Lizzie's magical hands

[Allen]

i too think lizzie went to the barn to meet with someone. i think someone was there waiting, and had been since at least the night before (some neighbor and her daughter said they'd heard noises about midnight coming from the Borden barn). i'm not so sure that the ice cream man saw lizzie actually going back into the house- he may have seen someone he thought was lizzie? - but i think it may have been whoever was waiting for her in the barn, dressed as lizzie.

If this person was waiting in the barn all that time, how did he keep from being seen by Bridget and Andrew? Both of them were in the barn on the morning of the murders at different times. Would there have been a place he could safely hide?

[Kat]

The hay was a bit disturbed up in the loft. The indentation was supposedly very small tho- like a cat or a dog. I think a cat could get up there but probably not a dog (because of the stairs.)
Someone could hide up there- Andrew didn't go up- did he do much more than unlock the door?
And Bridget seems to have stuck to where she kept her window-washing stick and the water faucet there under the stairs.

There was a carriage in there. I thought that might be a good place to hide, but I don't know what kind of carriage.

I think it's mighty coincidental that at just THE 60 seconds or so before Andrew Borden's murder, Lubinsky says he saw a woman-not-Bridget outside near the east side of the side steps. It's just too close, the odds seem astronomical.

[1bigsteve]

A killer hiding in the barn does make sense. It would be easier to hide in the barn than the house and claim "he" was "homeless" if caught. It would be easy to re-fluff the hay after he was done sleeping. There was a loo available. No kitchen for snacks though. It would also explain the bloodless Lizzie and the missing hatchet. Perhaps "he" was wearing Lizzie's paint covered dress? But why would a killer wear a woman's dress in the first place? Disguise? Where would he change? Where would Lizzie shop for a killer slender enough to wear her dress? "If you can wear this dress you got the job."

Lizzie's story about looking for fishing weights just may be far enough out in right field to be true but seems to me to have been an excuse to leave the house during the time of the killing, an alibi. I still lean toward the thought that John or Lizzie hired a killer.

The shallow wounds still indicate to me that the killer was most likely a woman (Emma wearing Lizzies paint covered dress?), but. . .

-1bigsteve (o:

[DWilly]

I personally believe that the the lead for sinkers or patching for a screen were quick excuses made by Lizzie to cover the real reason she went to the barn.

I believe she was dressed to go out (including hat) and went to the barn to meet someone who was waiting there. Somewhere in the barn statements, there was one man who claimed that there was a pile of hay that looked like someone had been laying down on it.

I was going through the archives and from what I've read so far:

A. The hay had been there about a year. It wasn't fresh hay.

B. 1. Boys had been in the barn earlier that year.

2. Is it possible Bridget could have sat down for a few minutes? We know she wasn't feeling well. For that matter given how old the hay was how many others could have just sat down for a minute?

3. At what point did "Brownie and Me" Claim they were in the barn? Before or after someone said they saw something that may have looked like someone was laying down?

4. Could a stray cat have gotten in for the night?

[Kat]

Just as long as you know I am referring to the loft area which was where the hay was kept, and where the 6" indentation was found.
The stairs were pretty steep- would one go up there just to sit down?

[1bigsteve]

Not likely, Kat. If Bridget was tired I can't see her exerting herself to go up those steps, in that dusty heat to sit down when she could have sat on the side door steps. At least there she could have had any breeze that may have been blowing, if any. I just can't see anyone going up to the loft to sit and relax on that 80 degree day.

-1bigsteve (o:

[DWilly]

Ok, so we can rule out Bridget sitting there. Still, it's my understanding that the hay had been there for some time. There has been talk about boys being in that barn earlier. If the hay wasn't fresh and it was sitting there for some time then there could be many explanations for what may have looked like someone or something that may have sat there or not.

[1bigsteve]

Yes, that indentation could have been caused by most anything over the course of time, boys, a cat, a killer, etc.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

The Borden barn, being dismantled. Notice the steep stair. I think this was c. 1929.

