1. "Lizzie's Inquest Testimony"
Posted by haulover on Dec-11th-02 at 4:45 PM

I decided to spend some time going over her testimony to see if I could find something.  This is the only record we have of Lizzie's own words.  I wonder if it might really be our best source in terms of deciding her guilt or innocence.  Or just what her attitude or mind-set was.  I've highlighted quite a few passages, but I'll start with this:

Q. Have you any idea when it was that your father came home?
A. I am not sure, but I think it must have been after 10, because I think he told me he did not think he should go out until about 10.  When he went out I did not look at the clock to see what time it was.  I think he did not go out until 10, or a little after.  He was not gone so very long.

And:

Q. So far as you know you were alone in the lower part of the house, a large portion of the time, after your father went away, and before he came back?
A. My father did not go away I think until somewhere about 10, as near as I can remember; he was with me down stairs.

AND:

Q. When you came down first?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you afterwards?
A. No, sir.
Q. Not at all?
A. Except the few minutes I went up with the clean clothes, and I had to come back again.
Q. That you now say was before Mr. Borden went away?
A. Yes, sir.


This is the kind of thing that convinces me of her guilt.  She is lying.  Mr. Borden was seen in town as early as 9 a.m.  There are several in the witness statements.  Specifically, at one bank (Union Planters, I think) he talked with someone about how he wouldn't be able to attend a board meeting (shortly after 9). 

I'm sure someone else has discovered this before, but this is the first time I realized it. It looks like she is trying to establish it that father is still home at 9a.m. when Abby is actually murdered. Notice when she is asked about when father came home.....she wants to talk about when he left in the first place.    Likewise, when asked about being alone in the lower part of the house after her father left ......she takes the opportunity to point out that father didn't leave until 10 and was with her downstairs.  what is interesting is that it's almost like lizzie trying to use a dead man for an alibi.

what we know is that Abby was murdered somewhere around 9.  and does anyone believe that andrew was still in the house when Abby was struck down?

another ironic point:  what lizzie is saying makes it even more difficult for someone else to be the killer.

Or have I overlooked major hole in my logic?

*****************

does anyone know?  it's been a while since i read the Brown book, and I lost my copy.  did he address the inconsistencies and contradictions in her testimony?

Just to be as thorough as I can on the subject:  The testimony above is after the first day of questioning.  She doesn't see a need to fix his time of departure on the first day of questioning.  Concerning her father leaving, he asks her "What time did he start away?"  Her answer is simply, "I don't know."

You lost your Brown?
Maybe you'll get another for Christmas?

The 10 o'clock time that Lizzie specifies over & over really doesn't make much sense to me.
If she says a note came and had to tell her father upon his return, than she is narrowing THAT gap as well...down to 40 minutes!  (10 a.m. till 10:40).

Also, if she wants us to believe that Abby and Andrew died near the same time she is closing that gap too.
That may be the purpose.
To have Andrew leaving later and Abby leaving because of a note, then He would arrive back at 10:40, she would  tell him Abby was gone...he would be killed by 11 and by 11:30 she says Abby has come in, and she doesn't know if maybe SHE is killed too, go look.

That plotted story is so easily disproved, as you pointed out.  Her version is so amaturish as to be stupid.
She doesn't seem to take into consideration witnesses downtown, and no note or note-bearer ever to be found.
It's almost as if, once Andrew left the house, his existence couldn't be proved in the world, until he came home again into her ken.  Very odd.
Any one Else have a viewpoint?

Yeah, I can't find the Brown book.  I need to read it again whether I believe it or not.

You make a good point about her purpose in insisting that he did not leave until 10.  That completes my observation.  What I was specifically looking at was that Lizzie is AWARE of when Abby was actually murdered and recognizes the problem of her own whereabouts in relation to it.  At this early stage, Lizzie may not have yet realized that the investigators will know that Abby was murdered much earlier than Andrew. 

And yes, there is plenty in the witness statements that she says of Abby -- someone look for her, I thought I heard her come in, she might be killed too, etc.  At the inquest, Lizzie denies having said these type things.  When pressed, she admits that she said to Mrs. Churchill, "I don't know where Mrs. Borden is.  I think she is out, but I wish you would look." 

