John Donnelly and the Hay in the Barn

[swinell]

Hi everyone!

Still inching my way through the Preliminary Hearing though very near the end but I've come across something here I haven't anywhere else and I wonder if any of our lovely forum posters have any more insight on the subject:

In the Preliminary Hearing, pgs 471-476, John Donnelly, who does not appear in the Witness Statements or the Inquest Testimony, testifies that he went up to the loft in the Borden's barn and says:
"Q (Jennings) : Did you notice anything about the hay?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: Where was the hay?
A: I call it on the north side of the barn.
Q: What did you see in the hay, anything about the hay that indicated anything, except the usual condition of hay piled up there?
A: It looked to me as though there had been somebody laying on it; I do not know whether there had or not.
...
Q (Knowlton): What was it that looked as though somebody had been lying there?
A: This hay.
Q: What was it about it?
A: It looked as though there was a form of a body on there, that had been sleeping on there, or something.
Q: Do you mean as though somebody had been pressing, or making the impression of their form on the hay?
A: Yes sir."

He goes on to give descriptions of the impression and it is later referred to by Knowlton as a "round hole"

I don't know much about hay beyond that it's for horses and such and it's common uses and all that, but in terms of the physical properties, I don't know much. I wonder if anyone here might be able to weigh in on whether this impression is more likely to have been made from repeated sitting in that spot over a long period of time or if it is more likely to have been made by someone (presumably Lizzie) having been up there about an hour to a half-hour before it was spotted by Donnelly?

If it turns out that the latter is more likely, then this is perhaps, the most exculpatory piece of evidence for Lizzie I've come across in the primary documents. I recall someone saying somewhere that they examined the barn and noticed that it was covered in dust such that they made tracks when they entered and that no other tracks were visible but I can't remember where I heard this...maybe the witness statements of one of the officers, I'll have to go back and check but...in the meantime - any thoughts?

EDIT: I found the dust comment in the witness statement of William H. Medley, pg. 28, given on the day of the murders, he says "I went at once up stairs in the barn, but found no footprints in the dust, except what I made myself." I looked for his testimony in the Preliminary Hearing but apparently he didn't testify then. He did, however testify at the trial (Book 2, pgs. 644-676). Here, he expands considerably upon that comment:

"I went up stairs until I reached about three or four steps from the top, and while there part of my body was above the floor, above the level of the floor, and I looked around the barn to see if there was any evidence of anything having been disturbed, and I stooped down low to see if I could discern any marks on the floor of the barn having been made there. I did that by stooping down and looking across the bottom of the barn floor. I didn't see any, and I reached out my hand to see if I could make an impression on the floor of the barn, and I did by putting my hand down so fashion (illustrating) and found that I made an impression on the barn floor.

Q: Describe what there was on or about the floor by which you made an impression?
A: Seemed to be accumulated hay dust and other dust.
Q: How distinctly could you see the marks which you made with your hand?
A: I could see them quite distinctly when I looked for them.
Q: Go on and describe anything else which you did?
A: Then I stepped up on the top and took four or five steps on the outer edge of the barn floor, the edge nearest the stairs, they came up to see if I could discern those, and I did.
Q: How did you look to see if I [you] could discern those footsteps which you had made?
A: I did it in the first place by stooping down and casting my eye on a level with the barn floor, and could see them plainly.
Q: Did you see any other footsteps in that dust than those which you made yourself?
A: No, sir."

(The Trial of Lizzie Borden Book 2, Widdows, Koorey, & Koorey pgs 650-651)

Gosh do I hope someone will come in here and say that it's more likely that the impression in the hay was a fresh one from Lizzie because that would be quite a puzzler but it seems as though it was likely made by repeated sitting in that spot over a long period of time, again, I don't know whether that would be consistent with either the physical properties of hay nor whether that correlates with common usage of hay in Fall River at the time. I guess I'll have to wait for my Jennings Journal copy to arrive before I can see whether the defense pounced on that...though I assume not because Donnelly did not testify at the trial

[Kat]

The problem is so complicated, I don't know if it can be solved. Was Lizzie up there, looking out the window? Did she get barn dust on her? If she was up there then she would leave tracks, especially her hem dragging, since that Bedford Cord was longer in the back like a train, than she usually wore. And then we have "Me and Brownie" [*and I think one of the reporters,] saying they were up there- but that may need a timeline pinned down. It's down to who do you believe (and a timeline). And how long was the hay there? And it's a good question as to whether the indentation was real, and if so, did it accumulate over time (as if someone liked to go there periodically)...
If we believe Lizzie was up there then Medley is mistaken.
And others have tried to point to this issue as proof a man slept there Wednesday night, and possibly other nights, as well. Very complicated. You're right, maybe the Jennings Journal will give some insight. I'm not yet at "Brownie and me"...

[*edit here- "The Journals" say Donnelly, Medley and Benjamin Buffington- not a reporter at that time.pg 4. **sorry, edit again: pg 4 spells Buffington, but pg 17 and Index spells Buffinton]

[Steve887788]

Gosh do I hope someone will come in here and say that it's more likely that the impression in the hay was a fresh one from Lizzie because that would be quite a puzzler

I remember reading about an impression that was testified that was no bigger than as shoe box - which made people laugh in the courtroom. I think the DA was the one that brought it up. Giving the impression that nobody could lie down and make such a small impression.

I would like to get a better timeline on who went in there first. Didn't Brownie and Me ( I hope the names are right ) -go in first ?I am a little skeptical about the police doing the dust and footprint study because first of all Lizzie was lighter than the officers and her marks prob. were not that noticeable - and as for her dress - did they not walk around carrying their dress with one hand so it did not drag on the ground ? I would think they almost had to when they went outside - everything was dirty back then on the street and dirty places like the barn.

