Hatchet vs Blood Spatter

[Kat]

Kat: GREAT drawing, I must look it over more closely when I get home this evening.

Beowulf: You are correct, Lizzie never seemed sufficiently troubled by the whole affair, guilty or innocent. Of course she may have been the very stoic New Englander, Think to when Lizzie asked if they suspected anyone in the household and they said yeah, you. Her response wasn't panic or denial, it was something to the effect of "should I come along now, or later? Wow, guilty or innocent that's ice water in the veins.

I have to say I have read this and thought of this and laughed at this about ten times. " suspected anyone in the household and they said yeah, you" It's pretty funny.

It's weird you brought this up, because I've been looking everywhere for that quote, and I can't find it. I used word search "mayor" because I thought it was he who said that to Lizzie and I thought Fleet was with him? on Saturday?.....? Anyone know?

[wall59]

John W. Coughlin Trial page 1162-1163
(Coughlin went with Hilliard)

Q. Doctor, I wish you would recall that conversation as best you can at this time?
A. Upon taking my seat, as near as I can recall, I said to the family, "I have a request to make of the family, and that is that you remain in the house for a few days, as I believe it would be better for all concerned if they did so." There was a question arose---I think Miss Lizzie, to the best of my recollection, Miss Lizzie asked me, and said, "Why, is there anybody in this house suspected?" I said, "Well, perhaps Mr. Morse can answer that question better than I, as his experience last night, perhaps, would justify him in the inference that somebody in this house was suspected." Miss Lizzie said, "I want to know the truth." And I believe that she repeated the statement. "Well," I said, "Miss Borden, I regret to answer, but I must answer yes, you are suspected." And if I remember rightly, at that time Miss Borden, replying, said, "I am ready to go now." I asked her where she went to after she had left her father.

What "experience" did Morse have that made them suspect Lizzie?

[Kat]

Thank you very much! So it was the Mayor and Hilliard, not Fleet. Was this on Saturday after the funeral?
If so, then what happened to Morse would have been Friday night and isn't that when he was followed by crowds to the post office and back?
Pardon me, I'm testing my memory...its been 8 years since I've worked with Lizzie.

[Steve88778]

I did notice they put Bridget's name on Lizzie's picture.

[Reasonwhy]

Kat, did you really take a complete 8 years off from Lizzie? How does it feel to be dipping back in? Sometimes I feel like I would like to be totally free from curiosity about her. I’m periodically drawn back in to the mystery…yet it’s so fundamentally sad and ugly a story. And so frustrating—both to figure out the “how,” but also to know there is nothing we can do to help any of these peopls.

[Beowulf]

[/quote]by PossumPie » Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:11 pm

You're theoretically right about the DNA retrieval if the cloth was stored in decent conditions (low light/heat/radiation/humidity). My question would be what benefit? I believe they would have noticed a wound on Lizzie at the time so I doubt any blood was hers. I also doubt that the killer was standing in blood as Abbey was struck from behind and immediately fell forwards. The killer would have had to either straddle her waist or kneel between her legs to keep whacking. The blood pool would have been around her head. Blood is thick and doesn't seep that quickly without a pump (heart) to keep the pressure up. When the killer left, it would have just begun pooling. 19 whacks would take less than half-a-minute in an adrenaline-fueled attack. Give the killer another 10 seconds to admire their work and it's still under a minute.
You're also correct about luminol-ing Lizzies shoes except as you mention, finding Andrew's body could explain incidental blood on her shoes as stepping in it after the fact. As Kat mentioned about the TV special that she was a part of...I would have rather seen them Luminol Lizzies doorway, floor, etc. It wouldn't have been as dramatic as Luminol-ing the floorboards(we KNEW that would light up) but may have given some new circumstantial evidence! Kat, did they give you any reason that they chose not to Luminol upstairs?
[/quote]

I think it would take longer than less than half-a-minute to give those whacks. When Mrs. Borden fell if she did straddle the body that would take a bit and hitting a person with a weapon like that in that heat, even fueled with adrenaline would take some time. That axe or hatchet would not necessarily pull out of the wound quickly and as a woman who has used a hatchet myself, in the heat, working as fast as I could it is quite heavy and so strenuous and laborious to someone out of shape as I was at the time and as Lizzie probably was for that kind of exercise. It takes some time and a bit of doing. When Mrs. Borden fell, first hit in the front, the blood likely began to move outwardly as she smashed into the floor anyway. I don't find it difficult to suppose she ended up standing in blood, and possibly tracking blood a bit as she un-straddled the body to turn, leave and walk out.

