Did Lizzie buy Prussic Acid ?

[Steve88778]

I know early stories often get twisted and misinformation spreads quickly - But who what this friend of the drug clerk ? Did his name ever come up - what was his name ?


Source: The Sun - 8/7/1892

[camgarsky4]

Steve -- do you know what city is associated with "The Sun".....asking to determine if likely this paper would have an on-site reporter which might give it more legs than an 'far away' city newspaper.

To believe this article, one would assume that the other two witnesses (Hart & Kilroy) blatantly lied during their testimony (PH).

Lastly, the stomachs were removed for examination (PH)....I'll need to check my notes, but pretty sure that no presence of poisons was specifically called out in the autopsy.

[Steve88778]

New York Sun

[camgarsky4]

Can you tell if the reporter was Julian Ralph? He covered the trial for the Sun.

[PossumPie]

No poison was found in either of the victims (per the autopsy reports)
Lizzie denied ever trying to buy it, or even knowing where the drug store was (this is suspicious since it was a few blocks from her house)
"Q. Your attention has already been called to the circumstance of going into the drug store of Smith's, on the corner of Columbia and Main streets, by some officer, has it not, on the day before the tragedy?
A. I don't know whether some officer has asked me, somebody has spoke of it to me; I don't know who it was.
Q. Did that take place?
A. It did not.
Q. Do you know where the drug store is?
A. I don't.
Q. Did you go into any drug store and inquire for prussic acid?
A. I did not.
Trial testimony states that 3 witnesses saw Lizzie attempt to buy Prussic Acid to clean a seal skin cape, but was refused for not having a prescription. Much of the Prussic acid testimony was inadmissible as the prosecution couldn't prove relevance. (Multiple pages in trial testimony, p.1281 is aprox. where they debate it.) Prosecution felt it showed premeditation, defense felt that since they were hacked to death it was irrelevant an prejudicial.
The prosecution fought LONG and hard to admit the testimony about prussic acid. The only "proof" Lizzie tried to buy it was from clerks and eyewitnesses who saw someone who looked Like Lizzie attempt to buy it. Might have been her, might not.
Eli Bence: "Had a lady ask for prussic acid on Wednesday morning August 3rd. When asked for what use, she said “to put on the edge of a seal skin coat”. (For an unknown reason this was inadmissible in trial)

My opinion is that women tend to murder with non-violent means, poison chief among them so Lizzie attempting to poison them is not unreasonable.

[Steve88778]

Yes we know that women of the day used poison rather than a more violent method. And the testimony falls in line to what I already know.
I don't think there should be many errors the closer you get to the incident, but we can't pick and choose what we want to believe. The only thing I go by is repetition if I see this same story somewhere else or on the same paper on a couple of different dates , I will go by that as truth.
This story IF true opens yet another can of worms to the Lizzie Borden mystery. Did Eli Bence sell her that ? Personally I don't think so. The way they describe that poison it seems far fetched that Lizzie had the skill to use that and live to talk about it. Also - Why would Eli Bence who didn't know her sell a poison without an Rx. If you see any pictures of the man you can tell he is a go by the book guy. Why would he put himself in harm's way and responsible for the mishandling of this stuff ? I dont think the article holds any merit but it was published in the New York Sun. That's a plus.

[PossumPie]

No evidence exists that suggests that he DID sell her poison.
Pictures never prove guilt. Bundy looked charming.
If Lizzie was proven to ask about poison before the killings, that would suggest that she wanted them dead. It of course could be coincidence that she was interested in poison right before their deaths. But it would be another "nail in her coffin"

[Steve88778]

I need to go back to when this article was first published and see. Because they talk about the fact it was mentioned before. So that time would be from 8/2 to 8/6...
If I get it I will post it.
Buying poison has nothing to do with the guilt of Lizzie Borden. The the parents did not die that way and there was no trace of poison in the stomachs of the father and stepmother. Another shred of evidence the DA failed to drag into court. If that information was so valuable , I as a DA would spare no technicalities and have counsel at the inquest. But he didn't and that whole inquest went out the door along with the defendant at the end of the trial.

[camgarsky4]

Steve -- the decision to exclude the Prussic acid testimony from the trial was a completely separate decision from excluding Lizzie's inquest testimony.

It was excluded because the prosecution failed to prove that the poison didn't have an innocent use.

In my opinion that is a strange basis for the decision since almost anything harmful has a non-lethal application. I'm not sure how Knowlton could have handled differently.

[PossumPie]

If my parents were found hacked to death, and the police found that I tried to buy poison unsuccessfully, and a gun unsuccessfully, and a baseball bat but my credit card was declined, and I talked with a criminal on Facebook, and I Googled paid assassin, it proves NOTHING, but it implies a lot. Some cases are closed simply on circumstantial evidence. It's not the best, but enough of it adds up.

