About uncle John’s behaviours (part 9)

[Franz]

Was uncle John a gentleman?

After he arrived in the Borden house on August 3rd, Morse was told that all the family had been ill. In the afternoon Morse went to Swansea. Being the guest of the house and knowing very well that Mr. and Mrs. Borden would wait him, he returned there only…at about half past nine.

Mr. and Mrs. Borden were not in good physical condition, what should a polite, well educated guest do in this case? I think he should apologise for his returning late and propose to retire at once, so that Mr. and Mrs. Borden could have a better rest. But what actually happened? Let’s read an extract of Morse’s Inquest testimony (p. 100):

Q: What time did you retire that night?
A: Mr. and Mrs, Borden and me sat there and talked half an hour probably, and Mrs. Borden retired. Mr. Borden and me probably sat there until about ten o’clock. He says “John, is it not about time we went to bed”? I says “is it about ten, isn’t it?” I think it is.
Q: So you both went to bed together?
A: No, he went up to —
Q: At the same time?
A: Yes Sir.

We see that Morse, even when Mrs. Borden retired, had no room in mind to think that he should retired too. He didn’t think of retiring until Mr. Borden called his attention to the time’s being late. If not, until which o’clock uncle John wanted to continue to sit there and to chat with this old and sick man?

Is it my fault if I doubt (almost) everything Morse did in those days in the Borden house? I think that it should not be impossible that Morse intentionally returned late, and, intentionally, delayed the time of retiring. More tired Mr. and Mrs. Borden were, bigger would be the chance of the success in killing them in the next day.

What do you think?

[Darrowfan]

I think that it should not be impossible that Morse intentionally returned late, and, intentionally, delayed the time of retiring. More tired Mr. and Mrs. Borden were, bigger would be the chance of the success in killing them in the next day.

I think you are reading too much into Morse's behavior, Franz. The worst thing you could say is that he was an inconsiderate guest, perhaps. Besides, didn't Morse have a pretty airtight alibi?

[Franz]

I think that it should not be impossible that Morse intentionally returned late, and, intentionally, delayed the time of retiring. More tired Mr. and Mrs. Borden were, bigger would be the chance of the success in killing them in the next day.

I think you are reading too much into Morse's behavior, Franz. The worst thing you could say is that he was an inconsiderate guest, perhaps. Besides, didn't Morse have a pretty airtight alibi?

Welcome to the forum.

Morse had an alibi, it's true. My theory is that he didn't kill the two victims with his own hands, but organized the double murder.

If I am reading too much into his behaviours, I think the reason is that his behaviours were just too suspicious to me. And not only to me, I think.

[Darrowfan]

Welcome to the forum.

Morse had an alibi, it's true. My theory is that he didn't kill the two victims with his own hands, but organized the double murder.

If I am reading too much into his behaviours, I think the reason is that his behaviours were just too suspicious to me. And not only to me, I think.[/quote]


Hello, Franz. I agree that there is something "strange" about Morse. Something I can't quite put into words. It has always bothered me that Lizzie didn't speak to him, or even greet him, on the night before the killings, or the morning of the killings. I can only go by my own experience, but if my uncle were visiting my home, and I came home the evening he arrived, I would at least say "Hello", "How have you been", or something.

According to Lizzie's own inquest testimony, she completely ignored her uncle when she came home Wednesday evening, and the next morning as well. I don't know if I should read anything into that, but it seems very strange to me.

[PossumPie]

You're reading WAY too much into that. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Borden had to be anywhere in the morning so no matter how late they stayed up, they could sleep in if they wanted to. They were both old, why would Morse even care if they were a little tired? To hack someone in the back of the head with a hatchet awake or sleepy, will pretty much be assured of killing an old man.

[Darrowfan]

You're reading WAY too much into that. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Borden had to be anywhere in the morning so no matter how late they stayed up, they could sleep in if they wanted to. They were both old, why would Morse even care if they were a little tired? To hack someone in the back of the head with a hatchet awake or sleepy, will pretty much be assured of killing an old man.

Good point, PossumPie. And I'm sure it's been discussed here before, but what possible motive would Morse have? I just don't see any.

[Harry]

I had hoped to avoid getting in this discussion on Morse but it's hard to ignore. I can find no author nor newspaper account after the first few days that suspected Morse. The closest I could find was in David Kent's book "Forty Whacks". From chapter 3, page 22-24:

"Chapter 3
Vinnicum and Other Strange Things

THE ANNALS OF THE BORDEN MURDER case are laced with unexplainable things, the shadowy role played by John Vinnicum Morse being one of the principal ones. One knowledgeable Lizzie buff once remarked that if he had an opportunity to ask Lizzie one question, it would not be about her guilt or innocence, but for an explanation of the behavior of Morse.
----------------------------------------------------
Andrew was his closest friend and had often sought his advice on business matters. It was this close relationship that had brought him to the Borden home the day before.
---------------------------------------------------
He was up at six the next day [the 4th] and departed about 9:00 A.M. with the promise that he would return for the noon meal. He had been about buying a pair of oxen and visiting his niece. Amazingly, he could trace his movements minute by minute and street by street, including the number of the trolley he had ridden and the number on the cap of the conductor who had driven it. His remembrances would suit a casebook on
alibis.
When he returned at 12:00, he had apparently failed to notice several hundred people massed in front of the Borden house. He walked past the side door where massive Charles Sawyer, in his red plaid shirt, still barred it to entrants. He spoke to no one to inquire about the excitement. Instead, he elbowed his way through the crowd and made his way to the backyard, where he picked up several pears and nonchalantly leaned against a corner of the barn. He showed no curiosity as to why Sawyer was guarding the side door or why policemen were running frantically to and from the house.