[Allen]

According to Rebello page 43 you're right Kat. It says "Dismantling of the Borden barn, 1929."

[1bigsteve]

Those stairs look like a good 12x12 pitch which would be a 45 degree angle. Too steep for any but the most daring of agile dogs. Cats maybe.

Wasn't there a roofer's hatchet found on/in this Borden barn in 1929 when it was being torn down? Anybody know what became of it?

-1bigsteve (o:

[Allen]

I can't imagine going up those stairs in a floor length gown.

[Audrey]

It's not impossible!

On cruise ships, the exterior stairs (on the decks) are very steep and if you dress for dinner and then go for a wonderful, romantic moonlight stroll.... Well, I never stumbled!

Of course I was born in two inch pump slingbacks and an evening gown.

[1bigsteve]

My biggest fear of being on a ship has always been falling down those steep stairs and ending up in the water getting sucked into the propellers, like those poor people on the Britanic. What a way to go!

-1bigsteve (o:

[Allen]

Speaking of those stairs, this gives me a better idea of where the water faucet that Bridget used while washing the windows was located. It was under those very stairs. While washing the sitting-room and parlor windows, why would Bridget have walked right past the back door with a faucet right inside in the sink room, and go into the barn instead? Because she thought the screen door was hooked?

I also noticed in a picture of the barn as it was in 1892, that there was a small door up in the loft on the side nearest the house that could be opened. In fact it is opened in the pictures. Maybe the loft was not always so shut up and airless as I believed. The picture of the barn being torn down also gives a pretty good indication of what the view would be from either the small door or the window upstairs.

[Kat]

There was supposedly a hatchet found, (it's in the Pic Album picture, below the barn photo) then I think they called it a hammer, then I heard someone read me a news item over the phone where it said even that was a hoax, by the homeowner, who was a joker.

[Kat]

You can see the back of Mrs. Churchill's house!
And some sort of gazebo?

[1bigsteve]

There appears to be a white water pipe going up the wall at the foot of the stairs and making two odd looking 45 degree angle bends and terminating at the loft floor. Was there a water supply for the loft? It could have been a ventalation pipe for the lower drain though.

That does appear to be a gazebo in Mrs. Churchill's yard.

There had to have been enough light coming into the barn so people could see where their going so maybe it was not so closed up and hot as we have thought. Maybe the loft windows that Allen talked about were left open. The gases created by the rotting hay may have been flammable and keeping the windows open was their way airing the place out. It was only 80 degrees on the day of the murders.

Maybe Bridget didn't use the sink for water because she didn't want to track dirt or mud into the house, or she didn't want to lug the pail of water up and down those side stairs. It may have just been easier and less complicated to use the barn. I would have. If the screen door was latched how would she get back in? Holler for Lizzie?

-1bigsteve (o:

[Allen]

That's what I mean. Did she think that the screen door was hooked? It wasn't hooked, but did she think that it was?

[Audrey]

we have to remember Bridget was a servant.... She may have been expected to get her water from the barn to avoid inconveniencing the family...

I think it is odd to have 'locked her out' of the house as she went about her work, but the Bordens had odd locking habits...

[Allen]

Trial testimony of Bridget Sullivan page 228:


Q. When you went into the dining room and sitting room did you see Miss Lizzie there at all?
A. No, sir; I didn't see anybody.

Q. From there you say you went down cellar?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you get down cellar?
A. A wooden pail.

Q. Where did you then go?
A. I came upstairs. In the kitchen closet I found a brush which was to wash the windows with. I filled my pail with water in the sink and took it out doors. As I was outside the backdoor Lizzie appeared in the back entry, and says," Maggie are you going to wash the windows?" I says, "Yes." I said, " You needn't lock the door; I will be out around here; but you can lock it if you want to; I can get the water in the barn."

Q. Did she make any reply to that?
A. I don't know, sir, she didn't.

----------------------------------------------

page 231:

Q. Now where did you get the water from in washing these seven windows?
A. In the barn, except the first pail I brought from the kitchen.

