Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY
Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden
Topic Name: A curious statement by Lizzie

1. "A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by harry on Feb-1st-03 at 1:36 PM

This is from the trial, page 562, the testimony of Harrington:

Q.  What did she say?
A.  She said, "I was up in the loft."
Q.  Is there anything else that occurs to you that she said at that time?
A.  Yes, sir. I then said, "What motive?" And she said, "I don't know." "Was it robbery?" "I think not, for everything appears all right, even to the watch in his pocket and the ring on his finger."
Q.  (By Mr. Robinson.)  That was her answer or your question?
A.  Her answer, sir.


Now how would Lizzie know that if she never went in to see the body? Even Robinson seems to caught off guard. Harrington interviewed Lizzie fairly soon after the crimes.

Did anyone tell her that? I'll have to do more digging. 


2. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by harry on Feb-1st-03 at 1:45 PM
In response to Message #1.

Oops, that was a short mystery. Found the answer already.

This is from Mullaly's testimony, beginning on page 611:

"I then inquired of her if she knew what kind of property her father had on his person, and she told me that her father had a silver watch and chain, a pocket book with money in, and a gold ring on his little finger."

Then later on page 612:

"Q.  Did you learn at that time whether the property which she described was on his person?
A.  About that time officer Doherty came there, and I told him to look, and he reported to me that the watch---
Q.  In her presence?
A.  In her presence, yes. He reported to me that the watch and chain were there,---in substance, that."

Mullaly was there before Harrington.

It shows how important it is to cross reference different testimonies though.


(Message last edited Feb-1st-03  1:53 PM.)


3. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Feb-1st-03 at 3:10 PM
In response to Message #2.

Stef went through this exact same thing!
I'll always remember it.
But bringing it up and solving it here is a good idea, because we benefit from that and now can reference it.
It also shows you're paying attention and yes, the DEATAILs are important, and comparing testimonies.

This might be why we should try to examine Lizzie's inquest testimony in comparison to other's.  It does not stand alone. 


4. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by rays on Feb-2nd-03 at 4:21 PM
In response to Message #3.

Of course, Lizzie would have to gone to the room to discover her dead father, wouldn't she? And maybe notice his hand and waist?


5. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Feb-2nd-03 at 11:07 PM
In response to Message #4.

Inquest
Lizzie
79
Q. You went into the room?
A. No sir.
Q. Looked in at the door?
A. I opened the door and rushed back.
Q. Saw his face?
A. No, I did not see his face, because he was all covered with blood.
Q. You saw where the face was bleeding?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you see the blood on the floor?
A. No sir.
Q. You saw his face covered with blood?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you see his eye ball hanging out?
A. No sir.
Q. See the gashes where his face was laid open?
A. No sir.
Q. Nothing of that kind?
A. No sir. (Witness covers her face with her hand for a minute or two; then examination is resumed.)


(Message last edited Feb-2nd-03  11:08 PM.)


6. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by Carol on Feb-3rd-03 at 11:51 AM
In response to Message #4.

If the watch, chain, money and ring were on his person, then it is possible that the tobacco, which Andrew was not known to use, was found on the crumpled up coat not on his person but considered his clothes. If Lizzie did not look closely at the crime scene she might not have ever found out for herself whether that coat was her father's or not. She relied on her memory and what was said. So the coat might, although it is a reach, not be Andrew's.


7. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Feb-7th-03 at 1:21 AM
In response to Message #1.

Doherty arrived at 11:32 a.m.
This is 2rd hand, overheard:
Lizzie tells Mullaly, in answer to his question:

Preliminary.
Doherty
pg.337

A.  Mr. Mullaly asked Miss Lizzie what her father was in the habit of carrying in the line of money or jewelry every day. She told him a silver watch, and an old pocket book, and some money.
Q.  You think that was Miss Lizzie?
A.  I do.

--That seems the first incident when the subject was brought up.
At the Preliminary Hearing, Doherty happened to be called first, and that's why his *overheard* statement by Lizzie comes BEFORE the actual event, involving Mullaly.
Mullaly arrived approx. 11:37:

Prelim.
Mullaly
pg. 346

A.  I then went to Miss Lizzie Borden.
Q.  Did you have any talk with her?
A.  Yes, I did. I told her that I was sent there to get a report of what had happened.
Q.  Go on, and tell all that was said.
A.  She told me that she had been out of doors, and when she came in, she found her father dead on the sofa. I then inquired of her if she knew what kind of property her father had on him. She said she did. She told me that her father had a silver watch and chain; he also had a pocket book with money in it, and he had a gold ring on his little finger. By that time Officer Doherty had appeared in the door, and I told him to look and see if Mr. Borden has the property on him.
Q.  Did you go with Doherty to look?
A.  No, I did not.
(Mr. Adams)  I will admit that he did look.
Q.  What did you do then?
A.  He reported to me that his watch---
(Mr. Adams)  I will admit that.
A.  He reported to me that his watch and chain was on him.
Q.  And his pocket book?
A.  He did not say anything about the pocket book.
Q.  Did you see his chain taken away, or did you take it?
A.  I did not see; he stood in the door way.

--Apparently Lizzie WAS asked  FIRST what her father usually carried and what was verified at the time was the watch & chain.
At the Prelim. Harrington was not involved with this line of question to Lizzie there that Thursday morning.
Harrington didn't arrive until 12:20 p.m. and he later questioned her in her room.


8. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by harry on Feb-7th-03 at 1:53 AM
In response to Message #7.

That's good digging Kat.

So we are left with explaining her knowing the pocketbook and ring were found on Andrew.


9. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by Edisto on Feb-7th-03 at 10:55 AM
In response to Message #8.

Even if Lizzie was the murderer, it seems unlikely that she would have gone through Andrew's pockets afterward to ascertain what was in them.  In fact, it might have worked out in her favor if she had gone through them, because that might have made it appear that a robbery attempt had taken place.  However, handling the body after the murder would have made it more likely that she would have gotten blood on her clothing or person.  I suppose she could have actually seen the ring on his finger while she was chopping, however.


10. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Feb-7th-03 at 7:27 PM
In response to Message #9.

I can't quite figure out the significance of knowing this, but at least it's here now & beginning to be put together, because other's have wondered about this sequence of events as well.
I can't even begin to wonder what it might mean.

I don't know as if I would know what my father always carried on him, other than his wrist watch, and I had total access to his bedroom, unlike Lizzie.

In the Witness Statements last night I noticed that Hiram Harrington said that Lizzie told him "she helped  him [Andrew] off with one coat and on with another."(11)

Maybe she checked his pockets if she did that.  Maybe she planted tobacco.  Maybe she took something.  Maybe SHE put that Prince Albert coat on the lounge before he sat down.
?????
Hiram doesn't believe her anyway.


11. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by harry on Feb-7th-03 at 9:55 PM
In response to Message #10.

I wonder where most men kept their pocket book in those days.  Rear pocket? Front pocket? In his jacket?

If in his rear pants pocket I would assume his body would have to be moved for the police to verify it's existence. 

If in his jacket then he must have switched the pocket book to the new jacket when he changed.


12. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Feb-8th-03 at 1:36 AM
In response to Message #11.

I don't think he necessarily had to switch it did he?
We know the undertaker went through the clothes but we don't know if they were on the body at the time.
It could have been in the outdoors coat, the Prince Albert?
Also, the one thing I'd think Lizzie would know Andrew carried was Keys.
She can't know whether or not they are  *valuable*?
It seems the authorities were more concerned at the time with preserving a record of the money (cash) found on Andrew, and the lawyers questions are concerned with keys.
I always wondered WHY this emphasis on keys.  There is a lot of questioning about keys. 

