1. "When Lizzie Pauses"
Posted by Kat on Mar-15th-03 at 3:33 AM

An extension from the "Andrew's Coat" thread.
We had been talking about Lizzie's Inquest testimony and I thought when Lizzie paused in answering she was furiously thinking of a lie, an evasion or a 1/2 truth.  She would habitually repeat the question or re-phrase it, or pull some question out of the air, seemingly to give herself time to think of an answer. 
Collecting here those that seem most apparent, maybe we can figure out what particular meaning or emphasis Lizzie put upon these special questions?

Inquest
Lizzie
47  [first page already!]

Q. Have you any idea how much your father was worth?
A. No sir.
Q. Have you ever heard him say?
A. No sir.
Q. Have you ever formed any opinion[?]
A. No sir.
Q. Do you know something about his real estate?
A. About what?
Q. His real estate?
A. I know what real estate he owned, part of it; I don't know whether I know it all or not.

--She asks "about what"?  when we can follow pretty well the emphasis right now in the questioning is on Andrew's investments.  Then she gives one of those evasive answers
"part" & "I don't know whether"...  She is deciding quickly if there is danger in answering this question.

If anyone (except Lizzie) were testifying while sailing on morphine, would we take any of it seriously?  I think we tend to scrutinize her inquest testimony because it is all we have of her ever testifying.  Should we be putting much stock in it?

I'm surprised that Lizzie wasn't extended the same courtesy as John Morse with the "Are you hard of hearing?" line.  Everything seems to be sailing along smoothly and then one of those questions is asked and Lizzie seems to act as if she didn't hear the question.

I'm with Augusta, here.  I'm one of those who thinks Lizzie probably did take all the morphine Bowen provided.  Add the delusional effect of the drug to the shock of the murders -- and you'd have a very messed up set of recollections.

Another factor that could hinder her accurate recall is that every day seems to have been like every other day in that household.  Apart from the 'flashbulb memory' moments surrounding the actual discovery of the murders, I think it would be quite easy to confuse the timing of breakfast, mundane chores, and just sitting around on that day with the same boring sequence of events on a less eventful day.

Lizzie also appears to have been a very blunt-speaking person.  And she probably owned a lot of her father's Yankee grit and desire to maintain composure in public. So I think she might have though it was the road of a lesser person to indicate that she felt unable to face questioning. ( Although didn't Emma beg off at one point because she wasn't up to it? ) 

I was re-reading Robinson's closing argument at trial yesterday and I think his comments are as close as we're going to get to seeing the real Lizzie.  Robinson can't doubt that Lizzie's demeanour has been a negative factor.  So he addresses it in his closing:

"Lizzie, who undoubtedly speaks in just that positive way, you saw, when the police asked her about where she was and what she was doing, spoke positively. There are a good many people living in New England who will do the same. They know when they are insulted, and are free in expressing their minds, and sometimes do so too freely and talk too much ....

...That is her way of speaking, you will find on this testimony, and she speaks right out.

...The dog that comes around to your heels and barks is not the one that bites. It is the one that stays inside and looks serious, you will find. So it is with individuals. It is not the outspoken, blunt and hearty that are to be heard about it that do the injury....

...You find people like this defendant that speak sometimes impulsively and suddenly, but after the brain within that leads them to utter the truth ...."

It makes me like her even more.

"Q. Do you know something about his real estate?
A. About what?"

I think this question, coming as it has without any foundation, is very strange in itself. It isn't a direct question or question which a person could readily form an answer to, it almost invites confusion from the responder. The "something" could easily be replaced by a more spot-on word, like "Do you know how much real estate your father owned?" or "Do you know the value of your father's real estate properties?

Good post Diana about how we can learn about Lizzie's personality from the closing statement.

Good posts here, the point is so true, New Englanders very
blunt and say their truth simply.  When Lizzie was asked about
being out in the barn eating pears didn't she say "I don't do
things very quick" or something like that.  How swift she would
have to be to perform these murders in such a short time, how
organized and perfect, a Virgo crime!

here's another one.  i mentioned it in some other context recently.

Lizzie's inquest:

Q. Did you have an apron on Thursday?
A. Did I what?
Q. Have an apron on Thursday?
A. No sir, I don't think I did.
Q. Do you remember whether you did or not?
A. I don't remember sure, but I don't think I did.
Q. You had aprons, of course?
A. I had aprons, yes sir.
Q. Will you try and think whether you did or not?
A. I don't think I did.
Q. Will you try and remember?
A. I had no occasion for an apron on that morning.
Q. If you can remember I wish you would.
A. I don't remember.
Q. That is all the answer you can give me about that?
A. Yes sir.

I don't know if Lizzie was hard of hearing or pausing for time to make up something good, so much as she may have been confused from the medication.  It's like she's kind of drifting off and another question comes and she's like, "What??"  The part in her testimony where she tells Knowlton, "I don't even know what your name is," is on the strange side.

Perhaps we gain the most insight from her right after the murders.  She wasn't on morphine then.  One could argue shock, but I don't know if she would have had the presence of mind to say what she did if she were in shock.  She remembered about Abby's "note" and she thought she heard her come in.  "Go on, Maggie.  Look upstairs..."  She was going to fix a screen.  She was going for a sinker.  She was in the yard.  She was in the barn.  She changed the amount of time she was out there after the officer kinda warned her about it.  I think she was in pretty good mental shape then. 

Her inquest testimony goes around in circles.  I think Knowlton thought he'd be able to get her on the stand again another time.  If he knew this was IT, I think things would have gone differently.  

So no one thinks the question about Andrew's real estate is a sensitive issue?  Ok.
Well, I've always wanted to consider Lizzie's pauses so I'll continue in order of their appearance in her testimony, and comments ARe needed.
haulover, you're way ahead of me.  What's that song"  "Slow down, you're movin' too fast, got to make the ____ last..."

Inquest
Lizzie
48
A. He bought it of us, and gave us the money for it.
Q. How much was it?
A. How much money? He gave us $5,000 for it.
Q. Did you pay him anything when you took a deed from him?
A. Pay him anything? No sir.
Q. How long ago was it you took a deed from him?
A. When he gave it to us?
Q. Yes.
A. I can't tell you; I should think five years.
Q. Did you have any other business transactions with him besides that?
A. No sir.

--Here we have a whole string of them...pauses or re-statements, whatever.  Here she seems to be sort of shocked to be discussing money openly in court.
It also sounds like she is incredulous or in wonderment that the girls should have had to pay Andrew anything for that property...and makes sure the questioner knows it was given to them.
--This *pausing* exercise is not just to find out if Lizzie is lying or falsifying, or evading.  I hope to also find the places where the nature of the girl is revealed.  (So yes, Lizzie's statements *under morphine*, if so, would be very important to study, as her inhibitions may be reduced with more to show.)

Kat, the impression I get from this particular exchange is that Lizzie is uncomfortable being asked about money (she feels these are personal questions, not to be openly discussed).  I feel she's also wondering why he's asking them.

I can imagine the responses (in her head) along the lines of, "Why, it's absolutely none of yr business, you nosy old..."

