What if .....

[Yooper]

I'll have to search for the source, but didn't someone, perhaps Bridget, say that Lizzie said she was in the yard and heard a groan? I think this would precede the statements to the authorities.

[diana]

I'll have to search for the source, but didn't someone, perhaps Bridget, say that Lizzie said she was in the yard and heard a groan? I think this would precede the statements to the authorities.

I'm not sure what is meant by preceding the statements to the authorities?
The first reference I find to a groan is at the Preliminary Hearing where Knowlton has a bit of a hard time dragging that testimony out of Bridget.

"At any time did you have any talk with Lizzie more than what you stated?
No Sir.
Did you ask her any questions as to whether she heard anything?
No Sir.
Or did she say anything?
No Sir.
[Knowlton is probably frustrated at this point so he attempts to lead Bridget and the defense quite rightly objects.]
Calling your attention; whether you had any talk with her, in which she said anything about hearing her groan.
(Objected to.)
(Mr. Knowlton) I have exhausted the witness’ recollection, and now direct her attention.
(Court) If it is for the purpose of refreshing her recollection of something which you are confident is within her knowledge, the question may be put in that form.
[Bridget is reminded of the drill and dutifully reports]
Yes. Miss Lizzie said she was out in the yard, and she heard a groan.
(Mr. Adams) Heard a groan, or heard her groan?
Heard her father groan I should think.
What did you say to her before that?
I asked her where she was. She said she was out in the back yard. She heard a groan and came in, and the screen door was wide open."

This wording is very close to that used in Moody's opening statement at the trial.
"It is not quite clear what the prisoner told Bridget, whether he was sick, or killed, or dead. That is not important,--- but the moment the information was received, arose the question: Where were you? She said "I was out in the back yard, I heard a groan, came in and found the door open and found my father."

The quotes make it appear that those are Lizzie's own words but I don't see them in her inquest testimony or in the police reports.

[Yooper]

Lizzie would have spoken to Bridget about being in the yard before she spoke to the police about being in the barn, and later, in the hayloft.

[diana]

Lizzie would have spoken to Bridget about being in the yard before she spoke to the police about being in the barn, and later, in the hayloft.

Are you basing this premise on Bridget's testimony at the Preliminary Hearing?

[Kat]

I will thank you for the testimony and Moody's trial opening quote, Diana, and for looking.

I didn't look for a groan, but I looked manually in the hard copy of the witness statements and the inquest for what was claimed Lizzie said as to where she was, and always found the barn. It was mentioned here that the earlier statements were more important so I stuck with those, although I don't particularly agree.
Lizzie did get some pears first and she did have to leave the barn to come back to the house, so maybe that is where a groan might have entered the picture?

Edit here: I didn't get to the pears until page 72 of the inquest.

[Yooper]

Lizzie would have spoken to Bridget about being in the yard before she spoke to the police about being in the barn, and later, in the hayloft.

Are you basing this premise on Bridget's testimony at the Preliminary Hearing?

Yes, if that is where it was first given and if it does not refute any earlier testimony by Bridget.

[RayS]

I've said this before. I think the "groan" was from the spring on the top of the screen door when it was opened wide.
If you ever had experience with this type of door you would remember it from childhood (over 50+ years ago, before the current method came into use).

You might still hear this from the long springs on an unpowered garage door today.

[diana]

I guess the point I was trying to make when I posted Bridget's Preliminary Hearing testimony was to show how Bridget refutes her own testimony in the space of a few minutes.
"At any time did you have any talk with Lizzie more than what you stated?
No Sir.
Did you ask her any questions as to whether she heard anything?
No Sir.
Or did she say anything?
No Sir."
Yet when prompted by Knowlton she quickly changes her tune and says:
"Yes. Miss Lizzie said she was out in the yard, and she heard a groan."