[Kat]

I can picture Lizzie holding up her skirts to go upstairs in the barn. But her hands are going to be dirty : Hiram said she told him she had been cutting lead. (Unless that's made up by newspapers...it's not testimony) She'd have sticky fingers from the pears, and, I'd also think, some sweat. I know we've discussed this before that she left out any reference to washing her hands, tho some think she did, because they were clean when seen by her neighbors.
So if she did go, and got dirty hands and held up her skirts as opined, then her dress would be dirty from holding it up (hand marks, etc), and at least the ruffle at the bottom would be dusty, and maybe a little straw on her, I think.

[Kat]

"The Journals" pgs 17-18-19
Deputy Sheriff Benjamin Buffinton went into barn at 1 pm. Says "There is nobody who could have told from the condition of the barn that anybody had or had not been in there. There wasn't enough dust on the floor for anybody's footsteps to have left marks in it, so whether Lizzie Borden went in there or not can't be said for certain."

I don't remember this witness. His statements in the "Providence Journal" (sourced by Jennings) sound very self-assured. One o'clock seems pretty late to me, but somehow he seems convinced and convincing...
-- no comment on the hay, tho.

[camgarsky4]

Remember that Lizzie tells us she wore the Bengaline Silk dress to the barn & loft. With plans to putz around the house, iron hanky's and rummage around for pieces of metal in the loft of the barn, Lizzie wore a 'going out' dress.

[Kat]

Yes, whichever dress she wore would have been dirtied as well as her hands if she did what she said she did.
I was just moving a few things around in my garage and I got pretty dirty and dusty and I wasn't even hot. I had marks all over my pants: I could see the front and brushed at myself, but could not see my back, and it wasn't until I changed later that I saw all the dusty marks on the back of my pants.

[PossumPie]

Gosh do I hope someone will come in here and say that it's more likely that the impression in the hay was a fresh one from Lizzie because that would be quite a puzzler

I remember reading about an impression that was testified that was no bigger than as shoe box - which made people laugh in the courtroom. I think the DA was the one that brought it up. Giving the impression that nobody could lie down and make such a small impression.

I would like to get a better timeline on who went in there first. Didn't Brownie and Me ( I hope the names are right ) -go in first ?I am a little skeptical about the police doing the dust and footprint study because first of all Lizzie was lighter than the officers and her marks prob. were not that noticeable - and as for her dress - did they not walk around carrying their dress with one hand so it did not drag on the ground ? I would think they almost had to when they went outside - everything was dirty back then on the street and dirty places like the barn.

If we are to believe Lizzie, she was there first at somewhere around 11 AM. Testimony is contradictory-- there were no footprints in the dust/ there wasn't enough dust to show footprints.
TRIAL TESTIMONY
OFFICER MEDLEY
"I went upstairs till I reached about three or four steps from the top, and while there part of my body was above the floor, and I looked around the barn to see if there was any evidence of anything having been disturbed, and I didn't notice that anything had or seemed to have been disturbed. I stooped down low to see if I could discern any marks on the floor of the barn having been made there." Just as one can see when they get in a line with dust. "I did that by stooping down and looking across the bottom of the barn floor. I didn't see any, and I reached out my hand to see if I could make an impression on the floor of the barn, and found that I could. What was on the floor was accumulated hay dust and other dust. Then I stepped up to the top and took four or five steps on the outer edge of the barn floor, the edge nearest the stairs they came up, to see if I could discern them, and I did. I did it by stooping down and cast my eye on the level of the barn floor, and could see them plainly."

it would have to mean that both Lizzie and the boys were lying about going up there if any dust on the floor was undisturbed.
TESTIMONY THOMAS BARLOW
Q. You say "we." Who?
A. Me and Brownie.
Q. Well, tell us what you did now?
A. We went up to Mr. Sawyer, he was on the back steps, and asked him to let us go in the house, and he wouldn't let us in, so we went in the barn.
A. Went in the barn and went right up to the hay loft. I went over to the front window on the west side and looked out the window. Then we went and looked in under the hay, and after that we came down stairs again and went out.
...
Q. How was the heat up in the barn compared with it out in the sun?
A. It was cooler up in the barn that it was out doors.

Lizzie and "Me and Brownie" both testified that it wasn't oppressively hot up there. The ambient temperature before noon on that day in Fall River was under 80 degrees, rising to about 85 late in the afternoon-- (this is based on meteorological data) so Lizzie and the boys saying it was cool up there was accurate. The lawyers tried to poke holes in the boys testimony by suggesting that it would have been too hot up there, but they stuck to their version that it was cool. That's why I tend to believe that they were indeed up there--wouldn't it have been easier to just agree with the lawyer?

If "Me and Brownie" boys are believed, they were there after Lizzie purported to be there as the murders had already happened and they were looking for someone hiding there. Officer Medley must have been there shortly before or after the boys as he arrived at the house, went inside, then went straight to the barn.
If it were common knowledge that Andrew had no horse or cow and the barn was not used, it may have been used by tramps to sleep in the hay. The lock was a simple hook-and-eye, easily opened. Given that Andrew got rid of his pigeons because he didn't want strangers going in his barn, he may have had trouble with kids/tramps before.
The impression in the hay was contradictory also. It was as if a body had been laying there, it was the size of a shoebox, it was a round hole. If we believe Me and Brownie, they poked and threw the hay to see if someone was hiding there so any impression would have been lost.

[camgarsky4]

Possum -- based on Bridget's testimony, the barn door was secured by a lock. I'm not convinced that tramps could or would use the Borden barn loft as a place to spend the night. There had to be numerous better options in Fall River which allowed for a ready and prompt exit.

Also, Lizzie testified at her inquest that is was 'very' hot in the loft (testimony pasted below). The B&B boys were the only witness who claimed it was cooler in the loft than out in the open. I personally find that odd since out doors would have whatever breeze was flowing that day and the barn would be draft-less. This could just be a case of teenage boys not really being aware of surrounding nuances (like temperature) when they are on an 'adventure'.

