Hyman Lubinsky

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:52 pm

Just 2 questions here. Hyman said he saw a woman in the backyard on the day of the murders and it was not Bridget. The woman was wearing a dark colored dress and no hat. Does this collaberate Lizzie's story that she was out in the barn before Andrew was murdered or hurt her alibi? Did Lizzie go out to the privy in the barn to dispose of the murder weapon, or was she helping someone else to kill Andrew? Also, Hyman also lived at the borden residence years later, whats up with that? He was only 16 or 18 years old at the time of the murders, do you think he knows more than what he stated at the time?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:47 pm

Lubinsky said he saw a woman, who was not Bridget, near the steps on the north side of the house. Apparently she was facing the street and seemed to be walking toward the steps. He didn't see her come out of the barn, he only noticed her walking toward the house. He continually used the phrase "from the barn" in his testimony, which can be misleading because it implies he had seen her exit the barn. Lubinsky's insistence upon using that phrase instead of simply "toward the house" in its place makes me wonder if it was intentionally misleading. Anyone walking toward the house was walking away from any number of things, the lumber pile, Dr. Chagnon's house, the pear tree, etc.

Lubinsky's testimony would have corroborated Lizzie's story about being in the barn if he had actually seen her leaving the barn, but the time stated in testimony would have been immediately after Andrew had been killed. It didn't necessarily make Lizzie seem innocent, she could have gone to wash up in the barn and stash the hatchet. She would have been less likely to be seen by Bridget if Bridget had come downstairs early. Lizzie may well have been in the barn that morning. Think about how long it would take to retrieve a hatchet and use it on Andrew, probably not five minutes. The rest of the time, maybe 15-25 minutes could be spent going to and from the barn and cleaning up. I'll bet any one of us could manage that, at least timewise!

DJ · Post by DJ » Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:43 pm

Boy, there's nothing like some reasonable doubt, is there?
And-- to have a witness who can corroborate some of Lizzie's "lookin' for lead in all the wrong places" tale.
Or, at least put her outside the blasted house.
Worth his weight in gold?
Maybe, at least, a free rental.

Personally, I don't think Lizzie ever left the house that a.m., that she did her stashin' down cellar.

But, if Lubinsky was correct, it does make one wonder if she did indeed make it to the barn, and what in fact she did there?

Or, maybe she was hot and hungry and simply stepped out for a breath of fresh air and a little nosh of fresh fruit.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:53 pm

Hi Scott, glad to see you back! If Hyman came forward on his own with that information, right after the murder's, then I'd say he probably saw what he say's he saw. If it wasn't Bridget, then it almost has to be Lizzie. The TIME would then be the most important thing......But then too, Lizzie said she had on her hat, the lady Hyman saw had no hat. Did he actually recognize Lizzie? Did he KNOW Lizzie? In order to see that far back, wouldn't he almost have to be right in front of the driveway that lead's to the barn? I've seen pictures of the house, from a way's down the street and there's no way some one down the block could see their back door, from either direction. Until they pass Mrs. Churchill's on one side and the Borden's house coming the other way. They had to have asked him a million question's, not only what was she wearing, but was she carrying anything, did she appear upset, etc. Maybe he meant she was coming FROM THE DIRECTION of the barn. I've always wondered why they just let his eye witness account just sort of fall by the way, and still went on insisting that Lizzie had never been out to the barn.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:12 pm

I think he knew it was not Bridget, because he had sold ice cream to her before. I wonder why the lawyers didn't press him about the dress she was wearing, since the dress issue was a problem. I would have asked him more details about what she was wearing. He said it was a dark colored dress, but what color? A dark colored dress on a miserably hot day? I still think Lizzie could have disposed of the murder weapon in the privy in the barn, maybe that was what she was doing! I don't think for one minute she was looking for lead or tin, she was out there and needed a reasonable explanation, so she lied.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:17 pm

