Hyman Lubinsky

[Kat]

It seems that the 1900 census does coincide with the birth info on the death cert, but doesn't coincide with the birth year on the stone.

[mbhenty]

I still feel strongly that the reason Lubinsky's testimony was not taken seriously, if indeed it was not, was because his name was "Lubinsky."

These were different times. And, the expression "the haves and have nots." had it's own bigotry, bias and discrimination....by Durfees, Bordens, Chases, Braytons and others. You can be sure that an immigrant jew would be seen as unreliable and not believable.

If you remember your testimoniesssss. You will remember that the lawyers and the court were very short and rude to Hyman, almost having no patience to hear his side.

The reason his testimony was not taken seriously was because he was a Russian Jew, migrant, alien.

Nope......these were probably very intolerant Puritians, Quaker, Baptist Christians. Questioning a Jew. Not even an emmigrant Irishmen......but A Jew.



If you don't think this was a factor? Then you have never been on the butt end of covert and outright prejudice.

[mbhenty]

Don't get me wrong. It's not like Nativists and Englishmen were running around the country shoving pitchforks up people's cabooses.

It was all done very quietly....from the heart. They know there place and we know ours. As long as you don't get out of line everything is hunky-dory. We will never pay you a fair wage, let you work a decent hour, or allow you to marry my daughter, but what the heck....you have a nice flat, you get to shop at the company store at discount prices, and we let you sell ice cream. As long as you know your place Mr. Lubinsky. Just count your lucky stars your not Irish.

[Kat]

From the Fall River City Directory of 1924:

[Kat]

I'm not sure where the idea came that Lubinsky's testimony at the trial was discounted, or suspect?

Upon reading his answers, he seems consistant: he always says he saw the woman-who-was-not-Bridget "a little after 11." (T1409)
He qualifies this as 5 or 10 after 11, after further questions.

He does say that the day before [Wednesday], he went out with his team at 10:30 (T1421)- and he does say he spoke to a reporter. Maybe that was a confusion printed in the paper?

As for Attny Phillips on the defense, Lubinsky was his witness. He worked him up and says in his chapter "In Defense of Lizzie Borden" that:
To cap the climax, when this evidence came out [Me and Brownie in the barn] there also appeared a Jewish peddler (Hyman Lubinsky by name) who had not previously been located in the search for evidence, and he testified that he was hawking his wares along the street, paying particular attention to back doors in the hope of finding customers, and that he saw Miss Borden go into the house from the direction of the barn. His story was checked up very carefully and verified as to time by reference to people along his route who had made purchases from him. His evidence was not disputed. He had sold ice-cream at the house (to Bridget) on other occasions and knew the premises well.

Is there somewhere in the closing arguments where Lubinsky seems to be disputed by the state? Otherwise, from where does this idea come?
Also- granted, Phillips was writing many years later, and some of his facts are somewhat hazy- but the general sense he is proposing, in this case, is that Lubinsky was (at least) believable.

[Kat]

Also, btw: Lubinsky keeps mentioning the back steps in realtion to this woman he saw, and it was brought up in a post here that the Kelly's had a barn etc and it could be Eagan in their yard that Lubinsky saw- did the Kelly's have back steps that we don't know about?

[Shelley]

Well there must have been back steps-the maid had to hang out the clothing. With the addition on the house now, it covers the back door where it was in 1892. LeeAnn has been in- it is strange with all the piecemeal additions added on over the years.

It was such a pretty little Cape Cod when it was built

Barn

[Kat]

Yes but it would be side steps he saw, not back steps, right?
There is a photo of the back of Kelly's yard from the view of Crowe's yard, and I do recall seeing washing hung out there. Maybe that will be in the new book.

Thanks the the photo but it is so dark I'm not sure what it is exposing?

[Shelley]

The first one is the addition on the back of the Kelly house. Not sure when that was added. According to LeeAnn that whole first level back of the house is a chopped up labyrinth with a tiny room, now a half bathroom you literally fall into which suggests it was probably at one time a back entry.
The dark photo, the last one I believe is the Kelly barn shown on the left of the photo. Looking at the North side architecture of the house today, I do not see how a side entry like the Borden's side entry was an option on the Kelly house. I think the second entry was in the back either where that ugly addition shown in the color photo now covers or the door that you actually can see in the back in the color photo. Of course that door might also have been cut in when the addition blocked the old back door. I plan to ask the owner a little about it over the weekend.

[Harry]

Drawings of the neighborhood made at the time of the Borden murders do not show a door, and obviously no steps, on the north side of the Kelly house.

[xyjw]

Are there any Lubinsky's left in the area? They looked like a pretty successful and extended family from the listings on the City Directory Page.

[SteveS.]

