First Instinct

[RayS]

...

b) The murderer kills Abby first, again noiselessly and unheard by Andrew and Bridget, then proceeds to the sitting room and kills Andrew, who groans causing Lizzie, but again, not Bridget, alarm. The murderer exits by the front door, which Lizzie mistakes for Abby's arrival.
...

(Was this taken from the Trial Transcript?)
I believe that Andrew left the house around 9am, before Abby was killed.
Lizzie's question about hearing Abby return was done after Andy's body was found and people were there to hear her. That means she heard a heavy tread going up the back stairs. [My educated surmise.]

[Yooper]

The problem with the "groan" information is that it might be anything. Bridget assumes it has human origin, RayS suggests it could have mechanical origin, and he's right.

Whatever it was, it prompted Lizzie to go in the house.

[Yooper]

...

b) The murderer kills Abby first, again noiselessly and unheard by Andrew and Bridget, then proceeds to the sitting room and kills Andrew, who groans causing Lizzie, but again, not Bridget, alarm. The murderer exits by the front door, which Lizzie mistakes for Abby's arrival.
...

(Was this taken from the Trial Transcript?)
I believe that Andrew left the house around 9am, before Abby was killed.
Lizzie's question about hearing Abby return was done after Andy's body was found and people were there to hear her. That means she heard a heavy tread going up the back stairs. [My educated surmise.]

Just thinking out loud, Ray, sorry for your confusion.

[Kat]

Or Lizzie was present when Abby groaned her final death noise.*
If Abby had no key to the front door then Lizzie most probably knew that. So she could not think Abby had returned by the front door unseen by herself, as she waited by the screen door or in the rear entry hallway. She would not even imagine that- if she knew Abby had no key.

*Lizzie said, also:
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.

All the doors into the sitting room opened into the adjoining room. Opened out of the sitting room.

Lizzie hears a groan? Lizzie pushes a door open? Sounds like the guest room to me.

[Yooper]

Perhaps a Freudian slip on Lizzie's part! Someone (Bridget?) testified that Abby had a side-door key (only?).

What are the odds that Abby had a front door key by Thursday? If it was a matter of having one made, she was sick on Wednesday. If she didn't have a key for the front door, she wouldn't even try the door, because she didn't on Tuesday.

I'm tired of making up excuses for Lizzie!

We have two reliable witnesses, Bridget and Mrs. Churchill, who say that Lizzie heard Abby come in. Bridget heard Lizzie tell Andrew that Abby was out. There is no real opportunity for Abby to have come in. I say Lizzie is lying due to the self-contradiction p & ~p.

[diana]

We're way past this part of the discussion, I know -- but the words "self-contradiction" and reliable witnesses reminded me of something.

In my previous post regarding the divergent impressions of Lizzie's demeanour on the day of the murders, I forgot to include Bridget's take on this.

Although by the time of the trial in June 1893 the maid is staunchly proclaiming she did not see Lizzie cry that day, the defense reminds Bridget she testified differently only a few days after the tragedy.

A portion of Bridget's inquest testimony taken in August of 1892 is then read out to her by stenographer Annie White:
"Q. How did she seem?
A. She seemed to be excited more than I ever saw her.
Q. Was she crying?
A. Yes, she was crying." (Trial 1593)

[Kat]

Meaning: Everyone seems to have had an agenda? No one is especially more believable than anyone else?
If so, I agree. And I can't brng myself to call any one of these people liars.

[Yooper]

I don't expect anyone to agree with the assertion that Lizzie is lying, I would hope that everyone will try to shoot it down! I'm seeking replication, scientific method in a sense, to either prove or disprove the contention! I've written enough mathematical proofs to recognize the value of dissent.

Bridget overheard Lizzie telling Andrew (very slowly) that Abby was out. Bridget was specifically told by Lizzie that Abby was out and to mind the doors if she (Bridget) went out because Lizzie might leave. Bridget goes upstairs, Lizzie to the barn. Lizzie calls Bridget some minutes later saying her father is either hurt or dead, but she needs a doctor. Lizzie asks Mrs. Churchill to come over, and immediately, in response to Mrs. Churchill's questions, says she thought she heard Abby come in. She tells Bridget the same thing sometime shortly after that.

If all of this is true, then what else must also be true?

None of this will put a murder weapon in Lizzie's hand, nor will it suggest a motive.

[Yooper]

Let's throw some gasoline on the fire and say that Bridget's testimony is crucial to all of this, which it seems to be. She is the one person who heard the "Abby's out" statements made. She also testified that Lizzie was upstairs when Andrew arrived.

