"That was the first I knew of their deaths.”

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri May 02, 2014 4:50 pm

Let's imagine that now it is september 11th 2001, you and your wife / husband are watching in direct the breaking news service in TV, about the World Tread Center attack... now (let's imagine that) is a advertising break time, would you say to your wife / husband: "Oh my dear, that was the first I knew of this attack."?

Now let's have a look at Morse's witness statment, given in August 4th, 1892: he said to the policeman J. Fleet :" ... (I) was told that Mr. and Mrs. Borden was killed. That was the first I knew of their deaths.”. (Witness Statement, p. 3) It's true that the witness statement is only a second hand source, but since Fleet used the quotation marks, I don't think I have the right to doubt its authenticity (maybe one or two words could not have been what Morse said, but the meaning of the last whole phrase should have been what Morse meant.)

Immediately after hearing about an event that had just occured, we don't need to say, we don't say indeed: it was the first I knew of it, do we? (please see above 9/11 attack as example).

I strongly doubt: Morse said so, because someone had informed him about the murder (the executive killer would have somehow told him: "I finished, now you can return home"), because he himself organized the murder (so he forsaw the two victims' destiny). But, unconciously Morse wanted to protect himself by a lie, therefore, he said: "That was the first I knew of their deaths. (Before that moment I didn't know nothing. I am lying, but you, Mr. Fleet, you don't know that I am lying.)"

Any thoughts?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri May 02, 2014 6:05 pm

I agree when you point out that Morse behaved strangely on the day of the murders and perhaps afterward as well. But from everything I read, behaving strangely was how he behaved all the time. This wasn't a break in character; it was The Real John Morse. My youngest child has high-functioning autism which (not considering developmental history) looks exactly Asperger Syndrome. I am not making a retrospective diagnosis on Morse, but I am saying that the world is filled with odd people who behave oddly on a daily basis. Sue can tell you what a person said, wore and ate on some day back in 1998. Her Aspie friend is a walking phone book: just ask for a number and he can pull it out of memory. Neither of them have good social skills, and it's possible if someone they loved dearly were to be murdered that their first response would be to take pictures! Taking one snippet of behavior out of context of their daily lives can be very misleading. Plus, people faced with great trauma behave in inexplicable ways.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri May 02, 2014 6:12 pm

We today don't use that kind of language, Franz, (nor did people in 2001.) Victorian speech patterns and their use of a more formal vocabulary can come across as stilted and stiff to a modern reader. I don't find anything suspicious about what John Morse said, and as far as we know, Fleet didn't either.

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Fri May 02, 2014 6:22 pm

It is a good point-- if indeed Morse did say it. Why mention it being the first time you've heard of their death? It would be different if he had been back home in Iowa and some officials came to question him and he was surprised at the questions and stated such.

We do need to remember-- if we have the case solved in our own minds-- there is little room for discussion.

I do find it odd--- and am going to look through my documents. I recently converted them from PDF to put on my tablet which makes it easier to search!

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri May 02, 2014 6:42 pm

Oh my friends, please. Please, at least this time, please don't tell me that because Morse was an eccentric man!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri May 02, 2014 7:06 pm

I've taken a look at the witness statements Franz, and what Morse actually said, after describing returning to Second St, was "....got to Mr Borden's house about or near twelve o' clock". (In fact we know it was a bit earlier.) "Saw a number of persons around the house, and was told that Mr and Mrs Borden were killed. That was the first I knew of their deaths."

In fact he is saying, in his 19th century form of speech, that he hadn't heard of the killings before he arrived at no 92, that he hadn't heard people discussing it on the street, in the street car, that no policeman had come up to him on his arrival and informed him of the deaths. I don't think that making mysteries where there are none is overly helpful, Franz.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri May 02, 2014 7:20 pm

Curryong wrote:I've taken a look at the witness statements Franz, and what Morse actually said, after describing returning to Second St, was "....got to Mr Borden's house about or near twelve o' clock". (In fact we know it was a bit earlier.) "Saw a number of persons around the house, and was told that Mr and Mrs Borden were killed. That was the first I knew of their deaths."

In fact he is saying, in his 19th century form of speech, that he hadn't heard of the killings before he arrived at no 92, that he hadn't heard people discussing it on the street, in the street car, that no policeman had come up to him on his arrival and informed him of the deaths. I don't think that making mysteries where there are none is overly helpful, Franz.

Curryong, I see what you are saying.