Generally speaking, Lizzie either "doesn't know" or "isn't sure."  She gives as little as possible and often tries to change the subject.  But notice when she volunteers more than she is asked for.  That's interesting.

Her Inquest Testimony is so boring and confusing it's hard to read, but once you get over that, it becomes interesting.

Advocates of the Brown theory -- I have this question:  How do the particular lies in her testimony play into the theory?

Maybe it's too soon to ask that question.  Today or tonight, I'm going to post another Lizzieism.

Take a look at that part about whether lines, sinkers, etc. were or were not "at the farm."

lizzie says she's going to marion to fish.  is that the same place where she says the lines or sinkers or whatever were or had been?

knowlton understands her to be saying that sinkers are or are not at the place where she plans to go.  but is that what she means to say?  does she then not understand how he has taken her?

i've never read anyone who shines light on this part. ( or probably there is background here i'm not aware of.)

is her planned vacation for fishing the same place where her old lines are?

Was the note a fabrication?

from her testimony, it looks that way.  maybe i can get by without quoting -- we all have it.  but the point is -- on the first day of questioning, when pressured to explain how Abby could just disappear between hours of 9 and 11 and lizzie not notice it -- lizzie is elusive, keeps referring to unlikely possibilities:  she guesses abby went up to make her own bed, did not see her pass through though, the sewing machine is in the guest room, never heard the sewing machine though, abby kept things in that room, not impossible but admits it unlikely that abby could have gone back and forth between guest room and her own room and not be seen by lizzie.  lizzie finally says she can't say whether abby was in or out of the house.  then comes the story of the note to explain it; abby had gone out.  now, after offering as many scenarios as she could as to how abby could have been in the house -- she says she assumes abby had gone out.  this was the first day.  then on the second day of questioning, shortly into it, she says definitively that she assumed abby had gone out on her sick call (to explain why she did not wonder where she was).  is there any doubt that lizzie is lying about this?  if not, why not tell him in the first place that she understood abby had gone out on her sick call?  if lizzie were being truthful, she would have said at the beginning, "well, mrs. borden told me around 9 o'clock, when i spoke with her in the dining room, that she had a sick call.  she said she was going back to the guest room to do the pillows, but when i did not see her again, i assumed she had gone out."  but that's not the way the note story came about. 

how do lizzie's defenders defend this?  be it a stranger or a relative she is protecting -- how does her tactic work into it?

I remember this part.
This is the good part.
After telling all these stories she seems to actually be prodded by Knowlton, of all people, to make that "note" story known!
It always seemed to me as if he were actually *cueing* her.

Inquest
Lizzie
Pg. 65
Q. Assuming that she did not go into her own room, I understand you to say she could not have gone to her own room without your seeing her?
A. She could while I was down cellar.
Q. You went down immediately you came down, within a few minutes, and you did not see her when you came back?
A. No sir.
Q. After that time she must have remained in the guest chamber?
A. I don't know.
Q. So far as you can judge?
A. So far as I can judge she might have been out of the house, or in the house.
Q. Had you any knowledge of her going out of the house?
A. No sir.
Q. Had you any knowledge of her going out of the house?
A. She told me she had had a note, somebody was sick, and said "I am going to get the dinner on the way," and asked me what I wanted for dinner.
Q. Did you tell her?
A. Yes, I told her I did not want anything.
Q. Then why did you not suppose she had gone?
A. I supposed she had gone.
Q. Did you hear her come back?
A. I did not hear her go or come back, but I supposed she went.

--He seems to know the *party line* and she just was not responding the way she was supposed to.
Can you imagine that this segment though...this section of questions and answers... is Lizzie relating her last words with her stepmother who raised her and lived with her and was married to her father for 27 YEARS...and this repetitive shopping list of answers is  Lizzie relating, supposedly, her LAst interaction on the planet with the woman who *mothered* her...and can't she even imagine that woman going up those front stairs to her horrid doom?  Where are the tears and lamentations?  Where is the heart?  It's a terrible thing, this document.
It always makes me sad to read this.  Sometimes it makes me mad.

