1. "Mullaly vs. Fleet"
Posted by harry on Jun-11th-03 at 1:43 PM

One of the more damaging incidents to the prosecution's case was the conflict in testimony between Mullaly and Fleet regarding the finding, or not finding, of the handle to the handleless hatchet.

In an unknown paper (probably the NY Times) on Sunday, June 11, 1893, one hundred ten years to the day, this paragraph appeared in an article:

"Officer Mullaly's strange, unexpected statement about finding the handle, is, they say, in keeping with the general tone of the testimony given by him before in court.  He has been known several times to take a position in less important cases, in defiance of the fact that five or six other officers and witnesses testified positively that he was wrong.
One of the police authorities think so little of the circumstances that he says he will not advise the District Attorney to contradict Mullaly's alleged erroneous statement."

Reminds me of Harrington insisting Andrew was wearing laced shoes even after he is shown a photograph showing the congress boots.

On that same day, in that same paper, in another article the following partial item appeared:

"Edson told of a number of policeman connected with the case who had been promoted to be sergeants and captains, and in one case, inspector, in the early part of this year.  Mullally was not promoted."

So much for Mr. Mullaly.


(Message last edited Jun-11th-03  1:51 PM.)

Obviously then or now, somebody who tells the truth is "not a team player". There are many such instances where the desired testimony is rewarded later.
Does anyone here remember that 1964? killing in NY city? A detective was promoted when he got a "confession" from the accused? Later the Supreme Court halted all executions in the state because the convicted teenager was innocent, and the police knew it?
When this was made into a TV movie, it became the basis for the "Kojak" series during the 1970s.

That was 1 of the things that bothered me in the trial.

Makes you wonder if the handle was found & discarded/disregarded for some reason.  Perhaps found & later took a walk?

For some decades the prosecution is supposed to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense (Brady Rule). If the evidence doesn't fit, it gets lost.

Aside from the still(?) controversial "Trial of O J Simpson", you can look up other old cases like "Fatal Justice" (ask Edisto), or maybe Curt Gentry's "Frame-Up".

Makes me wonder what sort of "axe to grind" did Mullaly have?  If they had found the handle, wouldn't it have been in the prosecution's best interest to have tested the handle along with the head for blood?  Unless it became supposed that the police had found a handle for the hatchet head and lost it, which makes them look stupid.  I wonder what was up with him? 

Knowlton, Glossary:

"MULLALY, MICHAEL 1848 - 1908: born in East Taunton, Massachusetts, son of Michael Mullaly. Employed as a longshoreman, he was appointed a night patrolman of the police department in Fall River, Massachusetts, in 1877. He was of particular value because of his knowledge of the water and frequently was assigned waterfront duty. He was married to Miss Margaret Ring. A member of the Police Beneficial Association in Fall River, he died unexpectedly in that city. One of the police officers at the scene of the crime following the Borden murders, he testified at both the preliminary and final trials of Miss Lizzie A. Borden."
...............

Rebello has no bio.
Page 243, 244:

"Fifth Day, Friday, June 9, 1893

'New Light / Big Sensation in Borden Case / Officer Fleet Gets Sadly Twisted / Did Not Mention All He Found At First / Prisoner Laughs When Her Dress is Described / Mullaly Contradicts Fleet's Story / Say Hatchet Handle Was in Box / Government Unable to Produce It in Court / Bridget Sullivan a Stubborn Witness / Howard's Graphic Pen Picture of the Proceedings,' Boston Daily Globe, Saturday, June 10, 1893: 1.

'Sights and Scenes As Noticed at the Trial By a Busy Globe Reporter / Witnesses Bothered / They Wait, Anticipate, and Afraid Before the Start,' Fall River Daily Globe, Saturday, June 10, 1893: 7."
......
" 'Notes / Refused Admittance / Police Officers Can Search the Borden House No Longer / Editorial Jottings,' New Bedford Evening Journal, Saturday, June 10, 1893: 4.

