Hi, I'm new!

Joy · Post by **Joy** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:32 am

My name is Joy, and I've been lurking about this site since my husband sent me the link a few weeks ago. I must say that I thought I knew quite a bit about Lizzie, but I am awed and humbled by you guys, and your knowledge of the case.
I would like to start by asking a couple of questions to whomever may be interested. I actually am one of the many now who believe that Lizzie did not commit the murders, but may have been involved. I always wondered though how, firstly, she could have stayed in the house after the fact, and also, how she could have kissed her father's mangled face. I must say that I would have RUN from that house, and could not look at my father's face in that condition.
Secondly, a friend of a friend once pointed out to me that not only were the parents murdered, but the fact that the father's face was totally obliterated may point to incest. Any comments on that issue.
I have read 5 Lizzie books in my day, and just ordered a used copy of "A Private Disgrace". (I always thought that her ideas sounded so far fetched, but heard the book was very well written, so here goes). My favorite so far, has been "Lizzie didn't Do it", by William Masterton. It reads like a mystery novel, and he makes his case sound very possible.
Thanks for listening.
PS: To the person who has an Opossum. I love all animals, and recently found a suffering opossum on the road, called the police, and the officer actually waited with me a whole hour re-directing traffic until the ACC came to humanely put him to sleep. I also work in an animal hospital where we have a wildlife rehabilitator.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:47 am

Many profilers tend to point the damage to Andrew's face as a sign of sexual abuse-- an attempt to obliterate his identity.

I tend to discount the incest allegations and think Andrew's face was hacked up because his killer used an axe or a hatchet to kill him.

IF Lizzie tried to buy poison (and I believe she did), she was more interested in killing someone than punishing them for molesting her. She couldn't get the poison so she found a weapon that was either already at hand or easily obtained.

If you were to attack, with the intent to kill someone with a hatchet would you hack at their heart?

Had Andrew been face down, like Abby was for most of her attack-- he would probably have been hacked to death in the rear of his head.

I think Lizzie stayed in that house because she knew she was perfectly safe there.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:48 am

Welcome, Joy, glad you could join us!

While I would like to address your questions, my answers would suffer from my perspective! I would suggest, since the possibilities in this case seem limitless, that you read the trial and inquest transcripts along with the witness statements to formulate an opinion.

Joy · Post by **Joy** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:01 pm

Thanks guys, Very interesting as usual. I'll think about what you said, and have a lot of reading to do!

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:36 pm

Welcome Joy !

You may download, for free thanks to Stef and crew, major source documents from Stef's LABVML site. Here's the link:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/

Tracy...

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:58 pm

Hi Joy: Though I'm rather new myself, that is to say, compared to many others on this site, I'm sure they will allow me the liberty to say Welcome and hope your stay is long and enjoyable.

I was going to name my boat ALEGRIA, prononced OWL-GREE-Ah; that is draging the G and the R from deep in your throat like the Spanish or Arabs would do, like you were clearing your throat. It means JOY in Portuguese. Decided against it only because most would mispronounce it and make it sound like some guy named AL GREAR. See, you learn something everyday....

Now...........the fact that Lizzie kissed her father while he lay dead can be entertianed but was never proven. If I'm not mistaken, since I have not seen it since it came out long ago, you probably picked that up from the movie with Elizabeth Montgomery............ Great sensationalisim for a movie, especially if you want to depict her as cold and crule. Unless I'm mistaken, nowhere is it written, or does it hint that she did such a thing. Though the bodies did lay-in-wait in the house while Lizzie and Emma were still there. Though this my appear gruesome, when someone died back then it was common practice. Not many palors around then......, untill someone figured out how much they could milk the bereaved by relieving the family of the deceased from some of their duties and grief for a handsome fee, of course.

Now Joy, you say you have read several books on the Case. I'm sure everyone will chime in here that Leonard Rebello's "Lizzie Borden Past and Present" is a must have for anyone studying the case. To do so without it is to go over the crime with one eye closed. If you hope to continue serious study, try to locate a copy. The best way is through the author. Last time he and I spoke he still had a couple of copies left. It's the only book that can compete with this forum.

Welcome Joy...........

myk7753 · Post by **myk7753** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:11 pm

I agree with Audrey, I don't think there's any signifigance to Andrew's face being mangled, regardless of who the assailant was. Andrew was laying (or possibly sitting) face up/forward and that's how he was attacked.