I agree with Tina-Kate, it sounds as though Lizzie is uncomfortable discussing money matters there.  I don't know if it still holds true, but, I can remember times where I've met Europeans and they thought nothing of asking me questions like how much money I made a year.  I was shocked.  Why are we brought up in this country to hold money matters close to the heart and be all hush-hush about it? 

Those who spent time in Europe, and speak their language, can tell us what kind of "reality shows" they have there. Is there a Herr Springer on German TV? Or a Monsieur Springer on Parisian TV?

I understand that nudity is more common there, but violence is censored. "When in Rome ..."

Q. How long ago was it you took a deed from him?
A. When he gave it to us?


could this be she's simply not familiar with the term "took a deed"?

Well, Andrew's man of business, who became Lizzie & Emma's man of business, said Lizzie had made several trips to his office for discussion probably prior to, during and after the returning of the property to her father....

Witness Statements, pg. 30:
"Charles C. Cook made the following statement. "I am business manager for Mr. Andrew J. Borden, for the Borden Block. I did not see Mr. Borden Thursday. I have had charge of the Block almost since it was built. He used to come in once in a while, but not every day, nearly always alone. The only other person who ever came with him was his wife, excepting once when Lizzie came with him to sign a deed conveying some property she owned to her father. This property was owned jointly by the two sisters, and was situated on Ferry street. Lizzie has been here three or four times, once came to ask me about the value of the property she was going to .convey to her father. I told her, and she went away."

Now what do you think about Lizzie maybe not understanding the question about real estate?

(Message last edited Mar-16th-03  9:34 PM.)

Inquest
Lizzie
48-9
Q. Did you ever know of your father making a will?
A. No sir, except I heard somebody say once that there was one several years ago; that is all I ever heard.
Q. Who did you hear say so?
A. I think it was Mr. Morse.
Q. What Morse?
A. Uncle John V. Morse.
Q. How long ago?
A. How long ago I heard him say it? I have not any idea.

--Up until this point things are sailing merrily along.  Her answers are emphatic and sure.."Yes sir"  "No sir"  "I did not"  "He did not"  "Never".
--Then we get to How long ago? about that will.  I think there is a clue here.

Bingo.

She might be thinking he means
*How long ago was there a will?*

But examining it closely it seems there wouldn't be any difference really in the question.

How long ago was there a will, and how long ago did someone tell you there was a will is approximately the same thing.
There is still a will at the time she is told.

Sorry if I was cryptic last night.  Lizzie's letting it slip JVM was informed re Andrew's decisions this way...& he's the source of her knowledge.  & she's sweating, because she got knowledge more recently than she wants to be known.

I just checked through John Morse's trial testimony and cannot find any cross examination of him as to whether he knew about Andrew's will or not.  I wonder why not, its a pretty important point? 

That is interesting that Morse was not asked about the during trial.  Although he was queried pretty carefully at the inquest.  Perhaps they felt there was no more to be had from him on that point.  And weren't both sides willing to concede that Andrew had died intestate?  I seem to remember that from somewhere.  Here's the questions posed to him at the inquest.

"Q.  Did he ever talk with you about a will?
A.  Yes Sir, he has.

Q.  When was the last time?
A.  Somewhere within a year.

Q.  When you were there at the house?
A.  No Sir, I think we were outside at the time.

106

Q.  What was the talk?
A.  He said he thought he should make some bequests outside to charitable purposes. He did not say any more either one way or the other.

Q.  Did he say he had made a will?
A.  He did not say.

Q.  He did not say whether he had or not?
A.  Whether he had or had not.

Q.   Did he talk as though he was intending to make a will?
A.  I judged from that that he was intending to, I drew my conclusions that he had not, but was thinking of it.

Q.  Did he mention the bequests outside he thought he should make?
A.  He did not.

Q.  How came him to be speaking about it?
A.  Common conversation, I suppose, same as about his land. Before he bought the Birch land, I was down there with him. He says lets go up Main street, we went up. He says "here is a piece of property dont say anything about it, I have got a chance to buy. What is your opinion about it?" I asked what it could be bought for. I dont know
as he told me direct, but about. I says I think it is good property in the heart of the city. The city will be caning towards it all the time. I believe it will be a good investment."  Several months afterwards, one Sunday, he says "John, I did as you told me to". I says what is that, I forgot all about it. "I bought that Birch land."

Q.  I wish you would recall the conversation about the will as explicitly as you have this.
A.  That is all he said about the will, he thought of making some bequests out, you know, for charitable purposes. His farm over there, he was talking about the old Ladies Home, "I dont know but I would give them this, if they would take it."

Q.  Was that the same talk?
A.  I dont think it was the same time.

Q.  Did he talk to you any other time about a will?
A.  I think that is all.

Q.  That is the first and last time?
A.  Years ago, out West at my place one time, he said he had a will; several years ago he told me he had destroyed it.

Q.  How long ago did he tell you he had destroyed it?
A.  15 years ago.

Q.  Did he tell you anything about the contents of the will?
A.  He did not."

My understanding is that if the original will is destroyed, it ceases to exist. Copies don't count, even when witnessed. State laws vary.

Maybe the lawyers did not want to beat a dead horse?
What bearing on the case, even if Uncle John did know?

From what we know about Andrew, this is the only reference
that he might "bequeath something to charity..." he wasn't known
for generosity so I wonder if Uncle John made this up to soften
Andrew/make it seem like he was an OK guy (when really John
despised him his miserliness?)   I'm sticking with my Uncle John
is guilty theory! 

For Uncle Jihn to make this up throws suspicion on Lizzie & Emma.  I don't think he would willingly do that -& except under oath, tell something true about bequests.
Charles Cook, Prelim., 206, is asked about a will.
He also is not at the trial.

It's weird, but also this Cook says he saw Andrew downtown Wednesday in the "forenoon".  He didn't go to Swansea Wed., in the afternoon, with Morse because he said he was taking medicine.
Also we know he missed a meeting.
So what was he doing downtown?

Thank you, Diana, I didn't have time this morning to go through all the material. 

Kat, I am intrigued, Andrew downtown on Wednesday when he was supposedly home sick.  Hmmmm, money, property transfer? 