Lizzie has a noose around her neck, and the other end is in Bridget's hands. If Bridget committed the murders, she is best served by Lizzie's conviction, not her acquittal.

Anyone rightly or wrongly accused or suspected of the murders would definitely have an agenda.

[Yooper]

More random thoughts, "they took" the key away from Abby. What are the possible combinations for the plural "they" in the Borden household? Assume Bridget is not in a position to demand a key from anyone, and Andrew is the only one in a position to demand a key from anyone. From Abby's perspective, Andrew is "he" by himself, and "they" in conjunction with Emma and/or Lizzie. It isn't necessary for Andrew to act in conjunction with anyone to demand a key, so the key was not "surrendered". The key was then "taken" in the sense that it was "hidden". Who did this? There are three possible combinations of two on three and one possible for three on three.

C2(3)=Andrew&Lizzie, Andrew&Emma, Emma&Lizzie.
C3(3)=Andrew&Emma&Lizzie.

Andrew has no need to clandestinely "take" a key, nor does he seem the type to play practical jokes on his wife. Bridget might be fired if she was in on a "practical joke" such as this. What remains?

[diana]

I don't know about Bridget's agenda -- but not only does she contradict other people's recollections -- her own testimony changes over time.

It's obvious that she and Lizzie differ on more than one point. Bridget says Andrew went upstairs when he came home, Lizzie says no. They also disagree on when Lizzie started ironing, and what Bridget was doing when Lizzie came down to breakfast.

Bridget contradicts John Morse. She says Abby gave her the window washing instructions at about 9 a.m. but Morse remembers hearing this somewhere between 7 and 7:30 (Remember that Morse had already gone by 9).

Bridget also says she only washed the windows about twice a month -- but according to Mrs. Churchill, she washed them weekly, and usually on a Thursday. (Churchill, Inquest)

On the day of the murders, Bridget tells a policeman that Abby went upstairs just before nine and came down sometime later for some pillow shams (Witness Statements). Later her story changes to never having seen Abby after they spoke in the dining room at 9 a.m.

At the Preliminary Hearing she says Andrew and Lizzie both took up piles of clothes from the kitchen table on Thursday morning. But at trial, she says the laundry was all put away on Wednesday.

She says Andrew and Abby were in charge of opening the front door when they were home – yet although both were home when Dr. Bowen came on Wednesday morning – it was Bridget who let him in through the front door.....

I've been sloppy with my sourcing in this post ... but all the above is taken from primary documents.

So, although I definitely agree that "Bridget's testimony is crucial to all of this", I'm not convinced it's reliable enough to weigh as heavily as it should.

[Yooper]

I guess the only question I can come up with is; whose testimony is reliable enough to "weigh heavily"?

[Yooper]

Would a woman of that era have gone on a call, such as the one Abby allegedly went on, without a hat, coat, shawl, etc.? If not, where were Abby's garments of that sort kept?

[diana]

Yes, I guess that was my point -- I obviously didn't make it too well. It's likely no one's testimony is reliable enough to outweigh anyone else's.

And although we'd really like to be able to rely on Bridget's testimony simply because of her proximity to the situation, it is studded with contradictions.

As to the question about where Abby kept her shawl etc.:

"Q: Mrs. Borden had her bonnet and shawl downstairs?"
A: Yes Sir, she kept them in the closet in the sitting room; sometimes her common shawl was there.
Q: If she wanted to go out, she could go to the closet in the sitting room and
get her bonnet and shawl without going up stairs?
A: Yes Sir." (Bridget, Preliminary, 61+)

[Yooper]

I think we need to make "best judgments" where testimony is concerned, none of us is perfect and we should keep in mind that neither were people of that era. I'm used to a rigorous environment doing work requiring irrefutable proof. I would like nothing better than to have absolutes to consider, but we can't expect that here. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all have our unique threshold of "reasonable" doubt. This might be tempered by who the individual was, someone like an expert witness might be less easily led by attorneys than someone like Bridget. I expect it might be difficult to hold up under "grilling"!

[Audrey]

Some of the contradictions can be attributed to human nature.

Take today (the day you are reading this) for instance:

1)- What time did the person(s) you live with get up?

2)- What time did they leave the house?

etc...

I got up around 7.30 this morning. Of course it could have been as early as 7.15 or as late as 7.45.

I just cannot say for sure.

I DO know that I was sitting on my patio drinking coffee at 8am. I have a clock that bongs the hours and I always mentally count along with it.... I remember that.

I took a shower anywhere between probably 8.30 and 10am...