Very interesting! I never knew that Hyman's testimony was as detailed as much as that. That he was "especially" looking at the backdoors of the houses looking for potential customers makes his testimony a little more believable for me. Up to now I had agreed with Shelley that it would be a stroke of luck that he just happened to look at the very moment Lizzie was comming back from the barn (backyard) area but if he was allready purposely looking at the backdoors of the houses this makes it all the more believable and natural for him to have seen Lizzie. It doesn't change my mind though at this point in time that Lizzie might NOT have commited the murders herself but that she had knowledge as to who did. All her behavior after the fact seems to point to this conclusion to me. She seemed to know the where abouts of all the players and exactly what condition they were in. Coincidence?.....maybe. Hmmmmm!

[SteveS.]

By the way Kat....is this City Directory info also comming from Ancesters.com?

[mbhenty]

Yes Kat:

Let me go back a little, that is to say, take back a little of what I said above.

Knowlton's questioning of Lubinsky was tuff, but probably not any more than the questioning of any other witness.

Perhaps I went a little over the top in describing it that way.

I just did not like the way they sarcastically questioned Lubinsky.

They questioned him on the hands of his watch like he did not know how to read a watch.

Then towards the end, Knowlton became frustrated with his questioning and said something to the effect: WELL, IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONING I WILL NOT ASK IT.

LUBINSKY was a tuff cookie on the stand. He was no push over. As is the habit of lawyers to ask the same question in a hundred different ways.......still, knowlton could not shake him.

Knowlton's "rudeness" could have everything to do with the frustration of not being able to stump Lubinsky. Questioning by Lawyers can be quite confusing, not to mention, that Lubinsky was not good with the English Language.

Still, I stand by my overall assessment of the prejudices and biases of that day. Just the fact that this guy doesn't speak English well, was not born in this country, a peddler no less. His testimony could or could not have carried much weight.

I am willing to bet that it did not. Not because of what he did or did not see, but because of who he was.

[mbhenty]

When talking about the back steps, Lubinsky is talking about the Borden house. The back/side stairs.

I would call it the back stairs, not the side.

So, he was talking about the steps between the Borden barn and the Borden house. If you read the testimony you will discover that there is no mistaking this.

[diana]

I have always wondered why, if the prosecution did not consider Lubinsky’s testimony valid, Knowlton spent so much time trying to break him. If you read Lubinsky’s testimony in its entirety, it becomes obvious how much time the prosecution spends on attempts to trip him up and confuse him.

“A reporter for the New York Sun wrote: ‘Never did a lawyer try harder to confuse a witness than did Mr. Knowlton on this occasion. He walked up and down between the witness and his desk, prodding him with rapid questions. He was nervous, agitated, and scolding in his tone.’
But, he added, he made no dent in Lubinsky's testimony.” (Source: Kent, 158)


“The time element in Lubinsky's testimony was of prime importance and the defense had two witnesses for corroboration. Charles M. Gardner, owner of the stables, testified that Lubinsky left between 11:05 and 11:10. He said that when the peddler had called for his horse he would not let him take it because it was feeding. Lubinsky was late and kept yelling to him to hurry up. He said he had been keeping a sharp eye on the time because he had been hired by a traveling salesman to drive him to several places and then get him to the railroad station on time to catch the 11:50 train for New Bedford. Gardner testified that he left the stables about ten minutes after Lubinsky and while passing the Borden house he heard some people outside shouting about some trouble, a fight. or something." He saw John Manning, a reporter for the Fall River Globe, running up Second Street toward the Borden home and pointed him out to the salesman.

During cross-examination, Knowlton tried to get Gardner to say that Lubinsky might have left before eleven o'clock, but the stableman said he was certain of the time because Lubinsky was late and kept pestering him to hurry up.

Charles V. Newhall, the traveling salesman, backed up both Lubinsky and Gardner as to the times they left. He had been keeping a nervous eye on his watch because he wanted to change a hundred-dollar bill at a bank, call at a harness shop to get an order and then get to the station to make his train. He testified that as they were driving by a house on Second Street, which he learned later was the Borden home, he heard somebody say that a man had been stabbed. . . .

. . . the defense had three blockbusting witnesses: Lubinsky, the ice-cream peddler; Gardner, the stable owner; and Newhall, the traveling salesman. Lubinsky's testimony placed him in front of the Borden house at just about the time Lizzie claimed to have emerged from the barn, and he testified be saw a woman, wearing a dark dress, walking from the barn toward the side steps. Gardner and Newhall corroborated the time; and their testimony, as to people shouting that something had happened at the Borden house as they drove by a short time later, leaves little doubt that Lubinsky had to pass just before Mr. Borden's murder had been discovered.” (Source: Radin, 150,174)


I don’t usually rely on authors but in this instance I’ve used Radin because he neatly summarizes the testimony and the relevant trial excerpts would take up too much space.

[Shelley]

In the final analysis, whether Lubinsky was taken seriously or not- and I see no evidence that he was not- the only thing that comes out of this is that Lubinsky may have seen Lizzie coming back from the barn. There is a chance he did and a chance Lizzie was in the barn. More important to me would be WHY was Lizzie in the barn really and what did she do in the barn. And that Hyman Lubinsky could not see.