However, Morse didn't need to say that phrase at all. If he didn't say that last phrase, no one would speculate that could not be the first he knew of their deaths. If, for example, Fleet had asked him: "Was that the first you knew of their deaths?", and Morse: "(Yes), that was the first I knew of their deaths." This should be a natural thing, but this didn't happen. Or, if Some one had informed Morse before he arrived home, Morse could add this information, saying: "Mr. Fleet, indeed that wasn't the first I knew of their deaths, while I was returing home, a gentlman who had past the home had told me the murder." But this was not the case either.

Curryong, if you don't think his phrase suspicious, Franz does.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri May 02, 2014 7:46 pm

How do we know what bits of conversation Fleet or Harrington were having with Morse before that particular statement you're so interested in came up? The police, when they are questioning witnesses, don't sit there completely dumb. One of the other of them might have said quite casually in the course of conversing "and when did you first hear of the deaths?" without actually putting their contribution down on paper.

Take a look at many of the witness statements, Bridget's for example, of October, where she speaks about being unhappy at the Josiah Hunts'. It's perfectly clear there that she is replying to banter/jovial questioning. Or mrs Churchill with her reluctance to say anything at first about her neighbours. It's quite clear that most of the witnesses are responding to what is being asked. Why should John Morse be any different?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri May 02, 2014 8:00 pm

So Morse is standing there with pear juice drizzling off his chin looking nonplussed at the turn of events. Of course he might say that. The written word with no other context - inflection, gesture, facial expression, body language, antecedent, situation, personality, remarks from those around him - is impossible to interpret.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri May 02, 2014 8:08 pm

Curryong wrote:How do we know what bits of conversation Fleet or Harrington were having with Morse before that particular statement you're so interested in came up? The police, when they are questioning witnesses, don't sit there completely dumb. One of the other of them might have said quite casually in the course of conversing "and when did you first hear of the deaths?" without actually putting their contribution down on paper.

Take a look at many of the witness statements, Bridget's for example, of October, where she speaks about being unhappy at the Josiah Hunts'. It's perfectly clear there that she is replying to banter/jovial questioning. Or mrs Churchill with her reluctance to say anything at first about her neighbours. It's quite clear that most of the witnesses are responding to what is being asked. Why should John Morse be any different?

You are right, "It's quite clear that most of the witnesses are responding to what is being asked". The same for Morse's witness statement. Here is its second paragraph:

“Where do you live when at home?” “I live at South Dartmouth, have been here about two years. I lived in the West for about twenty years. (Came back two years ago.)” “Have you any idea who did this?” “I cant see who could do this; do not know that he has an enemy in the world.” “Have you seen, or have you heard Bridget or Lizzie say that they had seen anyone around who they suspected’? “No, I have not.”

You see, Curryong, Fleet did register as well his questions. But in the first paragraph, no question. So IMO it's most probablly that Fleet at the begining asked Morse : "tell me your whereabouts, please." something like that, and then, Morse gave his narration in continuation, without being interrupted by any question. So he most probably said the last phrase of the first paragraph without being asked nothing. If Fleet had asked him something before, why didn't he register it (them) just as he did in the second paragraph?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri May 02, 2014 8:25 pm

Because people, even policemen, don't always do what they're supposed to, even when putting down questions and answers. Fleet and presumably Harrington were there at the time. We aren't.

If Fleet had thought there was anything at all suspicious about Morse (or his replies) don't you think he would have immediately concentrated on him (as a male enacting a violent crime) rather than Lizzie? Or do you feel that Fleet perversely decided that the genteel middleclass spinster daughter was the more obvious suspect for murder by hatchet?

We can't see the demeanour of those being questioned. The police did. Officer Harrington, at his first meeting with Lizzie instinctively felt that there was something off, that she was lying. Police officers do develop these instincts, but Morse, once his alibi had checked out, doesn't appear to be one of those suspects.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri May 02, 2014 8:45 pm

Curryong wrote: ... but Morse, once his alibi had checked out, doesn't appear to be one of those suspects.

Yes, IMO, Fleet didn't suspect Morse, he didn't suspect that phrase.

Morse had a good alibi and therefore was not suspected. But in my opinion, probably that is just the very reason why the Borden case remains still unsolved!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri May 02, 2014 9:22 pm

Curryong wrote:
We can't see the demeanour of those being questioned. The police did. Officer Harrington, at his first meeting with Lizzie instinctively felt that there was something off, that she was lying. Police officers do develop these instincts, but Morse, once his alibi had checked out, doesn't appear to be one of those suspects.

