Bridget's testimony = Lizzie's guilt

[camgarsky4]

All -- In the spirit of dialogue....if Bridget's testimony is accurate in its essence (ignoring minor timing or sequential errors), can Lizzie be innocent of at least active participation in the murders?

Couple of key testimonies I can't get around....1) In unprecedented fashion, Lizzie proactively encouraging Bridget to go shopping that afternoon and 2) Bridget never visually seeing Lizzie inside the house between 9:30ish and when AJB arrived home around 10:45. This in spite of Lizzie emphasizing that she was only upstairs for a couple short visits involving clean clothes & sewing a button.

Lizzie setting up the ironing board in the dining room as Bridget was cleaning the windows in that same room sure feels very much like setting the stage to have a chat with Bridget and perhaps to monitor closely her movement. Lizzie followed her into the kitchen and then basically walked her to the stairs. All feels like stage directing and control to me.

Thoughts?

[KGDevil]

Lizzie setting up the ironing board in the dining room as Bridget was cleaning the windows in that same room sure feels very much like setting the stage to have a chat with Bridget and perhaps to monitor closely her movement. Lizzie followed her into the kitchen and then basically walked her to the stairs. All feels like stage directing and control to me.

Thoughts?

I think she was staging a hurried alibi. Lizzie stated in her testimony that she had already set up the little ironing board before Andrew came home. Bridget testified that she had come in to wash the inside of the windows, unlocked the door for Andrew, and saw Lizzie taking out the ironing board to set it up as he sat in the dining room.


Lizzie Inquest

60 (17)
Q. When your farther went away, you were ironing then?
A. I had not commenced, but I was getting the little ironing board and the flannel.

Page 62 (19)
Q. Will you give me the best story you can, so far as your recollection serves you, of your time while he was gone?
A. I sprinkled my handkerchiefs, and got my little ironing board and took them in the dining room. I took the ironing board in the dining room and left the handkerchiefs in the kitchen on the table and whether I ate cookies or not I don’t remember. Then I sat down looking at the magazine, waiting for the flats to heat. Then I went in the sitting room to get the Providence Journal, and took that in the kitchen. I don’t recollect of doing anything else.

Trial – Bridget’s testimony.

Page 237

Q. As he sat down in the sitting room, what did you begin to do?
A. I began to wash the dining room windows.
Q. At the time that he came down and you were passing from the sitting room to the dining room, was Miss Lizzie Borden there then?
A. I don't remember to see her.
Q. You began washing your two windows in the dining room then, did you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. While you were washing windows did anyone appear in the dining room?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was it?
A. Miss Lizzie.
Q. From what room did she appear? From what door did she appear?
A. She came from the sitting room into the dining room.
Q. Will you state what she did when she came in?
A. She came into the dining room, went out in the kitchen and took an ironing board and placed it on the dining room table and commenced to iron.
Q. You in the meantime washing windows?
A. I was washing the last window in the dining room.

[InvestigatorGal]

Bridget’s testimony, if accurate, calls into question the whereabouts of Lizzie at the time of Abby’s murder. Seems like Lizzie was about the house when Abby was murdered so either she did it herself or knows who did.

[camgarsky4]

Agree with you both. Regarding Lizzie being INSIDE the house the entire time between 9am and 10:45, she stated her bedroom (and Emma's) was locked, she had to unlock the upstairs dress closet for the police.

Without Lizzie's help, there are only two possibilities for concealment that don't involve going up the back stairs where the prowler would have zero idea what was going on in the rest of the house.

Those two spots are the front door closet (of attorney Phillips fame) and the parlor. I personally find the closet to be a silly idea, so won't go into it unless someone wants to vet that option. The Parlor is interesting to me because it would also be a good location for the strike on AJB hour and half later. Couple questions on the Parlor.....1) When and how did the killer gain access to the parlor? 2) do we believe that Abby did NOT poke her head in that room as she did her morning dusting and wandering the house? I know it was Emma's room to clean, but then so was the guest room.

