1. "A Peculiar Expression Around the Eyes"
Posted by haulover on Jan-15th-03 at 1:42 AM

Immediately after the murders, Lizzie's effort to express a sound she heard sounds honest to me in how much she says about it with difficulty.  a groan, a distressing sound -- and this in particular.....a peculiar sound, a scraping sound.  this is unusual.  how could she have invented that term?  why would she have if she were just trying to make it sound plausible that she heard evidence of an intruder?  my point being that a "scraping sound" is not what you'd guess under the circumstances. it points to something specific and strange.  if you were her and you were trying to make an alibi, lying -- how would you make that choice of words?  (of course, lizzie herself did not say it, i know; but someone said she did, it's a particular word.)  actually, i've tried to make a case for it as words spoken by a murdering lizzie -- that she heard these things when she murdered andrew.  objectively speaking, that's possible, but it's a long shot -- and a theory you entertain seriously only when you've become convinced that she did the killings.  the most plausible explanation for such a sound that i've heard is that it is the sound of vomitting.  but leaving that as the great uncertainty it is.....

i am convinced that she lies at the inquest.  she is evasive and contradictory.  knowlton basically forces her to offer an explanation for abby's whereabouts -- she gives it only when she has no choice.  she insists that she does not notice bridget in the house, even though bridget has specific recollections of her.  let's say lizzie is trying to cover up something even though she herself is not the murderer. i can't say i understand why a blood-free lizzie would find it essential to say that she never saw the maid and/or that her father left the house an hour later than he actually did.  but let's suppose the answer is in my own ignorance, and in fact someone else did the crimes.

lizzie is a liar, but i don't find blood on her -- nor a weapon in her possession.

but how do we define the plausible testimonies of eli bence and alice russell?  after we've found lizzie innocent by lack of physical evidence connecting her, we encounter damning evidence that no one can explain.  eli bence does not just identify her as trying to buy prussic acid -- but he is quite certain that he knows her by name, has seen her on the street.  he remembers her manner, and most importantly, he remembers that "peculiar expression around the eyes."  (this in itself would be something to delve into -- but my point is that it is one thing to identify someone and quite another to remember peculiar specifics about the person.)

and alice russell.  the fact that lizzie visits her the night before with premonitions of disaster. that lizzie had witnessed arguments and sincerely feared -- and the timing of the murders a coincidence?  of course, it's possible, but isn't this just like trying to set a stage for something planned? 

question comes down to this -- if lizzie is innocent of actually swinging the axe, how can it be that she is actually innocent of the plan to kill them?  and who is the killer?  if she aided the killer, she must have wanted them dead herself.

  

I have never ever thought of that

That is a rather odd way of saying something.  Lizzie's eye's were rather unique but I don't know what he means by "peculiar expression".

This little paragraph appeared in the Evening Standard of Aug. 30th, 1892 concerning Bence's Preliminary testimony:

"During the Eli Bence's cross-examination, which to an ordinary prisoner must have been very trying, she did not for a moment flinch.  She looked the drug clerk squarely in the eye with by no means a pleasant expression."

Get him, Liz!

(Message last edited Jan-15th-03  9:23 AM.)

Unique has a more positive meaning than peculiar. The use of the word peculiar to describe Lizzie or a portion of her goes along with the more negative description of her as "queer."

Would taking morphine (for diarrhea) cause eyes to look "glassy"?
Or from suffering from a fever or ?

That's an interesting question.
Do you think Lizzie was on a drug prior to being seen by Bence?
But if it something he *recognizes* about her, then he has seen it before?
This helps him to identify her.
Is she a drug-addict, after all?

Lizzie wouldn't necessarily have had to be drugged (in the usual sense of the word) to have been "out of it" on August 4.  Remember that she had been menstruating.  In that day, there were many patent medicines especially to assuage "female complaints."  Most of these contained a high percentage of alcohol.  One of the most familiar was Lydia E. Pinkham's Vegetable Compound, which I believe is still in the market.  There's a wonderful history of this product at http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/biolib/hc/nostrums/pinkham.html

(Message last edited Jan-17th-03  10:40 AM.)

Wow, thanks, Edisto!  Good reading and still available today?  I can take a product that possibly Lizzie and Emma both took?  Cool. 

I liked the bit about how some of the women who took this medication were memebers of the WCTU and it was originally like 20% alcohol. 

Thats a scream-the WCTU dosing themselves with Victorian Midol, Vitameatavegamin-and getting tanked! Its sure a possibility that Lizzie had some in her little cabinet. (I live not far from the original Lydia Pinkham factory in Lynn Mass-anybody want some 'liver pills'?)

Are they for your liver or made of liver? 

It cures "flooding", what is that????


"There's a baby in every bottle, -- So the old quotation ran.

But the Federal Trade Commission -- Still insists you'll need a man."

http://www.glswrk-auction.com/025.htm

http://hardtofindbrands.com
http://hardtofindbrands.com/cf/products_detail.cfm?ItemNum=128&search=



(Message last edited Jan-17th-03  10:04 PM.)

i think the "peculiar expression" was most likely an observation of the unusually light blue color of her eyes.  in speculating, i add this:  that her eyes had some kind of an indirect focus about them.

anyhow, my point was that someone noticed something specific about her and was not wrong to identify her.  and she did try to buy prussic acid.  why?  i don't know.  perhaps to clean a garment?  but she did deny doing so  -- and believable evidence is against her.

When I look at Lizzie *posing* for her portraits, I think of her as striking a pose that might be somewhere in between HER idea of a far-away-gaze (Romantic, don't you think?), and some expression which her photographer has instructed her to use.  It may have been a compromise, or if our Lizzie doesn't compromise then it just may be how she wished to be depicted.
Looking off into the distance...looking at her unknown future?
(Influenced by literature and the common poses of the day?)

I suppose in everyday life Lizzie could fous directly as much as she cared to.  But that does now remind me that later she wore glasses, so maybe that POSEing was merely a *Myopic Gaze*?
Maybe she needed glasses younger and they never knew it.
Anyway, what made me just think of this is that I am reminded of the NEWPORT snap, where she is first seen as looking AT US.
She does have an odd gaze, even tho she is smiling.  I really only call it odd, because I cannot think of a description...

If she always needed glasses and didn't know it or didn't wear them, then we might be hearing her as described as having a peculiar look, but Maybe that would be because she cannot see very well?  Just a possibilty?

