Why I believe Lizzie is innocent!

Cherish · Post by **Cherish** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:32 pm

I would like to post a few reasons why I believe Lizzie is innocent of the murders:

1. Her demeanor. If she had committed the murders, I think she would of done more "acting", and not been as cool and calm as she was.

2. No blood on her dress or person. True, many speculate that she bathed and changed her dress, but her father's wounds were fresh and blood was seeping from the wounds, so the murder had just happened. If she would of bathed and changed, his blood wouldn't of been seeping like that and some would of dried. Also, she burned a dress in the stove, yes, but she did it in front of someone (can't remember exactly who), and I don't think she would of been that stupid to burn a dress in front of a witness if she were quilty. She had paint on it, and burned it for an innocent reason, which is why it didn't matter if someone saw her or not.

3. The letter that Lizzie said that Abby received. In "Lizzie Didn't Do It", Masterton reveals that he (or a collegue) interviewed Sarah Whitehead's (Abby's sister) daughter. Apparently, Sarah sent the letter stating something along these lines....."I'm sorry to hear that you are sick. I will take the kids with me to the picnic." Abby was suppose to watch her niece that day while Sarah attended the picnic, and she likely went out to her sister's house to say that she felt better and that she wanted to watch her niece. The undigested food in Abby's stomach were consistant with that of mince pie, something that Abby made and sent to Sarah, and was not served at the Borden home for breakfast. Sarah's daughter talks about how she loved Abby's pies! Sarah likely already left for the picnic with the kids, so Abby helped herself to a piece of the pie she made and gave them, and then maybe took a nap (or whatever) and then went home.

4. Regarding Abby's blood coagulating: We know that her body was found second. Lizzie, Mrs. Churchhill, Dr. Bowen, and others had gathered around Andrew. Is it known how much time had passed before Abby's body was found? Her blood had time to coagulate, I assume?

5. The hatchet in question was found to have animal blood on it, not Abby's and Andrew's.

6. Whoever killed Abby had to be considerably taller than her, as indicated by the blows to her head. I don't believe that she was on the floor tucking in sheets, as her legs were straight when her body was found, and not bent at the knees as when one kneels down.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:47 pm

Hello, Cherish! A belated welcome to the Forum!

I am interested to know how many books you've read on Lizzie and, if you can remember, what they were?

Cherish · Post by **Cherish** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:15 pm

Hi Augusta! Thank you for the welcome and for replying to my post.

I have read Lizzie Didn't Do It, and also Crime Library, and other bits on the internet, tv shows, etc. I am currently reading Lizzie Borden by Arnold R. Brown.

I'm not convinced that she did it.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:26 pm

Look at it from this stand point. Maybe the reason she was so cool and calm is because she had time to clean up and relax. She did burn a dress which she claimed had red paint on it; it could have been blood.

As for the letter Lizzie claimed Abby got, it was never found.

A late welcome to the forum.

Cherish · Post by **Cherish** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:23 pm

Thank you, Snokkums.

Although the letter was never found, Sarah's daughter claimed that her mother wrote the letter and knew of it's contents. It seems to me she was 7 yrs old, maybe older, at the time, but I am not certain.

I don't think she had time to clean up and relax, since Andrew's wounds and blood were fresh. Also, she would of been sweating most likely, and her hair would of been wet, as they didn't have hair dryers and such back then.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:27 am

Good points, Snookums.

Cherish - I really enjoyed Masterton's book. His sense of humor throughout it was refreshing.

Sarah ("Bertie") Whitehead's little girl, Abbie, was interviewed by Robert Sullivan in the 1970's when she was about 90 years old. His book on the case is "Goodbye, Lizzie Borden". I've never read it because it sounds like it's dry and full of legal-ese.

Abbie had never been interviewed before Sullivan, regarding the Bordens. He talked to her in 1972, and she told him about an incident of Lizzie killing one of Abby's cats. ('Goodbye Lizzie Borden', pages 4 and 23.) She did not talk to him about the infamous note.

Was Masterton's writing about the note hypothetical? Was he just musing?

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:32 pm

Since you're starting off by reading two books which opine that Lizzie was innocent, and since you apparently haven't read the other books which are more convinced of her guilt, maybe you should hold off on giving us such a strong, definite opinion until you have more balanced knowledge of the case. As it is, your post seemed as though you were mostly simply parroting Masterton.

