Review of David Kent's, "Forty Whacks"

[Laura]

I am a stickler for accuracy and, I suspect, many of you are, also. :) Therefore, I am posting below a rather significant discrepancy in trial testimony as given by the late Mr. Kent in his book, "Forty Whacks: New Evidence in the Life and Legend of Lizzie Borden". I intend no disrespect for Mr. Kent's research. You may make of it what you will.

“Of all the mysteries connected to the Borden murders, the most profound was revealed in the first few questions put to Dr. Dolan by Attorney Adams. Discussing the nature of the blows to the heads of Andrew and Abby, Adams put these questions to Dolan:
Q. You think the assailant swung the instrument from left to right, don’t you?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And all these wounds can be fairly accounted for by blows from left to right?
A. Yes sir.
Q. That is to say, by a left-handed person?
A. Yes, by a left-handed person.
Lizzie was right-handed.
The questioning took another turn at this point, and it was never mentioned again, either in examinations, cross-examinations, or in Robinson’s summary.
This, it would seem, would have been almost certain vindication of Lizzie, had it been pursued. In none of the accounts of the Borden murders has this astounding point ever been mentioned or speculated on, but the trial transcript is explicit and, by repetition of the question, cannot be regarded as a stenographic error.”
“Forty Whacks: New Evidence in the Life and Legend of Lizzie Borden”, Pgs. 133-134.

Trial Transcript/Cross Examination/Dolan - Adams
Volume 1, Pg. 947:
“Q. You think the assailant swung the instrument from left to right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And all those wounds can be fairly accounted for by blows from left to right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is to say, it is a left handed blow?
A. In what sense left–handed: delivered by the left hand?
Q. That it strikes the body in a left-handed direction,---from left to right?
A. Yes, sir, to a certain extent. Those that are most markedly from left to right are those that would come down directly as the head lies there now, and give the direction of a left-handed blow.”

Oh, and the testimony quoted above was 21 pages into the second day of Adam’s cross examination of Dolan, certainly not the "first few questions".

[Susan]

Thats a good find, Laura, I wonder why he changed it? That bit of talk about the direction of the blows to Andrew's head always makes me stop and wonder. Dr. Dolan believes that the blows mostly came down from left to right and that the murderer stood at the head of the sofa to deliver these blows. He believes so because of the direction that the blood spatters on the wall point. But, I've always thought that the area between the arm of the sofa and the wall behind the sofa were so close, wouldn't it be difficult to swing the hatchet from the left {the wall} down towards the arm and then back towards the wall without hitting the wall? I would think it would be easier to just swing the hatchet straight up and down, maybe coming more from the right to the left, towards the wall.

[Kat]

That's a good point and good illustration, Susan.

I think, after becoming an editor myself, that people just transcribe testimony a bit haphazardly, without explicit attention to detail. Also, sometimes they are copying something wrongly transcribed in another source, be it author or newspaper.
I don't think people do this on purpose, but maybe some authors did, counting on others not to check?

I have never found a fully 100% correct transcription in any book or article, including myself.

[Laura]

I agree with you, Susan. I don't believe the attack on Andrew came from someone standing at the head of the sofa. I believe the assailant stood directly in front of Andrew and that Andrew was attempting to rise from the sofa when he was hit. Has anyone ever tried to "nap" in the position shown in the photos? Lying on one side with both feet on the floor? Hardly conducive to a restful sleep. :)

Dolan also believed, as you do, that the blows were vertical. Here is his testimony from Re-Direct by Knowlton, Volume 1, pg. 979:
"Q. ---whether you made any determination as to whether those blows were blows that came down vertically or swinging from left to right or from right to left?
A. I have said that, talking of Mr. Borden, that this wound here that took out a piece was from left to right, but I explained that by the position in which the head rested. That it is a vertical blow or anything like it from left to right on the head, I wouldn't say that. MY IMPRESSION IS THAT THE BLOWS WERE MOSTLY MADE VERTICALLY."

Kat, I agree with you in that mistakes can and do occur in the process of editing, but there is a meaningful difference in the phrase, "by a left-handed person" and "it is a left handed blow". And Dolan never answered, "Yes, by a left-handed person," in the trial transcript. I find the change especially disturbing considering the importance Kent placed upon this "evidence": "This, it would seem, would have been almost certain vindication of Lizzie, had it been pursued .... but the trial transcript is explicit and, by repetition of the question, cannot be regarded as a stenographic error."

Well, if it was not a stenographic error, then we must not be reading the same trial transcript. :)

[Kat]

Well, It didn't sound like Susan was saying that Andrew was not attacked from the doorway, but more remarked upon the direction of the blows and that a left-handed attack from the doorway would be hard.
At least that's what I read.