I'm not a farmer, but straw that has been stagnant for well over a year, could well have had formations created long ago and nothing would have disturbed them. Whenever the last time straw was tossed to the horse below would have created an indention and that spot could have just settled into what Donnelly or others saw.

Lastly, I think it unlikely that a murderer would have hung out in the barn all night. Why not show up in the very early hours and hide behind the barn, but with the fence blocking any view from the Chagnon's? If the barn door was locked (requiring Andrew to unlock that morning), had the killer already snuck out of the barn and was hiding outside somewhere? Where? Andrew wandered the back yard around the barn quite a bit that morning, hard to think he (nor Bridget when vomiting) didn't peak around the back of the barn.

Bridget Prelim Hearing cross examination. Pg. 60
Q. Now did Mr. Borden go out into the back yard before breakfast?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Take anything out?
A. Yes, he took his slop pail out.
Q. Did he go around back of the barn to take that out there?
A. Threw it out in the yard, I guess, and went into the barn and got some water.
Q. The door of the barn was open that Thursday morning?
A. He had a key, and opened it himself.
Q. He opened it, and got some water?
A. Yes Sir.

Lizzie Inquest Testimony
Q. That is second story of the barn?
A. Yes, sir
Q. Was the window open?
A. I think not
Q. Hot?
A. Very hot.

[Steve887788]

I dont know if there was a seperate door to be able to get water - but did Bridget not go in and out of the barn to get water to wash the windows ? And window washing tool (s) ?

[PossumPie]

Camgarsky, The temp in the barn is yet another mystery. The meteorological data says about 79 degrees in the forenoon, and about 85 degrees in the afternoon. "hot" is subjective, and a second floor barn may have been toasty, but Lizzie in her preliminary testimony argues with the prosecution that she DID stay up there 20 minutes despite his repeated statements that it was "hot." If we believe Lizzie was never near the barn that day, she WOULD say it was very hot up there as she wasn't ever up there. Unless "me and Brownie" were lying about being up there at all, they said it wasn't hot up there, they knew that there was hay up there, and admitted to moving it around. They also said that they entered the barn easily by using the hook-and-eye latch on the barn door to get in. If there was a key lock, it wasn't locked Thursday morning (unless they were lying about that as well), BUT Medley also said he just walked into the barn...Almost everything in this is contradictory.

[camgarsky4]

Not really sure what you are pushing on with Lizzie saying the loft was very hot. That is what she said. I don't think the heat in the loft was relevant one way or the other. I was just providing her testimony because you had mentioned that her testimony was that it was not hot.

I don't think 'me & brownie' were lying and encountered a latch to get in because Andrew had unlocked the door that morning as Bridget testified. Just like the Borden's left the wood side door unlocked and the front door unbolted during the day, I presume the barn door was left unlocked once Andrew unlocked it in the morning and he likely made sure it was locked at night as he did with the back cellar door which was also testified by Bridget.

I don't think there is anything contradictory about the locking or latching of the barn door. And really nothing odd about the various testimonies about the temp in the loft. I don't think teenagers notice much of anything if they are having "fun", but most other folks would think a temp anywhere near 80 degrees in humid New England, and in an enclosed , unvented building would likely find it on the uncomfortable side.

All that said, I don't think the temp in the loft is all that pertinent.

[PossumPie]

Not really sure what you are pushing on with Lizzie saying the loft was very hot. That is what she said. I don't think the heat in the loft was relevant one way or the other. I was just providing her testimony because you had mentioned that her testimony was that it was not hot.

I don't think 'me & brownie' were lying and encountered a latch to get in because Andrew had unlocked the door that morning as Bridget testified. Just like the Borden's left the wood side door unlocked and the front door unbolted during the day, I presume the barn door was left unlocked once Andrew unlocked it in the morning and he likely made sure it was locked at night as he did with the back cellar door which was also testified by Bridget.

I don't think there is anything contradictory about the locking or latching of the barn door. And really nothing odd about the various testimonies about the temp in the loft. I don't think teenagers notice much of anything if they are having "fun", but most other folks would think a temp anywhere near 80 degrees in humid New England, and in an enclosed , unvented building would likely find it on the uncomfortable side.

All that said, I don't think the temp in the loft is all that pertinent.

Your explanation of the locking/unlocking of the barn makes sense. I agree.
My push about Lizzie saying it was "Very hot" goes like this: Everyone going up in the barn except Lizzie and me and Brownie went up in the mid afternoon. It was hot up there then. The boys went up earlier and said not that it "wasn't hot" but that it was Cool. This fits with the weather report AND could mean that Lizzie was lying about being in the barn at all. I don't believe she was out there, so of course she is going to say it was "very hot" because she assumed it was but was never out there to know that it wasn't. I--like you do-- sometimes use the forum to formulate a thought. Perhaps I shouldn't as I often end up believing something different than I started believing. I probably shouldn't be posting "factual" things during my final exams week as I often don't research the testimony before posting.

[camgarsky4]

Good luck on the finals!! My sons just finished finals week last week.

Remember you'll have Christmas waiting right around the corner after you ACE them!

[swinell]

Just got my copy of the Jennings Journals! pg. 3, 2i:
"Among the significant incidents revealed in the search through the premises [92 Second St] was brought to light by John Donnelly, who with others searched through the barn to see if any trace of the fugitive could be found there. In the hay was the perfect outline of a man as if he had slept there over night. Besides this, it was evident that the sleeper was either restless or had been there before, because an imprint was found in another part of the hay that corresponded with the outlines of the first impression. Somebody may have been in the habit of going there for a nap, but the imprint was shorter than Mr. Borden..."

So...to me at least this suggests that the imprint was not fresh and likely was there as a result of the hay being used as makeshift furniture up in the loft by the family when they went up there.

[camgarsky4]

Swinell -- I agree that the impressions if made by people (or animals), were possibly made long before August 4th. Perhaps even back to when the barn kept a horse and the carriage was actively used.

How are you liking Jennings so far?