Prelim.
Dr. Dolan
183

Q.  Do you know where these keys came from, what pocket?
A.  No Sir, I do not.
Q.  Did they come from any pocket?
A.  I could not say.
Q.  Where were you when the undertaker handed them to you?
A.  In the sitting room.
Q.  On this day?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did you take anythingelse from the person, or see anything taken from the person?
A.  I cannot remember now whether I took anything or not; I think I did take something myself; I cannot remember just what it was.
Q.  What else have you?
A.  I have got some money.
Q.  Loose, or in a pocket book?
A.  Loose and in a pocket book, change, I have some silver, and some money in a pocket book.
Q.  Who gave you those?
A.  The undertaker.
Q.  What else?
A.  I do not recollect anythingelse. I have a memorandum book.
Q.  Have you got any papers?
A.  I could not say; I have not examined it.
Q.  You have not examined them?
A.  I counted the money before the undertaker.
Q.  Where are all these things?
A.  In the safe at the office.
Q.  Will you produce them?
A.  Yes Sir.


(Message last edited Feb-8th-03  1:49 AM.)


13. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by harry on Feb-8th-03 at 9:01 AM
In response to Message #12.

Oh no, I don't believe there is anything to indicate which jacket the undertaker took some or all of the property. I was assuming Andrew had them on his person.

I'm not quite sure what they mean by pocket book. One of the little bags with a catch on top that you snap shut? 

I don't know what men carried in those days in the way of a wallet. No credit cards, no drivers license, etc.  Not much need for one if they carried their money in a pocket book.


14. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by rays on Feb-8th-03 at 11:48 AM
In response to Message #13.

As I remember it, my granfather and grandmother carried their money in a little (4" wide by 3" deep?) change purse (kept coins from wearing out a hole in the pocket). Do they still sell them?

There was also the "farmer's change purse" that was about 6" deep.


15. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by haulover on Feb-8th-03 at 3:37 PM
In response to Message #14.

i remember those little rubber things with a slit.  i guess that's something similar.  i had forgot about them.


16. "A Curious Statement By Morse"
Posted by Kat on Feb-8th-03 at 11:13 PM
In response to Message #15.

Those little plastic purse thingy's are something I had forgotten.  They were contemporary to Troll Dolls, maybe?  And white lipstick?
. . . . . . . .

Anyway, here are a few things Morse said and I need some  considered input as to interpretation, please, anyone?  (PS:  Times are approximate):

At the Inquest, Morse says he arrived at Andrew's house @ 1:30
p.m.
He ate, though he wasn't hungry.  It seems  "...Mrs. Borden said 'we have just had dinner, a little while ago, it is all warm, I will put it on.'  (Inq. 99)

Then they talked a while in the sitting room and Morse left  between 3 and 4.  Let's call it  3:30, to go to Swanzy.  He had to get a horse and buggy.

He says he had supper at Vinnicum's--is that 6 ish?

Then Eddy at Andrew's farm says that Morse came there at between 7 & 8 (let's say 7:30 p.m.) and stayed 10 or 15 minutes.  (W.S. 37)

Morse returned to Andrew's about 8:45 p.m., "after dark".

Now, this timeline should be examined, for one thing, because if Morse's errand was with Eddy and the eggs, then he took quite a long time getting there.
If his main errand was with William Vinnicum, he went from dinner at Andrew's to supper at Vinnicum's, "...a little beyond there" [ the farm at Swanzy] and took 2 1/2 hours doing that.  Then he left there and dropped by the farm, saw Eddy & Eddy's wife (he supposes), stays 12 minutes averaged, and then at about 7:45 he leaves and arrives at Andrew's at 8:45, supposing within that time that he returned his conveyance to Kirby's stable.

It seems as if the trip to Wm. Vinnicum's is the real destination, as Morse spends (according to him) from 3:30 until 7:30 doing THAT.  IF he did that at all.  4 hours?

The question was brought back to me when I read this in his Inquest testimony:
*I could have gone back the night before at 6 or 6:30.*
This part I do not quite understand.
Here is his quote, unsolicited info:

Inquest
Morse
102

Q.  When you came from New Bedford to Fall River did you have any set time to go back?
A.  Not particular, no. I told Mr. Davis I would try to get back the next day. He says you will be gone two days, I guess, I will give you that. I could have gone back the night before at six o'clock or half past.

What does he mean by this?
 

(Message last edited Feb-8th-03  11:15 PM.)


17. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by kimberly on Feb-9th-03 at 12:13 AM
In response to Message #13.

Here is a reproduction wallet --- the style dates back to the
18th century --- it just basically looks like a woman's
checkbook wallet:

http://www.jastown.com/acces/lw-175.html
Pretty nice for $15.00.

I have seen little leather change purses listed as being
for men, I think the style is called a French coin purse
or something like that. Most of the early wallets I found
look like they are for women though:

http://www.art2go4.com/plate.htm

http://www.scarlet-letter.com/xAntique/Descript/Wallet1780.htm




18. "Re: A Curious Statement By Morse"
Posted by harry on Feb-9th-03 at 7:44 AM
In response to Message #16.

It looks like he stayed pretty long at Vinnicums and maybe longer than he had planned to. At a minimum he was there several hours. 

Some questions I have to pursue:

Were the Vinnicum's near the Borden farm?
Was the visit to the Vinnicum's on his schedule to begin with?

Maybe the original schedule was that Morse and Andrew would make a quick trip to the farm, make the arrangements, and return to Fall River.  If they had returned by 6, Morse could have left and returned to So. Dartmouth and his statement would make sense.

Did Morse stay at the Borden's that night only because he got back too late from the farm, much later than his original schedule?

This Q&A from Morse's inquest statement :

"Q.  Did you happen to know of his taking some medicine?
A.  I asked him to go over to Swansea. He said he did not feel able I says "I will wait until morning, if you will go." He said no he had been taking some medicine, and did not think he would go."

This would seem to indicate to me that Morse didn't originally plan to stay over night at the Bordens.

As usual more questions than answers.



(Message last edited Feb-9th-03  7:54 AM.)


19. "Re: A Curious Statement By Morse"
Posted by Edisto on Feb-9th-03 at 11:31 AM
In response to Message #18.

IMHO, there are two possible meanings to Morse's statement about "waiting till morning."  a) He could have meant that he would stay the night at the Bordens (as planned) and go to Swansea in the morning, rather than late on the 3d.  OR, b) He could have meant that he would stay the night at the Bordens (unplanned), so that he and Andrew could travel to Swansea together on the morning of the 4th.  I guess we can take our pick of these meanings.


20. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by Susan on Feb-9th-03 at 2:58 PM
In response to Message #17.

Thanks, Kimberly.  I tried doing a search and came up empty-handed.  I picture Andrew's pocket book as being black leather and from the size it looks like something that would have to be carried inside a coat pocket.


21. "Re: A Curious Statement By Morse"
Posted by Kat on Feb-9th-03 at 3:30 PM
In response to Message #19.

Thanks Harry & Edisto.
They both make sense.
But the one interpretation of Morse's saying *I will go in the morning if you will go* belies premeditation on his part in a plot to kill Andrew in the house Thursday?
Because, to me, Morse also saying he could just have well had gone back to Davis's on Wednesday evening at 6 or 6:30 also seems to imply this.
New Bedford seems to be in the completely opposite direction as Swanzy and Morse would be taking a late train back?


22. "Re: A curious statement by Lizzie"
Posted by kimberly on Feb-9th-03 at 3:32 PM
In response to Message #20.

That leather one looks like it could hold business papers
too, I bet Andrew carried his will in one in his jacket.