Finished with the pears (he would testify later it was one pear, but the officer who had watched him would say it was three), he finally sauntered over, identified himself at the back-door, and went into the house.
"I opened the sitting-room door and found a number of people, including the doctors," he told a reporter. "I entered, but only glanced at the body. No, I did not look closely enough to be able to describe it. Then I went upstairs and took a similar hasty view of the dead woman. I recall very little of what took place."

He had been in the house a total of three minutes. So much for his "closest friend" and "the dead woman."

Then on page 37:
"The second most popular suspect was the ubiquitous John Vinnicum Morse. Was his unannounced arrival at the Borden house the night before the murders merely a coincidence? He had brought along no sign of luggage, not a toothbrush, comb, or nightshirt, though he had planned, he said, to stay a few days. His disappearance from the house just minutes before Abby was murdered, and his strange behavior when he returned just minutes after Andrew's body was found certainly had a contrived look about them.

The public had their suspicions, too, even if the alibi Morse furnished was apparently airtight. On Friday night, Morse had sneaked out of the house, unseen by the crowd gathered in front, evaded the police guarding the property, and made his way to the post office to, he said, mail a letter. There, he had been recognized emerging, and an angry mob estimated variously at from 400 to 2,000 had surrounded him. Which ever figure is correct, it was clearly a lynch mob, and Officer John Minnehan rescued him and hustled him back to the house and safety."

Kent's account contains quite a few factual errors, which is surprising as he was considered a Borden "expert".

I cherry-picked these paragraphs from the book but there isn't much else. Kent leaned heavily toward Lizzie's innocence,

Personally I lean heavily toward Morse's innocence. Was he peculiar - Oh yeah! Hard evidence against him - none.

[Darrowfan]

Kent's account contains quite a few factual errors, which is surprising as he was considered a Borden "expert".

I cherry-picked these paragraphs from the book but there isn't much else. Kent leaned heavily toward Lizzie's innocence,

Personally I lean heavily toward Morse's innocence. Was he peculiar - Oh yeah! Hard evidence against him - none.

Very interesting, Harry. I have never put much stock in any theory that Morse was guilty of complicity in the crime. I've always considered Morse theories to be red herrings that take the focus off the only truly viable suspect (Lizzie). As I've stated before, I'm very big on motive, and I just don't see one for Morse (or for Bridget, or for anyone else).

[PossumPie]

Harry, you are right about factual errors, those paragraphs concerned me when I first bought 40 Whacks, until I did some research on my own. There were NOT hundreds of people, in fact from what I gather, Morse approached from the back of the house, being dropped off on a street to the rear, and when he entered the yard, no one except Sawyer and Bridget were visible to him. There may have been a few people out front, but after all it was a busy thoroughfare. Morse at a Pear or two, and went in the side door, into the kitchen. It is like a game of "Chinese whispers" when one person tells an account, and embellishes it, and by the time it reaches the (admittedly) yellow journalist, it has been exaggerated. Then the journalist embellishes to make sure it sells papers, and you have "Hundreds of people" I think much of this case loses it's 'fantastic appeal' when the actual facts are dug up. When I read different authors accounts, I compare them to other sources. The real stumbling block is when a fact that appears first hand at the time is misleading, because then all of the other retelling are erroneous. At any crime, the MOST unreliable things are statements by witnesses. 10 people will see 10 different things, people mix up the facts, we are not computers that memorize everything. Trauma has a way of exaggerating our perceptions. Inconsistencies in testimonies are a mark of human perception, not a massive cover-up. My view on Morse is very simple. WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE? I have never ever seen a plausible motive, and he did have an airtight alibi, from a niece whom he visited, and from Lizzie herself.

[NancyDrew]

Very good observations, PossumPie, on the unreliability of witness statements. Perception is, by its very nature, subjective.

[Darrowfan]

Very good observations, PossumPie, on the unreliability of witness statements. Perception is, by its very nature, subjective.

You are correct about perception being subjective, Nancy. However, I differ with you a little about witness statements. While it's true that individual statements can be unreliable, I think it's of great benefit to have multiple witness statements. In this way, the investigators can piece together the most likely scenario, or the sequence of events. Most of the time, the witness statements only differ slightly, or in small details.

In the Borden case, while there are no witnesses to the crimes themselves, there are a great many witnesses to the surrounding events, i.e., the early activities at the Borden house that morning, what happened after the alarm was given at 11:15, etc.

True, one witness may say "It was about 11:10, I think", another may say, "I think it was right at 11" and a third might say, "It was 10:55, by the clock in my hall". This makes it difficult to establish the precise time, but not impossible. Again, when it comes to witness testimony, I say "the more, the merrier", or perhaps, "the more, the better accuracy".

[PossumPie]

Very good observations, PossumPie, on the unreliability of witness statements. Perception is, by its very nature, subjective.

You are correct about perception being subjective, Nancy. However, I differ with you a little about witness statements. While it's true that individual statements can be unreliable, I think it's of great benefit to have multiple witness statements. In this way, the investigators can piece together the most likely scenario, or the sequence of events. Most of the time, the witness statements only differ slightly, or in small details.

In the Borden case, while there are no witnesses to the crimes themselves, there are a great many witnesses to the surrounding events, i.e., the early activities at the Borden house that morning, what happened after the alarm was given at 11:15, etc.

