"Emma, you have gave me away"

regofam · Post by **regofam** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:15 am

Hannah Reagan's trial testimony of June 14, 1893 has the prison matron reporting on Emma's visit to Lizzie in jail on the morning of August 24, 1892. Lizzie and Emma have words, ending with Lizzie crying out, "Emma, you have gave me away, haven't you?" Emma replies, "No, Lizzie, I have not."

Mrs. Reagan has Lizzie saying, "You have, and I will let you see I won't give in one inch." The Lizzie turns her face to the wall and stays that way for a couple of hours, until her lawyer comes.

One source (Linder) says the preliminary hearing was going on August 22-23. If so, I guess the obvious conjecture is that Emma told Lizzie about a question put to her, and revealed her own answer to that question, and Lizzie was distressed by that.

But this (Lizzie Borden Society) site's Crime Library has the preliminary hearing going on from August 25 to September 1. If that is the case, the quarrel happened before the hearing.

Since Emma was gone for several days (two weeks?) before the murders, she really couldn't say anything about Lizzie's activities on August 4. But she could tell about Lizzie's relationship with Abby and Andrew, her usual habits, the burglury, etc.

The Witness Statements do not seem to indicate that Emma was questioned in particular the day before the quarrel. Are there theories about what set Lizzie off on August 24th?

"I won't give in one inch" sounds like Lizzie will be sticking to her story - about what?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:19 pm

First and foremost, this is a selective quote taken out of context.
We don't know what was said before this.

In recent times, this is like that jailhouse guard claiming that OJ Simpson said "I Killed Her!". The fact (as I know it) was that this was a denial of the suggestion from a minister sent to console OJ.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:03 pm

Trial
Mrs. Reagan (in context- and reported pretty well by regofam)
A. Miss Emma Borden came to my room about twenty minutes to nine o’clock on the 24th day of August, and I let her in and she spoke to her sister Lizzie, and I left the two women talking together and I went into a toilet room about four feet from where Miss Lizzie Borden was lying on a couch, and I heard very loud talk, and I came to my door and it was Miss Lizzie Borden; she was lying on her left side and her sister Emma was talking to her and bending right over her, and Lizzie says, "Emma, you have gave me away, haven't you?"' She says, "No, Lizzie, I have not." "You have," she says, "and I will let you see I won't give in one inch," and she sat right up and put up her finger, and I stood in the door way looking at both of them.

Q. Was Miss Borden's tone loud or low?
A. I could not hear what Miss Emma said only "I did not, Lizzie," "I did not give you away, Lizzie." She says, "you have."

Q. Now what was the tone of Miss Lizzie Borden's voice?
A. Well, I am speaking kind of loud now and she spoke just as loud as I am talking.

Q. Was it louder or less loud than Miss Emma's voice?
A. Louder, some.

Q. What occurred then?
A. Lizzie Borden lay right down on the couch on her left side and faced out the window and closed her eyes, and Miss Emma got a chair, I gave her a chair, and she

Page 1215

sat right down beside her sister, and that was in the forenoon, I should say then after nine o'clock.

Q. How long did they continue to sit together?
A. They sat there till Mr. Jennings came to my door, somewheres about eleven o'clock, or after eleven o'clock.

Q. During the time that the two sisters sat that way did Miss Lizzie speak to her sister at all?
A. No sir, not any more that forenoon.

Q. Did she turn her face to her in any way?
A. No, sir, she did not.

Now please try the link to go to the "Legal Timeline" at the website:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... yLegal.htm

I don't know who "Linder" is right off-hand.
But the Preliminary Hearing was supposed to start Monday, August 22, 1892. On August 17th, Lizzie was returned to Fall River jail for the examination, from Taunton. The new date set for the Preliminary Hearing was August 25th.

The event Mrs. Reagan tells about did happen the eve of the postponed Hearing, the 24th.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:25 pm

I believe "Linder" may be a reference to Dr. Douglas O. Linder of THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW.......correct ?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... count.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... pre20.html

Tracy...

regofam · Post by **regofam** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:27 pm

The Linder source is Douglas Linder, who is the author of a section on famous trials, here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... nhome.html

One of his sources is the Lizzie Andrew Borden Society.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:09 pm

Looks like you two passed each other in posting!