Kat:

Exactly.  I notice it too.  Knowlton actually suggests -- leads her, if you will -- into  the note story, after exhausting every other possibility.  Out of desperation for some sort of answer that would make sense. 

as far as lizzie's psychology here, what i notice is that she does not even attempt anything clever.  she just commits herself to the concept of DENIAL.  she can give no clue about anything even though she was there.  apparently she stuck to this all her life.  it's just like her statement to one of the officers in the witness statements -- i guess it's the one that suspected her right off -- she says, with indignation, "I don't know anything, sir."

As I remember, the death of Abby is put at 9:30AM, after Andy left the house. I'm sure he may have heard something otherwise (no comments about deafness). Doesn't D Kent warn about trying to prove something by times, when few people wore watches, or had a need for them. Factory whistles, and public clocks on streets, told the time.

How reliable are those time estimates? Didn't Andy first go to the barber shop for his regular morning shave around 9:30am?
Does everyone remember where they were at 9:30AM today?

Knowlton leading the witness w/o defense atty objection? Next thing you;ll be saying that it was a conspiracy to let Lizzie off the hook?
Or maybe AR Brown (and many others) were right in saying the verdict was bought and paid for?

Arresting Lizzie as the likely suspect did quiet the public and send them back to work, so the factory owners would profit. Have you ever heard of the police arresting the likely suspect, only to release them later for lack of evidence? After the public clamor was stilled?

The thing I find odd is not hearing Abby go up the steps due to the fact she was a large woman. Doubtful she could have walked around quietly, much less go up steps.
      RedFern

wasn't her inquest testimony disallowed as evidence?

it's hard to go over her testimony and find her innocent.  i guess the verdict could have been different if the jury had made a judgment about it.

but probably not.  what i actually find curious is that so many people need to believe that someone "fixed" or "bought" the case.  well, for all i know, they did.  but in my judgment, they need not have.  i mean, i think i understand the verdict.  no physical evidence connecting her makes it awfully hard to find her "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."  as hard as her story is to believe -- i don't believe it, but i can't disprove it.

i think you misunderstood how i meant that knowlton prompted her to invent the note.  i was just talking about the psychology of the Q&A.  i thought it interesting how lizzie maintains a very clintonesque DENY ALL tactic (even if stupid) -- whereas knowlton, as an act of desperation, actually suggests to her an answer -- which she promptly accepts.   in other words, lizzie didn't seem able to come up with that entirely on her own.

Since Abby's bedroom and clothes closet were on the second floor, she was used to climbing stairs; but probably slowly. People walked then.
But I doubt if she ran up while skipping steps. Can you do this today?

Her testimony was disallowed due to Constitutional Law (alive and well then). The 1963 "Miranda Rule" merely resurrected the original laws that were suppressed during The Great War (dragnets, etc.).

But some say the prior statements of the officials were the needed warnings. Or maybe they wanted a scapegoat to still public clamor and get the people back to work instead of talking about the murders.
Do you remember November 1963? They quickly found a "likely suspect", but the people still talked about it.

I believe that Lizzie was not guilty, and the prior testimony (w/o official warning that she was a suspect) was properly dismissed.
Is there anything there that was a confession? Or merely "circumstantial evidence" that depends on the interpretation of the facts?

i can't make up my mind about her guilt or innocence.  these days i'm thinking she's guilty because i'm scrutinizing her inquest testimony.

if you think she's innocent, what do you make of her testimony?

WITNESS STATEMENTS
PG. 11, (Harrington or Doherty)
"Monday, August, 8, 1892. Afternoon. Dr. Bowen. 'Mrs. Churchill first told me of Mrs. Borden's death.'

Second interview of Mrs. Churchill. Mrs. Churchill. 'Must I, am I obliged to tell you all?' 'Well, if I must, I cant, be blamed. O, I wish I had not to do this. I do not like to tell anything of my neighbor; but this is as it is. When I went over in answer to Lizzie's call, I asked O, Lizzie where is your father? In the sitting room. Where were you? I was in the barn looking for a piece of iron. Where is your mother? She had a note to go and see someone who is sick. I dont know but they killed her too....' "

-I *Word Searched* the W.S. for the word "NOTE".
The first hit was page 11, and the transcription of the account is dated Aug. 8.  Once the officials gathered as much of the police statements as possible before the start of the Inquest, they would have gone over these accounts for a guide in questioning these witnesses under oath.
So the *Note Story* may just as of the 8th, become known to the officials conducting the questioning which was to start on the 9th.
It seems reasonable at this point to assume that Lizzie would be lead into telling the note story, finally, in the manner Knowlton did.  Maybe he wanted to hear her say it with her own lips.  Maybe he wanted to test her to see if she would stick to that story.  Maybe her telling that story originally played into his theory he was developing of the crimes and he wanted or needed that story to make it officially into evidence.  Eventually he probably hoped to cross-examine her on the subject at trial, but of course lost that chance.