I believe there's way too much read into each and every aspect of this case in an attempt to discover the real truth. I lean towards the "Lizzie did it" camp, and I honestly don't think that Lizzie was that deep. Whatever motivated her (IMO) was a basic human emotion...greed...anger...resentment...most likely a combination of all 3. Now...if I could just figure out HOW she did it. To me, that's the real mystery.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:17 pm

myk7753 @ Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:11 pm wrote:I agree with Audrey, I don't think there's any signifigance to Andrew's face being mangled, regardless of who the assailant was. Andrew was laying (or possibly sitting) face up/forward and that's how he was attacked.

I believe there's way too much read into each and every aspect of this case in an attempt to discover the real truth. I lean towards the "Lizzie did it" camp, and I honestly don't think that Lizzie was that deep. Whatever motivated her (IMO) was a basic human emotion...greed...anger...resentment...most likely a combination of all 3. Now...if I could just figure out HOW she did it. To me, that's the real mystery.

Good point-- complicating an already very complicated mystery makes it even easier to add another lap the circles we are already running in!

myk7753 · Post by **myk7753** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:18 pm

I believe that Lizzie kissing her father was mentioned in David Kent's book Forty Whacks. I don't recall if he was quoting someone or not, but I do remember reading it.

myk7753 · Post by **myk7753** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:37 pm

I found the passage...
Pg. 41

The passage was part of his narrative.

"In the sitting room, the coffins were displayed side by side. Lizzie, accompanied by Adelaide Churchil, had earlier come down from her room. She stood beside Andrew's bier for a silent minute, wept, and kissed him on the lips."

David Kent

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:17 pm

Yes Myk7753, Thanks for saving me the time. I found it in Kents book. He claims that at the time she gave her father the kiss that Churchill was with Lizzie. Where did Kent get his information? Kent came along after much had already been written on the case. I think of him in the 3rd tier or generation of Borden writers (after 1990) Is this fact or can we relagate Kent to the school of Spiering and Lincoln? Unless we can prove the Kiss happened in someone's testimony, it can only be considered lore.
Can anyone display where this testimony can be found if it does exist?

Hmmmmmmm! Interesting.........Joy has been here just a short time and already she has stimulated our thinking.

Joy · Post by **Joy** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:51 pm

Thanks again! Yes, it is in Kent's book, but I could have sworn that I had read it elsewhere; possibly in an article. I have not read Rebello's book, but I guess I'd better!!
Also, why do so many of you recommend Radin's book? I have not read it, but I think the LAST person who did it was the maid. Should I get that one too? Also where can I buy Rebello's book at a less expensive price.
Do you also recommend the books by Hunter and Pearson?
You guys are great!!
PS:HAPPY 64TH BIRTHDAY TO PAUL!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:56 pm

First, welcome aboard Joy!

The "kiss" testimony at the trial involves Mrs. Holmes. On page 1505, Jennings is questioning her:

Q. Before the funeral began did Miss Lizzie go down to see her father's remains?

MR. KNOWLTON. Wait a minute. I pray your Honors' judgment.
MASON, C. J. Assuming the question to be preliminary only, it may be answered.

A. She did.
Q. Where were they?
A. In the sitting room.
Q. Were they in the casket?
A. They were.
Q. Prepared for burial?
A. They were.
Q. Both bodies in the same room?
A. They were.
Q. What did Miss Lizzie do after she went down into the room?

MR. KNOWLTON. Pray your Honors' judgment

(Question excluded)"

There was a 5 minute recess taken after Mrs. Holmes finished her testimony and I assume the defense made some sort of motion because they were allowed to submit an offer of proof (page 1511):

"The following is the offer of proof made by the defence in connection with the evidence of Mrs. Holmes:

"The government in its direct case having shown conduct of defendant up to and including the morning of Sunday following the murder, the defendant offers to show by a witness that on Saturday morning after the murder she came down stairs into the room where her father's body was lying prepared for burial, and went to the casket with the witness and kissed her father."

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:36 pm

I looked up the legal definition of an "offer of proof" and found this:

http://tinyurl.com/jbwjg

"At trial, a party’s explanation to a judge as to how a proposed line of questioning, or a certain item of physical evidence, would be relevant to its case and admissible under the rules of evidence. Offers of proof arise when a party begins a line of questioning that the other side objects to as calling for irrelevant or inadmissible information. If the judge thinks that the questions might lead to proper evidence, the judge will stop the trial, ask the parties to “approach the bench,” and give the questioner a chance to show how, if allowed, the expected answers will be both relevant and admissible. This explanation is usually presented out of the jury’s hearing, but it does become part of the trial record. If the matter is later heard on appeal, the appellate court will use the record to decide whether the judge’s ruling was correct."