True, one witness may say "It was about 11:10, I think", another may say, "I think it was right at 11" and a third might say, "It was 10:55, by the clock in my hall". This makes it difficult to establish the precise time, but not impossible. Again, when it comes to witness testimony, I say "the more, the merrier", or perhaps, "the more, the better accuracy".

Example: The tragic killings at the Naval Yard in DC a few weeks ago. Multiple witnesses "saw" multiple gunmen and sounded so credible that they were still looking for the "other gunmen" hours after the ONLY gunman was killed.
At Columbine, the police were looking for additional gunmen for hours after multiple witnesses "saw" gunmen on the roof, describing clothing and weapons even. No gunman existed beyond Dylan Kleebold and Eric Harris. This is so common there is even a psychiatric term for it. Folie à deux French for "a madness shared by two" is a psychiatric syndrome in which symptoms of a delusional belief are transmitted from one individual to another.

[Darrowfan]

Example: The tragic killings at the Naval Yard in DC a few weeks ago. Multiple witnesses "saw" multiple gunmen and sounded so credible that they were still looking for the "other gunmen" hours after the ONLY gunman was killed.
At Columbine, the police were looking for additional gunmen for hours after multiple witnesses "saw" gunmen on the roof, describing clothing and weapons even. No gunman existed beyond Dylan Kleebold and Eric Harris. This is so common there is even a psychiatric term for it. Folie à deux French for "a madness shared by two" is a psychiatric syndrome in which symptoms of a delusional belief are transmitted from one individual to another.

That's an example of witnesses under stress, Possum. It's like the conflicting witness testimony among those in Dealy Plaza when Kennedy was assasinated. In that case, the witnesses had heard shots, some actually saw the President struck by the bullets, saw the cars speed away, and so forth. Those things create panic and chaos among witnesses.

In the panic of the Titanic sinking, many survivors remembered things quite differently as well. (Whether or not the ship broke in half, the sequence of lifeboat loadings, how long it took the ship to sink, etc.)


But with the Borden case, the witnesses were not really under that kind of stress. I mostly refer to witnesses who testified about what they saw and heard at the time of the crime, before they really knew that there had been a crime. "I was standing on the street near the Borden house from 10:45 to 11: 15, saw nothing unusual" for example. Although the people who saw the crime scene just after the killings may have been somewhat unnerved, there was no panic or chaos that ensued. I think that is why the witness testimony is not as confused and contradictory as in the other two cases I cited. That is one of the reasons I believe Lizzie is guilty. Given the number of people who were on that busy street, near the Borden house, if an intruder had left the house, one or more witnesses would have seen the escaping murderer, even if they didnt know what it was they were seeing.

[PossumPie]

Example: The tragic killings at the Naval Yard in DC a few weeks ago. Multiple witnesses "saw" multiple gunmen and sounded so credible that they were still looking for the "other gunmen" hours after the ONLY gunman was killed.
At Columbine, the police were looking for additional gunmen for hours after multiple witnesses "saw" gunmen on the roof, describing clothing and weapons even. No gunman existed beyond Dylan Kleebold and Eric Harris. This is so common there is even a psychiatric term for it. Folie à deux French for "a madness shared by two" is a psychiatric syndrome in which symptoms of a delusional belief are transmitted from one individual to another.

That's an example of witnesses under stress, Possum. It's like the conflicting witness testimony among those in Dealy Plaza when Kennedy was assasinated. In that case, the witnesses had heard shots, some actually saw the President struck by the bullets, saw the cars speed away, and so forth. Those things create panic and chaos among witnesses.

In the panic of the Titanic sinking, many survivors remembered things quite differently as well. (Whether or not the ship broke in half, the sequence of lifeboat loadings, how long it took the ship to sink, etc.)


But with the Borden case, the witnesses were not really under that kind of stress. I mostly refer to witnesses who testified about what they saw and heard at the time of the crime, before they really knew that there had been a crime. "I was standing on the street near the Borden house from 10:45 to 11: 15, saw nothing unusual" for example. Although the people who saw the crime scene just after the killings may have been somewhat unnerved, there was no panic or chaos that ensued. I think that is why the witness testimony is not as confused and contradictory as in the other two cases I cited. That is one of the reasons I believe Lizzie is guilty. Given the number of people who were on that busy street, near the Borden house, if an intruder had left the house, one or more witnesses would have seen the escaping murderer, even if they didnt know what it was they were seeing.

You are correct, as to the lack of crisis conditions. I still think that If I came by from the front, someone else came by 5 min. later from the side, and someone else was inside the house, we would still get 3 different eyewittness accounts. All of the combined evidence that I have read shows few/no groups of people hanging around outside, a far cry from the "hundreds" cited by the author of 40 Whacks!

[Darrowfan]

"You are correct, as to the lack of crisis conditions. I still think that If I came by from the front, someone else came by 5 min. later from the side, and someone else was inside the house, we would still get 3 different eyewittness accounts. All of the combined evidence that I have read shows few/no groups of people hanging around outside, a far cry from the "hundreds" cited by the author of 40 Whacks!"

I hear what you're saying, Possumpie. I haven't read 40 Whacks, but it sounds like it contains a lot of embellishment. By the way, I'm interested in that alleged "lynch mob" that accosted John Morse shortly after the Borden killings. Do you know if there is a link to a detailed account of that? In particular, how did it come about? Was someone spreading rumors that John was involved in the crime? How did the mob form? Were the ringleaders ever identified, etc? I have only read shorthand accounts that give very little detail.

