Hired Assassin

This the place to have frank, but cordial, discussions of the Lizzie Borden case

Moderator: Adminlizzieborden

User avatar
Franz
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:44 am
Real Name: Li Guangli
Location: Rome, Italy
Contact:

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by Franz »

InterestedReader wrote:...

I appreciate the odds are against it, a killer getting through that house and up the front stairs to the room where Morse slept, but some pretty weird things sometimes happen by chance. A sneaky maniac is no more improbable than a butcher swanning in to kill by appointment.

...
InterestedReader, if I understand well, you think that the killer might be, not Lizzie, not accomplice(s) of Morse, not anyone else, but a sneaky maniac getting through that house, etc...?

All is possibile. In the case as you said, how to explain the mysterious note? (I firmly believe that the note did exist and was an integrated part --- a very important part indeed --- of the whole murder plan.)
"Mr. Morse, when you were told for the THIRD time that Abby and Andrew had been killed, why did you pronounce a "WHAT" to Mrs. Churchill? Why?"
KGDevil
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:41 pm
Real Name: John Porter

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by KGDevil »

I've read and reread your theory Franz, I don't think it holds much water. There are too many holes, and most of the evidence is pretty thin. A stretch, or really not evidence of much at all. It is your right to suspect Morse. But with the case you've built against Morse, I could build just as strong of a case against anyone else who is mentioned. I don't say this in an unkind way. It's just my opinion. I could build a case against Frank Eddy or Mrs. Churchill using the same weight of evidence you have for Morse and his hired assassin.
Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell. - Arthur Conan Doyle
User avatar
Franz
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:44 am
Real Name: Li Guangli
Location: Rome, Italy
Contact:

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by Franz »

KGDevil, to be honest, I would say that it's for me very difficult to imagine how to suspect a figure as Mrs. Churcill using the SAME weight of evidence I have for Morse.
"Mr. Morse, when you were told for the THIRD time that Abby and Andrew had been killed, why did you pronounce a "WHAT" to Mrs. Churchill? Why?"
KGDevil
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:41 pm
Real Name: John Porter

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by KGDevil »

Franz wrote:KGDevil, to be honest, I would say that it's for me very difficult to imagine how to suspect a figure as Mrs. Churcill using the SAME weight of evidence I have for Morse.

Theory of Mrs. Churchill orchestrating the murders, with the help of Thomas Bowles, and Dr. Benjamin Handy.

Mrs. Churchill lived right next door to the Bordens for all of the years they lived on second street. That gave her ample opportunity to learn the habits of their comings and goings. To learn when the maid washed the windows. She stated that Thursday was generally the day for Bridget to wash windows. (Inquest page 127) She could watch their house every day for years. For instance, she just happened to see Andrew leaving that morning. She happened to see Bridget washing the parlor windows that morning. She happened to see Lizzie through the window after coming home with her groceries. This suggests that Mrs. Churchill had a habit of watching the Borden house. Why? What would her motives be for watching their home so intently that she knew the movements of almost everyone that day? She sees and can corroborate almost all of the key comings and goings that morning except the killer's and John Morse's. How convenient. She even started that Abby went out to do the marketing a good many times, and that they marketed at Whiteheads (also inquest page 127). Mrs. Churchill knew a good bit about their habits. Even through her protests that she didn’t pay attention to their business, and didn’t know the private business of the family, she also had to state that she knew the family intimately. Which is it?

Thomas Bowles was outside that morning supposedly washing a carriage. Was it a coincidence that Mrs. Churchill gives him a reason for being outside that morning at around the exact time of the murders?

Witness statements page 8: Mrs Churchill said she left her house about 11:00 am. Around the same time that Andrew’s murder took place. But she claims to have seen nothing strange. Why is she putting herself at a distance from the Borden house at the exact time frame that the killer would need to escape? She said that she returned to her house around 11:15 - 11:20. But again, she sees nothing strange except Bridget running across the street. Almost exactly right after Lizzie found Andrew’s body. Then she just happens to see Lizzie looking upset through her window, across the yard, and through the back screen door. She could see Lizzie that clearly? Mrs. Churchill had been a very observant woman that morning. She saw almost everything. Coincidence?