So even if the jury didn't hear it, it was part of the trial record and available to the authors. I also found the "kiss" mentioned in Lincoln.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:11 pm

Great Harry Thanks: (See Joy, still learning)

I had been always of the impression that the kiss, though it was mentioned and talked about, was never proven. But you have shown that it did, Red Face, red face, red face.

From what I remember, in the movie it has her coming into a dark room all by herself and kissing her father, No? That is where the weirdness factor come's into play.

If a loved one dies it is perfectly normal to give them a kiss good-bye. If their face is crushed, what is one to say, "Away from me Daddy, you are repolsive------------ of course not. But it does take guts to kiss such a face.

Thanks again Harry, clears that one up I guess.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:45 pm

Yes Joy: As I have mentioned many times before, Radin is a good account on the case, even if you do not agree with his theory. He did his homework including coming here to Fall River to check the facts.

Radin was one of the first to suggest someone other than Lizzie as the killer and in doing so was the first to confront Pearson, who up until then was the authority on the case. It's a comfortable, clean narrative with a provocative theory that gave the courage to future writers to come up with their own constructive theory, good or bad.

Anything Pearson is good, with the "Trail of Lizzie Borden" being a must have.

Not until I had a good grasp on the case would I read fiction such as Hunter. It only confuses matters when the reader is relatively new to the Borden Case. Leave Hunter for last, very last.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:30 pm

Michael, never be embarassed about anything in this case. There must be at least 2 versions of everything especially in the books. It's one of the reasons I like to stay with the primary documents as much as possible.

I also remember something about Lizzie coming down in the dark and kissing her father, but I believe it was in one of the books.

matt kevin jones · Post by **matt kevin jones** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:27 pm

Hi Joy
Welcome aboard.
I'm pretty new also, just hang in there like I'm doing. I learn something new every day.
I'm the one with the Opossum & I'm also a wildlife rehabilitator for NC state.
I agree with everyone about the inquest & trial testimony, its a must have, so you can look more at fact, than a writers opinion.
Lincolns book is interesting, its the first book I actually read about the Murders. but dont form any opinions until you research some more.
You will learn more here on this forum.
Good Luck
Matt

Joy · Post by **Joy** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:17 am

What I love about this case is that there is always something new to learn or discover. Having said that, I am one of the few who wishes that the case be solved. I can't understand why the family won't allow this. Does anyone know about forensics?; couldn't the remains of the bodies of the victims be dug up for re-examination? or would there be nothing left at this point? Wouldn't the family love to finally prove her innocence or guilt?!
Thanks for all the book advice! It will take me a while to read everything; I can't read Lizzie stuff at night, (I'm a real wimp, I'll keep imagining Andrew coming to kill me with his mangled face!!)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:59 am

I believe accounts say that Andrew's face had been turned so that the one good side showed. I have no idea how that looked or what it was like.
People back then were probably used to seeing dead people- just not murdered people!

We talked about what might be looked for if the couple were to be exhumed -already- somewhere around here.

Joy · Post by **Joy** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:03 am

Thanks Kat, I know I've seen your face before. Haven't you written articles on Lizzie, or perhaps I've seen your web site.
I'm going back and reading all the past messages. Fascinating!

andrea · Post by **andrea** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:15 am

Hi Joy - glad to meet you!

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:30 am

Audrey @ Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:47 am wrote:Many profilers tend to point the damage to Andrew's face as a sign of sexual abuse-- an attempt to obliterate his identity.

I tend to discount the incest allegations and think Andrew's face was hacked up because his killer used an axe or a hatchet to kill him.

IF Lizzie tried to buy poison (and I believe she did), she was more interested in killing someone than punishing them for molesting her. She couldn't get the poison so she found a weapon that was either already at hand or easily obtained.

If you were to attack, with the intent to kill someone with a hatchet would you hack at their heart?

Had Andrew been face down, like Abby was for most of her attack-- he would probably have been hacked to death in the rear of his head.

I think Lizzie stayed in that house because she knew she was perfectly safe there.

Welcome Aboard The "Good Ship Hack'em Up", Joy!