So in my mind, the Parlor is the only hiding room that could work for both killings. We know Bridget didn't go in the parlor to clean the inside windows (killer wouldn't have know that little household foible that the maid or madam of the house didn't touch the parlor) and we aren't sure if Abby did. But if the killer was there, heard Abby go upstairs and heard her footsteps above their head in the guest room and decided to go get her, how could they possibly know if Lizzie's door was open, Lizzie was with her, Lizzie was coming down the stairs, Bridget was coming into the sitting room, on and on. After killing Abby, this killer the would have to scurry back to the parlor unseen and waited until AJB got home, laid down on the couch and Lizzie went out to the barn.

While that scenario is possible, it feels remarkably and extremely unlikely.

[InvestigatorGal]

Agree with you Camgarsky4, the scenario is very unlikely, but imagine if an intruder in the parlor or in another hiding spot was just lucky and managed to go unseen. I know this is highly unreasonable, but not impossible.

[camgarsky4]

Ok, so killing 2 people using the parlor or entry closet as the base is highly unlikely, but not 0% chance. Let's go with <10%.

Next riddle to answer is when did the intruder gain access to the parlor (or wherever) early enough to be in a position to kill Abby? The rules of this game are that the cellar and front doors are securely locked and Lizzie didn't bring the intruder in the night before (this exercise is about determining if Lizzie was at least a co-conspirator).

So everyone jump in.....all scenarios warmly welcomed!!

[InvestigatorGal]

Oh, I like this game. One possibility is an intruder entering by the screen door soon after Andrew left (neither Bridget or Lizzie escorted him out so that door was unlocked). Lizzie said she was in the dinning room when her father left so an intruder would have to go from the kitchen, to the sitting room and into the parlor. Bridget would have been busy washing windows on the sitting room side and not seen the screen door being opened. Of course, this scenario doesn’t work if you assume Abby could have hooked the screen door behind Andrew when he left.

[camgarsky4]

IG (your new acronym :)) -- I'm thinking some of your sequencing is based on Lizzie's inquest testimony. I try to stay away from that because it is so self-contradictory. To date, I have found no reason not to have confidence that Bridget's testimony was contextually accurate.

Bridget was back by the barn/pear tree vomiting when Andrew left around 9am. Churchill was looking out her kitchen window at that time and watched Andrew head towards 2nd St. Logically, Bridget would have then come back thru the screen door and re-latch it (her testimony between PH and trial seem to be contradictory, but at trial she said she re-hooked upon re-entry). Once back inside, Bridget hung out in the kitchen and dining room for 15-20 minutes. So I don't see that time slot working.

In addition, pretty sure Lizzie was in the kitchen when Andrew left because that is where she was when Bridget went out to vomit minutes before and Lizzie mentions that Andrew discussed with her not going to Post office because he didn't feel well (she obviously convinced him otherwise). Andrew then left kitchen, going thru the back hallway and out the screen door to go to the post office.

If you assume that Abby was killed before 9:30, we have already run into the timing dilemma for a killer to have entered the house unnoticed.

Keep poking away. This is key to believing Lizzie was 100% innocent...the killer had to get into the house without Lizzie being aware no later than shortly after 9am.

[InvestigatorGal]

Yes you are right Cam, my scenario was based on Lizzie’s testimony. I’ll give it some more thought using Bridget’s testimony. It’s interesting to wonder if for a quick moment when either Churchill could have looked away from the window, or Lizzie may have walked away from the kitchen, and while Bridget was still outside being sick, could someone that quickly slip in. Hmm … I will think about this some more.

[InvestigatorGal]

On the intruder coming through the screen door theory, maybe they could get in while Bridget was serving breakfast to the family in the dinning room. With everyone preoccupied with eating and Bridget serving, it is possible … thoughts?

[KGDevil]

Where would an intruder go after coming in through the screen door while the family was eating in the dining room? The only places they could go were up the back stairs leading to a locked bedroom door, or continue up a second flight to the attic, the basement and into the kitchen. The distance between the side door and the dining room door isn't too far. It's just down a little hallway.