Personally, I find it difficult to pin a lot of faith on Bridget's testimony being the key we need to solve this puzzle. She contradicts not only Morse, Mrs. Churchill, Lizzie, even the police, and -- as in this instance -- herself too many times to make her a truly credible witness.

[Harry]

Mrs. Churchill also mentions a noise. This from the Preliminary, p271:

"Q. What happened then?
A. I put my hand on her arm, and said "O, Lizzie". I said "Where is your father"? She said "in the sitting room". I said "where were you when it happened"? She said she went to the barn to get a piece of iron, and came back, heard a distressed noise, and came in, and found the screen door open."

But at the trial she backed off that statement. Moody doing the questioning, bottom of page 351:

"Q. Recurring a moment to the first statement she made to you about her whereabouts I would like to refresh your memory. You have stated all you remember in that conversation, haven't you, where she said that she was in the barn?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall that she said in addition to that that she heard a distressed noise and came in?
A. I don't remember whether she told me she heard a distressed noise or not.
Q. Well, I will not undertake to press it. Did you suggest any change of dress?
A. No, sir."

Officer Doherty (p595) at the trial testified Lizzie told him:

".... I asked her if she had heard any noise or outcries, or screams and she said, "No, sir. I heard a peculiar noise." "What kind of a noise, Miss Borden?" "I think it was something like scraping, scraping noise."

Doherty had used, more or less, the same wording at the Preliminary. (p333)

Bridget says groan, Churchill says distressed noise and Doherty says scraping noise.

[Yooper]

Bridget was perhaps a less than ideal witness, but why? She was a housekeeper, and testimony which put the Bordens in a bad light was avoided. She could not get a reference for nearly three years work, her employers were dead. A future employer would know her better for her relationship to the Borden case than from any previous employment. She was at enough of a disadvantage as it was without going on the witness stand and spilling all of the family secrets. She tried her best to put the Bordens in a favorable light, but others testified differently, so she had to follow suit. Bridget had something to lose in all of this, and not just her present employment, but also the possibility of future employment. That does not necessarily excuse her from telling the truth, but it is at least understandable if she goes from a positive comment to a negative one with respect to the Bordens.

[diana]

Thank you, Harry. I hadn't realized Mrs. Churchill backed off that particular statement. So, by trial we still have Bridget with a groan (she didn't need the prompting this time BTW) and Officer Doherty with a scraping noise ... but nothing in Lizzie's own testimony about hearing any sound.

[diana]

Bridget was perhaps a less than ideal witness, but why? She was a housekeeper, and testimony which put the Bordens in a bad light was avoided. She could not get a reference for nearly three years work, her employers were dead. A future employer would know her better for her relationship to the Borden case than from any previous employment. She was at enough of a disadvantage as it was without going on the witness stand and spilling all of the family secrets. She tried her best to put the Bordens in a favorable light, but others testified differently, so she had to follow suit. Bridget had something to lose in all of this, and not just her present employment, but also the possibility of future employment. That does not necessarily excuse her from telling the truth, but it is at least understandable if she goes from a positive comment to a negative one with respect to the Bordens.

I agree with you that Bridget was protecting her own interests, as well she should, but in regard to her unreliability as a witness -- it is not only the shift in her focus on the family that makes me doubt her word -- there are a host of other contradictions that reinforce my reluctance to rely on her veracity.

At the risk of boring those who've monitored our previous go-round about this on another thread I'm reiterating part of my post there in an effort to illustrate this point once again.

Bridget contradicted Morse's statement about when Abby told her to do the windows and further contradicted Mrs. Churchill's observation about how often she cleaned those windows. She also told the police that on the day of the murder Abby went upstairs just before nine and came down sometime later for some pillow shams – later her story changed to never having seen Abby after they spoke in the dining room at 9 a.m. or having heard anything about making up the guest room. She contradicted Officer Mullaly about handling the hatchets in the cellar. And she initially said Andrew and Lizzie both took up piles of clothes from the kitchen table on Thursday morning, but at trial, claimed that the clothes were all put away on Wednesday. She and Mrs. Bowen had differing ideas of what Bridget told the doctor's wife when she came over. She testified more than once that Andrew and Abby were in charge of answering the front door when they were at home – but although they were both home when Bowen came on Wednesday morning – it was Bridget who let the doctor in through the front door.