Good thought, Kat!  I was just thinking the same thing and lo and behold, you've written it already.  Maybe Lizzie was nearsighted and couldn't focus so well on things in the distance?  That could cause that odd far-away gaze. 

Perhaps the "peculiar expression" was a prosecutorial coaching device. Saying that phrase in reference to somebody accused of a grisly murder is immediatly taken as an indication of guilt.

If anybody still cares after all this time, I think "flooding" probably refers to a heavy menstrual flow.  I believe I recall that expression from my "yoot."
In response to a different point, I for one do not "know" that Lizzie tried to purchase Prussic acid at Smith's Drugstore.  One of the contemporary newspapers mentioned that there were many women in the Fall River\New Bedford area who resembled Lizzie, and there was a story about one young married woman who was her double.  There's also the tale that a woman agent was visiting drugstores in the Fall River area and trying to secure poisons without a prescription.  She too supposedly resembled Lizzie.  Just look at all the photographs that surface which resemble Lizzie.  That's been discussed on another thread.
Also, the methodology used to identify Lizzie wasn't exactly scientific.  It would have been proper to use a line-up of several women who resembled her and have Bence pick one out.  The only women with whom he was confronted was Lizzie herself.  While other witnesses were in the store when "Lizzie" visited, they didn't totally agree, as I recall, on how her voice sounded.  Lizzie claimed she had never been in Smith's Drugstore and didn't even know where it was, although it was quite near where she lived.  I live within a mile of a shopping mall (one where the snipers struck), and I know only some of the stores located there - the ones I happen to patronize - so I find her disclaimer plausible.  In fact, she might have been better off to admit having been in Smith's on other occasions, if that was the case.  That could explain how Bence & Co. got confused and incorrectly recalled when she was there and what her errand was.  I have plenty of doubts about the Prussic acid incident. 

Good points Eds. Flooding-very evocative. (Red River?)

Exactly.

I've never been quite assured either way as to Lizzie's possible visit to the drugstore for prussic acid.

I think I would know where my nearest drugstore was, tho, then or now.  We've heard Lizzie likes shopping, (and personally I think youger Cancer's can be a bit of a hypochondriac, which they would hopefully outgrow).  If I usually walked around my area to get to places nearby, I think it would be even easier to know what shops were where in my neighborhood in 20 years of walking around.

The odd part of trying to understand this incident which Bence claims is that then if that did not happen, we are left with this huge coincidence of talk of poison on the same day Wednesday, and apparently Tuesday as well, if Abby actually claimed to have been poisoned to Dr. Bowen.  (I have read the differing explanations of what Abby really said about that and had concluded that Abby did not mean she thought she was BeinG poisoned by a person in particular...it could read as being made sick by the food.)

Anyway, we still have this huge coincidence to account for:
That Wednesday night of the day Bence claims he witnessed Lizzie, she is speaking the word poison to Alice Russell.
And that the WORD poison was used on Wednesday morning by Abby about her's and Andrew's sickness.
Then Thursday evening this Bence comes forward speaking the word poison.
Did he know they had been sick?  I don't know what or if Harrington suggested this to him when he took his statement?
It's possible, I suppose.  But we can't know.
Witness Statements, pg. 8, Harrington says:  "Thursday night after supper went to investigate the rumor [of suspicious character]...While out on this we learned of the poison story..."[meaning Bence's story].

So all this happened Wednesday and Bence speaks about it Thursday.
It just seems like a lot of poison *in the air* that Wednesday.  Could that be a coincidence?
I'm really asking.
I've never been able to come to terms with this issue either way.

I simply think it would have been stupid of Lizzie to claim she had never been in Smith's Drugstore and didn't know where it was IF in fact she was in the habit of shopping there or at least walking by frequently.  After all, it wasn't a crime to know where the store was, or even to shop there.  When I lived in a small town in North Carolina in the 1940s, the main part of the downtown was frequented by the people who lived in town.  However, there was "another" downtown, which was located beyond the main city clock tower.  That downtown was frequented only by people who lived on farms and came into town to shop on Saturdays.  I never shopped there, and neither did any of my friends.  It seems odd now.  Maybe Fall River had conventions like that too.  I can still imagine Bence and his two buddies in the drugstore.  Woman comes in and asks for Prussic acid.  Bence tells her she can't have it.  Woman leaves.  Bence says, "Guess I told her.  Wasn't that old man Borden's daughter?  Snooty bitch."  The other two guys, not knowing Lizzie, get it fixed in their minds that it was indeed old man Borden's daughter.  Next day Bence hears the Bordens have been murdered, and the police are around talking about poison.  Bence remembers the encounter of the day before...

I was thinking Red Sea, wasn't there some guy named Moses involved with that or at least part of it? 

When I was driving a regular route I take to get to the doctor, going straight ahead...or if I turn left there instead to go to the grocery store...this is an area within say, 1.2 miles from my house.  I don't hang out around there but I have passed that intersection a zillion times in 30 odd years.  I was sitting at the light, the day you posted that, Edisto, and it was odd, because I didn't know I'd be reading your first take on why maybe Lizzie didn't even know that drugstore was there. 
I noticed a new bldg. going up and drove past the shops and couldn't see the names.  As I passed I saw a woman walking.  I immediatly thought, oh if I were walking, I would be able to check out those stores...even just the names.  It's always interesting to note what might be new or even something old I hadn't noticed before, in my near vicinity.
That's why I thought of our Lizzie walking around her area for 20 years, or from whatever age she was allowed to go out on her own errands, and that a walking person might take note of such things whereas we drivers may not.  I only bring this up again, with greater detail, because it WAS coincidental to your post.
(The new Bldg. is a DRUG STORE)(Twilight zone music here).

If we can account for 3 versions of poison, out of 3 people's mouths on Wednesday, it would go aways toward beginning to convince me that Bence's story was a misunderstanding, or misinformed or mishandled.
But, on what other day, in the life of Lizzie, does this word poison come up 3 times and the next day people are killed?

(Message last edited Jan-21st-03  5:01 PM.)

Aside from those 3 guys there, is there ANY objective fact to demonstrate that such an event did happen at a specific time?
Ever listen to a "Bull Session" and note how some people's opinions change?

(Message last edited Jan-21st-03  6:21 PM.)