[PossumPie]

"You are correct, as to the lack of crisis conditions. I still think that If I came by from the front, someone else came by 5 min. later from the side, and someone else was inside the house, we would still get 3 different eyewittness accounts. All of the combined evidence that I have read shows few/no groups of people hanging around outside, a far cry from the "hundreds" cited by the author of 40 Whacks!"

I hear what you're saying, Possumpie. I haven't read 40 Whacks, but it sounds like it contains a lot of embellishment. By the way, I'm interested in that alleged "lynch mob" that accosted John Morse shortly after the Borden killings. Do you know if there is a link to a detailed account of that? In particular, how did it come about? Was someone spreading rumors that John was involved in the crime? How did the mob form? Were the ringleaders ever identified, etc? I have only read shorthand accounts that give very little detail.

The only "reliable" place I've seen it mentioned was in Arthur S. Phillips book, which in my opinion is very biased as to Lizzie's innocence, not surprising as he was one of the defense team! Phillips notes a lot of 'facts' such as a heated argument between Mr. Borden and Morse, much of which can't be substantiated anywhere else. I personally like to see things mentioned in several places with several sources, else they are just one person's word.

[Darrowfan]

The only "reliable" place I've seen it mentioned was in Arthur S. Phillips book, which in my opinion is very biased as to Lizzie's innocence, not surprising as he was one of the defense team! Phillips notes a lot of 'facts' such as a heated argument between Mr. Borden and Morse, much of which can't be substantiated anywhere else. I personally like to see things mentioned in several places with several sources, else they are just one person's word.

Thanks, Possumpie. I will have to read Phillips' book. By the way, in another thread, I mentioned the 1975 TV movie "The Legend of Lizzie Borden", with Elizabeth Montgomery. I said that I thought it was an "awful" movie. Let me clarify. It was actually very good, with regard to acting, writing, costumes, and so forth. What I think is "awful" about it is its lack of historical accuracy. The filmmakers took a lot of liberties in "re-creating" the tensions and arguments in the Borden house. It's not that I don't think that such arguments were possible, but the way they presented the Borden home environment isn't really supported by the source material I have read. I don't recall any witness ever testifying that Lizzie threatened to twist her stepmother's arm "right out of its socket", for example. Or when Bridget told Mr. Borden that she had made johnnycakes for breakfast on the morning of the murders, the film has Andrew angrily telling Bridget, "I'm in no mood for your indigestible Irish cooking!" (In fact, Morse testified that the Bordens did indeed eat johnnycakes that morning.) And of course, the complete absence of John Morse from the film version is unforgivable.

If you will indulge me, here is my idea for a film about the Borden case: It should be a 3 part mini-series, each part lasting 2 hours. Part One would deal exclusively with the events leading up to the crime, and the crime itself. Part Two would deal with the investigation, inquest, and Lizzie's arrest. Part 3 would cover the trial and verdict, with the last half hour or so dealing with Lizzie and Emma's old age and death. No theorizing about who committed the crimes; just show the facts, without omission or embellishment, and let the viewer decide. Any ideas on casting?

[Harry]

Franz, here's a curious Morse incident for you:

When Morse returned to the Borden house he gave an interview to several reporters answering questions. This is a portion of the Q and A that appeared in the New Bedford Evening Standard.

"He said that about 20 minutes after 9 o'clock in the morning he left Mr. Borden's house and walked to the City Hall, where he took a car for Weybosset street. He arrived at No. 4 Weybosset street at 9:30 and called on a niece and nephew, who were visiting a family there named Emery. "The first I knew of this affair," said Mr. Morse yesterday noon just after 12 o'clock, "I received a telephone message and went down town. I arrived at Mr. Borden's house at 11:40 and walked in at the gate. I picked up a couple of pears, and glancing in at the door, saw the uniforms of policemen. Bridget met me and said 'Do you know what has happened? The folks are killed.' I went in and saw Mr. Borden's body lying on the lounge; then I went up stairs and saw Mrs. Borden's corpse."

Later in the same interview a reporter followed up:

“And I thought you told me,” resumed the interviewer, “that you first learned of this affair by a telephone message when you were in another part of the city?”
"You are mistaken,” said Mr. Morse, “I said no such thing.”
“But you did,” persisted his questioner, “and I will take my oath on it.”
“You are mistaken,” Morse replied once more."

The Providence Journal reported the same interview including the telephone comment. The Boston Globe reported the interview but made no mention of the telephone.

[NancyDrew]

Harry, I know you directed your post to Franz, but I hope you don't mind if I respond with a few remarks of my own...basically: "wow!" I think this is very interesting. What I would like to know is HOW John Morse "received a telephone message." Did the Emery family have a telephone in their home? Did a neighbor have one? Where was the phone. who took the message, and (most importantly, to me) who knew that John Morse was visiting Weybosset street, was related to the Bordens, and should be notified of the murders?

When I first read your post, my initial reaction was "Really? There were enough telephones in 1892 that someone in a residential home could get a message via an actual telephone?" Turns out, yes. In 1892, Bell Telephone alone controlled just under a quarter million telephones in the U.S...240,000 to be exact (http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHis ... tory2A.htm) Once people got a taste of the telephone, demand skyrocketed; "By 1900 there were nearly 600,000 phones in Bell's telephone system; that number shot up to 2.2 million phones by 1905, and 5.8 million by 1910." (source: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/150/1870.xhtml) I know I'm going off-topic a bit, but I thought it was so interesting, I decided to include the stats and citations.