Was she really looking for tin, stuff to mend a screen, eating pears, sinker material etc. or was she washing her hands, hiding a weapon, etc. ? In the end I think Lubinsky's testimony was neither pro defense nor pro prosecution. The only good thing about it is that it agreed with Lizzie's statement that she was ever outside the house in the barn. Technically even that is a stretch because all Hyman could truthfully say is that she walking in the direction from the barn into the side of the house. She could have been anywhere in the back yard. The sighting does not prove she was in the barn, nor in the end could he swear it was Lizzie. So what we have is a lots of maybes.

[Stefani]

Lubinsky is the only witness to confirm the part of Lizzie's testimony that she was outside. That is significant.

To the defense, he is her alibi. Another brick in the wall that exonerated her.

Lubinsky held his own in his grilling. For that, he is remarkable, don't you agree?

[Shelley]

Of course the problem was he could not identify the woman as Lizzie.

Only a female in the yard at about the time she said she was coming back. I have a problem with the time line. If Bridget says she was called shortly after 11 to come down, Lubinsky after changing his mind from 10:30 and putting it at after 11, maybe as much as 11:10, then he had to drive up to Second Street (anybody look up the address of Gardner's?), how fast was he going? Does he not say at a trot? (I can't recall). How long then would it take saying he did leave at 11:10- maybe 5 minutes at a trot. If he were looking for customers would he be at a trot? So that should put him on the scene maybe at 11:15, and that does not gel with the timeline of the police call, Bridget's racing all around across the street, Addie Churchill's arrival, etc. and when Allen arrives, etc.

Sure I can see how the defense would grab at this one, and it sounds good for Lizzie that a woman was seen in a yard which sounded like the Borden house and that Bridget Sullivan he claimed to know by sight as she had purchased ice cream from him before. I think he added that the female figure he saw was not wearing a hat. Lizzie will say that she put her hat down when she came in. "A dark dress" also does not gel with the light blue calico with a little dark sprig or tiny pattern on it that most offer as a description of what Lizzie had on. No, if I were on the jury Lubinsky's testimony would be of interest briefly but being in the yard or not being in the yard would not confirm absolute innocence of the crimes one way or another. There could be a dozen guilty or innocent reasons a woman was seen in that spot in the yard, if indeed he really had the right house and time. This scenario bears more study as to timing from the starting point, and sight lines from the approach to Second Street. And again, the timekeeping all over town was atrocious by today's standards. Nobody's timepiece seemed to be in sync with another's.

When I think how Alice Russell's and Eli Bence's good testimonies were eventually dismissed, Lubinsky's seems of paler value to those two.

[SteveS.]

Hyman's view.

[mbhenty]

Yes, Stefani, overall........Lubinsky's testimony was not needed to win this case.

It came down to two simple factors.

Number One, they could not discover the bloody dress.

Number Two, they never really proved the weapon displayed in court as being the one used in the murder.

The ax/axe was never found.

They had little choice but to find her innocent.

Any other verdict would be supported by only circumstantial evidence.

Not proving the ax is a big component and elementary to the outcome of this case.

Even if in their hearts the jury thought her guilty, the could not give tangible reasons to convict.

Lubinsky's testimony was not a factor in finding Lizzie not guilty. Just because he backed up her alibi just proves that she was in the yard. For what, 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes? Just because she was in the yard does not mean she could not have killed her father........it just means......she was in the yard.

[Shelley]

"........it just means......she was in the yard. "

Precisely. And upon that, MB, we can heartily agree.

[Kat]

Please tell where is this "10:30" that is repeated, again?

My earlier post, which I wrote after after re-reading Lubinsky at trial- and trying to equate it with the news report of an interview- shows Lubinsky always testified as to the time- as I repeat myself again- no 10:30 is mentioned by him except as to Wednesday.

[Kat]

I considered the "dark" photo to be the modern one taken seemingly at night?
The other one, contemporary to the crime, is one Har and we had looked over here on the Forum extensively in the past- to figure out what that building is attached to the fence. We love stuff like that!
Perhaps I should have specified more clearly the *side steps* to the Borden house, but they seemed to be denoted as back steps or side steps.

Yes, SteveS- there are Fall River City Directories available on Ancestry dot com. Some issues are missing and some are incomplete, but there's a good collection there.

[Harry]

Shelley, Gardner's stable was located at 129 Second St., south of #92, at or near the corner of Rodman St.

[SteveS.]

Thanks Kat for the answer on the City Directories. I thought Gardner's Stables where at Rodman and 2nd St. That really shouldn't be more then a few minutes trot (or even walk) from the stables to the Borden house.

[Stefani]

"........it just means......she was in the yard. "

Precisely. And upon that, MB, we can heartily agree.