I also do not say that "mistakes can and do occur in the process of editing"- but rather in the process of editing, mistakes should be caught and fixed.

What I am getting at is someone takes notes of testimony and then think they read it a certain way, get inspired, and run with it. Kent maybe did this. I don't know why.
I'm just saying it's easy to do, and may not be on purpose.

It's a very good thing that you point out these discrepancies tho.

[snokkums]

I agree with you laura. I think he was hit from the front and trying to get up to defend himself.One of the things that always bothered me about Andrews photo was the angle that he was sleeping. It seemed so awkward and uncomfortable looking, not the kind of position to sleep in comfortably.

[Kashesan]

My feelings exactly-he was face to face with his killer, was stricken, and then slumped to the side into that awkward position.

kash

[Laura]

Kat, you're absolutely correct; Susan was referring to Dolan's description of the direction of the blows, not the position of the assailant. My apologies for the error!

I may have the reason for Kent's discrepancy in trial testimony. In his Bibliography, under "Transcripts", is this listing:
"Burt, Philip H. - Borden, Lizzie A. - Trial of. Official transcript of the trial in the Massachusetts Superior Court. Two vols. 1893. Microtext at Boston Public Library."
It appears that the discrepancy can be credited to Burt.

I'm glad to hear that others agree with me regarding Andrew's "napping" position and the probability of a frontal attack. :) Another interesting fact is that there were no "defensive wounds" on the hands or arms of either Andrew or Abby. Tends to show that the attacks on both were fast and furious giving them no time to react.

[doug65oh]

Whoops... the "Burt transcript" is actually the one we use...isn't it?? Except my copy ID's the transcriber - the first one that is...not Harry -as "Frank H. Burt" ...not "Philip."

[Edisto]

I certainly think it's unpardonable that Kent misquoted from the trial testimony to make a point, if that's what he did. I recall reading somewhere a letter that he sent (as I recall) to Bob Flynn, in which he mentioned that he had just finished proofreading something (I believe it was Lizzie's inquest testimony). As I understood it, he was saying that he (alone) proofread his own document. Bad idea! If I need to proofread anything really important, I get another person to read aloud from the typed copy, and I silently read the document from which the copy was made. That way, the person who's reading aloud has no "ownership" of the paper he's reading and is looking at it with fresh eyes. All of us like to think we do error-free work, but in truth, all of us make mistakes.

On another thread there are posts (some of them mine) reflecting the fact that Kent, in the "Sourcebook" included an advertisement that he claimed was for the dress-goods sale that Lizzie supposedly mentioned to Bridget on August 4. I pointed out that Kent's ad was for a sale on a Monday. Others came forward with information indicating the advertisement that Kent used wasn't the correct one and that there were other published ads that might actually have been for the Sargent's sale supposedly referenced by Lizzie.

A couple of strikes against Kent! However, in his defense, I don't believe he was at all well when he was doing his Borden research. "Forty Whacks," as most of us know, was posthumously published. Although David Kent had long nursed an interest in the Borden case, most of his heavy-duty research apparently took place in the last two years of his life.

I'd still love to see an exhaustive research job and a new Borden book that would straightforwardly and without bias retell the story. A model for such an undertaking might be Steve Oney's "And the Dead Shall Rise," (Pantheon, 2003) about the Mary Phagan/Leo Frank case. I don't know how long it took Oney to research and write his book (his first), but I'm sure it was far longer than two years.
(No, Steve Oney isn't a relative of mine.)

[diana]

Kent is a little misleading, too, in his assertion that the issue of "handedness" was never addressed again during the trial.

When Dr. Draper was being examined regarding Abby Borden's wounds this came up:
"Q. Now were there not upon her head blows which appeared to be bevelled in both directions?
A. There were.
Q. And if there was a blow this way and a blow that way? (Indicating)
A. Precisely. Rather with the right hand than with the left, I think.
Q. Rather with the right hand than with the left, in her case?
A. Yes.
Q. Assuming that a person was left-handed---in other words, used the left hand as easily as persons ordinarily do the right hand---there would be nothing in those appearances there inconsistent with its use, would there?
A. So far as those appearances there, the bevelling and the chipping, nothing." (Draper: Trial 1073)
......
Then, later, when Dr. Cheever is being queried about the direction of the blows to Andrew Borden:
"Q. Were there any of those blows upon either skull which indicate the direction of the weapon that struck them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which of them indicate a direction, and what direction do they indicate? Would you like anything to illustrate by or to point out by?
A. Well, assuming that this skull of Mr. Borden's---assuming that he was lying in this position, the general direction of that, as I lay it in that crack, is of a right-handed blow, from right to left. That is shown also by some of the cuts.
Q. I was not asking you so much as to right and left hand as I was with regard to the direction of them.
A. Well, from right to left that blow is.
Q. Are there any other wounds as to which you could tell from which direction the weapon came, on either the head or Mr. Borden or of Mrs. Borden?
A. A number of the cuts on the head of Mrs. Borden, the marks on the skull, incline from right to left." (Cheever: Trial, 1095)