----------------------------

Page 232:

Q. After you completed washing your windows what did you do?
A. I went after I completed them,--- with the brush I got a dipper in the kitchen.

Q. And found the screen door, of course, unlocked?
A. Yes, sir, I went and took a dipper full of water and went to the barn and got some clean water and commenced to wash the sitting room windows again by throwing water up on them.

Q. By taking the dipper and dashing the water up on them?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you went into the kitchen to get your dipper, did you see anyone there?
A. No, sir.

Q.Did you go into the kitchen more than once during the process of washigng windows?
A. No, sir.


I guess that answers my question as to whether or not she did not go to the kitchen to get water because she thought the screen door was locked. Even after she had been inside and knew that it wasn't locked she continued to get the water from the barn. But it seems like it wasn't required by the Borden's, because she said ' but you can lock it if you want to; I can get my water from the barn.' So maybe she did find it more convenient to get it there.

[theebmonique]

Maybe it was less of a hassle to walk a few extra steps to get water from the barn versus going up a few stairs...into the house...and down a few stairs with a bucket full of water. Or, maybe Bridget figured it was easier to just stay away from her employers while she worked. Depending on how many buckets of water she had to use, staying outside would aslo reduce the number of times the door had to be opened and the possibility of flies (or other insects) getting in, although I am not sure this would have been a concern.


Tracy...

[Audrey]

Has anyone here ever used a pump well?

I have and some of them are easier to get water out of than others. Maybe the one in the barn was easier to pump.

[Allen]

Depending on how many buckets of water she had to use, staying outside would aslo reduce the number of times the door had to be opened


Tracy...

That gave me the image of Bridget carrying the pail up the steps to the door, opening the door to go through, filling up the pail at the sink, and then pushing open the door to go back out. The barn door could've been left open, I think, and she wouldn't have to open it up each time and could simply walk right through. This may be one of the reasons she chose to go there instead. When I think of the occurances as the witnesses described them I try and walk through it in my mind step by step, and I want to know the hows and whys of everything. I'm like that about everything to a certain extent. Maybe I over analyze.

[Allen]

Has anyone here ever used a pump well?

I have and some of them are easier to get water out of than others. Maybe the one in the barn was easier to pump.

That could also have been a good reason why she chose the barn instead. I guess 1bigsteve had a point, it really may have been easier and less complicated.

[nbcatlover]

I don't believe Bridget lied for Lizzie, but I believe she was capable of omitting information. To anyone's knowledge, was she directly asked if she saw anyone in the barn that day.

I'm still looking for the newspaper or book where one man said that the hay looked like a person had been laying on it. This is the same source that says someone went at the hay with a pitchfork searching for the murderer, before the police got there, and raising a whole lot of dust (obscures earlier footprints for the late inspection by police).

[Harry]

Cynthia, what you are looking for is in Kent's Forty Whacks, page 7. He cites the source as the Daily Herald. It is also included in Brown. This is from Kent:

"A Significant Incident

Among the significant incidents revealed in the search through the premises was brought to light by John Donnelly, who, with others, searched the barn to see if any trace of the fugitive could be found there. In the hay was seen the perfect outline of a man as if one had slept there over night. Besides this, it was evident the sleeper was either restless or had been there before, because an imprint was found in another part of the hay that corresponded with the outline of the first impression. Somebody may have been in the habit of going there for a nap, but the imprint was that of a person of about five feet six inches tall, and was shorter than Mr. Borden. This has given rise to the suspicion that the murderer may have slept about the place and waited for an opportunity to accomplish his deed."