That idea that Lizzie was telling the truth, anywhere in her Inquest testimony, and that an unbiased outside source confirmed that she was outside at all that morning, is significant.

I have served on juries before. Anything that corroborates someone's testimony like this makes the jury more likely to believe that everything else the person says is true.

It may not exonerate her by itself. For instance, if Lubinsky said this and Lizzie had blood on her, it wouldn't have made one difference.

But he said this AND she didn't. So his testimony made her seem honest about this fact of being outside. The jury could imagine her out of the house, wherever she was, when the crimes or one of the crimes was being perpetrated. It made Lizzie credible. That is a huge thing.

[Kat]

I had been asking openly if those who might have access to source documents (while I've been on my laptop) would know if there was more context to Lubinsky's sworn and stated avowal as to his testimony, and if there were problems with it, such as maybe remarks made in closing.

After looking myself this morning I find in Knowlton's closing argument, this- and I'm suggesting that maybe this section should be perused for deeper context still:

Cool and comfortable in the seclusion of her home, seated by the side of her spiritual adviser, calmly, much more calmly than I can tell it to you here now, she tells that gentleman who came to talk with her absolutely as a fact that she went to the barn, and went upstairs in the barn, and remained there for twenty minutes. That story is not true. That alibi will not stand. We leave her again by the side of the victim. We leave her nearer even than she was to the murdered woman. We leave her engaged in an employment which if followed to its conclusion would have scarcely have taken the time I am now occupying in completing the sentence. We come back and find her father dead, the occupation surrendered and forgotten, and the story at her lips ready to tell, which has no vestige of truth in it.

Page 1825 / i851

I will spend little time in the prosecution of this argument to discuss Mr. Lubinsky. What he saw and when he saw it are absolutely indefinite. Let me treat him with entire fairness and justice. To begin with, he is a discarded witness. He went with his story first to Wilkinson and then to Mr. Mullaly, and then to Mr. Phillips before the hearing in the district court. Mr. Mullaly tells you just what he told him.

MR. ROBINSON. That is not in evidence.

MR. KNOWLTON. Exactly in evidence. Find it, Mr. Moody, for I won't mis-state a hair of this evidence. He saw Mr. Mullaly and told him that it was about half-past ten when he went by and saw somebody coming from the barn. That was on the eighth day of August. About two weeks after that time---I do not need the record, for I remember it as though it was yesterday---about two weeks after that time he told Mr. Phillips---yes, it would be the 22nd of August. This hearing ran through the 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, up into the first day of September. He told a reporter, and I presume it was published, although I do not know anything about that. I won't say that, for I do not know. Mr. Phillips was present there in court; witnesses were called for the defence, and Lubinsky was not called. He had not got things patched up.

MR. MOODY. Here it is.

MR. KNOWLTON. My friends won't contradict it when I have stated it. They are too fair. I have put it exactly

Page 1826 / i852

as it was. And I want to know in this connection what was the necessity of having that line drawn so carefully by the surveyor across that plan the first day. What has been the significance of that thing, by which it was made to appear that a surveyor could find a line clear from a point on the street to the barn door? And you were asked to squint across there. You saw that you could not see the fraction of a rabbit that came out of that barn door. Has that any connection with the first attempt at Lubinsky? I do not know. It is one of those things they have started and have flashed in the pan. But taking his story as he tells it now, and dealing with Lubinsky with entire fairness, all that is absolutely known is that at 11 o'clock, by the testimony of Mr. Gardner, who gives to us as he remembers it, about 11 o'clock when he looked at his watch, Lubinsky came in for his horse. He was in a hurry. The horse was being fed. He had to wait for him to be fed, and for some other teams to be harnessed, and as soon as he had got through feeding he started away with him. How long does it take to feed a horse? Half of you know, and you can tell the rest. It is a matter of ordinary common knowledge. At some time, taking his story, going down in his haste, he forgot that he was in a hurry when he was going down the street, going down the street in his haste
and not as my distinguished friend says, looking around for ice cream customers, for his cart was empty then and he was going to have it filled, he glanced into that yard and he saw a female form. It may have been

Page 1827 / i853

Mrs. Churchill, it may have been Bridget, it may have been Alice Russell. It was more than likely that it was quarter past eleven or ten minutes past eleven, for the news of the tragedy was communicated to the world, and was known at the police station which it reached at quarter past eleven, and what he saw and when he saw it have no significance whatever.

Page 1828 / i854

And, to be exact about it, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, it is not charged here that she did not go to the barn. It is not charged here that perhaps, in some part of the work of concealing the evidence of that crime, she may have not found it necessary to visit the barn. What is charged here---and Lubinsky never touches a hair of it in any part of this story, if you take it to the uttermost---what is charged here is that her deliberate, her chosen, her formal alibi of being up in the loft of that barn for twenty minutes (she won't even vary in the time of it upon being asked again), is absolutely beyond the power of human credence to believe.