And even later in Cheever's examination regarding Mrs. Borden:
"Q. The other injuries upon the skull, you say indicate the blows came both right and left, did you say so? I am taking them all together without asking you to separate them, and what is your answer?
A. The other injuries than those there?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. They are both ways.
Q. Both ways?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is, right to left, wood chopping fashion?
" (Cheever: Trial, 1105-1106)

The phrase "wood-chopping fashion" makes me think of someone using both hands -- which might take 'handedness' out of the equation altogether.

This whole section of the trial probably deserves a close read to determine whether the one side or the other was trying to establish or negate that the murderer was right or left handed.

[Laura]

Doug65oh - Good catch! My downloaded copy of the trial transcript reads, "Official Stenographic Report by Frank H. Burt 1893". The identical last name and identical year seem to be just a little too "coincidental". Well, I guess this is a question for Harry Widdows. :)

Editso - Excellent system regarding proof reading! Will use it myself in the future. Thank you for the tip! Regarding Kent's research: If the source is flawed, the end product will be also, through no fault of the author. I did take note of the fact that Kent heavily quoted the newspapers of the day and seemed to accept their reports verbatim. Not a reliable source, in my opinion. An unbiased, retelling of the Borden murders is a necessity. Unfortunately, the natural and entirely human impulse to "solve" the mystery" is SO hard to resist, I can't think of a contemporary author who could do so. :) Not to mention finding a publishing company to print it.

Diana - Thank you for pointing out the additional testimony regarding the right-to-left, left-to-right blows. A question for all - Kent stated that Lizzie was right-handed, but did not annotate any of his work, therefore I do not know the particular source he used for that statement. Has anyone found any information on this point?

[Kat]

Granted, this may be new information to the turn-of-the-century experts at the time, but also it might be a re-awakening of an old way of doing things.
(However, at some point in my parent's generation I think children were retrained to only use the right hand).
However, this item (partial) is dated 1892, and I thought it was interesting.

[Susan]

Thanks for the additional testimony, Diana. One thing that I find particularly confusing about the right to left, left to right testimony is which way are the doctors looking at Andrew's skull? If the belief is that the strikes were made by the killer standing at the head of the sofa and that the strikes were from left to right ( from the wall behind the sofa towards the arm); that changes if you are looking at Andrew's skull head on. The strikes then become from right to left if the killer is standing in front of the sofa striking at Andrew. Do you understand what I mean? So from that testimony alone, it is very difficult to tell which position the killer stood in to deliver those whacks. I think the more telling evidence would be the direction of the blood spots on the wall, that is if we know for sure that the blood flies in the direction the strikes are coming from or if they go in the opposite direction from where the strikes are coming from. Sorry, I hope I haven't added more confusion to the mix.

[theebmonique]

I agree with you Susan that the blood spatter pattern would be better evidence. When we say R-L, amd L-R, are we apeaking from the killer's perspective or from Andrew's ? I assume that in regards to an autopsy report, it would be from Andrew's ?


Tracy...

[1bigsteve]

The "right to left" and "left to right" direction of blows indicates to me, as Diana suggested, that the killer used BOTH hands. I doubt a man would use both hands but a woman most likely would. The shallow depth of the wounds also indicate to me that the killer was a woman. If I were the killer there would not be much left of the heads with that many chops. But then I would not have had to use more than one or two swings of the hatchet. A woman would have had to use both hands and taken many more swings. The lack of blood splatter also indicates to me that there was not much force delivered with each blow. In all my years of camping out I have never seen a woman use a hatchet with one hand. Always two. I always use one hand with a hatchet and often times one hand with a full size axe.

The lack of injuries to Andrew's hands indicate to me that he was attacked from the front while he was sitting up-right by someone he knew and trusted. The first blow could have been the one that split his eye or nose. He fell sideways and the killer finished him off. I don't think the killer attacked fron the dinning room door way because the direction of the wounds would have been different, unless the weapon was something other than a hatchet. But, I think it was a common hatchet.