And of all the police who investigated, Harrington was by far the most observant. For sure when describing dresses and probably about everything else. On one hand we are quick to condemn Morse for remembering everything about his day yet we laud Harrington for exactly the same ability to recall.

Curiousmind2014 · Post by **Curiousmind2014** » Fri May 02, 2014 10:50 pm

Curryong wrote:I've taken a look at the witness statements Franz, and what Morse actually said, after describing returning to Second St, was "....got to Mr Borden's house about or near twelve o' clock". (In fact we know it was a bit earlier.) "Saw a number of persons around the house, and was told that Mr and Mrs Borden were killed. That was the first I knew of their deaths."

In fact he is saying, in his 19th century form of speech, that he hadn't heard of the killings before he arrived at no 92, that he hadn't heard people discussing it on the street, in the street car, that no policeman had come up to him on his arrival and informed him of the deaths. I don't think that making mysteries where there are none is overly helpful, Franz.

Isn't this Uncle Morse the same guy who was as precise as a GPS to give his Alibi. But when it comes to arrival at their house, its "maybe 12", "I didn't notice many people around the house". I find it totally contradicting.. Unless someone wants to tell me that he is "eccentric" or he is just "weird".

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri May 02, 2014 11:05 pm

He was certainly a very strange man. That doesn't mean he was involved in murder.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat May 03, 2014 2:14 am

debbiediablo wrote: ... On one hand we are quick to condemn Morse for remembering everything about his day yet we laud Harrington for exactly the same ability to recall.

If you want to compare Morse and Harrington, well, this is mine:

Harrington was a policeman. When he was at the Borden house, he was in duty to investigate a murder case, so he must have been very attentive to everything he saw, he heard, because he should know that every little detail could be important for the investigation. He did what his duty requested him to do, maybe better than his colleagues.

But Morse?

Indeed, IMO, what you said just indicates that Morse was very suspicious.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat May 03, 2014 2:23 am

Curryong wrote:He was certainly a very strange man. That doesn't mean he was involved in murder.

No one is saying: Morse was a strange man, this means he was involved in murder. No one is saying this.

Even a strange person could commit a crime, right? So we have the same right to discuss the possibility of his guilt, just as for any other character involved in the case.

And, another word: Curryong, if you think Morse was just strange and had nothing to do with the murder, you can definitively eliminate his name from your suspects list (if you had such a list). But in my suspects list Morse is number 1, Lizzie number 2.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat May 03, 2014 2:37 am

Curryong wrote:Because people, even policemen, don't always do what they're supposed to, even when putting down questions and answers...

In anyway the witness statement is there: before Morse's that phrase there is not registered any question.

Therefore, in my opinion we can't say that it's more probable that Fleet asked and didn't register his question, than that he didn't ask at all.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat May 03, 2014 2:37 am

sorry, double post.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat May 03, 2014 3:19 am

I was thinking more in the sense of being sinister or so odd that he would be automatically suspected of murder. I wouldn't be so unkind as to drop the ecc....ic word into our conversation!

However, unconventional in his ways as John Morse undoubtedly was, he was questioned by the police, probably on several occasions. He does not appear to have been suspected by them of any crime and had an ironclad alibi.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sat May 03, 2014 5:29 am

Franz, dear friend...this is what DRIVES ME CRAZY about your 'logic' You pick an innocent phrase or quote, and build a whole idea. "That was the first I heard of the murders" could innocently mean "I've heard of them a million times since that moment, but THAT WAS THE FIRST. You were not there, didn't hear what else was said before or after, what voice inflection, I'm saying that you can't pick out one tiny phrase and make a mountain out of it. This was over 100 years ago, Victorian English with Bostonian colloquialisms being interpreted by a Chinese man in Italy!!!!!!!!! YIKES, don't over interpret b/c you will loose massive amounts of subtlety in the multiple translations!!!! I am an American, who has a fluent handle on Modern English, and I have difficulty with subtle nuances of 100 years ago with MY OWN LANGUAGE! You dear friend do a wonderful job communicating in our language-one of the most difficult to learn on earth- but don't get the microscope out and question a single Victorian phrase.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat May 03, 2014 6:02 am

PossumPie wrote:Franz, dear friend...this is what DRIVES ME CRAZY about your 'logic' You pick an innocent phrase or quote...