[Harry]

The time of 10:30 comes from 2 newspaper articles.

The newspapers one I believe to be the Fall River Evening News (which I cited in a previous post on this thread) of August 8th and the other the Boston Globe of August 11th.

The Evening News has this:

"He relates that while riding in his cart past Andrew J. Borden's house, at half past 10 a.m., on Thursday, he noticed a woman walking from the barn to the door on the north side of the house, which she entered.
The woman was, he thought, a little taller than himself; that is, about 5 feet 4 inches; was bare-headed; wore brown or dark clothes - he didn't take particular notice which; and had one hand on her hip, and the other hanging or swinging; that she walked at an ordinary gait; that he did not know who she was, and did not remember that he had ever seen her before; that the woman was not Bridget Sullivan, to whom he once sold ice cream at the house, and whom he could identify if she passed."

The Boston Globe, in a summary of events to date, had this:

"Another clue was that of a woman reported as seen near the Borden house about 10.30 by Hymon Lubinsky, a Russian pedler of ice cream, who was driving up 2d st.
It was found that she was unfamiliar with the locality, and when she was seen she was making innocent and perfectly legitimate inquiries at a house next to the Borden’s.
Her name is McGrath and she is fully identified and found to be all right."

Here the reference to "McGrath" is most likely meant to be Ellen Egan.

The importance of Lubinsky's testimony, IMHO, is not that he identifies her, not that she was in the barn but she could have been out of the house. Something for the jury to consider a point in her favor.

[Kat]

Here is Rebello's version of the "sight line" referred to by Knowlton.
Note "By Courtesy" of the author- permission was given.
Lizzie Borden Past & Present, Al-Zach Press, Fall River, MA. 1999. page 45.

[diana]

Just to balance out Knowlton's closing remarks -- here is what Robinson had to say for the other side. Note the different spelling of Lubinsky -- I wonder why it wasn't uniform throughout the transcript?

"Now did she go to the barn? She says she did and her statement is entitled to credit as she gave it on the spot, the moment when Bridget was upstairs and might know about it. Did she go to the barn? Well, we find that she did,--- find it by independent, outside witnesses, thanks to somebody who saw her. Possibly this life of hers is saved by the observation of a passer on the street. There comes along a pedlar (sic), an ice-cream man, known to everybody in Fall River. He is not a distinguished lawyer, or a great minister or a successful doctor. He is only an ice-cream pedlar, but he knows what an oath is, and he tells the truth about it, and he says he passed down that street that morning and as he passed right along it was at a time when he says he saw a woman, not Bridget Sullivan whom he knew, coming along, walking slowly around that corner just before she would ascend those side steps. Now there was no other woman alive in that house except Bridget and Lizzie at that time. He knew it was not Bridget by the best of instinct, because he had sold her ice cream and he knew her. He says it was the other woman whom I had never sold ice cream to.

Recollect that was Lizzie or some stranger in the yard. You will say undoubtedly it was Lizzie as she came back from the barn. It may be asked why did he look in? I say because any one might do so---they say Lizzie must have looked under the bed; I say Lobinsky (sic) must have looked into the yard. He was an enterprising young man, he was looking for business because he had sold ice cream there before and therefore he noticed the yard. Now is that something he remembers today and comes up here to tell about or anybody has bought him to tell about? Nobody will make that insinuation in regard to the defendant. Was he got to tell it? Let us see. He told it the 8th of August to the police and they had it all in their possession. Now, that is not a yarn made up for the occasion at all, and the only sort of conflict about it is attempted in this way, not to dispute it, but to admit or say that Mr. Lobinsky is mistaken about a half hour of time. Mr. Mullaly is one of the knights of the handle, you know. You know who he is. Mr. Mullaly,---Mr. Mullaly comes with a book and it is thrown down here on the table with a great display to us for us to pick it up and with something written in it. It is not competent evidence and has no business on the table, because it might be lost and carried away, and it should be,---but Mr. Mullaly says that on the 8th of August he had a talk with Mr. Lobinsky and Mr. Lobinsky told him it was half past ten o'clock. Now if Mr. Lobinsky went by that yard at half past ten, he did not see Miss Lizzie go to the barn. Is Mr. Mullaly mistaken, or is he biased, trying to work up the case? He had to stay in the court room until the other fellow was heard, to hold him. We had the twins here; they did not look alike. We kept them here. That is Mr. Mullaly. Now you are going to say, Gentleman, whether you believe Mr. Lobinsky who stands uncontradicted and undisputed, or believe another man who is fully contradicted by a man with him who was his own associate on the police force. Now, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, the Government knew where Mr. Lobinsky was, and that was at the shop of Mr. Wilkinson. They knew where he was. And they knew too that Lobinsky's horse was kept at Mr. Gardner's stable on Second street corner of Rodman, and they could have found whether Lobinsky had left the stable at eleven o'clock or half past ten. But we have not troubled them to do that. Mr. Gardner who owns the stable has told his own story, and has he not told you that Lobinsky's statement is correct, that he did not leave the stable until after eleven o'clock? He testified that that was because other teams were to be hitched up to go ahead of Lobinsky, and he was late so that he did not get away until eleven or five minutes past eleven o'clock. My friend Knowlton in cross-examining him wanted to know whether he told the time on his watch by the long hand or the short hand. But that is all right. It is a good practice, but it is no test. Gardner remembers it and fixes it even if Lobinsky did not have that watch. He tells us what time he left and the time he was passing by the
yard on Second street, and then we have Mr. Newhall, a man from Worcester, who happened to be there. He comes here and tells you that he passed along the street and he fixes the time by the hour that he went to the bank and the places where he was that morning, and you have those three men that hold it down to the time I refer to, that is, half past ten o'clock. Is it not fair to say that Mr. Mullaly is mistaken, to say the least? Then if they want to find anything more about it, we land Mr. Douglass in this case, who was there at the time in Fall River, having a horse. They knew about it and they could have proved about it, and they know it was as we say and yet they did not try to prove it. Gentlemen, as you take cases in court, carefully weighing the evidence, would not you say that Lobinsky went there at the time he states, and that the two others passed along that street, and that he saw Miss Lizzie going into the house? If that is true then the Commonwealth must take back the charge that she lied about going to the barn, and if she did not lie but told the truth about going to the barn, she was out of the house at the very time when the slayer murdered Mr. Borden." (Trial, 1667+)