Bridget is a key witness because she and Lizzie are the only ones in the house who survived -- but I think it's dangerous to rely too heavily on her statements to try and ascertain what really happened.

[Yooper]

Bridget was perhaps a less than ideal witness, but why? She was a housekeeper, and testimony which put the Bordens in a bad light was avoided. She could not get a reference for nearly three years work, her employers were dead. A future employer would know her better for her relationship to the Borden case than from any previous employment. She was at enough of a disadvantage as it was without going on the witness stand and spilling all of the family secrets. She tried her best to put the Bordens in a favorable light, but others testified differently, so she had to follow suit. Bridget had something to lose in all of this, and not just her present employment, but also the possibility of future employment. That does not necessarily excuse her from telling the truth, but it is at least understandable if she goes from a positive comment to a negative one with respect to the Bordens.

I agree with you that Bridget was protecting her own interests, as well she should, but in regard to her unreliability as a witness -- it is not only the shift in her focus on the family that makes me doubt her word -- there are a host of other contradictions that reinforce my reluctance to rely on her veracity.

At the risk of boring those who've monitored our previous go-round about this on another thread I'm reiterating part of my post there in an effort to illustrate this point once again.

Bridget contradicted Morse's statement about when Abby told her to do the windows and further contradicted Mrs. Churchill's observation about how often she cleaned those windows. She also told the police that on the day of the murder Abby went upstairs just before nine and came down sometime later for some pillow shams – later her story changed to never having seen Abby after they spoke in the dining room at 9 a.m. or having heard anything about making up the guest room. She contradicted Officer Mullaly about handling the hatchets in the cellar. And she initially said Andrew and Lizzie both took up piles of clothes from the kitchen table on Thursday morning, but at trial, claimed that the clothes were all put away on Wednesday. She and Mrs. Bowen had differing ideas of what Bridget told the doctor's wife when she came over. She testified more than once that Andrew and Abby were in charge of answering the front door when they were at home – but although they were both home when Bowen came on Wednesday morning – it was Bridget who let the doctor in through the front door.

Bridget is a key witness because she and Lizzie are the only ones in the house who survived -- but I think it's dangerous to rely too heavily on her statements to try and ascertain what really happened.

Does her statement about Lizzie being in the yard and hearing a groan refute any of her earlier testimony? Her insistence that Lizzie was upstairs when Andrew arrived is believable. She supports Mrs. Churchill's testimony about Lizzie saying she heard Abby arrive. There are several reasons why Bridget might answer the front door when Dr. Bowen arrived. When she was told to wash the windows and the frequency, and putting the clothes away seem a bit trivial, but the rest of the contradictions are significant, if we can call them contradictions.

I think Bridget, like many others, was telling part of the truth. Just enough to not be lying about anything, but not enough to be the entire truth. There seemed to be an effort to not say anything to incriminate Lizzie, unless it was an outright lie. If it seems like the statement about Lizzie being in the yard had to be pried out of Bridget, it might be something she let slip and later regretted it because it was incriminating. The fact that it took place after Bridget was aware of the other testimony about Lizzie being in the barn, but Bridget insists Lizzie said it, seems to give it further credibility if Bridget was trying to protect Lizzie. Alice Russell's eleventh hour revelation about the dress burning is an example of people not telling all they knew at the time.

The earlier statements are important, even though they are given without an oath. If the police interviews are done privately and individually, no one knows what anyone else said. No one has been arrested, no one is in jeopardy, the answers should be less guarded.