Did Thayne go the Con. Store to buy those eggs THIS morning or yesterday morning-- I would have to go count the eggs and then venture a guess. He could probably tell me (?) what day.

[doug65oh]

It's quite true that each of us has to a certain degree a personal threshold as to what does and does not constitute "reasonable doubt." The law of the time, however - and indeed yet today, as the same definition still applies in the Commonwealth and many other Jurisdictions within the United States - had a very clear definition of reasonable doubt. The following was set forth by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the matter of Commonwealth v. John W. Webster 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 295, 320:

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt, is not beyond all possible or imaginary doubt, but such proof as precludes every reasonable hypothesis or theory except that which it tends to support. It is proof to a moral certainty, as distinguished from an absolute certainty. As applied to a judicial trial for crime, the two phrases, beyond reasonable doubt, and, to a moral certainty, are synonymous and equivalent. They mean the same thing. Each has been used by eminent judges to explain the other, and each signifies such proof as satisfies the judgment and conscience of the jury as reasonable men, and applying their reason to the evidence before them, that the crime charged has been committed by the defendant, and so satisfies them as to leave no other reasonable conclusion possible. In other words, they must have as clear and strong a conviction in their own minds of the proof of that conclusion as they would require to have in the truth of a conclusion to be acted on by them in matters of the highest importance to themselves."

I know you're not necessarily talking about reasonable doubt in the legal sense above, but why not extend consideration of a subjective "reasonable doubt" to where the buck really stops, particularly since it was that standard under which the Borden jury operated?

[Yooper]

doug65oh, I'm not sure I understand what you mean, so please correct me if I'm wrong. If we simply accept the standards under which the jury operated, then we must accept their conclusion. Then, what becomes the topic for discussion, what is the point? If we toss out John Morse's testimony because he can't remember ages and dates, then toss out Bridget's testimony if she is contradictory, etc., eventually we're right out of testimony.

Also consider that what we have as far as records are one-dimensional words on "paper". We can't see the busybody with her "attitude", or any kind of body language. We can't hear the "ring" of truth.

Who is comfortable with eliminating Bridget's testimony relative to hearing Lizzie tell Andrew that Abby had gone out, and her testimony that Lizzie told her directly that Abby had gone out, based upon Bridget's contradictions?

[doug65oh]

My point was merely this: Why stop with the "personally unique" standard of reasonable doubt you mentioned earlier? As you suggested (provided I understood you correctly) there's more than a little subjectivity involved in that "personal" standard.

We don't have to accept anything - except the legal definition the jury was given as to "reasonable doubt." It was then (and remains today in many jurisdictions) the operative legal defintion given to juries prior to their deliberations.

That's the one and only thing we accept in this whole business.

My apologies if I confused you, or misinterpreted your statement above.

Edit: Okay, mark this down - I'm officially fascinated. I've just looked up the definition of reasonable doubt as it's given to Michigan juries. It's one of the few I've ever seen that isn't modeled on the Webster charge, or even, it appears, a modified Webster charge.

[Yooper]

What I'm trying to arrive at is just how much subjectivity we get into in our acceptance or rejection of individual testimonies. I think we are trying to make the same point from opposite directions!

Kat provided some testimony from Bridget in the preliminary where she (Bridget) seems to contradict herself concerning the "Abby's in/out" statements. I pointed out that the questions referred to two separate incidents and took place on two separate days, which caused me to question whether they were related. I don't think anything was posted in relation to that since then.

[doug65oh]

Okay, I see your point perfectly now, and I agree with it. I'd say you're right about arriving at the same destination from opposite points! I'm not about to kick though, because I learned something a few minutes ago I didn't know about the reasonable doubt instruction in Michigan.

[Kat]

Mrs. Churchill doesn't say, in her inquest testimony, that Lizzie "immediately...says she thought she heard Abby come in" which is quoting you, yooper. Mrs. Churchill does imply it in her preliminary hearing statement later in the month.
At the inquest she reiterates what she recalls Lizzie to have said but finally states that she's not sure when it was said.

Inquest
Mrs. Churchill
128
Q. Crying?
A. No Sir. I put my hand on her arm, this way, and said “Lizzie, where is your father”? She says “in the sitting room”. I said “where was you when it happened?” She said “I went to the barn to get a piece of iron.” I said “where is your mother”? She says “I dont know, she had a note to go and see some one that was sick this morning, but I dont know but they have killed her too.”...
......
Then she says, 129:
I went with Bridget, because she did not want to go alone. I stood in the door way of the little room while she went to the bureau and took out two sheets. She says to me “is two enough”? I says “I should think a plenty”. We came down stairs, and Dr. Bowen took one, and the other sheet was laid on the dining room table. I am not sure but she handed me both of the sheets, and I laid one on the dining room table. Dr. Bowen went in, I presume he covered up Mr. Borden next. Then Lizzie said she wished someone would go and try to find Mrs. Borden up stairs, so I went with Bridget. ...etc...
...