Prelim.
Cook
pg. 207+
Q.  When was the last time you saw him to have any talk with him?
A.  Tuesday I think; I know it was Tuesday.
Q.  Tuesday afternoon or morning?
A.  Tuesday forenoon.
Q.  Where did you see him then?
A.  In the office.
Q.  Tuesday before the murder in the forenoon?
A.  Yes sir.
Q.  You had some talk with him that time?
A.  Yes sir.
Q.  Did you have any talk with reference to a will?
A.  No sir.
Q.  Anything said by him about a will?
A.  Not that day.
Q.  When was it anything was said about a will, if ever?
A.  There was nothing ever said only this ----
Q.  My question is, when?
A.  I do not remember the date, sometime before that.
Q.  How long before?
A.  Possibly three weeks, two or three weeks.
Q.  What was it?
A.  He simply told me that he has not one.
Q.  Told you what?
A.  That he had not any will.
Q.  Did he say anything more?
A.  No sir.
Q.  Anything about making a will?
A.  No sir.
Q.  At any time?
A.  No sir.
Q.  Do you remember of his being in there at one time, when you were writing a will, or some instrument, and he asked you what you were writing?
A.  I think that called the remark from me. There was a party talking with me about a will.
Q.  Whether you remember that event?
A.  I remember was there when he spoke about not having a will; there was a party in the office that I had been doing some work for.
Q.  Is that the interview you spoke of a while ago?
A.  Yes sir.
Q.  At that time you were drawing a will?
A.  No, I was not drawing the will at that time. The party came in to ask a question about it. That was after it had been drawn.
Q.  Did he then say anything about making a will?
A.  He did not.
Q.  Have you ever said that he did?
A.  No sir.
Q.  Do you remember of talking with Mr. Medley the next day after the murder, or two days after the murder?
A.  I remember he was in my office one night; I think it was a Saturday night.
Q.  Do you remember of telling Mr. Medley about what he said to you?
A.  I do not remember exactly what I told him. I know Mr. Medley asked me a good many questions; some I answered, and some I did not.
Q.  Do you remember of telling Mr. Medley what he said to you?
A.  I think possibly he asked me if there was anything said about a will.
Q.  Do you remember of telling Mr. Medley what he said to you?
A.  No, I do not remember exactly what I did tell Mr. Medley.
Q.  Do you remember of telling Mr. Medley Mr. Borden said to you "what are you doing?" And you said you were making a will.
(Objected to.)
Q.  Do you remember of saying to Mr. Medley that Mr. Borden told you that that was something that he had not done, and must do?
A.  I did not say anything of that kind sir.
(No Cross Examination.)

--See Diana's post #20 for Morse testimony, and #18 & #19 leading up to that.
--Maybe Morses *sometime this year* was the same time, approximately,  as Cooks *three weeks*?
--Let's see, what was happening in the lives of the Borden's 3 weeks before August 2nd, the Tuesday?  (The Prelim. was from Aug. 25-Sept.1, 1892)
[Prelim. courtesy of Harry & Stefani] 

Thanks, Kat.  Now I am confused, did Andrew say he didn't have a will or didn't he?  Cook's testimony is all over the place. 

Cook has a BIG stake in this case.
In the W.S. I believe he says he will talk to the Marshal but not to a minion.

pg. 30-1
(Answer) "I do not like to answer that question on account of my position as custodian of property, as I do not know what my relations may be with the family, when this thing is settled."
(Question.) "Would you be willing to answer that question in strict confidence to the City Marshal?"
(Answer) "Yes sir, I would."

Yes, I agree, he does.  Thats a very important piece of information he holds.  And, it sounds as though he already knows that "the girls" will be getting the bulk of Andrew's estate.  I would have been careful as to what I said also! 

It seems to me a certain someone's BIRTHDAY was about 2 weeks before that Tuesday, when Cook says Andrew said he had no will.
{The implication in Morse & what Medley may have said Cook told him in a statement is that during that period Andrew was contemplating making a will)

Gee, I wonder if that certain someone's birthday sparked Andrew to think seriously about it.
And Gee!  I wonder what Lizzie GOT for her birthday?

Well, anyway, Maybe Lizzie involved in an argument about a will of Andrew about the time of her 32nd birthday.  That might have been a watershed birthdate for herself.  Maybe she had set some goal and then knew at that July 19 that she would never attain it by now.
Cook says *2 or 3 weeks* before Tuesday the 2nd, is when a will was mentioned.  My calandar says that Lizzie's birthday was 15 days BEFORE the 2nd of August.
;;;;;;;;;;;



(Message last edited Mar-21st-03  1:42 AM.)

Inquest
Lizzie
51
Q. You have been on pleasant terms with your stepmother since then?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Cordial?
A. It depends upon one's idea of cordiality, perhaps.
Q. According to your idea of cordiality?
A. We were friendly, very friendly.
Q. Cordial, according to your idea of cordiality?
A. Quite so.
Q. What do you mean by "quite so"?
A. Quite cordial. I do not mean the dearest of friends in the world, but very kindly feelings, and pleasant. I do not know how to answer you any better than that.
Q. You did not regard her as your mother?
A. Not exactly, no; although she came there when I was very young.
Q. Were your relations towards her that of daughter and mother?
A. In some ways it was, and in some it was not.
Q. In what ways was it?
A. I decline to answer.
Q. Why?
A. Because I don't know how to answer it

--Lizzie's reply that it depends on one's idea (or definition?) of cordiality sounds like a  hedging, or evasion.  Why would she need to evade this answer?  Why doesn't she just answer it?  She does eventually answer and it is a valid definition of cordiality.  She obviously knows what the word means.  She gives the description finally, of *kindly feelings, and pleasant*.  It's anybody's understanding of the word.  Why does she balk?  She goes so far as to offer "quite cordial", before she has shown she does know what he means by *cordial*.  She could have gotten through this part faster and looking better if she had just answered the first time.
--The next thing she does is stall out completely on how Abby was a mother to her.  She can't think of a way;  she doesn't know how Abby was a mother to her.  This part gets sad.  Because after this section the questioning goes into how they were not like mother and daughter.  This she knows the answer to.  This, she almost sounds like a pre-recording, or a parrot, as she describes not going to Abby as a mother and the "affair with her stepsister". [50]
Lizzie cannot tell in what way Abby was ever her mother.  It's like she has no idea of what that relationship should be, because she can't even invent something.  I think she is barren of feeling for Abby.  I think this shows obviously here.

Totally cool.  I was just going thru this very thing in the inquest today.

I mean, really -- just how much could Lizzie know re having a mother?  She stood very little chance of having that kind of relationship with Abby when she had an older sister (role model) who was carrying a torch for the real mother, & trying to keep Lizzie on that side.  At a time when Lizzie needed a mother the most; she had a bigger girl telling her it was OK to love a ghost, but not the flesh & blood woman who was really there.

Having experienced this type of emotional politics 1st hand, I feel for Lizzie in this matter.

I for one, do not let Emma off as easily as most.

(Message last edited Mar-22nd-03  2:56 AM.)

Then, somewhere between 1865 and 1869, Emma is away at school.  it sounds as though she was sent away to school.
This would be not too long after the re-marriage of Andrew.
It can almost seem like emma was sent away to remove her influence from Lizzie & give Abby a chance.
What would that do to Lizzie, and what would that do to Emma?

--Because, if Lizzie is barren of feeling for Abby, I don't see how she can take a hatchet and kill her 19 times.

I agree, Lizzie was certainly not without emotions/feelings.  However, her environment encouraged those emotions to be misdirected.

This is true, its like that old saying that there is a thin line between love and hate.  You have to know someone fairly well in order to hate them.  Lizzie must have had some love for Abby at one point or another or at least a fondness. 

I think Lizzie hated her stepmother, whatever feelings she
might have had were taken over by greed, she felt she would
be stiffed in her father's will.