Note: Police Officers Mullaly and Mahoney were sent to the Borden home to search for the missing hatchet handle. Lizzie's counsel and Mr. Charles J. Holmes refused the officers permission to search the home. The lawyer and banker searched the cellar but did not find the missing piece of the hatchet."

I have wanted to get it down as to exactly how long and which days Lizzie was on trial, so after looking at Porter (Who actually designates some of his chapter titles after the days of the Trial), and figiuring it out, and THEN verifying with Rebello's book, here are the actual days/dates for anyone interested.
(BTW:  The trial lasted 13 days, 1893.)

June 5th---Mon.      Day 1
June 6th---Tues.    Day 2
June 7th---Wed.     Day 3
June 8th---Thurs.   Day 4
June 9th---Fri.         Day 5
June 10th-Sat.        Day 6
-June 11th, Sunday-off--
June 12th-Mon.       Day 7 **
June 13th-Tues.     Day 8
June 14th-Wed.      Day 9
June 15th-Thurs.    Day 10
June 16th-Fri.          Day 11
-June 17th, Sat. & June 18th, Sun.-off--
June 19th-Mon.       Day 12
June 20th-Tues.     Day 13     Verdict, 4:35 p.m. (R.253), Not Guilty

--Today, June 12th, is the Anniversary of the publication of Lizzie's Inquest Testimony in the New Bedford Evening Standard, 1893.




(Message last edited Jun-12th-03  5:07 PM.)

Thanks, Kat.  New info for me, with Holmes and Jennings searching for the handle themselves.  And whats the story with Lizzie laughing when someone described her dress?  I've never, ever read that story. 

Why didn't you just look at the index of the trial transcript?  The trial  transcript is essentially by day.

I never read the Index.
I guess sometimes I do things the hard way.
It's good experience, though.
Makes me more conversant with Porter and the Rebello tome.
Thanks for the lead!

Evening Standard

"Wednesday, May 10, 1893  Page 1

THE BORDEN CASE.

Another Hatchet Said to Have
Been Found.
It was reported in connection with the Borden case this forenoon that another hatchet had recently been found in Fall River and that it is without a handle.  Those who are in a position to know as to the truth of this matter will neither contradict or affirm the statement. ..."




"Thursday, May 11, 1893  Page 2

BORDEN HATCHETS AGAIN.

This Time It Is Probably a New Discovery
of an Old Weapon.

The news to the effect that a hatchet had been discovered in Fall River and that it might be the weapon with which the Borden murders were committed, created more or less curiosity in Fall River as to which hatchet had now come to the surface, says the Providence Journal. 

Ever since the tragedy there has been no end of hatchets, but as nearly as can be ascertained, none of them have satisfied all the claims made for it. 

There was a "very sharp" hatchet with which wood for a camping party at Marion was to be chopped*, and there was a hatchet in the cellar of the Borden house which looked as if it had been scraped with ashes.  Then the authorities unearthed an instrument, the handle of which was said to be covered with blood stains.  This axe was subjected to an examination which seem to confirm suspicions, until Professor Wood testified that it was free from anything that indicated that it had been used for an illegitimate purpose.  After that there followed the story of a flat-headed, mysterious kind of a hatchet, with no handle, which had been found by Officer Medley.  This blade, it is understood, was on exhibition when the grand jury met and it has thus far figured as a possible instrument of destruction, though the prosecution did not claim that no further search was necessary. 

Yesterday the New Bedford dispatch was shown to City Marshal Hilliard, who did not appear to be surprised by the information it contained, and who said that perhaps Dr. Dolan could offer some explanation.  Dr. Dolan has concluded to do all his talking on the witness stand, and the impression prevails that the discovery is not deserving of very serious consideration. 

At all events there have been no hatchets found in Fall River of late, and, if the police are to be believed, they completed their work on the case weeks ago, and have long been ready for trial.  If they haven't the axe which is wanted, they do not expect to come across it at this late day, and considerable allowance will be made on developments that crop up outside of the court room."

--I don't quite get to what they refer.  it sounds like the press is saying there was another HH found? (Handle-less Hatchet) somewhere in Fall River?

--The Crowe's roof hatchet wasn't in the papers as Found, until June 15, 1893, Fall River News.