23. "Re: A Curious Statement By Morse"
Posted by Kat on Feb-10th-03 at 2:37 PM
In response to Message #21.

Here is another curious statement by Morse that I would like input on interpreting:

Inquest
Morse
pg. 99+

Q.  When you got there, who did you find at home then?
A.  I think the girl was there, the servant,  and Mr. and Mrs. Borden.

Q.  And Lizzie?
A.  I know they were there.

Q.  Did you make any inquiries about Lizzie?
A.  I did not.

Q.  Nothing was said about her?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Did she come in while you were there? Did you hear or see her come in?
A.  I heard the front door shut. The girls usually come in, and go up stairs when they come in with their clothes on in that way. I heard her come in, I supposed it was her; Emma was not at home.

--Do you think they come in that way without their clothes sometimes?
Or do you think they come in with their clothes THAT WAY [their clothes WHICH way?], when they enter there?....?



(Message last edited Feb-10th-03  2:38 PM.)


24. "Re: A Curious Statement By Morse"
Posted by Robert Harry on Feb-10th-03 at 6:26 PM
In response to Message #23.

The mystery is compounded by the fact that this seems to be a comment on the kind of clothes Lizzie was wearing.  Morse is answering the question, "Did you see or hear them (her) come in?"  Either he is fudging by answering that he only heard her (while in fact he actually saw her--and what kind of clothes she was wearing); or he is trying to say something like, "When the girls came home--and I presumed it was Lizzie  entering when I heard the door--they were usually wearing more formal street dress, and tended to go straight  up to their rooms (to divest themselves of hats, jackets, scarves, etc. and/or to put on more casual house  dresses."  Could he also mean that in addition to hearing the door, he could hear skirts/coats rustling and  thus knew even more certainly that  Lizzie was coming in from outside?
Yes, this is an odd statement and I can't help but suspect it betrays--yet again--that Morse is not saying all he knows


25. "Re: A Curious Statement By Morse"
Posted by Kat on Feb-10th-03 at 10:49 PM
In response to Message #24.

Thank you so much.  That is helpful.  I got stuck and couldn't get any further.
I was glad you answered as you sort of know the language.
I guess it is still open to interpretation.
I do wonder what others may come up with as well!


26. "Re: A Curious Statement By Morse"
Posted by Susan on Feb-11th-03 at 12:25 AM
In response to Message #25.

I got the same thing as Robert Harry, that the girls come in the front door dressed for going out and go straight upstairs wearing their coats, shawls, hats, sacks, whatever and take them off upstairs.  It really is an odd statement. 


27. "Re: A Curious Statement By Morse"
Posted by rays on Feb-13th-03 at 3:40 PM
In response to Message #24.

That seems to mean the girls did not hang their clothes in the closets next to the front door, etc. Don't most people do this, these closets are usually for guests?
Didn't AR Brown (or ?) suggest that Uncle John is acting almost as if he never talked to Lizzie? Maybe true, or maybe to hide any confering done that Thursday noon?


28. "Re: A Curious Statement By Morse"
Posted by Kat on Feb-13th-03 at 6:16 PM
In response to Message #27.

I see what you-all mean.

If I now take the sentence components and re-arrange them, it does imply the girls go straight up as a habit because of their clothes:

"The girls usually come in, and go up stairs when they come in with their clothes on in that way."--What Morse said

*When they come in with their clothes on in that way, ..The girls usually come in and go up stairs.*--Maybe what Morse means?


29. "Re: A Curious Statement By Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Feb-14th-03 at 5:09 PM
In response to Message #28.

I was humming merrily along in our older posts last night (and early this morning) and would like to bring up something to ponder or get an impression of, that I had written:

In essence, it is that:

Lizzie says she was on the stairs when Andrew came home, yet she doesn't let him in the front door?

Lizzie says she is in the kitchen when Andrew returned, yet she doesn't let him in the side door?

She is in one place or the other, yet she places herself twice near the 2 entrance doors and no one asks her *Why didn't YOU let him in?*


30. "Re: A Curious Statement By Lizzie"
Posted by Susan on Feb-14th-03 at 8:51 PM
In response to Message #29.

I recall discussing something similar on another thread awhile ago.  We came with ideas like if Lizzie was actually sitting in the kitchen, she may have been at an angle where Andrew couldn't have seen her.  And either to be mean and make him walk around to the front of the house or, to possibly guide him in that way for some purpose to do with the murder.

I was thinking if Lizzie was actually on the stairs when Andrew came in the front door, she may have been on her way down to let him in and Bridget got there first, coming down to greet him, or, intercept Andrew as he enters the house. 


31. "Re: A Curious Statement By Lizzie"
Posted by haulover on Feb-14th-03 at 11:05 PM
In response to Message #29.

what it amounts to is this:

if lizzie was where she finally insists she was and was innocent, she would have let father in at the back door.

if lizzie was upstairs when father came home, she can't get down to let him in quicker than bridget can.  if she is on the stairs when bridget lets him in -- why is she on the stairs?  the obvious answer is that she was on her way down to let him in.  she heard the door and is coming down. 

beyond that we can't be sure about what we're hearing.  the meaning of the laughter that bridget hears.  that bridget sees her enter the dining room from the front part of the house.  lizzie finally denies that she was in the front part of the house at that time, insisting she was in the kitchen or the dining room when father came home. 

i notice how lizzie explains her error.  she was remembering a prior event when maggie opened the front door for someone.  maggie claims she normally had nothing to do with the front door.

the obvious reason for the back door not being opened is that no one was there to open it.  the obvious reason for the front door being opened is that maggie was near it.

what this does indicate is that an innocent lizzie borden was not sitting in the kitchen reading an old article and/or eating a pear when father came home.  but that is her claim.


32. "Re: A Curious Statement By Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Feb-15th-03 at 2:24 AM
In response to Message #31.

Preliminary
Bridget
Page 20

Q.  Some exclamation you made when you had trouble with the door?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Was that the time she laughed?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did she laugh out loud?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Say anything?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Did you see her then?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  How soon did you see her?
A. It might be five or ten minutes after she came down stairs; she came through the front hall, I dont know whether she came from up stairs. She came through the sitting room, I was in the sitting room.
Q.  Where did Mr. Borden go when he came in?
A.  Into the dining room.
Q.  You were at work in the sitting room then?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  What did he do in the dining room?
A.  He sat at the head of the lounge in a chair when I saw him.
Q.  There is a lounge in the dining room too?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  That is not the lounge he was found dead on?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  He sat in a chair? What doing?
A.  Reading.
Q.  You were still at work in the sitting room, washing the windows?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Had you finished washing the sitting room windows when she came down?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  You were still engaged in washing the windows?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did you see her when you let Mr. Borden in, or only hear her?
A.  No Sir, heard her.
Q.  When she came down, what room did she come into from the front hall?
A.  In the sitting room where I was; then she went into the dining room.
Q.  That is where Mr. Borden was?
A.  Yes

--Is Bridget saying that it was 5 or 10 minutes before Lizzie entered the sitting room from the front entry--and that she (Bridget) was still working in the sitting room--so that it was 5 or 10 minutes before Lizzie came down after her father came home?
--If not where was Lizzie for 5 or 10 minutes between coming down stairs and going through the sitting room where Bridget was and entering the dining room to speak to Andrew?
--If I recall correctly, Lizzie even claims she did not go to Andrew in the dining room at all, but saw him in the sitting room and did not see Bridget?
Here it is:

Inquest
Lizzie
84
Q. When he came into the house did he not go into the dining room first?
A. I don't know.
Q. And there sit down?
A. I don't know.
Q. Why don't you know?
A. Because I was in the kitchen.
Q. It might have happened, and you not have known it?
A. Yes sir.
Q. You heard the bell ring?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And you knew when he came in?
A. Yes sir.
Q. You did not see him?
A. No sir.
Q. When did you first see him?
A. I went into the sitting room, and he was there; I don't know whether he had been in the dining room before or not.
Q. What made you go into the sitting room?
A. Because I wanted to ask him a question.
Q. What question?
A. Whether there was any mail for me.
Q. Did you not ask him that question in the dining room?
A. No sir, I think not.
Q. Was he not in the dining room sitting down?
A. I don't remember his being in the dining room sitting down.
Q. At that time was not Maggie washing the windows in the sitting room?
A. I thought I asked him for the mail in the sitting room; I am not sure.
Q. Was not the reason he went in the dining room because she was in the sitting room washing windows?
A. I don't know.