[camgarsky4]

After Bridget brought in the milk cans, the final time the back door was opened was when AJB went out to dump his bucket. He came in the screen door and Bridget doesn't specifically say if she re-hooked the screen door.

Taking the Lizzie is innocent viewpoint, let's assume that she did not re-hook the screen door. Once she came into the house she was either in the kitchen or putting the food on the dining room table while the Borden's & Morse were in the sitting room. Once the food was on the table, Bridget went to the kitchen and she stayed in the kitchen while they ate breakfast. Once breakfast was over, the Borden's/Morse moved back to the sitting room. Once they left the dining room, Bridget went in to clear the plates and food.

Below is Bridget's PH testimony. Combining this testimony with the 1st floor layout, it seems impossible for someone to have entered the backdoor and accessed the parlor, front stairs or front closet from the first time Bridget brought in the milk cans to when Bridget went outside to vomit around 8:55am. At that point, Lizzie was up and either in the kitchen or back upstairs.

And as mentioned earlier, when Bridget was vomiting, Mrs. Churchill was checking out the Borden 'alley' and AJB was walking to 2nd St.

Q. Could you tell what time it was they sat down to breakfast?
A. Not exactly. I should judge it was quarter past seven.
Q. What was the usual time of eating breakfast in that family?
A. Mr. and Mrs. Borden always ate when it was ready, when they were down.
Q. You think it was quarter past seven when they sat down?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. They all three sat down together?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Where were you when they were eating breakfast?
A. Out in the kitchen.
Q. Did you stay in the kitchen the most of the time?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. After breakfast, what took place, do you remember?
A. I took my breakfast, and then cleared off the table, and was washing my dishes.
Q. You were working in the kitchen all the time?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What were they doing?
A. I dont know. They were in the sitting room

[InvestigatorGal]

After Bridget brought in the milk cans, the final time the back door was opened was when AJB went out to dump his bucket. He came in the screen door and Bridget doesn't specifically say if she re-hooked the screen door.

Taking the Lizzie is innocent viewpoint, let's assume that she did not re-hook the screen door. Once she came into the house she was either in the kitchen or putting the food on the dining room table while the Borden's & Morse were in the sitting room. Once the food was on the table, Bridget went to the kitchen and she stayed in the kitchen while they ate breakfast. Once breakfast was over, the Borden's/Morse moved back to the sitting room. Once they left the dining room, Bridget went in to clear the plates and food.

Below is Bridget's PH testimony. Combining this testimony with the 1st floor layout, it seems impossible for someone to have entered the backdoor and accessed the parlor, front stairs or front closet from the first time Bridget brought in the milk cans to when Bridget went outside to vomit around 8:55am. At that point, Lizzie was up and either in the kitchen or back upstairs.

And as mentioned earlier, when Bridget was vomiting, Mrs. Churchill was checking out the Borden 'alley' and AJB was walking to 2nd St.

Q. Could you tell what time it was they sat down to breakfast?
A. Not exactly. I should judge it was quarter past seven.
Q. What was the usual time of eating breakfast in that family?
A. Mr. and Mrs. Borden always ate when it was ready, when they were down.
Q. You think it was quarter past seven when they sat down?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. They all three sat down together?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Where were you when they were eating breakfast?
A. Out in the kitchen.
Q. Did you stay in the kitchen the most of the time?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. After breakfast, what took place, do you remember?
A. I took my breakfast, and then cleared off the table, and was washing my dishes.
Q. You were working in the kitchen all the time?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What were they doing?
A. I dont know. They were in the sitting room

Didn’t Uncle Morse testify that Bridget would occasionally come into the dinning room during breakfast? The scenario I laid out would be at those times (even though it is very unlikely).

[camgarsky4]

IG -- you are correct, I am sure there were moments where someone could have timed it perfect and slipped by the group. I'm not sure how they would known how and when to time it perfect or that the screen door was even un-hooked and that no one was in the kitchen or sitting room to see the intruder. But it is not impossible.

