mistaken or disputed facts

[leitskev]

The details of the case are enormous, and sourced to inquest testimony, trial testimony, police reports, newspaper articles, and attorney notes released later. Many things that appeared in subsequent books got facts wrong or even invented them. So I am starting a thread to help clear the record. The hope is that people will contribute. Discussions about large elements, such as the murder weapon, might be better off left in topics focused on them, but I would suggest it's ok to include any brief discussion here.

I will add things to this thread as I find them.

1) Access to Lizzie's bedroom from Andrew's room WAS blocked by a "large dresser or wardrobe".

https://www.historictrialtranscripts.co ... floor-plan

Reports are this was moved to block the door a year before, after the incident of theft. I'm not sure if any official witnesses were questioned on this, I don't recall seeing any.

If I am mistaken on this, or if this is in dispute, please correct.

2) temperature that day

We're told it was the hottest of days, close to 100. But this is apparently not true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgN0reggBA

This Borden historian took the trouble to get the official data. It was a pretty typical and comfortable day. The heat wave had broken the week before. The source of the error is no less than Knowlton himself, who exaggerated the temperature in the trial in order to cast doubt on Lizzie being in the barn loft. There is a substantial pattern in the Borden case of prosecutorial deception and possible, dare I say probable, police misconduct. I'm not going to go into that deeply here, but the prosecution failed to share crucial letters on the murder weapon with the defense team, and the police seem to have "lost" the handle to the famous hatchet. There are also instances where the police are caught by defense layers fudging their testimony. If I remember, they tried to underplay the extent to which they searched Lizzie and Emma's clothing, but under questioning, admitted to a thorough search.

3) Lizzie's shoplifting

Again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgN0reggBA

This historian points out that it was common for wealthy women to essentially buy on credit and have the bill send to their husband or father. This is turned into an "aha!" moment by journalists and later writers, but it was normal behavior. Emma didn't do this kind of thing because she only owned a couple of dresses. She's the dour spinster of stereotype.

4) Borden bathrooms and running water

Andrew had running water removed from the second floor when he bought the house. There was a flushing privy in the basement and a sink room just off the kitchen.

Do we have much information on that sink? Bridget used the faucet in the barn to fill a pail for her window washing. Probably makes more sense to using that when doing the outside windows.

The Bordens made substantial use of water-filled bowls and pitchers. After the murders, it seems doctors utilized a bowl in the sitting room to wash their bloody hands. Were these already there or set up for that purpose? I don't know. Was there one in the guest room as well?

I can only suggest that we all be respectful when it comes to facts. If someone makes an error, correct it politely. If something is in dispute, make your counter-point, and hopefully link to a source, respectfully. The Borden family has been dead a long time, as have the witnesses. None of them are now on trial. This is an intellectual exercise.

[Steve887788]

1) Access to Lizzie's bedroom from Andrew's room WAS blocked by a "large dresser or wardrobe".

The drawing by Kiernan 1893 shows a bed diagonal near the door - blocking the passage from Lizzies room to Mr. Borden's room - it was also locked on both sides.
And because the doors were locked the door was rendered useless so it makes sense to put the bed there and free up extra room space.

Bridget used the faucet in the barn to fill a pail for her window washing.

And due to her going into the barn as many time as she did - I could understand how a hot stuffy barn could easily be vented and cooled off. Allowing Lizzie to remain in there for the time she stated.

[leitskev]

Hi Steve, yes. The bed seems to block the door from Lizzie's side. There's a dresser on the other side.

The temps were not all that hot that day, according to the expert at the Nashua Historical Society lecture. That was a myth created by the prosecutor.
So the barn was probably not that hot.

The police testified, in very minute detail, that the barn loft was examined and the dust undisturbed. But then the defense produced a reporter who testified he saw several reporters in the loft before the police had inspected the barn. And a 12 year old boy testified that he and a friend had gone up there very soon after word of the murders spread. They hung out there for a time watching.

Police testimony just can't be relied on. One cop testified Andrew's shoes were untied. When shown the photo of the corpse, where Andrew's shoes are have no shoe laces, he concluded the photo must be wrong. There's troubling police testimony about the hatchet handle and the clothing search.

I also read in Taylor's book that the prosecutors received a letter from the lab at Harvard which told them they found gilt in Abby's wounds. If Taylor's account is accurate, they never gave this letter to the defense, as would be required(certainly today it would). I'm not sure if there is evidence to counter this, but we do know the rusty old hatchet was presented as the likely murder weapon at trial. That suggests they hid the gilt evidence from the defense team...but again, I'm not sure on that. I have not read that part of the transcript for a long time.

What I've seen in this case is that, then and now, once people make a conclusion about Lizzie one way or the other they start to become very selective about what evidence they select.

The police did this too. When the first cop, Allen I think, asked Lizzie about her mother, and Lizzie corrected her that it was step mother, the cops were already starting to conclude Lizzie was guilty. They didn't like the way Lizzie seemed so cool. I am not suggesting the cops were wrong or not. But once the rush to judgment begins, it colors everything else that happens.

So for example, the clerk at Smith's drug store. The drug stores was a considerable distance from the Borden house. He had never seen Lizzie before. A rumor sweeps the city about poisoning, and that's quickly followed by the rumor Lizzie did. Not surprising that some clerk comes out of the woodwork to connect the two things in his mind. It happens all the time in big cases. So, he remembers maybe a woman coming in to buy prussic acid. He tells the cops. And here's an important clue: the cops sneak him into the Borden house to get a clandestine look at her from another room.