[Steve88778]

Right - I am just saying what she was charged with - and to a jury implications don't mean much - I guess. Reasonable doubt and the defence will hammer that into the jury any chance they get.

Also Lizzie couldn't have been that dumb as to buy poison for whatever reason then kill her parents the next day. The buffoons on the Fall River Police department were slow but they weren't that slow.

[PossumPie]

Right - I am just saying what she was charged with - and to a jury implications don't mean much - I guess. Reasonable doubt and the defence will hammer that into the jury any chance they get.

Also Lizzie couldn't have been that dumb as to buy poison for whatever reason then kill her parents the next day. The buffoons on the Fall River Police department were slow but they weren't that slow.

The information available shows that Lizzie attempted several times to purchase poison at various locations. She told people that she thought someone would poison the family, and Abbey went to the doctor with a malady that she thought she was poisoned. It wasn't a sudden idea, but off-and-on attempts to get poison and discuss poison. Being "dumb" around a crime is actually fairly common. Discussing means of death, Googling hitmen, finding poisons in the home, etc. then-the murder. People don't seem to realize that after a homicide their lives will fall under a magnifying glass.

[Kat]

The information available shows that Lizzie attempted several times to purchase poison at various locations. She told people that she thought someone would poison the family, and Abbey went to the doctor with a malady that she thought she was poisoned. It wasn't a sudden idea, but off-and-on attempts to get poison and discuss poison.

--partial
Please may I ask about sources for "... information available shows that Lizzie attempted several times to purchase poison at various locations." ? Newspapers, maybe? Thanks!

[Kat]

I found an interesting, tho specious, news item that supposedly gives jailer Hunt's theory on how the murders were committed - one new to me....Fall River Daily Herald date 8-8-1892:
(plz click on pic to make bigger)

[PossumPie]

The information available shows that Lizzie attempted several times to purchase poison at various locations. She told people that she thought someone would poison the family, and Abbey went to the doctor with a malady that she thought she was poisoned. It wasn't a sudden idea, but off-and-on attempts to get poison and discuss poison.

--partial
Please may I ask about sources for "... information available shows that Lizzie attempted several times to purchase poison at various locations." ? Newspapers, maybe? Thanks!

The most verified attempt to buy poison is documented in the trail records (for many pages) by Eli Bence. The second most verified attempt was the interview of Mr. Brow of Brow's drug store who while talking to a Herald reporter mentioned the purchase of poison 4 years previously ostensibly to kill a cat:

"It was claimed Lizzie made a second attempt to purchase prussic acid at Walter J. Brow's Drug Store at 62 Second St. A Boston Herald reporter interviewed Mr. Brow to verify the rumor. Mr. Brow said Lizzie traded at his store and had known Lizzie for the past twenty years. He assured the reporter Lizzie did not purchase any prussic acid. He recalled that Lizzie stopped trading at his store about four years ago. Her last purchase was chloroform, stating she wanted it for the purpose of killing a cat. Mr. Brow states Miss Borden asked for the stuff in rather a surly manner, and he answered just as saucily. Miss Borden paid for the chloroform and went out. She has never been in the shop since."
(Boston Herald, August 8, 1982: 2.)

Quote from inquest witness inquest testimony: "Eli Bence. Had a lady ask for prussic acid on Wednesday morning August 3rd. When asked for what use, she said “to put on the edge of a seal skin coat”. I made no sale. She left the store in a very haughty manner. “No, I do not know her, but think I would know her again, should I see her.” After being placed in a position where he could both see and hear Miss Lizzie Borden, he was very positive in identification, not only of her face and general appearance, but also of her voice. "
(Doherty & Harrington)

This incident while in the testimony has never as I can find been verified but the strange seal skin coat component does fit with the other attempt to buy prussic acid. Doherty and Harrington go on to say:

"Many sales had been made, and a number of persons refused. A description of those who were refused was obtained, but --none resembled the person who called on Bence. However, at P. S. Brown’s, a day or two before, a lady requested a sale of poison from clerk Gifford. She was refused. He could give no description of her."

As with all "evidence" in the Borden case, this runs the spectrum of very believable to possibly believable. I 've not mentioned the rumors that took hold as there are other apocryphal accounts of her attempting to buy poison at other stores in other towns. NONE of these as far as I know are verified.
As speculation only, if I were to want to buy poison (or a hatchet) to kill someone, I wouldn't do it in my hometown. This either shows impulsiveness or over confidence that she'd never be a suspect. Lizzie had the means to purchase it out-of-town, BUT all of the national attention after the crime, you'd think someone from another town would come forward and say Lizzie did try to purchase poison from them.

[camgarsky4]

Possum -- I am probably misreading your post, but the excerpt below is describing Lizzie's attempt to buy prussic acid that was not allowed to be heard by the jury. The way it flowed in your post above, read like you might be thinking it was an additive example of someone trying to purchase poison since you mention that it had not been verified. Sorry if I just misunderstood.