You think that phrase innocent, me suspicious. We have different ideas, that's fun.

But if I drive you crazy with my different idea, with your different idea you drive me happy, my dear friend. Merci beaucoup!

(P.S.: Anthony is American-English-speaking as well. Please discuss with him and other English speaking members about the English historic linguistics. I am not competent in this field.)

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat May 03, 2014 10:00 am

Curryong wrote:... I wouldn't be so unkind as to drop the ecc....ic word into our conversation!

...

I love you, Curryong!

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Sat May 03, 2014 4:11 pm

I do think there might be some meat to this-- it is an odd thing to say and I hate to outright dismiss it without some speculation

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat May 03, 2014 4:30 pm

Aamartin wrote:I do think there might be some meat to this-- it is an odd thing to say and I hate to outright dismiss it without some speculation

Oh, so, speculate as you like. I love you, Anthony!

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat May 03, 2014 4:44 pm

Anthony, you certainly know much better than me that call reportedly received by Morse that morning, don't you?

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sat May 03, 2014 6:24 pm

"Got up about six o’clock this morning, got breakfast about seven o’clock, stopped in the house
till about 8.40 A. M. Leaving Mr. Borden at the door, went to the Post Office, wrote a letter from there,
went as far as Third street on Bedford, from Third to Pleasant street, through Pleasant street to No. 4
Weybosset. Street, arriving there about 9.30 A. M. Saw relatives from the West. Remained at the house
from 9.30 to 11:20 A. M., or thereabouts. Left, taking horse car, and stopped at the corner of Pleasant
and Second streets, and got to Mr. Borden’s house about or near twelve o’clock. Saw a number of
persons around the house, and was told that Mr. and Mrs. Borden was killed. That was the first I knew
of their deaths.”

In context of this long explanation of what he did...the statement "That was the first I knew of their deaths" makes more sense...He is going down a list of activities of the morning, culminating with the first time he heard of the deaths...no big mystery.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat May 03, 2014 6:55 pm

PossumPie wrote:...

In context of this long explanation of what he did...the statement "That was the first I knew of their deaths" makes more sense...He is going down a list of activities of the morning, culminating with the first time he heard of the deaths...no big mystery.

Very well.

I beg your pardon: I will continue with my doubt. You certainly forgive me, because you are not here to convince me of something, right, PossumPie?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat May 03, 2014 7:30 pm

Are you insinuating, Franz, that John Morse received a telephone call shortly after the murders, (while he was still downtown)? He strongly denied that in a later newspaper interview, you know.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sun May 04, 2014 12:59 am

PossumPie, IMO, your explanation is weak, very weak.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun May 04, 2014 2:10 am

Curiousmind2014 wrote:
Isn't this Uncle Morse the same guy who was as precise as a GPS to give his Alibi. But when it comes to arrival at their house, its "maybe 12", "I didn't notice many people around the house". I find it totally contradicting.. Unless someone wants to tell me that he is "eccentric" or he is just "weird".

Look above at Possum's post as Morse describes his morning. ALL of his time frames are defined by "maybe", "around" and "about" so saying he arrived back at the Borden's at "maybe 12" is no different than he described his entire morning.

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Sun May 04, 2014 4:06 am

Franz wrote:Anthony, you certainly know much better than me that call reportedly received by Morse that morning, don't you?

I don't have any opinion about that call at this time...

But I do think that unless we explore different possibilities-- the forum will slowly grind to a halt.

We know the broad strokes-- but maybe it's time to really look at the testimony, statements, etc VERY closely and in more detail.

If Morse stated that to the officer-- it IS odd--even considering the grammar and language of the time

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun May 04, 2014 5:22 am

What do you think about John Morse's part in the Borden case, Anthony? Do you feel that he knew more than he ever said, or was an innocent man?

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sun May 04, 2014 6:23 am

Aamartin wrote:
Franz wrote:Anthony, you certainly know much better than me that call reportedly received by Morse that morning, don't you?
I don't have any opinion about that call at this time...

But I do think that unless we explore different possibilities-- the forum will slowly grind to a halt.

We know the broad strokes-- but maybe it's time to really look at the testimony, statements, etc VERY closely and in more detail.