Like Audrey said above, the head of Abby and Andrew was the most logical target. I don't think it had anything to do with "punishment." It would have been very difficult for Lizzie, or anyone else, to cut through several layers of flexible fabric to get to the heart. They both would have lived long enough to holler out. Blows to the solid head would have rung their bells and rendered them both unable to make much noise, even if the first blow did not kill them outright.

With a gun it wouldn't matter, shoot them anywhere. A gun would have made too much noise, the powder would have stunk up the house alerting Bridget that something went on before Andrew came home. Lizzie couldn't very well sit there and say, "Sniff, sniff, I don't smell anything" when the whole house stinks of burnt gun powder. Lizzie's attempt to buy poison shows, to me, that she had the desire to kill. If Lizzie's attempt to buy poison raised an alarm how much more so would her attempt to buy a gun? Failing to buy the poison lead Lizzie to either a knife, meat cleaver or hatchet. No doubt Lizzie gave much consideration to the type of weapon to use. Of course this is all academic. Lizzie may not have committed the murders herself.

Lizzie's spending the night(s) in the house after the murders was a mistake, in my opinion. Wouldn't a logical person be wary of the killer coming back?

If Lizzie had been the killer she would have been smart in leaving the house to direct attention away from herself as the killer. Since she stayed in the house, either she was the killer or she knew the real killer and knew he/she would not be back.

I think Lizzie knew a whole lot more than she let on about!

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:02 pm

There might be other reasons why Lizzie stayed inside?

If she was guilty I agree it was a mistake to stay- she had already set the stage for herself to be gone by telling Bridget she might go out, when Bridget went upstairs to rest. Lizzie could have argued she left almost immediately.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:55 pm

True. I think it would have been wise of Lizzie to leave the house after Bridget went upstairs and after she killed her father so she could claim "someone must have slipped in behind me after I left." The examiner could not positively pinpoint the moment of death, 5 minutes before Lizzie left or 5 minutes after she left the house. Lizzie could have told Bridget she was going out, waited for Bridget to go up the stairs, put an "over dress" on and a sac over her head, kill her father, pull the dress and sac off, (throw both in the stove?) and leave. An hour later she comes back, "Oh, my Gawd! What happened!?" I think that is what I would have done. I think Lizzie was trying to get Bridget out of the house by mentioning the fabric sale. When that didn't work Lizzie had to think on her feet.

Instead of calling Bridget down, Lizzie could have quitely left the house and returned later. Let Bridget find the body.

Police: "Where were you at the time your father was killed, Miss Lizzie?"

Lizzie: "Well, I kissed my father goodbye and went down town. When I came back he was..."

My original thought was that Lizzie should not have spent the night in the house out of fear that the killer would return. Should have left, like Bridget did. That would have helped make her appear innocent. I have corrected my post to better reflect that.

-1bigsteve (o:

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:26 am

welcome joy !!
Have you ever read the book Did Lizzie axe for it? thats a good one.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:27 am

Do have the "Lizzie Borden Sourcebook?"

Joy · Post by **Joy** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:38 am

Hi snokkums, Yes I had read that one just recently, and really did not care for it. It was poorly edited, totally biased, and didn't say anything new. Also, there was supposed to be a comparison of the Lizzie case with the O.J. case, but I couldn't find it, (one of the reasons why I bought it) I have also read the books by Spierling, Brown, Kent, Masterton (my fave!), and Sullivan. I just started Ms. Lincoln's book. I'll keep you posted.
Doesn't anyone think that John Morse did it?! He most certainly looks fishy.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:43 am

Joy...we did a review/discussion on the Lincoln book a while back. It may or may not be of interest to you after you finish your reading.

theebmonique @ Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:03 pm wrote:Hi Matt,

We actually did a "review" of Lincoln's book sometime back. Here are those review threads. To lessen the confusion. read them in order. I hope it helps.

1. viewtopic.php?t=623&highlight=lincoln

2. viewtopic.php?t=644&highlight=lincoln

3. viewtopic.php?t=664&highlight=lincoln

4. viewtopic.php?t=684&highlight=lincoln

5. viewtopic.php?t=722&highlight=lincoln

6. viewtopic.php?t=805&highlight=lincoln

Tracy...

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:05 pm

So why did Lizzie stay to find the body of Andrew (and yet not Abby?)?