So imagine the clerk's mindset. He's already excited about possibly being part of the biggest local event in their lifetime. And now the cops are EXPECTING him to confirm it was Lizzie. So he nods and says it's her.

Now, he can't go back from that statement. He's stuck with it, or he ruins his reputation. So he produces two friends to say they witnessed the attempted purchase.

I'm not saying he and they weren't telling the truth, but this is how it is in these famous cases. Police fudging evidence and their testimony, pressure on witnesses, witnesses who are eager to be involved in the big story.

This is why I think there's a need to focus on what is and is not established fact. Thanks!

[Steve887788]

My humble of opinions is that the Fall River police were as dumb as they get or as corrupt as they get. No inbetween. I think that when studying the Borden case many fall into the trap of thinking that the police were flawless and everything they did was to procedure and well organized. -- They weren't, and one fact that did come out in the trial was the hatchet handle left in the box - one officer saw it and the Asst. Marshall didn't see it. I am positive that although this case is very old - it is peppered with mishaps mistakes and just poor police work.

You have to ask yourself - why did the police Marshall - hang on to the arrest warrant and leave it in his coat pocket and deny Lizzie the reason for the warrant right away ?
Why was Lizzie questioned at the house above and beyond the basics ?
Same with the DA - no counsel during the inquest.
Multiple searches that yielded a dress - then at trial there was questions about the dress that they themselves wanted ?
Massive crowd that demanded the hatchet murderer be caught - the Mayor / Marshall / DA all had to find somebody within hours. They did, and the people of Fall River were happy and instantly they were heros. Just in time for the next election.

[leitskev]

Police investigative techniques were rudimentary back then. But that doesn't explain all the "mistakes".
The cop that testified that the dust was undisturbed in the barn loft was probably not lying, but he was seeing what he wanted to see, or even more likely, exaggerating later what he didn't really inspect very closely that day. There were certainly 5 or more people that went into that loft after the murders but before he inspected it.

The missing handle is more ominous to me and hints at outright misconduct. Did the police destroy that handle? Or did the cop that saw it misremember? We KNOW that they didn't believe they had the murder weapon because they spent DAYS looking for it. They knew those four axes and the broken one didn't fit what they needed, so they kept looking and looking and looking. After days of failed looking, under mounting pressure to indict Lizzie, the broken hatchet theory was born. This produced accounts of rolled up ashes in the stove meant to indicate Lizzie burned the handle. Just another example of how the very thing they THINK they are looking for tends to magically turn up in some form.

[Steve887788]

Personally - and this is just me speaking. Taking into consideration the way this case was handled from the first alarm to the many searches that yielded goose egg after goose egg then the arrest, the top notch police work that is evident from looking at dust on the floor was not consistent in the way that organization operated.

I think that the attic floor dust story was made up. I would expect this type of investigative technique from the Pinkerton Agency and maybe the Police in San Francisco or New York but definitely not the 1890s Fall River PD. I dont want to be disrespectful to the men of the department but I have to say - exactly how many cases did they have of this nature ? Plain and simple - they were not equipped. Why else would you send your second in command to question Lizzie numerous times after just losing her parents. Simple, it was done because she was suspect from almost the get go.

[camgarsky4]

Steve -- this might surprise you , but I agree with you that Medley likely either fabricated or 'saw what he wanted to see' when he reported his dust test. There is just too much counter testimony to disregard it all and his timing struggles to hold water.

Was this a sign of an overly zealous/ambitious policeman or something bigger is the big question to ponder.

[Steve887788]

But it was mentioned and it snowballed into a "thing" - and this "thing" got people thinking and asking more questions. But it started from someONE.

[camgarsky4]

I am out of town and don't have my books to provide actual page #'s, so just let me know if you want that info and I'll update this post in a few days.

In Jennings Journals, Charles Sawyer told Jennings/Phillips (the following is a 'directional' paraphrase from memory) that "Medley grilled Bridget by the back steps as if she was guilty". That would have been roughly around noon on the 4th. It seems that Medley shortly after went out to the barn to do his sleuthing. He certainly seemed to have been full of vim and vinegar upon arrival at the Borden house.

In the days following the murder, Medley was given the assignment to focus on the Borden case, so it would seem this was his time to shine and it shouldn't be a big surprise that he might have intentionally (or unintentionally), crossed a line or two (or three).

p.s. I'll edit this post with the actual page # and Sawyer notation next week.

[leitskev]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6v0ssW_8dA

Within this historian's video, there is a map of the first floor. The sink room is actually adjacent to the hallway at the side stairs. This would make it somewhat easier for Lizzie to clean up. After calling Bridget down, she waited in this general area. This is where Mrs. Churchill saw her, but this door.

Just trying to keep updating the facts. There was no sink in the kitchen. Thank you for pasting Alice Russell's testimony about what Emma was doing(washing dishes) when Lizzie burned the dress. From this, it would seem Emma could easily talk to Lizzie in the kitchen, and crane her neck out if necessary to see her.

Was this sink examined for blood evidence? Would that even have helped? I don't know. I doubt there was a mirror in there, so I guess Lizzie would have to wash her face, then go in the dining room to find her reflection, then go back to the sink room. Doable. Difficult. Much easier than going into the cellar.