He was less sure at the Preliminary. Questioning by Knowlton (p437):

Q. (Mr. Knowlton) What was it that looked as though somebody had been lying there?
A. This hay.
Q. What was it about it?
A. It looked as though there was a form of a body on there, that had been sleeping on there, or something.
Q. Do you mean as though somebody had been pressing, or making the impression of their form on the hay?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. How long was the form?
A. I could not tell you; I did not measure it.
Q. How wide was the form?
A. I should think about so wide.
Q. Was it the form of a dog or a man?
A. That I could not say.
Q. How deep was the impression?
A. About five or six inches, I should say.
Q. That is the whole width of the space was an impression of five or six inches. Rounding or square?
A. Kind of rounding.
Q. Give the width in inches, if you can.
A. I could not.
Q. You gave the depth of it in inches; cant you give the width of it?
A. About a foot perhaps.
Q. Straight?
A. No Sir. It looked kind of rounding.
Q. Length ways straight?
A. It looked like kind of a round hole right in the hay.
Q. How long was the hole?
A. I cannot give any idea.
Q. Give the best idea you have.
A. Five or six inches I should say.
Q. Five or six inches long?
A. A foot long, I said.
Q. About a foot wide?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. And six inches deep?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. That was the impression that you saw?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. That made you think a man had been lying there?
A. I could not say what it was."

He did not testify at the trial which may say a lot in itself.

And Charles H. Cook in the Witness statements, p20, had this say:

"Charles H. Cook, No. 36 Borden street. "Was with John Donnelly in the barn. Saw nothing that looked like the imprint of a man. Donnelly had been drinking."

[nbcatlover]

Thanks, Harry. I knew I didn't imagine "someone" believing there was the outline of a man, not a cat, in the hay.

There's a reference somewhere about someone pitchforking through the hay, looking for the murderer, as well.

[Kat]

I think there was running water in the barn with a faucet and also in the sink of the "kitchen" and in the sink of the laundrey area in the cellar.

That pipe going up in the barn picture could be anything from after the Borden girls moved away. Anything prior to 1929, that is.

[Kat]

There's testimony by the police who moved all the hay.
Is that what you mean?

[diana]

Getting back to the hay for a moment, Alfred Clarkson also testified at the Preliminary Hearing about the indentation in the hay that he claims to have seen at about 11:45 on the morning of the murders.

"ALFRED CLARKSON.

Q. (Mr. Jennings) What is your name?
A. Alfred Clarkson.
Q. You are a plumber?
A. No Sir.
Q. What is your business, steam fitter?
A. Steam engineer.
Q. Were you at the Borden house on the morning of the murder?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. At what time, as near as you can recollect?
A. About 11.40.
Q. Did you go into the barn at all that morning?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. About how soon was it after you got there before you went in?
A. I should say about seven or eight minutes.
Q. Did you go up stairs in the barn?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What did you observe up there, in the upper part of the barn, if anything?
A. I noticed that the door on the south, where they put the hay in stood open about seven or eight inches, and there was considerable hay there that extended from the south west corner to the north.
Q. Extended across the barn?
A. Yes Sir, mostly on the north west corner.
Q. Most of the hay was on the north side of the barn?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did you notice anything about the hay, except that; whether it appeared to have been disturbed at all, or not?
A. In two or three places it looked as though it had been stepped in. In one place west of the window, it looked as though a man had laid there.
Q. In what direction from the window?
A. North of the west window.
Q. Did you disturb anything there?
A. No Sir.
Q. Was anybody else up there at the time that you recollect?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Who?
A. There were three gentlemen that I did not know.
Q. Any of them officers?
A. No Sir." (Source: Preliminary Hearing, 468+)

Later, at the trial, he is cross-examined fairly extensively by Jennings about when he went upstairs and who he saw there. But there are no questions at the trial about an indentation in the hay. He says the three men he saw there were young men in their early twenties -- he didn’t know them – but that Donnelly wasn’t one of them. (Source: trial, pp. 1399-1407)

[1bigsteve]

Here's a couple of thoughts I just had:

A. Did the killer, assuming that he slept in the barn prior to the killings, retreat back to the barn after Abby's murder and then come back into the house to kill Andrew when he came home?

B. If the killer did use the barn it would seem to me that there could have been pieces of hay in the house (dropped from his clothing during the killings). Did the police notice strands of hay on the floor?