[InvestigatorGal]

Thanks Cam. A very lucky intruder indeed if he/she existed. If there was such a person, the next question would be why .. why that house, why that day and time, why wait between the murders, and why wouldn’t this intruder also go after Lizzie and Bridget?

[Kat]

Yes, that's exactly the question...why leave Lizzie and Bridget alive...why were they not all killed? One more question...why not stage a robbery (or commit a robbery- there was precedent),while they're at it?

[camgarsky4]

Kat -- I think the 'why not stage a robbery' question applies to any and all potential suspects. That said, since a robbery wasn't even staged, that means it certainly wasn't a botched robbery. Robbing the home is one of the more legit scenarios that might involve an intruder or a 'supposed' beau of Bridget's. As you know we've run down some details on the James Scanlon lead and he was 19 years old in Jan '93. So 17 in '91 when the Borden break-in occurred and even younger if he got involved with Bridget in Newport. He also didn't employ violence in any of the break-in's reported in the papers. My take on him is that he is not involved with the any of the Borden episodes or with Bridget. Maybe another James Scanlan.

So would Bridget have done it out of some version of anger? Mad about cleaning windows? Mad about working when feeling poorly? Then why still clean the windows if you are killing people because you don't want to work or clean windows that particular day?
Was AJB abusing her physically or emotionally? Why not sever the Borden employment? She had changed jobs 4-5 times since arriving in the U.S.
Had Lizzie paid her to co-kill? Then why provide the most incriminating testimony against Lizzie?

Regarding the vomiting. I find Mrs. Churchill's testimony of seeing AJB at the bottom of the stairs on the backyard side very telling. My interpretation is that when exiting the house, Andrew heard odd noises coming from backyard and went to see what was up. He peaked around corner, saw it was Bridget throwing up and then pivoted and headed to 2nd St. I suppose she could have been vomiting out of anticipatory nervousness, but then we get back to why kill two people.

And since we are asking why.....why did Bridget self report that she vomited if it was likely related to a criminal act?

[phineas]

I don't think you can have an intruder killer who has to hide between murders without knowledge of the house layout and an inside conspirator. But then, they don't have to hide between murders, only BEFORE the first one. You can stay in the guest room with Abby's body until you hear Andrew come in. I've always wondered about the attic rooms as a first hiding spot since we know the screen door was open at various points.

As the only residents using the stairway to the attic are Abby, Andrew and Bridget, once they are down, they're down for the day. However, there is this bit from the preliminary hearing about Bridget having to unlock the doors. Hard to imagine a murderer locking the door behind him.

Assistant Marshal John Fleet's testimony, Preliminary Hearing. Page 360.

"... Then we went up stairs and searched the four attics, I think it was four. Bridget had the keys. We went into each one as she unlocked them, and turned over things, and put them back in their proper places, and found nothing there that we wanted. We searched Bridget's bed, and searched also a bed where John Morse had slept since, and I think had before.
Q. That is in the attic? (Knowlton)
A. That was in the attic. That is all I can state just now."

Of course if Bridget were a conspirator she could simply act like she was turning the key to unlock but that seems pretty sophisticated.

[camgarsky4]

Phineas -- I believe you are agreeing that it is extremely difficult to come up with an intruder explanation that doesn't involve someone inside the house aiding their efforts.

Hiding in the attic would have only been applicable if someone else knew what people movements were occurring within the house and could signal to the attic hider when to go into action.

If an inside helper, I tend to lean towards Emma's bedroom as a good hiding place. If Bridget was the Co-conspirator, her own bedroom was likely off limits to rest of household....so that ties into your attic thought.

[phineas]

Oh yes, I definitely agree with you. The lone intruder is not really possible without help. As a fun puzzle, the attic allows you to slink in the screen door and be quickly out of sight. But yes, you're totally blind to everyone's whereabouts so it doesn't really work. I like the Emma bedroom idea.