If Morse stated that to the officer-- it IS odd--even considering the grammar and language of the time

This forum is all about considering other possibilities...but doing so by presenting both sides. If we pick apart all of the primary documents with a dictionary, thesaurus and a microscope we can find mountains of 'suspicious' phrases. People were stressed, people said things perhaps in an awkward manner, it was a different mode of speech back then, people were MIS-QUOTED and then spent time trying to deny the mis-quote, only lending more suspicion. Building a good theory is not about a single phrase, or idea, then making an entire theory of guilt, it is about stepping back and looking at patterns, whole conversations, and motives and saying, Hmmm..this looks suspicious.
A while back President Obama said his grandmother was "A typical white woman" HOLY CRAP! If a white president had said someone was a "Typical Black" there would be riots. It was stupid to say, BUT we have to step back and say in general look at his policies and realize he is NOT a racist, he just made an unfortunate statement. Taking one statement and building a theory is dangerous.

I truly am not here to be a thorn in anyone's side, I generally disagree evenly with things about Lizzie that seem trite, or nit-picky as often as I do about other theories. You are right, a few weeks ago, the only ones posting here all agreed on most facts, and it was boring. But don't assume that because I criticize someone's theory that it should make for unpleasantness.
Analysis of the infamous "Bay of Pigs" fiasco during Kennedy's time analyzed how intelligent people can attend a meeting, hear a ridiculous suggestion, and for the sake of agreement, nobody had the guts to say, "wait, this is just stupid" It was the low point of JFK's term in office.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sun May 04, 2014 9:15 am

Aamartin wrote: ...

We know the broad strokes-- but maybe it's time to really look at the testimony, statements, etc VERY closely and in more detail.

If Morse stated that to the officer-- it IS odd--even considering the grammar and language of the time

1. Ages ago I suggested that you --- most of you are English speaking --- could make a psycological linguistic study about Lizzie's inquest testimony. And assuming that she was innocent, if we could explain those so called oddness in some of her answers. An example: if innocent, she should be the most person desoriented by the fact that Abby, after having told her to have received a note, etc., was found dead with her house clothes in the guest room, the note itself never found, so Lizzie should be the most confused person of all. Could her reluctance, hesitation, etc. be explained by her psycological state? I suggested to you to do such a study, but it seems that no one did nothing.

2. I don't permit me to doubt at all the authenticity of this testimony: the officer Fleet put Morse's words into quotation marks. Why did Fleet want to invent such a phrase, please?

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sun May 04, 2014 3:43 pm

PossumPie wrote:
... Building a good theory is not about a single phrase, or idea, then making an entire theory of guilt, it is about stepping back and looking at patterns, whole conversations, and motives and saying, Hmmm..this looks suspicious...

I totally agree with you. But you know, in one thread it's difficult to discuss all. It should be better to focus on one point.

That's why I posted 9 threads about Morse. And this subject is still very very far from being sufficiently discussed, IMO.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Mon May 05, 2014 2:13 am

Aamartin wrote:
... maybe it's time to really look at the testimony, statements, etc VERY closely and in more detail.

Anthony, here is another example, that I posted under another thread, but my reply didn't draw any attention, maybe you all judged it insignificant:

Lizzie's Inquest Testimony:

Q: Miss Borden, did you burn the dress in question because you murdered your stepmother, then your father, and the dress was stained with their blood, following your assault?
A: Are you accusing me of murdering Father and Mrs. Borden?...

You see, chronologically Abby was killed first, Andrew second (about one hour and a half later). Knowlton followed this order, asking: "...because you murdered your stepmother, then your father..." But Lizzie, in her (immediate) reply, didn't follow the murder's chronological order, she followed "intimity" order and the chronological order of the discoveries of the two bodies: "...murdering Father and Mrs. Borden?"

Does it make any sense if you check out to see if Lizzie said always "father and Mrs. Borden", never following the murder chronology? Certainly, this detail could mean nothing; but it could mean as well that Lizzie considered the double murder always from the point of view of someone stranger to the murder. The real killer might have followed, unconciously, the murder chronology (because he / she knew better than anyone else that Abby was killed first, Andrew second), saying "Mrs. Borden and Mr. Borden (father)". You see, Knowlton was prosecutor, so, professionally, he said "...your stepmother, then your father.." but Lizzie, while immediately answering to him, didn't follow him.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon May 05, 2014 4:49 am

Maybe Franz it was because, subconsciously, or even consciously, because her father meant very more to her than her much detested stepmother, she therefore she put him first? You can almost sense the dislike and antipathy towards Abby in much of Lizzie and Emma's testimony. It says 'this woman was my father's wife yes, but she was nothing, less than nothing, to me!' I don't think you need to be a believer in Lizzie's guilt to read that testimony and get that feeling.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Mon May 05, 2014 5:10 am

Curryong wrote:Maybe Franz it was because, subconsciously, or even consciously, because her father meant very more to her than her much detested stepmother, she therefore she put him first? You can almost sense the dislike and antipathy towards Abby in much of Lizzie and Emma's testimony. It says 'this woman was my father's wife yes, but she was nothing, less than nothing, to me!' I don't think you need to be a believer in Lizzie's guilt to read that testimony and get that feeling.