I don't know yet if Lizzie had some love for Abby.
She may have been of a narcissistic personality type.
That's what I hope to discover.
We have heard from sources that she was not a popular little girl.  (I'm not basing a theory just on that)
If she even had affection for Abby how can that turn to hate?
It's odd, but I could see her killing Emma....

Inquest
Lizzie
51
Q. In what ways was it not?
A. I did not call her mother.
Q. What name did she go by?
A. Mrs. Borden.
Q. When did you begin to call her Mrs. Borden?
A. I should think five or six years ago.
Q. Before that time you had called her mother?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What led to the change?
A. The affair with her stepsister.

--The affair with the step-sister refers to the affair with Abby's 1/2 sister and keeping a roof over her head with a growing family.
Little George was born to Sarah Whitehead, March, 1887.
1885 Lizzie joined the CC Church.  Where was her "Christian Church" spirit (supposedly newly ignited?) where her step-mother's family was concerned?
Did Lizzie stop calling Abby "Mother" because Abby's loyalties were now with the new baby of her own kin?
A Narcissistic personality might feel betrayed, but would a regular girl, of her age, whose business was not having her nose in her father's business, nor questioning him & his authority?

Inquest
Lizzie
52
Q. What was your stepmother's age?
A. I don't know. I asked her sister Saturday, and she said sixty-four. I told them sixty-seven; I did not know. I told as nearly as I knew. I did not know there was so much difference between she and father.

Do you think Abby did hide her age?  If she did she was lousy at it because Lizzie thought she was older.  Is this common not to know a *mother's* age?

I think it was probably common that an older woman didn't
tell her age.  The fact that Lizzie didn't know her own
"*mothers*" age suggests that she didn't concider her as
mother, couldn't care less about her. I think Lizzie was
very good at holding a grudge about the money/sister.  

I wondered about the habit of some women not to tell their age.

I, too, have thought that maybe Lizzie wasn't that interested in the age of Abby.  (Wonder what birthday celebrations were like in that house?)
But if she truly thought Abby was 67, maybe Lizzie didn't feel the need to kill her.  Or she could have invented that story of not knowing, I suppose, but somehow I don't think so.

I thought of Lizzie being more immersed in her own interests that she may not have spared much thought for Abby at all.
Again, tho, I would ask, how can a lack of attention to Abby translate later into fury & hate?

Well, I guess I'm the odd woman out here, I don't know my mother's exact age, but, I do love her with all my heart.  I know shes getting close to retirement age, so, shes somewhere in her early 60s.  And she always likes to kid around saying, I don't know how I have kids as old as they are when I'm only 24.

Maybe it wasn't a lack of attention, but, a forced diversion of attention to the object of Lizzie's utmost hatred; Abby Borden.  Perhaps Lizzie didn't care to know or remember how old Abby was because she hated her so much?  Just a thought. 

i see a lack of evidence to build a strong case that lizzie hated her stepmother.  there are only a few hearsay statements.  but if lizzie hated her that much, shouldn't there be at least one account of at least one violent argument -- or something?  at the same time, for lizzie to stop calling her mother and start calling her mrs. borden after all that time -- that would seem to be a deeply felt decision.  yet the property quarrel would not seem to run that deeply, especially since andrew resolved it, at least, financially speaking. 

Well, according to Emma's trial testimony, things were hunky-dory between Abby and Lizzie after Andrew gave them the house.  But, Emma admits, not between Abby and herself.  Yet, they did question her as to when this property transfer took place and when Lizzie stopped calling Abby 'Mother' and it seems to have been right around the same time.

We also have Hannah Gifford's trial testimony where she states that she was speaking to Lizzie of a garment that she made for Mrs. Borden, but, had called her "Mother" instead and Lizzie responded with, "Don't say that to me, for she is a mean good for nothing thing."  Mrs. Gifford responds with, "Oh, Lizzie, you don't mean that?"  And Lizzie answers,"Yes, I don't have much to do with her; I stay in my room most of the time."

So, it does sound like there was animosity between Lizzie and Abby.  I'm curious as to what Lizzie may have said to her girlfriends that she went to Marion with, they were interviewed, but, I don't know as that they said much of anything except that Lizzie wasn't herself and not having fun.  I would imagine that some of them may have gotten an earful about Abby. 

I do have a similar feeling about Lizzie's supposed animosity toward Abby, and do not quite rely on the property issue as leading to hate, as least by Lizzie
She says it was the "affair with her stepsister" in answer to the question what led to the change.
It's Emma who makes the property transfer sound like a reason for their lack of cordiality.
Emma also says "we felt she was not interested in us".
"The affair with her stepsister", could have a lot of meanings, consolidated down to property issues by Emma.

Lizzie's girlfriends, Tripp & Poole,  claim that Lizzie complained about Abby,  apparently quite a while ago,.  But that on Lizzie's recent visit the subject did not arise.

Do you think that Lizzie's girlfriends didn't talk about Lizzie recently complaining about Abby to protect her or because it was actually so?  I'm thinking of Lizzie's one friend who received a letter that the police wanted to look at, but, she wouldn't show it to them.

But, then I was thinking if Lizzie had already made up her mind, or was in the process of, she wouldn't have a need to complain anymore about Abby.  Abby was about to be taken out of the picture, why gripe?  Just a thought. 

As lawyer Robinson asked, isn't it usual for girls to express their emotions, even if they change their mind afterwards?

Lizzie might not have liked being forced to wear mended gloves, because she was the one who took the sarcasm among her set.

Did anyone here ever experience something similar when young? Wearing hand-me-downs to school that didn't quite fit?

Anyone remember knickerbockers from the 1930s and 1940s?

i didn't see the beginning of your talk about the "cordiality" issue until i backtracked today.  i've had exactly the same impression and i think i've posted it in some other context.  anyway, "that depends upon one's idea of cordiality" is basically a defensive answer, isn't it?  it's almost as if to say "what business is that of yours?" or "what does that have to do with anything?" her reaction is not so much of fear as of embarrassment.  as though she has recognized a lacking of something in that department that she is not comfortable discussing.  the point you made i had not quite got -- was that she is unable to express any understanding of what a mother is.  perhaps someone who grew up with a stepmother would have some insight here i don't have.  i had a stepmother for a while when i was a teenager, but i had always had a mother and i was not confused about it.  i could have explained my situation very easily:  that my stepmother was the person my dad had married, that we generally got along fine, but she was not and never would be a mother.  but lizzie's situation concerning the mother is much more difficult to understand.

we really can't tell what "mother" means to lizzie -- if anything.  though she does seem to understand it as someone older she would  go to with a problem.  but this:  to call her mother for so long and then stop and resort to "mrs. borden".  if she ever thought of her as a mother as i understand it (and i know i do) it was strange of her to stop without having some deeply felt emotional wound.  you're speculating that it was lizzie's feeling that the woman had become disloyal toward her?