Lizzie had no wound that would fill up that handkerchief the way it was soaked. But what about hairs from her head or if they could determine her sweat in it, if that is possible through a different analysis, though it's been a long time. Hair samples in the handkerchief could be something caught up in all that blood, or fibers from her dress. Sometimes killers are caught with mere fibers from their car where they stash the body as they drive off to get rid of it. Primarily, I was thinking not of the handkerchief but of the floor and possible footprints leaving the room, to show if there were any and compare them with Lizzie's shoes, shoe size and pattern and then looking at the bottom of her shoes for that blood as well.

(I wonder what one thinks as one turns and leaves a room with something like THAT behind)?

And since the question was posed I too wonder, as was asked of Mr. Morse, what 'experience last night, perhaps, would justify him in the inference that somebody in this house was suspected'.

[Kat]

Dupe post

[Kat]

Kat, did you really take a complete 8 years off from Lizzie? How does it feel to be dipping back in? Sometimes I feel like I would like to be totally free from curiosity about her. I’m periodically drawn back in to the mystery…yet it’s so fundamentally sad and ugly a story. And so frustrating—both to figure out the “how,” but also to know there is nothing we can do to help any of these people.

.

I have moved my response to "Stay To Tea" Topic area so as to not interrupt the dialogue here.

[Kat]

The scene of Abbie's murder was first, that we know of, contaminated by Bridget when she found the body. At least Mrs Churchill didn't enter the room! But as I mentioned earlier, you know the room was soon filled with people. The doctors admitted they had blood on their shoes...also, the Mayor was referring to the crowds round the house and following Morse, to point out to Lizzie that yes someone in the house was suspected.
Checking Lizzie's shoes quickly after the bodies were found would have been a very good investigative tool, you are right, because she apparently never went into the guest room and I think she never admitted to approaching Andrew's body. One of the few who didn't, supposedly.

[Kat]

Dr Ed Wood
Trial
Page 1008

Q. When did you next receive anything?
A. On the 16th of August.

Q. What did you take at that time?
A. I received in Boston from city marshal Hilliard a box which I have here. (Produces box.)

MR. KNOWLTON. I would say, if your Honor please, that some connection may have to be made hereafter. Everything we put in will eventually be connected. Mr. Hilliard has not yet been called. I am advised that evidence will be produced after Prof. Wood which will identify them as the ones received either from Mr. Jennings or Miss Borden.

MR. ROBINSON. We understand these were delivered to Prof. Wood by Marshal Hilliard?

MR. KNOWLTON. Yes, sir.

MR. ROBINSON. We assume that for the present; you say Marshal Hilliard will be called later.

THE WITNESS. This pair of low shoes or ties, and this pair of black stockings. The bottom of the shoe has certain stains which, so far as you could see from inspection, might have been blood stains, but they proved not to be.

Q. You found no blood upon the shoe or stockings?
A. No, sir; and the stockings had no suspicious stains.

Q. That was on the 16th of August?
A. That was the 16th of August, in Boston.

...........................
Dr Cheever
Trial
1107

Q. You learned, did you not, that the carpet underneath her was saturated, that the clothing upon her back was soaked with blood?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that the spattering ran along the side of the bed. Well, if the assailant stood astride of the body wouldn't you naturally expect to find spots of blood upon the shoes?
A. Well, that would be quite uncertain.