There were also pay phones in 1892; the first was in New England (Connecticut) in a bank: http://inventors.about.com/od/bstartinv ... hone_2.htm. I don't know how pay phones were used back then, however. Was there one of them at a central location, and anyone would pick it up if it was ringing?

Another question I have is: Who would have made the call? Lizzie hadn't said one word to Uncle John since his arrival. Bridget certainly didn't speak to him; servants weren't supposed to talk to someone unless they were spoken to first, and I can't imagine why Morse would say anything to the maid. Andrew and Abby probably knew of his plans, where he was going to be on Thursday morning, etc...but they were both dead. The only person who could have given instructions to call Uncle John via phone and leave a message would be Lizzie, and that would mean she had been eavesdropping on the conversation that her uncle had with Andrew either the night before, or that morning, at the breakfast they all shared sans Lizzie.

Okay, so still assuming that a phone call took place, WHY this particular mode of communication? Lizzie instructed that Emma be notified by telegram. If she did tell one of the people there that day to "go and call Uncle John; leave a message for him" was it because he was geographically closer? This begs another matter that I find troublesome. Notice the bolded words from the following paragraph:

"He said that about 20 minutes after 9 o'clock in the morning he left Mr. Borden's house and walked to the City Hall, where he took a car for Weybosset street. He arrived at No. 4 Weybosset street at 9:30 and called on a niece and nephew, who were visiting a family there named Emery. "The first I knew of this affair," said Mr. Morse yesterday noon just after 12 o'clock, "I received a telephone message and went down town. I arrived at Mr. Borden's house at 11:40 and walked in at the gate. I picked up a couple of pears, and glancing in at the door, saw the uniforms of policemen. Bridget met me and said 'Do you know what has happened? The folks are killed.' I went in and saw Mr. Borden's body lying on the lounge; then I went up stairs and saw Mrs. Borden's corpse."

Something isn't right within this narrative. Morse left the Borden house at 9:20, walked to City Hall, took a car (horse and carriage, I'm assuming meant) and arrived at 4 Weybosset STreet at 9:30? The walk to City Hall AND the ride to Weybosset Street were both accomplished in just 10 minutes? Why didn't he just walk to Weybosset Street if it was so close? Was it so someone would see him, and he would have a more reliable alibi?

Regarding the phone issue, it seems much more plausible that the first reporter for the New Bedford Evening Standard wrote down incorrect information. I wonder, however, how many reporters thought they heard Morse say he received a telephone message. If there were more than one, then I think we need to consider he really DID say it.

Through the years, even within the months of 2013, I've flip-flopped on John Morse, and I may do so yet again. He is a most strange individual...both in word and deed. I rejected Franz's theory regarding 2 intruders murdering the Bordens, all orchestrated by John Morse, because his theory wasn't supported by facts in the source documents, I thought there were too many holes in the story, but mostly because of a lack of MOTIVE. Murder is a big deal. It isn't like swiping a watch, or cheating on your taxes. It's a serious sin, the worst crime imaginable, and still (in most states and countries) punishable by death. Committing such an egregious act, in my opinion, requires strong motive, and so far, no one has presented one for John Vinnicum Morse.

His behavior after arriving at the Bordens after the tragedy always seemed odd, but it is apparent to me now that we simply don't, and can't know exactly what the situation was. Were there hundreds of people outside the Borden home, or only the normal amount? Was it obvious that something bad had happened, or did it appear to be a normal day on a busy city street? Various authors have taken ample liberties with the facts...we just don't know what was going on that morning. The possibilities range from: Morse acted completely inappropriately to: Morse did nothing unusual.

The timeline of his morning visit, however, bugs me. And this phone business. I'm going to do some more digging...but right now, I'm late for work. Talk to all of you later!

[Darrowfan]

Like Nancy, I was also struck by the fact that, according to Morse, he only took 10 minutes from the Borden house to Weybosset street. I was also thinking that he left the Borden home at a time different than 9:20, but I will have to review the transcripts to make sure.

That telephone remark is very interesting indeed. It may be completely innocent. Morse may not have actually made the remark, or the reporter may have misunderstood Morse, or may have mistaken someone else's account for Morse's account, et.

[Harry]

No problem Darrowfan. I directed it to Franz only because of his obvious interest in Morse.

I don't know if the Emery's, whom Morse was visiting, had a phone. I believe Mr. Emery had a position (a foreman? Don't quote me on that) at the Hargraves Mill which was but a short distance from #4 Weybosset St.

Another shocker was a statement by Mrs. Emery: (Aug 5th Evening Standard)

"Mrs. Emery Talks

Mrs. Emery, upon whom Mr. Morse called, was disposed to talk freely to Officer Medley, who interviewed her last evening. She said in reply to questions that she had several callers during the day, and that one of them was John Morse.
“Was Morse the name we heard?” asked the officer of a companion.
“Yes,” retorted Mrs. Emery, quickly, “Morse was the man. He left here at 11:30 o’clock this morning.”
“Then you noticed the time?” observed the officer.
“Oh, yes,” was the reply. “I noticed the time.”
“How did you fix it?” was the next question.
After some little hesitation, Mrs. Emery said that one of her family was sick, and that Dr. Bowen was her physician. “Dr. Bowen came in just as Mr. Morse left.”
“Did they meet?” queried the officer.
“No, they did not,” said Mrs. Emery."

WHAT? No where else is that mentioned and it would appear to me to be very important. The Evening Standard IMHO is probably the most accurate of all the newspaper accounts but both the Morse and Emery interviews were very early after the crimes and could be mistaken. But I believe them to be true.