Q. So that the affair was serious enough to have you change from calling her mother, do you mean?
A. I did not choose to call her mother.

she can't or won't answer. (you'd think that at this point that lizzie would expect these kinds of questions.)

but perhaps this is only a part of a bigger problem lizzie has talking about relationships or understanding them. read how it goes after knowlton asks her about her mother and father's relationship.  she doesn't know but that they were happily united and isn't sure what he means by his questions.

it boils down to this:  is lizzie actually expressing an inability to understand what a loving relationship consists of?  or is it really a not-uncommon attitude in the victorian era that personal feelings are not things you reveal to a stranger?

is lizzie narcissistic?  i don't know, but i have noted that her preoccupation with animals is as indicative of an emotional limitation as it is of compassion.  i don't mean to say that a fondness for animals always means there is an underlying resentment of people or a difficulty in forming relationships -- but sometimes it means just that.  since i have personally seen this phenomenon, i have always kept that in the back of my mind about lizzie.

Susan that was brilliant.
Because Wednesday night Lizzie stood up for Abby against her father to Alice by telling that Dr. Bowen story.  It also seemingly was told in order to show how discourteous Andrew could be (in her story) and that he could manage to embarass her (though she wasn't even in the room).
She DIDN'T complain about Abby that night, she complained about Andrew!  Interesting!

OOO haulover you are speeding right by me again!
The part about Lizzie's father and stepmother's marriage is my favorite part!

I don't necessarily myself mean to say that Lizzie doesn't have an understanding of what a mother is.  I mean to say Lizzie can't describe in what way Abby has been a mother to her.
As you pointed out, she could say any mundane thing, like an easy description of your own relationship......and I can't seem to figure out why she didn't just say what would sound best....Like, well we shopped for hats together and she bought me my best silver shoes. ... or she taught me to swim at the farm.  Or anything!  It's like she dissassociated.  There were probably ways she could have answered truthfully if she had any sentiment at the time.  I don't hear any sentiment

She might have called Abby Mother from an early age because she was instructed to.  And by stopping calling her that may merely have been a sign of rebellion.

It could also be that the girls did think, at that time, that Abby was being disloyal.  But if they never showed her much respect in that home and Abby could get it from her 1/2 sister and family, sure she will go where there is affection shown her, and try to do for her sister.

As to that valid question about Victorian mores & not speaking or parading emotions about, private feelings, in a courtroom of all places, I am looking at this tendency I've encountered where being taught to suppress emotions or not show them might actually lead to stunted emotions and an inability to feel, empathize or understand basic human feelings of others.  If one buries them too deeply, during training, some ones can not find them again.

Again, this is supposing.  Trying to see if Lizzie had a character defect.  The Victorian age of training young women seems to me to be a ripe breeding ground for either semi-hysterics or in another  direction , those who are narcissistic.

Brilliant?  Thank you.  I'm wondering now if maybe I am focusing on the wrong person?  Perhaps Andrew is the focus, the one who must be knocked out of Lizzie's way, the one who has to die?  Abby may be incidental, Andrew dies, she gets his money, shes already out of the picture in Lizzie's mind.  Hmmmmmm. 

(I just got around to reading this post.)  Wow!  You don't know how old your mother is?  I didn't realize stuff like that could be kept from your kids!  I wish I'd done that.  My kids think I'm even more ancient than I actually am.  When I mention Roosevelt, they think I mean Teddy.

There is one point in Lizzie's inquest testimony when the attorney asks her if he should call Abby "mother" in reference to asking Lizzie questions, and Lizzie says something like, I'd just as soon you say mother."

And throughout the last part of the testimony at least the attorney refers to Abby as "mother" in questions, i.e., your mother this or your mother that.  There doesn't seem to be any objection from Lizzie to this.

She explains why she stopped calling Abby mother clearly, it concerned the affair of the house 5 years before. In whatever way Abby was a mother to Lizzie before the conflict over the house Lizzie felt that it had changed and required a new form of address, Mrs. Borden. Mrs. Borden refers to being Andrew's wife and not her role in the house in relation to Lizzie. This would indicate to me that Lizzie did not feel part of any family unit if there ever was a real one, and now the parents were aligned against Emma and herself. Your ponderings on Lizzie's emotions regarding mother and family are interesting but I don't think she lacked understanding.

Emma from the start called Mrs. Borden Abby. It would be interesting to learn if Emma also changed from calling Abby Abby at that point, but I don't think that was ever brought up.

Animals can be an emotional replacement for people who don't have many friends, etc. but I am not so sure that was the case with Lizzie, she had friends and only two dogs and wild squirrels, or were there more dogs? Wasn't her compassion for the animals more in the form of giving money for them and not having a zoo at her house?

In a previous post someone, I think Carol, asked "wouldn't
there be reports of at least one fight or blowup with Abby..."
if she hated her so much. (not exact quote sorry) But I think
that the mode of "fighting" in that household was silence.
When one was mad, they simply refused to talk to the person.
It seemed the girls ate at different times, is it possible they
"didn't speak" to their parents?  Used Bridget as a go-between
when a message had to be conveyed?  If anyone has ever been
the receipient of "the silent treatment" you know what I mean,
it is torture.  Even when Lizzie was in her jail cell and Emma
came to visit her, she got mad at Emma over that business with
Mrs. Regan, and turned to her side and wouldn't speak to Emma.
Emma sat there for 2 hours in silence. 

Yes, I think you're right about the "silent treatment".
There are accounts of Lizzie acting *peculiar* even with company there.  Walking through the room as if no one was there.  It was remarked upon.

And they did eat separatley, oftentimes, but as to Emma, maybe she sided with Lizzie through solidarity.
It may have started as Emma's reaction to Abby, but then became Lizzie's fight.

I am, as well as you Susan, wondering if it IS really Andrew that needs to die, that is hated by Lizzie...if Lizzie is unaffected by Abby after all this time, then I can see no love *ever*, turning into disaffection, not hate.
But we think we understand that Lizzie does Love Andrew, so THAT can turn to hate.

well, of course i'm speculating -- just using what i can know about the case with a few insights i have myself.

actually, i'm wondering.  what does it feel like to go from calling someone "mother" to "mrs. borden"?

i can't decide if it was just no big deal of a change for lizzie -- or if in fact it was (that is, to look at the meaning of the differing terms).

about the role of animals in her life:  i guess our limitation is in knowing so little about lizze's personal relationships.  she seems to have been sociable.  i've read secondary accounts of her kindness toward people.  i've read that the "painting theft" incident actually stemmed from lizzie making a gift to someone, but i got that from radin's book and i don't know what his sources for it were.

Inquest
Lizzie
52
Q. In what other respect were the relations between you and her not that of mother and daughter, besides not calling her mother?
A. I don't know that any of the relations were changed. I had never been to her as a mother in many things. I always went to my sister, because she was older and had the care of me after my mother died.