Excerpt from Possum's post:
Quote from inquest witness inquest testimony: "Eli Bence. Had a lady ask for prussic acid on Wednesday morning August 3rd. When asked for what use, she said “to put on the edge of a seal skin coat”. I made no sale. She left the store in a very haughty manner. “No, I do not know her, but think I would know her again, should I see her.” After being placed in a position where he could both see and hear Miss Lizzie Borden, he was very positive in identification, not only of her face and general appearance, but also of her voice. "
(Doherty & Harrington)

This incident while in the testimony has never as I can find been verified but the strange seal skin coat component does fit with the other attempt to buy prussic acid.

[camgarsky4]

Double post erasure!!

[camgarsky4]

Steve -- I probably give more validity to newspaper articles than most 'Bordenites' for two reasons.....1) without it, we are left with many unbridgeable gaps in the Borden story, and 2) I don't believe most journalists (even in 1892) intended or desired to publish pure fiction. I have no doubt they elaborated or published rumors without validation to offer something the competition did not. We have to be smart and show appropriate degrees of discretion before 'buying into' a reported aspect of these killings that is found nowhere else.

In this instance, I find your article intriguing because it was the New York Sun, and perhaps written by Julian Ralph, who had solid credentials. Google him.....a lot of bio info is available.

However, I am of the opinion to disregard the "Bence did sell the poison per a friend" blurb for a few reasons. 1) the source/friend is not named which is a big journalistic red flag, 2) If she bought it, I think she would have used it and not a hatchet (per autopsy report) and 3) I don't believe 3 reputable witnesses would be prepared to commit perjury just to cover Bence's butt. They would have just not reported the incident to the police in the first place.

[Steve88778]

I agree - I just found the article interesting.

KAT: I think I have a newspaper article that you might be interested in. I does not say Lizzie Borden exactly but the physical description of her sounds like her as well as how disappointed she was leaving the store, because she did not get what she wanted. And the fact that she would pay any amount of money for it. And the store was in town. It just reeks of Lizzie !!!! - So let's go arrest her...!

martel.png

SOURCE WASHINGTON EVENING STAR 8/8/1892

[PossumPie]

Possum -- I am probably misreading your post, but the excerpt below is describing Lizzie's attempt to buy prussic acid that was not allowed to be heard by the jury. The way it flowed in your post above, read like you might be thinking it was an additive example of someone trying to purchase poison since you mention that it had not been verified. Sorry if I just misunderstood.


Excerpt from Possum's post:
Quote from inquest witness inquest testimony: "Eli Bence. Had a lady ask for prussic acid on Wednesday morning August 3rd. When asked for what use, she said “to put on the edge of a seal skin coat”. I made no sale. She left the store in a very haughty manner. “No, I do not know her, but think I would know her again, should I see her.” After being placed in a position where he could both see and hear Miss Lizzie Borden, he was very positive in identification, not only of her face and general appearance, but also of her voice. "
(Doherty & Harrington)

This incident while in the testimony has never as I can find been verified but the strange seal skin coat component does fit with the other attempt to buy prussic acid.

Sorry if I was confusing, it's sometimes a challenge to put a citation on everything. While ultimately the Jury heard nothing about prussic acid, strangely the defense doesn't seem to object because it might not have been Lizzie, they object because Lizzie was unsuccessful in obtaining it and the murders were not committed with poison! I'd have to re-read and cross reference everything, but in the end it was considered not pertinent to the allegation of murder. I would say that looking at ALL of the evidence (strong and weak) Lizzie seems to have made multiple inquiries over a period of months to years regarding poison. Could it have never been her in any of the instances....possible. Could she have had a legitimate reason for asking for poison? Possible. The one clerk states that he knew her for years, knew her name, verbally interacted with her regarding Chloroform and poisoning a cat, and had a slight verbal altercation. This seems VERY specific so holds more weight in my mind. As you know at some point one must look at what's there and say "I believe this is strong enough for me to believe it"

[camgarsky4]

Agree.

There is nothing that specifically and indisputably contradicts Bence and associates testimony.....except for Lizzie's inquest testimony.

[PossumPie]

Eli Bence Inquest testimony:
A. I knew her as a Miss Borden; I have known her for sometime as a Miss Borden, but not as Andrew J.
Borden's daughter until that morning. One of the gentlemen who was sitting there, when she turned around and
went out, he says "that is Andrew J. Borden's daughter". I looked at her a second time then more closely than
when I was talking to her. I should say it was Miss Borden."
Eli Bence testimony:
A. I understood her to say she wanted it to put on the edge of a seal skin cape, if I remember rightly.