The clerk at Hudner’s market places Mrs. Churchill leaving around 11:05 or 11:10. It was supposedly a five minute walk. Mrs. Churchill’s brother also worked there. She said she was having him make a phone call for her. So she knows someone with a phone, but doesn’t phone police, or a doctor about what’s going on.

On page 11 of the witness statements, after already being interviewed two times, Mrs. Churchill starts to elaborate on what happened after she went over to the back door. Now saying that Lizzie thought she heard Mrs. Borden come in. That Lizzie thought they had killed Mrs. Borden too. Why is she giving the statement of both Bordens being dead before she had even gotten into the house? And why is she still not calling police?

Page 9 of the Witness statements: Saturday August 6, 1892. Mrs. John Gomeley No. 90 Second street. “Please fix the time”? “About eleven o’clock, I could not say whether it was before or after, first heard of the case from Mrs. Churchill, she ran through the house saying, Mr. Borden is murdered.” How did Mrs. Churchill already know Mr. Borden had been murdered?

She also says that she asked Lizzie “Has any man been to see your father this morning?” Why ask that question?

Then, knowing that Andrew was dead, killed, Mrs. Churchill offers to go get a doctor. What is a doctor going to do for a dead man? Is she stalling for time? She is the first one on the scene. She does not send for police, though she knows where there is a phone she can use. She claims to have gone looking for someone to go and find a doctor, on a street close to several doctors, but sent her hired man Thomas Bowles. Instead, she hangs around the stables across the street talking to possible witnesses. Why is she going to look for someone else to look for a doctor anyway? What kind of sense does that make?




Then there is Dr. Handy’s agitated man that he actually traveled to try and identify on page 15 of the witness statements, but on Page 19 of the Witness Statements Dr. Benjamin Handy: “Entered Second Street from Morgan Street, continued down and turned into Borden street, did not stop until I arrived home. No 37 Rock street. Now, Mr. Harrington, I never told you that I thought the man I saw committed the crime, did I? I never said the man I saw committed the crime, and don’t think he did.”

Why is Dr. Handy going to identify someone on page 14 to see if it is the man he saw that day, and trying to disparage this alleged man as being the killer on page 19? Maybe because Dr. Handy lied? Because he does not want to be someone who can identify the killer? Or because he had been trying to throw off the identity of the real killer? He seems not to even be able to fully explain why he supposedly noticed this man in the first place.

Why does he seem like such a reluctant witness?

Also on page 19 of the witness statements: Harrington says “ the fact that Dr. Handy so readily pronounced him not the man, is, to my mind, very significant. His social relations with Miss Lizzie are very close. She was to spend her vacation at Dr. Handy’s cottage at Marion with his daughter.”

Dr. Handy was very close socially with Lizzie. She spent time staying at his cottage. And he was expecting Lizzie to be away for a vacation. But she had changed her plans and stayed home. Then John V. Morse shows up one day and gives the police someone else to throw suspicion on. As long as they act quickly. Could this be why Mrs. Churchill noticed the comings and goings of everyone but Mr. Morse? She didn’t want to corroborate his story?

Dr. Handy seems to go out of his way to make sure that it’s known that he doesn’t know the man, cannot identify him, can’t explain why he noticed him, and never said he was the killer. Even when those are not the questions that are being asked. Guilty conscience?

Dr. Handy at trial page 1369:

Q. Did you see anyone in the vicinity of that house that attracted your attention at that time?
A.I did, sir.

Q. Won’t you describe what you saw and what the person was doing, as near as you can?
A.I didn’t know the person that I saw.

Dr. Handy page 1370:

Q. Do you know Thomas Bowles that works for Mrs. Churchill?
A.Yes, sir.

Q. How well do you know him?
A.He used to work for me.

Q. Was it he?
A.No, sir.


Witness Statements page 12: Mrs. Churchill “So Bridget and I started. I think she lead the way. We went up the front stairs, but I only went far enough to clear my eyes above the second floor. The door to the spare room is on the north side of this hall, and was open. I turned my head to the left, and through this door I could see under the bed of this room. On the north side of the bed, on the floor, I saw what I thought to be a prostrate body.”