As the hotel clerk said, "I welcome you, with reservations."

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:50 pm

That's not very friendly. If I had been greeted with a reply like that when I first came on the forum I would really hesitate to post again. I had some very naive opinions at the time, but everyone was really patient with me.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:34 pm

I agree Angel, everyone was and still is patient with me because I've asked some off the wall questions. However this case has so many fine points it can be a little overwhelming. So Cherish a belated welcome, and keep reading. I was starting to get really confused, so I went directly to the source documents (which I will be in for a long time I'm sure) and any questions have been always answered here in the forum.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:16 am

So, call me a curmudgeon (or something nastier) if you want, but someone had to point out that deciding your position after limited exposure to any issue is naive at best and foolish at worst.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:30 am

OK, you're a curmudgeon.

I think one can give advice without calling someone foolish.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:58 am

Come back, Cherish. Bob is really a sweetheart. I cannot, in good conscience, leave you with Arnold Brown.

Arnold Brown's book has a problem. He - and nobody else - can find one stick of proof of any sort that Andrew Borden had an illegitimate child. Until the day should come that someone may, how can it be believable?

Edward Radin's book "Lizzie Borden, The Untold Story" Simon and Schuster, NY c 1961 is a great one to read. (Except personally I don't agree with his solution to the crimes.) "Forty Whacks" by David Kent (Yankee Books, Emmaus, Pennsylvania, c. 1992) is reliable as well. Edwin Porter's "The Fall River Tragedy" (c. 1893), reprinted by Robert Flynn in the 1980's under the same title, is excellent, but Porter really believed in Lizzie's guilt and I think he left out some parts of the trial? Like the judge's charge to the jury or something. The 1893 version might be on this website under "resources".

And the "resources" that are available for free on this website. There are the police Witness Papers that are fascinating - these are the first times all the people in or nearby the case were formally interviewed and their memory should be fresh, and they are not told they can't say something because an attorney objected.

The Inquest testimony is on this website, too, for free.

Available for sale on CD or in book form are the Preliminary Hearing and the entire trial. Stefani and Kat Koorey and Harry Widdows did them, and they are a 12 on a scale of 1-10. Old newspaper coverage is great, even tho one needs to be wary about the truthfulness of the press then at times. I think there are one or two CD's available thru this website if you go to the "gifts" or shopping area. "The Lizzie Borden Sourcebook" (David Kent, Branden Publishing Co., Boston, MA c. 1992) is a compilation of different newspapers' coverage of the crime, hearings, and trial up to Lizzie's death. Lots of little goodies in these old newspaper articles.

And the magazine Stefani Koorey publishes, "The Hatchet", is a quarterly glossy magazine on all things Lizzie and Victorian. There are still new finds popping up, and great Borden topics are explored by various writers. I heartily suggest that you check out "The Hatchet", accessible thru this website, (LizzieAndrewBorden.com).

And, above all, stick with this Forum. There are many on here who have scoured this case for years. There are fabulous discussions. And no matter how long any of us has studied the case, I think everyone still has some questions - and very interesting thoughts.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:20 am

That was nice, Augusta. I remember that when I had found this forum the only book I had read was Lincoln's. All of you on the forum pointed out the various books and theories to me and it was extremely helpful. It also got me hooked to the case once I had the information from you all on where to look and what to expect.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:55 am

That's great, Angel. Lincoln, huh? That reminds me - Cherish, Victoria Lincoln's "A Private Disgrace" is more fiction than non-fiction. And Frank Spiering's "Lizzie" has some big outright lies in it. Both are good reads, but I found them to add confusion to what I knew about the case that was true.

When I first found the old message board that Lily and Darryl did on Dark Rose, it was intimidating to start posting, when I knew nothing compared to posters there. People were kind, and I learned how important it is to read the source documents (trial, inquest, etc.).

Cherish · Post by **Cherish** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:28 am

I appreciate everyone's feedback, and especially the list of other books to read. I do plan to read books that show Lizzie's guilt.

Of course, the reason why I have chosen the "Lizzie is innocent" books first is because...well....I believe she is innocent. I can't remember every tidbit of information that I've read, or heard, about Lizzie, but I had already drawn the conclusion that she didn't do it. I am, however, skeptical of the Billy Borden theory, but I haven't completely thrown that theory out of my mind.