--At this point Lizzie has declined to answer how they were like mother & daughter.  And how they weren't was due to *the affair with her stepsister* and Lizzie deciding one day to stop calling Abby *Mother* and start calling her *Mrs. Borden*
But this question assumes a lot because it asks simply "In what other respect" were "relations...not of mother & daughter?".  It seems to be assuming there was more in Lizzie's answer than there was.
And she shows that by replying that she "doesn't know that any of the relations were changed."
Out of Lizzie's mouth is the answer:  The relations weren't changed.  And she hadn't been to her [Abby] as a mother.
That sounds like not too far a step to calling Abby Mrs. Borden.  Not too much to change.  Just a decision.  Lizzie's about 27 at the time?  Maybe Abby is now Aunty to the Whitehead children.  Not a "Mother" to anyone.

which just brings me back to my speculation that lizzie did not understand what "mother" meant anyway.  "mother" is not a mere title but the word for a unique relationship. 

I think that is also the way Susan & Tina-Kate were looking at it.
Hmmm.....

I've been mulling this over and over and ended up at the autopsies.  If Abby wasn't the detested one, why so many strikes with the hatchet?  If Lizzie did indeed do it, why whack Abby 19 times, when with Andrew it was only the 10.  Yet, Andrew's face was obliterated, Abby's wasn't.  Was that due to a time constraint, Bridget may come down and see what was happening, would there have been more strikes to Andrew's head?  I guess its a quantity or quality question, which describes a hatred more? 

I did find something new and interesting for me in Abby's autopsy; it appears that Abby was struck 3 times while facing her attacker.  1) There is the glancing scalp wound over her left ear.  2) There is wound 1 inch long directly on top of her skull.  3)  There is a wound which runs parallel to #2 that is 1 and 1/2 inches long that penetrates the skull.  These wounds had to have been inflicted by someone much taller than Abby was, or, Abby had to have been kneeling or sitting facing her attacker.  The wounds on top of her skull couldn't have been made while Abby was in the position she was found in on the floor.  No room between her head and the camp chair for these strikes.  I'm wondering if her attacker was in that corner, seated in the camp chair when the attack started, whacked Abby 3 times and she just fell forward?  Hmmm.  

 

Susan, where do you get those axe-murdering smilies?! 

I've wondered too re the number of blows.  I suppose after having experienced the 1st murder, the murderer would know the amount of hacking that would be sufficient.  Perhaps after having done the 1st, the murderer would have sore muscles & less strength left over for the 2nd...simply less steam, even if the level of hatered was roughly the same for each victim.

I don't see the logic of Abby willingly approaching an attacker who was wedged into that tiny "corner".  1 thing I've been trying to figure out is how Abby got into that "ultimate position".  It's clear there were facial blows.  I suppose the survival mechanism in Abby was on auto pilot & she instinctively turned her back in an effort to guard herself/flee, even tho there was no logical escape route for her. 

Does anyone have a reasoning for how she ended up where she did?  Anyone have a theory on whether she was felled/pushed down or simply collapsed on her own?

Tina-Kate, I get them all over the place, if you'd like, I could post some of the sites. 

What I was thinking of with the attacker in the corner there was the attacker would be Lizzie.  Lizzie comes up to speak to Abby while shes making the bed and Lizzie sits in the camp chair.  Abby's bent over tucking in the sheets and whack, whack, whack, down she goes.  She never would have had to look up which probably would have made it easier for Lizzie to do.  Abby may never have had the time to move or think before she was felled.  Its just a thought. 

good point.  good questions.

but it looks to me like she went immediately from a standing to a lying position. her body is stretched out full length on the floor.  but she must have survived the first blow to the side of her forehead or she would be lying on her back?  in other words, she is killed while standing -- and struck dead from behind. 

Abby has contusians on her face.  When we read her autopsy, they sound like bruising, and not anything like a wound.

I understand you are referring to the cuts on the top of Abby's head, but these marks on Abby's face and foehead would have to have been made while she was still alive.  (I don't mean to assume you wouldn't know this.  It is only the way I am wording my thoughts in reply, while I am thinking).
Those wounds to the face as contusions, upon first being seen by a witness were alluded to as shocking!
"Officers Mullaly and Doherty turned her over. Officer Doherty said 'My God her face is all smashed in.' "  (W.S. pg.1)

This leaves the impression that Abby fell on her face and while still alive.
The experts back then surmised that the facial flap wound was probably first, and I would think she spun away (toward the camp chair and wall) and started to drop.  The next blow would be already on it's way.  Since she was no longer positioned as she first was, it seems that an amature, not realizing the victim would change or alter position in reaction tp a blow, would be swinging at where the face once was, but striking the left back and neck area instead, driving her to the floor and knocking the breath out of her.  Thus no scream.  Astride, I don't see why there couldn't be a blow to the top of the head.  Heighth no longer counts when someone is lying down.
I think her body was moved, and probably more than we know.
We do know the furniture was moved as well. 

I was looking at Dolan's description of the guest room that is at odds with the photo and he lists the furniture which has been moved.
The camp chair at the east wall may not have seated Lizzie at the time of the attack, because he says in the Prelim., that the chair's legs had blood on them.  A girl in a dress or apron, would probably have her skirts in the way of those chair legs, methinks maybe..

I'd say keep using your visual logic cause you do come up with some very interesting questions from a good imagination.
(Just please don't throw yourself to the floor again!)

(Message last edited Mar-31st-03  7:34 AM.)

(Snicker)

I, myself, was landing on a futon.  Complete with hankie in hand to see where that would land

Finished 1st 1/2 of Trial last night.  (Wondered how all the "splatter vs spurt" stuff went over with the Victorian onlookers)  Also looked @ autopsy stuff on the website.

Very frustrating reading thru this part of the trial & knowing the technology (even in the past decade or so) would have revealed a lot more.

It sounds as tho Abby's body was basically in the position found, as all the blood was in the correct locations relative to where she lay.

I don't think the whole attack came from that direction, just possibly those 3.  Oh, and I do know that the listing of the wounds in Abby's autopsy have nothing to do with the order that they were given.  Its the description of the cuts that I'm going by, the ones on the back right side of Abby's skull were given the direction of being hit from the front to back, in other words, I think they mean that the front end of the hatchet contacted the skull first.  With the 2 parallel wounds on top of Abby's head there is no striking direction, if struck from when Abby was laying on the floor, I believe that the doctors would be able to tell that the striking pattern was front to back again.  But, there is no such description in the autopsy.  So, my assumption here is that these two strikes were delivered straight down on top of Abby's head.  Yes, Abby could have turned after the first strike with the flap wound, fallen to her knees and had those 2 whacks delivered at that point from behind before she fully fell.  Hmmm, new thought, if Abby fell onto her knees from a standing position with her excess weight, would there not be some sort of contusions on her knees? 

Good for you Tina-Kate, someone else who does her own little experiments too.

Abby's knees may have been covered by a dress skirt, petticoats and apron. 
I used to think she fell to her knees but to hear her face looked smashed in, I think rather she fell on her face, not her knees.

As to moving the body, the witness said they turned her over.  That was after the cops got there.  There were Dr.'s there before that I think.   Touching her but saying they put her back the way they found her.  But that's not true because one see's her arms up and another person see's her arms under her.
She's been moved. 
In Bertha Manchester's case they gave the description of the girl's body and there were limbs exposed, which was shocking back then.  I think they could esily have straightened Abby's body and pulled her dress down to her ankles before she was photographed.  She was a rich busiman's wife and not a Bertha, a daughter of a farmer.