Perhaps Lizzie went out to the barn, not to find sinker material, but to give the killer the "go ahead" signal.

What do the rest of you think about this?

-1bigsteve (o:

[DWilly]

I'm still confused because of two factors still not explained:

1. Clarkson and Officer Medley contradict each other. Clarkson says he was in the barn around 11:40. His time is a bit shaky and I guess that's normal. At one point he says this:


Q. What time did you get there?

A. I should say about 11:30

Q And did you go into the barn at all that at day?

A. Yes, sir

Q How soon after you got there

A. Seven or eight minutes.

Now Medley also places himself in the barn around this time. Clarkson says he did not see Officer Medley.

Q. Do you know Officer Medley?

A. Yes, sir

Q Was he there when you got there?

A. No, sir, I didn't see him


Now this part confuses me. Officer Medley says when he went to the barn he said. "Nothing looked disturbed" Now it seems from looking at the testimony that Medley was in the barn only a few minutes after Clarkson said he was there. And yet, nothing looked disturbed.

The second thing that bothers me is we really don't know if that hay really had been lain in. To Clarkson it only looked like someone might have laid in it. Also, if someone had indeed laid in it we don't know when. Like I've been saying, that hay was there for at least a year and boys had gone up there earlier.

There are two other things that bother me:

1. How did Clarkson know so early that the murders had happened? He's there even before some of the cops.

2. If Jennings really thought that someone had been up in that loft don't you think he would have gone after Clarkson more on that information?

[nbcatlover]

Police officer has not always been a reputable profession, and in some areas, the police were known to work at the orders of certain politicians, etc., and find out what the poliitician, etc., wanted them to find (from an historic context).

Many of the police were Irish and not always trusted by the non-Irish (this includes some of the old Yankee families). Watch Scorsese's Gangs of New York for the types of feelings that colored peoples' perspectives based on class, money, and power.

There are certain officers whose statements I found credible, and there were other officers that I believe were out-and-out liars in regard to the Borden case, for whatever their reasons. Medley, to me, however, was not as bad as Harrington & Doherty. Some of their police witness statements had me scratching my head.

[DWilly]

Police officer has not always been a reputable profession, and in some areas, the police were known to work at the orders of certain politicians, etc., and find out what the poliitician, etc., wanted them to find (from an historic context).

Many of the police were Irish and not always trusted by the non-Irish (this includes some of the old Yankee families). Watch Scorsese's Gangs of New York for the types of feelings that colored peoples' perspectives based on class, money, and power.

There are certain officers whose statements I found credible, and there were other officers that I believe were out-and-out liars in regard to the Borden case, for whatever their reasons. Medley, to me, however, was not as bad as Harrington & Doherty. Some of their police witness statements had me scratching my head.

True, Police Officers then and now are not always reliable. Neither are eye witnesses for that matter. Keep in mind that Clarkson only said it "looked" like a man had slept in the hay not that he knew for a fact one had. By the way, I wonder how Clarkson was able to think it was a "man" and not a teenage boy or a grown woman who had laid in the hay?

Anyway, I know a lot of theories such as, Billy Borden did it, David Anthony did it or a hired killer did it, rest their hats on this hay stuff but until I see more proof I can't for sure buy into it meaning anything. There's no proof that all/some of the cops lied and I still haven't seen it ruled out that boys were up in that hay messing around. We have no pictures of the hay so we don't even know if it really looks like a "man" laid in it. That was only Clarkson's opinion and even he seemed a bit unsure.

[Harry]

1. How did Clarkson know so early that the murders had happened? He's there even before some of the cops.

Clarkson at the Preliminary testified as to when he heard about the cime, p471:

"Q. How do you fix the time at 11.40 when you got there?
A. Simply because I looked at my watch about 11.35.
Q. Where were you then?
A. Sitting on the door step of D. Brock's office on Third street.
Q. Did you hear of the murder then?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. And went right around?
A. Yes Sir."