The main requirement for an "unhelped" intruder seems that you'd have to know the layout of the house to pull it off.

I don't believe in dumb luck. Any other house maybe, but not this rabbit warren of locks and doors to navigate.

That leaves past residents, workmen (implausible), or visitors (most likely).

Rule out casual visitors as they would only see the first floor. Then it's down to overnight guests. I don't think I've ever read about others aside from Morse or Alice who stayed at 92 overnight. Probably extended family did. Does anyone know? It's very hard to imagine a former house guest solo intruder did the deed. The rage required - twice - means they'd have to have tangled with the Bordens before and there just isn't anyone in the history with that kind of beef.

One thing nags at me. The day of the murders is about the most atypical configuration of people in the Borden house that we've ever seen. With Emma away and Morse a house guest overnight, the change in pattern sticks out. Coincidence? Pretty handy one.

If Lizzie was ever going to bring in a hired killer, she'd want Emma away. Since Emma is basically constantly in the house and Fall River, the Fairhaven trip is a blue moon opportunity. But then, it just as easily argues for Lizzie killing solo. Which, let's face it, is the numero uno most probable.

To sum up, a random intruder is as you say, really hard to explain. A conspiracy intruder is possible, but complicated logistically...they would have to know in advance that there would be a waiting period, be briefed in the house layout, have a hiding plan and have to elude Bridget (and Lizzie if she was not the hiring party. Cough cough). And really, who is Lizzie going to 'hire' or cajole into killing for her? She's not going along the docks looking for hit men. It would have to be someone she knew and trusted.

[Steve887788]

Was AJB in the house at the same time Abby was ? - where was she / where was he , were they ever together then nobody sees Abby again ?

[camgarsky4]

I really enjoy this thread.

This thread has focused on the beginning and middle of that morning. Next timing to probe on....when did the intruder leave the house after killing Andrew without Bridget or Lizzie's assistance? We have confirmation from Officer Allen that the front door was triple locked. There are also multiple statements/testimonies that the exterior cellar door was closed and locked. Several days after the murders, Morse mentioned thinking the cellar door was 'maybe' open and Lizzie asked Bridget if it was the morning of August 5th. Other than that, we have no indication that the cellar exterior door was not locked and inaccessible. That leaves the side door to leave from around 11am that morning.

Per Lizzie's testimony, while in the barn loft, she looked out the front barn window and would have had clear view of anyone leaving the house. Lubinsky was passing the house around 11:05-11:10, saw Lizzie at the back of the house and no one else. Common sense would tell you that if man had come out from the Borden driveway onto 2nd street at least up to a couple minutes before he saw Lizzie, Lubinsky would have seen the person and mentioned as part of his testimony.

AJB murder timeline:
Bridget sees Lizzie heading back into the dining room 10:54
Bridget goes up to her bedroom 10:54
Lizzie pivots from the dining room and leaves house to go to barn 10:55
Lizzie loiters under pear tree, looking up at pigeon roost 10:57
Lizzie goes into barn, up to loft 10:58
Lizzie goes to front window, looking out, eating pears 11:00
AJB killed 11:00
Killer does whatever they do inside house to prep their escape 11:02
Lizzie rummages thru basket/box looking for lead 11:03
Lubinsky on 2nd street passing across Spring St. 11:05
Lizzie leaves barn and approaches side door 11:07 (Lubinsky see's her)
Lizzie finds her dad dead 11:09
Lizzie calls up to Bridget 11:10

If this timeline is spot on(which of course it is not), that leaves the killer a 2 minute window (11:03-11:05) to have darted out of the house unseen.
If anyone wishes to think this is plausible, the next step is documenting the people who testified to their locations and what they 'didn't' see between 11-11:15 am that morning.

I intentionally added the word "pivots" in the 3rd item in the timeline. Bridget last saw Lizzie heading back into the dining room and towards AJB as Bridget headed upstairs. I presume this is when Lizzie comforted and helped her dad lie down per her testimony. Surely that took more then the single minute I've noted above. So this timeline basically assumes she turned around shortly after Bridget saw her walking away and went outside, and didn't help her dad. Adding that in makes this timeline and her alibi even more time challenged.