Didn't AR Brown say that drugstore was on the "wrong side of town"? And that Lizzie and her class wouldn't patronize that area?

I'm old enough to remember life w/o malls and Big Chainstores. Where certain classes shopped and all others were not welcome. (Before 1960s?)

"Drawing on her memories of seeing Lizzie in person and turning also to photographs, Lincoln is enthralled by Lizzie's eyes. She refers to them over and over again, describing those "huge, protruding, pale eyes" (158), "startlingly pale eyes" (199), and a "blank-eyed" Lizzie (266)."


the above is from someone's essay posted somewhere here (appears to be a book review).

but it reminded me of why i thought the druggist's choice of words were probably significant.  lincoln may have mis-solved the case, but at least she did in fact observe the living lizzie borden. 

i can't think of anyone with eyes like this i know, but "startlingly pale" eyes would produce a "blank-eyed" look that someone might called "peculiar." 

just in terms of the credibility of bence, i think it's in his favor that someone else thinks it's worth mentioning. 

In the Newport photograph she looks like a wild-eyed somebody,
but we all know what she was accused of doing, would they seem
so odd if everyone didn't know who she was, I wonder? That is
always the picture they show of her when they want her to look
crazy. Sarah had odd looking eyes --- but Andrew & Emma didn't
have the same "style" or expression, they don't look crazy,
but in some of her pictures Lizzie did look peculiar.

Ray,
I posted a map here somewhere of the area the drugstore was located, and it was half a block over and half a block down, from #92 Second Street
Still in her vicinity.
Brown needed a good map.

Odd, to me in the Newport photograph she seems almost lethargic-she seems to be tired and thinking "alright, take the damn picture let me get back to my book" Wild eyed would be the last description I would use. Goes to show that one persons interpretation of "peculiar" or anything else for that matter, is subjective. And hence, not really useful in a court of law-its an opinion, not a fact.

Oh, I definitely agree that a person who's walking will normally notice more detail than someone who's traveling in a vehicle.  It's usually true of me.  However, there's a small strip mall near me, and I patronize the stores there when possible.  I usually park in front of the Post Office and walk the length of the strip to get some exercise.  I can name the stores that I patronize, but I'm quite vague on the ones that I don't use.  Let's see...from left to right, there's the Post Office (which I do use).  Next door is the thrift shop (I go in there once in a while, and it has such a funny name that I can't help recalling it).  Next to that is...I have no idea!  That's because I don't patronize any of the other businesses except the supermarket, which is on the far right.  I know there's a bank branch (not my bank), and I think there's a hairdresser.  I recently realized there's a drycleaner in there, because I had gone out of my way to take something to a cleaner located elsewhere.  I also believe one of the stores is empty???  Oh, yes!  There's also a Vietnamese restaurant.  I remember it because it has such exotic items on its menu posted in the window.  I visit this strip at least three times a week, maybe more, and I couldn't name the restaurant or the hairdresser.  I've been visiting that strip for about fifteen years, and only a couple of the stores have changed.  So not everyone is as observant as Kat.  I admit to being over the hill and having failing eyesight, but I can read large signs and see what kind of business is being transacted inside, so age and eyesight probably aren't factors.  Maybe Lizzie was like me.  Also, if we look at the street map on page 566 in Rebello, we see that Smith's Drugstore was located about a block and a half southwest of the Borden house.  Even if Lizzie had exited her house and turned left and then right to get to South Main, she would have had to make another left and walk a full block to get to Smith's.  Most of Lizzie's perambulations would probably have taken her into the "downstreet" area, where the post office, city buildings and most of the "good" stores were located.  Her friend Alice lived in that direction too.  Even the Central Congregational Church was located in that direction, and the mission where Lizzie taught was northeast of the Borden house.  So even without Arnold Brown, I think it entirely plausible that Lizzie didn't know where Smith's Drugstore was or patronize it.
(If she had been a regular customer, wouldn't Bence have known her and conversed with her, other than turning down her request for poison?)

Hello Kimberly,

According to the Fall River Historical Society, the photograph of Lizzie in Newport was taken in June, 1893. She must have been photographed just a few days after her acquital on June 20.
She had just completed ten months in prison, plus a harrowing trial.
I think she was entitled to look "peculiar," "pale" and "blank-eyed" after such an ordeal whether she was guilty or not. It must have been a deflating experience. I know it would knock the wind out of me!

I agree, awhile back we were talking about
what that expression could be called --- I thought she
looked weary, just from the way she is holding on to that
chair. And that expression is odd --- I don't think she
looks ugly in it, but I think it is a strange expression
and it can look like different moods --- like she might
be annoyed, maybe with having what appears to be a candid
picture taken, then she can look demented & then she can
also look very smug, but the picture doesn't change at
all, so I guess everyone sees what they want to see in it.


(Message last edited Jan-22nd-03  1:01 PM.)

I hadn't perused the map of Rebello, pg. 566.  Thanks for pointing that out.
The drugstore does seem farther away than the map I was using which is 1877.  I had eyeballed the old map and noted the distances as more like a half block one way and then add a half block after the turn, from #92.  I suppose either or both of the two maps we cite could be distorted or not quite accurate.  I am willing to split the difference.

I recall also that Lizzie spent until age 12 in Ferry street which is below the drugstore location (And maybe wasn't even there yet), but it is still a part of town that looks worse than Columbia and Main.  Lizzie lived all over, in three different parts of town, so Brown's assertion (a la Ray), I think, still wouldn't be valid.

I am not especially observant when I am driving.  I cannot see very well.  I have to park and get out to read street signs sometimes.  (I don't drive very much).
I also don't know the names of shops and sometimes when I patronize a new one the first few times I write them a check I actually ask them "Where am I?"

But essentially, we are talking about whether Lizzie knew that drugstore was there.  Not whether she patronised it.  I do agree that Bence's testimony and maybe of his clerk, would be quite different if she had.  So I don't think she went there usually.
I find it hard to believe Lizzie when she says she does not know where it is.
But if she wanted poison, she wouldn't go where she was  known, anyway, would she?
She would go in the direction away from her usual route or her usual *haunts*.

Still no one can explain why Wednesday is full of poison, of all days.
That was part of my post about coincidences.
My coincidence was happening while you were thinking about knowing where a certain store might be located.  It was really strange at the time...I thought you might find it odd as well.
--------

Here is the map I used and I counted houses (or buildings) to get a sense of distance.  I figured 5 or 6 buildings might be approximate to half a city block., looking at Columbia & So. Main in relation to mid-block location of #92.  I suppose I should not be so literal about this 1877 map, and not so literal also, as to Rebello's map, as well.