Why is Mrs. Churchill stopping in the exact spot of the steps where she could clearly see Abby’s body under the bed? Is it because she already knew that Abby was there? So she need not go all the way up, and she knew where to look? Thomas Bowles could have told her where he left the body.

Why is Thomas Bowles not in the witness statements? Exactly when in the case was he named as a witness? He wasn’t at the inquest either. He doesn’t show up until the trial. Was it because his name was purposefully withheld?

Trial testimony of John Cunningham claims that he saw Mrs. Churchill run across the street to Hall’s stable. He was collecting money for papers on that street. He continued up the street to Wade’s store collected his payment, came back down the street to see Mrs. Churchill talking to two or three gentleman on the sidewalk in front of Hall’s stable. Not getting a doctor, or calling police. He heard what had happened and he finally stepped into the paint shop and phoned police. There is another phone Mrs. Churchill could have used to call police, or a doctor. Page 421 of trial testimony he telephones the Central Police Station. As Mrs. Churchill stood and talked to witnesses.

Thomas Bowles had been known to the family at 90 Second for at least as long as 12 years.He also worked for Dr. Handy.

Then after 1892 Thomas Bowles seems to just disappear. Why?
Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell. - Arthur Conan Doyle
User avatar
Franz
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:44 am
Real Name: Li Guangli
Location: Rome, Italy
Contact:

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by Franz »

KGDevil, you are certainly free to think that all you stated here has the SAME (or even MORE) weight as evidence against Mrs. Churchill than that against Mr. Morse. I respect it as your personal opinion. Point.
"Mr. Morse, when you were told for the THIRD time that Abby and Andrew had been killed, why did you pronounce a "WHAT" to Mrs. Churchill? Why?"
KGDevil
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:41 pm
Real Name: John Porter

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by KGDevil »

Franz wrote:KGDevil, you are certainly free to think that all you stated here has the SAME (or even MORE) weight as evidence against Mrs. Churchill than that against Mr. Morse. I respect it as your personal opinion. Point.
Franz, I do think it holds the same weight as the points you use to incriminate John V. Morse. I forgot to mention, Adelaide Churchill was only 42 years old in 1892. Younger than I am now, and only eight years older than Lizzie. Two years older than Emma. I respect your opinion also, and your right to it. But I think the evidence you provide is as thin as my evidence against Mrs. Churchill.
Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell. - Arthur Conan Doyle
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by InterestedReader »

I challenge anyone to find Thomas Bowles after 1893.
In 1893 he does vanish. He disappears from records.

Another man with a very similar name became a boarder at Mrs Churchill's, and he has been mistaken for Bowles by Forum members. But that wasn't Bowles.

Since Bowles was born in England did he return here? I'm still trying to find what became of him...

KG, your hypothesis is as clever as it's funny.

Below - Addie, looking sinister. Her family was full of butchers.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
KGDevil
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:41 pm
Real Name: John Porter

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by KGDevil »

The face of a killer. :shock: :lol:

Thank you for sharing that photo, Interested. She is much younger than the photo that is typically used for her. I imagine this is closer to the way she looked at the time of the murders.

Where Thomas Bowles went is definitely a mystery. If he returned to England he didn't waste any time about it after the trial.

Dr. Handy is definitely another odd fellow.
Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell. - Arthur Conan Doyle
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by InterestedReader »

Franz wrote:
InterestedReader wrote:...

I appreciate the odds are against it, a killer getting through that house and up the front stairs to the room where Morse slept, but some pretty weird things sometimes happen by chance. A sneaky maniac is no more improbable than a butcher swanning in to kill by appointment.

...
InterestedReader, if I understand well, you think that the killer might be, not Lizzie, not accomplice(s) of Morse, not anyone else, but a sneaky maniac getting through that house, etc...?

All is possibile. In the case as you said, how to explain the mysterious note? (I firmly believe that the note did exist and was an integrated part --- a very important part indeed --- of the whole murder plan.)

Hello Franz. I'm sorry for not replying sooner. I genuinely don't know what to say about Morse because I don't understand why he should be suspected. He didn't need wealth. And what would his motive be? I don't see where Lizzie and Morse can develop a relationship secure enough for the enterprise of double murder. But supposing, yes, that Morse is the 'architect' of the murders... I just fail to see why he'd incriminate himself by coming to stay to see them done - or incriminate, not to mention traumatise, his neice by killing in her presence. I asked you why Morse should kill on Lizzie's behalf because I can't myself see the reason.