Bob, to say I am foolish because I don't believe the same way you do is a little harsh. Play nice or stay out of my sandbox. Your opinion is appreciated on a healthy-debate level. Why don't you reply to my list above?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:51 pm

Hi Cherish, add another belated welcome to the Forum!

Always nice to see new members!

I think it is an important point to make that in reading any of the Lizzie books, whether they paint Lizzie guilty or innocent, is that the facts of the case are being filtered through the author. They may choose to focus on certain points and ignore others. And some have theories or "facts" on the case on which they have nothing to back them up. All of which can lead you into muddy waters.

I was hooked on Victoria Lincoln's A Private Disgrace, Lizzie Borden by Daylight. I thought she had all the facts and her theory was the right one, boy, was I mistaken! I had to unlearn pretty much all that I had read in that book. Kat pointed me in the right direction, to all the source documents that are available; the inquest, the trial, the witness statements, etc. All are free for download with the exception of the preliminaries on the Lizzie Borden Virtual Museum and Library site. Here is the link to the page for the downloads:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... uments.htm

The documents all have a search feature so that you can check on areas of interest or in question. In my opinion, it is a good idea to read through all the documents so that you have the basic knowledge of the case and then continue reading the books.

For instance, you could check the source documents for "blood" and discover what the doctors of the day believed about Abby dying first and that she had been dead much longer than Andrew was. From what I was able to find, Abby's body must have been found within a relatively short amount of time.

The call for Andrew's murder came into the police station at 11:15. And by the time that Frances Wixon, a police officer, arrived at the Borden house at or about 11:35, Abby's body had been found already. If Abby had been killed around the same time as Andrew I don't think there would be such a disparity in the condition of their blood.

Francis Wixon's trial testimony, volume one, page 447:

Q. Now go on and tell us all you did and observed with Mr. Borden's body. Or, before that, I want to ask you, Mr. Wixon, have you been anywhere where you have had the occasion to see wounds, fresh and otherwise?
A. I have seen some.

Q. Where was that experience gained?
A. Well, the most of them I saw on Roanoke Island in war times, right after the engagement of armies there.

Q. Now will you go on and give a description of what you saw of Mr. Borden?
A. Mr. Borden?

Q. Yes.
A. I saw him lying upon the sofa with wounds on his face, on the left side of the face; several, I don't know how many.

Q. Can you give any further description of his appearance, or of the appearance of the blood, or anything about that?
A. Well, they looked to me like quite fresh wounds.

Q. Can you give any description of the blood besides saying that it looked fresh?
A. Bright color, the same as I had seen in army wounds.

Q. How was it in reference to thickness?
A. I didn't see any thick blood on his face. I only saw his face.

Q. Had it coagulated at all?
A. I didn't see any.

Q. After you had observed Mr. Borden and the blood upon his face, where did you go?
A. I went upstairs with Dr. Bowen.

Q. What examination, if any, did you make of the body of Mrs. Borden---of the wounds of Mrs. Borden?
A. Very slight. Officer Doherty and myself went up together on the invitation of Dr. Bowen.

Q. Did you notice anything in reference to the blood?
A. I did.

Q. If you examined that, state what the appearance of the blood was?
A. The blood was very dark and coagulated.

Q. Whereabouts was this blood which was dark and coagulated?
A. Under the face. She lay upon the floor face down.

Q. How did its color in darkness or brightness compare with that of Mr. Borden?
A. Oh, it was very dark. I should think-----it looked to me as though it was dark maroon color.

Q. How did its thickness or clotting compare with that of Mr. Borden?
A. Well, I say, I didn't see any thick blood on Mr. Borden at all, but this, it seemed-------well, it looked as though it was thick. I didn't test it. It looked as though there was considerable on the floor and it had thickened up.

edited for spelling-Susan

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:26 am

Excellent post and great advice, Susan!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:29 pm

Welcome to the forum, Cherish! Susan offered some excellent advise about becoming familiar with the primary source documents first. They are the best record we have of the events as they took place. Authors may offer opinion or conjecture freely in their work and at times may stray from the facts. Being familiar with the primary sources allows you to evaluate an author's work from a factual standpoint.