--BTW:  Lizzie claims she did not enter from the front entry at all...had not been in that front entry since Andrew left--nor after he returned.  After he left she finally says she was all downstairs either in the dining room, kitchen, or sitting room, but only in the sitting room long enough to "direct some paper wrappers."

Inquest
Lizzie
67
Q. You now say after your father went out, you did not go up stairs at all?
A. No sir, I did not.
Q. When Maggie came in there washing the windows, you did not appear from the front part of the house?
A. No sir.
Q. When your father was let in, you did not appear from up stairs?
A. No sir, I was in the kitchen.
Q. That is so?
A. Yes sir, to the best of my knowledge.


Inquest
Lizzie
pg. 69
Q. How soon after your father came in, before Maggie went up stairs?
A. I don't know. I did not see her.
Q. Did you see her after your father came in?
A. Not after she let him in.

--Lizzie says she did not see Bridget after she let Andrew in.
Bridget says Lizzie followed her while she put away her window washing things first telling her Mrs. Borden had gone out, then asking her to lock up if she went out, and next telling her (Bridget) of a sale of dress goods.
--How can Lizzie NOT see Bridget that whole time?

--My main question (I got carried away) is my First Question.  I used to read that section as if Lizzie didn't even come down stairs for 5 or 10 minutes AFTER Andrew arrived.  Now I don't know...but if Bridget didn't see her could that be the explanation?


33. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-15th-03 at 8:10 PM
In response to Message #32.

A. It might be five or ten minutes after she came down stairs; she came through the front hall, I dont know whether she came from up stairs. She came through the sitting room, I was in the sitting room.

-If I put a COMMA in this sentence, then I DO get that it was 5 or 10 minutes before Lizzie came downstairs!
I just noticed this.  Maybe My subconscious noted this before, and that's why I always read it that way:

"It might be five or ten minutes AFTER, she came down stairs...

???

(Message last edited Feb-16th-03  1:32 AM.)


34. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by haulover on Feb-16th-03 at 5:47 PM
In response to Message #33.

"It might be five or ten minutes AFTER, she came down stairs...

i tend to think that is what bridget meant.  i looks to me like lizzie is going down to open the door but bridget beats her to it, and when she does, she turns and goes back upstairs for 5 or 10 minutes.

doing what?  here the speculation starts.  but abby's dead body is up there and possibly the weapon. 

lizzie didn't just stand on the stairs for 5 or 10 minutes; and what was there to do in the foyer? 

but it raises the question:  why didn't lizzie just come on downstairs right then and ask him about the mail?

lizzie's claim that she never saw bridget makes her look extremely guilty.  if bridget is lying, she is extremely clever and extremely inventive.

this reminds me of something else.  we were looking for why lizzie and bridget differ in whether andrew went upstairs.  it was noted, and i agreed, that lizzie actually sounds like she's telling the truth when she says she could swear he did not go upstairs.  could this be the answer?  that the 10 minutes before lizzie came downstairs was the time that andrew went upstairs and came back down -- so that lizzie never knew he went upstairs.

now i'm starting to see something else.  why lizzie finally decides she was in the kitchen when he came home and never went upstairs.  that she knows that bridget knows she (lizzie) did not continue her way down the stairs, but turned around and spent 10 minutes on something up there first.  what she did then, she doesn't want to deal with, so she insists she was in the kitchen.  the most obvious answer is that she doesn't want to place herself in the vicinity of abby's body.  and in general, she doesn't want to be seen by bridget at all. 


35. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-16th-03 at 11:37 PM
In response to Message #34.

You know, that's a pretty good guess as to why Lizzie says she didn't see Andrew go upstairs.
The timing is correct within a few minutes...IF Lizzie did not come down immediately.  That 10 minutes could have been plenty long enough for Andrew to go up & come down.  I wonder why SHE didn't think of that?  Because Lizzie did not want *us* to know she lingered upstairs.?  At Inquest, Lizzie would not have known what Bridget had testified to, unless it was referred to specifically by Knowlton or the judge when questioning Lizzie.
And, since we don't have Bridget's Inquest testimony, we can't know for sure how much her timing may be off or how she may have confused events out of order.
It wouldn't be until the Prelim. (after the benefit of Lizzie's *story* previously)  that Bridget's statements could have been coached or altered just a tad to fit a prosecution timeline--not necessarily to throw the case but to streamline the activities of the household in Bridget's memory.  She may have been a tad *suggestable*.
Maybe our biggest problem with Lizzie's Inquest testimony, therefore, may lie not especially with Lizzie, but with the puzzel of trying to fit her Inquest testimony from the 9th, with Bridget's PRELIMINARY Hearing testimony from the 25th!
--I've always said that Lizzie's statements are mostly weird-sounding when compared with another's.  Maybe we can't compare very closely, after all?

10:35- 10:45 a.m. -- Bridget saw Lizzie 5 to 10 minutes after Mr. Borden came in. (pg. 20).

"She (Lizzie) came through the front hall...She came through the sitting room, I was in the sitting room." (pg. 20).

Lizzie then went into the dining room, where Mr. Borden was. (pg. 20).

Bridget heard Lizzie" telling her father very slowly that her mother got a note . . . and had gone out." (pg. 20).

10:45- 10:55 a.m. -- Mr. Borden went up to his room. (pg. 21).

Mr. Borden returned to sitting room. (pg. 21).

Lizzie got out ironing board and put it on dining room table and started to iron while Bridget was finishing the last window in the dining room. (pg. 22).


(Message last edited Feb-16th-03  11:38 PM.)


36. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by haulover on Feb-17th-03 at 5:44 PM
In response to Message #35.

if it's correct within a few minutes, it's as "correct" as it's going to get.  if bridget is to be believed, the point is that lizzie did not directly come downstairs.  she lingered in the front hall or upstairs for a noticeable amount of time.  this is the only explanation i can find as to why lizzie would sincerely believe that father did not go upstairs, whereas bridget would notice that he did.  what lizzie was doing up there, i have no idea.  but she is consistent in saying that she never saw bridget.  she must be lying.


37. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Susan on Feb-17th-03 at 9:24 PM
In response to Message #36.

Perhaps this was the one point in time that Lizzie allowed that she was upstairs that morning; brought up my clean clothes and basted a tape on a garment.  Maybe it was on the dress she was wearing, the navy blue Bengaline blouse, and she needed to finish that before she could wear the outfit? 


38. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-18th-03 at 12:45 AM
In response to Message #37.

Lizzie finally says she was not upstairs at all after Andrew left and after he came home.  So she is obviously distancing herself from the upstairs, besides saying the guest room door was closed, anyway.
If we think she WAS upstairs when he came home, and remained upstairs for about 5 or 10 more minutes, you think she was fixing a dress?
She wasn't seen wearing the Bengaline, was she?  So if she was fixing something, maybe it was what she might wear to kill?
But a lot of people Like the Prince Albert outdoor coat as being worn by the murderer.
So that whatever Lizzie was *fixing* in order to wear to kill, would be redundant?


39. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Susan on Feb-18th-03 at 2:19 AM
In response to Message #38.

If we don't discredit all that Lizzie says, she admits to being up there, but, she also said Andrew was home until like 10:00 that morning.  She talks about these small inconsequential details, they may be real or made up, I sewed a tape on a garment, I picked up a chip on the way back from the barn, I fixed the curtain in the barn, etc.

The way I pictured it was Lizzie hears Andrew at the door, she starts to leave her room and ooops, realizes that one of her button loops is hanging off and if this is her alibi dress, she can't be seen in public in a less than perfect dress.

No, no one seemed to testify for sure that Lizzie was wearing the navy blue Bengaline dress, but, do you think Lizzie would take that chance of being seen by all those witnesses later on and hand over a dress that wasn't what she had worn from right after Andrew's murder on to when Dr. Bowen showed up?  Lizzie did come and make some sort of appearance before Andrew and ironed and talked to Bridget for awhile, could she have put the "paint stained" Bedford Cord back on again? 


40. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by haulover on Feb-18th-03 at 10:56 AM
In response to Message #38.

my previous idea that -- lizzie did not remember andrew going upstairs when he came home, because he did so before she came down.

according to bridget's testimony, andrew was sitting in the dining room when lizzie went through sitting room to get to dining room.  then it was some time after that, when andrew enters sitting room from kitchen and gets bedroom key.

bridget doesn't say whether she noticed lizzie at all at this particular moment.  i suppose lizzie could have left him in the dining room, gone upstairs, and never have known that he had gone upstairs.

anyway, it can't be exactly as i thought.

of course, this is based soley on bridget's testimony.  in order to get any kind of angle, you have to believe either bridget or lizzie.  isn't this true?  if they were in on it together, why would their accounts of that morning differ so?


41. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-18th-03 at 5:48 PM
In response to Message #40.

Yes, I agree and I did take into account the differences as to where Bridget said everyone was, when etc...
But if we leave Lizzie upstairs and we believe Bridget is not best at telling time, and agree that one testimony is from the 9th, and the other we are comparing it to is from around the 25th, then to me that can account for discrepencies. 
We would have to decide which is more belieable at any one time.
It is believable that Lizzie didn't know about Andrew going upstairs because she had delayed coming down--
But, now that I think of it...
If Andrew went up while Lizzie was still up, there was only a door between them if she was in her room, and she would have heard him in there and said yes he was upstairs, whether she saw him go or not!
So now it sounds like either Lizzie is double-lying on ONE issue, or Bridget is single-lying...so which is more resonable?
Possibly that Lizzie did come down but paused that 10 minutes in the parlor?  as Bridget says Lizzie entered from the front hall?
Then Lizzie would be out of sight of Andrew going upstairs...she would not HEAR him go up either, and Bridget would not see her, AND Lizzie could still enter by the front entry foyer from the parlour?


42. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by haulover on Feb-18th-03 at 9:42 PM
In response to Message #41.

***Possibly that Lizzie did come down but paused that 10 minutes in the parlor?  as Bridget says Lizzie entered from the front hall?***

if we stick with bridget's account, that works.  notice how each time lizzie appears to bridget she's coming in from up front.  i almost get an image here of someone "guarding the scene of the crime."

bridget remembers andrew enter the sitting room from the kitchen door, taking the key, and going up.  now, as he did so, lizzie must have surely left the dining room and gone back up front.  bridget doesn't say whether she noticed her or not. 

I tend to believe Bridget -- not only because she doesn't contradict herself as lizzie does -- but because Bridget has specific images and words to offer.  for example, she describes the sight of mr borden in the dining room through the doorway as she enters the kitchen.  and how he switches to the sitting room when she finishes in there and that he sits on a rocker. etc.

lizzie must be lying when she says she never saw her -- although she heard her open the door for mr borden. she then insists she was the whole time in a part of the house where she had to know when bridget went upstairs. the way she tries to tell it, it's as though bridget opened the front door and just disappeared.







43. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-19th-03 at 1:42 AM
In response to Message #42.

Lizzie wants us to think that Bridget went upstairs before Andrew came home, yet appeared out of nowhere to let him in the front door, and then as you say, disappear again and eventually be upstairs in her room when Lizzie herself is in the barn.
But which upstairs, in the first instance?
Someone asked this question before...
68
Q. A large portion of the time after your father went away, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were alone in the house?
A. Maggie had come in and gone up stairs.

Yes it does seem as if Lizzie is guarding the scene, like an Alsation in it's territory.
I realize we're being fanciful here, but I do get the allusion.

An interesting item for you and Susan and anyone else...
About a dress?

In Knowlton Paper's there is a section transcribed that are Knowlton's notes as to the trial testimony.  This is where the famous quote (that is featured on the FRHS website) comes from:
Pg. 372
"Lizzie has told us another lie   worse than a lie- a confession!"

His notes just before this statement are:
Page 2:
Dr. Bowen as to color of dress
S.W.B. p.   Read it

The desperate nature of a defense
that tries to [?] the testimony
of a defendant by showing that
she was crazy when she testified
by Bromo-caffeine.
S.W.B. p. 329

Read the cross-examination & direct
of Mrs. Churchills description of the
dress
--[my emphasis]

Lizzie has told us another lie
worse than a lie - a confession! 
-----
Well, I have been reading Mrs. Churchill to find out where Lizzie "lied" or seemingly "confessed" in the eyes of Knowlton.
The Trial pages are 342 to 372...and I wondered what you-all thought?
(Can also see:
http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=11&fid=27&taid=8&topid=576
for more)


44. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by haulover on Feb-19th-03 at 9:45 PM
In response to Message #43.

i can't find what he's referring to either.  the dress issue has always been confusing to me.  it seems to go around and around in a circle like most everything else.  all i gather is the following, and please correct any of the "facts" that i've got wrong:

there are 3 different dresses in question:  the navy blue bengaline that lizzie gave the police as the dress she was wearing, the light blue calico with the diamond pattern seen my mrs. churchill (and apparently dr. bowen, though not as surely, his memory pretty much agrees with mrs. churchills), and the soiled bedford cord seen by miss russell in the kitchen cupboard.  QUESTION:  i can't find if miss russell identified the color of the bedford cord.

if mrs. churchill is to be believed, then lizzie was not wearing the dress she turned in.  could mean she changed from the bedford cord after abby's murder to the blue-diamond calico.  no blood was observed on this calico by anyone -- yet she found it necessary to change into the pink wrapper.  she certainly did not turn in a blood-stained dress, but why didn't she just give them the diamond calico she was observed in when they all came in.  and how fortunate that bridget can't remember what lizzie was wearing that morning when bridget saw her getting her coffee in the kitchen, since bridget was the only living witness to it.

this probably has nothing to do with what knowlton has noticed, but i have speculated that lizzie wore the damning dress underneath the calico, after having cleaned off as much blood as possible after each murder.  this would have been very clever in the sense that this is the one place they would never have looked.  don't know how practical it would be.  but in that case, that would explain why she would never turn over the calico, for it would have traces on the inside.  i can't find any evidence that anyone told her they thought "she had better change it" before she put on the pink wrapper.   but apparently she wanted out of it for some reason.








45. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by rays on Feb-20th-03 at 5:01 PM
In response to Message #44.

Those who have practical experience can answer this: given the style of the day, then or now, could Lizzie have worn another dress on that hot August day without anyone noticing it?

Maybe she wanted to rest after this very stressful experience, and thus put on this housecoat or robe? Could she have broken out in a sweat after discovering Andy, and was not presentable?