-1bigsteve (o:

[1bigsteve]

The "right to left" and "left to right" direction of blows indicates to me, as Diana suggested, that the killer used BOTH hands. I doubt a man would use both hands but a woman most likely would. The shallow depth of the wounds also indicate to me that the killer was a woman. If I were the killer there would not be much left of the heads with that many chops. But then I would not have had to use more than one or two swings of the hatchet. A woman would have had to use both hands and taken many more swings. The lack of blood splatter also indicates to me that there was not much force delivered with each blow. In all my years of camping out I have never seen a woman use a hatchet with one hand. Always two. I always use one hand with a hatchet and often times one hand with a full size axe.

The lack of injuries to Andrew's hands indicate to me that he was attacked from the front while he was sitting up-right by someone he knew and trusted. The first blow could have been the one that split his eye or nose. He fell sideways and the killer finished him off. I don't think the killer attacked fron the dinning room door way because the direction of the wounds would have been different, unless the weapon was something other than a hatchet. But, I think it was a common hatchet.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Audrey]

When I used that hatchet in my experiments I HAD to use both hands to have the strength to chop a melon! I could chop with one hand-- but there is no way I could have broken a skull unless I used both.

[1bigsteve]

When I used that hatchet in my experiments I HAD to use both hands to have the strength to chop a melon! I could chop with one hand-- but there is no way I could have broken a skull unless I used both.

Swinging a hatchet overhead, Audrey, involves the Teres Major, Latissimus dorsi, Serratus anterior, and the Triceps brachii long and lateral heads and these are muscles most women don't have very much of. So I don't see a man being the killer. But which woman did it? I feel it was Lizzie for several reasons but I can't figure out where she hid the hatchet (she never left the house) and how did she keep blood off her skin and out of her hair? On a hot day a bag over her head with peeper holes would have quickly resulted in sweat during that chopping exersion and her hair would have been soaked with sweat. A scarf? She could have burned it in the stove ...

A lot of dead ends in this case.

-1bigsteve (o:

[theebmonique]

Hi Steve,

Sounds like we have a person with some anatomy/physiology expertise in you...that's great ! Are you in the medical field ?

Welcome to the forum !


Tracy...

[Kat]

I agree with you Susan that the blood spatter pattern would be better evidence. When we say R-L, amd L-R, are we apeaking from the killer's perspective or from Andrew's ? I assume that in regards to an autopsy report, it would be from Andrew's ?


Tracy...

The L-R and R-L descriptions were not included in the autopsy reports. That has just the facts. The directionality was the opinion of the experts at the time.
There did seem to be a questioning to find a left-handedness, but I don't think that held up under scrutiny.
I suppose if the doctors came together to coalesce their final opinion, no one could gainsay them.
It was asked earlier which side wanted to prove left-handedness. It's a good question.

As for which muscles females have or do not have developed, I don't find that argument compelling as tending towards female culprit, but that's just my opinion.

[snokkums]

I still think he was face to face with his killer. His position on the sofa was just to awkward.

[Laura]

Thanks for the article, Kat! Yes, by our parents' generation, it was believed that children should be taught to use the right hand for everything - writing, throwing, eating, etc. Isn't phrenology the old "science" of studying the bumps of the head as an indicator of personality traits?

I have always wondered why the blood-spatter evidence in the Borden case was never scrutinized by a trained, forensic expert in the field, such as we have today. I would love to hear the results! It might actually clear up a few questions.

1Big Steve: Wow! What do you do with the other hand when you're chopping? :) Don't you think that it is an involuntary reaction to raise the hands to ward off a blow directed at your head, whether or not you know your attacker? Regarding the possibility of Lizzie's wearing a scarf; don't forget the silk handkerchief found by Abby's body. Although Bridget testified that Abby used old, pocket handkerchiefs for dusting, I've always believed that it was worn by Lizzie. Abby was last seen using a feather duster, not a handkerchief. And the feather duster was nowhere to be found in the guest room.

And yes, Audrey, I also think that Eli Bence was a 19th century hunk. :)

[1bigsteve]

Hi Steve,

Sounds like we have a person with some anatomy/physiology expertise in you...that's great ! Are you in the medical field ?

Welcome to the forum !


Tracy...

Hi Tracy:

Thank you for the warm welcome! I'm a bodybuilder so I guess you could refer to me as a "muscle head." But I got brains too. No, really!

-1bigsteve (o:

[1bigsteve]

Thanks for the article, Kat! Yes, by our parents' generation, it was believed that children should be taught to use the right hand for everything - writing, throwing, eating, etc. Isn't phrenology the old "science" of studying the bumps of the head as an indicator of personality traits?