I think she was pictured with her head lying in it's own gore, but other than that I do not trust her position.

Oh, I don't disagree she was moved...several people testify to this.  However, I doubt if it was a great deal, otherwise the "gore" would have been smeared around more than it was.  1 thing I note in the pictures, those taken from the rear seem to show her in a kneeling position, whereas the ones from the side seem to have her laying down.  Body moved & its position changed, or just a photographic illusion?  Without a doubt, both crime scenes were disturbed beyond an acceptable limit.  1 of the things that makes me question the "gilt" issue is the fact several Dr's seemed to have stuck their hands in/around the wounds of both victims, requiring Bridget to furnish them with wash water.  (A forensic nightmare these days!)

1 thing I was thinking about were the bruises on Abby's face.  Earlier this evening I read the Trial testimony of Dr Frank Draper, who gives his opinion of how they got there -- "I think either by the forehead receiving a blow in falling, or by the forehead resting upon some resisting substance as the body lay down."

I'm not totally convinced of the face hitting the floor 1st theory.  The bruises must have been pretty severe to have been noticed.  If they occured when Abby hit the floor, there was a carpet there to cushion the blow.  If she went down on her knees (as the pics seem to indicate), not a lot of her weight would have gone on her face.  In my own little experiment, my knees always hit 1st...then again, I was conscious @ the time & Abby may or may not have been.  But with her large frame, it seems to me some part of her body would have hit the floor 1st.

I wonder if (a) her head might have hit the edge of the marble top on the bureau, or (b) the bruises may have been caused by the force of the blows to the back of her head forcing the front of her head to repeatedly hit the floor.

Opinions?

When the doctors undressed Abby the next day didn't they find the first wound in her back? Struck from behind? If you were ever hit from behind you would/may find the breath knocked out, and then falling forward. Or if you fell off a swing as a child and landed on your back.
Do NOT try this at home!!!

From watching "CSI" etc. I conclude that the "contusions" or bruises must have been made while still "alive" - beating heart. After "death" no bruises are possible.

Re the blow to her "back", the Drs who testified in the Trial said it was impossible to determine the order in which the blows were received & I believe Draper said that blow could have been made after she was on the floor.

I also wondered re bruising after death (altho if that was the case it was certainly very quickly after death)...I would have thought they occured before she died.

List of people we need as posters:

An MD, a lawyer, a pathologist, a toxicologist...

Maybe they were not really bruises from being hit -- maybe
it was just the discoloration that happens after death --
I think the blood settles or something & looks like bruises.
They can tell if a body has been moved by looking at where
those areas are -- if she was flat on her face it would
show there & the front of her body -- Andrew would have
had the marks probably on his hips & thighs if he had laid
for as long as Abby had. I'm not an expert on this -- I know
the discoloration has a name, I don't remeber what it is
called though.

It's called "postmortem lividity."  (I'm not a medical professional, but I read a lot.)
Also, the surmisal was that the bruises on Abby's face occurred when she fell forward onto her face as a result of the blows.  It wasn't assumed that she was actually struck on the face by the person who attacked her.

i just thought of something:  that the "back" blow was the second one, that it was of sufficient force to knock her over at full length (like chopping down a tree), and that it may tell something about the height of the killer.

I was going to reply to your post this morning, Tina-Kate, but, my computer went out.  I was thinking that the bruising on Abby's face were from the fall, but, I like your part B idea.  The repeated hitting on the back of her head could have inflicted injury on the front of her face. 

I don't know as I've never struck anyone in the skull with a hatchet before, but, I always have visions of that blade getting stuck in the bone of the skull. And as it is pulled out, the head comes up with it and slips off and then falls again.  I know, grisly thought! 

Yeah Susan, that's pretty much what I was envisioning.  Pretty gruesome the thoughts that go thru yr head as you read the testimonies, theories, etc.  Chop, spurt, splatter...ick.  Thinking of angles & possible ways the bodies reacted etc...you catch yrself & realize what yr really thinking about...quite bizarre.

What really gets me thinking is how the murderer actually does the deed.  I mean, you hate someone enough & think fiendish fantasies, but to actually follow thru & do it is something else entirely.  Where is the point of "no return" once you decide to do the act?  Does the murderer "zone out", or is consciousness heightened somehow?  It's easier to picture someone like Davis, for instance, who's had butchery experience...easy enough to go into the zone of "getting the job done".  But to do something like that...an act that's alien...& to carefully plan it all out...  Still trying to wrap my brain around it all!

Just reading thru this & realized this thread is "When Lizzie Pauses".  If she did do it...she certainly didn't "pause" much that day.


(Message last edited Apr-2nd-03  12:55 AM.)

Ray, the back wound wasn't found until the Oak Grove autopsy.
That has me wondering why they didn't find it.
That leaves the imprssionthat she was not stripped totally.  But if she wasn't, what's that list of buried clothes?
This is confusing.
I never could figure out how so many Doctors could miss that wound in the back!

Anyway...the wording of the autopsy makes those contusions sound so clinically nothing.
"...On the forehead and bridge of nose were three contused wounds. Those on the forehead being oval, lengthwise with body.

SECOND The contusion on bridge of nose was one inch in length by on half inch in width.

THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide. "....

--She was found with her head turned slightly towards the right, so her left face was where the weight lay and was the point at which she settled.
--It certainly doesn't sound as if her face is smashed in.  Maybe it was livor mortis, but you'd think that would have been specified.

I agree about a *butcher Davis* but the age old question arises:
Wouldn't a butcher be able to kill with just a couple of well-placed blows?
19 is way over-kill.
Looks like hate to me.
(And yes Ray, if Abby is hated, she in some way did rub someone the wrong way--made an enemy, clashed with the wrong person).

So that's when I started thinking about drugs as the facilitator.  The motive was there, but the inhibitions needed to be lowered?
That can explain the safe delay between crimes.  No one was found on the premises that we know of who didn't belong there as family or staff from say 9:05 a.m. till 11:15.
After the murderer cleaned up or rested between victims they shot up or sniffed or snorted or ate or drank or took whatever it was that got them *going* in order to cleave Andrew's face in twain.

Not sure if a butcher would be able to kill with a couple of well placed blows because it's unlikely they'd be used to killing humans, esp (in Abby's case) 1 that was trying to put up a fight or flee.  If Abby did something that ticked the murderer off, (& who knows what that may be, could be the smallest thing for someone in a murdering state of mind...I suppose even the fact she saw her attacker may have done it, if they were trying to do a sneak attack), that could have inspired the "overkill" to make sure she was dead or in the spirit of "take that you old..."

The only thing that bothered me re the Lizzie-on-drugs theory is how could she so quickly sober up/come down so much as to calmly, carefully clean up any evidence so fast after Andrew's murder, then face Bridget & all the rest that followed without giving any clue of being under the influence of a substance?  I think crocodile tears would be easy to do on drugs, but Liz was stoic.  Easier to see it in OJ (if that was the case) because the murderer fled the scene immediately after & no one saw him while under the influence.