[Shelley]

Thanks, Harry-that's exactly what I needed. Rebello agrees on page 107 of his book about the address of Gardner's. Well, that places it a little closer than I thought to the Borden House, which helps Lubinsky's testimony a good deal as to time. #129 in 1892 must have a new number today but I will time it from Rodman trotting and walking! All I need is a horse and carriage!

The 10:30 testimony that was first mentioned, then changed to 11 or after 11 until 11:10 was settled upon appears in a few places, I will hunt this afternoon. I have used so many books this past week, I forget exactly which one I saw it in first. Either Yesterday in Old Fall River or the Joyce Williams book probably.

I also thought perhaps the woman Hyman saw might have been Addie Churchill-the times work out better for her walking up to the steps.

The photo Steve posted above looks as if it were taken by someone standing north of the house and shooting the house midstreet with his camera pointed south. Hyman was heading north on Second St. When you drive directly past the front of #92, the barn and driveway are not visible. It is only after passing the house entirely and looking down the drive, turning your head hard right at a right angle that you can see down the driveway back to the barn. I know this from much experience trying to get my car in and out of the Borden driveway every week, always a scary enterprise because of the sharp angle getting out onto Second St. And today there is no fence, Buffinton House, shrubs, large tree in front of the house to obscure a clear view.

Maybe Lubinsky was desperate to find customers so he was really looking hard for a sale, although I thought he had not yet filled his cart with product. I had horses for many years and drove a "buggy" and a farm wagon. At a trot and on a busy street I think my eyes would have been pointed straight between my horse's ears at where I was going. Maybe he was not going at a trot but at an ambling pace- then I might be tempted to peer into people's back and side yards, over fences and over my shoulder to seek out customers.

Using Len's sight line map and the view from the Kelly house fence of the Borden back and side yard is more confusing to me. The Borden driveway and side steps and that little space between the front of the barn and the house are not visible at all from that POV by Kelly's fence. And then there was the pergola on the south lawn to contend with too. Well, looks like a busy weekend with volunteers and a camera!

[Yooper]

I'm having difficulty imagining how Lubinsky could have seen anyone between the barn door and the house using the Rebello line-of-sight information. It would only provide a split-second view of the barn door and no view at all with respect to the stairs at the side door of the house. Continuing north on second street, the yard next to the barn becomes more visible while the barn becomes obscured. There would not have been much time to identify anyone positively, unless he knew Bridget at a quick glance. Did Bridget have bright red hair or some other attribute by which she could be recognized at a glance?

[Yooper]

The view from the other direction, down the driveway, is slightly better, but only if Lubinsky could see over the six foot fence between the Churchill house and the Borden driveway. It still doesn't leave much time for an identification, and the stairs to the side door are in the way for part of the view. The distances involved are somewhere between 100 and 150 feet. Lubinsky must have been well acquainted with Bridget to know it wasn't her.

[diana]

I don't know how helpful this is but here is the trial testimony of the civil engineer Thomas Kieran -- I'm assuming this is the same line of sight?