I have always wondered why the blood-spatter evidence in the Borden case was never scrutinized by a trained, forensic expert in the field, such as we have today. I would love to hear the results! It might actually clear up a few questions.

1Big Steve: Wow! What do you do with the other hand when you're chopping? :) Don't you think that it is an involuntary reaction to raise the hands to ward off a blow directed at your head, whether or not you know your attacker? Regarding the possibility of Lizzie's wearing a scarf; don't forget the silk handkerchief found by Abby's body. Although Bridget testified that Abby used old, pocket handkerchiefs for dusting, I've always believed that it was worn by Lizzie. Abby was last seen using a feather duster, not a handkerchief. And the feather duster was nowhere to be found in the guest room.

And yes, Audrey, I also think that Eli Bence was a 19th century hunk. :)

Hi Laura:

What am I doing with my other hand while chopping? I keep it on my left knee to brace myself so I don't fall face first into the pile of wood I'm chopping. It also keeps my fingers out of the way of the blade so they don't get chopped off. And I'll bet you thought there was something dirty going on ... Oh, I am shocked! Oh, shame on you Laura!

It would have been nice if a blood splatter expert could have examined the direction, somebody like Dr. Lee, the expert from the O.J. case. It's also too bad more Photos had not been taken. I recently saw one of the sitting room from a slightly different angle after the sofa was removed, showing part of the fireplace. Pictures, I want pictures!

Andrew was 70 years old. Even if he had seen the hatchet being raised he may not have been able to react fast enough for two reasons, #1 he was 70 and #2 he didn't connect the raising of the hatchet by someone he knew well with the fact that that person is now actually trying to kill him. He also could have been simply caught off gaurd, possibly with his eyes closed resting, and never saw it coming.

I have always wondered about that handkerchief laying near Abby. Her's? John's? Was she using it to dust the furniture, polish the do-dads on the dresser? Blowing her nose? Wiping sweat off her face? It look's too small to have been used by Lizzie for a head covering. Whatever happened to it? Was there blood on it? Inquiring minds want to know ...

Perhaps Abbey was up there just to make the bed and not to dust that day. That has always been my feeling. That would explain the absence of the duster/old handkerchief.

My dad grew up in Georgia and was taught to use his right hand although he was left-handed. He still writes with his right hand. So that "training kids to use their right hand" effort was still going on as late as the 1930's.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Edisto]

Laura, since you're a "stickler for accuracy," I'd like to point out that my username is "Edisto" (that's E-D-I-S-T-O), not "Editso." I didn't make it up. It's the name of an Indian tribe, a river, an island, and other features in South Carolina.

I come from a generation (I guess the one some people here might call "our parents' generation") in which it was pretty common to observe men and occasionally women chopping wood for the fireplace and kitchen range. I've seen both men and women use both hands in this endeavor. It might depend on how accustomed one is to chopping wood or doing other physical work.

Of my maternal grandparents' four grandchildren, only one was righthanded. I'm that one. In the 1930s and 40s, my brother and sister (both southpaws) were permitted to develop normally. Nobody tried to get them to use their right hands for writing, eating, etc. Indeed, my mother was opposed to encouraging them to use their right hands. On the other hand (no pun intended), my slightly-older cousin, whose mother was a schoolteacher, was forced to use his right hand for those activities. I think my aunt's efforts had a deleterious effect on her son's development.

The fact that Andrew Borden was seventy years old (which he wasn't quite) probably didn't insure that he was slow to react. I'm older than that, and I usually wonder why the other cars wait so long to move when the light turns green. My 82-year-old friend leaves me in the dust, though. I suspect a combination of factors is at work -- not just age. Yes, we all slow down with age, but how slow we wind up depends on how slow we were to start with. I don't know enough about Andrew Borden to know what his reactions were like when he was younger; ergo, I don't know what his reactions were like when he was "aged." (That's the term the newspaper used.) Easy to blame age, though, isn't it?

(I edited this post after the fact to change the name in the first paragraph, which I had meant to be "Laura." Thanks, Kat, for calling the mistake to my attention.)

[Kat]

That was Laura, not Diana.

[Laura]

Hi Steve!

Tsk! Tsk! I wasn't thinking of anything "dirty". :) I have just never seen anyone chopping wood using one hand, but then, I'm a city girl, originally.

You've got a point regarding Andrew's age and his reaction time. That hadn't occurred to me. Thanks!