[PossumPie]

My "skeptic" hairs are raised here...I grew up in farm country and played in hay lofts as a kid. Lying in hay isn't like lying in snow, it never makes a "perfect" shape of a body, only a vague crater. While it certainly could be determined that some heavy object was at some point lying there compacting hay/straw stems, there is NO way to determine the exact height of a person, or even that it was a person. And what about "Me and Brownie" who said that they were up there and tossed the hay around to see if anyone was hiding?

1000_F_25359947_BdUtLNyo20VF4CrCWAvnZEWzCkJ3c5ze.jpg

[Steve887788]

About what is hot and or bearable to one could be differences in people to a certain degree - pun intended. The police may have said it was hot , unbearable and Lizzie could have said different. It doesn't matter, my point is; people are different and their health at a particular time may have been something to take into consideration. This was Lizzie's house and she may have gone into the barn many times over the years and did not pay attention to the temperature. But when a stranger goes into a strange place for the first time - I don't see why they would not talk about the obvious heat. - If any... Why would the Fall River Police strengthen the argument that Lizzie spent the time that she said. She was a potential defendant IMO. And I am sure the way she was being treated by the redundant line of questions - she felt the same way after a while. Else why the relentless searches ?

[Stefani]

Just got my copy of the Jennings Journals! pg. 3, 2i:
"Among the significant incidents revealed in the search through the premises [92 Second St] was brought to light by John Donnelly, who with others searched through the barn to see if any trace of the fugitive could be found there. In the hay was the perfect outline of a man as if he had slept there over night. Besides this, it was evident that the sleeper was either restless or had been there before, because an imprint was found in another part of the hay that corresponded with the outlines of the first impression. Somebody may have been in the habit of going there for a nap, but the imprint was shorter than Mr. Borden..."

Remember, all the items from the newspapers should not be taken as gospel. They are included because the defense team thought them important. Or useful in the defense of their client. This doesn't give their mention any stamp of approval. I think the newspaper pieces are not only a reminder to the defense just what was going on with particular people spoken to, but also to help them flesh out their case. Does this make sense?

[PossumPie]

Just got my copy of the Jennings Journals! pg. 3, 2i:
"Among the significant incidents revealed in the search through the premises [92 Second St] was brought to light by John Donnelly, who with others searched through the barn to see if any trace of the fugitive could be found there. In the hay was the perfect outline of a man as if he had slept there over night. Besides this, it was evident that the sleeper was either restless or had been there before, because an imprint was found in another part of the hay that corresponded with the outlines of the first impression. Somebody may have been in the habit of going there for a nap, but the imprint was shorter than Mr. Borden..."

Remember, all the items from the newspapers should not be taken as gospel. They are included because the defense team thought them important. Or useful in the defense of their client. This doesn't give their mention any stamp of approval. I think the newspaper pieces are not only a reminder to the defense just what was going on with particular people spoken to, but also to help them flesh out their case. Does this make sense?

One of the best posts in recent memory. Actual under-oath posts are fairly believable. Newspapers are barely believable. Rumor is hardly believable. Just remember people's agenda in writing what they write... including me!!!

[Reasonwhy]

“…I don't believe she was out there, so of course she is going to say it was "very hot" because she assumed it was but was never out there to know that it wasn't….”
—partial post, PossumPie

Possum, I believe you are right on the money here.

[Kat]

Yes, I agree with Stef, that when we quote we offer a better service to ourselves and our readers if we differentiate between a quote from a newspaper, or from the Journal entry by Phillips or Jennings.

[swinell]

Just got my copy of the Jennings Journals! pg. 3, 2i:
"Among the significant incidents revealed in the search through the premises [92 Second St] was brought to light by John Donnelly, who with others searched through the barn to see if any trace of the fugitive could be found there. In the hay was the perfect outline of a man as if he had slept there over night. Besides this, it was evident that the sleeper was either restless or had been there before, because an imprint was found in another part of the hay that corresponded with the outlines of the first impression. Somebody may have been in the habit of going there for a nap, but the imprint was shorter than Mr. Borden..."

Remember, all the items from the newspapers should not be taken as gospel. They are included because the defense team thought them important. Or useful in the defense of their client. This doesn't give their mention any stamp of approval. I think the newspaper pieces are not only a reminder to the defense just what was going on with particular people spoken to, but also to help them flesh out their case. Does this make sense?

Yes! My apologies, I misread the headings. I thought that was a note Jennings had made on the Fall River Herald article, not a quote from the article if that makes sense. But yes it seems to me that the defense was writing down everything and anything they could to try to exonerate their client, including newspaper articles and speculations.

And camgarsky - I'm quite enjoying it! It feels like a whole new era of Borden historiography has begun now that nearly all of the relevant parties have had their surviving documents transcribed and made public - we have the Witness Statements, the Inquest Testimony, the Preliminary Hearing, the Trial, the Prosecution's notes, as thorough a history as can be compiled in Parallel Lives, and now the Defense's notes...er...most of them. I guess I can restate that if/when George Robinson's law firm decides to release his notes on the case (kept in a locked file cabinet in New Haven, CT, still being closely guarded as a result of their interpretation of attorney-client privilege), though I suspect a good chunk of his notes will match Jennings'. Very interesting to me that even still, with as much primary documentation as any historian could wish for in a case from this age, the crime is not gonna be solved...well...not with any definition. I mean...I think I have a pretty good idea of who did it, I have a less good idea as to why though...and an even fuzzier idea of how...again, I think I can say I have an idea of how, but I still can't see how the amount of blood testified to in the Preliminary Hearing (and the Trial) could totally avoid getting on the person I think is the culprit save for one pin-sized spot on a petticoat.

[Reasonwhy]

Hi Swinell,

Care to post your theory here? Would love to read your conclusions, so far!

[Kat]

When you bring up The Robinson file, if there still is such a thing intact, and nobody took it home and forgot to return it to the office... there well may be a smoking gun in there. I had read, in the past, that Lizzie had to write an account of the day of the murders and it's happenings for her defense when Robinson came on board. Apparently, it was SOP, and requested. Someday, if I can find the source, I'll let you know (this is going back to 2004 ish).
Harry and I were into it.