--*This article also alludes to that story that circulated about what Lizzie wrote the girls at Marion.  Did people believe that story?  IS that story believable?
  

Ooops, there's more:

Evening Standard:

"Saturday, May 13, 1893  Page 1

THE BORDEN TRIAL...

...No Hatchet in the Case Say Those
in Authority.....

..."The hatchet story recently resurrected has no foundation in fact, if statements from those in authority are good for anything.  As a matter of fact, there is no hatchet in the case; there never was any that fitted where the government wanted it to fit.  Some time ago the district attorney desired very much to have the Borden house and barn torn down, the ground plowed up and every article of the Borden property thoroughly examined.  He had his theory in regard to the disposition of what ever weapon may have been used, and to those who knew how old fashioned houses were constructed his theory was not very far out of the way.  But unfortunately for him there is no law which would allow him to touch the house, barn or grounds, and the Borden family is not in sufficient need of money or so thoroughly in love with the government that it will give over any part of the property for that purpose.  The fact that Miss Emma Borden and the servant holds possession of the property today, as Miss Borden has ever since the tragedy, is additional weight in the minds of the government that there is something on those premises which the government ought to have. "....


??

I hope no one here is publishing newspaper STORIES that they suspect are incorrect?

This might be the place to bring in some speculation that was going on about a month after the murders.

Phil Harrington wrote to Knowlton early in September of '92 about an article in the F.R. Daily Globe.  The article said Lizzie sent a letter to her friends in Marion containing the sentence: "When I come I will chop all the wood, for I have a new sharper ax."  Harrington suggests that the Globe may be able to produce the letter and that  Mr. Thurston or Mr. Porter may come to see Knowlton in the next few days. (Knowlton Papers,73)

Now this could just be newspaper "rumouring".  BUT a few days later, Knowlton writes to Pillsbury and says: "It is doubtless true that Lizzie Borden wrote to her Marion friends the day before the murder that she should be over Monday: and would chop all their wood for them for she had been looking at the axes in the cellar and she had found one as sharp as a razor." (Knowlton Papers, 75)

Did the Globe have a letter?  Is that why Knowlton says it's doubtless true?  I'm assuming the Mr. Porter is Edwin Porter -- as he was with the Globe at that time.  However I could find no reference to this letter in his book.

Thanks.  I was hoping the gaps could be filled in.
I appreciate the info on that letter.  It's not something we have dealt with yet.
That's why I was wondering who or how many believed that story of the letter.

Is that supposed to be the *Miss Johnson" letter?  The one she tore up after taliking to Jennings?  Do you know?
If it is, she must have talked about it, does anybody think?

Is this letter possibly the one that was sent to Lizzie Johnson that she wouldn't produce for Knowlton? 


EDIT: Sorry Kat, I guess we posted at the same time. 

(Message last edited Jun-27th-03  3:37 AM.)

There are several books that reference the letter Lizzie supposedly wrote about bringing an axe:

Radin, page 54:

"The legend gives Lizzie a sour disposition, but it is quite likely that she had a sense of humor; others besides Kirby have commented upon it. In fact, a humorous note she had written caused a one-day sensation right after the murders when it was misinterpreted as meaning that the had bought a sharp ax. Several days before the murders Lizzie wrote to some friends that before coming up to visit them she would get a sharp ax to make certain she did not freeze. She was referring to an episode that had occurred the previous summer when they were together at the same cottage. On the first chilly evening they found that the logs on hand were too large for the fireplace and the ax so dull they could not chop the wood to fit. They had to search constantly for small branches and twigs in order to keep warm. A reporter who went to Marion to interview Lizzie's friends after the murders either misunderstood her reference in the letter or let his imagination run wild. He wrote that Lizzie had bought a sharp ax just prior to the murders. Before the police learned the real meaning of the letter, officers questioned every hardware merchant in Fall River and for miles around. They found no one to testify that Lizzie had purchased an ax."

The second is an off-hand reference to the Marion hatchet.