I don't know why I keep hitting this big brick wall, made of her not being guilty!! lol Of course she probably did it, I know that but still.....It just seems too pat, too easy, and even when things didn't quite fit into the mold of her quilt, it was down played or seemingly ignored. I ask myself, is there a REASONABLE doubt? Actually I believe there is or we all wouldn't be here. Even now today, with all the resources at hand, innocent people are still behind bars. Because of evidense that pointed to them, and apparently, with no doubt. She of course didn't do herself any favor's either.....she didn't have much of an imagination that's for sure. Had her father been murdered by some one else it was done in a matter of minutes, she could have said she was only out side for a few minutes, picking up pears and eating a few, in the shade of the tree. Ten or fifteen minutes, then Hyman seeing her would have been reasonable. The color of her dress, men don't usually notice such things, not really, and for no longer then he'd have seen her......Dr. Bowen ran into the same problem and look how they treated him.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:37 pm

I know what you mean Shakiboo, I believe Lizzie did it, but I often have "what if" moments. I don't believe a word of her testimony, because she told so many lies I can't believe she could keep track of them. I do believe there were some half truths in her answers, but it frustrates me that I can't rely on testimony to draw certain conclusions. I do think that Hyman's testimony of seeing a woman in the back yard confirms she was there, doing what I don't know. It most certainly had to be Lizzie.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:28 pm

Mrs. Churchill described Lizzie's hands as spotlessly clean, apparently no sign of either blood or dirt and grime from handling lead in the barn. This implies that she washed her hands, regardless of which activity she had been engaged in, and yet she never mentioned washing them when describing her activities.

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:46 pm

Yes, Lizzie was just a little TOO clean, wasn't she?

If HL did in fact identify Lizzie, it does support her story about changing into the darker colored Bengalene silk dress (assumedly from the bloodied, paint-stained Bedford-cord cotton dress that she hid and later burned).

I believe Lizzie was wearing that dress during and after Andrew's murder (covered by his coat and standing mostly behind the doorway between the sitting room and the dining room), but not that she was in it all morning. There were so many people who saw her that a.m., it would have been foolish to have attempted a lie of that magnitude.

As for Lizzie being outside and spotted by HL (if, in fact, she was): I wonder whether she was checking the third-floor window to ascertain whether Bridget was up there for her lie-down? Might an open window indicate Bridget's presence on the third floor, green-lighting Lizzie to dispatch Andrew?

Could Lizzie have stepped into the backyard far enough to see the window, then have been spotted walking back to the side door, w/o ever having reached the barn?

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:03 pm

Bridget would know what dress Lizzie was wearing in the morning of the murders and after Andrew was murdered. Too bad we don't have her preliminary testimony. I still think Lizzie was outside to dispose of something, I don't necessarily think Bridget would open her window to lie down and take a nap,it seems the windows would already be open if it was such a hot day to create some sort of breeze, especially upstairs. I know the upstairs in my house gets very hot in the summer, and the downstairs is much cooler. If Lizzie disposed of the murder weapon in the privy in the barn, it is lost forever. Who is going to search there?

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:33 pm

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the privy in the barn searched? Probably not the most pleasant job, but I could swear I recall that it was searched.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:05 pm

If I remember correctly, the privy was thoroughly searched. One of the officers testified to that, apparently they thought it would be an ideal hiding place for the murder weapon.

Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Bowen were the only people who seriously attempted to describe Lizzie's dress. Mrs. Churchill positively described the Bedford cord and Mrs. Bowen described the dress as blue with a white sprig, whatever that means. My understanding of the Bedford cord is that it was a dark blue diamond overprinted on a light blue and white background. I have no idea what the predominant color was, it would depend on the size and spacing of the dark blue diamonds. If the blue diamond pattern was large or closely spaced, it might appear as a predominantly dark blue dress with white or light blue highlights. If that's true, then Mrs. Bowen's description tends to support Mrs. Churchill's description. But, like many other points, it was never pursued sufficiently to make a solid determination.

DJ · Post by DJ » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:08 pm

It's too darned bad the crime-scene photogs couldn't have come in right away and photographed Miss Lizzie, before she had a chance to retire upstairs. The lack of testimony regarding what Lizzie was wearing that a.m. is maddening, and what does exist is inconclusive.