The allegations etc are not very interesting, or germane to the question of guilt. IMO


46. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-20th-03 at 7:31 PM
In response to Message #45.

Ray, if you thought Morse had done the deed wouldn't you be wondering about that one suit of his?
And if you thought that Andrew's Prince Albert coat was worn by the murderer, wouldn't you wonder about what happened to that coat?
And even if you think Lizzie had nothing to do with the murders, isn't there anything interesting in finding out that she burned some apparel Sunday which was identified as her Bedford Cord dress, when it is thought that she did not wear that dress on Thursday, or at the least was not witnessed wearing it?
The dress or outfit or apparel she burned, probably resulted in her indictment by the grand jury?  And if you think that she wasn't even supposed to BE indicted because that was settled behind the scenes, aren't you curious as to how THAT plan may have gone awry, simply over this issue of the dress?
And if Knowlton is for real wanting to prosecute Lizzie that dress shows him in that 30 pages of testimony, something that makes him feel he has caught her in a lie--tantamount to a confession?
That's why the clothes of Lizzie are important...but it IS a very confusing issue.

haulover:  I think there were 3 dresses or parts of dresses.  If pieces were interchangeable then we would need fewer parts for which to account, maybe 2 & 1/2 pieces of dresses?


47. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by rays on Feb-21st-03 at 4:31 PM
In response to Message #46.

I won't disagree with your comments on the importance of the burned dress. Didn't the police search the whole house on Friday and Saturday? Since no one testified that dress was worn on Thursday, is it so important? If she didn't burn that dress (not known until months later), would it make any difference in her indictment?

I just think that Lizzie, free from paternal domination, decided to discard a dress she no longer wanted. No more bean counting?


48. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-21st-03 at 6:50 PM
In response to Message #47.

I don't think there was much of a search on Friday.
That is a day we find not much activity around the house.
Was there a search outside, at least, Friday?
Saturday, after the family left for the funeral, was when the most searching was done.
(I haven't double-checked this if someone knows differently...)

I thought Brown believed that a deal was made and Lizzie was NOT to be indicted by the grand jury at all?
If the burning of the dress caused an indictment (I know it's probably not that simple...let's say contributed) then it's important, right?


49. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by haulover on Feb-22nd-03 at 2:39 AM
In response to Message #43.

kat:

about this dress and the testimony of dr. bowen and mrs. churchill:

this may be an oversimplification, but could it be that knowlton simply noticed that the dress described by both mrs. churchill and dr bowen was the same dress?  and that the dress lizzie turned over to them was clearly not that dress that was observed by these two witnesses?  meaning that lizzie had a dress to hide?


50. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-22nd-03 at 3:16 AM
In response to Message #49.

He must have been pretty p'.o'd by the time he wrote that phrase.
He must have been convinced that the dress Lizzie turned over was not the same as she was seen wearing...so yes, I guess that's all he meant.
It sounded very important to him!  I suppose by then he was frustrated that others may not see it as clearly as he did in that moment.
But Bowen was not one to commit himself to Lizzie's wearing apparel so that let's him off the nail...(get it?)
It's down to Mrs. Churchill and so I suppose the most damning thing SHE said was *I should say that is not the dress.*
(The one Lizzie turned over to the court).


51. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Edisto on Feb-22nd-03 at 10:41 AM
In response to Message #44.

Sorry -- I'm a little behind on reading the posts and just ran across this "three dress" theory.  I don't think there were three dresses involved, unless one counts that fancy pink-striped wrapper into which Lizzie changed after the murders.  I think the Bedford-cord dress and the dress with the "diamond" pattern (some sort of geometric design, variously described by a couple of witnesses) are one and the same.  We went 'round and 'round about this on the old LBMB.  One of the posters there protested that a "corded" fabric like Bedford cord couldn't also be a printed fabric.  That's nonsense, as anyone can find out by going to the nearest fabric shop.  There are lots of printed corduroys, for example.  Cording is part of the WEAVE, and printing is done by a separate process after the fabric is woven.  Someone looking at Lizzie's dress from a slight distance might have seen only the print and described it as calico, but IMHO it was the same printed Bedford cord that had been made in the spring of 1892 and which was described by the dressmaker and by Emma.  Of course, Alice Russell (by default) said she didn't see Lizzie wearing that dress on August 4.  Dr. Bowen described her dress vaguely as "drab," but he probably meant it was "not bright" and wasn't referring to a specific color.


52. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by rays on Feb-22nd-03 at 1:54 PM
In response to Message #50.

As I opined once before, would a wealthy young woman be ashamed to admit to wearing an old cheap dress in public? "Oh Lizzie, I didn't think eve YOU would wear such a thing even at home!".

Nobody saw any blood stains on Lizzie's dress after the murders. But you can speculate why she didn't get closer to her dead father.


53. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by rays on Feb-22nd-03 at 1:56 PM
In response to Message #48.

Didn't AR Brown say Lizzie was held over to quiet the popular uproar, and get the absent workers back on the job? And that they planned to drop the charges in November when it was no longer a hot topic? Then Alice Russels's testimony put the fat in the fire!


54. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-22nd-03 at 7:44 PM
In response to Message #51.

Emma doesn't count as she wasn't there, right?
And Bridget won't commit.
And Bowen see's only "drab".
That leaves Mrs. Churhill and Alice Russell.
Churchill says the dress turned over to the court is not the dress Lizzie was wearing when she saw her that Thursday.=#1 dress.

The dress Lizzie was seen wearing that day was not the Bedford Cord, per Alice =# 2 dress.

Then there is the Bedford Cord which was extra long and swept the floor and Alice did not see it that day, but DID see it Sunday at the stove = #3 dress.

The part of a dress can enter the equation in 2 ways.
As part of a dress burned--there was no witness to that.
As part of a dress turned over to the court because Dolan said the material of the top & bottom did not match.

Do you discount Alice?  You can discount anyone, but what would be her motive to lead us astray as to the Bedford Cord?
Can there be 5 parts to 3 dresses involved?  Or 4 parts of 3 different dresses involved, if one part , say the *blouse waist* of one outfit interchanged with the other 2 skirts?


55. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by haulover on Feb-23rd-03 at 7:27 PM
In response to Message #54.

i may still be confused, but what i note is that mrs. churchill's description of the dress is in sinc with dr. bowen's memory of it -- only that his memory of it is less specific.

then there is the bedford cord in the kitchen cupboard.

and the bengaline silk that lizzie handed over.

all this tells us is that the dress remembered by mrs. churchill (and apparently dr. bowen) is not the one that lizzie handed over.  it seems that only mrs. churchill and dr. bowen had anything to say about what lizzie was wearing.

that the dress was in two pieces and may be part that "dress" and part that "dress" -- that's totally confusing to me.  let's consider the various materials involved -- morning calico, bedford cord, and bengaline silk.  3 different materials.


56. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Edisto on Feb-23rd-03 at 8:10 PM
In response to Message #55.