Does he say the 22nd? Because quite a few sources do say that.

regofam · Post by **regofam** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:43 pm

OK, so the day before the Preliminary Hearing started, according to Mrs. Reagan, Emma and Lizzie were talking, and something Emma said caused Lizzie to accuse Emma of giving her away.

This was trial testimony of Day 9, taking place on June 14. In the cross-examination by Jennings, Mrs. Reagan is first rattled by some questions about who came to visit Lizzie later in the same day, which she can't answer to Jennings' satisfaction, and then she is asked a long string of questions about whether or not she had earlier denied that the "quarrel" had actually occurred. By the time the cross-examination is over (and the re-direct, and the re-cross), Mrs. Reagan's credibility is diminished, probably, in the eyes of the jury.

It certainly didn't help that she told a Fall River Globe reporter about the "quarrrel" on the day it happened, and it was splashed all over the papers the next day.

A truly curious exchange takes place between Mrs. Reagan and Jennings, when she brings up another tidbit that bears on the "quarrel".

Q. (By Mr. Jennings.) How long did Miss Emma remain that morning in the room?
A. She remained, sir, from twenty minutes of nine o'clock until you came to the door.

Q. And where did she go then?
A. She went right home, I suppose. She went out of the room and down the stairs and you asked when she was going out, "Have you told all to Lizzie?" And she says, "Yes, all I had to tell." That was the words you said to her when she was going out.

Q. I said that?
A. Yes, sir; you did. I was standing right beside you when you said it.

This is a tantalizing hint that something in conversations between Jennings and Emma were distressing to Lizzie. Did Emma tell Jennings something that Lizzie preferred to keep from him? Did Jennings ask Emma to tell Lizzie "all [she] had to tell" as a way of keeping their stories straight?

In many descriptions of the Lizzie Borden case, it is said that the prosecution did not follow up on certain threads of evidence. Is this one of them? Was Emma ever questioned about what she told Lizzie that morning of August 24?

These questions might be answered if that law office which contains the defense records would ever open them up. Not bloody likely, though.

regofam · Post by **regofam** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:47 pm

Lots of crossings today, all because I'm avoiding doing my taxes.

Yes, Linder gives the Preliminary Hearing dates as Aug. 22-23. That's why I initailly wondered if Emma said something in the hearing on the 23rd that Lizzie found out about and was upset. Now that I know the hearing did not take place until later, I'm guessing that in preparation for the hearing, Emma and Jennings discussed something that Lizzie did not want discussed.

But it's all just conjecture - one of those things that has no documentation.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:49 pm

BTW: Thank you for the link, Tracy.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:57 pm

In my "Emma" article in The Hatchet I surmised that something common happened that maybe was blown up out of proportion by these people:
That Jennings visited Emma at home, got her full, unabridged story - maybe as you too think?- and then when it was time for Emma to visit Lizzie she let her know that she had talked candidly to the lawyer, as is customary- whereby Jennings might very well ask of Emma- please fill him in on anything and he will be better able to mount a defense.
The newspepers gave the impression that Jennings visited Emma at home, then Jennings visited Lizzie. That was how Lizzie found out he had spoken to Emma.
Then Emma went to the jail unknowing that Lizzie had taken the news badly.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:24 pm

If Emma "told all she had to tell" to Lizzie, and if that was the only conversation which took place, it somehow included Jennings because he asked specifically about it. Lizzie's response was to pointedly ignore Emma (an example of Lizzie's "repellent disposition", per Hiram Harrington?) after stating that she would not budge from her contention. I would think it had something to do with the case, what else would Jennings be involved in at the time with Lizzie? Lizzie seemed to think it had to do with something Emma was aware of or could confirm. Does it seem odd that Lizzie would think that Emma might "give her away", even if she could?

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:34 pm

If Lizzie did say that, it strikes me as somewhat ambiguous. It is conceivable that she was not admitting guilt, but was saying that she felt that Emma had sold her out. (I hope that makes sense.)