Just an aside re OJ -- funny thing when that all happened, (Bronco chase, etc) of all places, I happened to be with a friend in the condo of a lawyer (the only time I've ever been in a lawyer's condo!)  His 1st reaction without hesitation was -- "He's guilty.  Innocent guys don't run."

(Message last edited Apr-3rd-03  12:25 PM.)

They also don't write *suicide notes*.
I think the O;J. murders were done on drugs.  And I think there is reference to his erratic behavior on the plane going east?
It depends on what is taken, don't you think?
Speed or cocaine are going to leave her stoic after exertion.  Kind of *cold-blooded* seeming.
I ran across a reference last night in the Sourcebook that has Lizzie still on morphine after the Preliminary.  For sleeping nights, apparently.
Those morphine doses could have been (a) Dr.s way of curing her of another addiction.

From my handy little Victorian drug addiction book --

The secret to "curing" the opium habit painlessly was to get hooked on something else.  Opium habit cures, for opium smokers or laudanum drinkers, often contained morphine.

So, you may have a point.  I'm still not so sure Lizzie would have been able to have been so careful in covering her tracks, tho.

The fact in the "Bronco chase" (per R Shapiro's book) is that the police were notified by cell phone where they were (as I remember).

NOTE WELL that his friend AC came over and convinced him to go for a ride in AC's white Bronco. Was AC being used as a double agent? Ever see the movie "Presumed Innocent"? "Taking him for a ride" was one way to make OJ appear guilty.

If you know nothing else (and you should!!) is that the red trickling blood found when the police arrived at 12:15AM says they were killed after 11:30PM. Remember the Borden Murders? The ME who did the autopsies said "forensic evidence says killed after 11PM".

Dear Kat: as you so often like to do, please cite YOUR references (books) about his "erratic behavior on the plane".
I don't remember anything about this, but I could be wrong.

I think I read that his Doctor put him on Prozac, a drug known to create suicidal thoughts. Ever hear of this before?

(Message last edited Apr-3rd-03  5:10 PM.)

Perhaps a madman would have no problems? Especially if an experienced killer of animals? AR Browns' solution looks good.

Shouldn't we distinguish between a "butcher" (cuts up meats) and a "slaughterer" (kills animals)? Would the word "knacker" be better?

(Message last edited Apr-3rd-03  5:12 PM.)

I do not have any statistics on hand, but there is a high correlation between driking and killing, or other crimes.
I don't know the statistics on speed, cocaine, or heroin. I thought the use of morphine or heroin just made them sleepy.

I don't think drugs played any part in the Borden case, just
powerful female hormones!

Dear Ray:  Since I obviously know naught of the OJ case, I will bow out of any discussion of that.--K.

Is it because it is too old or too new? It is a VERY EDUCATIONAL trial, if you can read most of the books.
"Killing Time" by Freed & Briggs is the ONLY objective book. They present both sides of the argument and let you decide!
Others may recommend another book. You will be limiting yourself if you do not read other True Crime books.

If a nice and pleasant lady like Abby was "hated", could it be because she simply and innocently married Andy? That is the argument made in AR Brown's book.  I also think she interfered into Wednesday's discussion between Uncle John and Andy, if it concerned settling property on William S Borden. (Isn't that just natural, then or now?) And if Wm S Borden found out this reason for the delay, wouldn't that enrage him the next day?

The lack of suitcase etc by Uncle John COULD be his usual practice. But I think it shows he never expected to spend the night there. Unless he was getting old and forgetful?

If you are looking at a body with many whacks to the front of the head, you may not be interested in viewing the back. If she had a bullet wound in her chest, they would also not be looking at her hips.

Remember that scandal about JFK? The doctors who worked on him in Dallas never turned him over (?) to check his back. But you can look at the pictures ("High Treason 2") and decide if that was JFK or his double.

I think you assume a bit much when it comes to me.
But I don't think you mean anything by it.
I have approx. 225 true crime books on my shelves at the moment.  Oh, and I also have a 28 volume Crime & Punisment Encyclopaedia.
I also have approx. 15  separate on Jack the Ripper, and probably 12 to 15 on forensics or *pop* forensics, FBI, Douglas, Ressler, et.all.
Our "Lizzie Library" runs to 94 items, plus 40 LBQ'a and 6 issues of the FRHS Quarterly Report.
I 've read at leat 3 books on OJ.  Just not recently.
So, how many books do you have?  Didn't you once say you had very few due to storage constraints?
I did not wish to debate a point about another case where neither of us had our complete facts to hand.

.........
As to the post about wounds to the face might keep the experts from noticing Abby's back wound, Abby didn't have but one wound to the face and there are 2 photographs of her from the back (the only ones we have.)..so the question still holds as to why, after shaving her head and covering her in what looks like a sheet, and taking photo's of the back of her head, the doctors missed that wound. I had read it opined that it was post-mortem and therefore didn't bleed, and thus did not stain the clothes and was then overlooked.
This could be, but the Dr. did say Abby's dress was cut and through to her chemise.  You'd think that would get their attention.
.........


(Message last edited Apr-4th-03  11:44 PM.)

I was thinking that perhaps the doctors missed Abby's back wound due to her weight originally.  But, they would have had to have wiped the blood off of her to examine the wounds, I would think someone would have caught it then?  Unless there really was some sort of Victorian prudery involved that even a doctor couldn't see a full nude woman's body despite being dead.  Perhaps they kept her draped wherever they didn't need to be working?  Otherwise, it seems such a botched job. 

Maybe he took his time because he was paid by the hour, not the job?
Don't overlook the obvious.

It is as much money as space. My damp cellar has many books that I bought before I figured out the Public Library has more space and money than I do. The only problem is they also have constraints on what they keep. I doubt many books published before 1950. One reason is they do age w/ new information.

If time was taken, wouldn't the wound have been found?

I just don't get it.

It could  turn out to be a very important wound, because it might help the experts decide the blade size, which seemingly could more easily be determined by the hole in the clothing than measuring any wound found on either body.
I think that's one reason the clothes were dug up.

Yes, I've just checked Rebello, pg. 111:

"That Mysterious Box / The Bloody Clothing Once More Dug Up in the Back Yard," Fall River Daily Globe, Friday, August 12, 1892: 7.

"The police patrol wagon rattled up to the Central Station last night and a police officer carried a big box into the cell room. Investigation showed that the clothing which had been buried in the back yard at the Borden house had for the second time been dug up and it is probable that this time the garments will be held by the police. In the station house, Dr. Dolan made another examination, no doubt, with the intention of finding the
cut in the back of Mrs. Borden's dress which must necessarily have been made by the hatchet or axe which inflicted the wound discovered in yesterday morning's autopsy."

'Note: The victims' clothing was retrieved and returned to Marshal Hilliard."

--The autopsy of 8/11 caused the clothing of the victim's to be re-dug up and this time examined for weapon marks, and kept by the Marshal.

Nice one, Kat.