1. "Supposin'"
Posted by harry on Nov-5th-02 at 5:10 PM

Assuming Lizzie is the murderess, so many things could have gone wrong between the murders.

Bridget decides not to go upstairs for a nap.
Morse comes back earlier than expected and before Andrew returns.
Andrew decides to take a nap in his bedroom instead of on the sofa.
A business client of Andrew's comes to call.

I'm sure you can think of many more.  Lizzie certainly could not have hoped for things to go as perfectly as they went. 

Yes indeed, there are so many "ifs..."  But in a curious way, these "ifs" could be seen as indicating Lizzie's guilt or proving her innocence.  What absolutely fascinates me (and I strongly incline to Lizzie's guilt) is how Lizzie seems to be orchestrating the whole affair.  She sets the stage the night before by implying that "I don't know but what something will happen."  She seems to be preparing for the murders.  Then, after the murders, with her mysterious tranquility she blithely directs people to send telegrams, search for Mrs. Borden, etc.  By the same token, the very possibility that, at any moment, something could have gone terribly wrong, seems to "prove" Lizzie's innocence.  I think Michael Martins' answer to the question, "Do you think Lizzie did it?" is the best I have heard.  He said, "If she didn't do it, she knew who did."  I think Lizzie did it with the assistance (somehow) of Doctor Bowen.

I forgot to add these thoughts: Lizzie also seems to "direct" the movements of the principal actors--I think it is she who "sends" people to the various rooms, parts of the house.  Doesn't Bridget say at one point that "Miss Lizzie asked me" to go with the police to search the basement for hatchets?  It is, of course, quite damning that Lizzie didn't immediately call for the police.  This must have been agreed upon (by Lizzie and Dr. Bowen) beforehand.  I can't put my finger on it, but this mysterious sense of careful calculation that Lizzie demonstrates is for me the most fascinating aspect of the case.

Good points Robert.  Lizzie appeared to be the calmest person in the house.

Granted, she was known for her coolness, but it's not everyday your father and step-mother are slaughtered in your own home.

She always reminded me of how cool Lindbergh was the night of his boy's kidnapping.

You've hit the nail on the head Robert!
If Lizzie were some other person she might have been hysterical and wailing, and scared to stay in the house.
She maybe would have thrown herself on the body of her father and screamed.  (getting the blood on her, which absence absolves her?)
She does seem to *orchestrate* sending for people and then sending them away.
I can't figure out, though, how an untutored and unsophisticated lady with the psychological age of about 16, and an amature to boot, could pull off this *crime of the century*?

And how about that "note from someone who was sick?"  Surely, someone like Abby would have mentioned the name of the person, especially if she didn't socialize that much.  How and when would she have received a note in the morning without anyone but Lizzie (who hardly ever conversed with Abby, it would seem)knowing about it.  Even had she received a note and told Lizzie, she most certainly would have said the name of the sick person, I think.  But...what do you all think of Dr. Bowen's possible guilt in the murder?  I must say, it's been quite a while since I've read the testimonies (though I have been rereading them here in various postings).  I forget what he was doing that morning, but isn't there some testimony about him rushing to or from someplace at a breakneck pace?
Re: Lizzie's emotional/developmental level.  I have done/do work with people who present various problems and disorders and I am often quite amazed at how far a delusion can carry a person.  I am imagining that Lizzie honestly believed herself "worthy" of the privileged life of a high-placed person.  She truly had a kind of "delusion of grandeur" such that doing whatever she had to do to attain her "proper" place would be quite possible indeed.  I know it's dangerous to analyze a deceased person, but I sure wish someone could psychoanalyze Lizzie

My assumption is that the other people of Lizzie's era were as untutored and unsophisticated as she, that would be in her favor.  Who do you know that would just stand around in a house where your father was just murdered waiting for the doctor or a friend to show?  Wouldn't it have made more sense to all if she had gone out the back door and screamed for Maggie and then both went to the Churchill house or Bowen's?  So many things like that seem to have been overlooked at the time. 

Some things to consider in Lizzie's defense, sorry I don't know rap so will have to use plain old English:

Lizzie notified the only other occupant of the house, Bridget, to run for Dr. Bowen most likely because he was the only man in the immediate area who she felt could take charge of the situation, and he was right across the street. She explained she thought Abby was out
which is why she didn't go running around the house looking for her to tell Andrew was dead. This makes sense because it was she and Bridget who talked to Andrew on his arrival home, Bridget did not mention seeing Abby in the morning after she went off dusting.