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:14 pm

Hi gang, sorry for the long absence, I had an adware virus thing on my computer and was afraid if I posted that I'd spread it. Finally got rid of the darn thing!

Anyhoo, its interesting to me about the timing of Emma and Lizzie's argument being right before the Preliminaries. Emma didn't testify during that session, but the thought hit me, Alice Russell did. Could Emma have told Jennings about Lizzie destroying the Bedford cord dress that Alice witnessed? In case Alice did decide to bring it up, Jennings would need to be up to date in his info.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:52 pm

Hi Susan!
It could be that- it could be that in combination with a lot of things.
Maybe there is something we don't know about- like the hatchet we hear rumors of that Lizzie bought ready to take to Marion. That was supposedly in the letter she wrote to her friend, Miss Johnston, who got rid of the letter.*
That's what I mean by things we don't know about. Maybe Emma saw Lizzie washing her stockings, etc.

*Rebello, 64:
It was Miss Johnston who received a letter from Lizzie the day of the Borden murders. She destroyed the letter because it, "contained reference to something which in the opinion of the young woman [Miss Johnston] ... that might, in the light of subsequent events, be misconstrued." Boston Advertiser, August 24, 1893.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:18 am

Maybe Emma was in deep denial so that she could live with herself. She may have unconsciously pushed out the idea in her mind that she could have influenced Lizzie in her thinking regarding Abby. If she would allow herself to entertain the thought that Lizzie might be guilty, then she may have had to admit to herself that she could have indirectly caused the murders.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:44 am

There are a lot of good possibilities being brought up! Kat is correct, the conversation could be in reference to almost anything. If the mentality at the time included a reluctance to be the one person coming forward with incriminating evidence which would put Lizzie away, I have to wonder how much incriminating evidence there actually was. Imagine having or knowing something which would prove Lizzie guilty and withholding it in the hope that she would be found guilty or someone else would come forward, only to find that she had gotten away with it. How many people might have wanted to kick themselves? I have to give Alice Russell credit for her dress burning testimony, that took courage. Or maybe it was just fear that the private detective might rat her out!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:58 am

I don't know if it was courage as much as it may have been fear of getting into trouble herself if she was found to have been withholding evidence.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:39 pm

I think that may be right, Ellen, Alice was in the unique position of having potentially incriminating evidence, and someone else knew she had it.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:37 pm

Well, then if there's any truth to the letter that Lizzie wrote, telling of buying a brand new shiny axe to take on her trip, she surly wasn't planning the murder at the time!!! But on the other hand, IF she and Abby had some words while upstairs that morning, it would make it alot easier to grab the axe from her room, as opposed to going all the way down cellar and back up with it. Just because she destroyed the letter, wouldn't let her off the hook, would it? Wouldn't Knowlton, hearing of such a thing haul her into court to testify? Even years later wouldn't that constitute more evidence to re-open the case? or is Lizzie just free and clear, no matter what turns up?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:05 pm

You guys have read my mind about going into more detail about the *Marion Hatchet.*
I got out this article about 2 weeks ago and it has sat next to me on the desk and now it seems time to post it!

From Terence Duniho.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:19 pm

I must say that, with all the discrepancies from the "official" version of events, reading the early headlines is like a trip to Never-Neverland. Of course, most of this is due to the usual distortions of early reports. But I wonder how many facts they might contain that got squelched later.

For example, there is that matter of John Vinnicum Morse's supposedly having told Porter that he first learned of the murders from a telephone call. (As Porter does not mention this story in his book, but gives Morse's story pretty much according to the "definitive" version, I am inclined to doubt it. Of course, Porter is loaded with errors too.)

There have been errors in the reporting of these events from day one. I wonder how many of the things we "know" about them aren't true (though I do trust the general outline).

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:39 pm

Thanks Kat, that was interesting! Apparently it didn't get very far though, but then again, evidently Lizzie knew how to swing an axe!!

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:35 pm

Thanks for the article, Kat. You're right, there are a great many things that Emma could have spoken about with Mr. Jennings. I was just trying to think of something that she was specifically privy to that might come out later. I wonder, would Emma have known anything about Lizzie buying a new hatchet if that was indeed the case? It didn't seem to me the type of purchase that Lizzie would show off to others like a new hat or dress. That is, outside of the Marion group.