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:34 pm

Harry - Thank You for finding the part about the kiss in the trial testimony. I just read this thread, and I had the exact same thought as mb had: What was David Kent's source? Now I know.

Right - Andrew's face was turned away in his casket. The left side of his face got bashed in, but not the right. They had to do a bit of that, and more, in the Clutter case ("In Cold Blood").

The movie shows Lizzie coming downstairs the night of the murders in a white long nightgown, carrying a light (kerosene lamp?). She pulls a sheet down off of Andrew's face. We don't see the face, but he is facing straight ahead. She bends down and kisses him and says, "Oh, Papa." Then the music goes da DA!!!!!!

Was it mb that was commenting on Radin? I agree. Radin was a true crime writer before he wrote his Lizzie book. Maybe he didn't really believe Bridget did it, but he picked someone else to show that it was possible that Lizzie didn't. And Bridget would be the next one I'd look at.
And, yes, Radin went to Fall River and did some hot interviews. His book is wonderful. Lincoln's, on the other hand, to me is a time waster. She leads us down the wrong path so many times, and we are trying to get at the truths of the case. Spiering's is not a favorite of mine, either. He made parts of his up, too.

Why do writers do that? Fine, do it and call it 'fiction'. I lose my respect for a writer who does it on purpose.

If Lizzie wanted Bridget to think she was gone in the afternoon, was Lizzie thinking of Andrew being murdered after lunch?

Kat - Why did Lizzie stay to find the body of Andrew? I think this all took a bit of planning. I think Emma and Morse were part of the Planning Committee. I can just picture Morse telling Lizzie, "No, no. You must stay! You won't have a single drop of blood on you. They will never be able to prove you did it!"

I was reading part of the Preliminary hearing (by Stef, Kat & Harry - highly recommended) about the blood spots that were left when Andrew was killed. Wow - I would think the person who did it would have had blood on him. Some of those spots went quite a ways. I don't think Lizzie would have had time to clean up after that one.

But, as someone back in 1892 pointed out, it would be normal for her to have blood on her. A natural reaction would have been for her to rush in to see her father, just by instinct. I don't know if one could think of anything else to do but that. She could have gotten it all over herself, from hugging him, maybe throwing herself on him with grief. I realize Lizzie was dubbed the Sphinx of Coldness and "I cannot change my nature now". But, come on, that's her father with a bashed in head laying there. I think any tears or emotion that showed on her were real that morning - whether she did it or someone she knew did. Her immediate behavior after she 'found' him was strange. I think one would either rush in to him - or run out the back door screaming. Sorry, Maggie, but the heck with you. There's a murderer around here, and I don't know where he is at! "Oh, Mrs. Churchill. May I come in? Someone has just killed father!" Now that makes sense.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:37 pm

Kat @ Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:05 pm wrote:So why did Lizzie stay to find the body of Andrew (and yet not Abby?)?

She didn't do that. She went out in the back yard to give Andy privacy for his meeting. When the Secret Visitor left, she went back in to find the body. Since Abby was to have been sent away on an errand (see Brown's book) her death was a surprise.
Doesn't the above make sense than a conspiracy?
The simplest explanation is likely to be the true one.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:56 pm

(see Brown's book)

--ray

You should see our copy of Brown's book! It's annotated! It's hilarious! Like a notation: "Oh. You better prove this buster!"

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:37 am

Forgive a new latecomer but I'm reading all of your posts and bow to your knowledge. I've read several books with different villans doing the deed. But I was wondering about this kiss. It was the custom to kiss the deceased goodbye then, I know. No one mentions Lizzie kissing Abby. And if Andy's head was unsightly, could she not have kissed his hand - the one that had her ring on it? Does it say she kissed him on the face? Just curious. Never liked the Liz Montgomery movie that much as it made Lizzie look like a zombie. (Loved her as Samantha Stephens though! ha!) Never understood that bit about the dead body and the blood flying around like Andy would take his little girl to watch him embalm someone? Gruesome.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:08 pm

The FACT is that neither Lizzie (found not guilty) or Bridget did the crime.
Uncle John and Emma have alibis. Reading true crime leads to the solution that it was a secret visitor who did it.
The above is the truth as anyone can know it.

Remember the story of Dr. Parkman and Dr. Webster?

Suppose Brown's theory turns true. The withheld birth certificate of Wm Borden does list Andrew Jackson Borden as the father. That alone is not proof of guilty, just that it is a dot to connect.
Suppose that Wm Borden was hospitalized after the death of Berth Manchester? Another dot, not proof in itself. We all know politicians can make papers go away, it isn't just Enron and Ken Lay.