Anyway, Mr. Lubinsky served his purpose, as we are still debating the accuracy of his testimony. He certainly cast doubt in Lizzie's favor, that her barn story could be true, at least in the jurors' minds. A true gift to the Defense.

I still hold to my window theory as a possibility: When I sleep upstairs in an un-air-conditioned room in my mother's almost-hundred-year-old house, I generally start the night with the window raised, then close it when the room cools off. I don't raise it again until later the next day, if I'm going to be in the room for any length of time.

Bridget might have had a similar practice, especially as she awoke before dawn and the room might have felt more comfortable with the windows closed. Then, later in the day, she probably would have raised them. It's my understanding that Bridget did not return to her bedroom from the time she came downstairs until she went up for her lie-down.

If Lizzie were attempting to ascertain that Bridget made it back to her bedroom, the raised window could have been a telltale sign, and could have explained Lizzie's stepping outside to "make sure" before she dispatched Andrew. That would have placed her in the yard about the time HL said he saw her, walking toward the side door.

By this scenario, Lizzie never went to the barn. She just went in the backyard far enough to look at the upstairs windows.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:11 pm

SallyG wrote:If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the privy in the barn searched? Probably not the most pleasant job, but I could swear I recall that it was searched.

Come on, SallyG, that must have been fun in that heated barn.

Pass the gas mask, please.

Yes, indeed it was searched.

Witness statements, p38, Officer Desmond:

"From there, we went and searched he barn, lumber pile, yard, privy vault and well, also John Crowe's yard which is on south side of Borden house"

Officer Edson at the Trial (p673)

"Q. Is there anything more you wish to say about the barn?
A. We searched the out-house in the barn, the vault underneath the out-house."

Hilliard. p416, from the Prelim:

"A ....From there we went, or I went to the well, or what was the well, but it has been filled up. From there I went to the rear end of the barn, and looked into a vault that was there. From that I went into the barn, up where they were overhauling the hay. ..."

Also, newspaper reporter Stevens said he looked into the vault.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:52 pm

I expect people accustomed to using outdoor facilities would be less squeamish about searching them. The police were likely aware of the value of such facilities for disposing of a murder weapon, too. Still, I wonder if they drew straws to see who had the honor? Imagine having to handle a hatchet if they had found one!

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:26 pm

I seriously doubt it was well searched. Yuk!

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 11:10 am

I wonder how it was constructed, they call it a vault, exactly what would that be? My Grandfather had an out house, would that be the same thing? If so it was a small little house built over a hole dug into the ground, with a box with holes cut into it to sit on. But the way it worked, only the solid waste remained, because the liquid was absorbed into the ground. When it reached a certain level, a new hole was dug, the out house moved to it and the old one was covered. My point, if it operated like that, Lizzie would have had to actually shove the hatchet down into the muck to keep it from being seen. or it would have just stayed on top. Especially if it wasn't used very much. And if she did shove it down, it would still be close to the surface, and easily found. But even so, they looked through where the privy had been when the barn was torn down years later, didn't they? and didn't find anything.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 11:39 am

I've always understood that a vault toilet had a chamber lined with concrete, although they might have used bricks or something else at that time. They are designed to be emptied whenever necessary. The one in the Borden barn was stationary, impossible to relocate it without rebuilding it completely. I'm familiar with the other movable type, I've had to relocate a couple of those over the years at hunting camps. The use of lime cuts down the odor significantly, by the way. If the toilet in the barn was a vault type, it was designed to be emptied and would not have been a very good permanent hiding place for a hatchet. I doubt that anyone would want to stash the hatchet there temporarily, only having to retrieve it and move it later.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:03 pm

This conversation brings to mind Constance Kent. She stashed not the murder weapon, but the body of her murdered brother in the privy.It was drained and thoroughly searched.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 6:35 pm

Do we know if the privy was drained dry? I don't think it was.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 6:57 pm

A body?? Some one actually stuck a body in one??!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:45 pm

According to all the accounts I've read on the case, the privy was indeed drained.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 11:30 pm

I've always thought a good way to hide a hatchet would be to remove the handle, then take the hatchet head outdoors and step or pound it into the dirt, blade first. If the grass in the yard was of sufficient length, no one would ever find it without a metal detector!