Per the handkerchief: I believe that Dolan testified during the Preliminary Hearing that the handkerchief, (and I'm paraphrasing here) was "the same that ladies wore around their head, sometimes, when cleaning". There WAS blood on the handkerchief but again, from Dolan's testimony, it is unclear if it became bloodied from lying next to Abby's body or because she was wearing it. When asked if the handkerchief appeared to be cut, Dolan waffled, saying it was hard to tell because the cloth was so old and tore easily and then stating that it didn't appear to be cut to him. The handkerchief must still be in the possession of the Fall River Historical Society because it was shown during a recent Discovery Channel special on the Borden case.

The prevailing belief is that Abby was in the guest room, making the bed and generally cleaning up after Uncle John. Now, I'm not going to start a "sexist war" here by stating that Uncle John was perfectly capable of making his own bed ....

[Audrey]

JVM was known to wear the same clothing day in, day out, until it was finally so disgusting (to him) that he purchased a new shirt and threw the old one away....

Sexist Smeexist-- someone like that stayed in my guest room-- I would take care of the cleaning myself!

[1bigsteve]

JVM was known to wear the same clothing day in, day out, until it was finally so disgusting (to him) that he purchased a new shirt and threw the old one away....

Sexist Smeexist-- someone like that stayed in my guest room-- I would take care of the cleaning myself!

Well, Audrey, John Morris sound's a lot like my late uncle. I don't think he ever took a shower, unless he got caught in a rain storm, never changed his clothes and always slept in MY bed when he came to visit when I was a kid. Oh, lord no!!! When he left I had to wash everything twice! I mean stink, stank and stunk!!! No wonder John was single.

If I were Abby I think I would have rushed up stairs and cleaned those sheets before someone found out. That might have been what she was doing. "Peeee yooou, lady, what did you have sleeping in this bed last night, a flock of dead goats?!?!"

Respectability was very important in those days. My grandmother, who was born in 1905 was raised that way also. Everything had to be spotless.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Audrey]

I have always wondered if Abbie was down on her knees next to that bed picking up crumbs that fell off his clothing when he disrobed.... Maybe she didn't want to run the sweeper in there and was down (like I have been many, many times) pinching crumbs off the floor and putting them into her cupper other hand....

[Edisto]

A thousand pardons to Diana! (The worst part is that I knew Diana wasn't the person who posted the "stickler" item, yet I still used her name, possibly because I'd just had some dealings with her and still had her name "on the brain.") I did indeed mean Laura, and I'll edit the post so that Diana doesn't get "credit" for the error. What all this proves is that all of us make mistakes, even us "sticklers."

[nbcatlover]

I'm just wondering...did the guests Abby was expecting the next week ever come forward? They seem like the sender of the note...MIA.

[Laura]

My sincere and heartfelt apologies, Edisto! The error was completely unintentional, I assure you. Perhaps I should change my user name to "The Stickler"...

Regarding Andrew's response time - the autopsy report included the information that Andrew had a hernia; I wonder just how much this would have affected his reaction to the attack. I also wonder if the stack of pillows, coat, doily (?), etc. on the arm of the sofa was created to ease this condition. I have no knowledge of hernias.

Audrey, was Uncle John in the habit of never changing his clothing? YUCK! Or was his pre-murder visit sans luggage abnormal, (for him)? I've always thought his appearing at the Borden household, so soon after Lizzie's failure to purchase the prussic acid, was a LITTLE bit suspicious. Perhaps Lizzie telegraphed or called him? Of course, Lizzie, Emma and John, himself all claimed that he visited, "just as it happened".

To finish the review of Kent's "Forty Whacks": I couldn't find any "new evidence" revealed by Kent, but I did find quite a few instances of "testimony manipulation". His book is definitely pro-Lizzie, in that he believed she was innocent and he had a tendency to ignore or dismiss contradictory evidence. I would give it, at best, a two-star rating.

Good evening all from The Stickler!

[Kat]

I'm not convinced Morse was a slob.
I think it's been blown out of proportion, like Andrew's miserliness.
I also think it suited some authors agenda to make him out that way.
Does anyone know where this rumor started?

[1bigsteve]

I'm not convinced Morse was a slob.
I think it's been blown out of proportion, like Andrew's miserliness.
I also think it suited some authors agenda to make him out that way.
Does anyone know where this rumor started?

Don't look at me. I think Audrey started it. Oh, you mean in 1892? I think it may have been one of those facts that get blown out of proportion with each re-telling down through the years. He may have been a slob but no one wanted to come right out and say it then, just hint at it. I guess people were better mannered then.

On the other hand, Kat, I've heard that people in those times didn't bathe like they do now. They just put on more perfume. But then there were no doubt people in those days who never took a bath like some people don't bathe today. Like my late uncle.

-1bigsteve (o:

[1bigsteve]

JVM was known to wear the same clothing day in, day out, until it was finally so disgusting (to him) that he purchased a new shirt and threw the old one away....