[Kat]

This isn't it, but it's Harry.
And another thing that might be in the Robinson file is Bridget's Inquest testimony.

[camgarsky4]

When you bring up The Robinson file, if there still is such a thing intact, and nobody took it home and forgot to return it to the office... there well may be a smoking gun in there. I had read, in the past, that Lizzie had to write an account of the day of the murders and it's happenings for her defense when Robinson came on board. Apparently, it was SOP, and requested. Someday, if I can find the source, I'll let you know (this is going back to 2004 ish).
Harry and I were into it.

Kat -- I hadn't heard that about Lizzie writing an account of murder day. That would be over-the-top fascinating to read how she connected all the dots for that day and how convincing it was. I find it to be provocative that, post-acquittal, Lizzie never provided a public accounting of what happened that day. She hated the negative attention that followed her the remainder of her life, but she never took the initiative to tell the whole story from her perspective....after all, she concedes being on the property that day, but again, never felt compelled to help clear up all the 'hard to believe' aspects of her inquest testimony. Seems like she had nothing to lose by 'telling all', especially with an attorney at the interview. She was already ostracized by the Fall River public and had double jeopardy protection. Putting 'her story' out to the public might have reversed the ostracization. Seems like the reward was worth the risk of it not changing perception.

My cynical viewpoint is that she couldn't come up with reasonable explanations for many key components like the note, the multi-version alibi and her shopping comments to Bridget, and Lizzie's control personality traits would want the explanation to be bullet proof.

[Kat]

Don't stop now George, your post count is at a superstitious number...
Just 1 more, anywhere.......

[Kat]

Reminds me of OJ. And there are those who know the full answer to that crime who would never reveal it. He never spent much time, effort, or money trying to discover the perpetrator, and was ostrasized, and did not speak.

[camgarsky4]

Post count fixed!! Whew! I could feel my karma turning dark........

OJ and Lizzie really do have much in common, particularly post-murders.

[Kat]

When I was working, I took a call from Rosie Greer, who was OJ's minister while he was in jail awaiting trial.
I think that is one man who "heard a confession." Same Rosie who was with Robert Kennedy in the kitchen when he was assassinated. Boy, did I want to ask him some questions! If I wasn't at work, I would have!

[camgarsky4]

Wikipedia:
After Grier's professional football career, he worked as a bodyguard for Senator Robert Kennedy during the 1968 presidential campaign. Grier was guarding Ethel Kennedy when Senator Kennedy was shot. Although unable to prevent the assassination, Grier took control of the gun and subdued the shooter, Sirhan Sirhan.

[Kat]

I thanked him for his prior service ministering to those who were lost in jail awaiting trial, and his heroism at the assassination, giving solace to those in need. I called him Reverend. He thanked me for recognizing his contributions, and blessed me. We were on speaker phone at his end, in Chicago, so I tried to stay cool and professional. This was around 2017. I was surrounded by 20 year olds who had no idea who he was!
Thanks for the Wiki.

[PossumPie]

Back to the topic of who was in the barn that day.


Andrew was certainly there, he unlocked the door
Bridget was certainly there she got water for windows
Lizzie says she was there next...about 11:00
Andrew was killed approximately 11:00 (trial testimony)
Lizzie finds him, calls Bridget 11:10 (Trial testimony
Sawyer arrives 11:20 (Trail testimony)
Me & Brownie arrived 11:20-11:30. (trail testimony) Had to be after Sawyer arrived. Testify people were already gathering outside.
Officer Medley arrived 11:38-11:42 a.m (According to Rebello's research) DIDN'T go into barn until later
Morse arrived 11:40-11:45 Testifies he didn't see a crowd, went into backyard to get a pear. Saw Sawyer
Alfred Clarkson went to the barn 11:40-11:50 States he didn't see officer Medley DID see hay smashed down like a man had laid in it.
Officer Fleet arrived, 11:45-11:55 (Rebello research) DIDN'T go to barn until much later, probably 12:30 (Fleet trial testimony)
Mr. John Donnelly & Mr. Cook went into loft 12:00 Hay looked smashed down

TESTIMONY THOMAS BARLOW
Q. You say "we." Who?
A. Me and Brownie.
Q. Well, tell us what you did now?
A. We went up to Mr. Sawyer, he was on the back steps, and asked him to let us go in the house, and he wouldn't let us in, so we went in the barn.
A. Went in the barn and went right up to the hay loft. I went over to the front window on the west side and looked out the window. Then we went and looked in under the hay, and after that we came down stairs again and went out.

Me and Brownie had A LOT of detail about the inside of the barn, the stairs, the hay in the loft. Most likely truthful. They arrived, tried to gain admission to the house, were rebuffed, went back to the barn to hunt for the killer there. This would be about 11:50.
Clarkson would have been in the barn loft just before or just after me and Brownie, but before Medley. Swears hay was smashed.

CLARKSON PRELIMINARY :

"Q. (Mr. Jennings) What is your name?
A. Alfred Clarkson.
Q. You are a plumber?
A. No Sir.
Q. What is your business, steam fitter?
A. Steam engineer.
Q. Were you at the Borden house on the morning of the murder?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. At what time, as near as you can recollect?
A. About 11.40.
Q. Did you go into the barn at all that morning?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. About how soon was it after you got there before you went in?
A. I should say about seven or eight minutes.
Q. Did you go up stairs in the barn?
A. Yes Sir."

"Q. Was anybody else up there at the time that you recollect?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Who?
A. There were three gentlemen that I did not know.
Q. Any of them officers?
A. No Sir.


