a jury being THAT unbiased as to disregard "evidence" just because they are told to.  

When did the jury go visit the drug store where Lizzie was supposed to have attempted to buy prussic acid? I knew they visited the Borden house but thought that was their only visitation. I do remember that Eli Bence was brought into Lizzie's home to identify her I think Thursday or Friday night and the police stood him by the door to view her and hear her voice, then took away. That never got into evidence either.

When I was reading the trial testimony I found out something I didn't know before. On all the TV specials on Lizzie those interviewed have said that the court rejected the Bence testimony on the grounds that it was too remote in time and was a different kind of weapon (poison).  That was part of the defense argument but the court made it's decision upon the evidence by authorities on poison. When one of them said that it was used as an insecticide that was what the judges were waiting to hear.  They ruled the evidence inadmissable because it was proved it could be used for the purpose Bence described she wanted to purchase it for. So it was the bugs that saved her.

That she didn't have any blood on her clothing bolsters her own statements that she didn't go into the room to see her father close up and also that she never went into the room to view Abby once the body was found.

Although a certain amount of strength can be given to the fact women in general didn't want to get involved with the crime scenes, the fact that Lizzie didn't even go into see Abby's body nor verify that her father was really dead seems to point out they didn't get on together in life. However, she did send for the doctor because she said she wasn't sure he was dead. 

This is odd.  I can't find a ruling by the Court as to the testimony being admissable of Eli Bence.  I was looking for the terminology the Court may have used, the better to understand the question of Inadmissabilty.  I find the arguments of both sides and the Court doesn't want to rule "piecemeal", but after all the arguments with the jury out, and after they are returned and the experts are put on the stand, the whole issue seems to fall flat.
Page 1303 Knowlton seems to change his whole direction and speaks of putting into evidence several items, one of which he specifically names as a "piece of pear skin", which I never noticed--I wonder what THAT is. 
Anyway, if there is a specific ruling made by a judge as to the Prussic Acid issue, could someone lead me to the page, please?

As to what the jury saw on their expedition to Fall River, Rebello, pg. 240 has an excerpt from:

Fall River Daily Herald, Wednesday, June 7, 1893, :7

"The Borden jurors visited the Borden home, Dr. Kelly's house, Vernon Wade's store, the New York & Boston Express Co. barn and continued on Rodman to Third Street to examine Crowe's stone yard which abutted the Borden house.  They further examined Dr. Chagnon's house and Kirby's yard that abutted Dr. Chagnon's.  They stopped at the corner of Borden and Third Streets where Andrew Jennings pointed out where Alice Russell lived.  They continued to the corner of Second and Borden Streets to A.P.Gorman's store where the call was made to alert police about the murder.  They viewed the new Andrew J. Borden Building and  traveled up South Main Street to D.R. Smith's Drug Store where Lizzie allegedly attempted to purchase prussic acid.  They walked down to the corner of Spring Street to visit Jonathan Clegg's store on the corner of Spring and South Main Streets.  The jurors went up Spring Street and down Second Street to Dr. Bowen's house and Hall's Stable.  The last place they visited was the Union Savings Bank and the B.M.C.Durfee Savings Bank.  They ended their day by dining at the Mellen House.  (located at the corner of Franklin and North Main Streets)."

--Nice day's outing...No one mentions whether they went for some ice cream.  Jeesh!  Anyway, apparently Lizzie declined to accompany this expedition.

(Message last edited Nov-8th-02  7:53 PM.)

Thanks for posting that, Kat!  I knew that the jury had visited the Borden house and the drug store, didn't know it was such a full trip!  Maybe Lizzie treated them all to orange sherbet when they got back tipping the scales in her favor. 

That was a fortuitous find, a newspaper article telling more than the trial transcript offered. I wonder if the jury actually went in all those places, probably just walked by or saw the location of some of them.

Yes, the trial transcript of strange in that part about the prussic acid testimony.  But the way I read it, Eli Bence is called to the stand and Knowlton asks a few questions, whereupon he is then excused and the court and attorneys take up certain questions without the jury. 

On page 1303 Knowlton says: "I now offer the testimony of Eli Bence, the witness who was called last night and excused for the time being.

So it is there that the attorney is attempting to include the testimony.