Frank Kilroy testimony: A. "She came in there, I was in front of the counter under the fan, talking with Mr. Bence, She went up to the
counter, Mr. Hart the clerk was behind the counter, she asked Mr. Hart for prussic acid. At that time Mr. Bence
left me and went behind the counter, and asked her if she had a prescription, that they could not sell prussic acid
without a prescription. I dont know just what she said. I heard her mention seal skin cape, and she left the store."

Fredrick Hart testimony:
A. Between ten and half past eleven o'clock Wednesday morning, a woman came in the store, and inquired for
prussic acid. She said she wanted it to put on the edges of a seal skin cloak. She was refused the acid and went
out.

Lizzie simply denied everything to do with the drug store and the Prussic acid in her testimony, but consider this: How did Eli Bence and the other two gentlemen who testified that they were with him and overheard the conversation KNOW that Lizzie owned a seal skin fur? It's difficult to say that they made it up or it was a different woman than Lizzie since the rather bizarre and uncommon reason the person wanted the poison was to do something with seal skin. It would be far less believable of a story if seal skins were never mentioned.

[camgarsky4]

Good catch with the reference to seal skin fur.

Combine that with the 10-11:30 time slot when Lizzie did not have a visibly confirmed alibi. Additionally, Bence and friends told about the prussic acid Thursday evening before it was known that poison had a part in the Borden crimes.

Those three callouts indicate to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Bence, et al were accurate in their identification of Lizzie as the prospective buyer.

[camgarsky4]

Steve -- the 2nd article you included is interesting. I have never heard that article referenced before.

Date of publication was Monday August 8th. If the Martel quote reference of "last Monday" meant Monday, August 1, that would fit within murder week's chronology of events.

The arsenic reference is fascinating because something made the Borden's very ill on Tuesday and it likely wasn't prussic acid.

Food for thought.....

p.s. Just received my copy of Lizzie Borden Sourcebook and will search it for more articles published in the Washington Evening Star.

[Steve88778]

I thought arsenic was something you could buy anytime - for rats.
Remember there was lady. in that house that was 26 years old that made the meals. I don't know how much she weighed but she was a big lady - not fat but healthy.

[PossumPie]

I thought arsenic was something you could buy anytime - for rats.
Remember there was lady. in that house that was 26 years old that made the meals. I don't know how much she weighed but she was a big lady - not fat but healthy.

"The most toxic forms of arsenic are the trivalent compounds arsenic trioxide, sodium arsenite, and arsenic trichloride. If ingested in large quantities, arsenic causes acute toxicity manifesting as severe gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and central nervous system disturbances, often progressing to death." (Robbins Basic Pathology, 9th edition)

Many poisons were available back then as main ingredients to other things or as stand-alone. Arsenic was the poison of choice for hundreds of years and so was easy to spot the symptoms. Often given small doses at a time, it killed slower and with less symptoms. This had the highest risk of being detected in an autopsy though.

Prussic acid (Nazi's called it "Zyklon B) when added to water gave off cyanide gas and this was used in the extermination camps. If ingested converts to thiocyanate in the body. It is a much faster poison as it inhibits oxygen utilization so the person literally asphyxiates.

The ideal situation when poisoning someone (especially someone you lived with) would be either untraceable poison or to set up suspicion before-hand that someone else was out to poison them. Using Prussic acid which breaks down and (in the 1800s) was untraceable within hours would be good, as would telling the neighbors before hand the one's father had enemies and they thought these enemies were trying to poison them.

Bridget had opportunity and means, but as far as any evidence or testimony goes, had zero motivation to kill the Bordens. The pay was good, the work was not overly heavy, except for the tension in the house and having to lock/unlock doors all day it was a good job.
It must be remembered back then (think Downton Abbey circa 1914) that to be a servant was not necessarily a "crap job" and carried a certain amount of pride. The only thing that assured you a good job was a list of positive references from previous employers. One bad reference and you had to take what you could get perhaps abusive or mean employers, while several glowing references might get you a position with a mayor or governor. Having two ax murders associated with your last employ certainly didn't look good on a resume'.

[Reasonwhy]

The musings about attempts to buy prussic acid in at least one other town are NOT merely apocryphal. Note the following, from Knowlton, Trial Transcript, Vol. II, p. 210:

“MR. KNOWLTON. No, Sir. It would be fair to say we have evidence to show some attempt to purchase prussic acid in another place, with the same negative results.”

From The Case Against Lizzie Borden, by William D. Spencer, p. 727:

“36 Bence. )
37 Kilroy ) Buying
38 Hart ) prussic
39 Wright-N.B. ) acid
40 Church-N.B. ).”