Again, there are no follow-up questions as to who told him and how the person who told him found out.

There seemed to be a lot of people hanging around, not doing much of anything, on the morning of the 4th.

[DWilly]

Thanks, Harry. I knew I didn't imagine "someone" believing there was the outline of a man, not a cat, in the hay.

There's a reference somewhere about someone pitchforking through the hay, looking for the murderer, as well.

I don't know for sure if this is what you're referring to or not. I looked at the Lizzie Andrew Borden site and the trial testimony and Thomas Barlow, who I think is a teenager, he was one half of the "Me and Brownie" thing. This is what he was asked about the barn loft by Knowlton:

Q Turn the hay over?

A Yes,sir

Q Thought perhaps the man might be hidden in the hay?

A. Yes, sir


Now the impression I got is these two boys were just looking around and they didn't actually see anything. Like I said, there were teenage boys up in this loft at various times. And this was throughout the year. Didn't some boys supposedly go after pigeons in this same barn?

[DWilly]

1. How did Clarkson know so early that the murders had happened? He's there even before some of the cops.

Clarkson at the Preliminary testified as to when he heard about the cime, p471:

"Q. How do you fix the time at 11.40 when you got there?
A. Simply because I looked at my watch about 11.35.
Q. Where were you then?
A. Sitting on the door step of D. Brock's office on Third street.
Q. Did you hear of the murder then?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. And went right around?
A. Yes Sir."

Again, there are no follow-up questions as to who told him and how the person who told him found out.

There seemed to be a lot of people hanging around, not doing much of anything, on the morning of the 4th.

Well, Clarkson did testify that when he went up into the barn there were three men he didn't know. He said they looked to be between twenty two or twenty three years of age. Who were they? What about Barlow and Brown? They were up there tossing the hay about.

[Harry]

I've read various ages of Brown and Barlow, the two boys in the barn. Kent has them both 12 which does not appear to be correct. Lincoln says "early teens". Rebello, p89, has Barlow at 16 when he was arrested in October 1893 for breaking into a shoe store. That would have made him 15 at the time of the murders.

From their testimony it doesn't appear they deliberately set out for the Borden house because of the crimes but just happened to be on Second St. That should be looked at more closely though. It wasn't them that told Clarkson, at least they didn't mention it.

Whether you believe their story or not Barlow made a very interesting comment in his trial testimony, p1452:

"Q. How did you go into the barn?
A. Go through the door.
Q. Did you open the door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it locked?
A. It was, kind of a thing---pin like.
Q. Was it fastened?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What made you go into the barn?
A. Why, to see if anybody was in there.
Q. You thought the man had fastened himself in on the outside, I suppose?
A. No.
Q. That didn't occur to you at all?
A. No, sir."

That the barn door was fastened is interesting. If "me and Brownie" were the first outsiders to enter it that means who ever left the barn last fastened the door.

Bridget mentions that Andrew unlocked the barn door that morning. And she was in and out getting water for the window washing. I assume she would close up the barn when finished.

But Lizzie claims to have gone to the barn after Bridget did the windows. She doesn't mention fastening the door but maybe it was so natural a thing to do it wasn't worth mentioning. What a shame she wasn't asked.

[diana]

Medley also says "the door was fast with a hasp over a staple and an iron pin in it" when he went there.

Medley claims there were no footprints in the dust in the loft. But, if he arrived at the house at 11:40, then viewed both Borden bodies and spoke to Lizzie upstairs in her room before he went out to the barn this would seem to put him in the barn after Clarkson and the others had gone upstairs. (Trial, 689+)

[nbcatlover]

I hope this wasn't discussed elsewhere in the Forum...

Pg. 141 in Rebello mentions "The Small Shadow" by Lillian de la Torre from Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine, August, 1992, 116-122. This article suggests that Thomas Barlow or his friend, Everett Brown (Me and Brownie) as the murders.

Does anyone here know the salient points she made? I'm not familiar with this article.