Q. Would it be unreasonable to expect?
A. It wouldn't be unreasonable, but there would be no certainty about it because his shoes might be protected by the clothing of the victim, or something of that kind. You cannot tell.
.....................
Hilliard
Trial
1119

Q. Let me ask you if Miss Borden, when she was told that she was suspected, after Miss Emma had said what you tell us, said anything herself,---if you recall it?
A. Yes, sir, I think there was. When she made the remark "I want to know the truth," and after the Mayor had said "I regret Miss Borden to say you are suspected,"---I think it was there she made the remark "well, I am ready to go any time."

Q. Now, Mr. Hilliard, just stop a moment and see if there is anything else in that conversation you gave, that we may get it all?
A. That is all I can think of at that time there.

Q. How long did your visit occupy?
A. Oh, I should say ten or twelve minutes.

Q. Later did you receive any property from any one,---any clothing and shoes, stockings?
A. Yes, sir.

Page 1120

Q. Do you recall when that was?
A. Yes, sir, on the 10th of August.

Q. From whom did you receive that clothing?
A. Some of it I received from Mrs. Holmes; some of it, one package, I think, from Mrs. Reagan, and some of it I took away from the house myself.

Q. Will you state what those articles of clothing or wearing apparel of any kind were?
A. Yes, sir, the first package was a pair of shoes and stockings. I asked Miss Lizzie Borden for them.

Page 1121

Q. (By Mr. Robinson.) You did?
A. Yes, sir; and she went up the front stairs, and I think it was Mrs. Brigham that brought them down and handed them to me. Mrs. Holmes handed me the bedspread and the two pillow shams. They was done up.

Q. (By Mr. Moody.) Of whom did you request those?
A. Mrs. Holmes asked me if I wanted them. I told her if she pleased I would take them. And I took away a piece of moulding from the mop board in the room where Mrs. Borden was found; I also took away a piece of plastering, taken from the wall, the north wall; I also took away a marble slab from the dressing case; I also took away a piece of the door jamb between the sitting room and the dining room; I took away from the barn a basket from the loft, containing lead; I also took away a box containing lead from what I termed to be the carriage house in the barn.

Q. What did you so with the shoes and stockings?
A. I carried them to my office, and that night I turned them over to Dr. Dolan.

Q. What did you do with the piece of door jamb of the door between the dining room and sitting room?
A. I took it to the station, placed it in a trunk, and locked it up.

Q. Subsequently did you deliver it to any one?
A. Yes, sir; Dr. Dolan see them in the office after I brought them there, but I locked them into the trunk afterwards.

Q. Were they at some time delivered to Prof. Wood?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. By you?
A. Yes, sir. That is, I say by me. They was delivered in the court at the other hearing at Fall River.

[Beowulf]

Kat, thank you for this.

No blood on shoes or stockings. I would not think the stockings because they were under a long dress, momentarily I thought the dress would move about as she hacked away, exposing the shoe tops but straddling the body perhaps she tucked her feet under the dress on either sides of the body and in the photo there is indeed a part of the dress that is kind of tucked up where her shoe may have went under. She being so close to the bedside might have protected the bedspread from some spatter but then it would be on her dress. Or maybe a fold of the bedspread covered over her dress a bit protecting the dress hence the spatter on the bedspread.

I wonder why the handkerchief was found down by the feet. Dropped after finished? Why it was torn?

[PossumPie]

Kat, thank you for this.

No blood on shoes or stockings. I would not think the stockings because they were under a long dress, momentarily I thought the dress would move about as she hacked away, exposing the shoe tops but straddling the body perhaps she tucked her feet under the dress on either sides of the body and in the photo there is indeed a part of the dress that is kind of tucked up where her shoe may have went under. She being so close to the bedside might have protected the bedspread from some spatter but then it would be on her dress. Or maybe a fold of the bedspread covered over her dress a bit protecting the dress hence the spatter on the bedspread.

I wonder why the handkerchief was found down by the feet. Dropped after finished? Why it was torn?

Don't over-think either crime scene photos, each body was moved, checked for life, then staged for the photographs. While they "approximate" the actual findings, they are repositioned.