I wasn't around at the time. But those who have moved to a better part of town (neighborhoods change, even if you don't), or further away, can answer if they ever WALK back to the old neighborhood.
Over a dozen years ago I heard about this from a former neighbor. He went walking, then was threatened to "get out of our neighborhood" by some younger men.


(Message last edited Jan-22nd-03  7:26 PM.)

I think Rebello's map definitely IS distorted.  There's a note on the page saying it isn't to scale.  I don't want to belabor this forever, inasmuch as we'll probably never know the truth, but here are some of the reasons why I doubt the Prussic acid story:

  1.  August is a weird time of year to be mothproofing furs.  The summer is almost over, and they'll soon be needed again.  Surely Lizzie could have thought of a better excuse for needing a vial of Prussic acid.

  2.  Sealskin is naturally impervious to moths, and I think Lizzie probably knew that.  It would have been an excellent selling point when she bought her furs.  Thus she would have needed a better excuse than cleaning/mothproofing her sealskins.

  3.  (As I recall) Bence said the lady who asked for Prussic acid was wearing a dark dress that wasn't blue.  What a strange way to describe a color!  If he didn't know the color, how did he know it wasn't a dark blue?

  4.  In the days before air-conditioning, stores were often kept rather dark, because the means of illumination usually generated heat.  The photo of Smith's in Rebello (page 79) seems to show a deep awning, too.  If the store was in semi-darkness, it might have been hard to recognize anyone, except by voice.  (Admittedly, I'm surmising here.)

  5.  Smith's Drugstore was located in the opposite direction from where Lizzie did most of her business.  While it might have been wise for her to seek poison at a store she didn't usually patronize, why would she have chosen one so near her home?

  6.  I recall that drugstores kept "poison books" and required those buying dangerous substances to sign for them, even if a prescription wasn't needed.  I can't be sure such books were kept in Massachusetts in 1892, but it's at least a possibility.  If so, the poison could easily have been traced to Lizzie.  (If she had signed the wrong name, Bence would have known it, right?)

  7.  Supposedly Lizzie was trying to buy this poison AFTER Abby claimed to have been poisoned.  Maybe Lizzie wasn't the brightest Crayola in the box, but wouldn't that be awfully stupid?  Was she trying to call attention to herself as the possible poisoner of her stepmother?

  8.  The way Bence identified Lizzie was hardly scientific.  (If he knew her by sight and was sure she was the person who came into the store, why was this ID needed anyway? Yeah, I know.  The police wanted to be sure.)

And what proof do we have that Lizzie DID try to purchase poison at Smith's Drugstore on August 3?  Eli Bence and his cronies said she did.  (The term "drugstore cowboys" comes to mind.) Not quite enough for me.

For your convenience, here's a small map of the area, from Yahoo. The distance looks to be about 700 to 800 feet depending on which way you went.

Edit:  The attachment won't work. It looks like the picture is stuck on the server. Here's the map. Sorry I can't put a mark where the store is, at the corner of Columbia and So. Main.



(Message last edited Jan-22nd-03  10:48 PM.)

***7.  Supposedly Lizzie was trying to buy this poison AFTER Abby claimed to have been poisoned.  Maybe Lizzie wasn't the brightest Crayola in the box, but wouldn't that be awfully stupid?  Was she trying to call attention to herself as the possible poisoner of her stepmother?***


that's a good point that is applicable in other ways, as well.

if lizzie is guilty, wasn't she awfully stupid to commit these murders in this particular way?  how could anyone think they could get away with this?  for example, why would she kill abby and then wait around for 2 hours for father to come home (unless she was so preoccupied she needed that time and just "got caught" so to speak).

but there is an answer as to how could lizzie be so stupid -- and it plays right into plausibility of the bence testimony:

that lizzie had been working on this for a while, had tried to poison them, but what she was using had failed and only made them sick.  so she tries to obtain prussic acid and fails to do so.  she's getting desperate to get rid of them.  and what other methods are available besides knocking them in the head?  but first she makes sure she has told someone that she's afraid that "someone might do something."

why would she think she could get away with it?  it was before things we would consider such as fingerprinting and lie detectors.

to follow this through, let me speculate further.... the two big mysteries of the weapon and the blood-stained dress:

have we fairly considered that in the interval before andrew comes home, lizzie is busy either burning up a blood-stained garment -- or washing one?  (if she intended to get out and make an alibi in town, this would explain why it took her so long to try to do it.)

as for the murder weapon...........victoria lincoln's theory has bugged me in that lizzie has less than 15 min at the most to commit the murder, break off the handle, clean the blade, etc.  but her theory is more believable if it broke accidentally during the murder. (this would also explain the difference in the number of blows.)  some have asserted that the handle was sawed off.  i've seen the picture, and it appears to me broken -- not sawed.  this would have given her time -- just get the handle in the stove and wash the blade, plant it in the cellar, and call bridget.

also, there was a well near the barn (and not in use).  couldn't the weapon have been easily dropped there and never found?  even if the police claimed to have searched the well -- how could they have done so?  what means did they have for such a search?  (i don't know.) but this would explain her barn story.

and what did she wear for the second murder?  this explains the wadded-up coat -- which is something in need of more explanation than it can probably ever receive.

my intuitive take on the bence statement is this (in case i did not make it clear):  that when someone voluntarily refers to a specific, unusual observation about someone -- then it has to be taken seriously -- and especially when there is no evidence that the observer has animus toward the defendant.  and again when another observer bears it out -- even if using different words.  and i don't think there is any evidence that someone coached bence to describe lizzie's eyes.  it appears to be an honest observation.  and i don't find it odd that she sounded nervous in making her request, and then sounded haughty when she was rebuked.