John Donnelly testifies he was there about noon with Mr. Cook, saw smashed hay and three men (possibly Clarkson and ???) already there.
Medley was also very specific about what he saw and swears there were no prints in the dust and hay undisturbed. He arrived, Checked the cellar door lock, went inside, went to talk to Lizzie, probably viewed the body, THEN went outside to the barn. Would be 12:00 at the very earliest and possibly as late as 12:15.
The juvenile delinquents, and Clarkson and Donnelly & Cook state that they were were all there before Medley.
Me and Brownie went upstairs to the loft because their description was accurate. Someone is "mis-remembering"
Medley's testimony implies that neither Lizzie, Clarkson, Donnelly/Cook, nor the kids were up in the barn ever as no marks were seen. If Medley was incorrect, the rest of the timeline fits, albeit strange that the parade of people up in the barn didn't bump into each other.

[camgarsky4]

Thanks for pulling this together.....I'll set aside some time and read thru this slowly.

[Kat]

BTW: I noticed very early days reportage --actually Aug 4, in newspaper Fall River Daily Herald, titled "SHOCKING CRIME"-- excerpted in the Journal that includes the impression in the hay pg 3 ,and pg 20 and 21 about Dr Bowen that the Bowen stuff is pretty much all wrong. After others here check this Bowen stuff, see if you agree. It makes sense that the first reports on the actual day would be unreliable, but it wasn't until I read the statements attributed to Dr Bowen that I realized this is pretty much garbage, went back and looked for any other references using "SHOCKING CRIME" and it was 'Donnelly and the hay.'
I'm only referencing The Journal, not testimony.

[PossumPie]

BTW: I noticed very early days reportage --actually Aug 4, in newspaper Fall River Daily Herald, titled "SHOCKING CRIME"-- excerpted in the Journal that includes the impression in the hay pg 3 ,and pg 20 and 21 about Dr Bowen that the Bowen stuff is pretty much all wrong. After others here check this Bowen stuff, see if you agree. It makes sense that the first reports on the actual day would be unreliable, but it wasn't until I read the statements attributed to Dr Bowen that I realized this is pretty much garbage, went back and looked for any other references using "SHOCKING CRIME" and it was 'Donnelly and the hay.'
I'm only referencing The Journal, not testimony.

Generally, most that I've read in the newspapers from the first day are wildly inaccurate. The timeline which I pulled together above was from testimony of people. Cross-referencing who saw who arrive, etc. it is the best we can hope for. Unless something else comes up that I haven't seen yet, I am discounting any "impression in the hay" statements as someone's imagination. So many people testified that they kicked, prodded, moved, and tossed the hay around looking for a suspect, by the time Medley got there it would have been moved. I just don't know how he could be so sure that the dust was "undisturbed" up there with that parade of people going through.

[Kat]

I just read a post by Harry last night from a while back and he quoted The Witness Statements, pg 20, and noted this interesting tidbit:

Charles H. Cook, No. 36 Borden street. "Was with John Donnelly in the barn. Saw nothing that looked like the imprint of a man. Donnelly had been drinking."

That's pretty early in the day!

[PossumPie]

I just read a post by Harry last night from a while back and he quoted The Witness Statements, pg 20, and noted this interesting tidbit:

Charles H. Cook, No. 36 Borden street. "Was with John Donnelly in the barn. Saw nothing that looked like the imprint of a man. Donnelly had been drinking."

That's pretty early in the day!

Yes, I saw that also. While Donnelly was apparently somewhat intoxicated, the other man he was with, Cook, wasn't. Everything they did regarding the barn seems to have been together, so I didn't discount Donnelly's testimony.
The other interesting fact was that when Clarkson went up in the loft, there were 3 or 4 other men up there. It was apparently a circus of people stomping around up there before Medley ever had a chance to check it out so WHY did he swear that there were no footprints?

[camgarsky4]

Medley was clearly smart and very aggressive in the pursuit of his job duties. Many of the more provocative and controversial witness statements came from him. Elizabeth Johnston and the letter; Augusta Tripp and the reference to being written out of will; Charles Cook Will and family situation; and the loft footprints.

I think he saw what he wanted to see to be viewed as a great detective. Not really an unusual human trait.

Jennings Journals has introduced me to Mr. Benjamin Buffington, an ex-policeman, tax assessor, charter member of FRHS, businessman, and member of multiple boards. He must have been a very fascinating and shrewd man. I view his comments with the upmost respect.

Benjamin was one of the first folks to arrive at the Borden house that morning.
JJ Pg. 18. Here is his observation of the loft....."There is nobody who could have told from the condition of the barn that anybody had or had not been in there. There wasn't enough dust on the floor for anybody's footsteps to have left marks in it, so whether Lizzie Borden went in there or not can't be said for certain."

[PossumPie]

Medley was clearly smart and very aggressive in the pursuit of his job duties. Many of the more provocative and controversial witness statements came from him. Elizabeth Johnston and the letter; Augusta Tripp and the reference to being written out of will; Charles Cook Will and family situation; and the loft footprints.

I think he saw what he wanted to see to be viewed as a great detective. Not really an unusual human trait.

Jennings Journals has introduced me to Mr. Benjamin Buffington, an ex-policeman, tax assessor, charter member of FRHS, businessman, and member of multiple boards. He must have been a very fascinating and shrewd man. I view his comments with the upmost respect.

Benjamin was one of the first folks to arrive at the Borden house that morning.
JJ Pg. 18. Here is his observation of the loft....."There is nobody who could have told from the condition of the barn that anybody had or had not been in there. There wasn't enough dust on the floor for anybody's footsteps to have left marks in it, so whether Lizzie Borden went in there or not can't be said for certain."

The real mystery is that Medley didn't just say casually that there were no prints, he went into great detail as to how he experimented himself, saw his own prints, etc. He made a point to be specific about it yet evidence from many other people show that it just couldn't be true. Obviously, the lack of prints would "prove" Lizzie was lying, was he dishonest enough to make up evidence?

[camgarsky4]

Good questions. This might be a case of "ego gone wild'.

Once he ran into counter-opinions on the test and its findings....instead of backing up, he chose to plow forward. He must have convinced himself he was correct to have behaved so stridently.