[Kat]

Beowulf, I found the testimony where Hilliard says when he took away Lizzie's shoes and stockings:
Seems like it was the following Wednesday after the crimes. It's good to know these things...

Q. This was Wednesday afternoon, after the inquest when you asked for the shoes and stockings?
A. Yes, sir, and she remarked---

Page 1146

Q. Never mind the remark. You did ask her?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recollect what you then asked her about the shoes and stockings?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was it?
A. I asked her if she would be kind enough to find me the shoes and stockings that she had promised the District Attorney she would hand.

Q. What did she say?
A. "Yes, sir."

Q. No objection at all then?
A. No, sir.

Q. What did she do?
A. She went up stairs and I think it was Mrs. Brigham that brought me the shoes and stockings down.

[Kat]

The doctors admitted they had blood on their shoes...

Plz excuse...I have word-searched the trial, prelim, inquest and witness statements, and looked in Knowlton Papers and I checked Rebello and cannot find this mentioned. Only Dolan saying he got a bit of blood on his pantaloons. (Prelim, 193)

So , disregard, until or if I find the reference...thanks!

[Steve88778]

On Monday the prosecution expects to put Prof. Wood of "Harvard upon the stand.  He has had in his possession the axes found in the Borden cellar, and upon which there appeared to be what Medical Examiner Dolan thought was blood.  He has also had Lizzie Borden's skirt, containing a drop of blood, and her shoes, which were also stained by some red liquid.  He has made a careful analysis of all these articles and will say when he gives his testimony whether or not the analysis shows these drops to be the blood of a human being.

New York Times 6/9/1893

[wall59]

Dr. Cheever, pages 1098-1099?
He is not referring to blood on his shoes at the crime scene.

[Kat]

(I think we are overlapping here-sorry for any confusion)
Dr Cheever at trial, Yes, is asked if he gets blood on his shoes during operations, thanks!

Q. It is quite a usual thing for you in operations to be spattered with blood, isn't it?
A. Very.
Q. Your face and hands get it, I suppose?
A. Very often.
Q. And hair?
A. Not so much.
Q. Do you wear a cap?
A. No, sir.
Q. Beard?
A. Yes, if I get it in the beard.
Q. Is blood readily cleansed from the beard after it has been spattered and stayed there fifteen or twenty minutes?
A. It dries very quickly in the beard and has to be washed off with cold water softened.
Q. Do you also find in your operations that from time to time your shoes get spattered?
A. Yes, sir, sometimes.
Q. Not uncommon?
A. No, it is not uncommon.
Page 1100
-----------------------------

Now, what you posted about the NYTimes I am responding that:
It was determined not to be blood on Lizzie's shoes, thanks!
I've been looking at this issue on and off all day, and we have to be clear to give the rest of the story- ie: the final result....
The defense closing statement refers to this negative result a couple of times, too.

Dr Ed Wood
Trial
989
THE WITNESS. This pair of low shoes or ties, and this pair of black stockings. The bottom of the shoe has certain stains which, so far as you could see from inspection, might have been blood stains, but they proved not to be.

Q. You found no blood upon the shoe or stockings?
A. No, sir; and the stockings had no suspicious stains.

Q. That was on the 16th of August?
A. That was the 16th of August, in Boston.

[Kat]

In the "Knowlton Papers", an anonymous writer thought Lizzie should have had blood on her if she was a devoted daughter! Darned if she didn't and darned if she did!

PARTIAL
Page 346

"HK330
Letter, handwritten in ink.

The murder was the work of a woman. A man kills & stops. This murder-
er killed the victims half a dozen times.
Miss Borden on the morning of the crime was altogether too clean with
her white hands and orderly dress – she what more natural than that she
should have blood on her dress? A lady says “how could she help having
blood upon her dress or shoes if she had acted as a woman should?” She
was too well groomed..."

[Steve88778]

n the "Knowlton Papers", an anonymous writer thought Lizzie should have had blood on her if she was a devoted daughter! Darned if she didn't and darned if she did!