Mrs. Emery and Morse's niece later changed the time Morse left to 11:20. We know Dr. Bowen was not at home when Bridget went for him.

I knew I should not have gotten involved in this Morse thing.

[Darrowfan]

I knew I should not have gotten involved in this Morse thing.

Too late, Harry. You're in it, now, "for better or for Morse". (Ouch. Sorry.)

By the way, I just checked the chronologies. Both Bridget and Morse himself testified that Morse left the Borden home around 8:45 a.m. So what gives with the "9:20" time Morse told the paper? I can only think that either Morse mis-spoke to the reporter, or the reporter mis-quoted Morse.

[PossumPie]

I know I'm always the one to throw cold water on things, but on Sept. 11th 2001 I sat and listened to CNN report that after a plane crashed into the Pentagon, a car bomb exploded at the State Department, and that there were fires on the Mall in Downtown DC. These were reported as fact. the 'fog of war' had even the most reliable media sources rattled. So soon after the Borden crime, I hesitate to believe a newspaper that reported something that we don't find mentioned anywhere else afterwards...

[Darrowfan]

I know I'm always the one to throw cold water on things, but on Sept. 11th 2001 I sat and listened to CNN report that after a plane crashed into the Pentagon, a car bomb exploded at the State Department, and that there were fires on the Mall in Downtown DC. These were reported as fact. the 'fog of war' had even the most reliable media sources rattled. So soon after the Borden crime, I hesitate to believe a newspaper that reported something that we don't find mentioned anywhere else afterwards...

Very good point, Possumpie. I'm sure the media was just as unreliable in 1892 as it is now. (Maybe even less reliable). Don't worry about "throwing cold water" on things. I can't speak for everyone, but I myself need to be splashed once in a while, lest I drift off to dreamland. That newspaper report that Harry cited had me suddenly looking very hard at Morse. But I don't want to go off on a tangent about Morse when I have already satisfied myself that the overwhelming body of evidence indicates that Lizzie committed the crimes. Thanks for the "dousing". I needed it.

[Harry]

I neither believe nor disbelieve everything I read in the newspapers or books. Many of the books draw very heavily from the newspapers of the day. I weigh what I read and pass it against my studies of the case and draw my own conclusions as to its correctness. I post what I believe to be interesting (at least to me) for the benefit of the members.

Sorry Nancydrew, I thought it was Darrowfan who posted to my message to Franz. I enjoyed your statistics on the phones. BTW, I think Dr. Bowen may have had one. We know Dr. Chagnon who lived behind the Bordens had one.

[Harry]

By the way, I just checked the chronologies. Both Bridget and Morse himself testified that Morse left the Borden home around 8:45 a.m. So what gives with the "9:20" time Morse told the paper? I can only think that either Morse mis-spoke to the reporter, or the reporter mis-quoted Morse.

Yes, that is curious. I remember Kat looking into that and trying to account for Morse's time that morning. I'll have to contact her and she if she has it handy. Only have about half my Borden files on the laptop. Too lazy and sick to load the rest.

[Darrowfan]

I neither believe nor disbelieve everything I read in the newspapers or books. Many of the books draw very heavily from the newspapers of the day. I weigh what I read and pass it against my studies of the case and draw my own conclusions as to its correctness. I post what I believe to be interesting (at least to me) for the benefit of the members.

Sorry Nancydrew, I thought it was Darrowfan who posted to my message to Franz. I enjoyed your statistics on the phones. BTW, I think Dr. Bowen may have had one. We know Dr. Chagnon who lived behind the Bordens had one.

I agree with what you say about the newspapers and books, Harry. I was really intrigued by that article you cited that quoted Morse. I guess that's what makes the Borden case so fascinating. Just when you think you have it all wrapped up, something comes along to make you doubt your conclusions.

I don't envy the investigators who handled the case in 1892-93. They had a lot of conflicting evidence, testimony, and rumor to sort through.

[PossumPie]

Harry and Darrowfan, that is what makes studying the Borden case so long afterwards frustrating. We can "take into consideration" a newspaper article or a quote from a witness but like Ronald Reagan once said "Trust....but verify" It is hard to verify some things. If I grab a newspaper from earlier in the century, and see the headlines DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN! I'd better verify that before I write an entire book on how there was a huge cover-up b/c Harry Truman never did get into the White House. Taking a little more time, I see the real facts behind those headlines, and adjust my theory accordingly...
Lately I've been fascinated by "facts" the American people believe that actually have no proof whatsoever, in fact some have been proven false. Ironic you picked Darrow as a username...He helped defend John Scopes in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. A vast majority of Americans still believe the earth is 6,000 years old and man was created in a day, while the overwhelming evidence proves the earth is over 4.54 BILLION years old, and man took a little longer to get to what we look like today. This does NOT disprove God, nor should it be used to disparage anyone's religion, it just means the three major religions of the world need to do some revising of their creation stories, perhaps, just perhaps...they were allegories.

[Darrowfan]

Ironic you picked Darrow as a username...He helped defend John Scopes in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. A vast majority of Americans still believe the earth is 6,000 years old and man was created in a day, while the overwhelming evidence proves the earth is over 4.54 BILLION years old, and man took a little longer to get to what we look like today. This does NOT disprove God, nor should it be used to disparage anyone's religion, it just means the three major religions of the world need to do some revising of their creation stories, perhaps, just perhaps...they were allegories.