Spencer says the above info. is to be found in Knowlton’s Witness list for trial (I am unable to find that portion of the list, as yet.) His analysis of the listing is that “….The section title on Knowlton’s list, the occupation of the men and the presence of Bence, Hart, and Kilroy clearly show that Church and Wright would be called to testify as to the attempted purchase of the acid.” (p. 727)

Earlier on p.727, Spencer gives his reasoning for this conclusion, first explaining, “….The notation N.B. after Wright and Church would seem to indicate the two were in New Bedford. The 1892 New Bedford City Directory lists the following:
Charles H. Church, druggist, 122 Purchase and 1 Pleasant
Edward E., E. Wright, treasurer and clerk, Wright Drug Co., 49 and Purchase …” (p. 727)
And, Spencer explains the two stores are very close to each other, and quite close to where Lizzie stayed in New Bedford within two weeks prior to the murders. (p. 727)

Spencer includes mention that the Providence News of Wednesday, August 24, 1892, had reported that, “….Knowlton had conferred with New Bedford druggist Edward E. Wright, owner of the Wright Drug Company, as to the composition and effect of prussic acid.” (p. 727)

However, Spencer takes issue with that as the purpose of Knowlton’s conference with Wright. He believes that Knowlton had experts, listed in other sections of his witness list, whom he intended to have speak to those issues.

His conclusion is that Wright and Church were to be called as witnesses to Lizzie’s attempts to buy prussic acid in New Bedford.

Whether we agree with Spencer’s conclusion or not – do you? – I do, we still must acknowledge Knowlton’s statement at trial, from the beginning of my post:

“MR. KNOWLTON. No, Sir. It would be fair to say we have evidence to show some attempt to purchase prussic acid in another place, with the same negative results.”

Not rumored. Not apocryphal.

[camgarsky4]

Reason -- the pharmacists witness listing are noted on page 183 in Knowlton Papers.

And yes, I wholeheartedly buy into Spencer's interpretation of the role of the New Bedford pharmacists as summoned witnesses.

His recreation of why these New Bedford pharmacists were summoned is extremely well constructed.

[Kat]

I find the citation in my trial document, pg 1242, Knowlton does say that. Good find!
It was argued to keep it out as not connected in time to Wednesday the 3rd, and not the means of the murder as charged.

(And earlier here, thanks for the Martel reference: that reminds me it is in Rebello, pg 78.
It's cool you have the actual news item.)

--However, Lizzie supposedly did not go out Wednesday at all, except Wednesday night to visit Alice. She kind of has an alibi. Can you break her Alibi? Abbie is actually one, and Mrs Dr Bowen and Bridget. This should be good!

[Reasonwhy]

Yes, Kat, it’s just listed as p. 210 of 673 of the Trial Transcript, Vol. II, under “Primary Source Documents” on the lizzieandrewborden.com website.

[Reasonwhy]

Reason -- the pharmacists witness listing are noted on page 183 in Knowlton

Thanks for finding that, Camgarsky!

[Reasonwhy]

....--However, Lizzie supposedly did not go out Wednesday at all, except Wednesday night to visit Alice. She kind of has an alibi. Can you break her Alibi? Abbie is actually one, and Mrs Dr Bowen and Bridget. This should be good!

Well, I suppose one could start with Dr. Bowen's trial whopper in which he disavows his own inquest testimony as a "mistake." At the inquest, he said he'd said he seen Lizzie walking up the street. (Up the street meant heading south, which was toward Bence's drugstore).

At the trial, it's a different story...

from the Trial Transcript, pp.297-98:

...."Q. On the day preceding August 4 did you see Miss Lizzie Borden at any time on the street?
A. I saw her after six o'clock, between six and seven o'clock.

Q. Going in which direction?
A. Going north, going down the street.

Q. Going down?
A. Yes, Sir.

Q. Did you at any time see her coming up the street?
A. No, Sir.

Q. By the street, you mean Second Street, I presume?
A. Yes, Sir.

Q. Doctor, you testified at the inquest, did you not, the private hearing?
A. Yes, Sir.

Q. That time was very soon after these occurrences that are under inquiry?
A. Yes, Sir.

Q. Do you recall whether you said anything at that inquest as to seeing Miss Lizzie Borden coming up that street on Wednesday?
A. No,Sir; I did not.

Q. Perhaps I may aid you: Do you remember being asked this question and replying in the manner I state, "Did you afterwards see Mr. Borden? Did you see him Thursday? A. I don't remember of seeing him Thursday; I might possibly. I saw him Wednesday walking along between the side street and gate.Lizzie I saw walking up the street and I concluded they were all right, all of them."
A. Down the street it should have been. I made a mistake.

Q. It was a mistake, then?
A. Yes, Sir.

One could simply assume Dr. Bowen was an addled fool, given some of his contradictory remarks, and fearful to boot, since he'd dismissed Abby's worries about poisoning. Why then do I suspect Bowen lied at trial? I think he was protecting Lizzie.

[Reasonwhy]

Now, how else might we break Lizzie's alibi?