Lizzie was the one person in the household in the Borden family membership who was there upon the scene when Andrew was found dead, therefore she was the person who should have been telling people where to go and what to look for. Why should anyone expect a stranger to the Borden family or even Bridget to be issuing orders or requests in the Borden house? This was her home.

Lizzie was described as crying, upset, aggitated etc. by several people who saw her during that early morning time when the first police officers, ladies, newspapermen, etc. arrived at the house.  It is in evidence that is so. Only a couple policemen observed her as cool and that was after Dr. Bowen had given her medicine.

Also as to setting the stage regarding premonitions.  Didn't Andrew speak to an insurance person the Tuesday before that there was something wrong at the  Borden house?

Hard to believe Dr. Bowen had anything to do with murdering the Bordens.  That he might, might, have helped conceal evidence could have happened though.  Remember also he was a witness for the prosecution.

Thanks, Carol.  I'm pretty new to this group, but I think I saw some reference to a theory you have re: the murders.  Is this true?  I would like to hear what your theory is.  Now you've gotten my mental wheels turning again.  I got to know the case at the time of the 100th anniversary when an article appeared in the NY Times Sunday Magazine.  I read the only two books I could find at the time, Radin and the one about Willie Borden (is it Arnold Brown?)  I had thought that I was finished with Lizzie, but now I have discovered this web site.  I am almost afraid to ask stupid questions, you people are such experts!!

Thanks, Carol.  I'm pretty new to this group, but I think I saw some reference to a theory you have re: the murders.  Is this true?  I would like to hear what your theory is.  Now you've gotten my mental wheels turning again.  I got to know the case at the time of the 100th anniversary when an article appeared in the NY Times Sunday Magazine.  I read the only two books I could find at the time, Radin and the one about Willie Borden (is it Arnold Brown?)  I had thought that I was finished with Lizzie, but now I have discovered this web site.  I am almost afraid to ask stupid questions, you people are such experts!!

Robert, don't EVER be afraid to ask questions or give opinions. If you're like me the more you learn about this case the less you'll understand it. 

You can download almost all the primary source documents for free at the Lizzie Borden library at http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com

(Message last edited Nov-6th-02  7:35 PM.)

When Kat and I first started getting back into this case more full time a couple of years ago we found a message board that had been going strong for a few years. I can't speak for her, but I lurked for a really long time, totally afraid to speak up as everyone seemed to know so much and sounded like friends that I didn't want to sound stupid or bring up things that had been discussed in the past. I was sure somebody was going to tell me to "go to the archives you know-nothing" in response to any query I might make.

I really had to gather my courage to open my mouth. And then I realized, kind of like the Pale Green Pants Dr. Seuss story (my favorite one of all by the way) that EVERYONE on that message board, the old timers and newbies and those that sounded smart and those that didn't, were all just offering their opinions on the case and that my opinion was just as valid as theirs. It was very liberating!

So don't feel you don't deserve a place at this table!! There is room enough for everyone!! Welcome Robert Harry! Welcome to our table. I hope you find the conversation nourishing.

I hadn't thought about Lizzie having been medicated before she was questioned by Harrington, so I figured I'd better look this up.
In the Witness Statements, Harrington, pg. 5 & 6, says he saw Lizzie about 12:25, and decribes her demeanor as calm;  it was Alice who was described as agitated:

"Miss Russell was very pale, and much agitated, which she showed by short sharp breathing and wringing her hands. She spoke not a word.
Lizzie stood by the foot of the bed, and talked in the most calm and collected manner; her whole bearing was most remarkable under the circumstances. There was not the least indication. of agitation, no sign of sorrow or grief, no lamentation of the heart, no comment on the horror of the crime, and no expression of a wish that the criminal be caught. All this, and something that, to me, is indescribable, gave birth to a thought that was most revolting. I thought, at least, she knew more than she wished to tell.
I arrived at the house about 12.15 or 12.20 M. The conversation with Lizzie was about five minutes later."

--The medicine to relieve Lizzie was given later.  (But to relieve her of what?  I find no testimony as to her being upset, crying and agitated?)