[Note:  I just finished composing this post and have not yet seen or read haulover, who came between.  Thanks]
........
Edisto:
I have always been willing to disbelieve Bence's account of what he thought happened.
Your case is a very good one and I thank you for your precision in stating your point.
If I disclude Bence, I then may begin to wonder what effect Harrington had on the investigation of this clue.
Maybe he planted thoughts or ideas.
Maybe he had Bence believing it was Lizzie.
I think there might be a connection here.
I think Harrington knew Lizzie for a while, never liked her, and was suspicious immediately of her in the crime, and therefore I could assume that leads he followed may have been to point evidence at Lizzie no matter what he found out.  Kind of bending the evidence to fit his theory.  He was aware of the poison idea from the moment Dolan asked him to watch the milk, and seems a bit P.O'd that he was removed from that detail by his boss and sent on other errands of investigations.

Now, in the break-out Phillips article, from hisHistory of Fall River someone added, from the defense side, mind you, the notation in that article :  "...there was no evidence that any poison was used or actually purchased.  She had sought to purchase it for an innocent purpose."

This may sound like an attack from behind, but really, I just remembered it.  This Phillips article is slightly different from the newspaper item which Phillips wrote himself.  His brother-in-law, Easton, finished theHistory project after Phillips died, and the part written in bold, above, was not in the news article of May 13, 1934.  (I *bolded it* for the purpose of easy reference)

(Message last edited Jan-22nd-03  11:57 PM.)

I agree that it would be an interesting exercise to isolate Philip Harrington's machinations during this whole event -- and take a closer look at this man who rose from patrolman to Captain in the period between the murders and the trial.

He was connected to more than a few incidents directly related to suspects and evidence. Remember that it was Harrington who investigated the alibi of Joseph Carpenter. (Carpenter was a suspect because he had embezzled $6700 from Andrew and according to Jennings had a grudge against Andrew).  

Harrington and Carpenter both worked at Borden and Almy during the same three year period. Terence Duniho wrote an article referring to them as 'boyhood friends'. Yet it was Harrington whom Marshal Hilliard sent to Albany to interview Carpenter's landlady and verify his alibi.

And it was also Harrington who investigated the Lubinsky sighting -- and according to the Boston Herald (August 11, 1892:2 /from Rebello p. 129)"brushed aside the mystery" and revealed that Ellen Eagan was the woman Lubinsky had seen as he drove past the Borden's that morning.

I wonder at what point he cleared up this mystery?  There is no mention of him interviewing Ellen Eagan in the Witness Statements -- and Harrington was not called at the Inquest.  So how could the press report this on August 11?

i guess this just adds confusion, but my personal impression of that gaze is that there is something appealing about it.  tired, perhaps, relieved.....but she looks friendly.  that's the part that irks me when i can't help but find her guilty on the basis of the facts.

one eye seems higher on the face than the other, or at an odd angle.  is that dementia or exhaustion?

i admit i lean toward a "lizzie is guilty" theory, but she doesn't look like a murderer to me.  but what does a murderer look like?  i don't know.  but if you investigate something like this, you look at everything you can find and exhaust it for all it's worth.  and still you don't know and so you look at something else and exhaust that.

i'm getting the message from certain posters that lawyers went out in search of people who were willing to say incriminating things about lizzie.  perhaps they suggested, coerced, or paid for statements -- with successfull results?  i guess the notion here is that her accusers constructed the story they were sure of and then went out and tampered with witnesses in such a way as to back up their theory.  that may be.  but it gets tiresomely speculative.

and it always comes back to lizzie herself, who was the only clearly plausible culprit.  i think the key to this is that we have to explain her, rather than looking for something/someone else.  the question is not whether lizzie lies in her inquest testimony, but why?  and the problem in finding her innocent is her consistent tactic of trying to distance herself from the actual events of that morning.  she is there but she knows absolutely nothing -- and that is a maddening block to understanding what happened.  because that is an unrelenting blank, we start to speculate about other people.  she still evades us the same way she evaded knowlton's questioning.  at any rate, she was no fool.

if an innocent person lies, then there is a reason.  what was the reason?

i'm probably getting repetitive, but i'm working on it....and i still think the answer is in her inquest testimony.  there is something i think we should just go ahead and accept -- that irregardless of theories about another murderer or theories about people plotting against lizzie -- we still have her inquest testimony to explain.  if that testimony does not work itself into "another murderer theory" then the problem of that testimony is not solved.  in other words, if someone else did it, explain it in terms of her testimony, or you haven't explained anything.  in terms of solution, her testimony is NOT something to be discounted. 

I think it was on the Newspaper Abstracts website I was
reading about the women who would come to see the trial
talking about how Lizzie was better looking in person &
that they had gotten the idea she looked like a monster
from the way she had been described in the papers. I've
never thought she was ugly at all --- Victorian people
do look plainer than what people do now, but I always
thought she was very attractive. Odd looking perhaps
but not really unattractive. And I think she gets bonus
points for trying.




http://newspaperabstracts.com/index.html

Personally, I don't usually subscribe to cohersion theories, or pay-offs for testimony, or compromising a witness.

The closest I come to *tampering* in my ruminations is coaching a witness.  I am interested in Harrington at the moment, though.  I wonder who is giving you an impression that lawyers paid accusers?

The thing about Lizzie is that she did not exist in a vacuum, so that studying only her testimony will probably lead us in circles.
I think the Witness Statements are a good compliment to her statements because they are casual and not bound to the restrictions of a direct question.  They are closest in time to the events and they give a cross-reference to all that was going on the day of, and few days after the event, from the view of Lizzie's contemporaries.

I personally think the key lies in the comparison of statements.
Also, we have to speculate about other people, even if it is just to eliminate them.

As to Lizzie at Newport...that pose seems to show her body as uneven, one shoulder higher?  her spine somewhat twisted, throwing her posture off?  I had wondered if that photo, which shows quite a bit of her physique, is a picture of pain.  She looks *weary* and in pain.  Her mother died of uterine congestion and disease of the spine.  Maybe Lizzie inherited a spinal maladjustment and was often in pain...or else her jail bed was rotten.

I should ammend my first line in the above post, to acknowledge the role of the Trickey/McHenry affair in the nasty aftermath of the Preliminary Hearing and leading up to Lizzie's Indictment., by the grand jury.
I suppose if this kind of thing was going on under the surface, other things might have also.

So we do have a witness to say it was Ellan Eagan who was passing by at that time? Maybe there is something to her later recorded testimony about who she saw?

I can assure 1000% that the handle was sawn off!! Years ago I did wee a handle break on a sledge hammer. The wood breaks in a jagged manner transversely (diagonally with the handle). Only a saw will make that even regular cut.
You can try this out for yourself, by sawing a handle. Hitting hard enough to break a handle is another thing.