How about her contradictory statements of having been in all day Wednesday, due to illness, then to having been out when Morse arrived, as her excuse for not having seen him? In fairness, it could be presumed Lizzie meant during her evening outing to Alice Russell's, but the context of Knowlton's questioning seems to me to imply the earlier time frame. (Like Camgarsky4, I don't love typing - I'm very slow - so maybe someone else will want to offer that material in quotation from testimony.)

As to Bridget's and Abby's saying they did not see her downstairs all day: I would answer that just means they did not see her because Lizzie snuck out and back in: it was part of her alibi.

And Mrs. Dr. Bowen? She says she was just repeating what Abby had told her.

[Kat]

Thanks! Sorry, we passed each other in the post. Hmmm, "sneaking out" is not quite what I had in mind...maybe a timeline?
We now need the ladies I mentioned and Lizzie's own testimony to break her alibi for Wednesday...all the info, inclusive, in order to decide, I think.
Can include Witness Statements and testimonies... maybe a little Morse?...who knows...

I think you mentioned you have PDF and that format doesn't allow for copy-paste, dagnabbit! Frustrating, since you are obviously up for the challenge!

[Reasonwhy]

Kat, our daughter is coming for a visit very soon, so she (my Master of the Computer Universe) will tutor me as to how to get the hang of this copy/paste of a PDF on a Mac thing. In the meantime, I'll type as much as time allows...

And I'll think on that timeline, maybe before others can beat me to it.

[PossumPie]

A rather complete search of the "official" records shows Lizzie apparently didn't leave the house Wednesday until evening. Even Mrs. Borden's conversations about the poisoning state that Lizzie was in the house Wednesday.

Bridget trial testimony:
Q. See if I understand you about another thing? On Wednesday morning it was that
Miss Lizzie came down and complained and did not want much breakfast.
A. She did not say anything about breakfast, but she said she was sick all night.
Q. That she was sick all night?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I think you said in answer to some question put to you by the other side, that night
you did not hear any of them come up, you were up in your room, but did not hear them.
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you learn that Mrs. and Mrs. Borden were ill?
A. They told me that morning.
Q. You did not hear any one of the three?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Miss Lizzie was about the house that forenoon not doing anything in particular?
A. I saw her around the house before dinner. I saw her down in the kitchen at
breakfast time and
Page 293
before dinner was served on the table.
…

Q. Between the breakfast hour on the Wednesday and the time you saw Miss Lizzie
Borden at dinner, did you see her anywhere?
A. Between breakfast and dinner?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't remember of seeing her any more.
Q. Where she was in the mean time you don't know?
A. No, sir, I don't.

Alice Russell trial testimony:
Q. Do you occasionally have calls from the prisoner; did she come to your house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you go to her house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you called at her house where did she receive you, in what part of the house?
A. Upstairs, in what is called the guest room.
Q. Did she use that for a sitting-room as you were there,---the guest room?
A. As I was there.
Q. Now I will call your attention, if you please, to a visit she made to you upon the
Wednesday night of August 3 of last year. Did she make such a visit?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About what time did she make it?
A. I am not sure; I think about seven.
Q. Some time in the evening, was it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she come alone or did some one else come with her?
A. Alone, as far as I saw.
Q. Now speak louder; I find difficulty in hearing you. About how long did she stay with
you, Miss Russell, that night?
A I think she went at nine, or five minutes after. That is as near as I know.

[Steve88778]

Thought you might find this interesting

pr.jpg

.
SOURCE: THE EVENING STAR ,WASHINGTON D.C. - MAY 26, 1888

[camgarsky4]

Bridget Trial (copied from above):
Q. Between the breakfast hour on the Wednesday and the time you saw Miss Lizzie
Borden at dinner, did you see her anywhere?
A. Between breakfast and dinner?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't remember of seeing her any more.
Q. Where she was in the mean time you don't know?
A. No, sir, I don't

The 3 witnesses at the pharmacy place the 'lizzie look-a-like' at the store sometime between 10am-11:30.

Since Lizzie's bedroom is isolated visually from the vast majority of the house, and Lizzie could leave via the front door easily without being seen, to my way of thinking this is not a verified alibi. Bridget is just confirming that Lizzie didn't go to the pharmacy at breakfast (pre 10am) and was in the house for lunch (post 11:30am). Neither of those facts is disputed by Bence and team.

p.s. yeah...I think the user of that perfume better be careful!! :)

[camgarsky4]

I need to figure out this double posting thing.....

[PossumPie]

I need to figure out this double posting thing.....

Sometimes happens to me, when you hit submit, give it time to completely submit. If it LOOKS like you post didn't show up, DON'T hit submit again, hit the curled arrow button on your browser (reload this page) and it usually appears.