If she was that devoted daughter, and I am assuming that she would have hugged her father she would have blood all over her. But how does one look at that horror of a murder and be a "devoted daughter" ? Again I am assuming that that anonymous writer is wondering why she did not hug her father or make sure he was alive.

[Beowulf]

“…he took away Lizzie's shoes and stockings…” Seems like it was the following Wednesday after the crimes.

The following WEDNESDAY?!! Hahahaha! Plenty of time for a nice buff and clean, I’d say. Oh well, so much for THAT theory!

[Kat]

I was thinking the same thing! She had time to have a whole new pair of shoes made for gosh sakes.
(Again, thinking of Rhoda, in the movie "The Bad Seed" where she put her killing shoes in the furnace...)

[Kat]

n the "Knowlton Papers", an anonymous writer thought Lizzie should have had blood on her if she was a devoted daughter! Darned if she didn't and darned if she did!

If she was that devoted daughter, and I am assuming that she would have hugged her father she would have blood all over her. But how does one look at that horror of a murder and be a "devoted daughter" ? Again I am assuming that that anonymous writer is wondering why she did not hug her father or make sure he was alive.

I've often wondered why Lizzie didn't have blood on her. She could have used that daughterly concern, that society expected, to cover up her crime. If she didn't kill Andrew, than why not rush up to him to check his body and get blood on her. Why did she have to be clean? It worked for her, but it shouldn't have...

[camgarsky4]

Agree.

In all the readings on Lizzie I can't think of a single example of her not demonstrating very solid emotional control. That is except for when she found Andrew and when she was so alarmed that she didn't even check to see if he was dead.

Let's assume not checking was 'normal'....she had a second chance to be a concerned daughter when Bridget started to go back in to see Andrew, but Lizzie stopped her. Why didn't Lizzie go with Bridget to make sure what she saw, she saw and check on Andrew. Company creates confidence.

Ah, the antagonist would say, she didn't want to go back into the slaughter house, a murderer was a foot! Problem is, Lizzie never felt compelled to leave the house at all...even when totally alone.

[Steve88778]

I've often wondered why Lizzie didn't have blood on her. She could have used that daughterly concern, that society expected, to cover up her crime. If she didn't kill Andrew, than why not rush up to him to check his body and get blood on her. Why did she have to be clean? It worked for her, but it shouldn't have...

Because all we know and all we have seen of the dead Andrew Borden is him lying on a couch in a B & W photograph that lacks much detail. But even in that photograph you can see the gore from the neck up.

Lizzie came on to the scene to a full sized real man that was once her father - his face chopped to bits. If it were me I would have run out of the house and down the street yelling for help. There is no way you look at that head and face and check if he is alive as a layperson - first reaction would be to call 911 today. Of course she did the next best thing and call for the doctor. Why she did not go herself ? Who knows, why does she do anything not conforming to the standards of a typical lady at that time ie. get married and have kids.

[Kat]

What I'm getting at is she had to be clean- even her hands were clean after being in the barn eating pears and touching dusty stuff? And her hair was clean... And she burned a dress that she says was not clean...it's actually more suspicious than if she had allowed herself to be seen with dirty hands and blood on her hem or shoes. So why?

[PossumPie]

I've often wondered why Lizzie didn't have blood on her. She could have used that daughterly concern, that society expected, to cover up her crime. If she didn't kill Andrew, than why not rush up to him to check his body and get blood on her. Why did she have to be clean? It worked for her, but it shouldn't have...

Because all we know and all we have seen of the dead Andrew Borden is him lying on a couch in a B & W photograph that lacks much detail. But even in that photograph you can see the gore from the neck up.

Lizzie came on to the scene to a full sized real man that was once her father - his face chopped to bits. If it were me I would have run out of the house and down the street yelling for help. There is no way you look at that head and face and check if he is alive as a layperson - first reaction would be to call 911 today. Of course she did the next best thing and call for the doctor. Why she did not go herself ? Who knows, why does she do anything not conforming to the standards of a typical lady at that time ie. get married and have kids.