Would Emma know in advance who would be testifying in the Prelims? People who may have heard or seen things while Emma was about the house that she might need some damage control or positive spin put on. Thats why Alice came to my mind.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:39 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that any of the hatchets that were examined in connection with the case were new.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:09 am

I think the man from the farm knew what hatchets and axes that Andrew had.
I had read in another article that it was checked if Lizzie bought a new hatchet.
They checked about that dress pattern too.

I will have a look around for the search made in surrounding towns for a possible purchase by Lizzie. I know they found a suspicious hatchet purchase by a Portuguese but decided it was not relevant.

I know you guys have an appreciation for actual news items.

We keep Terence alive in our memories by using his Collection. It's like he's a part of the discussion. RIP.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:38 am

A letter about a hatchet might have been used in the same way as Eli Bence's testimony concerning poison. There was a legal term for it, something to do with the recency and the presence in a person's mind of a concept or idea. Part of the reason Bence's testimony was excluded was that the Bordens were not poisoned, but a hatchet would be a different story.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:42 am

Or the Trial was being fixed, and there was no need for anything that might jeopardize the required ending.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:58 pm

Is there any official/documented evidence to substantiate the claim of the trial being "fixed" ?

Tracy...

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:26 pm

Does anyone know what happened to regofam...who started this thread ? I am just curious.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:49 pm

Have you checked the statement by the man at the farm in the Witness Statements yet, Constantine? He said one was new.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:01 pm

I just reread it after searching for the words "hatchet," "ax" and "new." (It's from George Seaver's statement and concerns his interview with Frederick Eddy and Alfred Johnson of Swansea, right? Eddy said the large hatchet was "comparatively new.")

What is the supposed date of Lizzie's letter?

(I do believe she was guilty.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:06 pm

I collected some Hatchet info. Not all of it. There was also the Brightman story and the Silvia story. I can't recall if they were the same?
I haven't found the reference to checking Lizzie's movements about buying a new hatchet.

Fall River Globe,
The Fall River Daily Globe, Saturday, August 6, 1892, page 1+

TO THE GRAVE etc.

..."The searchers in Westport yesterday found the horse traders camp and most of its occupants. Among them was a man who fills precisely the description of the man seen by the boy on Thursday noon, the young man on Monday morning, and the Frenchman on Thursday afternoon.

The fellow appeared to be the principal of the traders and was not to be conversed with about trifling matters, or on subjects other than those pertaining to horse trading. He admitted being from the west but refused to say what part of the west. His tribe have the characteristics of men leading a roving life not unlike that of the gypsies. They dress in coarse, heavy garments and live in tents in the woods.

Two New Bedford specials worked this clue all day and they found that the gang had done more or less trading in their city and found a hardware store there where a hatchet was purchased Wednesday by one of the men from Westport. He paid $1.12 for the weapon and the clerk who took some notice of the man, gives a description like unto those given by the Fall River people.

This clue is being worked today for all it is worth and the gang of horse traders will perhaps be called upon to tell where they were on Thursday."

----------

The Boston Globe, Tuesday, September 13, 1892 – 9

POLICE STILL AT WORK.

Pursing Clues in Vicinity of
New Bedford.
Again on the Track of the Hatchet
Used to Kill the Bordens.
Miss Lizzie Showing Great Composure
in Her Unenviable Position.

"FALL RIVER, Sept. 12. – City Marshal Hilliard is absent from this city on his vacation and in search of rest after his month’s hard work on the Borden murder case.

Three officers are still actively engaged in the pursuit of clues and in further strengthening the government’s case against Lizzie Borden. Operations have been carried on in New Bedford and vicinity by the local men and specials from this city.

The State expects to get some very valuable evidence in the eastern section of the county, as the prisoner and some of her intimate friends and acquaintances spent considerable time there.

If there was a conspiracy which worked the death of the Bordens, and there are those high in police circles who are of that opinion, it was hatched and fostered in the neighborhood of the Whaling City.

Recently the police have possessed themselves of the knowledge that if the hatchet, which was produced in court, was not the weapon which committed the deed they are on the track of the one which did.