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:58 am

Allen, are you referring to the Borden's vault as being completely drained? I'd think that if it was the kind that needed cleaned out, then that's what they would do, in order to check and see if the hatchet was in there. It would still be a nasty job, but one that could be done alot easier then first thought. Jeff, I think that's an excellant idea as to what she could have done with the blade! But what then would it require for her to get the handle off? How much time would it take? How much mess would it have made? etc. I'm betting you could get the job done in a few minutes! But Lizzie, not so quick.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:17 am

Lizzie might have removed the handle in the barn, and the best way would be to saw it either completely off, or nearly off and break it the rest of the way. Sawdust might be less conspicuous in the barn, might even go unnoticed. A dozen or so strokes with a sharp saw would probably get through it. Drive the blade into a piece of wood to hold it, something sturdy like a bench top or a chopping block, cut the handle, and tap the head loose from the wood. If there was a chopping block in the barn, and I'll bet there was if kindling was chopped occasionally, the sawdust might well go unnoticed. The chopping block would be a short section of tree trunk, fairly large and heavy, upon which firewood was set on end to be split for kindling. I'll bet I could do it in under a minute if I had the tools at hand, might take five minutes if I had to look around a bit for a saw. The barn would have been ideal for this, Bridget wouldn't have heard any chopping or sawing or handles breaking.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:31 am

One thing to remember from Lizzie's perspective at the time she first told people of going to the barn is that she didn't know who might have seen and recognized her, if she had actually been to the barn. Mrs. Churchill might have looked out and seen her coming or going, so might anyone else living at the Churchill house. Any of the neighbors might have seen her, or any passers by. It would be far better to admit going to the barn and run the risk that no one had seen her, than to say she hadn't been outdoors and have witnesses say they saw her going to or from the barn.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:50 am

Allen wrote:According to all the accounts I've read on the case, the privy was indeed drained.

From the Aug. 6th, Boston Advertiser:

"... An old well was partially dug up and a vault was cleaned out. ..."

The Evening Standard of Aug. 6th:

"...The police hunted in a vault and an old well, but found nothing. ..."

The Boston Globe of Aug. 6th:

"... Two officers instituted a search for this gory tool. There is an old vault in the rear yard, covered over with loose boards. These the officers removed and carefully disturbed and examined the mass of old papers and accumulated rubbish it contained. Nothing was found, nor any indication that an axe had been concealed there. ..."

I think we can safely rule out the privy vault as a hiding place.

DJ · Post by DJ » Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:59 pm

Lizzie had to put herself out of the house when Andrew was murdered-- I do think she came up with the story of the barn before she dispatched him. Furthermore, she was most likely hoping it would seem as if Abby were killed during the same period, even though there's no blood trail from upstairs to the sitting-room couch.

She may have gone to the barn, but I doubt it.

Yes, what if Mrs. Churchill or someone else had espied her in transit, then caught up with her?

Trying to conceal a hatchet. The jig would have been up then and there. Too risky.

If Hyman Lubinsky saw Lizzie walking toward the house-- well, I still like my "checking Bridget's windows" story. He did not place her at the barn, after all.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:42 pm

Okay, so we can rule out the privy as a hiding place. I am still wondering how it came about that Hyman later lived at the Borden residence. Isn't it a bit strange he would live there knowing what happened and testifying at the trial? I guess I am trying to connect dots that can't be connected?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:24 pm

That's a great question, Scott. According to Rebello's book (p88) he resided at the house in 1917-1919. The Borden sisters sold the house in June 1918, so he did live there a portion of the time the sisters still owned it. Wonder if it was rent free for that period.

Rebello (same page) also shows him being born in Russia in 1876, making him 16 at the time of the murders and 41-43 while residing at the house. His age has always been a subject of debate and Rebello has this note:

"Note: Various birth dates for Mr. Lubinsky were reported in the federal census for 1900, 1910, 1920 and Mr. Lubinsky's death record. In 1892, a newspaper reported Mr. Lubinsky's age as eighteen."