But Judge Mason comes back with: "The Court is of the opinion as the evidence now stands the preliminary questions are NOT INCLUDED (my capitals and it is here I think that the exclusion is made.) I concluded that the testimony was finished. The court did not desire to rule on it piecemeal."

Then Knowlton tries to continue on with more evidence and the Judge cuts him off and excludes those extra questions.

Maybe I am wrong and someone else with more legal knowledge can help out.

The trial transcript (unless you are a lawyer) makes it hard to figure out the court's ruling on the admissibility of the attempted poison purchase.  Better sources are Davis and Wigmore.

From Davis, "The Conduct of the Law: The Borden Case", page 8

"The court permitted the government to prove the general facts as to the character and recognized uses of prussic acid, for which it was claimed that the prisoner inquired, and which she said she wanted to treat seal skin furs; and then, because a furrier and a druggist did not know that it was used for such a purpose, rejected the evidence. This was in effect a ruling that a circumstance of independent or helpful evidence, not essential to proof of guilt, but looking in that direction, could not be shown in a case of circumstantial evidence. It was a ruling that such evidence should not be left to a jury, but only admitted or rejected, at the whim of the court.
It was a ruling that if the homicide was committed with a hatchet, evidence that the prisoner sought the purchase of an axe the day before was not admissible because an axe is used to split wood; in other words, if the murder was committed with one deadly instrument or article, the fact that she endeavored to obtain another deadly agent and could not get it, could not be shown."

Wigmore, "The Borden Case", page 838 also discusses the court's ruling. It's a little too long to list here.

Both are available at the web site.


(Message last edited Nov-8th-02  11:50 PM.)

Thanks, Harry for the Davis quote.

"Only at the whim of the court", is essentially what happened, but I still maintain there was no ruling.  All Mason did was let the testimony of Lawton, the druggist, claim he knows of no other purpose for prussic acid than as a medicine...
Does not allow Tillson to testify on his experience...
Rules that Dolan is "not qualified"...
And as for Hathaway, the analytical chemist, the defence asks him beaucoup questions, finding out that prussic acid can kill insects and small animals and is very volatile and can greatly harm a person, according to experiments he had made the night before...
and then Bence is called by Knowlton ...
and THEN Justice Mason says:

MASON, C. J. "The Court is of opinion as the evidence now stands, the preliminary questions are not included. I concluded that that testimony was finished. The Court did not desire to rule upon it piecemeal."

MR. KNOWLTON. "Very well. I will put the question and your Honor may exercise the discretion of the Court upon it. The first question is a preliminary one."
............
MASON, C. J. "We do not know what the question is."

MR. KNOWLTON." I say it is a preliminary question."

Knowlton asks the preliminary question of Tillson, recalled. The question is asked, objected to by Robinson, then:

Page 1303
MASON, C. J." I think you ought not to reopen that question."

Another question is asked by Knowlton, it is objected to by Robinson and excluded by Mason. and that's it.

Previous to this there was a "proffer made":
MASON, C. J.  " Mr. Moody, the Court desire to have restated the limitations or purpose for which the testimony is offered."

MR. MOODY. "There is no purpose of offering this testimony for any other use than as bearing upon the state of mind of the defendant prior to the homicide; the intent, the deliberation and the preparation, and for that or any part of it which your Honors may suggest which it has a natural tendency to prove, we offer it."

MASON, C. J. "The Court are of the opinion that, provided the preliminary evidence comes up to the proffer, the evidence is competent. Of course, the preliminary evidence must be submitted before the main question can be finally determined."
---------
MASON, C. J. "The offer or proof was deemed sufficient if the evidence should come up to the offer. It was suggested to avoid uncertainty, that the offer should be distinctly stated: but possibly it is sufficiently so in the stenographic report of the oral offer."

MR. KNOWLTON. "I have also given my friends the names of the several witnesses through whom I propose to substantiate the offer outside of Mr. Bence."

MR. ROBINSON. That does not add to the offer. We have just received them at this moment."

Page 1276

MASON, C. J. "We did not intend to exclude the Commonwealth from proving more than its offer.'