Sexist Smeexist-- someone like that stayed in my guest room-- I would take care of the cleaning myself!

My dad remember's seeing his brother throw his pants into a corner and it would stand up by itself. That is how encrusted with dirt it was. He would wear the same pair of socks until they feel apart. Same with the shirts. I kid you not! There are people like that, men and women.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

Where did the story start in Lizziedom?
Which source, which author, which testimony?
An assignment if you wish to take it on?
Anyone?

[diana]

I'm trying to track down the origin of the suggestion that Morse wore the same clothes until they were absolutely filthy. I remember the rumour, too -- but not where it came from. I'll keep looking.

In the meantime, here are a few items from the New Bedford Evening Standard.

Two weeks after the murders, acquaintances of Morse were said to have been interviewed in Hastings, Iowa and the report came back that, although honest, hardworking, and comparatively well off -- the man was very frugal. For example: "He would wear the same suit of clothes everywhere, and on all occasions, and one suit usually lasted him two or three years. Indeed it is pretty certain that the suit he is now wearing at Fall River is the same one he wore when he left here two years ago." (New Bedford Evening Standard, August 19, 1892)

But two days after the murders, the Standard wrote: "Mr. Morse wears a suit of light grey clothes, all he has with him since he has been in the city. There is not a spot apparent on them. "Look at me," he said, "as a man of common sense, and say if I could have committed such a horrible butchery and present the appearance I do." (Evening Standard, Aug. 6, 1892)

Later, when he attended the Preliminary Hearing: "So much has been written about "Uncle" Morse's seedy clothes that it was rather disappointing to find him attired in a good looking suit of black broadcloth and ministerial tie." (Evening Standard, August 26, 1892)

And the next day, when he gave testimony at the Hearing it was reported that: " . . . [Morse] wore an iron-gray suit and had a beard of the same color.." (Evening Standard, August 17, 1892)

So, referencing four items in the same newspaper written during a period of about 3 weeks, Morse appears in three different suits: the spotless light gray, the good-looking black, and the iron-gray.

BTW Edisto --- all is forgiven.

[Susan]

Thanks for the info, Diana. Now if the reports are true of Morse's frugality, it seems he broke with habit if he went out and purchased some new suits. Unless he helped himself to some of Andrew's things?

[1bigsteve]

Thanks for the info, Diana. Now if the reports are true of Morse's frugality, it seems he broke with habit if he went out and purchased some new suits. Unless he helped himself to some of Andrew's things?

What chance is there that he got the money for the new threads from Lizzie? A "pay-off" maybe?

-1bigsteve (o:

[Susan]

Hi Steve, welcome to the Forum. Hmmm, payoff? I think its been discussed in the past that if Lizzie or Emma made a large withdrawal from their banks it would have been noticed, unless there were large amounts of cash secreted in the Borden home? Though I don't think Emma was under as close scrutiny once Lizzie was in jail, could she have shelled out some of the inheritance? Also wasn't it noted that Bridget came to court looking smart in a new dress, I think it was plum colored?

I'm thinking if Uncle John was as frugal as noted, would he take a payoff and spend it on new suits when one seemed to suffice in the recent past? I can see maybe one new one for court, but three?

[Kat]

That is excellent work Diana! I'm impressed!
Those were all major items I was thinking of- and More!
I can't explain the news from Iowa, but was he considered a slob there?
We know he got gussied up at one time to seemingly go into society in Iowa but after a short season he went back to his old ways. We don't know that he didn't have multiple suits exactly the same in Iowa- like Matlock?

I'll see Thursday if anyone gets the dirty shirt reference- that's the last one- I think you found most of them!

[1bigsteve]

Hi Steve, welcome to the Forum. Hmmm, payoff? I think its been discussed in the past that if Lizzie or Emma made a large withdrawal from their banks it would have been noticed, unless there were large amounts of cash secreted in the Borden home? Though I don't think Emma was under as close scrutiny once Lizzie was in jail, could she have shelled out some of the inheritance? Also wasn't it noted that Bridget came to court looking smart in a new dress, I think it was plum colored?

I'm thinking if Uncle John was as frugal as noted, would he take a payoff and spend it on new suits when one seemed to suffice in the recent past? I can see maybe one new one for court, but three?

Thank you Susan. I have often wondered if maybe John was frugal because he was actually broke, maybe. Perhaps he was not as well off as he let on. Maybe Lizzie had been putting money away and used that to pay off Morse. Going to court I guess was like going on stage and people would be interested in looking their best. That could have been the reason John and Bridgett showed up in new attire. I would.