[Yooper]

Thank you, Harry. I hadn't realized Mrs. Churchill backed off that particular statement. So, by trial we still have Bridget with a groan (she didn't need the prompting this time BTW) and Officer Doherty with a scraping noise ... but nothing in Lizzie's own testimony about hearing any sound.

From the Witness Statements, page 5, Harrington:
Miss Lizzie. “Saw father, when he returned from the P.O. He sat down to read the paper. I went out to the barn, remained twenty minutes; returned, and found him dead. Saw no one in the yard when going to or returning from the barn. Heard no noise whatever while in the barn.” (To a question.) Not even The opening or closing of the screen door. “Why not, you were but a short distance, and would hear the noise so made?” “I was upstairs in the loft.”

The hayloft seems like rationale for not hearing anything.

[Shelley]

True to form, Lizzie's sound effects change from groan to scraping sound to distressing noise, as the details are filled in and colored by Lizzie later ; from finding the door wide open to putting her hat down on the table. First, it is not possible to hear a groan from the back yard as the sitting room would have been on the opposite of the house, the windows were closed from the washing done by Bridget, and the most obvious, when would Andrew have had the opportunity to groan, and most assuredly not loudly enough to have been heard in the back yard, hay loft or even side door. The door from the sitting room was closed going into the kitchen, and from the diningroom into the sitting room and kitchen. Under these conditions a loud yelp cannot be heard.



Page 34 – Preliminary Hearing – Bridget testifying:



(Objected to.)

(Mr. Knowlton) I have exhausted the witness’ recollection, and now direct her attention.

(Court) If it is for the purpose of refreshing her recollection of something which you are confident is within her knowledge, the question may be put in that form.

Q. Yes. Miss Lizzie said she was out in the yard, and she heard a groan.

(Mr. Adams) Heard a groan, or heard her groan?

A. Heard her father groan I should think.

Q. What did you say to her before that?

A. I asked her where she was. She said she was out in the back yard. She heard a groan, and she came in, and the screen door was wide open.

Q. When you were opening the door, the front door, and heard her laugh up stairs, did you recognize the voice

[Kat]

I would like to thank everyone who were helping here by transcribing testimony.

It's been often complained of that Lizzie said various reasons for her going out to the barn, and I think that might be what was being got at, rather than that Lizzie gave various answers about going to the barn to begin with?
I think that is what happened.
But now the point is, we have shown, to my satisfaction (because I looked) that Lizzie said she went to the barn, and was recorded as having said that early on. That she did not equivocate. That her answers were consistent at least in this area of concern and have been proved to be. I think that should be acknowledged and move on.
When a mistake is made, it is not dire nor dreadful and we all get over it really quick, with just a passing oops.
Otherwise we are wasting effort backtracking and trying to restate the attempted point to be made. It's OK. Please feel free to make mistakes- everyone included! Aren't we lucky to get ourselves back on track?

[Yooper]

My point was simply this: Lizzie's story seems to evolve. If she had gone to the barn or the hayloft for lead, why do we have the various stories about the yard, the pears, the iron to fix a window screen? If she went to the barn for lead, why not say that at the beginning? This is straightforward and simple. The way Lizzie changed her story suggests that she needed to place herself somewhere not in the house, and the details became a matter of convenience, depending upon her answers to other questions. Lizzie needed to be completely unaware of the crime, and her answers seem to progressively make her so.

[Shelley]

Yes, there was never in dispute in my mind that for Andrew's murder, Lizzie was sure going to come up with something better than being in the kitchen again. As he was killed in the sittingroom nobody would buy again that she heard nothing! She would have had to put herself on another floor and the second floor already had one corpse!

And, I agree, if someone asks you pointblank where you were an hour ago, you might just give a simple answer, like, out in the yard. Then when things calm down, you might mention a few more details about what you were doing while you were out in the yard.