De Mille, Dance of Death, page 90:

"Sylvia Knowlton Lewis, the daughter of the prosecuting attorney, tells that years after the trial, Emma came to her father in considerable distress, saying that a troubled conscience forced her to make known to him that Lizzie had confessed to the buying of a new hatchet a few days prior to the murders. Was this the handle-less hatchet possibly? Or the one she bought for the Marion wood-chopping? Or yet another one never discovered? The confession was gratuitous. Lizzie could not be retried. The remarks, therefore, served no purpose but vindictiveness. Apparently the two years the sisters spent alone in the house after the trial had not improved their relations."

There are no footnotes in either book explaining the source. The De Mille paragraph contains some stunning information which I am not inclined to believe.  It is not cited anywhere else that I know of.

This is really Interesting you guys.  Good teamwork.  Any oipnions?

THis letter and this rumor has always hovered in the background of this case.
I think it's great to bring this stuff to light and examine it.

That's a good question Kat.  I think the Johnson letter was the one Lizzie gave to her father to mail on the morning of the murders.  She told Alice Russell the night before that she had written to Marion to tell them she was coming.

From Alice's testimony at the trial, page 375:

"Q.  Won't you state what was said by her and by you, and then go on and state the conversation which followed?
A.  I think when she came in she said, "I have taken your advice, and I have written to Marion that I will come." I don't know what came in between, I don't know as this followed that, but I said, "I am glad you are going." as I had urged her to go before."

Is that saying that Emma came to Knowlton to say Lizzie had told her she had bought an ax or hatchet prior to the murders?
Why would EMMA do that?
It sounds as if that Johnson letter did get leaked.  And it was becoming common knowledge around Fall River, because a lot of people refer to the  supposed incident.  If true, maybe the day before the Preliminary, when Lizzie is possibly *overheard* telling Emma, "You have given me away", she meant Emma gave away her story to Jennings that she, Lizzie, had bought a new ax/hatchet?
Then much later, if Emma still wanted to assauge her conscience, she does tell Knowlton too.  It's kind of odd.  I'm thinking that maybe this didn't happen?

So, Lizzie DID interrupt her vacation to come home before the murders. Anyone care to reason why?

That bit of testimony doesn't say that Lizzie interrupted her vacation.
I have been hearing this phrase for years from someone else as well.
No one tells me from where it came.

Lizzie left Fall River with Emma, Lizzie staying on at New Bedford with the Pooles, while Emma continued to Fairhaven, on July 21st.

Saturday, July 23rd, Lizzie goes downtown alone shopping for probably 90 minutes, in New Bedford.

Apparently, on Monday, July 25th, Lizzie makes a trip over to Marion to see her friends.  Then Lizzie and her hosts go to Westport, on Tuesday, the 26th of July, returning from there by way of New Bedford where Lizzie gets a train back to Fall River.

Lizzie's trip or vacation destnation, so far, is to New Bedford, not Marion.
She came back home but, so far, Idon't see where she cut short a trip.

Maybe it comes from the idea that Lizzie was supposed to continue on to Marion to stay with her girlfriends, but, the elder Bordens were supposed to be going out to Swansea and she had to come home.  And they couldn't go because Mrs. Vinnicum couldn't go and stay with Abby. 

I think  a few people read this somewhere, and it was not a supposition on their part.
Somebody wrote this, and it has been repeated.  I would just like to know from where it comes.
Maybe it is in a closing argument at trial.  Maybe it is Kent?  I don't know.  I'd like to, tho...

(We here lately are the ones figuring out the Swansea trip that didn't come off.  And the chaperone Abby required and why.)

I couldn't find that type of wording anywhere that Lizzie's vacation was interrupted and she returned home.  But it does tend to get confusing. 

Rebello, page 62:

"Lizzie remained in New Bedford and stayed with Mrs. Poole and her daughter at 20 Madison Street. Lizzie went to downtown New Bedford on Saturday, July 23, to purchase some dress goods. On Tuesday, July 26, Lizzie, Mrs. Poole and her daughter went to Westport, Massachusetts, to pay a visit to Mrs. Cyrus W. Tripp, a schoolmate and friend of Lizzie's and another daughter of Mrs. Poole. They remained there for the day and returned to New Bedford so Lizzie could take the train back to Fall River.
Lizzie made a day trip to Marion, Massachusetts, about twenty-three miles from Fall River. She was going to Dr. Handy's summer home to visit friends."