However, our Shelley (please come back!) located Lubinsky's grave and his stone shows the year of birth as 1868 making him 24 at the time of the murders and 49-51 while residing at the house. See her fine blog site article at:

http://lizziebordenwarpsandwefts.com/20 ... e-defense/

I'm inclined to believe grave stones.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:38 pm

Thanks for the reply Harry! It isinteresting that he lived there while the sisters still owned the property. Why would Lizzie allow that after he testified he saw her in the yard the day of the murders?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:51 pm

His testimony lent credence to her alibi that she was absent from the house at the time her father was murdered.

Granted he didn't say it was her that he saw but it certainly made her story at least possible.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:33 pm

If it wasn't Lizzie or Bridgett that Hyman saw, who then could it have been? After seeing LIzzie at the inquest he'd have known whether or not it was her wouldn't he? It wasn't that great a distance from where he was to where he saw her. I'm really surprised he didn't pick up on more..... Lizzie said she had on a hat, but he didn't see one, why would Lizzie say she had on a hat if in fact she didn't? I always wondered about the ironing board she had set up on the table, no one ever mentions if they saw that or not. It's always the little things that seem to count, lol.

patsy · Post by **patsy** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:45 pm

I wonder how good his eye sight was. What if he saw a man in a long dark coat. Just sayin'

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:10 pm

Lubinsky apparently got a good enough look to determine it wasn't Bridget, so it was something more than just a passing glance. I don't think he elaborated as to how he knew it wasn't Bridget, hair color, relative height, whatever it might have been. Unless the woman he saw was markedly different from Bridget in some obvious way, he must have seen her face fairly well.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:16 pm

Come to think of it, if Lubinsky had enough time to see someone and determine it wasn't Bridget, the woman he saw would probably have realized she had been seen by Lubinsky. She might not know who she saw driving the wagon by name, but only that someone had seen her. If it was Lizzie, she would have had to say she had been in the barn if she knew for sure she had been seen.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:07 pm

yes that's true, Jeff, but what if she wasn't in the barn, and was actually some where else in the yard? He didn't see her coming out of the barn, only coming from the direction of the barn. If she had hidden the hatchet somewhere out-side she wouldn't have pointed in that direction, she'd have pointed away from where she had really been, wouldn't she? Back to Hyman, wouldn't they have tried to verify who he had actually seen? Apparently he wasn't a sixteen year old kid, but a twenty-four year old man, and that makes a difference, I think. I still don't get the hat thing either, unless she had it on when she went out and took it off while out-side and was carrying it and just didn't remember doing so. I still think trying to remember every little thing when there's no reason to do so, then being asked repeatedly to do so, would cause alot of discrepinsies (sp) hate it when I can't remember how to spell a word!!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:24 pm

If she hid the hatchet outdoors somewhere, pointing to the barn is misleading. She might not have been aware she wasn't seen leaving the barn at first, actually not until Lubinsky came forward. It's odd Lubinsky wasn't asked to try to identify Lizzie as the woman he saw. He got a good enough look at her to know who she wasn't, maybe he could say who she was if he knew what Lizzie looked like. The hat is a mystery, why would she put on a hat to go to the barn? If she wanted to cover her head in a dusty barn, wouldn't she have worn a shawl or scarf of some kind? It seems like a scarf might be cleaned a bit easier than a hat, and it would be less expensive to replace if it was soiled beyond repair.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:56 pm

That whole thing doesn't make any sense, why would she lie about wearing a hat? If Hyman saw HER, she wasn't wearing one. Wish they'd have tried to check into what he saw! Even pinning down the time he saw her would have been a big help. And if everyone on the street, during that time was questioned, some one would have been able to point to the time they saw him coming down the street! Ok, back to the barn, if she had worn that hat because the barn was so dusty, wouldn't she have had some of it on her clothes? Hand's? Shoes? What was she really doing out there? She wasn't up in the loft, as there was no tracks in the dust on the floor. She made it out to the barn, yard or where ever it was she went, with no one seeing her, and if he hadn't have happend by at that exact time, no one would have seen her. Or any one else who happend to be out there, actually.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:05 pm

If Lizzie had been handling lead or boxes of various items, she would likely have at least gotten her hands dirty. Mrs. Churchill testified that her hands were spotless, regardless of what she had been up to. If she had time to wash barn grime off her hands, then she had time to was blood off her hands.