You've found the right place to study the Borden case, and you're not afraid to voice an opinion. So far, so good! Keep up the good work!

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:02 am

Your sandbox, Cherish? When you have spent nearly 40 years researching the case, then you can talk about sandboxes. I am usually a sweetheart (or close), but your attitude is bringing out the scolding professor in me. Also, anything you post on any board is fair game for anyone else to comment upon and perhaps challenge as he or she sees fit.

In any case, all opinions are welcome here, but many of us recall having to deal with an obsessive poster who would ONLY discuss Arnold Brown and drag Brown inyto any conversation. He's history.

Anyway, why didn't I respond to your list? I didn't buy Masterton's theory when I first read the book, and I don't have the time or the energy to repeat why every time a new member arrives.

Also, some of your list items were opinions, such as how you feel Lizzie should have acted if she'd been guilty. My opinion is that her demeanor seems suspect: if she was innocent why did she send the only other living person in the house (she said Abby had a note and was out, right?) away from her after finding a murdered parent, and then remain in the house alone, when the murderer may have been lingering there? My answer is that she knew she wasn't in any danger since she was the culprit. Personally, I've always thought she wanted another peek at Andrew to make sure he was really dead - but that's just one of MY opinions.

I will apologize for the "reservations" joke.

Cherish · Post by **Cherish** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:19 pm

Thanks, Susan for that information. I can hardly wait to read those!

Bob, the sandbox reference was only meant to get a chuckle out of you. I said in a previous post that I plan to read other books that point to Lizzie as the culprit. Although I say that she did not commit the crime, I'm not so stubborn that I can't change my mind. I just haven't come to that conclusion yet.

Regarding Lizzie staying in the house after finding her father, that is a valid point. However, Mrs. Churchill saw her standing by the kitchen door, so perhaps Lizzie was staying close by just in case the killer was inside! :) But anyway, we've heard time and time again that we don't really know how we'd act in a situation until we are actually in that situation.

Do you think she did the deed herself, or just knew who did? Also, since you've researched this for nearly 40 years, then how do you feel about the fact that there was no blood on her person? I know you said that the dress that she burned could of had blood on it, and that's always a possibility, but there were no cuts or blood found on her person. I am curious to know your theory on that. I would love to hear from someone who has researched this mystery for so long.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:59 pm

You're welcome, Cherish. It might seem like a daunting task at first as there is alot of information in the source documents. But, I think once you start reading them you will find them very interesting.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:20 pm

For us old time forum members, lest we forget:

"It wasn't Lizzie or anyone who worked for father."

Cherish, we had a former member who repeated that saying to us ad nauseum. And Browns theory, and Browns theory, and Browns theory, etc.

Yes, do indeed read the primary source documents. You get to read the actual words spoken not what the authors said they said.

Ooops, almost forgot - Welcome, Cherish!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:11 pm

And I did forget!

Welcome, Cherish!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:29 pm

Forget the illegitimate son of Mr. Borden Harwid? How could you, Judy??!!

Welcome to our little corner of the zoo, Cherish!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:58 pm

Some things to keep in mind regarding the supposed lack of blood on Lizzie:

No one seemed to remember Lizzie's dress. Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Bowen attempted to describe it, but they seemed to be describing different dresses. None of the others present remembered the dress. If they can't remember pattern or color, why would they remember stains on the dress? As far as that goes, no one described any dirt or dust from the barn loft on Lizzie either.

Those questioned as to whether Lizzie had any blood on her person responded along the lines of "not that I noticed". This addresses their powers of observation, not the fact of blood or no blood present. The answer implies that there may have been blood present, but they could have overlooked it.

All of this makes perfect sense, Lizzie was considered a victim at the time, not the perpetrator. There was no reason for anyone to look for blood on Lizzie. Their answers were truthful.

I can't find anything to indicate the amount of blood we should expect to find on an axe murderer. A lot? A little? Who knows for sure?

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:30 pm

doug65oh @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:29 pm wrote:Forget the illegitimate son of Mr. Borden Harwid? How could you, Judy??!! ...