The vacation party was already underway and Lizzie did stop into visit at least for a short time.

The confusion may lie in the fact that this "visit" by Lizzie meant she was now part of the group, and then when she returned to Fall River on the 26th(?) her vacation was interrupted.  Sullivan in "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" says Lizzie returned on the 30th. (page 24)

However, as I said, I was unable to locate anyone saying her vacation was interrupted.  Her plans to go were interrupted and she never actually joined the party full time.

Found this in Lincoln (shudder):
pg 68

"Abby hardly ever went out, yet they had to get her to the bank without Lizzie's knowledge.  On Friday afternoon, twelve days before, it had looked briefly as if things might arrange themselves without the need for careful plotting.  Lizzie set out for Marion, and Andrew expected a fortnight of unobserved freedom.  But even if Andrew had snapped into prompt action then and planned to make the transfer at the bank by Monday morning at the latest, he would still have been too late; by Sunday evening, Lizzie had come back.  Since then she had sat in he room, day after day, watchful as a hawk at a rabbit warren.  And if Abby went out, Lizzie would know where she had gone and why." 

If you're in the mood for more confusion re: Lizzie's trip to Marion. Try looking at Knowlton's cross-examintation of Emma at trial. (p.1550) What a convoluted mess that is. 

First -- Emma says she saw Lizzie during the two weeks she was away. 

Q.  When?
A.  Well, I can't tell you what day it was; some few days after; she had been at Fairhaven.
Q.  Was it Saturday?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  Was it on her way over to or back from Marion?
A.  Oh, I do know.  She went to New Bedford when I went to Fairhaven, and I think it was the Saturday following our going Thursday.

[What was the Saturday following our going Thursday?]


Q.  That is, she went to New Bedford the same day you went to
Fairhaven?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  To make a visit in New Bedford?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  She did not go to Fairhaven to visit?
A.  No sir.

[Here Emma seems to contradict "she had been at Fairhaven".]


Q.  She was in New Bedford visiting?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  How long did she remain in New Bedford? 
A.  Until the following Tuesday.
Q.  That is from Thursday to Tuesday.
Q.  During that time, do you know, did she go to Marion?
A.  No sir, she did not.
Q.  Do you know of her going to Marion while you were away?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  What day was that?
A.  It must have been a week from the following Saturday. We went to New Bedford Thursday.
     
     [Who is the "we" referred to here?  Did Emma go to New Bedford too?]

Q.  The Saturday before you came back home?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  Did you see her on the way to or from Marion?
A.  No,sir.
Q.  That is something she told you, I suppose?
A.  That is all.
Q.  And she told you that she simply spent the day there?
A.  Yes, sir."

Could there be something there? -- when Emma answers, "That is all"?
Could she mean maybe there's more to it -- but that is all she told me? 

I really like this part.
Thanks for bringing it up.

Lizzie and Emma left together Thursday and did go as far as New Bedford together.  So that is what Emma means about being in New Bedford that first Thursday...then SHe went on to Fairhaven.

Now, the Saturday thing is confusing, but I like the oddball way it comes out that Saturday before the murders Lizzie WAS probably out of town, tho she had returned to Fall River on the Tuesday, Juy 26th.

See Bridget's Prelim:
Q.  Emma had been away two or three weeks?
A.  About two weeks I should judge.

Q.  What day did she go away?
A.  Thursday.

Q.  Did Lizzie go with her?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  When did Lizzie come home?
A.  I could not tell. She came home either a Tuesday or Wednesday.

Q.  Then she was gone more than three days?
A.  I do not know.

Q.  Did not you say yesterday she was gone three days?
A.  That is what I merely came to know, so far as I could understand.

Q.  Lets have it over, and see. Lizzie and Emma went away, and they went on a Thursday?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  Lizzie returned on the following Tuesday you think?