You've studied this case a long time. I've been reading about it only a year and a half. I sense you find the idea ridiculous, that there should be a rogue maniac. For my part I don't see how people reconcile two very disparate pieces of wisdom - that these kills display 'personal' hatred, personal 'rage' - but then that Lizzie called in a 'hired' killer. It's unlikely for both assertions to be correct.

There is such a great strain between the mastermind-planning people see Lizzie putting into this, and then the uncontrolled passion they see in the actual acts of murder. Between passion and premeditation.

We all build up a different scenario according to where we find the most reasonable explanation. For me it is simple logic that Lizzie Borden could not have committed these crimes according to the proposition set forth by the prosecution. She could only have committed these crimes with the involvement of Bridget Sullivan. Since Sullivan's support wasn't to be obtained in a five minute flurry after the fact, something else will happen between them in the two and a half hours for which we have no independent witness. People get over-confident in their time-line of these two women and their morning. The reality is we have no independent corroboration of almost any of their activities, from the moment Morse leaves to the moment Adelaide Churchill arrives. Two and a half hours. The one useful witness, Mary Dolan, was never called at any stage.

It's a hackneyed 'fact' that Lizzie Borden's gender saved her from conviction - when the lack of evidence saved her, primarily! But just as significant as gender, I'd say, would be the jurors' inability to envisage collusion between these two women delineated as being of very different 'class'. (Lizzie Borden's 'class' was something of a fiction. I think it was one of the Waring family who called her family 'rubbish'!) It is perfectly possible, given Sullivan's history in the house, that Lizzie's most significant relationship was with Bridget.

If they didn't kill together then an intruder killed these people. Intruders can kill. Which is more amazing? That an intruder hides in the house between kills, or that Lizzie Borden kills and is clean within five minutes? (Frankly, all the theories about waterproofs, reversed jackets and extra dresses I find ridiculous).

The 'note'...

There are individuals in this case who seriously disliked Lizzie. They resented her money. Every time they spoke to the police or to reporters they spoke maliciously, and they spoke about money. Abby's family believed Lizzie killed Abby and they said out loud the Borden sisters would deprive them of their due, out of sheer spite. Any note would most likely come from them. If a note ever existed the Whiteheads sent it. When the note went astray, when no-one could find it, when the newspapers asked Who sent the note? - they did nothing. It might be that prosaic and that nasty. They didn't admit to sending it. They hated Lizzie Borden so much, they did nothing.
Last edited by InterestedReader on Mon May 22, 2017 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KGDevil
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:41 pm
Real Name: John Porter

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by KGDevil »

I don't think the idea that a killer would cover themselves so as not to be spattered in blood is ridiculous. It's planning. How one doesn't get caught. If you remain blood splattered it's pretty much a dead give away. Smears of blood on your clothing and hands could be explained away as rushing to the dead body and coming into contact with the blood. Spatter patterns might be harder to explain away. All through history, there are killers who have taken such precautions. I just finished reading a story about a killer who was convicted because he brought an entire change of clothing, including shoes, with him to change after his murders. But this killer wasn't quite diligent enough, because he neglected to change his socks. Which left blood stains on the inside of the new shoes.

If it was an outside killer, they had to have taken precautions of some kind. Because they walked down second street unnoticed.
Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell. - Arthur Conan Doyle
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by InterestedReader »

Thomas Bowles need only nip across the lawn :smile:

What I meant was, theories as to how Lizzie used clothing can get very convoluted and I do find them improbable, on the whole. The police were trying hard to examine clothing around the house - I don't think they were being that dim, in that respect.

In the trial is there ever any reference to examining Borden's folded jacket for blood? or was the exercise just deemed useless from the start..?
User avatar
Franz
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:44 am
Real Name: Li Guangli
Location: Rome, Italy
Contact:

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by Franz »

"People do strange things in the face of a tragedy."

KGDevil, I totally agree with you on what you said. And just with this idea in mind I found that a number of Lizzie's reactions after the discovery of her father's body can be, even easily, understood in an innocent way (certainly, this doesn't mean that she could not be guilty).