Good one Doug!

joe · Post by **joe** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:38 pm

Hi Cherish!
As has been pointed out in this thread, folks on this board are wonderful. I'm still waffling about Lizzie's involvement. And like Augusta suggested, read and remember the freebies that Stephanie has for us. Inquest, etc.
I sorta bought Brown's theory, BTW and sorta bought Masterton's theory. I've read 'em all and then some. If there is somthing you want to know about and are too shy to post, I'd suggest either sending Harry or Kat a private message. They (along with many others -- take you pick) are extremely knowledgeable resources for anything LB related.
Joe

joe · Post by **joe** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:39 pm

Oops! I meant to say "WELCOME, Cherish!"

Cherish · Post by **Cherish** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:27 pm

Thanks, Joe! And many thanks to everyone for your input.

I am absolutely fascinated by this case, probably because it's still an unsolved mystery, and there are so many parties involved that could of done the deed.

mspitstop · Post by **mspitstop** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:23 am

dear cherish,

welcome to the desert island mystery. i've been pondering it for 47 yrs.! i am inclined to agree with you after reading just about everything on the case. i started many years ago with the radin book. then pearson's studies in murder (the polar opposite). and on from there. before it was published, i went to the boston public library and read the trial transcript. THAT is what you should read because, whether or not you think her guilty, you can understand why she was acquitted. the prosecution had no case and knowlton knew it. do read the sullivan book as it is not dry and boring but he is totally convinced of her guilt. i think that the overall best book is kent's "forty whacks". it is the book i would like to have written!

i really began to think she was innocent when i read her inquest testimony. it is the only time we really hear her "voice". i can't help but think that if she were guilty she would have come up with a better and more consistent story of her whereabouts. she did not stay INSIDE the house but by the side door.

there are so many details that support her story: the hat on the table, the mostly ironed hankies in particular.

anyway, enjoy!

DJ · Post by DJ » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:14 pm

Hello, Cherish-- from a neophyte poster.
As with some here, I got "Lizzie on the brain" (whack, whack) when the Elizabeth Montgomery made-for-TV movie aired in '75. Being a babe in arms, practically, at the time, much of it went over my head and not into it, though it still gives me nightmares!
With every book I've read-- and I would recommend the Kent book, too, for balance; it came out in the "centennial" year-- I've been clutching for ledge holds that Lizzie was, indeed, innocent. That's why the Brown book is so inviting!
However, Lizzie had ample motive, available means, and a (freshly washed) window of opportunity. Don't count her out, completely!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:34 am

I'm late reading the rest of this topic. This is when I annoyingly pipe in with updates- sorry! It is to offset any misunderstandings in testimony.
I'm starting at the latest post, but will work back.

There's always talk about Lizzie putting her hat down *on the table* in the dining room. It's in the videos as well. But the table was always kept set for the next meal, and Lizzie only says she put her hat down, but not where.

Lizzie
Inquest
77-78(34-35)
Q. When you came down from the barn, what did you do then?
A. Came into the kitchen.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went into the dining room and laid down my hat.
Q. What did you do then?
A. Opened the sitting room door, and went into the sitting room, or pushed it open; it was not latched.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I found my father, and rushed to the foot of the stairs.
Q. What were you going into the sitting room for?
A. To go up stairs.
Q. What for?
A. To sit down.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Bridget
Preliminary Hearing
Q. Where did she put the ironing board?
A. On the dining room table.
Q. Wherebouts did you say she put the ironing board?
A. On the dining room table.
Q. Was the table in the middle of the room?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Was it set with dishes?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. You kept it set all the time?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. You did not clear it away, and put on a red cloth, or something, but kept it set all the time?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did she lay the ironing board right on the table, or from the table to somethingelse?
A. Right on the table.
Q. Which part of the table was that, do you remember now, near the kitchen door, or what?
A. I should say on the corner of the table. She left it on the dining room table.
Q. Which corner of the table?
A. As she came from the kitchen door in, the same side.
Q. Nearest to the kitchen?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Was this a regular sized ironing board?
A. No Sir, a very small one; it was not the one I used to use.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Also, Lizzie did stay *Inside*- tho yes it was by the back door:

Churchill
Inquest
130
Q. When you looked and saw Lizzie in great distress, the first time, was she standing inside the screen door?
A. That was before I went over, and I was in my own house, and she stood by the screen door.
Q. Outside the door or inside?
A. No Sir, inside, and the door was closed.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:39 am

The first posting has a list and we have been asked to comment on it.
#3. From where do we know that Sarah Whitehead *took the kids to the picnic?* It's my understanding that at least Lil' Abbie was to spend Thursday at another family relations house.
#6. How do we know that whoever killed Abbie was "considerably taller than her?"