Well, in the Scopes Trial, Darrow was not trying to "disprove" that God exists; he was simply defending the right of educators to teach. Darrow's position was that it was wrong for the State of Tennessee to arrest Scopes for teaching evolution, just at it would be wrong for the State of Tennessee to arrest a Sunday School teacher for teaching the tenants of Christianity. So no, my choice of username is not "ironic" at all. I'm a great admirer of Darrow, because he believed in the right of free thought, the right of men and women to reason things out for themselves. In short, Darrow believed in reason over emotion, and that people should embrace scientific progress, rather than cling to ancient superstition.

At the time of the Lizzie Borden trial, I believe Darrow was still a young corporate lawyer. (He didn't become the champion for common people until some years later.) I suspect that if Darrow had been Lizzie's attorney, and she had been convicted, he probably could have saved her from hanging, and persuaded the Court to give her life instead. He was a very powerful advocate in the courtroom.

[PossumPie]

I didn't mean ironic for you...ironic in the context of some of the threads that perpetuate wild theories based on one cherry-picked fact. I think your approach to this is level-headed and logical.

[Darrowfan]

I didn't mean ironic for you...ironic in the context of some of the threads that perpetuate wild theories based on one cherry-picked fact. I think your approach to this is level-headed and logical.

Oh, thank you. I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant.

[Franz]

Franz, here's a curious Morse incident for you:

When Morse returned to the Borden house he gave an interview to several reporters answering questions. This is a portion of the Q and A that appeared in the New Bedford Evening Standard.

"He said that about 20 minutes after 9 o'clock in the morning he left Mr. Borden's house and walked to the City Hall, where he took a car for Weybosset street. He arrived at No. 4 Weybosset street at 9:30 and called on a niece and nephew, who were visiting a family there named Emery. "The first I knew of this affair," said Mr. Morse yesterday noon just after 12 o'clock, "I received a telephone message and went down town. I arrived at Mr. Borden's house at 11:40 and walked in at the gate. I picked up a couple of pears, and glancing in at the door, saw the uniforms of policemen. Bridget met me and said 'Do you know what has happened? The folks are killed.' I went in and saw Mr. Borden's body lying on the lounge; then I went up stairs and saw Mrs. Borden's corpse."

Later in the same interview a reporter followed up:

“And I thought you told me,” resumed the interviewer, “that you first learned of this affair by a telephone message when you were in another part of the city?”
"You are mistaken,” said Mr. Morse, “I said no such thing.”
“But you did,” persisted his questioner, “and I will take my oath on it.”
“You are mistaken,” Morse replied once more."

The Providence Journal reported the same interview including the telephone comment. The Boston Globe reported the interview but made no mention of the telephone.

Thank you Harry. Your thread is helpful as always.

I rememer of having read some your old threads in where you said, I hope I remember well, that you and Kat had made some research to ascertain if there was a telephone, but without a conclusion, right? If there have been really this call, who made it? from where? what was the content? Many questions remained unanswered.

[Franz]

...but like Ronald Reagan once said "Trust....but verify" It is hard to verify some things...

You quoted Ronald Reagan? But who launched the so-called "Star Wars Program" in 1983?

[Harry]

...but like Ronald Reagan once said "Trust....but verify" It is hard to verify some things...

You quoted Ronald Reagan? But who launched the so-called "Star Wars Program" in 1983?

And?

[Harry]

I rememer of having read some your old threads in where you said, I hope I remember well, that you and Kat had made some research to ascertain if there was a telephone, but without a conclusion, right? If there have been really this call, who made it? from where? what was the content? Many questions remained unanswered.

Still no conclusion. As for your all those questions, sorry Franz, neither Kat nor I was there.

[Franz]

...but like Ronald Reagan once said "Trust....but verify" It is hard to verify some things...

You quoted Ronald Reagan? But who launched the so-called "Star Wars Program" in 1983?

And?

Star Wars Program, what's that?

A politician talks about the trust? It's a laugh!

[Harry]

Franz, you're near a slippery slope. We do NOT discuss politics on this forum.

[Franz]

Thank you Harry. I will make more attention.

[Harry]

Thanks Franz, it's appreciated.

[Franz]

... Another question I have is: Who would have made the call? ... The only person who could have given instructions to call Uncle John via phone and leave a message would be Lizzie...

I rejected Franz's theory regarding 2 intruders murdering the Bordens...

1. NancyDrew, thank you for the information about the phone history.

2. If someone did make that call, why not just his conspirator, the effective killer (assuming that Morse organized all)? It seems that Lizzie had no opportunity at all to make such a call.

3. In my theory there was only one intruder, the speculated messenger didn't enter into the house.

[PossumPie]

...but like Ronald Reagan once said "Trust....but verify" It is hard to verify some things...

You quoted Ronald Reagan? But who launched the so-called "Star Wars Program" in 1983?

You think a quote has to by by a hero or someone you admire? I've been known to quote Hitler, who had some very smart things to say in between his stupid things he said. Here is another of my favorite quotes:

"It's good to trust others but, not to do so is much better."
Benito Mussolini

Back on topic, ...EVERYTHING else I've read both trial transcript and other testimony contradicts this phone story, Everything else says he had no idea until Sawyer told him. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but hmmmm....

[Franz]

I rememer of having read some your old threads in where you said, I hope I remember well, that you and Kat had made some research to ascertain if there was a telephone, but without a conclusion, right? If there have been really this call, who made it? from where? what was the content? Many questions remained unanswered.

Still no conclusion. As for your all those questions, sorry Franz, neither Kat nor I was there.

Yes, Harry, the uncertainties in the Borden case are just too many that the apparently most logic theory, based on a very few known facts, could be not the truth.