I agree with you. You know Curryong, for one and the same fact, we can make different explanations, and any explanation couldn't disprove others.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon May 05, 2014 5:39 am

I've made the analogy before, in the eloquent words of astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson: If you try to read a book by placing the pages under a microscope, you will only see wood fibers and expanses of black ink. If you try to read it from across the room, you will not see the individual words. One must be just the right distance to read and comprehend the words.

When I first got my Master's in Psychology, I thought that every word people said was full of subconscious meaning. NOT true. Sometimes we just mean what we mean, and words get in the way. Psychology is a "soft science" meaning it is 85% Bull Crap 25% science.
Sometimes a word is just ill-chosen and a dream is just a dream. If I took the time to go back through the thousands of words you have posted, I bet I could form some hypotheses about you from individual words you've used...

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon May 05, 2014 6:17 am

PossumPie wrote:... When I first got my Master's in Psychology, I thought that every word people said was full of subconscious meaning. NOT true. Sometimes we just mean what we mean, and words get in the way. Psychology is a "soft science" meaning it is 85% Bull Crap 25% science. ...

Good point, Possum.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon May 05, 2014 6:19 am

Franz wrote:...
Lizzie's Inquest Testimony:

Q: Miss Borden, did you burn the dress in question because you murdered your stepmother, then your father, and the dress was stained with their blood, following your assault?
A: Are you accusing me of murdering Father and Mrs. Borden?...

The thing I find more interesting than Lizzie putting her father first, is the fact that she didn't actually answer the question. In other words, she avoided answering the question by asking another question. If the dress she burned did not have blood stains on it, then she could have simply said something like, 'No, I burned the dress because it had paint on it'.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Mon May 05, 2014 6:38 am

twinsrwe, if you assume --- even only for one moment --- that Lizzie was innocent --- IMO you would find that Lizzie's these two answers had nothing of wrong.

If you don't want to assume this, it's OK as well for me.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon May 05, 2014 6:49 am

Franz, it makes no difference if Lizzie was innocent or guilty - she didn't answer the question.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Mon May 05, 2014 6:52 am

If I were Lizzie and innocent, I would have answered in that way as well. Certainly I could have answered in a different manner, too. But her manner doesn't trouble me at all.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Mon May 05, 2014 8:01 am

twinsrwe, if Lizzie, to these two questions, had answered simply "no", would you think that she had answered the questions?

And if she had answered in this manner, she would seem more guilty to me.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon May 05, 2014 9:24 am

Franz, we can discuss the 'what if's' until we are blue in the face. The fact still remains: Lizzie did not answer the question.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:06 am

twinsrwe wrote:Franz, we can discuss the 'what if's' until we are blue in the face. The fact still remains: Lizzie did not answer the question.

Well, I give up.

I think "no" is an answer, "Are you accusing me of murdering Father and Mrs. Borden?" is an answer as well. A suspect could choose not to answe at all, his / her silence is another type of answer. And this doesn't prove nothing.

An anarchist could choose not to answer to the authorities, because of his political philosophy, and could be meanwhile the most innocent person of the world.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Mon May 05, 2014 3:00 pm

PossumPie wrote: ...
When I first got my Master's in Psychology, I thought that every word people said was full of subconscious meaning. NOT true. Sometimes we just mean what we mean, and words get in the way....

Well said, PossumPie: "Sometimes..."

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Mon May 05, 2014 3:29 pm

PossumPie wrote: ... If I took the time to go back through the thousands of words you have posted, I bet I could form some hypotheses about you from individual words you've used...

You have a training in psycology, I permit me to suggest to you and any other member competent in this field, to take time to go back through the thousands of words said by the characters involved in the Borden case. Maybe you would make great discoveries. I agree with Anthony: it's the time to analyse really carefully, profoundly, very scientifically - linguistically, psycologically, criminologically, etc., with meticulous care, every word, every phrase.