The curious thing about Lizzie's cornucopia of details is that the basics do change and pretty quickly in succession to various people over a short time span. From what she says to Bridget, Adelaide, Alice, -so many who came quickly onto the scene all clamoring for the BIG answer. Maybe some of these witnesses were thinking how lucky Lizzie was not to have been killed too and naturally asked "Where were you?" -not so much demanding an alibi at that moment but rather relived and incredulous that Lizzie was still alive and had found her father in such a spectacular way.

What raises my eyebows somewhat is the conflict of details going on, and her seeming need to add just one more thing, 10 more minutes out in the barn, additional material, as if to heavily underscore the thought that see, - I was out there busy busy busy, and here are all the things I was doing (from sinkers, to tin to mend a screen to munching pears, pulling over boards, walking under the tree, staring out the window etc. etc. etc.), And to answer the pressing question of why she came in we get everything from groan, scraping sound, door inexplicably wide open, distressing sound, etc. which all seem like a somewhat desperate attempt to make people convinced that she was telling the truth. She could not have been too distressed if she took the time to pick up a chip off the floor and set her hat down on the table- and of course who would believe someone would wear a hat to a hayloft in the first place! If she had said "I was going pear-picking out in the sun" right off the bat- then I might have allowed a hat would be reasonable- but not to a loft in a barn in August.

I saw one of those CSI programs where the killer actually should have just shut up after stating the simple alibi, but felt compelled to embroider his "story" so much, that in the end, he caught himself up on a small detail- mainly from talking too much. John Morse got himself into such a stew by giving far too many details- more than the average person would have recalled.

If I had been Lizzie, confronted by such a throng of pressing questions from excited people, I think I would have just said

"I was out in the back yard getting some air under the trees and had come in to see if Abby had come back yet to get lunch started. Then she could have killed two birds with one stone.

Too bad Bridget never peeped out her bedroom window down at the backyard when she went up to her room- she might have gotten an eyeful- or- she just might have seen- nobody!

[Angel]

Bridget was perhaps a less than ideal witness, but why? She was a housekeeper, and testimony which put the Bordens in a bad light was avoided. She could not get a reference for nearly three years work, her employers were dead. A future employer would know her better for her relationship to the Borden case than from any previous employment. She was at enough of a disadvantage as it was without going on the witness stand and spilling all of the family secrets. She tried her best to put the Bordens in a favorable light, but others testified differently, so she had to follow suit. Bridget had something to lose in all of this, and not just her present employment, but also the possibility of future employment. That does not necessarily excuse her from telling the truth, but it is at least understandable if she goes from a positive comment to a negative one with respect to the Bordens.

There's another thing to consider: Think about this whole thing from Bridget's perspective- not only would this whole sordid thing look bad when future prospective employers saw where she had previously worked, but she was probably all too aware that, since the crime wasn't solved, she could always be looked upon with suspicion herself as being the murderer. I know that if I was looking for a maid and found out that the person I was interviewing had worked at the scene of a murder, that she was only one of two people in the house at the time of the crime, and that no one was ever convicted of doing it, I would never bring someone like that into my house to be around my family and me.

[shakiboo]

I'd never thought of that, I wonder then, if she even used the Borden's as a reference...... as wide spread as the Borden case was there'd be no where for her to go, without someone knowing about it, even her name would be known and connected to the case. I wonder if that's why she went back to Ireland with her family for a few years.

[Angel]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was the reason she left. Not to mention the fact that, if my suspicions are correct, she would be spooked by Lizzie.

[Shelley]

The best minds on the case are still trying to prove Bridget ever went back to Ireland-there is not a paper trail YET, although I am thinking of looking through the passenger ship lists from summer 1893- 1896. That info is at last easily accessible locally. All sorts of speculation about Bridget after the acquittal- did she get some money? If so, who gave it to her? Still nothing concrete exits to date, but I feel that eventually more may come to light on her movements before Montana.