Q. Now have you made any experiments or tests to see what the line of vision is in passing up Second Street or down Second Street by the Borden house relative to the barn door on the south side of the barn?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the result of your experiments?
A. If a man stands on Second Street and brings his eye---
Q. This is Second Street?
A. This is Second Street.
Q. West of the house?
A. West of the house, yes.
Q. Now, you said, "If a man stood upon Second Street at a point"---
A. South of the house, and brought his eye directly in line, in a line drawn past the corner of Dr. Kelly's house----
Q. Which corner?
A. The northwest corner, and the southeast corner of the Andrew Borden house, if his eye was in a direct continuation of that line on Second Street, he could see the 12 inches of the barn door of the Andrew Borden barn---
Q. (By Mr. Moody.) Would it be the hinge side or the latch side?
A. That I should want to refer to my notes before answering. Shall I do so?

MR. JENNINGS. Yes, if they want it.

(At this point the examination of the witness was suspended until 9 A.M. The plan last referred to by the witness was marked Exhibit 8.)

. . . Q. (By Mr. Jennings.) Near the close of your testimony yesterday you referred to a line passing by the northwest corner of Dr. Kelley's house and the southeast corner of Andrew J. Borden's house. Is that line indicated upon this plan? (Showing plan to witness).
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How?
A. It is drawn on there,---this dotted line.
Q. How is it marked?
A. It is marked by a dotted white line on this blue print, called a "ranged" line.
Q. What does it indicate relative to the barn door on the south side of the barn?
A. It strikes 12 inches from the hinge side of the door.
Q. And the hinge side is which side?
A. The east side.
Q. Is or is not the point of contact of that line with the east side of Second street the point where there is the best observation of the barn door from the street? . . .

[At this point there is much back and forth between the two sides regarding that question, which everyone can read in the trial transcript, but Mr. Kieran is eventually allowed to give his answer.]
. . . A. I thought when looking at it that when I was on that line I could see more of the door than from any other point. (Trial: Kieran)

[Yooper]

Kieran was likely correct about that particular line of sight allowing the greatest view of the door. That being a door two to three feet wide, I imagine. The door swung to the left from the inside of the barn if the hinged side of the door was referenced by Kieran along that line of sight, and if the door opened outward. Someone exiting the barn would not likely be obscured by the door, they would be visible against the door, with the door as background. If the door opened inward, it made little difference to exposure from that line of sight, and it would also swing to the left on the inside. Someone standing directly outside the door might be visible for an instant to someone passing by, but only for a very short time, just a glance. Someone would almost have to be watching for that particular sight picture to notice anyone standing there. The further away from the barn a person stood, the more visible they would be, and for a somewhat greater length of time. Lubinsky's description being as detailed as it was, giving the absolutely minimal amount of time available to see anyone between the house and barn, seems incredible. He knew for a fact that it wasn't Bridget, and could provide a good estimate of the person's height at over 100 feet distance. In my opinion, he knew an awful lot at a glance. Was he as certain of this as he was to his time of observance or the year of his birth?

[diana]

. ..Was he as certain of this as he was to his time of observance or the year of his birth?

As far as I know, Lubinsky's testimony is the only first hand account we have of his observance of the time and he consistently says it was shortly after 11 a.m. Any of the 10:30 reportage is second-hand at best.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by him being certain of the year of his birth?

[Shelley]

There are some references in a few books to the thought that Lubinsky was especially on the lookout for people because he was looking for customers- but if he had not yet gotten to 49 North Main to the confectioner's who supplied his product, then his wagon which he had picked up shortly before his sighting then had to be empty of ice creams, therefore removing the speculation that Lubinsky was especially observant or looking for customers when he headed up Second Street.

Sure, anything seen that morning is worthy of examination to determine any significance- some things were clearly explained away like Dr. Handy's wild-eyed man. Loads of people said they saw various things, the carriage that pulled up and waited near the house, descriptions of various people near the house or on the street, a shutter closing in the guest room upstairs around 9:15 or thereabouts, Bridget outside washing windows, etc.

I guess we can beat this thing to death and not all will come to the same conclusion on how important or unimportant Lubinsky's statement was that he saw a female near the Borden house yard. I can see how the jury might have had some doubts, given the sightlines and the odds that somebody would have the supreme good fortune of looking through a very narrow space at the exact moment when the woman happened to appear. I also wonder how he knew Bridget from selling her ice cream the once.

Giving him every benefit of the doubt and saying he was remarkable lucky to witness this and that it was indeed Lizzie he saw, the only thing it establishes is that Lizzie was outside the house at some point. And naturally she would have to be to believe her tale. Where else could she say she had been at the time of Andrew's murder with one dead body upstairs on the second floor, the maid on the third floor and no place else to occupy, therefore, than the first floor where she most assuredly would have heard Andrew being killed and would most likely have been attacked herself.

And she had to explain WHY the side door was unlocked because Bridget had locked it when she came in. If the door were unlocked for a killer to get in, then Lizzie had to have a reason to unlock it and going outside to the barn for all of her reasons fit the bill. Sounds more likely than the killer having slunk around the house after killing Abby earlier, neatly avoiding being seen by Lizzie or Bridget.