Harrington is not exactly a *witness* to seeing Ellen on Second Street Thursday.
He is the person who apparently investigated this clew.
Mary Doolan who worked for Mrs. Kelly, was also washing window's Thursday, I believe*, so she would be *the Witness* but we do not have her statement to this effect nor do we have Ellen's statement *recorded*.

*I could not say right off where lies info that Mary may have been washing windows

--Witness Statements, 8, as to Bridget & Mary:   "neither saw anyone" while they were outside talking.

Does it matter to anyone, or make any difference in deciding this probability to know that in several places in testimony, the bit of wood which was left in the haft was very loose and kept falling out?

What would make this piece of handle fall out?
I'm surprised it survived intact with the hatchet head.

We had once had a conversation about changing the handles because it turned out a person could purchase just a  hatchet handle.

Maybe the original handle was this one that had been broken sometime in the early past before these murders.
Maybe Lizzie, or whomever, bought a new handle, attached it to this hatchet head by loosening the remaining piece and removing it.
Then when the deed was done they broke out the new handle, and barely re-inserted this old cut-off piece.  Then it would look like this hatchet was broken and couldn't possibly be the weapon.
Then all they had to do was throw that new handle as far away from the Borden property as possible.  A person would not need to *carry away* or *smuggle out* a weapon.
It would also make Emma's belief true in that *Interview* in 1913, that Lizzie could not possibly hide a weapon so thoroughly that the police could never find it.
It wouldn't BE *hidden*, would it?

i guess this is the whole point of posting here................

i might stand corrected about the handle being broken as opposed to sawed.  the image on this site does look sawed.  i was thinking of another one i saw somewhere -- the blade was to the right and the broken end was to the left, and that one looked ragged.  i'll have to find that and check the source.

but if i had a point worth making in the first place, it has totally confused me now.

if this axe is the murder weapon and the murderer sawed off the greater part of the handle to hide blood, then why did the part remaining show no blood?  or can victoria lincoln answer it?

if this axe is not the murder weapon and it was indeed sawed off -- why would someone saw off a handle?

kat's point about changing handles is interesting, but i don't have a clear idea of how a handle attached.

Why would a person saw off an ax or hatchet handle rather than replacing it? The only reason I can think of is that the start of a break had occurred and the owner didn't want anyone to use it and hurt themselves.

About the Lizzie in the drugstore situation. I was thinking that if she had been in the store Wed. perhaps she might have been just there for some other reason, at which time another woman asked to buy prussic acid and the clerks associated Lizzie with the other woman transposing them in their minds. When she found out that Bence was testifying it was her then she decided to say she wasn't there at all because that situation was easier to defend than the transposition of store customers that might have been in the clerk's minds.

Or...this brings me to wonder if Lizzie knew Bence was taken to her house for the purpose of identifying her as being in his store let alone the possible purchaser of prussic acid. Or was she not told why the police had brought Bence to her house? 

If she went to the inquest and said she was home during the day Wed. before she knew of Bence's testimony that would lend itself to my believing she was never at the store.  She had no reason to make up a story about being home all day Wed. before she knew she had been accused by Bence. At what point was she aware of Bence saying she was in the store?

Evening Standard
Friday August 5, 1892  Page 6

"ASKED FOR POISON.

Druggist Identifies Miss Borden
as the Person.

Most Important Clew Yet In the
Fall River Murder."

Headlines page 6, top of 5th column.

It was definitely possible to purchase just a hatchet handle (and possibly still is).  I remember seeing a selection of axe and hatchet handles in the old Sears catalogs.  "Waste not, want not."  I've wondered if the hatchet handle was broken raggedly when it was first found and if the police actually sawed off a piece to be tested for blood.  It's always seemed strange to me that the handle was described as "broken" when it was so clearly sawed.

That jagged or sawed edge has always perplexed me as well. Just in the past few days I ran across this photo of Edward Rowe Snow who wrote several books containing chapters/articles on the Borden murders. In one book "Piracy, Mutiny and Murder" published in 1959 there is a picture of him holding the handleless hatchet.  The edge appears to be clearly ragged unless it's some trick of lighting. As Rod Serling used to say on the Twilight Zone..submitted for your approval:

I checked Professor Wood's trial testimony about the handleless hatchet head.  On page 1013:

"The fractured ends of this bit of handle, the rough end, had a perfectly white, fresh look, and it was not stained as it is now, and these chips here, these two large chips from the side of this piece, and a little chip from this side also, had not been removed when I had it; and when I drove the handle out from the eye---I placed the hatchet in a vise and drove this wood out, and upon examination with a magnifying glass, that fractured end of the handle was perfectly clean."

The chips that Wood testifies to must have been taken while it was in the possession of Knowlton. (page 1015)

The wood is referred to as "broken" several times both in questions and answers. That would be an odd term to use for such a clean cut as shown in current photos.

The Snow photo on my previous message would seem to bear that out.

Perhaps for safety reasons the jagged edges were sawed off at some later time after 1959.

This is weird.
I was just finishing looking at Fleet, Medley and Desmond.
I was about to *open* the 2nd half of the trial to read Wood.

And there you ARE, Harry!
I thought I'd come here first!

Thanks so much for finding that.  I never knew that the piece had been forcefully removed on purpose.
If that is so, then a switch of the handles could not have happened (as William warned me many moons ago)...but I did not understand that Wood would have noticed if the shims (?) had been newly inserted, to hold the old piece in, after a switch.

talking about wood chips.......

reminds me of another mystery...something knowlton should have pursued.  and that is lizzie's statement that she "picked up a chip."

the only explanation for this i've ever heard is victoria lincoln's explanation that she was remembering picking up a piece of the broken handle.

When hatchets/axes are first manufactured, a metal wedge is driven into the end of the wooden handle after it has been placed into the head.  This is to prevent the head from working loose.  Over a period of time the wooden handle tends to shrink due to a loss of moisture.  This will loosen the head and make it "wobbly." Occasionally this can be remedied by soaking the axe or hatchet in water for several days. This is only a temporary fix and eventually the handle must be replaced.

The small piece of wood remaining in the handle worked its way loose  due to the aforementioned shrinkage.