(Sorry, there are some posts here I simply can't understand, no matter how hard I try, so I'll respond to yours.)  I think Dr. Bowen's dress, Mrs. Churchill's dress (the ones they describe, I mean.  Dr. Bowen wasn't wearing a dress, that I know of) and the Bedford cord in the kitchen cabinet are all one and the same.  I don't think Dr. Bowen noticed Lizzie's dress at all, so I somewhat discount his description.  The second dress is the one Lizzie turned over.  IMHO, the only "third" dress is the wrapper Lizzie put on after the murders.  I believe almost all of the fashions of that time were made in two pieces - a "basque"  and a skirt.  It has occurred to me that Lizzie might have gone into her wardrobe and looked to see what she had that might be similar in pattern to the Bedford cord, and chosen that bengaline outfit as the closest.  However, she says in her inquest testimony that she planned to go down street around noon, so it's entirely possible that she dressed for the street when she got up and did have on the bengaline when she came down.  That's what's so puzzling about this case.  There are alternate explanations for everything.
I don't pay much attention to what Alice said about Lizzie's apparel, because Alice herself said she paid no attention to fashions.  She seemed to be saying that what Lizzie was wearing was "not-Bedford-cord," but then nobody questioned her to find out for sure.  It's kinda like Lubinsky's statement that he saw "not-Bridget" outside the Borden house that day.  Not exactly a positive ID.
IMHO, there probably wasn't any mixing and matching of outfits going on that day.  From piecing together a couple of descriptions, I think the "dress" Lizzie turned over to the police was a two-piece outfit with a patterned blouse and a solid skirt.  I doubt that either piece was paired up with another garment.  That's just my opinion, of course.

(Message last edited Feb-23rd-03  8:25 PM.)


57. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-23rd-03 at 11:06 PM
In response to Message #56.


Trial
Alice
pg. 395+ [The Bedford Cord]

Q. To make it clear, between the time you saw it on Miss Lizzie Borden and had the talk about it in the spring, you did not see it again until the Sunday morning after the homicide?

A. I never remember of ever seeing it, and I am quite sure I did not---that I never had.
--------------
pg.399+

Q.  You say you cannot tell us about a dress that she had on that morning?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Anything about it?
A.  Except that it was loose here (indicating some part of the bosom) when I started to unloosen them.  That is the only thing about the dress I notice. 
---------------
pg. 407+  [The dress Lizzie had at the stove]

Q.  You called it a Bedford cord; do I get it right?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Is that what we call a calico?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Quite different from a calico?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And is it a cambric?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  So it is neither a calico or a cambric?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Very different material, isn't it?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  The dress that you saw Sunday morning was not a calico, was it?
A.  I judged not.

Q.  Well, I take your judgment.  And it wasn't a cambric, was it?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  You are certain about that, neither a calico nor a cambric; no doubt about it, is there?
A.  I didn't take hold of it to see and I didn't examine it.

Q.  But you know what it was?
A.  I know.  I suppose it was the same dress that I have reference to her having made in the spring.

Q.  And that was the Bedford cord?
A.  Yes, sir.

------------
pg. 409+

Q.  And if I get it right, she had the skirt on her arm, something like that?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And some other part of the dress was over on the mantel or a chair, was it?
A.  It was on the cupboard shelf.

Q.  Out in the kitchen?
A.  Yes, sir.
---------------
pg. 415+

Q.  What is the material of which the Bedford cord dress is made?
A.  All cotton. That dress was all cotton.

Q.  And not silk?
A.  No, sir. There are different kinds of Bedford cord.

Q.  While we are on it, what is this?  (Exhibiting blue skirt)
A.  Well, I don't know what it is.  It is silk, but I don't know what kind.

Q.  What is the waist?
A.  I call it sateen.

Q.  What is calico composed of?
A.  Cotton.

Q.  All cotton?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Is a Bedford Cord an expensive dress or a cheap dress?
A.  Different qualities: it is cheap.
------------

I know people can read the trial and find that the dress testimony is always confusing..no matter the witness.
I always have trouble with Churchill and Bowen, but to me, Alice is clear.
Isn't Alice saying that she knows what the Bedford Cord looks like because it was shown off to her in the spring and that after that she knows she never saw it again until part of it was over Lizzie's arm near the stove on Sunday?  If so, then Lizzie wasn't wearing it when she was with Alice.

Alice bathed Lizzie's forehead in the kitchen, Thursday.  She sat right next to her.  Someone else noticed that Lizzie's head for a time was on Alice's shoulder.  Alice led her to the Dining room and had her lie upon the lounge.  She attempted to loosen Lizzie's bodice or blouse-waist and Lizzie said she wasn't faint. 

Alice touched Lizzie's clothing that Thursday noon.
She testifies that she doesn't know anything about that dress other than it was loose at the top and so she pulled it out.

So isn't there 3 items of clothing we are dealing with?
--The silk dress Lizzie gave the court--
--The Bedford Cord--cheap cotton--
--The dress Lizzie was wearing when Alice was so close to her that she knows nothing of and cannot describe...and it could not be, according to Alice & by default implied, the Bedford Cord because she had not seen That since The Spring.

To me this is 3 dresses and I can't figure it any differently unless they are taken apart and separted into pieces...blouse & skirt .




58. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by haulover on Feb-24th-03 at 11:03 AM
In response to Message #57.

Kat:

that's how i see it.  beyond that, the implications are confusing.  but when i look at how quickly lizzie manages to change into the pink wrapper, and then the dress-burning incident -- to me, there is definitely something up about dresses.  (just like with "poison") notice in her testimony, when she says she changed, she says it was because "they thought i ought to."  really?  okay, maybe it was simply because it was so hot and the dress was uncomfortable or something -- but why not simply say so instead of, "they thought i ought to".  (sorry for picking on you, lizzie -- but why didn't you stop me?  why didn't you tell me?)

i doubt we can ever get anywhere with this.  what is missing is bridget's memory.  what can we reasonably (and not certainly) know but that lizzie is wearing a light blue calico with dark blue diamond pattern in the aftermath of the murders?  and that she does not hand this over as what she was wearing that day?

the police found no paint-stained dress, so apparently she knew how to conceal one.  if so, how?  how likely the theory that she hid it underneath another?






59. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-24th-03 at 7:55 PM
In response to Message #58.

* but why didn't you stop me?  why didn't you tell me?*
Ha!  That was really good!  You're talking to Lizzie, now....

I have never liked the *dress* part of this crime.
It has never added up.  And everyone has a differring idea about the descriptions of the dresses.
The dress divides us -- it always has.
Thanks for the legacy, Lizzie!

That was when I started thinking about dividing the dress.
Especially when Dolan says the dress turned over to the court has a blouse waist & a dress skirt  that are "not the same material". (Prelim.175)
The other odd thing about this *court dress* is that Lizzie supposedly gave it to Jennings to give it to Dolan.
Yea right!  It's not taken directly from the source but given through her lawyer?

And how can she possibly innocently burn an item of clothing after being put under suspicion?
I used to think the burning of the item was to cover up the burning of something else.  It's the only way I could think of that didn't make Lizzie look like an imbecile.
The burning of something else would have needed as big a fire
as the burning of a dress?

And yet she did manage to hide a paint-stained dress for whatever reason?


60. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Susan on Feb-24th-03 at 9:34 PM
In response to Message #59.

Weren't the police looking for the Bedford Cord dress in particular too?  No light blue dress, paint stained or otherwise was found by them, Lizzie must have hid it well.

I've never felt that the dress burning made Lizzie look stupid, just panicked.  If the dress had blood stains on it, she couldn't just hand it over to the police or let it be found, hence the burning.  I have a feeling that that is the dress Lizzie was wearing when she awoke that morning and Bridget did see it, but, never told.

But, the story that she just happens to be getting rid of this old dress that the police are looking for is alot to swallow, just like some of her other stories.  How could she not know when they made how ever many searchs of her dress closet?  If there was nothing wrong with the dress and she was innocently planning on getting rid of it she might have said, O, there is one other dress of mine that is not in here.  I think she knew what they were looking for and had to ditch that dress.

That second bloody apron also comes to mind, do you think its possible that Lizzie was wearing an apron that morning, killed Abby, and was surprised to see such a small amount of blood on the apron?  We never have been able to account for that second one that was buried yet. 


61. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by haulover on Feb-25th-03 at 12:56 AM
In response to Message #59.

could it be that when knowlton jots down that lizzie has given a confession is simply his realization that testimony by mrs. churchill and bowen about what lizzie was wearing proves that what lizzie turned over was not what she wore that morning?


62. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-25th-03 at 2:13 AM
In response to Message #61.

I personally do not include Bowen in any dress testimony.
What do you like in Bowen's statements that you can use to describe a dress?

Yes, I do think that is what occured to Knowlton but he just doesn't seem to be able to convince eveybody of this switcheroo, just like others are not convinced STill, here & now.

The dratted dress....

Anyway, Susan, to be more clear I  meant that Lizzie could look like an imbecile burning a dress while under strong suspicion, if she was innocent.  Otherwise it was necessity.  We have to choose.


63. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by haulover on Feb-25th-03 at 11:22 AM
In response to Message #62.

just in looking for testimonies that agreed on the dress subject, i noticed that dr. bowen at least does not disagree (he says calico) with mrs. churchill, who is rather specific in her description, i would say.  she knows the material and the diamond print.

about burning the dress:   someone once suggested that it was perhaps naive but understandable that lizzie burned a dress that day.  the reason being that she understood the police were finished, and since they had ransacked everything, she had to go over her wardrobe in detail; in so doing, noticed this soiled dress and decided to destroy it rather than hang it back up.  housecleaning, in other words.

what i'd like to be sure of is if any of the officers were questioned about noticing a paint-stained (or any kind of soiled) dress. i'm going to look for it later myself, but is anyone very certain on this?


64. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by rays on Feb-25th-03 at 3:57 PM
In response to Message #63.

Obviously they were never asked this in court. One reason could be that they would have to say they did see such a dress, confirming Lizzie's actions. If somebody denied it, it could mean that searching the house by different teams meant one or more did not see it.
Or could they have seen it and disregarded it, as it was not evidence of the crime they were investigating? We know the box of hatchets etc were taken to the station.


65. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-26th-03 at 12:02 AM
In response to Message #64.

Trial
Fleet
480
Q.  Upon the Saturday did you go into the clothes closet in the front hall up stairs?
A.  We did.

Q.  Did you examine all dresses that you found there?
A.  We looked at them, yes, sir.

Q.  Did you see either in that closet or in any other closet in the house or anywhere in the house a dress with marks of paint upon it?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  How critically, how carefully were you examining the dresses at that time on the Saturday?
A.  Very closely.

Q.  Did you find any blood upon any dress?  I have asked you about paint.  Did you find anything that looked like blood or any discoloration of any kind?
A.  No, sir.

--We can start with Fleet.


66. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-26th-03 at 12:12 AM
In response to Message #65.

Trial
Fleet
497
A.  Well, that is just as I tell you.  I didn't look at them very closely. I looked at the dresses, but not very closely.

Q.  But you took each dress and looked at it, is that so?
A.  Yes, sir; I think it is about so.

Q.  "Were you looking to see if you could find any bloody garments?"  "Not very closely, I was if----"  "Did you have that in mind?"  "Yes, sir"  Is that so? --[here earlier testimony by Fleet is being read back to him on the wtness stand.  kk]
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Now did you say whether you did make any sort of search there in that clothes room?
A.  I did.

Q.  How many dresses were there?
A.  I thought about a dozen or more.

Q.  You didn't see any paint on them?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  (By Mr. Moody.)  This was Saturday?
A.  No, this was Thursday.

Q.  By Mr. Robinson.)  This was Thursday?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Would you have seen any paint the way you looked?
A.  I don't think that I should.

Q.  Would you have seen any blood the way you looked?
A.  Not without it was on the outside, right before my eyes. I didn't look at them close enough to notice.

Q.  Not withstanding you took each dress and looked at it?
A.  I did, I took the dresses, moved them one side, that is about all and went around the clothes press in that way.  It didn't take us two minutes in there.


67. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-26th-03 at 12:51 AM
In response to Message #66.

Trial
Acting Captain Desmond
719
Q.  Did you see anything that attracted your attention with reference to any dress?  [on Saturday-kk]
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Now I will follow it by the preceding question.
A.  I shall have to answer it the same way. I think we handled most every thing.

Q.  Did you see any dress that was soiled with paint or with spots of any sort?
A.  No, sir.

--This is a Prosecution question.


68. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-26th-03 at 1:17 AM
In response to Message #67.

Trial
Desmond
733
[He had been describing searching the attic and then descended to Mr. & Mrs. Borden's room-  At this point he has not mentioned entering another room-kk]

Q.  And the room there where the sofa was---Did you look in that?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Were there any dresses in that room?
A.  It seems to me there was, both ladies and gents clothes hanging up in that room covered with a sheet.

Q.  Did you examine those?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Thoroughly?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Could you form any opinion whose clothes the ladies clothes were,---whether those of a stout woman or a slender woman?
A.  No, sir, I could not.

Q.  Were the dresses turned wrong side out?
A.  I could not say that.

--Is he talking about a clothes closet in Andrew's room?  If so, there was a sofa and here we find "gents" clothes..  Andrew must have had more clothes than he has been given credit for...
So is he describing what we have heard referred to as *Abby's dressing room*?
--Did not find there any blood or grease spots or paint spots.
--Then he mentions entering Lizzie's room.
--This search was Saturday.
--Desmond was the officer who investigated the robbery at the Borden home.


69. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Kat on Feb-26th-03 at 1:39 AM
In response to Message #68.

Trial
Seaver
745+
Q.  Won't you describe the character of your examination of those dresses on the Saturday?
A.  I first went into the closet and the closet blinds were shut, that is, the outside blinds. I opened the blinds---there were clothes around the window---hoisted the window and took the cloth down and opened the blinds, and then I went to the hooks. Capt. Fleet was there with me.  He had gone in two or three minutes before me.

Q.  (By Mr. Robinson.)  A little louder, please.
A.  Capt. Fleet was there with me, and I commenced on the hooks and took each dress, with the exception of two or three in the corner, and passed them to Capt. Fleet, he being near the window, and he examined them as well as myself, he more thoroughly than myself, and I took each garment then and hung it back as I found them; all with the exception of two or three which were heavy or silk dresses, in the corner.  I didn't pass those down.  I just looked at them and let them remain as they were.

Q.  (By Mr. Moody.)  Those were silk dresses?
A.  Those were silk dresses, I am very sure, heavy dresses, and they hung there and I didn't disturb them at all.

Q.  Did you discover anything upon any of those dresses?
A.  I did not.

Q.  Did you see a light blue dress, diamond spots upon it, and paint around the bottom of the dress and on its front?
A.  I did not.

Q.  Did you make a sufficiently careful examination to have discovered such a dress, so marked with paint, if it had been there?
A.  I did.


--Finally someone who is sure, and  State Police, to boot!
--Book-em, Dano!


70. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by Susan on Feb-26th-03 at 3:01 AM
In response to Message #69.

Thanks for finding that, Kat.  Don't you wish you had a go at that dress closet on that day?  I would have had no compunction pulling each and every dress down, inside out and even digging through Lizzie's undies drawer either.  I realize these were men in Victorian times, but, why couldn't they have had one of their wives or a woman who worked for the police do this search?  Would've made sense to me. 


71. "Re: A Curious Statement By Bridget"
Posted by rays on Feb-27th-03 at 12:51 PM
In response to Message #66.

This testimony by Fleet sound like "testilying" to me. "I looked at them all, but not very closely" sounds like an attempt to explain away why they found no guilty evidence.



 

Navagation

LizzieAndrewBorden.com © 2001-2008 Stefani Koorey. All Rights Reserved. Copyright Notice.
PearTree Press, P.O. Box 9585, Fall River, MA 02720

 

Page updated 12 October, 2003