[Angel]

I was also thinking that at the time of the trial Bridget probably said only enough to keep herself in the clear with the police, keep herself from incurring the wrath of Lizzie, and generally keep a low profile till she could leave. However, later when she had safely removed herself from the whole nightmare, she probably started looking back on the whole thing and thought of how she could have handled things differently. Maybe she began to feel guilty about being somewhat of a coward because she knew a lot more of the turmoil in the family than others did and could see how Lizzie could have done what she probably did, but at the time Bridget was too fearful of bringing these things to the forefront. Maybe when she thought she was dying she merely wanted to clear her conscience about how she felt she could have told the police more about Lizzie's behavior or things she had overheard, but was too afraid to do so, and, therefore, may have been obstructing justice from being served.

[Kat]

My point was simply this: Lizzie's story seems to evolve. If she had gone to the barn or the hayloft for lead, why do we have the various stories about the yard, the pears, the iron to fix a window screen? If she went to the barn for lead, why not say that at the beginning? This is straightforward and simple. The way Lizzie changed her story suggests that she needed to place herself somewhere not in the house, and the details became a matter of convenience, depending upon her answers to other questions. Lizzie needed to be completely unaware of the crime, and her answers seem to progressively make her so.

Could you illustrate your point with more information (examples) rather than general terms please? I'd like to see what you are getting at? Thanks!

[Kat]

Maybe some of these witnesses were thinking how lucky Lizzie was not to have been killed too and naturally asked "Where were you?" -not so much demanding an alibi at that moment but rather relived and incredulous that Lizzie was still alive and had found her father in such a spectacular way.

--Shelley

I think this is very astute. I can see this just exactly in that way.
Of course, now-a-days we'd be more suspicious right off the bat. (That tends towards what I called earlier, "sophistication")

[RayS]

I believe it wasn't luck, just the fact that Lizzie left her Father alone to discuss business.

If she had been in the kitchen there might have been a 3rd victim, and any scream from the open window would have alerted the people nearby.

Lizzie was not guilty, but she kept the family secrets.

(Do I have to add IMO?)

[RayS]

The best minds on the case are still trying to prove Bridget ever went back to Ireland-there is not a paper trail YET, although I am thinking of looking through the passenger ship lists from summer 1893- 1896. That info is at last easily accessible locally. All sorts of speculation about Bridget after the acquittal- did she get some money? If so, who gave it to her? Still nothing concrete exits to date, but I feel that eventually more may come to light on her movements before Montana.

Edward Radin's book has a chapter on Bridget, who died in 1948 w/o ever being interviewed.
Radin is wrong to point suspicion at Bridget, she was cleared at the time. But his book still has the interviews he had w/ people who were around at the time.

Look at the passenger ship lists from when she was supposed to have left FR. Could she have take a tramp steamer (?) to avoid pesky immigration?
What about passenger ship lists to Canada the years afterwards?

Sorry, I can't look this up myself. Bridget knew people in FR, and that could explain the truth of those rumors. Bridget did leave town.

[Yooper]

My point was simply this: Lizzie's story seems to evolve. If she had gone to the barn or the hayloft for lead, why do we have the various stories about the yard, the pears, the iron to fix a window screen? If she went to the barn for lead, why not say that at the beginning? This is straightforward and simple. The way Lizzie changed her story suggests that she needed to place herself somewhere not in the house, and the details became a matter of convenience, depending upon her answers to other questions. Lizzie needed to be completely unaware of the crime, and her answers seem to progressively make her so.

Could you illustrate your point with more information (examples) rather than general terms please? I'd like to see what you are getting at? Thanks!

Assume Lizzie is innocent and she had gone to the barn to look for lead to be used for sinkers. If she had said something like "I went out back to find some sinkers for a fishing trip", or "I needed to find some lead, so I went to the barn", it sounds more believable. If someone asked me where I was under the same circumstances, I might answer "I was at home watching the football game", or "I was somewhere doing something". It seems to flow, rather the choppy, single explanation "I was in the barn" or "I was in the hayloft". The other point to be made is that if Lizzie was innocent, there was no reason to say anything other than "I was in the barn looking for lead".