So all in all, that theory seems the best there is.

What about a debtor who wiped out his debt by whacking Andy? Doesn't that happen a lot in the real world? Sex and or money provides a motive for murder, just read or watch TV.
But if it was some stranger, Lizzie would've spoken out. Lizzie had no boyfriend or girlfriend to protect, it had to be someong whose family relation would account for her silence.

OK, you can criticize this again. Here's a new one to attack.
The killer was Bridget's boyfriend who resented Andy's attempts to seduce or rape Bridget. Lizzie didn't hold with that, so she protected the real killer.
Yes, this does not account for Dear Abby's death. That says someone really really hated her. Brown's theory hold again as an explanation.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:10 pm

The FACT is that neither Lizzie (found not guilty) or Bridget did the crime.
Uncle John and Emma have alibis. Reading true crime leads to the solution that it was a secret visitor who did it.
The above is the truth as anyone can know it.
...

The computer lost something, so I had to back out and repost.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:29 pm

I have read the book which puts forth the William Borden, illegitimate son, as the murderer. It seems to make sense to me in many ways. Also neighbors claim to have seen a strange carriage parked in front of the Borden home that morning before the murders. Illegitimacy was a great stigma as well as adultery 100 years ago so Lizzie and Emma trying to keep it quiet would have been natural, especially if they wanted to be part of Fall River Society. I think they knew who the murderer was but it was too close to home to reveal. Would have been nice if they had told us in written form tucked away in a safe deposit box to be opened after their deaths.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:00 pm