I have to agree with Steve88778 on this one. Andrew was gruesome at this point. Guilty or innocent I think Lizzie could take one look at the smashed in left side of his face and know she wasn't going to touch him. It would have strengthened her case if guilty- incidental blood wouldn't be suspicious, but it WAS her father and he was a mess.
I've thought about her sending Bridget to go get a doctor. If innocent, all Lizzie knew was that some maniac sneaked in to her own house, hacked her father to death moments before she found him. Anybody in that situation would NOT stick around alone inside that house. Run out to a neighbor, the street, the police, anywhere but in that house. Yet she told Bridget to leave and she stayed around.

[Steve88778]

Is there testimony on every movement she made after she left the barn - no, could she have rinsed her hands at the sink ? maybe, she was in the general area. Not every movement was discussed. Can you remember each movement you make when coming in from the outside and going into the inside of your house ? There are things people do that are done as a matter of fact.

[Reasonwhy]

What I'm getting at is she had to be clean- even her hands were clean after being in the barn eating pears and touching dusty stuff? And her hair was clean... And she burned a dress that she says was not clean...it's actually more suspicious than if she had allowed herself to be seen with dirty hands and blood on her hem or shoes. So why?

Almost a compulsion to be clean, Kat? As if she were trying to appear completely separate from the crimes, even to herself? This was the mindset I was trying to get at with the Lady Macbeth “staining.”

Some have written about the possibility of Lizzie being in a state of disassociation during the crimes. If she was, could she have thoroughly cleaned herself, not really thinking it might seem strange to others for her to be so pristine?

[Reasonwhy]

You know, though, it did end up serving her extremely well to be spotless: think of how many forum posters here who have said over the years that there was no blood on her so she couldn’t have done it!

[camgarsky4]

Lizzie or an intruder, had sufficient time after killing Andrew to clean themselves of the blood splatters on their clothing or skin. If anyone doubts this, don't type your counter point now. First, actually grab your cell phone, hit stop watch and go thru the motions. Then type your response.

I think we all agree (maybe) that Lizzie must have dirtied her hands either in the loft or in the act of murdering and yet she had clean hands. So whichever way her hands got dirty and which sink she cleaned them, it should NOT have been argued as an indicator of her innocence. And yet it is one of the loudest rally cries for the 'defenders' of Lizzie.

[PossumPie]

Lizzie or an intruder, had sufficient time after killing Andrew to clean themselves of the blood splatters on their clothing or skin. If anyone doubts this, don't type your counter point now. First, actually grab your cell phone, hit stop watch and go thru the motions. Then type your response.

Don't have to, Here is a post from several years ago:

Post by PossumPie: 9/6/2013
"...I think under pressure, with adrenaline going, we can move much quicker. My favorite NFL football team was playing last night, and I ran upstairs, completely undressed, turned on the shower, showered, washed my hair, applied conditioner, washed it out, dried off, put on new clothes, and came back downstairs in less than 4 1/2 min. Ok, laugh at me- but I did it. We tend to think things take way longer than they really do, especially under pressure."
I've said it many times before...People disbelieve things because of their own incredulity: "I can't believe...therefore it couldn't have happened"

[Beowulf]

I don't think Lizzie ever went into the barn. I think that was all just made up. During the time she was supposedly in the barn she was in the house murdering and cleaning, murdering and cleaning.

[Reasonwhy]

I agree, Beowulf, except for a brief sashay out to the backyard to throw the hatchet onto Crowe’s roof.

[camgarsky4]

Possum -- I knew you and I were completely on the same page regarding the timing of Lizzie's killing of Andrew. My self-help idea was for those that appear to not agree. Hopefully they take us up on the idea of checking the time needed for themselves. If they find they can't do what is necessary in less than 5 minutes, then it will be a good topic to discuss.

It is literally the easiest piece of the Borden puzzle to verify.

[camgarsky4]

Tip for the 'stop watch exercise', assume that it starts with Lizzie donning Andrew's Prince Albert coat, killing Andrew, washing hands, face and hatchet in the kitchen sink, going to SE corner of backyard, tossing the hatchet over the fence and calmly walking back into the side door.