Trial
Dr. Bowen
Page 326

Q.  Did you subsequently see her in her room up stairs?
A.  Miss Lizzie?
Q.  Yes.
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  How long after was that, do you think?
A.  Some time between one and two.
Q.  The same day?
A.  The same day.
Q.  Did you get a message, or did Miss Alice Russell come to you with word from Miss Lizzie?
A.  Yes, sir, I went to her room.
Q.  What did you prescribe?
A.  I did not prescribe.
Q.   What did you give?
A.  I gave a preparation called bromo caffeine.
Q.  For what purpose?
A.  For quieting nervous excitement and headache.
Q.  To bring on quiet. to allay nervous excitement?
A.  Yes, sir.

--Dr. Bowen is asked as to how Lizzie appeared, in the Prelim. and he never answers the question.  He does admit that HE was excited, though! (413)  He is also asked if in fact HE was in tears, which he denies.

Inquest
Mrs. Churchill
Pg. 130
Q.  When you looked and saw Lizzie in great distress, the first time, was she standing inside the screen door?
A.  That was before I went over, and I was in my own house, and she stood by the screen door.
--an example of the questioner putting words, not evidence, in the mouth of the testifier.

Mrs. Churchill is asked earlier, pg. 128, if Lizzie was "Crying?"  Answer..."No".

Alice, at the Inquest desribes Lizzie (148-9) as "...very much overcome..."  and  "Dazed..."

--I was always under the impression that Lizzie seemed  less upset than the witnesses.  I know that there were other women there, so do they give an account of Lizzie's being upset and crying?

--This may seem like a trick question, but does anyone have a source for Andrew telling an insurance man, maybe on Tuesday, about trouble in his family?

Robert Harry, welcome to the board.
You'll find its members more than willing to answer your questions.
And forget about that "expert" label. We're all students, struggling to solve the case.  As for myself,I must echo Harry's words:The more I read about the case, the less I'm certain about.

Isn't it strange that Harrington at 12:30 or so talked to Lizzie and she was amazingly startlingly calm so much so that it aroused his suspicions, yet a half hour or so later Dr. Bowen gives her medication to allay nervous excitement and headache?  There is something wrong with that picture. Dr.  Bowen also gave her morphine the next day and increased the doses, so he had reason to believe she was agitated.

Also theses police witness statements like Harrington's, weren't they written up much after they were taken down?  And didn't the police get Hyman Lubinsky's testimony wrong when they said he said it was 10:30 or something like that instead of after 11:00 am when he saw the woman in the dark dress walking to the back door?  I am not sure I would trust the police statements as to exact times.

We also have Sawyer saying Lizzie appeared agitated. And there were more comments to that effect early on.

It was Bridget who said Lizzie was crying after Bridget came down after being yelled at. Annie White, the court stenographer was brought back in to read that testimony at the trial by the defense as to that fact.  That is, maybe there is another quote pertaining to something else, the only part of Bridget missing inquest testimony that we have I think.

I can't recall where I read about the insurance man's testimony regarding what he said about Andrew's premonitions. I am recalling something Emma's said in testimony as well.

I don't have a theory as to the murders. I have lots of thoughts and opinions and they change. One time I can use a piece of evidence to support one thing, and then turn around and use the same piece to support the opposite side. The police may have closed the case but we haven't. Right now I am not sure Lizzie did it.

Everything I say is my opinion and that's all, but to always add in that line would make posts tedious and boring. No one is an expert except perhaps people such as L. Rebello who have studied the case at length over decades.  His book is really great if you want to add another book to your Lizzie library.

The case has never been solved and that is the lure and beauty of a site like this, to toss around ponderings, questions, possibilities, etc. People get encouraged to write articles and express views, and enlighten everyone else with what they learn, and that triggers off someone else again.

I don't recall anyone here ever asking a stupid question and no one has ever given stupid answers. Everyone has their own way of expression, some are short, some only like to comment, some like to offer more lengthy pieces, some people are fact minded, some speculative, some are a mix, some even take the time to post testimony  and references.

People sometimes get ticked off at others or seem to infer from posts that someone is attacking them or their knowledge but since hardly anyone probably knows anyone else in person and we are dealing here with ideas my "opinion" to anyone is to just write your piece and post it. There isn't any need to apologize for your thoughts, manner of expression or how long you studied. No one is making anyone believe as they do and most people are courteous. Someone will get value out of what you say. There are over a hundred people on the board who never write but I'm sure they read posts.