A few days previous to the murder a member of the family intimated that there was a particular hatchet in the house.

This intimation was given out to a bosom friend, and came about in a most singular way.

This particular hatchet has not been found, and may be it never will appear at the trial, but that it was mentioned and discussed as to its qualities of sharpness there is no doubt.

Lizzie was somewhat given up to letter-writing, and it is a strange fact that most of her letters were destroyed.

There is one which was received by a friend at Marion which may show up in time to furnish a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

In the Taunton jail the prisoner is calm and serene, with apparently nothing to trouble her.

She occupies more or less time in composing letters which she sends to her friends, and which go to prove her seeming indifference to her present unenviable position.

She relies in no small measure, as her letters indicate, upon the interference of Divine Providence on her behalf.

City Marshal Hilliard says that he does not wish to be understood as not being able and willing to go to the ends of the earth on any wild goose chase which may be started."

----

Boston Globe
[Note Famous Date:] Oct. 10, 1892
Calls this portion into question.

HATCHET WHICH KILLED.

Reported that the District Attorney
Has It in His Possession.

"FALL RIVER, Oct. 10. – The Fall River Globe prints the following in its edition tonight:

A man who has been very prominently connected with the Borden case from the beginning states that the district attorney now has in his possession the hatchet which killed the Bordens.

About three weeks ago a gentleman asked Marshal Hilliard why the hunt for the hatchet was not pushed with more vigor. The marshal in the most decisive manner and tone possible, said: 'Don’t let that axe worry you; attend strictly to your business and let others take care of this part of the case.'

The man who made the inquiry was pleased at the expression of the marshal, and well he might have been, for if Mr. Hilliard had chosen to tell what he knew of the hatchet the story would have been very interesting. In this connection it might be well to state that the police officers in the case work individually or by twos, and they never divulge their secrets to other men of the department except the marshal.

So it happens that the marshal alone is the one man who is in possession of all the facts.

A week ago last Friday Bridget Sullivan came to this city from New Bedford and remained until last Saturday. During that time she was in the hands of the police and piloted them to many places on search for evidence. The officer who was assigned to look for the hatchet took his clue from the testimony given by Assistant Marshal Fleet and Dr. Bowen at the preliminary trial. It will be remembered that the two men talked about whether or not Lizzie’s room should be searched, and that after all the room was not diligently searched until the day after the conversation between the doctor and the police of Fall River.

The officer followed up all the possible clues as to the disposition of the instrument after the killing, and was successful. He found what the State will claim was the hatchet used, and it is not one of those taken from the cellar on the day of the murder.

So elated was he at the success of his work that he lost no time in delivering it into the hands of his superiors, and it ultimately went to District Attorney Knowlton and then to Prof. Wood for examination. So well pleased were the authorities with this work they gave confidential notice to the detectives and officers in the case to the effect that they spend no more time in the hunt for the hatchet.

Recently the marshal and the district attorney have held long conferences, and have been in communication with Prof. Wood, possibly upon the matter of the genuineness of the newly-discovered hatchet.
-----

Boston Globe
[Note Date]
STORY OF THE AXE.

Has the State Secured Portions of a
Burned Dress.

"FALL RIVER, Mass., Dec. 3. – The story of the axe printed in Boston this morning is not new. The Fall River Globe published a full account of the finding of the implement referred to on Oct. 11.

An officer of this city was assigned early on the history of the Borden case to look up the weapon, as it was generally believed that the one exhibited at the preliminary trial was not the fatal instrument.

After several days of diligent work his labor was rewarded by the discovery of an old style hatchet, with rounded corners and a square head. It was not of the claw-hammer brand. It had been robbed of its handle by being thrust into the fire and only the charred stub remained in the eye of the blade.

This valuable find was carried by the officer himself to District Attorney Knowlton, and Marshal Hilliard himself never saw it until he visited New Bedford.

At the time of its finding the marshal was away from the city on his vacation.

This hatchet was produced in the grand jury room and the officer who found it told his story.

The jury was, it is alleged, convinced to a man that it was the weapon which did the deed.