5 minutes should be adequate.

[PossumPie]

Possum -- I knew you and I were completely on the same page regarding the timing of Lizzie's killing of Andrew. My self-help idea was for those that appear to not agree. Hopefully they take us up on the idea of checking the time needed for themselves. If they find they can't do what is necessary in less than 5 minutes, then it will be a good topic to discuss.

It is literally the easiest piece of the Borden puzzle to verify.

I know we are on the same page...I just wanted to reinforce your idea with a factual story of how I could do the cleanup in a short time. Under extreme duress, in an emergency situation, we humans can accomplish much more than we give ourselves credit for. Having said that, often people who believe that their "common sense" is usually correct are VERY resistant to changing their belief, even in the presence of irrefutable evidence. That's why even in 2021 we have several very active, very passionate, and very sincere "Flat earth" groups.

[Steve88778]

If she was wearing Mr. Borden's coat then what was she wearing when she allegedly killed her stepmother ?

[camgarsky4]

Assuming Lizzies direct involvement, there are a number of reasonable and plausible solutions for why no bloody murder clothes involved with Abby’s death were found.

Since you are referencing the time study idea, go ahead and give it a try and forget the coat. Assuming u lean toward an intruder doing the deed, he could do the killing and cleanup in the same 5 minute period. So you’d also be validating your theory, if you have one.

[Kat]

Is there testimony on every movement she made after she left the barn - no, could she have rinsed her hands at the sink ? maybe, she was in the general area. Not every movement was discussed. Can you remember each movement you make when coming in from the outside and going into the inside of your house ? There are things people do that are done as a matter of fact.

Lizzie’s testimony is wholly based on her moment to moment activities, with revisions etc.
So yes, she did tell us what she did. She was pretty much badgered to tell everything.("What did you do then, what did you do then, what did you do then...")

Lizzie
Inquest
(77/34)
A. Well, I should think perhaps I was ten minutes.
Q. Looking over those old things?
A. Yes sir, on the bench.
Q. Now can you explain why you were ten minutes doing it?
A. No, only that I can't do anything in a minute.
Q. When you came down from the barn, what did you do then?
A. Came into the kitchen.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went into the dining room and laid down my hat.
Q. What did you do then?
A. Opened the sitting room door, and went into the sitting room, or pushed it open; it was not latched.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I found my father, and rushed to the foot of the stairs.
Q. What were you going into the sitting room for?
78 (35)
A. To go up stairs.
Q. What for?
A. To sit down
..............
Q. When you saw your father where was he?
A. On the sofa.
Q. What was his position?
A. Lying down.
Q. Describe anything else you noticed at that time.
A. I did not notice anything else, I was so frightened and horrified. I ran to the foot of the stairs and called Maggie.
Q. Did you notice that he had been cut?
A. Yes; that is what made me afraid.
Q. Did you notice that he was dead?
A. I did not know whether he was or not.
.....
______________

Do you also want the testimony of the ladies who ministered to her to describe her clean hands?

[Steve88778]

Official Trial Transcript Vol 1 page 265:
The fact that she was on sulphate of morphine taking 2x the dose up to the time of her arrest. Tells me that she answered the questions but there is still a doubt in my mind about her doing other things.

I did read the testimony a while back that the ladies that tended to Lizzie did not notice any blood on her - her dress - her hair - nothing. The timeline is too narrow for her to move like that - why did she not allow more time to clean up and hide the hatchet / fix her hair , change into another Victorian style dress that just slips on ---- THEN call Bridget ?

[Kat]

Thanks for page number 265. But I only find Bridget. I looked in our trial word doc and the vol 1 in binder form hard copy.
So I don't know to what you refer.
If you are saying that we have to discount everything Lizzie said because she was on a double dose of drugs, then what good is anything she said and why not throw the whole thing out...
I'm sorry, I can't do that.

[camgarsky4]

Lizzie was prescribed morphine. She nor anyone stated that she took the drug. The only time Bowen saw it taken was the day of murders and that was a very mild dose. If she was guilty, can’t imagine she would have used the morphine.