The hatchet in question had the handle sawed off, not broken. Only certain types of wood are used for handles. When broken they present a splintered appearance, not a clean break. I imagine its owner of the hatchet had split the handle, sawed off most of it, and chucked the head into a corner; intending to repair it at some future date with a new handle. Handles were cheap, costing only a few cents each.

Incidently, none of the axes and hatchets found at Second Street were adjudged to be the original murder weapon by the experts.

The first reference in the Trial, by Word Search *Broken* is a question put to Bridget: pg. 253 and called it a *broken handle*.
Then comes Fleet with everbody using the word "break", "Broken off close", "A New Break" etc.
Then the splinters:

Trial
Fleet
pg.536

Q.  You don't say there were?
A.  I wouldn't say that, but I didn't notice it because it looked like a new break to me.

Q.  Well, did it look as it does now?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Well, who has changed it?
A.  The age.

Q.  Oh, it has grown old?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Are the ashes there now, in your judgment?
A.  I don't see any, no, sir.

Q.  No ashes there?
A.  No.

Q.  That was the fourth day of last August, as I understand it?
A.  Yes.

Q.  And you can see some slivers that were split off on that side, can you?
A.  I do, yes.

Q.  Were those split off at the time?
A.  I couldn't say. This was then in the hatchet head.

Q.  So far as you know, of your own participation, that piece stayed in the head?
A.  It did.

Q.  And left your possession with the piece in it?
A.  Yes.

Q.  And you didn't chip this off?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  You don't know who did?
A.  No, sir.
------------------
Trial
Mullaly
pg. 617

Q.  Can you tell what sort of hatchet he took out?
A.  It looked to me as if smaller than one of them. The handle was broken and he put it back, and it was covered with dust or ashes, or something like that.  It looked to
me---

Q.  In the first place, I will ask you if that, with the wood put in, appears to be the hatchet that Mr. Fleet found in the box?
A.  It looks very much like it, only a cleaner break.

Q.  What do you mean by cleaner?
A.  It looked fresh, as if just broken.

--the testimony heretofore has been consistent as to a loose piece of wood..meaning that small part left of the handle was no longer part of the hatchet and could be removed, so it sounds as if it WAS removed by Prof. Dr. Wood.
--also the description of that remaining piece is consistently rendered as "Broken".
There are also *slivers* for which to account.

Trial
Medley
Pg. 707+
Q.  This you found in the shape it is now, except the piece of wood was in the eye?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  Will you show the jury about how it was put into the eye? Lay it on the outside to correspond to its position inside.
A.  (Illustrating)  So, I should think. I won't say with relation to this which was on the inside, but you mean generally how it was.
Q.  What did you say about that notch; it was on the inside or outside?
A.  I say I won't say so to that because I didn't observe it close enough.
Q.  You don't really know whether that slot was on---
A.  I don't know which side of the slot was with relation to that broken piece.
Q.  That is, you can't say whether the handle was in the eye in that way, or whether it was in the eye in that way?  (Illustrating)
A.  No, sir.

MR. MOODY. Not from memory he says.

MR. ROBINSON. Well, wait.

THE WITNESS. I can't say that, to swear to that.

Q.  You can't really tell which way it was?
A.  No, I can't, not to swear to that positively.
Q.  But it was in one way or the other?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  Did you take it out of the eye---the piece?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  You didn't change it at all about that?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  And were these slivers broken off at that time?
A.  If they were I didn't notice them.
Q.  You would not, perhaps, when it was in the eye?
A.  No.
---------------
Trial
Desmond
Page 721

Q.  Upon what parts of the metallic part of the hatchet, the head of the hatchet, was this coarse dust that you have spoken of?
A.  Here, on the sides here.

Q.  On both sides?
A.  Yes, sir. I might say in connection with this that it had the appearance of being a very fresh break, and its appearance then and now are very much different.

Q.  The appearance of the broken part, you mean?
A.  Yes, sir, and the coloring of this wood here: the surface of the broken wood.
-------------------------

--I'm wondering when the word description of *SAWED* or *SAWN* first came into the case?  Will keep looking.





(Message last edited Jan-26th-03  3:01 PM.)

this is perhaps not the place for it.....but if so, does anyone have any idea what lizzie was talking about when she says she picked up a chip?  (as opposed to lead for a sinker) that is one of the most inexplicable statements she makes. 

Q. Did you bring any sinker back from the barn?
A. Nothing but a piece of a chip i picked up on the floor.

he then goes on to ask her about the lead in the loft -- but what in the world does her answer mean? 

are we talking about a wood chip?  on what floor?

what does a "piece of a chip" mean?

Inquest, Lizzie, pg. 69--Since Lizzie is asked Twice if she brought any sinker back from the barn, and her response, finally, is "nothing but a piece of a chip", it sounds as if she is referring to sinker-material, which would be a chip of lead?

My brain is nagging me that this chip is spoken of elsewhere, maybe in the newspapers?  I could be wrong, because Lizzie's Inquest is everywhere, in some form...somewhere I may have been reading lately...like the Sourcebook and the Casebook.
Sorry, that's all I can think of in this matter.

Earlier Carol had surmised about Bence & Lizzie and I was going to respond but we seem to have been exploring her question here about a sawn handle on a hatchet, after all.

But I noticed that there was an inclination to imagine that maybe Lizzie was in that drugstore and was confused by Bence with another woman who DID ask for poison.[Post #49]  This was something that needs answering because here is a dilemma.
Did Lizzie lie when she said she didn't know where that drugstore was?  Yet we might consider now, that she had been there?  Or is it that she had been in there, and not known the name or location in her memory...just never really knew the place and so denied it?  If so she wouldn't be lying, but standing her ground, kind of stubborn...and then Bence would be correct in that she was there but confused as to her reason?
I'm trying very hard here...but if it hadn't happened so close in time to Wednesday, and the all-important Thursday, it might seem more plausible.

Could the *Sawn* part be referred to in closing arguments at the Trial?
I still can't find a reference.
I've sort of checked around in Porter, Radin and Kent, so far, besides the trial.

I looked for "chip" in Lincoln and our Lady-of-No-Footnotes has this on page 190 (paperback edition):

"Did she find any lead, did she bring any back? No, she brought back nothing but a chip of wood that she picked up off the floor. (Details, those haunting, overmastering details! If a chip had chanced to fall from a broken hatchet-handle to the kitchen floor, who would have noticed it at such a time?)"

More confused than ever. In one paragraph she says she brought it back from the barn and picked it up from the kitchen floor. Huh?