I think the whole opportunity to go try to buy poison on Wednesday will stay unresolved. Mrs. Borden, Bridget, Dr. Bowen, and Alice Russell all saw Lizzie that Wednesday and all stated that Lizzie said she was ill, and spent most of the day upstairs, going out only in the evening to see Ms. Russell.
Dr. Bowen's rather confusing trial testimony states that

"Q. On the day preceding Aug. 4 did you see Miss Lizzie Borden at any time on the street?"
A. I saw her after six o'clock,---between six and seven o'clock".

This "6-7" seems odd if he means morning but would be logical if he means evening as Lizzie was going to see Alice at that time. Dr. Bowen further denied his trial testimony that Lizzie was going DOWN the street (north) and insisted in the inquest that she was coming UP the street (south). He then testified that he went to Abbey's house and saw Lizzie going up the stairs.
She came down at least once according to Bridget, nobody saw her leave or return, no witness saw her on the street. It wouldn't have been impossible to sneak out and back in. Remember "Dinner" meant "Lunch" so Bridget states that she indeed saw Lizzie at various times between breakfast and lunch downstairs. If she went out without anyone looking, they could think that she was upstairs.

[camgarsky4]

Thanks!

[Kat]

Thanks, so far, you guys!
I believe Mrs Dr Bowen had a conversation with Abbie about Lizzie Wednesday...anyone find that? And to be fair we should include what Lizzie said about Wednesday?

[Kat]

And, Reasonwhy, I also have Macs and you can't copy paste from a PDF. The only thing I can think of is a screen shot photo, or typing! And I have retired from typing!⌨

[camgarsky4]

Possum -- I have read those testimonies multiple times and do not recall Bridget testifying that she SEES Lizzie various times (or even one time) between breakfast and lunch. Her testimony at trial is pasted above where she actually states she didn't see her between those dining events.

Would you be able to paste and post the testimony of Bridget see Lizzie during that timeline?

Bowen visited that house early Wednesday...again breakfast time and saw Lizzie scurry upstairs. But nothing about being in their home between 10-11:30. Morse hadn't arrived yet.

Three people did see Lizzie at the pharmacy. As far as no one seeing her walking to the pharmacy....no one saw Andrew walking to the banks that morning either and we know he got there, likely via the barber shop and post office. And we know the police scoured the streets trying to determine Andrews route and actions that morning. Unless you truly know someone, who checks out the folks walking around them on any given outing? I sure couldn't tell you who walked by me at the mall yesterday.

Lizzie does not have a verified alibi. However, she does have three reputable adults saying they saw/talked to her at the nearby pharmacy. Really not sure why their statements are only given equal value to Bridget assuming Lizzie was in her bedroom.

[camgarsky4]

Kat -- back in the day, some posters had census information readily available. I was wondering if D.R. Smith's Drug store was the physically closest pharmacy to the Borden house? It was so near that I would think it was, but don't know positively.

Be interesting to know how many drug stores were in Fall River.

It sure is compelling that this "lizzie look-a-like" chose the pharmacy nearest Lizzie's home on the very morning after her parents had been struck violently ill all night, but woke up alive, to attempt a purchase of a deadly poison. The timing is so precise and the proximity so intimate that to my way of thinking, it defies coincidence as the explanation.

[PossumPie]

We must be careful about Bridget's testimony.

A. I saw her around the house before dinner. I saw her down in the kitchen at breakfast time and before dinner was served on the table.

Her memory wasn't perfect, she admits that she saw Lizzie at least around breakfast and "around the house" before lunch. This is frustratingly vague as Lizzie would have only needed an hour to slip out and come back unseen. "I don't remember of seeing her anymore..." is different than "I did not see her"
Without an anchoring incident to tie a memory to, Bridget is saying (I believe) I don't remember seeing her but she could have come down for something.
Barring some witness statement we have missed, the best that can be said is that between breakfast and lunch, Lizzie's whereabouts cannot be proven either by her or the prosecution. Sneaking out is risky as the place is a fortress and even Mr. Borden needed to be "let in" with a key.

As for the pharmacy, here is a post I made in 2013 in the "To poison or not to poison" thread:

I researched the Pharmacy incident awhile back. It was TOO close to their house for Lizzie to say she never heard of it, or didn't know where it was. Cutting across to the next street it was a long block and a half away. There is no way she didn't know about it.

And a post I made in another thread in 2013 "Re: Outright lie?"

(Another poster and I were debating Lizzie not knowing the pharmacy)
...I don't care WHAT year you lived in, you knew the houses, shops, and streets 2 blocks from your home. ESPECIALLY if you walked or took an open carriage everywhere. Bad part of town or not, you knew of the shops that close. I'm not saying she was the one asking for poison, In fact I am skeptical b/c the story didn't come out until AFTER she was a suspect, and the shop owner didn't even know her. I'm dubious that it even was her...BUT I guarantee that she knew of the shop, it was on the next street over!!