As a reminder, all her iterative alibi telling occurred before the double dose was prescribed. So was her statement to police that she saw abby in the guest room and that she heard Abby come home.

Why does anyone challenge the timeline without actually testing for themselves?

Steve, what do you think happened that morning?

[PossumPie]

I am not going to address the "I can't believe she did it that quickly" incredulity again. It has been proven to my satisfaction multiple times that 20 minutes is more than enough time to clean up after a bloody murder. If people "don't believe it" I doubt any demonstration to the contrary will change their minds.

Addressing the Morphine: Dosing is not standard. Lizzie was prescribed twice her originally dosage which was 1/8 grain (8.1mg). Morphine has the reputation of being a powerful drug, and it is, due to its addiction potential but even high doses don't cause memory loss, hallucinations, etc. If you've ever taken hydrocodone, Vicodin, Percocet for pain, you know the feeling of Morphine as those are synthetic morphine. I was prescribed Morphine for a short time years ago and took 15mg-20mg as needed. This would have been the "doubled dose" Lizzie took. It causes slight drowsiness and a feeling of euphoria. I could function, go to work, drive a car, and interact with people on that dose. That dose if given daily for weeks could cause addiction. The morphine could account for her confusion in answering rapid-fire questions at inquest as it does slow your response rate down some.

[Steve88778]

The only copies of the transcripts I used is what I own and bought in Kindle form. I cant copy and paste them because it can't be done. But I am referring to Mr.Burts official trial x-scripts. There are 3 volumes and I used vol 1 and the page number. - Sometimes the page could be off by one or two. Maybe it was the page prior or the page after.

[camgarsky4]

Thanks Possum. Going to add your Morphine insights above to my 'notebook'.

[Steve88778]

Addressing the Morphine: Dosing is not standard. Lizzie was prescribed twice her originally dosage which was 1/8 grain (8.1mg).

My point is -that was a drug that she was not currently on - who knows her medical history. She might have used it in the past or not.

Personally speaking if someone was asking me a stream of questions that overlapped a week after it happened I doubt if I could nail down every incident that took me from checking my flats to lying my hat in the dining room. It seems like a small detail and it might have been if she did it. Not even worth mentioning.

But I don't want to add to the official record and say that she washed her hands. However if I were in the barn or outside and wanted to iron my handkerchiefs I would want clean hands. She did not know her father was dead so why rush through the house and into the sitting room - or should I say pass through...

[Kat]

Thanks for page number 265. But I only find Bridget. I looked in our trial word doc and the vol 1 in binder form hard copy.
So I don't know to what you refer.
If you are saying that we have to discount everything Lizzie said because she was on a double dose of drugs, then what good is anything she said and why not throw the whole thing out...
I'm sorry, I can't do that.

Revision: Did find the testimony...I read hard copy of Dr Bowen Inquest, Prelim and Trial and found the info. Please see other thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6353&p=101315#p101315

[Steve88778]

then what good is anything she said and why not throw the whole thing out...
I'm sorry, I can't do that.

I believe the courts already did that.

[PossumPie]

then what good is anything she said and why not throw the whole thing out...
I'm sorry, I can't do that.

I believe the courts already did that.

No matter how much Morphine she was on, she didn't make stuff up because of the drug. She may have confused the events of the day, she may have forgotten something, but morphine doesn't make you invent a whole new reality. The defense's main contention would be that the morphine may have caused her to mix up events timelines. But in reality, Morphine could cause one to say truthful things when it is better to keep one's mouth shut. It's like sodium pentothal Called "truth serum" it doesn't force you to tell the truth, just dopes you enough that you let the truth slip out when it may be better not to say anything.

[camgarsky4]

The courts had their day. Now we have our day(s) to come to our own conclusions based on the information available and our deductive reasoning skills. Thank goodness we aren't hampered by legal nuances or societal pressures.

There is much to cull from her inquest testimony regardless if medication caused a bit of confusion. I think Lizzie provided all the crumbs we need to reconstruct what happened between 9-11am that morning.