If Lubinsky got the brush off and he was positive he was right, although he did not know Lizzie by sight, then it must have been as deflating for him as Eli Bence's more devasting statements which got the boot. Anyway, there sure is enough speculation here for a heck of a Hatchet article to accompany Joe's Lubinsky stone discovery!

[SteveS.]

Maybe he was looking for customers to take ice cream orders before going to fill his wagon with wares? It was August and it was hot. It wasn't like a freezer ice cream truck of today. I would imagine he couldn't drive around that long with ice cream to sell in his wagon or all he would have is slush.

[Yooper]

If Lubinsky says he made a relatively acute observation at what had to be a glance, perhaps he was given to overstatement at times. Unless Bridget had some immediately identifiable characteristic, visible at 30-50 yards in a split second, how could he be certain it wasn't Bridget? What was available near the individual seen to estimate height within an inch or two in the same amount of time? He may have told the newspaper reporter he was 21 years old, but the information is second hand. If he was actually 16-18 years of age, he might have thought 21 years gave him greater credibility, or someone else might have and he may have gone along with it. It just seems like a lot of information given the distance and time involved.

Lubinsky may have seen Lizzie walking from the barn to the house, but it would have almost certainly required a second look from the driveway side of the house. Like the prosecution, I have to wonder why such an interest in the Borden house at that time? If he thought it might be Bridget and he knew her well enough to wave or acknowledge her in some way, why didn't he say so? That would have explained it better than "why do we have eyes, but to look?", or words to that effect.

[mbhenty]

Yes. I know we have many women here on the forum.

And, they should be aware of this.

Growing up, three quarters of my friends were horny Bastards. Young men usually are, and it was not very different back then, though the approach was probably modified.

A pretty women will catch most men's eyes.

Lubinsky, if indeed in his early 20s, would probably notice what he thought was a hot chick. Not being a dummy, he knew how the well-to-do dressed, that is, the difference between them and a "house girl" or servant.

I'm sure that he was noticing someone from the opposite sex with a keen eye.......not only as a customer but ice cream for the eye.

Thus, very possible he remembered a lot about her. He was eyeing a women. Whether is tongue was out or not, I don't think it came up in court.

[mbhenty]

I don't understand what all the talk is about, when it comes to views from the corner of the Kelly house.

Lubinsky's never said he saw Lizzie from that side of the house.

Lubinsky reported seeing her from the north west corner.

If you go to the post above with the photo of the house and barn, that is, the one posted by SteveS, you will see the same view Lubinsky saw.

[Shelley]

"Horny bastards"? Well, that's certainly one point of view I daresay nobody has/had considered for Eagle Eye Lubinsky.

The topic of the Kelly house sightline is being discussed because Kat posted Len's map and the speculation involving that. Actually the photo Steve posted would be after the carriage had passed the house heading North. The actual view would have been from an elevated carriage seat above the roadbed, and to see that view Steve posted, Lubinsky would have to have been looking back towards the south over his right shoulder down the Borden driveway.

[mbhenty]

Yes, I was going to let the dead horse lay, but I just noticed it is still moving and needs a couple of more punts.

Lubinsky stood steadfast. They wanted him to give a specific time but he stuck to his story and repeatedly insisted that it was a couple of minutes after ll:00.

5 or 10 minutes. He was not sure and would not pin himself down, insisting that it was a couple of minutes after eleven a.m.

Now, I am divulging information, facts, taken from the court testimony.

Not sure where the 10:30 came from? (Newspaper, book?)

But at no time in his testimony does Lubinsky mention 10:30 in his sworn statement.

As a matter of fact, the time he uses is the time that he left the stable on Morgan Street, not the time he drove by the house. By horse at a slow trot, you can add another 3 to 5 minutes to that. I don't remember anyone asking him what time it was as he passed the house. If I am wrong, please correct me.

[Shelley]

Actually i am still digesting the Horny Bastard comment.


Harry has posted the two newspapers which detail the 10:30 statement on the page previous to this one and I thought he had given the address of Gardner's as 129 Second Street which he says is about at the corner of Rodman and Second, not Morgan.

[mbhenty]

[SteveS.]

I posted that view as Hymans because it is the only logical view. As far as I know, Hyman stated he saw a woman COMMING from the back yard towards the stairs as if comming from the barn area and I figured that would be roughly the place he would have had to have been looking. Thank you MB by the way for adding the human "horny bastard" element I never really thought of that one but you are so right. He could have definitely noticed a women more so as opposed to a man in the yard.

[Stefani]

Here's my question: how many of you who doubt Lubinsky's testimony also think Lizzie is guilty?

[Shelley]

Oh I agree that is close to the view using that old 1892 photo. But it is slightly north of the house and is of course taken at ground level. What a good thing the canopy over the side steps was not there in 1892 as it is today-just one more thing to block the view

[mbhenty]

Enough of this Lubinsky talk.

Let's move on.

I'll go first.

How many here think Lizzie is sexy?