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:43 am

It was posted that Lizzie "claimed she had red paint" on her dress [that she burned].
This also is one of those things that keeps being repeated. We know the house was being painted *drab* so where does the *red paint* enter into fact? Anyone know? We once discussed the color of Drab and what color it might look like dried upon a blue dress.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:45 am

It was stated that LiL' Abbie had never been interviewed before Sullivan- I think he even says that? But she did give a story in the newspapers previous to Sullivan's meeting her.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:48 am

Oh and Susan! Thank you for the testimony!

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:34 am

You're welcome, Kat. Always good to put those source docs to good use.

The information in #3 comes from William Masterton's book Lizzie Didn't Do It. He is also the source for the info that Abby's stomach contents were consistent with mincemeat or mince pie.

For the record, here is the contents of Abby's stomach during the autopsy:

Trial, volume 2, page 992, Dr. Edward Wood on the stand:

And upon examination of these contents of the stomach, I found them to consist of partially digested starch, like wheat starch such as would be found in bread or cake or any other food in the making of which wheat flour would be used. There was also a large quantity of partially digested meat, muscular fibre, with the food, and a considerable quantity of oil and some pieces of bread or cake. Some of the pieces of meat were quite sizable pieces, as large for instance a whole pea, and one or two pieces were larger than that,---as large as the end of my forefinger, so that their nature was very readily determined. In addition to this there were a large number of vegetable pulp cells which resembled those of some fruit, or a pulpy vegetable such as a boiled potato, or an apple or pear, and there was also an undigested skin of a vegetable or of a fruit, one piece of which I have removed and have there. (Indicating something held in hand) It looks like the red skin of an apple or pear.

Q. That came from the stomach?
A. Yes, sir, of Mrs. Borden. I have another preparation of that which shows the color more distinctly and which readily shows that it is vegetable fibre. That is sealed between two pieces of glass, so that it may be seen more readily. That is a piece the same as in the bottle,--the little chip that I removed. So far as anything could be determined from the appearance of the food, it was undergoing normal stomach digestion, and from the quantity of the food in the stomach it would---if the digestion had progressed normally in the individual before death, indicate a period of approximately somewhere from two to three hours of digestion from the last meal taken, possibly a little longer than that.

If Abby had a slice of mince pie at Sarah Whitehead's house and napped and came home at a time to be killed right around when Andrew did, there wouldn't have been the two to three hours digestion time.

I'm not really sure how far the Whitehead's house was from the Borden's, but, that slice of pie would have to had been eaten after 9:00 in the morning. Perhaps about 9:15? Nap, come home and be murdered at some point shortly before Andrew, which would put it shortly before 11:00. Maybe about an hour and 45 minutes?

Plus I have researched mincemeat pie recipes, with and without meat and the common denominator in all was raisins. Raisins take 2 hours to be digested, so do potatoes. Pears take 2 and 1/4 hours to digest and apples take 2 and 3/4 hours to digest.

If Abby had eaten mince pie and had less than two hours to digest it, there should have been raisins in her stomach, none were found. In quite a few of the recipes I found they also call for currants. Currants take 2 and 3/4 hours to digest, same as apples, none were found. I don't think there was anything found in Abby's stomach that was in concurrence with mince pie. In my opinion, I don't think there was any mincemeat pie eaten that day.

Food digestion times from Ford Heritage, Composition and Facts about Foods (Mokelumne Hill, Calif.: Health Research).

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:55 am

Kat @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:39 am wrote:The first posting has a list and we have been asked to comment on it.

#3. From where do we know that Sarah Whitehead *took the kids to the picnic?* It's my understanding that at least Lil' Abbie was to spend Thursday at another family relations house.

From Sullivan, page 34+, he quotes little Abby:

"At the last moment there was a change in plans, and I was sent with my brother to [my other aunt's] house, which was next door to the home of Marshal Hilliard in another section of Fall River.
In the late afternoon while I was helping Aunt Lucy wash windows, Marshal Hilliard returned home, and, standing in the yard, informed Aunt Lucy of Aunt Abby's murder. The shock of the news was so great that Aunt Lucy dropped the window on my hand."