Page 54

A.  I think so.

Q.  There is Thursday and Friday and Saturday, three; and if she came back Tuesday, she was gone five or six days instead of three, was not she? That would be right, would not it?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  So when you said that, you meant she was gone about three days, not exactly three days? Emma was away from that time up, until after this tragedy, this trouble?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  Did Lizzie go away any time after that, and before the tragedy?
A.  I cannot tell.

Q.  Did she not go away a Saturday?
A.  I dont know.

Q.  Did she go away the Saturday before the tragedy?
A.  I cannot remember.

Q.  Did she go away Sunday?
A.  I do not know.

--This was Cross-exam by Adams, the defense!  He must have known Lizzie DID go away again on Saturday after returning Tuesday.  Saturday the 30th of July.  He asks Bridget twice and then gets the message to not go there, because Bridget is denying knowledge of it.
Also, when Emma & Lizzie first left town togetherit was only 2 days after Lizzie's birthday.
Oh I love this part!

--Thanks Susan for the Lincoln quote <<shudder>>
We still don't know the origin of that exact phrase. I used to hear it all the time .


(Message last edited Jun-28th-03  4:57 PM.)

Now combining Emma & Bridget, it sounds like Lizzie went to Marion twice.
On a day trip.
Marion on Monday, the 26th, and Marion on Saturday, July 30th (which would be "the Saturday before you [Emma] came back home").

Two different visits to Marion still do not sound like cutting any vacation short, I'm afraid.

[Edit Here:  Lizzie visited Marion Monday, July 25th, and probably Saturday, July 30th. ]

(Message last edited Jun-28th-03  7:24 PM.)

According To Rebello Lizzie went to Westport on the 26th, Tuesday, with Mrs. Poole and her daughter, (page 62), then returned and caught the train to FR.

I'm more confused then ever! 

Let's just wallow in this confusion a little longer.  Kat, I'm sorry but I don't quite see where you get Lizzie in Marion on the 26th?

But I like this bit from Bridget:
Q.  Did Lizzie go away any time after that, and before the tragedy?
A.  I cannot tell.

OOPs You're right.  Thanks.

It is Marion on Monday the 25th July.
That's visiting the yacht, right, not the cottage?

Then Westport with hosts on Tuesday, 26th July.

I was trying, after that post, to stick a calendar for July, 1892 on here but couldn't do it.  Distracted me.  Gladyou caught that.
No need to be confused.

I was hoping you would catch that phrase I cannot tell, by Bridget.
That is part of what tickles me so much about this *jaunting about* near Lizzie's Birthday!

OK Kat -- so you're going with the newspaper article about the yacht, right?  -- not Bridget and Emma's testimony? That was what was confusing me. 

Now  -- what about the Evening Standard article that seems to put Lizzie at Blake's Point on the 26th?  -- as opposed to visiting Mrs. Cyrus W. Tripp as Rebello suggests earlier on that same page. (Rebello,62)

I'm not nesessarily going with the newspaper.
I believe testimony over newspaper.
Can you please explain where there is still confusion?

[Edit Here}:
I'm looking at Rebello, and he has Lizzie , in the papers, stopping at Marion, where the ladies listed are at Blake's Point, and also those ladies at the yacht.
I figured Blake's Point is the place in Marion where the yacht put in.
That was Monday.
The news item was probably published the 26th Tuesday, but the second news reference specifically says the ladies were there Monday. [R. 62]

When Lizzie talks to Alice about being in Marion the *other day* she doesn't say to which which day she refers, nor does Rebello.

Then Rebello says Lizzie made a day trip to Marion , but not what day, and that she was going to the summer house of Dr. Handy.  That may have been Saturday, July 30th, or the same day she may have toured the yacht.

Emma made one slip up about Fairhaven, but seems to have corrected the impression she gave.

Emma admits [T. 1552] that Lizzie was at Marion the Saturday before Emma returned home, so that would be July 30th.  Emma says she didn't see Lizzie on Lizzie's way to or from Marion.