ELI BENCE, Sworn.
Q. What is your full name?
A. My name is Eli Bence.
Q. Do you live in Fall River?
A. I do.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a drug clerk.
Q. For whom do you work?
A. For D. R. Smith.
Q. Where is Mr. Smith's shop?
A. On the corner of South Main and Columbia streets in Fall River.

Untitled.jpg

I've since softened my opinion about it since those posts, My main hesitancy back in 2013 was that they dragged the pharmacist to Lizzie's home and asked him "Is this the women you saw?" Not quite an anonymous line up. Granted we have the testimony of the other two men so that helps.

[camgarsky4]

Bridget Preliminary Hearing testimony Pg 55
Q. You had the pork steak and something for breakfast?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. And Lizzie complained of being sick?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Lizzie stayed in her room all that forenoon, did not she?
A. I suppose so; I did not see her until she came to dinner.
Q. You knew she was up stairs. They were all sick and ailing that day?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. She did not go out at all that day, did she, so far as you know?
A. Miss Lizzie? I did not see her.
Q. So far as you know she did not go out?
A. I could not say whether she went out or not.
Q. That Wednesday morning they came down and had all been sick during the night?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. They had breakfast, and they looked pretty badly, or rather Mr. and Mrs. Borden did?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. And Lizzie complained?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. They ate a little breakfast, and Lizzie went back up stairs to her room?
A. I suppose so. She went out of my sight, I do not know where she went.

Bridget's testimony in the preliminary hearing (couple weeks after the murders) and the trial are consistent. She can't be more clear that she did not see her after breakfast and until she came down to the dinner table. To our knowledge, no one saw Lizzie in the Borden home from 9:30ish to 11:30ish. However, we have three people who saw her couple blocks away at the pharmacy sometime between 10am-11:30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Trial testimony:
Q. Between the breakfast hour on the Wednesday and the time you saw Miss Lizzie
Borden at dinner, did you see her anywhere?
A. Between breakfast and dinner?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't remember of seeing her any more.
Q. Where she was in the mean time you don't know?
A. No, sir, I don't
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning the home being a fortress and the front door.....Lizzie was the keeper of the front door key and its locked status.

[PossumPie]

Camgarsky4, I think we can agree that Lizzie could have sneaked out. There is no concrete evidence that she did, but nobody in the house saw her the entire 2hr window between breakfast and lunch. From an armchair detective perspective, this is possible. From a defense attorney perspective, it is complete lack of evidence that she snuck out (except for the drug-store witnesses). The map I posted above shows she could have walked from her house to the drug store in about 4 min. according to Google maps. 4 min. down, 4 min. back, 5 min in shoppe to ask about poison, less than 15 minutes she'd need! Very do-able. None of the nosey neighbors seeing her is a shame as far as added proof.

I'd have to research back about Lizzie's "usual" way of getting in the house. It seems that even when someone is home, the only way in or out is to knock/ring the bell as that is what Andrew had to do. Even when going out for something simple as washing windows They had a whole discussion on hooking the screen door vs. not. The neighborhood was on the edge of the "seedy" part of town, but holy cow that seems paranoid.

[camgarsky4]

Possum -- I like the google map construct you did, great visual.

As I study this case, where I might wander off the reservation, is that I don't spend any time worrying about courtroom or judicial limitations or rules.

That said, if I'm the prosecutor and I had three reputable eye witnesses; no validated alibi for the suspect; proximity and timing are perfect fits with the overall crime timeline; testimony of the family illness the prior day and these same sick people being killed the next day and the only defense counter is that no one saw her walk to the store.....If I was a prosecuting attorney, I'd take that hand into court any day. I'm sure Knowlton was licking his chops, but then the judge blocked the entire line of attack from being presented to the jury for an odd reason....prussic acid has innocent uses. So do hatchets.

Lizzie entered the house via front door when she got home from visiting Alice on the 3rd. She also testified that she & Emma were in charge of locking/unlocking the front door on a daily basis

[Reasonwhy]

Dr. Bowen further denied his inquest testimony that Lizzie was going DOWN the street (south) and insisted in trial that she was coming UP the street (North).

(Partial quote)

To avoid confusion, I did a search of the term downstreet on this forum. 34 results popped up.
“Downstreet,” at least then, apparently meant traveling north, toward Fall River’s downtown. “Upstreet,” or up the street, meant traveling south (as one would in going to D.R. Smith’s, the drugstore where Bence was employed).

This becomes important in understanding Dr. Bowen’s inquest and trial testimony about where he saw Lizzie.
At the Inquest, he says he sees her going up the street (south); D.R. Smith’s was south of the Borden house.
At trial, he says he sees her going down the street (north); Alice Russell’s house was north of the Borden house.

This upstreet/downstreet usage seemed so counterintuitive to me when I first started to research the case.