I would like to defend Morse's innocence until I could. However, I invite you to reread the testimony of Mr. Sawyer and that of Mrs. Churchill and to consider especially the contrast between the two. According to Sawyer, who told Morse for the second time that the Borden couple were killed, remained there for a few minutes before he "went into" the house; and then, for the third time informed by Mrs. Churchill, Morse: "What(?!)", before screaming Lizzie's name and rushing into the dinning room. Yes, "People do strange things in the face of a tragedy", but even though, I just can't give an innocent explanation to Morse's reaction. He could be shocked, terrified, etc., but there is no way, in my opinion ABSOLUTELY no way, that he pronunced such a word in that moment. NO WAY!

To be honest, I should say that for a long time I could not give me any explanation for Morse's "what", even though I have been (almost from the beginning) suspecting him for many other reasons, until one day, I said: oh, maybe the reason is this! And this reason, not surprisingly for me, was not an innocent one.
"Mr. Morse, when you were told for the THIRD time that Abby and Andrew had been killed, why did you pronounce a "WHAT" to Mrs. Churchill? Why?"
KGDevil
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:41 pm
Real Name: John Porter

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by KGDevil »

Franz wrote:"People do strange things in the face of a tragedy."

KGDevil, I totally agree with you on what you said. And just with this idea in mind I found that a number of Lizzie's reactions after the discovery of her father's body can be, even easily, understood in an innocent way (certainly, this doesn't mean that she could not be guilty).

I would like to defend Morse's innocence until I could. However, I invite you to reread the testimony of Mr. Sawyer and that of Mrs. Churchill and to consider especially the contrast between the two. According to Sawyer, who told Morse for the second time that the Borden couple were killed, remained there for a few minutes before he "went into" the house; and then, for the third time informed by Mrs. Churchill, Morse: "What(?!)", before screaming Lizzie's name and rushing into the dinning room. Yes, "People do strange things in the face of a tragedy", but even though, I just can't give an innocent explanation to Morse's reaction. He could be shocked, terrified, etc., but there is no way, in my opinion ABSOLUTELY no way, that he pronunced such a word in that moment. NO WAY!

To be honest, I should say that for a long time I could not give me any explanation for Morse's "what", even though I have been (almost from the beginning) suspecting him for many other reasons, until one day, I said: oh, maybe the reason is this! And this reason, not surprisingly for me, was not an innocent one.
Franz, I have read all of the testimonies many times over. I've been studying this case for half of my life. The contrast between the two testimonies is summed up very simply. No two people remember an incident the same way. No two people even remember the same incident in the same way many months or years later. Morse saying "what?" doesn't seem sinister to me, a person who repeated that same word over and over again on the day of my tragedy. Him yelling Lizzie's name doesn't seem sinister. She was the only other living person in that household. Rushing into the dining room. Does a person who learns of a murder need to leisurely stroll? Rushing into the dining room. If you've ever been to the house Franz you'd know there are only two places to go from the kitchen, besides back down the hall to the back door, or up the back steps. Either you go into the dining room, or into the sitting room. Those are the only rooms that open out of the kitchen. And the door to the sitting room was shut. I think I'd have been more suspicious if he went running up the back steps or down to the basement. That would be a weird reaction. All of this, to me, sounds very much like a man trying to rap his head around two murders. What would your reaction be if you had learned that two people you'd known intimately for years had been murdered? By the third time someone told you would your reaction be. "Yes, I've already heard that just three minutes ago. "

You put way to much weight into that "What" Franz.
Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell. - Arthur Conan Doyle
KGDevil
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:41 pm
Real Name: John Porter

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by KGDevil »

Franz, if you think Morse saying "What?" is so suspicious, then what do you make of this?

Charles Sawyer trial 1468-1469:

Q. What was the first that you heard of the trouble, Mr. Sawyer?
A. I heard there was a man stabbed by the name of Borden.

Q. Where were you at the time?
A. I was in Mr. A. E. Rich’s shop.

Q. Where is that at?
A. It is No. 81 Second street.

Charles Sawyer Trial page 1469-1470:


Q. What did you do after you heard of the stabbing?
A. I went out and went down over the steps, and I saw Mr. Hall , the man that keeps the stable connected with the building that I was in. I asked him what he had heard.