On page 1240, Mason wants to hear the objection to the testimony as to prussic acid's uses as to the state of mind of the defendent, and "intent, deliberation, and preparation":.  That's when he says :
MASON, C. J. " The Court are of the opinion that, provided the preliminary evidence comes up to the proffer, the evidence is competent. Of course, the preliminary evidence must be submitted before the main question can be finally determined."


This all comes before Mr. Lawton takes the stand.  The rest of Mason's rullings are all :

"I do not think the question in that form is competent."

"I do not think the question is what it has been in his experience; if he knows what form it is---if he can omit that element---"

and..."Excluded".

--There is a lot of arguing going on and citing of cases and Robinson fumbling and [EDIT here: Knowlton-- I mean MOODY] looking like he did his homework,,,

But, in the final analysis, the arguments from both counsel's do not constitute a ruling by the court, and I can find no ruling specific to the Prussic Acid matter as case law, no matter what spin later jurists liked to put on it it their dissertations.
I think a resonable and logical person can read this and not be confused, even if no background in law.
I would reiterate here, if someone can find a specific ruling on this matter contained in this trial I would be happy to be pointed to it.


(Message last edited Nov-10th-02  12:23 AM.)

Justice Mason says, "The court is of the opinion that as the evidence now stands the preliminary testimony (of Eli Bence) is not included. I concluded that testimony was finished..." 

Why do you not think that that statement does not mean that the prussic acid/Eli Bence testimony is excluded? The Judge makes this statement after the court has heard the expert witnesses and determined the poison can kill insects. All Knowlton is doing after that with his one or two questions is try to change the judge's mind and the judge's mind is not changed. How else can the Judge say it except that he deems that the Bence testimony is "not included" and he will not allow Bence to resume testimony?

The preliminary questions are to Lawton, Tillson, Hathaway, Dolan, and Tillson.
Tillson is on the stand when the court says the testimony is finished.  Bence is not the issue according to this preamble that the court makes the prosection go through.
Mason doesn't make a ruling OF LAW, does not give a reason, makes no "determination" as to Bence, does not have a drafted opinion to read into the record...As I had always thought.
There is no case law cited, just .."the preliminary questions are not included. I concluded that that testimony was finished."

There is not at issue changing the judges mind.  He says he is open to the Commonwealth to proving their offer:  "The Court are of the opinion that, provided the preliminary evidence comes up to the proffer, the evidence is competent."   He is willing.  Then he no longer is willing.  He may decry some lack...but he doesn't say why or what.

That sounds like the "whim of the court" and there is no message of law given to the ages, to study or preserve.  Nada.

(Message last edited Nov-10th-02  10:55 PM.)

I suppose you will have to ask a lawyer why the Judge didn't express himself as you supposed he should.

It was Bence's testimony that Knowlton wanted to include. The Justices had the power to exclude that evidence, they did that by excluding Bence's previous testimony and that he would not be allowed to further testify. Robinson successfully argued against the inclusion, the preliminary testimony did not come up to snuff. There is no doubt of their ruling here, even if it is called a whim or not expressed in a lengthy disertation as to why.

If they made their decision against the law then Knowlton would have lodged some sort of complaint against the court.  He didn't so he was satisfied that what the Justices did was correct even if he didn't agree.

Remember, any error made by the judges in allowing faulty evidence could serve for an appeal. (Or was the fix in?)
Some have said that a look-alike was the person in that drug store. Spiering's book quotes reporters as saying a lot of women resembled Lizzie. Not uncommon for cousins to resemble each other, then or now.

The other factor is simple common sense. If the same person went to buy a baseball bat, would that be allowable? I don't have the expertise to criticize Wigmore, but he seems very prejudiced (or ?).

Not that the moot court held in Calif in 1999 came to the same conclusion, based on the same evidence. How explain that?

I did get the impression the less stated as official by the court the less they would fear being overturned.
Then the pundits come out and debate law, Wigmore, Davis, Sullivan?
I don't think this trial was anything special.  It was just some dull trial in a hot town in the summer... with the requisite cow mooing outside.
I've read about a look-alike and I've read that one source called her the detectives wife, whereas another, I think said it was his sister...one of whom looked nothing like Lizzie.
But here's the giant question:

Does anyone believe Lizzie tried to buy prussic acid on Wednesday?