It would have taken about as long to wash the hatchet and hide it indoors as it would to hide it outdoors. To my mind, it might have been worth the risk to carry the hatchet outdoors wrapped in a cloth or towel and either tossing it over the fence to look like an intruder dropped it climbing over the fence, or cut the handle off and pound the head in the yard. If the police found the hatchet hidden in the house, it would not look good for her. Probably the smartest move would be to simply drop the hatchet on the floor next to Andrew, because if no attempt was made to hide it, who cares if they found it? Just the lack of a murder weapon is telling, either it was an inside job, or an intruder who doesn't care if he is seen running away from the Borden house in broad daylight carrying a hatchet took the time to wipe the blade clean!

Neither side wanted Lubinsky to elaborate to any extent, the defense had just enough from him to corroborate that a woman was seen walking toward the rear door at about the time Lizzie said she came in from the barn. That was all they needed. The prosecution should have pursued it further, but they did not. Ultimately it made little difference if Lizzie had gone to the barn, she still could have killed Abby and Andrew, and who cares where she washed her hands? I have some serious questions about the prosecution's motivations during the trial, but in this instance, maybe they thought Lubinsky's testimony was shaky as it stood and pursuing it would make him look more credible, but who knows?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:14 am

I have always had a very hard time with Lubinsky's trial testimony. It doesn't agree in several things with a newspaper article of the 8th when he was first heard of. This is a portion of the article from what I believe is the Fall River Evening News:

"... He [Lubinsky] is apparently straightforward in his statements, and as he could have no interest in saying that he has seen what he has not seen, the account he gave this afternoon of what he saw last Thursday is of importance. He relates that while riding in his cart past Andrew J. Borden's house, at half past 10 a.m., on Thursday, he noticed a woman walking from the barn to the door on the north side of the house, which she entered. The woman was, he thought, a little taller than himself; that is, about 5 feet 4 inches; was bare-headed; wore brown or dark clothes - he didn't take particular notice which; and had one hand on her hip, and the other hanging or swinging; that she walked at an ordinary gait; that he did not know who she was, and did not remember that he had ever seen her before; that the woman was not Bridget Sullivan, to whom he once sold ice cream at the house, and whom he could identify if she passed. ..."

His trial testimony.

The time, p1409, Vol II:

Q. Can you tell about what time it was when you left the stable?
A. It was after eleven.
Q. How much after eleven?
A. Well, a few minutes after eleven.

Entering the house, p1410:

Page 1410

Q. Did you see her go in the house?
A. I don't know; I couldn't tell this.

Could Lizzie's blue dress, either the Bedford Cord or the one she turned over to the police, be taken for "brown or dark clothes"?

Undoubtedly Lizzie's defense team was aware of the Lubinsky interview in the newspaper but they don't seem to have taken advantage of it for on the 10th Lizzie gave her testimony about the hat. She should have not even mentioned the hat or said she wasn't wearing one.

Lubinsky in his trial testimony says he told Officer Mullaly his story on the 6th but didn't tell Phillips, Jennings' assistant, until 2 weeks after the Inquest.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:22 am

patsy wrote:I wonder how good his eye sight was. What if he saw a man in a long dark coat. Just sayin'

And an overwhelming odor that causes one to faint.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:41 pm

He doesn't even mention the color of her hair! Wasn't Lizzie's kinda reddish? The sun was shining and that should have really stood out, and How can you mistake blue of any color for brown? It was a sunny day right? She would have been on the north side of the house, and it would have been in the sun, right? Close to noon it would have been almost directly over head. A few minutes after 11, wouldn't that be about the time Lizzie was yelling up at Bridgett? Your right Harry, the overwhelming odor thingy would have fit right in.........lol