Q. You cannot tell what you asked him. Who else did you see about that time?
A. I saw Miss Russell going up the other side of the street.

Q. Miss Alice Russell?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You knew her, did you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do then?
A. I crossed over to see if she knew any particulars.

Q. You had a talk with her?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you walk along towards the Borden house?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Well, what did you do when you got to the Borden house?
A. When I got to the gate I said I guessed I wouldn’t go in.

Q. Don’t tell what you said, tell what you did.
A. Well, I turned around and came away, started back.




Alice Russell and Charles Sawyer Witness Statements: Page 44



Alice M. Russell says that Bridget Sullivan came to her house, 33 Borden street, at 11:15 and told her Mr. Borden had been badly hurt, and Lizzie wanted her to come up there right away.

Charles Sawyer says that he went up Second street with Miss Russell and that she went into the Borden house, and as he turned to go away, he met Officer G. W. Allen, and went into the house with the officer.


Alice Russell inquest page 147:

Q. What was the first you saw or observed, or heard,of this tragedy?
A. I think it was a quarter past eleven when I saw Bridget coming up the steps, and my work is so I can see any one coming up the steps,where I was at work. I knew there was trouble because Lizzie told me Mr. and Mrs. Borden were sick the night before, very sick, so the first impression I got was that somebody was sick there.

Q. She told you Tuesday night they were sick?
A. I stepped to the door, and I says “what is it Bridget, are they worse,’ or Maggie. She says, “yes, I don’t know but what Mr. Borden is dead.’ I don’t know whether she said “come over”. I don’t remember what she said. I said “I will come right over as soon as I change my dress.” Which I did.

Q. She did not tell you how he had been killed ,or anything of that sort?
A. She did not, no.

Q. She said what?
A. She says “he is worse I don’t know but what Mr. Borden is dead.”

Page 148:

Q. When did you first learn that they were murdered?
A. I got Lizzie into the dining room, on to the dining room lounge, and we were there, I don’t know how long, when her uncle came in.

Q. That is Morse?
A. Yes sir. And he said something about their being murdered, and looked up to her, then it dawned on my mind that it was cold blooded murder.



Alice Russell Trial page 380:

Q. Upon the next morning, August 4th, did you receive a visit from Bridget Sullivan?
Yes, sir.

Q. About what time was it?
A. I don’t know what time it was.

Q. Did you have any occasion to notice the time?
A. Not after eleven.

Q. Did you notice the eleven o’clock bell?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was it before or after the bell that Bridget came to you?
A. After .



Alice Russell walks up the street with Charles Sawyer asking questions about Mr. Borden being stabbed, there are police officers milling around the house, they are covering Andrew’s body and searching for another body, Dr. Bowen is there and he’s asking people to go look at Andrew’s body, even Charles Sawyer is traipsing through the house looking at the bodies, but Alice Russell doesn’t know it’s murder until Morse says so?
Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell. - Arthur Conan Doyle
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by InterestedReader »

I'm going to toss this in here and apologise for it's only being half-relevant - But why are so many people congregating 'outside Mrs Churchill's'?

I've just done a Forum search on 'chloroform'. Every year without fail someone posts the same chloroform wisdom. It goes like this:

Lizzie tried to buy chloroform in the past. Someone made a statement - I think it was a druggist. The druggist says she wanted chloroform but he refused her chloroform. I can't remember where this is but I think it was in the Witness Statements


It's proposed as fact, but yes, it sounds like an anecdote. A cat is often added.

One poster - who reiterated this for years rain or shine - believed the druggist was Stephen Brow.

I can't as yet find a druggist in the Witness Statements telling of chloroform.
Stephen Brow was indeed a Fall River druggist, according to the 1900 Census.
And look where he turns up, as per Jennings’ notes (Ashton p. 216):

'Brow Stephen (Pouson called) 'About 10:20 I was standing at Mrs. C's gate. I saw a man by a tree in front of Mr. B's standing still coming towards the house, about 10:35 after Mr. B. had gone in, I saw him come up, he passed me at Mrs. C's gate. Then he looked down the street and walked off, as far as Wade's store, then I went in yard. A man brought carriage over after man had gone from Hartwell Street. Man as P height-- black mustache and bright suit-- kind of stiff hat cut away coat hollow faced dark complected I saw d. Handy go by (fast) while the man was walking away.'