I've always secretly enjoyed that dropping of the window.

The aunt, Lucy Cahoon, lived at #28 Whipple Street. Marshal Hilliard did not live on Whipple St. He resided on Durfee St. in 1892. There are several possibilities of who that person may have been.

Officer Albert Chace resided at #34 Whipple
Eli Bence boarded at #21 Whipple
Thomas Kieran boarded at #38

Leander Winslow, who is in the Witness statements, also resided at #28 Whipple the same building as Lucy Cahoon.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:45 am

Yes, the dropping of the window seems a normal human response quite beyond our Lizzie's ken.

I'm glad that the little dust-up didn't stop the discussion, Cherish!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:33 pm

Cherish, you mentioned Lizzie burning the dress in front of a witness earlier. Think about this; why burn the dress at all? Lizzie knew she was suspected at the time, and she didn't know if anyone had taken note of what she was wearing that day. If the dress was only paint stained rather than blood stained, it was one more piece of evidence in Lizzie's favor, one more garment in Lizzie's wardrobe without blood stains. It could only help prove her innocence, so why burn it? It makes more sense to put the dress under lock and key if it was the one she was wearing the day of the murders, it could be described as the one she was wearing by anyone at that point, at least for all Lizzie knew. She would have had plenty of time after the trial to dispose of it, and I can think of one bedroom she could have stored it in that wouldn't be needed anytime soon.

I think the thought that it might be described by anyone led to the burning, it's the only thing that makes sense. For some reason she couldn't let that dress exist any longer, regardless of witnesses present. She had to chance it.

Cemetery Hunter · Post by **Cemetery Hunter** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:39 pm

Several key elements played into this I think. First law enforcement at the time botched the whole case agianst her, weather it had been red paint or blood there would have been no forsenic test at the time to prove other wise. I am inclined to agree with the post before this about the dress what motive did she have to burn it thats my question?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:16 pm

It really doesn't fit under the circumstances, does it? Here's Lizzie, she just finished burying her parents, she's been suspected of murdering them, and what's the first thing she thinks of? "I know! I'll torch my wardrobe!" I have to wonder why she would have even thought of it under the circumstances, she had bigger fish to fry. Emma testified that she suggested Lizzie burn the dress, but that may well have been an attempt to minimize the deed.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:23 pm

The critical thing about the burning of the dress was that it occurred the morning after she was told by Mayor Coughlin and Marshal Hilliard that she was suspected.

IMO, that's way too much of a coincidence.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:29 pm

One other implication in the dress burning, it represented a method of disposing of something permanently. Maybe that was the mindset at the time?

I agree, Harry, the timing was far too coincidental even if we stretch and contort to call the deed justifiable.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:50 am

That's good stuff Susan, once again! Yay! You've gone above and beyond the call of duty! Good stuff too, Harry, with the info on where the Whitehead children were Thursday. Thanks!

Stefani was given the correspondence between Terence and Masterton (both dead now) in Ter's Collection. I should get that out and read it- it's been a while.
But it sounds like Susan has disproved Masterton's mince pie theory.

Mince, back then, was a kind of ground beef, correct?

I'm a bit tired tonight Yooper- I'm sorry- I don't quite understand your point about the dress burning?

Cherish, you mentioned Lizzie burning the dress in front of a witness earlier. Think about this; why burn the dress at all? Lizzie knew she was suspected at the time, and she didn't know if anyone had taken note of what she was wearing that day. If the dress was only paint stained rather than blood stained, it was one more piece of evidence in Lizzie's favor, one more garment in Lizzie's wardrobe without blood stains. It could only help prove her innocence, so why burn it? It makes more sense to put the dress under lock and key if it was the one she was wearing the day of the murders, it could be described as the one she was wearing by anyone at that point, at least for all Lizzie knew. She would have had plenty of time after the trial to dispose of it, and I can think of one bedroom she could have stored it in that wouldn't be needed anytime soon.

I think the thought that it might be described by anyone led to the burning, it's the only thing that makes sense. For some reason she couldn't let that dress exist any longer, regardless of witnesses present. She had to chance it.

--Yooper

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:40 am

The dress was either blood stained, or not, and Lizzie knew the possibility. Someone, possibly several people, could describe the dress Lizzie wore, or no one could, and Lizzie did not know which was true.