Professionally, his determined approach finally paid off when he became FR Chief of Police in 2015....only to be killed in an auto accident 2 years later.

[Kat]

2015? And yes I was beginning to think that about Medley! And what about Harrington who never wavered at trial from his view that Andrew's body had laced boots on, even after being shown a photo!
Personally, I would not believe anything Donnelly said about anything, now- if he is drinking by noon, then he's unreliable any day of the week, as far as I am concerned.
And yes,I agree about Buffinton- I'm beginning to wish he had written the book, not Porter!

[swinell]

I just read a post by Harry last night from a while back and he quoted The Witness Statements, pg 20, and noted this interesting tidbit:

Charles H. Cook, No. 36 Borden street. "Was with John Donnelly in the barn. Saw nothing that looked like the imprint of a man. Donnelly had been drinking."

That's pretty early in the day!

Just reread that bit in the Witness Statements - first OTC morphine and now casual alcoholism...talk about good ol Victorian boredom to kick off an addiction xD

Normally I'd drop this issue here and chalk it up to Donnelly being a drunk looking for attention...kind of like Medley's embellishing...except for one problem - Alfred Clarkson's testimony at the Preliminary Hearing (pg. 500):
"Q (Mr. Jennings): Did you go into the barn at all that morning?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: About how soon was it after you got there before you went in?
A: I should say about seven or eight minutes.
Q: What did you observe up there, in the upper part of the barn, if anything?
Q: I noticed that the door on the south, where they put the hay in stood open about seven or eight inches, and there was considerable hay there that extended from the south west corner to the north.
...
Q: Did you notice anything about the hay, except that; whether it appeared to have been disturbed at all, or not?
A: In two or three places it looked as though it had been stepped in. IN one place west of the window, it looked as if a man had laid there."

He confirms in cross that Donnelly was one of three men who were up there with him at that time. Clarkson doesn't appear in the Witness Statements from what I can find in the index. Anyone have any salacious/disqualifying tidbits wrt Clarkson?

[camgarsky4]

There are no additional insights regarding Alfred Clarkson in the Jennings Journals. The notations pretty much match Alfred's testimony.

[swinell]

Hi Swinell,

Care to post your theory here? Would love to read your conclusions, so far!

My theory is kind of boring - Lizzie did it probably with a freshly purchased or freshly sharpened hatchet...if it was the handle-less one now on display at the Historical Society, it was washed with the water from the faucet in the wash room. The pin-head-sized blood stain on the outer part of Lizzie's petticoat to me indicates that she was in her petticoats and likely had Andrew's Prince Albert coat on backwards (as first posited by Victoria Lincoln)...maybe she was walking barefoot hence the lack of blood on her shoes...combine that with PossumPie's repeated insistence that there just wouldn't have been all that much blood on the perpetrator in either case (contrary to the speculative testimony of Dr. Draper and Dr. Wood) and that pretty much answers my questions on that front.

I think Bridget, Emma, Morse, & Bowen were either in on it before the event or were sympathetic to Lizzie such that they chose to cover for her. Until I go back to the house in August I'll reserve my judgement for whether Bridget would've heard something but my original round of tests indicate that there was no question she would have - especially since she testified at trial that the stairs from the second floor to the attic were uncarpeted meaning there was even less carpeting in the house then there was when I stayed overnight (!).

Why? Well...I don't know. While financial anxiety could be considered a decent enough motive, it just doesn't wash with me, especially considering her pre- and post-trial behavior, that she was comfortable enough with the idea of murdering for money but only twice, very brutally, and never again. Perhaps if we try to view it less as financial and more existential - as in, Lizzie viewed her and Emma's securing their father's inheritance as essential to their ability to survive on their own in the event of Andrew's death. We can even go back to the 1975 TV movie for a glimpse into what that angle might've looked like (the idea of having to ask Abby for allowance until her death at which point she could very well transfer everything to her family, leaving the girls out to dry, being so existentially threatening to Lizzie to drive her to act). But even still, that doesn't quite account for the brutality of the murders. I mean, in both cases, assuming it was Lizzie and Lizzie alone, she stopped for a moment before continuing on with "varying intensity." That indicates far more passion behind the hatchet than financial anxiety could account for - indeed, I'd go so far as to say it indicates a deep-seated anger, hatred, resentment. Add to that - I don't think Bridget, Emma, Morse, and/or Bowen would've been at all sympathetic to Lizzie if greed (or even existential anxiety relating to finances) had been the sole motivator. That's where I have to reach into speculation based on tidbits of certainly brow-raising information, and I'm partial to the ideas explored in the 1992 article by Marcia R. Carlisle found here:
https://www.americanheritage.com/what-m ... orden-kill

Interesting to note, while there's nothing conclusive, a good chunk of information later published in Parallel Lives lines up with Carlisle's analysis. Again, nothing conclusive, but certainly worth more investigation.

[Reasonwhy]

Swinell, can you please comment more about some of the information in Parallel Lives that you find lines up with Carlisle’s analysis? Very intriguing!! Thanks.

[PossumPie]

Swinell, I read the article you linked. It never ceases to amaze me how people can't accept that Lizzie could have killed "only for money" Holy cow, the sisters stood to share something just north of $8 MILLION in today's money. I scan news headlines every morning with my coffee and see that some thug had killed an old woman for the $20 in her purse. So many sleuths over the years have struggled to attach some other motive to "justify" the killings but $8 million is plenty of motive for my theory.

I considered sexual abuse when I first began studying the case but just couldn't see enough evidence. Incest rarely continues into adulthood, and an adult would separate themselves from the perpetrator no matter if they had to become homeless to do so. The girls would have had to have been molested in their early years, and evidence shows that even after their mother died they lived in a house with many other people making incest more difficult. I'm not saying it's impossible that it happened, only that $8 million dollars is plenty of motive without looking elsewhere.