I certainly know which one is the apparently most logic theory. If I were happily convinced of its correctness, like many members of the forum, I would have done something else using all these hours that I dedicated up to now to the Borden case. But, unfortunately, I believe that Lizzie mostly probably didn’t do it.

A rich man and his wife were barbarically murdered in the house where her daughter was present. In addition, this daughter seemed to haven’t a good relation with her stepmother for, among others, pecuniary motive (five years ago). Therefore, many people speculated a very easy motive for this daughter. And for the uncle of this girl, who apparently had a good relation with the two victims, it seems that he couldn’t have a financial motive to commit the double murder, so many people excluded categorically him from the suspect list, in spite of his many – in my opinion and in the opinion of many others – suspicious behaviours. But I ask myself: what do we know of the concrete facts that concerned really the motive of this murder? How many things do we ignore and ignore forever?

I quote here a old thread of KT72, who wrote:

People are much more prone to believe that people kill for money rather than rage and hatred; and that's pretty much universally the motive I hear quoted so often - Lizzie killed them for money. Supposedly no one else had a motive, because no one else would profit financially; and in the vast majority of opinions that's the primary motive in any case.

[Franz]

[quote="PossumPie...
You think a quote has to by by a hero or someone you admire? ....[/quote]

No, I don't think so at all. It seems that I was misunderstood. I asked that question for that you quoted the very Reagan for that very subject.

I just quoted KT72 in my reply to Harry... KT72, who is he (her)?

[Darrowfan]

People are much more prone to believe that people kill for money rather than rage and hatred; and that's pretty much universally the motive I hear quoted so often - Lizzie killed them for money. Supposedly no one else had a motive, because no one else would profit financially; and in the vast majority of opinions that's the primary motive in any case.

Well, I have always said I'm very big on motive. But we must not forget "opportunity" as well. I have been going over the inquest testimony from Lizzie, and the trial testimony of Bridget. Despite Lizzie's self-contradictions and evasions, and Bridget's uncertainty, it seems clear that at some point that morning, probably shortly after 9 am, while Bridget was otherwise occupied with her duties, both Lizzie and Mrs. Borden were upstairs, however briefly. Only one of them came down alive again.

[PossumPie]

[quote="PossumPie...
You think a quote has to by by a hero or someone you admire? ....

No, I don't think so at all. It seems that I was misunderstood. I asked that question for that you quoted the very Reagan for that very subject.

I just quoted KT72 in my reply to Harry... KT72, who is he (her)?[/quote]
Oh, Ok...I meant the Reagan quote to mean "trust what someone tells you, but verify that they are telling the truth" I think most of the witnesses can be trusted to be telling what they REMEMBER as the truth, but memory can be fuzzy. Like I said with this whole "Someone telephoned Morse" angle, Hearing it from one source means almost nothing to me... when information starts being verified from multiple sources, then I get interested!

[Allen]

The Phillips History of Fall River by Arthur Sherman Phillips. -- Fall River, Mass. : Privately printed ; Dover Press, 1944-1946. 3 v. : ill., maps, plans, ports. ; 26 cm.

page 191:

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANY


There is evidence that two telephone systems were established in Fall River in 1879. W. K. Rice, an original "Bell" licensee received a license to operate an exchange, in July 1879 and he established one in Durfee Block, on the corner of North Main and Central Streets. The "Western Union" also entered the telephone field, thus the banks were compelled to install two telephones, in order to keep in touch with their clients.

John W. Chapman, News Supervisor of the New England Telephone and Telegraph Company informs us that the records of that company show that "Fall River's telephone exchange was established in 1879" and that "it appears that at the opening there were approximately one hundred twelve subscribers and four employees". The Southern Massachusetts Telephone Company was formed February 17, 1880 and very soon after combined the two local companies, retaining W. K. Rice as the operator who was in a short time succeeded by Charles Sylvester.

The local exchange in the Durfee Block was moved to a building on Bedford Street in 1890, then in 1895 to a building built and owned by the company on Bank Street. The Southern Massachusetts Telephone Company became a subsidiary of the New England Telephone and Telegraph Company in 1900 but continued to operate under its old name until December 31, 1912. The present central office, on the corner of North Main and Locust Streets was put in full operation when the dial system was established October 25, 1941

[Franz]

Thank you Allen for the information.

[Harry]

Years ago there was a forum member "Jeffery" who did extensive research on the case. He believed Morse and William Davis planned the murders of the Bordens and that Davis did the crimes. His theory was some 200+ pages and very impressive in its research. I am not at liberty, out of respect to Jeffery, to post it here. There is one item in it that I will post.

We have speculated on whether the Emery's had a phone. Here's what Jeffery wrote on that:

"According to the 1890's southern New England telephone index, Mr. Daniel Emery of 4 Weybossett Street had a telephone. * Source - Mr. Tom Hutchinson, curator of the Pioneer Telephone Museum in Boston."

Jeffery's theory was that Davis made the call.

So maybe Uncle John, despite his denial, did receive a phone call.

[Franz]

Thank you, Harry. Was Jeffery's research published?

And I would like to know, in his theory, when, how and from where Davis enter into the house, and how he explained the note story.

[Harry]

Thank you, Harry. Was Jeffery's research published?

And I would like to know, in his theory, when, how and from where Davis enter into the house, and how he explained the note story.

No, it was not published. It's been a LONG time since I read it.

On my previous post I said Davis did the crimes. Wrong. Reading the article again Jeffery said he did one of them.

That's the reason I don't want to elaborate any further. It is Jeffery's theory not mine and I'm not going to read 200+ pages.