If the dress was clean and no one noticed it, it was one more garment in Lizzie's wardrobe without bloodstains. Common sense says keep the dress, it can only further the cause of innocence.

If the dress was clean and someone or several noticed it as the dress she wore immediately after the murders, lock it up! It can only prove her innocence to an even greater degree.

Either way, if the dress contained no bloodstains, there was absolutely no reason to burn it, and good reason to keep it as evidence of innocence. If it was in the way while in the closet, store it under a bed or in the attic. It had been paint stained since right after it was made and wasn't in the way until immediately after the murders?

Only if the dress contained something incriminating, like bloodstains, was there any reason to get rid of it right at that moment.

To anyone, a person recently suspected of murder destroying an article of clothing, which is potentially evidence, looks suspicious. Even Alice "I Don't Remember" Russell knew that, and she actually remembered it! To attempt to do so is a calculated risk with potential witnesses present. The consequences of allowing the dress to remain intact were greater than the consequences of being caught destroying it.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:15 pm

I agree with Yoopers assessment of the dress burning incident. If there was no blood on the dress, and it was indeed paint stained, then why not keep it to show this fact? Why burn the clothing worn the day of the murders? Especially after Lizzie knew she was a suspect? I'm wondering if the idea that the Pinkerton Detective Hanscom would be hanging around might have hastened her decision. Hiring the detective to look into the matter on behalf of the family would've been a display of innocence on Lizzie's part, but that doesn't mean she wasn't secretly terrified he might actually find the evidence of her guilt. The Pinkertons were notorious for solving their cases at whatever cost. It's today's equivalent of having an FBI agent hanging around your house after you've just committed murder. The dress burning took place on Sunday morning. If I remember correctly Hanscom arrived late that very night at the Melon house, and the conversation he had with Alice took place on Monday.

So Lizzie is told she is suspected, burns the dress the next morning, and that night Hanscom arrives in Fall River.

I just finished reading Depraved by Harold Schechter. The references in the book to Hanscom being involved in the H.H. Holmes investigation were very interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Cemetery Hunter · Post by **Cemetery Hunter** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:20 pm

Lizzie was never happy with the life the family lived in her way of thinking they should have been living in an upscale part of town in a nicer home....now weather that was a motive for murder I don't know. I understand Lizzie and her sister got about $100,000 from her fathers life insurance policy did Lizzie know this money was coming if something happened to her father? At that time it would have been more than enough motive for murder but Lizzie had to be convinced she would never be convicted of the crime and how would she know she would not be? Even if she did commit the murders she had to make sure that Andrew and Abby would not live to tell about it.

eprattlbg · Post by **eprattlbg** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:42 pm

As to the dress, the dressmaker (Mary Raymond) testified that the house was being painted at the time she was there making dresses and witnessed Lizzie's dress get paint on it. She described it as "a Bedford Cord, a cheap cotton dress... light blue with a dark figure."

Alice Russell described the dress that Lizzie burned as "...a cheap Bedford cord, light blue ground with a dark figure..."
Rebello, page 114.

AND, I said it before, IMO if Lizzie did it, she didn't have time to change her clothes. Andrew's jugular was cut, there would have been a lot of blood.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:42 pm

Cemetery Hunter @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:20 pm wrote:Lizzie was never happy with the life the family lived in her way of thinking they should have been living in an upscale part of town in a nicer home....now weather that was a motive for murder I don't know. I understand Lizzie and her sister got about $100,000 from her fathers life insurance policy did Lizzie know this money was coming if something happened to her father? At that time it would have been more than enough motive for murder but Lizzie had to be convinced she would never be convicted of the crime and how would she know she would not be? Even if she did commit the murders she had to make sure that Andrew and Abby would not live to tell about it.

There is no record of Andrew or Abby having an insurance policy nor as far as I know a detailed listing of his estate. Andrew's estate consisted of various assets, real estate, stocks, etc. This is from Rebello:

"The Fall River Daily Globe estimated Andrew Borden's worth the day after he was murdered:

Assessor's Office (real estate) $173,650 to $173,650
Personal Estate $175,000 to $250,000

Total Worth $348,650 -$423,650"

Using the inflation calculator this would be worth about $7,950,000 to $9,660,000 in 2007 dollars.