So Mrs Churchill also has a druggist lounging at her gate! 'Mrs Churchill's gate' must have been a real society hotspot. Is it on account of the stables opposite? Brow seems to cross to these stables because he sees Bowles bring the carriage over.

I still don't know who claimed Lizzie tried to buy chloroform or what the source is. If it is a fiction perhaps it took seed in the public mind after Morse gave 'his theory' to the New Bedford Evening Journal.
Because Morse said he should have used chloroform:

'Uncle John Morse Talks '

'Uncle Morse offered his theory to a journalist two days after the trial. "I would give $2,000 to know who committed those murders ... My idea is that he went into that house for the purpose of killing Mr. Borden, but not finding Mr. Borden in, he went upstairs in the front chamber to wait and watch for him. While in there, I think Mrs. Borden came in [...] after making the bed, and he was forced to kill her so as not to be found out, with that hatchet about his person."

"Now they say that Lizzie Borden did that and I planned it all out. If I'd been planning it, is it likely I'd have planned in that way? Wouldn't it have been easier to have smothered them with chloroform in the night and in the morning said they had committed suicide?"'

New Bedford Evening Journal - June 23 1893.
KGDevil
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:41 pm
Real Name: John Porter

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by KGDevil »

The source for the chloroform story that I have seen is a newspaper article where another druggist claimed that Lizzie had been in his store a few years earlier. He stated that he asked her what she needed the chloroform for and claimed that her answer was to kill a cat. I've read the article, but I do not have a copy. And at the moment I can't remember what paper it was even in. But that's the only source for the story that I know.

About the witness statements, and the people congregating around there. It's hard to believe that after reading all of those statements from all of the people at Hall's, Wade's store, or just passing by, that some people still try to argue that Second street was not the busy street that it was made out to be at trial.
Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell. - Arthur Conan Doyle
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by InterestedReader »

It sounds horrendous busy.

Thanks for the chloroform info. People have repeated this here for years and years but there's never a source.

A cat did appear in the trial as reported in the newspapers and consumed by the public, and that was when Jennings was campaigning to oust the Prussic Acid evidence. It was Prussic acid he said which could be used on a cat. "It might have been the cat. Prussic acid for that is innocent." The cat :cat: came at a pivotal moment. Chief Justice Mason said the poison evidence was competent and would be admitted - seen as a 'victory for the commonwealth'. The next day it was excluded.

Perhaps disappointed parties were loath to let go of the cat.
User avatar
gerontologist
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:11 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Gretchen J. Hill

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by gerontologist »

This thread has been a delight to read! You express yourselves wonderfully and I love the wry sense of humor that comes into play.

For a long time I've wanted to make a comment related to John Morse. I meant to search first to see if someone had already mentioned it, but here goes. Sometimes you hear that Morse's alibi is just too good to believe, usually due to the detail and his knowing the numbers of the street car and conductor. Well, some people are just detail-oriented. And some people who are detail-oriented earn the label "eccentric." And, the term eccentric sometimes has been applied to people who today might be identified as having Asperger's (on the autism spectrum), which carries with it such traits as being attuned to patterns, oriented to detail, fixated on numbers, and having very high I.Qs., yet being socially awkward. Anyway, I'm not armchair diagnosing, I'm trying to support the argument that some people would remember the details of their morning, whether they needed an alibi or not; maybe Morse is just the kind of person who would.

And now, to completely throw out Occam's razor, what about some kind of a "hit" on the Borden household that wasn't orchestrated by Morse, Lizzie, or Emma? (I mean, other than Mrs. Churchill and/or Dr. Handy :grin: or involving "Nemesis" of Masterton's book)?
Two different lines about which I've been curious are:

(1) the person to whom Andrew supposedly was refusing to lease building space (did Andrew's refusal step on the toes of people with something akin to "organized-crime" interests, and now he knew too much?); and

(2) David Anthony's family: If there was a relationship with Lizzie, how involved was it, did the Anthony family object (while maybe the Bordens were pushing for it, especially if they had "reasons"), and if the Anthonys did object, how strongly? -- And would David and/or Lizzie even have known for sure who did it?