If Lizzie was not innocent, she may have planned Abby's murder and Andrew's murder was a crime of necessity or opportunity. She would have had a plan for an alibi for Abby's murder, but after killing Andrew she was winging it. She would have had only a few minutes to think of a plausible explanation before answering questions, initially from Bridget and Mrs. Churchill. Lizzie's initial objective would have to be to place herself so that she was unaware of the murders, the priority being Andrew's murder. She needed to be out of the house because Abby was upstairs and Andrew was on the first floor. Her initial answer to Bridget might have been that she was in the yard, assuming Bridget was telling the truth, this puts her outside, but she might have heard or seen an intruder from the yard. The barn would be better. According to Mrs. Churchill, Lizzie said that she had been in the barn looking for some iron (Witness Statements and Inquiry). Dr. Bowen also remembered her saying she was looking for iron or tin (Inquiry). She seemed to recognize that if she had been in the barn, there should be a reason, so what does she know is in the barn? Iron, tin, lead, whatever else she might have known about. Iron to repair a screen will do, until she realizes the screen does not need repair. Lead for sinkers is better. Her answers to Harrington's questions in the Witness Statements may offer something. She said she was in the barn, and he asked if she had seen or heard anything. Her answer was no. He asked why not? She answered that she was in the hayloft. Her whereabouts seem to follow a necessity to not have seen or heard anything, to be unaware of the murders.

If we can believe Bridget, the story seems to go, in short order, from the yard (Bridget), to the barn for iron or tin (Dr Bowen and Mrs. Churchill), to the hayloft (Harrington), then to the barn for sinkers and the hayloft to eat pears (Lizzie) at a window where she had a clear view of the driveway and the side door, but she neither saw nor heard anything from there.

If Lizzie had gone to the barn for lead, why are there any intermediate explanations? The tendency is to acutely remember where we were when a traumatic event occurred. For those of us old enough, do you remember where you were on November 22, 1963? For those not old enough to remember that, how about during 9-11? I acutely remember both, and know exactly where I was. I could go back and mark the place I was standing when I heard the news in both cases, probably within an inch! I also remember exactly what I was doing at the time.

[theebmonique]

I am wondering if we can remember exactly where we were during certain significant or traumatic events because we were not there physically. I think if we actually are physically present at/during a catastrophic situation...the adrenalin released (fight or flight) by our nervous system would keep us not only from some of the immediate pain/shock, but could also leave our memories a bit fuzzy on some details for a period of time following the event. We may remember some of those details later on when someone reminds us or asks specific questions.





Tracy...

[diana]

I think that's a very good point, Tracy.

[shakiboo]

yes I agree, especially if up until that time it's just another day, like all the days before. We all have little habitual things that we do that just get done mechanically, and don't even think about. Like putting laundry away, doing the dishes, going to the bathroom etc I'd probably rely on what I normaly would do opposed to being able to say exactly how I did it, if you know what I mean.

[Kat]

I agree as well, about being involved in a catastrophe vs as an observer, Tracy.

As for Lizzie in the barn- my reading of the matter is that if Lizzie heard anything it was while she was returning to the house from the barn.
Her progression was pick up pears under tree, go to the barn, then go to the house- supposedly- so that is a reasonbable assumption. She doesn't (possibly) hear something, go to the barn and then leave the barn and go to the house after.

Anyway, I don't think my question was understood, so never mind, but thanks.
Also, some don't believe she ever went to the barn at all, so I guess it is moot.
We ought to take a poll as to how many think she did go to the barn.

[RayS]

I read a murder mystery recently, part of a series.
A mother goes out looking for her young daughter, who went to the park an hour earlier. She finds her dead body, and collapses. She is taken to the hospital and can barely answer questions.

I'll assume this is accurate, I really don't know about such things. I also assume the murder of Andy had an effect on Lizzie so she had to have medications.