Who was it saw a *strange carriage?*

Thanks!
~~~~~~~~~

We could solve every mysterious cold case by saying a secret visitor did it. It's almost juvenile, in my opinion.
Bridget and Lizzie have no alibi.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:12 am

Supposedly it was Mark Chase, the proprietor of Hall's Livery Stable who said it was parked in front of the Borden home for about an hour the morning of the murders. It may be juvenile in your opinion but I don't find it so. I find saying Lizzie did it and managed to hide the blood and the clothing and the murder weapon to be more of a juvenile conclusion. I feel Lizzie was an accessory to the crime but didn't do it herself. That is my opinion.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:48 am

I think Brown's secret visitor is a juvenile way of solving a case. It is inventing a window for someone to climb through into a locked-room mystery. That is what I mean.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:01 am

Mark Chase is who I thought you meant, except you had said "neighbors." Also, he does not know how long the equipage was there:
Trial
1363

Q. When was your attention first directed to this team?
A. It was directed to it five or ten minutes to eleven.

Q. What?
A. Five or ten minutes to eleven.

Q. You had not seen it before that time?
A. No, sir.

Q. Have you been where you could have seen it before that time?
A. No, sir.

Q. Whether it had been there any length of time, you don't know?

Page 1364

A. No, sir.
. . .
Q. And did not look around to see about this team any more?
A. No, sir.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:25 am

John Wilkes Booth was a secret visitor and could have gone undetected back down the stairs and out of the theatre without anyone seeing him except he was a blubbering ham and jumped over the balcony onto the stage, breaking a leg - though not in the "theatre style". So it is possible and not be juvenile.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:46 am

Harry @ Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:30 pm wrote:Michael, never be embarassed about anything in this case. There must be at least 2 versions of everything especially in the books. It's one of the reasons I like to stay with the primary documents as much as possible.

I also remember something about Lizzie coming down in the dark and kissing her father, but I believe it was in one of the books.

Thats a good idea Harry. I never thought aboutit like that. Know wonder I always get confused.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:28 am

I don't give much credence to the value of Chase's testimony because of his description of where the carriage was parked. It appears to me it was more parked in front of Dr. Kelly's house than the Borden house. Here is picture showing the Borden house and the tree referenced in Chase's testimony.

Here is Chase's testimony on cross (page 1365) as to the position of the carriage in relation to the tree:

"Q. And no part of the horse was by that tree, was it?
A. No, sir.
Q. It was all to the south of the tree?
A. South of the tree.
Q. The horse facing down hill?
A. Yes, sir."

In the above photo, South is to the right of the tree. So barely any portion of both the horse and the carriage would be seen if it was in this photo. Note the door to the Borden house to the left of the photo. Why park the carriage there if you were stopping at the Bordens?

Was the carriage there to drop the killer off or to pick him up? Can't be to drop him off unless the killer left the house after the murder of Abby and is now returning. I think we can discount that.

If the killer didn't leave after Abby's murder he was in the house an estimated 1 to 2 hours with no way of notifying anybody he was ready to leave after Mr. Borden's murder. How would the driver know when to arrive? This alleged illegitmate son (of which there is zero proof) supposedly arrived earlier with the expectation of meeting Mr. Borden. From this I assume he thought Mr. Borden would be there. And if so, I further assume the carriage would be waiting at that time not returning 1 to 2 hours later. There's no record of a carriage parked there earlier.

It's just hard for me to associate this carriage in any way with the Borden murders. Second Street was a busy place on the morning the 4th.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:55 am

One reason to park a carriage in a seemingly awkward spot relative to a house might be shade for the horse. The shadow from the tree in the photo is cast to the north, so a horse standing south of the tree might not get any benefit from the shade. The photo was taken somewhere near three o'clock in the afternoon, at eleven am the shadow would be cast slightly past the curb and to the north, probably directly in front of the Borden front entrance.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:31 am

That's a possibility, Yooper. Another reason could be to disguise which house the carriage was stopping at.

I should think though that if the carriage was there for a quick get-away then it would be parked nearer to the front door or the side gate.

The real problem now for me is the time it was there. It certainly wasn't there the 1 to 2 hours between the murders. If you accept Masterson's theory of both murders being committed with minutes of each other then the carriage could have been parked there only a brief time.

Mrs. Dr. Bowen testified she was looking out her window at 10:55, expecting her daughter's arrival. She does not mention seeing a carriage. In fact none of the witnesses in the Witness Statements mention a carriage in front of the Borden or Kelly house. And there's a lot of witnesses.

There is a statement by a man named Cuneen saying he saw Dr. Handy's carriage and his suspicious actions. But that carriage was on the other side of Second St. But this testimony is somwhat confusing as he said Dr. Handy drove away down the street. That is odd because if Dr. Handy's carriage was facing south which it would be if he was parked on the other side as Second St. goes up not down. Here's Cuneen's statement:

"James E. Cunneen, No. 17 Freedom street. “Drove up Second street that day, and the only strange thing I observed was Dr. Handy’s actions. His carriage was drawn up to the west side of the street, about opposite Dr. Kelly’s yard. He sat in the buggy and was quickly turning his head from right to left, and left to right. He seemed very nervous, and his strange actions caused me to look around to see what was the occasion of this; but I observed nothing. Before I reached where he was standing, he started and drove slowly down the street by me.”

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:56 am

That is an odd way to express Dr. Handy's movements, down street seems to indicate downhill with reference to second street. If Cunneen meant "down the street" in the conventionally accepted sense, then Dr. Handy would have made a U-turn and gone down the street in front of Cunneen instead of "by" him.

In any case, Cuneen was aware of other vehicles on the road at the time. I would guess that he would be more attentive to vehicles on his side of the road than those on the opposite side, but he makes no mention of a carriage parked near the Kelly house. We also have to remember how much slower the horse and buggy pace was; there was ample time to observe both sides of the road at any point.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:57 am

Interesting but it could be a matter of perspective. I was raised in NW Indiana and the southern suburbs of Chicago. When going to the city, which we call The Loop, we always said we were going downtown when in fact we were going north not south. Also it brings to mind two scriptures in two of the Gospels in the Bible that seem to contridict themselves. One says Jesus came out of the city and the other said He was going into the city. When you check the history at that time, there was an old part of the city and a newer Roman part (like old and new London England) so it was a matter of perspective of the writer. Just food for thought. No, if I were waiting for someone I would opt for the shade and not parking directly in front of the house myself. Makes it open to more speculation as we can see from our viewpoints here in the forum. Interesting to be sure.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:00 am

"Down the street" can also mean "going away from me on the street" and not necessarily a particular direction. I say someone lives down the street from me whether they live east or west of my house which is in the middle of the block. Just food for thought

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:27 am

Yes, Davo, I agree with that. Those are good points. They use the expression "down street" a lot and I've never been quite sure of what they mean.

And yes, Yooper, from what Cuneen says it would appear Dr. Handy would have had had to make a u-turn.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Hi, I'm new!

Hi, I'm new!

Thanks.

new to the board

hi I am a newbie