These are really far-fetched, and I don't expect to find answers, but I'm going to keep reading and drop by here from time to time (semester break is almost over, so soon I must leave again), and I look forward to searching and reading this website.
:!:
User avatar
snokkums
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:09 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Robin
Location: fayetteville nc,but from milwaukee
Contact:

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by snokkums »

:shock: I really don't think Morse had anything to do with it. Maybe being around at the wrong time might be his only crime.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
Tina
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:08 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Tina

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by Tina »

Hello everyone
I'm new to the forum and picked up my obsession with the case again recently.

Hired assassin or not? I'm of two minds in lot of ways. So I'll give thoughts to both sides.

Not an assassin:
The crime has always struck me as personal and with premeditation and knowledge of the house, circumstances and victims. No forced entries in a house with a lot of locks. The repeated blows to the head and face suggest a personal motive/rage. An assassination suggests some knowledge of how to kill and planning. Why murder in broad day light with others in the house, and why use a hatchet/ax/blunt object? A gun would be noisy but there are tons of weapons and means of killing quietly. Past relations, tensions in the house and motives for money, maybe pressure of a rumored will in the making. Most murderers are known to the victim.

Was an assassin:
They got away with double murder, no witnesses and very little evidence. Even the murder weapon is questionable -was it that hatchet? It was quick and clean. So clean a killing actually that I wonder how Lizzie or Emma (my current whodunit theory) could do it. Would well breed ladies of that era had much knowledge, usage or experience with hatchets and axes? Were they chopping wood or killing chickens? I doubt it. Me I've worked with an ax a few times and other similar tools, and the precision of the wounds are striking to me. Why were there no blows, cuts, or markings anywhere but the bodies? Not hits to floor upstairs, no markings on the couch. The first time I chopped wood, which was about the size of a persons head, I missed the first dozen times altogether and got my ax stuck a few times. Whatever object was used, it was used expertly. Then there was the clean up of a messy bloody crime. That suggests professional rather than a crime of hate, sudden rage, or a crazed spell. Planned rather than impulsive. No struggle from the victims so probably no hesitation from the murderer.
With the murder in broad daylight, others in the house: a couple thoughts on that. Emma was out of town and had been for a while and I've read that Lizzie only recently returned home from a vacation early....even weirdly staying at a boarding house or hotel for a few days before coming home. So maybe the murder was planned for when they were both absent but Lizzie came home early or unexpected. Maybe the plan went ahead anyway.
Also, maybe some credibility with the light of Abby's suspicion or even Lizzie's, that someone was trying to poison, kill or harm them. Maybe there had been previous attempts.

hmmm...think I ran myself in circles again.
User avatar
NancyDrew
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:33 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Robin
Location: New England

Re: Hired Assassin

Post by NancyDrew »

Hello Tina:

Welcome, and I loved reading your post. You bring up something I had never considered before; that there were "no blows, cuts, or markings anywhere but the bodies."

Do we know this to be absolutely true? I cannot recall if there was a description of the surrounding furniture, walls, floor, near the butchered bodies of Abby and Andrew. If indeed things were pristine (ie no hesitation cuts, near-misses, splintered wood, etc) what does this suggest? Precision and skill, I would think. Then WHY such over-kill? Why 18 blows to Abby's head, face and neck? I'm guessing 2-3 would have easily felled her, then maybe 1 more just to make sure.

Considering Andrew: 11 blows. Why not as many as Abby? But still, why so many blows? And so, so gruesome; eyeball sliced in half, facial bones crushed, can you imagine the sounds the blows made as blade met bone?

The confounding aspect of these crimes, the thing that keeps me interested after 30 years of fascination with these murders, are the contradictions. Rage, Calm, Rage (Abby's murder---wait around---Andrew's murder). Precise contact, yet massive overkill. Bloodied, crushed heads, but relatively clean crime scenes (ie no footprints, hand smudges, trails leading away...). Complete desecration of two human beings in the middle of an otherwise clean, orderly, buttoned up household.

Thoughts?
Post Reply