(Message last edited Dec-14th-02  12:21 AM.)

BTW:  I can't see any other interpretation of Lizzie's Inquest testimony other than she was NOT INNOCENT.
"Not Innocent", specifically, as opposed to Guilty.
I have tried to read this as an innocent speaking.
But that document is damning.
It is so in relationship to the other testimonies.
If it stood alone, it would still be questionable, but not damning.
Once compared with everyone else's statements in the case, it seems utterly unique, unusual and inexplicable.

(Message last edited Dec-14th-02  12:32 AM.)

"O Lizzie"? Did they use the vocative in those days?

My opinion, derived from the known facts in the case (the books read, and opinions and facts from the sites), is that LAB is "Not Guilty" as charged. NOTE "as charged"! She obviously knew more than she told, and covered it up. What was the purpose in creating further scandal by hanging a crazy man? Plus, a smart lawyer could create a claim against the estate: Andy's gift of the Liberty St. farm could be construed as recognition of his parentage, etc. THAT wouldn't do!

Also, LAB was seen outside around the time by H Lubinsky, an alibi against the charge. (No alibi for around 9:30am.)

Would she have been convicted of being an accessory after the fact in conspiring to obstruct justice? Maybe, but people had more common sense (?) in those days. Or fewer hungry lawyers?

(Message last edited Dec-14th-02  4:33 PM.)

Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994. [Transcribed exactly, including italics, except where specified by my initials-KK]

"HK093
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT,
COMMONWEALTH BUILDING,

Boston,   Nov.21, 1892.

Dear Mr. Attorney:-
As (under the Robinson doctrine--[Crossed Out-KK]), I see no possible doubt that the whole transaction can be put in evidence in a trial for the killing of either, I incline, on reflection, toward two indictments, if there are to be any.  Has it ever occurred to you to put in a count or counts as accessory before & after?  There is, to be sure, no affirmative evidence, at present, that any other person was concerned, but a great many people believe that she was in it, but that hers was not the hand that did it.  I could easily believe this if there were any evidence of it.  Perhaps on indict for killing both & others for killing each will be best of all.
I write these suggestions now as they occur to me, and as you will have time to think of them.  I wish the investigation just begun in the other line to be thoroughly, and, if possible, exhaustive, chiefly for the satisfaction of my own mind, as I doubt if it develops anything of consequence for any other purpose.

Very truly yours,
Attorney General.

Hon. H. M. Knowlton,"
---------
--previous to this letter, on pg.s 91 & 92, is some correspondence:  Knowlton writing Pillsbury and apparently a letter from Pillsbury to "Bro. Hurd" (Ass't Dist. Att'y) about the wisdom and possibility of counts against Trickey, "short of including libels against Lizzie..."
----------

"HK097
HOSEA M. KNOWLTON.     ARTHUR E. PERRY
                   COUNSELLORS AT LAW.
                                      OFFICES:
                     38 NORTH WATER STREET.
(Dictated.)
                              NEW BEDFORD, MASS., November 22, 1892.

Hon. A. E. Pillsbury,
Attorney General.
Dear Sir:-  I see no need of account for accessory.  If she did not do the killing, but only instigated some one else to, it can hardly be said that she was not so far present as to make her principal, for she was certainly in the house, and in hearing, of both murders.
It had occurred to me, however, since I saw you, that the jury should be instructed as to the principles of law relating to principal and accessory, and, if you see no objection, I propose to state to them [-grand jury-KK] the law upon that subject.
I have already written you about Jennings, and you have probably seen him before this time.
Yours Truly,

H. M. Knowlton"



(Message last edited Dec-14th-02  7:41 PM.)