[swinell]

Swinell, I read the article you linked. It never ceases to amaze me how people can't accept that Lizzie could have killed "only for money" Holy cow, the sisters stood to share something just north of $8 MILLION in today's money. I scan news headlines every morning with my coffee and see that some thug had killed an old woman for the $20 in her purse. So many sleuths over the years have struggled to attach some other motive to "justify" the killings but $8 million is plenty of motive for my theory.

I considered sexual abuse when I first began studying the case but just couldn't see enough evidence. Incest rarely continues into adulthood, and an adult would separate themselves from the perpetrator no matter if they had to become homeless to do so. The girls would have had to have been molested in their early years, and evidence shows that even after their mother died they lived in a house with many other people making incest more difficult. I'm not saying it's impossible that it happened, only that $8 million dollars is plenty of motive without looking elsewhere.

I see your point about the inheritance being quite considerable but again, a financially motivated crime wouldn't involve this level of deliberately fatal brutality unless there's a pattern of violent behavior to go along with it. It's just tough for me to wrap my head around how someone who was purely doing this for financial purposes would pick a weapon that is so personal in its style of attack - you gotta get right up close to a person to hatchet them to death - let alone would pause in the middle only to resume the blows with "varying intensity", then would wait an hour and half and do it all over again...if Lizzie Borden committed this crime solely for the purposes of securing her father's inheritance, we have to believe she was a violent sociopath with, at the very least, anti-social personality traits if not more traits associated with the so-called "Dark Triad." But, based on what we know about her and her life from pre-, mid-, and post-trial that just doesn't add up, or maybe I haven't seen the evidence that makes it add up just yet. So that's why I'm led to examining other possible motives. My first thought was to examine the claims in the 1975 TV movie about the pigeons and the loft - that Lizzie had built a little nest for them and Andrew murdered them which upset her (we know she was an animal lover) - from what I can find this was pure fabrication, their necks were wrung as was common practice with squab, they were not decapitated with a hatchet. If anyone does have evidence of Lizzie's "Dark Triad" traits I'd be forever grateful to read it! I'm still on the fence about the kleptomania thing because there's quite a bit of a grey-area in the 1880s-1910s with a change in shopping industries there was a shift in how transactions occurred - from people having standing accounts with a store because it was a small enough town that that was feasible to having people pay for what they take before they leave. All the accounts I've read of Lizzie's kleptomania come from after the trials so I have to treat it as circumspect.

[PossumPie]

Swinell, I read the article you linked. It never ceases to amaze me how people can't accept that Lizzie could have killed "only for money" Holy cow, the sisters stood to share something just north of $8 MILLION in today's money. I scan news headlines every morning with my coffee and see that some thug had killed an old woman for the $20 in her purse. So many sleuths over the years have struggled to attach some other motive to "justify" the killings but $8 million is plenty of motive for my theory.

I considered sexual abuse when I first began studying the case but just couldn't see enough evidence. Incest rarely continues into adulthood, and an adult would separate themselves from the perpetrator no matter if they had to become homeless to do so. The girls would have had to have been molested in their early years, and evidence shows that even after their mother died they lived in a house with many other people making incest more difficult. I'm not saying it's impossible that it happened, only that $8 million dollars is plenty of motive without looking elsewhere.

I see your point about the inheritance being quite considerable but again, a financially motivated crime wouldn't involve this level of deliberately fatal brutality unless there's a pattern of violent behavior to go along with it. It's just tough for me to wrap my head around how someone who was purely doing this for financial purposes would pick a weapon that is so personal in its style of attack - you gotta get right up close to a person to hatchet them to death - let alone would pause in the middle only to resume the blows with "varying intensity", then would wait an hour and half and do it all over again...if Lizzie Borden committed this crime solely for the purposes of securing her father's inheritance, we have to believe she was a violent sociopath with, at the very least, anti-social personality traits if not more traits associated with the so-called "Dark Triad." But, based on what we know about her and her life from pre-, mid-, and post-trial that just doesn't add up, or maybe I haven't seen the evidence that makes it add up just yet. So that's why I'm led to examining other possible motives. My first thought was to examine the claims in the 1975 TV movie about the pigeons and the loft - that Lizzie had built a little nest for them and Andrew murdered them which upset her (we know she was an animal lover) - from what I can find this was pure fabrication, their necks were wrung as was common practice with squab, they were not decapitated with a hatchet. If anyone does have evidence of Lizzie's "Dark Triad" traits I'd be forever grateful to read it! I'm still on the fence about the kleptomania thing because there's quite a bit of a grey-area in the 1880s-1910s with a change in shopping industries there was a shift in how transactions occurred - from people having standing accounts with a store because it was a small enough town that that was feasible to having people pay for what they take before they leave. All the accounts I've read of Lizzie's kleptomania come from after the trials so I have to treat it as circumspect.

Good points.
My thinking (as a master's level psychologist) is that there is a degree of sociopathy in Lizzie. Her mother died when she was young, her father was emotionally distant. I believe that everything Lizzie did in her life (including church-related activities) was calculated. Look at the many religious people who went on to be serial killers or sexual predators. I think Lizzie had an end result in mind: to have free access to the family fortune. Whatever got in her way was simply an obstacle to overcome. The Menendez brothers killed their parents then went on to systematically spend their inheritance without grief until they were arrested. Lizzie's "overkill" could have been calculated (everyone would believe that only a madman would chop them up like that--certainly not a Sunday school teacher) or it was done to make 100% sure that they didn't call out and were dead.
I don't think chopping was her first choice--I know there is scanty evidence for poisoning, but I believe that she would have poisoned them and blamed a nameless psychopath on the loose if she could have gotten the Prussic acid. Frustrated, blocked at every turn, she said "screw it" and gave up on the poison and hatcheted them to death. Maybe the excess blows were her releasing her anger/frustrations at not getting the poison. Maybe it was her projecting onto the parents all of her frustrations at having to live in a small room on the edge of the seedy part of town b/c of a skinflint father.