The fact that the indictments do not allege that the murder was committed with this particular hatchet is easily explained. It was not found until some weeks after the murders, and neither was it discovered in the Borden house. Mr. Knowlton knew this, and in drawing the indictments he was content to make no specific claim about the hatchet, as the defence might discover that this would be a vulnerable point and make an attempt to set up an alibi for the hatchet.

The district attorney is satisfied that the evidence will convince a trial jury that the hatchet is the identical weapon used.

It is also alleged upon good authority that valuable evidence was submitted to the effect that the State had in its possession parts of a burned garment – a dress – which is held to be the one which the perpetrator of the crime wore to protect herself from the flying particles of blood.

The State will attempt to show that this dress was bought in New Bedford and worn at the time of the murder and burned in the hot kitchen stove fire immediately after Mr. Borden was killed.
-------

Boston Globe
[Probably Dec. 5th 1892--excerpt]
"They [grand jury] know that Prof. Wood boiled the ragged piece of wood remaining in the hatchet and found no evidence of blood upon it. They know that he examined the blade and found that it had been carefully washed and scraped with ashes, and they know that after all this the skulls of the murdered couple were brought into the jury room, and that the blade of the hatchet fitted exactly into the gashes made by the instrument with which the old couple were murdered.

Then, last of all, they have been made acquainted with the fact that this was a new hatchet, and they know that no special reason for the

Purchase of a New Hatchet

for household use has appeared."

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:08 am

Please see my post of April 10. I cite Rebello, page 64, as commmenting that Miss Johnston rec'd the letter the day of the murders.
BTW: Miss Johnston was a school principal.

"Miss Elizabeth Murray Johnston (1861-1907), a principal at the Broadway School in Fall River and Sunday school teacher at Central Congregational Church."

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:44 pm

I have yet to find anything on the police checking if Lizzie bought a hatchet in the surrounding area. I may be mixing that up with a search for her possibly trying to aquire poison in other towns- but somehow I don't think so. I may just be wrong about a recent hatchet purchase by Lizzie as a possibility...

regofam · Post by **regofam** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:44 pm

This is for Tracy - sorry for the public post but I can't send a private message because I have too few posts (wipes a tear). Thanks for asking. I'm here, I'm fine - taxes are done and mailed on time...

Just been busy lately, no time to visit. I have been reading the Lizzie Borden Sourcebook, with newspaper clippings. Lots of errors in reporting, but it gives color, and has given me a few things to think about.

I appreciate all these responses, because I am very curious about Lizzie's activities in the week before the murders. At the beginning of my Lizzie journey, it was as though the case began at 9 a.m. Now it's clear that things were in motion for some time before Aug. 4.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:06 pm

Thanks for the response. You do not have to have a certain number of posts to send PM's. You do have to have a certain number of posts to get access to the Privy.

Tracy...

regofam · Post by **regofam** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:11 pm

Hi Tracy - well, when I tried to send a private email, that was the message I got. Hey, now I'm up to 11!

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:19 pm

Hmm...maybe Kat would know what's up with that. I haven't ever been aware of a post reqirement for PM's.

Tracy...

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:39 pm

theebmonique @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:19 pm wrote:Hmm...maybe Kat would know what's up with that. I haven't ever been aware of a post reqirement for PM's.

Tracy...

Tracy, I hope you don't mind if I jump in here...
Susan (regofam) is correct; she will need to submit at least 50 posts, before she will have PM privileges.
Please see the following link for usergroup changes:

viewtopic.php?t=2235

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:50 pm

Well...I'll be damned. I never even thought to check there.

Tracy...

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:49 am

theebmonique @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:50 pm wrote:Well...I'll be damned. I never even thought to check there.

It's O.K., Tracy. I know about the usergroup changes, because, they had a direct effect on me. I was one of the members who were caught in between the previous required number of posts and the current required number of posts, when the criteria for the usergroups changed. Prior to Aug. the 25th, I had submitted the required number of posts and was allowed access to the Lizzie's Privy section of the forum, until the usergroups criteria changes occurred, which then made me ineligible to access this section, that is, until I increased my post count, again, along with the required content of my posts which had to reflect that I was here to discuss the Borden case.