So you think they met up in Fairhaven at some point?  If they did see each other it was the first Saturday they were both away..July 23rd.  That was the day Lizzie supposedly went shopping alone in New Bedford.
Is that what you're getting at?  [T. 1550-1, Emma says "no" at first to the question if she saw Lizzie Saturday- then sort of recovers herself and starts the confusion]

That, according to Emma, if she is not confused, and if she is truthful, might be the time the sisters met up.

(I don't think this contradicts the newspaper, tho).

It's an interesting idea.



(Message last edited Jun-29th-03  12:36 AM.)

You've sorted out the dates very nicely, Kat. 

And I agree that according to what's in Rebello, it does look as though Lizzie was in Marion twice during the time Emma was away. 

I guess my confusion is because I can't see where "combining Emma and Bridget" tells us that.  Emma just says Lizzie went to Marion  Saturday, the 30th -- Bridget says, in effect, that she doesn't know whether Lizzie was even away from the house on the 30th. And neither Bridget or Emma mention Lizzie being there on the 25th. Emma is even asked about the time period that would include Monday July 25th.

Q.  How long did she [Lizzie] remain in New Bedford? 
A.  Until the following Tuesday.
Q.  That is from Thursday to Tuesday.
Q.  During that time, do you know, did she go to Marion?
A.  No sir, she did not.

So it seems to me that we have a contradiction between testimony and newspapers.  But, again, maybe Emma just didn't know that much about what Lizzie was doing.  Or she may have misremembered -- it was a year later, after all. So maybe the newspapers are a better source in this particular instance.

Witness Statements, pg. 31:
"Fall River August 5, 1892.
In accordance with instructions, I visited New Bedford. I find that Lizzie Borden arrived in that city on Thursday July 21st, and went to Mrs. Poole’s, the mother of a friend, a former schoolmate, living near South Water street. While there she never went out alone, always going in the company of the family, with one exception, that being Saturday morning July 23, when she went on the street to buy a piece of dress goods of some cheap material, being gone about one and 30 minutes. She went alone and returned alone. No one called to see her while here. She never made mention of her family affairs. On Tuesday Lizzie, Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Poole’s daughter went to ride to Westport to see Mrs. Poole’s daughter who was a schoolmate of Lizzie’s, and who is now married to Cyrus W. Tripp. They spent the day there, leaving time enough, for Lizzie to connect with train at New Bedford for Fall-River. That was the last time the Pooles saw her. While at Westport, Lizzie saw no one outside of the family. Made this visit to New Bedford August 7."

"Fall River, August 8, 1892.
Paid a visit to Mrs. Cyrus W. Tripp at her home in Westport on August 7, 1892. In reply to my questions she made the following statement. “Lizzie told me she thought her stepmother was deceitful, being one thing to her face, and another to her back. Lizzie told me her stepmother claimed not to have any influence with her father. But she must have influence with my father, or he never would have given my stepmother’s half sister such a very large sum of money. She said, I do not know that my sister or I would get anything in the event of my father’s death. This conversation took place at different times during former visits; nothing being said during her visit July 26th."

--Here we have Lizzie's junket to downtown New Bedford, and the trip to Westport, documented.
By *combining Bridget & Emma*, I meant, and did say, that it was the defense questioning by Adams, highlighted, which pretty much gave the implication that he did know of a trip away for the day, Saturday, by Lizzie.  Bridget, of course doesn't admit to it.  That, added to defense witness Emma, that Lizzie did go to Marion on the Saturday, July 30th, was good enough for me.  If Lizzie's lawyer & Emma herself say so, or imply, that is what I came to understand.
Combining the news account of another trip to Marion, on the first Monday the girls were away, 2 papers cited, NBES, & FREN, as to Lizzie visiting the yacht with all those girls who were friends of hers--Is that the part you question?
If the papers don't seem reliable, I don't see why we need Lizzie to be in Marion that day, if you feel there is not enough proof.
That first Witness Statement, where it is pointed out that Lizzie never went out alone except for that *shopping trip* would seem to negate Lizzie going away herself Monday to Marion...and there was no "Tripp" or "Poole" to occompany Lizzie to the yacht, nor were they listed as a visitor.
It's stated they all went together Tuesday, so maybe Lizzie did not go away herself Monday, & return to her friends in New Bedford.
--I wonder how, then, her name was included in some social tidbit like that?