The board offers others a chance to discourse on the subject among people with a variety of knowledge something reading a book in private can't do.

Did the police carry notebooks then? I think their notes were taken down later, and sort of summarizes their impressions. Remember, they are part of the Prosecution Team (like those Harvard Doctors who swore that rusty hatchet COULD have caused the wounds).

Do you know what would happen to an officer who gave testimony favorable to the defendant, then or now?

This is not "supposin", but the PLAIN FACTS.

1) Lizzie was charged, and found 'not guilty'.
2) No one else was ever charged with the crime.
3) This crime can never be 'solved' or 'proved' by a criminal trial.
4) Any attempts to provide a solution can be "proved" by comparing the book (or article) against all the known or believed facts.

5) Last (and least?) I believe that AR Brown provides the "best evidence" for its solution. He understands economics and politics (the Mellen House Gang!) more than any other author (compare and see). AR Brown, like most upper management, gathered the work of many others to develop his book; he also gave them credit. Other books seem to be "one man's opinion"; altho they do shed some light on things not mentioned in other books.

6) Many of the posters will challenge item 5).

I checked the other women there :  Mrs. Holmes Mrs. Dr. Bowen and Bridget, as to questions of Lizzie's demeanor, and all I find is that Bridget was not asked at the trial.
Then I checked Annie White, re-called as to Bridget's Inquest testimony, as you suggested and it is read in court from a "printed copy" that:
(pg. 1594)
Q. When she hollered, she said what?
A. She says, 'Maggie, come down!' I knew of course something was the matter by the holler she put on her. I says, 'What is the matter?'
Q. What was said then?
A. She says, 'come down quick. Father is dead.'  She was leaning against the screen door.
Q. Was the screen door open then?
A. I don't know, I could not say. She was leaning against the inside door that locks, the large door. 
Q. Not the screen door but the regular door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did she seem?
A. She seemed to be excited more than I ever saw her.
Q. Was she crying? 
A. Yes, she was crying."
---
As we know, we don't have the benefit of Bridget's Inquest testimony.  Here they really are pulling a fast one.  Since Bridget was not asked at the trial (at least that I could find) whether Lizzie was crying when Bridget came down stairs, to read this into testimony as rebuttal is bogus and should have been objected to.  The trial is practically over and this "testimony" stands, and Bridget's right to be cross-examined on this "evidence" has been removed from her.  (Her first description before being Led into using the word "crying" was that she was "excited"...hmmm)
Anyway, Mrs. Churchill says no crying within 5 minutes or so?  Maybe Lizzie stuck a pin in herself to get some tears going.  Maybe thats why the only sign of blood on her clothing given to the court was a pin-sized spot...
-------
I too, change my opinion constantly as to motive, means and opportunity.  Sometimes I try advocacy, sometimes I try an opposite stance, to see how far we get in debates.  It does help to give sourses and page numbers...none of our memories are infallible!  If everyone has the same page, then debate can bring out interesting aspects.  That's why the documents were made available at the Museum/Library.  It makes us all pretty equal, that "same page."

The statement of Andrew as a trick question had no right or wrong answer.  It's strange it was brought up just now because I've been looking for references to this for about a week, in response to a question received at Admin.LizzieAndrewBordenMuseum/Library.  I get the reference questions that come into that central address.  Thank goodness there's only one every other week or so.  Interesting contacts, though.

I did find some references and merely wondered if you had one I had missed.  Thanks Carol.

I think that Bridget changed her testimony on this and later she said she did not say she was crying. She also changed her testimony to "I cannot tell" and words to that effect on several issues.  So I think they quoted the inquest statements because that was her first response closest to the murder time, therefore deemed more accurate and besides it bostered their proposition to show Lizzie was agitated. I tend to place confidence in that inquest quote because it was closest to the murder date and therefore she didn't have time to have someone counsel her to deny it.

One day soon I will put together all the statements that say Lizzie was agitated that morning, I know there are several and then post them here. The reason I think this interesting is that the books give the police position, which is to show Lizzie as calculating and cold. But after reading the evidence that goes the opposite direction I have changed my view.