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:16 pm

This is part of officer Mullaly's testimony just after Lubinsky was questioned at the trial, and referring to Lubinsky:

Q. You mean he told you on the 8th day of August?
A. Yes, on the 8th day of August.
Q. What day did he say he was coming down, on the day of the murder?
A. I will tell you as I go along. This was on the 8th day of August that he reported to me;
and he said he was coming down Second Street, and as he got along by the Borden house he saw a lady
pass from the barn to the house of Mr. Borden's; and he said it was 10.30 at that time; he
was positive that it was 10.30.
Q. Did you make any memorandum of that conversation?
A. I did; sir.
Q. Have you it here?
A. Yes, sir; it is on my book.
Q. Will you let me see it?
A. (Producing book) There it is right there.

Apparently, the newspaper article got the time right at 10:30am, at least that was what Lubinsky was saying shortly after the murders. At the trial, Lubinsky said he left the stable a few minutes after 11:00am and his reason for noticing the time was that he was late that day. 10:30 was his usual departure time.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:10 am

Then the actual time that he was coming down the street, is still up in the air! How could they have let that happen? I mean, some one had to have seen him, surely there was some one to say, "I saw Hyman coming down the street, just as I was sweeping off the front steps, thought I might get me some ice cream, but it was too close to lunch." or what-ever. Even Lizzie should have jumped on that, she could have waved at him and then calmly walked out and bought herself some ice cream and maybe even chatted a few minutes, about the hot weather and how good the ice cream was, then said something like "oh my I didn't realize how close to lunch it was, hope I don't ruin my lunch, gosh, it's already after eleven!" Oh, well.......

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:43 am

As I understand it, Lubinsky was driving an empty wagon to wherever he picked up the ice cream, he had to load the wagon before making his rounds. Someone at that location might have remembered, especially if Lubinsky was running late. Someone at the stable might have remembered the occasion for the same reason. I have to agree, the testimony is very questionable since two different times are given. Which one, if either, do you believe? If Lubinsky was mistaken about the time, he may have been mistaken about who he saw, it might have been Bridget. I'd have to say Lubinsky's testimony at the trial is very likely a fabrication. If he was running late and checked his watch as a result, then he was well aware of when he left the stable. There would have been absolutely no reason to say he left at 10:30 to any one at any time.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:28 am

If Lubinsky saw someone walking from the barn to the house, and if he saw her entering the house, he must have gotten more than a passing glance at her. Since his wagon was empty at the time, he had no ice cream to sell, he was not looking at her as a potential customer at that moment. Idle curiosity was the only motivation. The stairway to the north door of the Borden house would have partially obscured his view for at least some of the time. His ability to estimate her height at that distance is questionable, although 5'4" for a woman is an extremely safe guess, by any standards. The values of light and shadow would likely make identification of the dress color difficult if the woman was in shadow when he saw her. Hat or no hat is simple enough, but what about hair color, at least light or dark?

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:05 pm

Wonder what color Bridgett's dress was? He said he knew her or at least what she looked like and it wasn't her. I can't think of one reason why he'd lie about it, deliberately anyway. Which way was he heading, coming from the Kelly side or from the Churchill side?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:14 pm

Lubinsky said he was headed downhill on Second Street, so he was moving north when he passed the Borden house, from the Kelly side to the Churchill side. If he didn't lie, then he was mistaken. If he was mistaken, then what is the value of his testimony?

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:21 pm

If he was mistaken, then there is no value. But that just doesn't ring true, some-how. He came forward on his own to tell them what he'd seen, he couldn't know if what he said was going to help or harm anyone. But, by the time he testified he'd have known, and that's when he changed the time. Why? I guess it doesn't matter, once again, there's no way to prove it one way or the other......it is what it is. But from Lizzie's prospective, she'd have had to see him going by, especially if she'd have just murdered her father, she'd have been on full alert, checking to see if anyone saw her or if anyone else was around, like the neighbors looking out there window's etc, But she didn't back up his story either.