(Message last edited Jun-29th-03  4:40 AM.)

You've straightened things out for me now, Kat.  My initial confusion with what you were saying was in your post #29 where you say: "Now combining Emma & Bridget, it sounds like Lizzie went to Marion twice."  I read that incorrectly and didn't realize that you were combining their statements with the newspaper accounts. I just thought you were combining their two statements. 

You obviously did a lot of work to humor my fixation on inconsistencies.  And thank you for that good find in the Witness Statements where, in effect, Mrs. Poole backs up Emma's story that Lizzie did not visit Marion during her visit to New Bedford.

It is a little odd that two newspapers report things differently than what is said in testimony. But perhaps these items are submitted to the social columns in advance -- maybe Lizzie had been invited to the outing on the sloop and although she didn't go her name stayed on the list? 

Well, you are being diplomatic and I appreciate it.
I was combining the news sources and the testimony of Emma and the questions of Adams to Bridget altogether to figure out where Lizzie was and when.
So if you were confused, it's my fault.
However:
Don't you just LOVE this stuff!.
I love going through all the complex info and finding a common understanding!
You're really good at that.

Well, I have to thank you two for clarifying it for me.  Its alot of "they said, she said, she said" stuff.  But, at least we now have a clearer idea of where our Lizzie was at and when, thanks. 

Do you think there is any comparison or correlation between trying to use newspaper source to figure out where Andrew was those 1/2 hour gaps of time on the murder morning, and using newspaper source to figure out if Lizzie went to Marion Monday to visit the yacht?

I know you showed Emma's testimony but she does contradict herself in ways, don't you think?
So do you think a statement that is under oath but nebulous, from a biased witness, should hold more weight than a news item?
Just asking...I've been wondering what people thought about this dichotomy with which we are always faced, it seems, in this case.

That's an interesting question.  I certainly wouldn't take media reports as the final word on anything.  But you're right -- it's probably not much better to trust the word of a witness who has a vested interest in keeping secrets. 

I think we really do have to continue to sift and sort the words of all the participants in this case, including the press. And I guess I just keep hoping that by doing this -- we may uncover a discernible weighting that allows us a glimpse at the truth.

I always find it interesting when different "facts" turn up when comparing different documents.  Even when the differences cannot be resolved it's nice to know that they are there. One source cannot be relied on for everything.

I personally love the minutiae of the case. Not that it will ever solve the case (I don't think it will be solved by the available facts) but it makes the case and the times in which it occurred a hell of a lot more interesting.

Thanks Kat and Diana for the digging and the posts.  Yeoman job.

In David Lifton's "Best Evidence" he notes that every day juries sift conflicting statements to arrive at their decisions of fact. What the jury comes to believe is the 'best evidence'. Humanum errare est.

Your own experience in a jury should educate you. Mainly, you go along with the others unless there is some fact to convince you otherwise. There is a "sense" derived from the 12 jurors.

A fewer number may lead to a wrong verdict because of not enough different inputs. A larger number may lead to no verdict because of trying to convince so many people. (Few elections are decided 100%.)

However, the purpose of the newspaper articles is to create paying customers and deliver an audience to the advertisers. Then or now. For broadcast media as well.

Joe Bosco, the only reporter who sat thru the Trial of OJ, said if you watched the courtroom, then saw the news on TV, it was like watching a different trial. Any comments on this, or the Jon Benet Ramsey unsolved murder?

i was a juror in a murder trial once, but it wasn't the least bit challenging and the opinion was unanimous.

this guy murdered his ex-wife's boyfriend in her house, witnessed by all six of his children.

we mostly talked about whether it was possible for the defense to have come up with something better, which was:  he was so upset about his children that he "hallucinated" the boyfriend was threatening him with a gun.  actually lizzie's sinker story was better.