(Message last edited Jan-27th-03  8:04 AM.)

Clearly Lizzie must have had a hole in her pocket.  Good ol' Vicky!

her inquest testimony has the only mention of this to my knowledge.  this is a good example of where victoria lincoln takes some liberties with the evidence.  lizzie doesn't say what it is, whether it's lead or wood or what. 

"piece of a chip" is an odd phrase.  if it wasn't a sinker, then why did she pick it up?  at this point i'm baffled by both lizzie and knowlton.  he should have made her explain that seemingly innocuous statement. 

This could be another example of Lizzie's last-minute scrambling to find an excuse for going out to the barn---Did she in fact come back with any sinkers or anything with which to fix her screen?  It seems to me just one more instance of Lizzie not having a leg to stand on.  Of course, she could have claimed (Did she?) that the noise she heard made her rush back into the house, but even this contention is doubtful.  All Lizzie would have to do is produce the lead and say, "See, this is what I went out to the barn to fetch."
Also, re: Lizzie's eyes:  Have any of you noticed among the photos of Lizzie in the "Galleries" that that picture of her as an older women seems to show her with dilated pupils?  So much so, I think, that her eyes actually appear to be somewhat dark.  This seems odd because you would think the photographer would be shining lights at her which would make her pupils contract.  Maybe Lizzie continued using some substance(s) to control her moods or to give her some relief from the constant awareness of her notoriety?  Incidentally, I attended a conference at which the presenter had "Lizzie eyes"--extremely light blue/gray.  It is true, such eyes do appear to be vacant, but in my case, the vacant look was compensated for by the liveliness of the presenter.  To see a photo is not the same as seeing a live person who may have pale eyes which are brought to life by laugher, smiling, etc.

I cna't be sure without inspecting a better photograph, but it looks like a retouched photo (to me). Follow the shadows.

Aside from wedges that are sold for this purpose, you can also repair a loose head (dangerous to the user or others near by) by driving nails into the wood.

A review on "40 Whacks" mentions that the handle is SAWN OFF, not broken. So the Lizzie Legend grows.

Thanks for checking, Ray.
I have been double-checking Kent and I am pretty sure it is not in there that the handle was SAWN.

perhaps we can at least settle the lincoln theory about the axe.  if she broke or sawed it off, leaving a portion attached -- why would the remaining portion be any less blood-stained?  yet apparently it was not blood-stained. 

what about the impression that the blade had been dipped in ashes while wet -- then placed among objects naturally dusty?  if it's not the murder weapon, how would that happen?  i don't know.  lincoln is convinced that this is the murder weapon. but, if so, it defies her explanation of why lizzie destroyed the greater part of the handle because blood evidence would still be in the part remaining.

is it possible that an all-metal cleaver, kept in the kitchen, was the real weapon and never needed concealment?

I think I would opt for the meat cleaver as the possible weapon before the handle-less hatchet.  There was the gilt metal found in one of Abby's head wounds and the testimony that the blade was sharp enough to cut Abby's hair like a straight razor.  That handle-less hatchet head looks old and rusty and dull, to me it doesn't look very usuable even with a handle.

This just reminded me of a trip to a wax museum in San Francisco, they had a Chamber of Horrors with a Lizzie Borden exhibit.  You peeked into a bay window and there was Lizzie in all her glory hacking at Andrew with the handle-less hatchet head in her hand!  Plus, they got rid of her bun or hair roll at the back of her head and gave her very short, red curly hair and the room was awash in blood.  Someone didn't fully do their homework on this one, but, the likeness' on Andrew and Lizzie's face's was fantastic! 

Any pictures???

No, sorry, the camera I had was a crappy little disposable flash camera.  All the pictures came out to dark and blurry.  My favorite was Bette Davis as Jane Hudson from the Whatever Happened To Baby Jane exhibit.  There was a recording of Bette croaking I've Written A Letter To Daddy in the background, too weird! 

Well there you girls are!
I was wondering where you had got to!
Yea, if we didn't need to account for that gilt, we'd be sittin' pretty.
We could explore all kinds of weapons.

BUT the *experts* have said it is a hatchet what done the deed and they were there (sort of) and we were not, so I suppose we have to rely on these guys.
But the question about the handle-less hatchet is still valid...if there was no blood evidence on there then it's not the weapon, right?  So it doesn't matter if the handle was sawn off or broken?

Well, I just did a search and it appears that the testimony on the handle-less hatchet was that it had a sharp cutting edge.  In all the pictures I've seen of it, it looks so old.  But, no blood was found on it, but, its handle was freshly broken, a new break.  Somehow I can't picture Lizzie going through all this trouble if she did it, wouldn't it be quicker and easier just to hide the offending hatchet away where no one could find it? 

I guess busting people's heads open could make a hatchet look
dull. Have they tried to do any fancy DNA tests on any
of the evidence? Is Lizzie's blood spotted petticoat still
around? And on a personal note, I disagree with V. Lincoln when
she said that only a man would believe a perfectly shaped spot of blood could be made by "fleas" --- that a menstrual bloodstain
would only be smeared & not a drop. It happens.

If that picture with the SAWN OFF handle is a recreation (fake), how much of the other evidence is reliable? If you ever saw a handle broken in use, you'd know what it looks like. Transverse break along the axis (no pun).

i've been there myself.  i thought the lizzie borden exhibit was the best one.  and my pictures did not turn out either.

But, didn't it bug you that they had the Lizzie dummy killing Andrew with the handle-less hatchet head instead of a whole hatchet?  It actually made me laugh, it looked like quite a difficult way to kill someone. 

no.   i just enjoyed the extreme way they played it.  it was a lizzie borden legend cariacture. 

Do you-all notice the hip higher than the other and her shoulders uneven, so that her head is not right above the middle of her body, and her neck looks strained?
This "coloring book" view seems to show a spinal maladjustment more pronounced, more obvious?
(Step back and view the whole pic)--

From lizzieandrewbordenvirtualmuseum/library



(Message last edited Feb-9th-03  4:01 AM.)

It does look uncomfortable.  I wonder if it has anything to do with wearing a corset, you really can't move your waist in one of those contraptions. 

If she had scoliosis or something can you imagine the
pain that a corset would have caused? Even if she had
that spinal-thing her mother had it probably was made
worse after she was old enough to start wearing a corset.