[InvestigatorGal]

Great points everyone. It really seems like Lizzie is the culprit.

[leitskev]

In the spirit of dialog, responding to the original post, and then will read through the replies.

I think it's useful examining these smaller particulars ONLY because this case presents us with a two-sided coin where both sides are NEXT to impossible. On one side, it's NEXT to impossible that an intruder could get in and out unseen. On the other side, it's NEXT to impossible that Lizzie could kill Abby, clean herself up, then kill Andrew, clean herself up again and dispose of the murder weapon.

The third possibility is that Lizzie had help. But in the long history of ax murders, there is no example of someone conspiring with the killer.

But because all these things seem very unlikely, it does make it worth trying to add weight to one side of the argument or the other by examining smaller, and likely meaningless details.

I don't find Lizzie's telling Bridget about the fabric sale to be meaningful one way or the other. And it didn't seem to strike Bridget as odd. You called this "unprecedented". Did you find that in Bridget's testimony? Let's assume you did. Does this render Lizzie's telling Bridget about this suspicious?

I guess the presumption by those thinking it does is that she was trying to get Bridget out of the house. But even if Bridget felt good, would she leave the house at that time? Should would soon be making lunch for the family. They lived close to downtown. No idea how close to that store. I suppose she could in theory go and come back in time to make lunch.

None of this seemed to make Bridget suspicious. Even after the fact. So it really doesn't make me suspicious.

A better plan for Lizzie would be to kill Andrew with Bridget upstairs, then head downtown, leaving the door ajar. Bridget would discover Andrew say around 11:30. No one would suspect Lizzie. On her journey, she could clean up and dispose of the weapon somewhere.

If Lizzie was scheming enough to try to get Bridget out of the house, why wasn't she scheming enough to at least leave the door ajar after killing Andrew?

My conclusion is that Lizzie's telling Bridget about the sale fits equally well with the idea of everything being normal routine as it does with the idea of tricking her to go out. It doesn't tip the scale in any direction.

As for setting the stage by ironing, it feels like you are arguing to a conclusion. There is no indication Bridget found Lizzie's ironing unusual. From the dinning room or the kitchen you can't see the front stairs. And Bridget never went up the front stairs anyway, so there was no risk of Bridget discovering Abby. Perhaps you are thinking Lizzie wanted to know where Bridget was before making the move to kill Abby. But she could sit in one of the rooms reading a magazine to accomplish this. Lizzie had limited responsibilities in the house. Basically,. to keep her room and clothing clean. We know she supervised the painting done a few months before(that's how she got paint on the dress she later burned), so she was active around the house.

Personally, I think, yes, it's worthwhile to examine these little events, but it also seems to be a common trap for people to filter every event through their pre-existing belief of innocence or guilt. I don't mean that this belief was pre-existing when you first became interested in the Borden murders, I mean pre-existing before you examine these particular pieces of evidence.

And the police operated the same way(and do in most cases). Once they sell themselves on a theory, everything else they do tends to be in trying to support that theory, and every evidence or statement they interpret through this filter.

Once Lizzie didn't act the way the police expected a woman and a daughter to act, they formed a judgment, and this colored everything that followed. The cop testified that no one could have been in the barn loft, but we found out multiple people were up there before the cops inspected the barn.

If Lizzie did the crime, it's hard to make sense of the complete picture. On the one hand, she's thought to be scheming enough to trick Bridget into leaving and to stage events around the killings. On the other hand, she doesn't make any effort to support the intruder theory, by leaving or by at least opening the door. Nor does she even try to cast suspicion on Bridget. Which is odd if she's a psychotic killer. She didn't even respect Bridget enough to use her name, yet she is a psychotic killer unwilling to cast suspicion on the Irish immigrant?

Respectfully submitted in the spirit of dialog.