Kat, I've read that story about the lookalike.  Seems she was on an assignment to show the laxity at the pharmacies with dispensing deadly chemicals.  Do you recall where that story is from? 

If the court was fearful that their decisions and actions would be overturned why was Justice Dewey allowed to make his famous charge which was almost universally deemed "plea for the innocent" and which he himself said after having delivered it he thought the jury would acquit.

Somehow I remembered that the first colour installment of the LBQ also featured an article by Marilynne K. Roach, And her original piece of art illustrating her item, entitled:
"Poisonous Thoughts".  LBQ, July, 2000, pg. 1 and 19-21.

"...Could the various drugstore witnesses have been mistaken when they identified Lizzie?  Rev. Jubb certainly thought so and offered an explanation in his Fall River Herald interview.  'Now it turns out,'  he told reporters, 'that several women were being employed at that time to buy poison for the purpose of testing the druggists as to whether they were fulfilling the provisions of the law in selling it.' "(Sourcebook, 100)

--There is a footnote next, after quite a bit of information as to Hypolite Martel and his claims of a woman wanting arsenic, that names a source as partly Lizzie Borden:  The Untold Story, Edward Radin, 1961, pg. 39.

Back to the article:
"Another suspicious woman dropped by Corneau & Latourneau's Drugstore on Pleasant Street (number 108 according to the Directory) that same Monday.  This woman, however, was later identified as 'the wife of Inspector McCaffrey who was then on a crusade against the drug stores.  She is said to resemble Miss Borden.' "  (Casebook, 48).

--Then there is included the story that Lizzie Borden was identified by a real estate agent who had office near Jennings, trying to garner "a loan of  $250 offering 'some ornaments' as collateral".  He said he knew Lizzie Borden, but it wasn't until she was ready to leave that "he realize(d) his mistake."
Did She...Or...Didn't She?, October 5, 1892 news article, Evening Standard.





(Message last edited Nov-13th-02  11:52 PM.)

The Casebook article is the one I read.  So, if all this was true, why was none of it brought up in court, or was that part of the reason that Eli Bence's testimony wasn't allowed in court? 

Judge Dewey made his charge to see that justice was done, and an innocent girl would be found not guilty. Or, the judges were paid off to free Lizzie (as some have charged w/o any evidence for this).
Is is unknown then or now for trials to be fixed? Or for judges to try to see that justice is done (the raison d'etre of trials)?

Was AR Brown right in saying that Lizzie was tried to make money? Remember in 1972 when the Nixon Administration brought an anti-trust case against ITT, then accepted $500,000 to drop the case? Charging someone with a crime to get them to pay to have it dropped? Surely you've heard of this before?

One of the books discusses the testimony of the 3 men in the drug store. One identified Lizzie by her strong voice, another by her quavering voice, etc. They can't both be right! Could they have been tempted by the reward and the fame? Curt Gentry's book on Tom Mooney tells of a wealthy cattleman who testified for the prosecution (and the reward); years later they found out he was hours away in another city!

Isn't that one reason why officials seldom offer rewards for unknown suspects? Different when they know who is the suspect.

I've noticed rewards being offered more and more in cases that make the news, even local ones.  I've yet to hear of anyone collecting one, though.  Maybe the news just doesn't follow through on my local channels, after the perp is caught.
We have "Crimelines" 423-Tips 'you-may-be-elligible-for-a-reward-and-you-don't-even-have-to-give-us-your-name'...don't you have that?

Personally, my ethics say that paying for an innocent verdict when one is innocent (which doesn't make sense to me) is just as much a distortion and betrayal of the law as paying for a fix for someone who is guilty.
In that case (that you point out as possible), that tells me the judges didn't even trust their own system!  How can one remain a Judge, or a lawyer, if they don't mind circumnavigating the law and faith in a jury, by fixing a trial.  They might as well go get a different job.
Besides, as another poster has posited here, Who the Heck really cared if Lizzie was found guilty?  She had no political clout.  She had no cash.  She was a  lowly female.  She had no big-wig father to raise a shout as to her treatment.  Why should the big politicos, including an ex-governor care what happened to Lizzie, enough to maintain this huge conspiracy and spend like 3 Million dollars on her incarceration and trial?
It doesn't make sense...("cents").