I remember being flat poor growing up and having to wear the same clothes. No one said a word but it really hurt not having the money to buy new stuff. When I did get the money I would try to blend the new clothes in with the old clothes so no one would know the shirt was new or the slacks were different. Other people go all out as if they want others to see them 'shine'. Perhaps this is what Morse did.

One of my relatives, who never showed any interest in her personal grooming, thought she was having a heart attack one evening but instead of calling 911 she took a shower and dressed up nice and then called 911. Fortunately her heart was fine.

But, I still have a hard time imagining Lizzie hiring a killer or wielding the hatchet herself. At the same time, if Lizzie knew who the killer was would she have sat there through the whole trial with her mouth shut knowing her life was on the line? I'd have been singing like Shirley Bassey.

Perhaps Probate laws were much more relaxed in that day and Emma could have gotten her hands on some cash from her dads estate right away. There are so many unanswered questions in this case.

Hmmm...

-1bigsteve (o:

[diana]

Kat writes:

I'll see Thursday if anyone gets the dirty shirt reference- that's the last one

Okay. I think I found it.

It's a newspaper item that came out around the time of the trial entitled "Jollying the Treasurer/Uncle Morse Has a Little Fun About Witness Fees". It's excerpted in Rebello and involves a conversation"recalled" by the county treasurer, right?

The heading makes it appear that perhaps Morse and the treasurer were enjoying a sly joke about the rumors that JVM was less than circumspect about his appearance.

In what looks to be a total non sequitur the treasurer asks,
"Where do you have your wash done?" and Morse supposedly answers, "Don't have any done; when one shirt is soiled I throw it away and buy another." (Rebello, 272)

I love the suggestion that Morse enjoyed such a sense of humor -- or maybe it was the treasurer who had the sense of humor -- or maybe the whole 'recollection' was fabricated by a reporter with a sense of humor. We'll never know...

[Laura]

Here's a thought; what if the rumor of JVM's "slovenliness" was deliberately planted as a cover-up for his lack of luggage when he arrived at the Borden house the day before the murders? Remember, he was considered a possible suspect before attention focused on Lizzie. Perhaps JVM agreed it was better to be considered a slob than a suspect.

[Kat]

Kat writes:

I'll see Thursday if anyone gets the dirty shirt reference- that's the last one

Okay. I think I found it.

It's a newspaper item that came out around the time of the trial entitled "Jollying the Treasurer/Uncle Morse Has a Little Fun About Witness Fees". It's excerpted in Rebello and involves a conversation"recalled" by the county treasurer, right?

The heading makes it appear that perhaps Morse and the treasurer were enjoying a sly joke about the rumors that JVM was less than circumspect about his appearance.

In what looks to be a total non sequitur the treasurer asks,
"Where do you have your wash done?" and Morse supposedly answers, "Don't have any done; when one shirt is soiled I throw it away and buy another." (Rebello, 272)

I love the suggestion that Morse enjoyed such a sense of humor -- or maybe it was the treasurer who had the sense of humor -- or maybe the whole 'recollection' was fabricated by a reporter with a sense of humor. We'll never know...

Oh you are really GOOD!
That's it.
I happen to have the item from the Fall River Weekly News, dated June 28, 1893, pg.2, which is the same as quoted in Rebello, except that was a partial of the item.

It's enough to prove the shirt reference.
The joke is missing- though you did assess that as part of it!

"Mr. Morse and His Joke on the County Treasurer
County Treasurer Pratt laughingly related the following incident. Among the Borden trial witnesses who approached him to get their fees was John V. Morse. Mr. Morse approached the desk of the county treasurer and asked:
'I suppose I get mileage, same as the rest?'
'Certainly. Where did you come from?'
'From Iowa.'
'Ah, and how far is that?' asked the treasurer, looking up in some trepidation as to the funds holding out.
'About 1600 miles.'
'Where were you summoned from?'
'From Fall River.'
'Where do you live?'
'Don't live anywhere about here; just knocking about now.'
'Where do you have your washing done?'
'Don't have any done: when one shirt is soiled I throw it away and buy another,' and there was not a sign of a glint in the joker's eyes.
'Where have you been stopping recently? Where do you call your home for the present around here?'
'Oh, well, I s'pose South Dartmouth is as near to it as any place.'
'And how far is that?'
'About two and one half miles.'
'Well,' said Mr. Pratt, with a big sigh of relief. 'I'll allow you three miles,' and the joker took his cash with nary a __ of his __ while Mr. Pratt mopped his brow and greeted the next __."

I sounds, as printed, like a joke Morse pulled to get a higher witness fee. It sounds like he figured it was worth a try.