Personally, I think changing the usergroup criteria was a very wise thing for Stefani to do. When you think about it, anyone can submit the required number of posts with one-liners, cheers, and etc., but when the member is required to reflect in their posts that they are here to discuss the Borden case, it makes a big difference.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:40 pm

Kat @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:44 pm wrote:I have yet to find anything on the police checking if Lizzie bought a hatchet in the surrounding area. I may be mixing that up with a search for her possibly trying to aquire poison in other towns- but somehow I don't think so. I may just be wrong about a recent hatchet purchase by Lizzie as a possibility...

Just a couple of thoughts, would a woman purchasing a hatchet seem out of the ordinary at the time? Something a clerk might remember, given the notoriety of the crime? On the other hand, a clerk might not want to be known as the person who sold the murder weapon.

If Lizzie had purchased a hatchet, the existence of a letter implies that it was purchased for some ordinary purpose rather than murder. Otherwise, why write a letter which indicates you've just purchased a hatchet?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:46 pm

Twinsrwe posted partial-

Personally, I think changing the usergroup criteria was a very wise thing for Stefani to do. When you think about it, anyone can submit the required number of posts with one-liners, cheers, and etc., but when the member is required to reflect in their posts that they are here to discuss the Borden case, it makes a big difference.

And we are really so glad that you stayed and posted! Yay!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:06 pm

They are good questions but we really don't know what was in the letter sent to Marion as it no longer existed once Ms. Johnston made her decision not to make it available.

If Lizzie did not say she specifically purchased a hatchet, but rather that she had a sharp hatchet with which to cut the wood at the vacation cottage, would that change anything, I'm wondering?

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:11 am

Kat @ Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:46 pm wrote:Twinsrwe posted partial-
Personally, I think changing the usergroup criteria was a very wise thing for Stefani to do. When you think about it, anyone can submit the required number of posts with one-liners, cheers, and etc., but when the member is required to reflect in their posts that they are here to discuss the Borden case, it makes a big difference.
And we are really so glad that you stayed and posted! Yay!

Thanks, Kat, I appreciate this! I am very glad I stayed.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:55 am

Kat @ Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:06 pm wrote:They are good questions but we really don't know what was in the letter sent to Marion as it no longer existed once Ms. Johnston made her decision not to make it available.

If Lizzie did not say she specifically purchased a hatchet, but rather that she had a sharp hatchet with which to cut the wood at the vacation cottage, would that change anything, I'm wondering?

If Lizzie had written about having a hatchet rather than purchasing one, it still implies knowledge of where to find a hatchet, and knowing the condition of the hatchet implies current or recent knowledge. A lot depends upon how closely in time the letter was written to the murders. It could be argued that the hatchet was sought in anticipation of of the trip rather than for use as a murder weapon, but this is a weaker argument for innocence than having purchased a new hatchet and having written a letter about it. Either way, the presumably "odd" combination of female->hatchet becomes less odd in the minds of jurors.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:12 am

Welll we are the jurors in this instance and I don't think the one in New Bedford heard about the letter. But I'm glad to hear that I have not led anyone astray by my comment that I thought I had read that about the letter to Marion because I cannot yet back up what I said about police investigating that particular lead about Lizzie. Until I come across it again, and if I never do- we can forget I said it.

Now I'm looking for something else I spied recently that fits this topic perfectly but until I find that I better not mention it.

(Watch This Space)

....
Rebello, 64, says the Marion letter was received the day of the murders. Back then letters could be received the same day they were posted.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:21 am

That's right, there was actually quite a bit the courtroom jury didn't see or wasn't allowed to consider. It tends to make our hindsight even more acute than 20/20!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:34 am

Oh Boy! Tell me about it!

I had to read the source documents each about 3 times before I could read the newspaper coverage, so that I had committed to memory what was on oath as fact. I think the news tho is very informative about collateral issues. It's going to be the only way to get the big picture.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:47 am

Under the right conditions, the newspaper coverage can color the information in the correct manner, especially if there is a consensus. To a slight degree, it can be the "body language" missing from the two-dimensional written records. It should be considered in an objective analysis of the case.