132
Q. Have you now told all you know of all that happened in your presence with relation to the affair?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. And all that was said in your presence?
A. I cannot tell you when she said it, I am very particular what I tell, she said once she wished somebody would try to find Mrs. Borden because she thought she heard her come in. Whether she sat on the stairs when she said it, I cant tell you. She thought she heard her come in. I cant tell when she told it to me, whether before or after I went after the Doctor; she said it to me.
Q. You are sure you did hear it?
A. O. yes.
Q. Was that the occasion of your going to look for Mrs. Borden?
A. No Sir. After that she said again she wished we would go up stairs and see if we could find Mrs. Borden.
Q. When she said she thought she had heard her come in, was said before she said she wished you would go up stairs?
A. Yes, before that.
Q. Have you now told all that was said in your presence, that you have heard?

[Kat]

The "they" who took Abby's key , going by yooper's reasoning, could very well be Lizzie and Bridget. Bridget is not on the list tho. I don't see why we should arbitrarily leave her off.

I agree that Andrew would not be one to be referred to as "they" by his own wife, Abby, in any consortium. And Emma was away. So "they" sounds very possibly as the duo of Lizzie and Bridget. "They" may have concocted a reason and importuned Abby to give up her key temporarily.

[Yooper]

Mrs. Churchill, Inquest Testimony, p.128:

Q. What was the first thing you did?
A. I went into the house, stepped through to the kitchen, laid my parcels on a bench which runs right across one of the south windows that looks into Mr. Borden’s back yard. At the screen door, standing by the screen door I saw Lizzie as if she was in great distress.
Q. How did she show that?
A. Perhaps she rubbed her head. I knew something was wrong, of course, by the appearance. I opened one of the south windows, one had a screen in and the other did not, I says “what is the matter Lizzie?” She said “O, Mrs. Churchill, do come over, somebody has killed Father.” I went right through the house and went out the front door and went over. When I got there she sat on the second stair which is right at the right of the screen door as you come in, the back stairs.
Q. Crying?
A. No Sir. I put my hand on her arm, this way, and said “Lizzie, where is your father”? She says “in the sitting room”. I said “where was you when it happened?” She said “I went to the barn to get a piece of iron.” I said “where is your mother”? She says “I dont know, she had a note to go and see some one that was sick this morning, but I dont know but they have killed her too.” She said “father must have had an enemy, for we have all been sick, and we think the milk has been poisoned.” The she said “Dr. Bowen is not at home, but I must have a Doctor”. I says “shall I go and try to find someone to go and get a doctor”?


This seems immediate to me, but perhaps not to everyone. I don't think I quoted Mrs. Churchill as saying anything about "immediately", but I could be wrong.

What does the sentence imply? What are the possibilities? What is the point?

[Yooper]

The "they" who took Abby's key , going by yooper's reasoning, could very well be Lizzie and Bridget. Bridget is not on the list tho. I don't see why we should arbitrarily leave her off.

I agree that Andrew would not be one to be referred to as "they" by his own wife, Abby, in any consortium. And Emma was away. So "they" sounds very possibly as the duo of Lizzie and Bridget. "They" may have concocted a reason and importuned Abby to give up her key temporarily.

There was nothing arbitrary about my exclusion of Bridget, I thought I explained why I did that. If you think she should be included, perhaps I was wrong in my assumptions. What is your reasoning, please?

[Kat]

More random thoughts, "they took" the key away from Abby. What are the possible combinations for the plural "they" in the Borden household? Assume Bridget is not in a position to demand a key from anyone, and Andrew is the only one in a position to demand a key from anyone. From Abby's perspective, Andrew is "he" by himself, and "they" in conjunction with Emma and/or Lizzie. It isn't necessary for Andrew to act in conjunction with anyone to demand a key, so the key was not "surrendered". The key was then "taken" in the sense that it was "hidden". Who did this? There are three possible combinations of two on three and one possible for three on three.

C2(3)=Andrew&Lizzie, Andrew&Emma, Emma&Lizzie.
C3(3)=Andrew&Emma&Lizzie.

Andrew has no need to clandestinely "take" a key, nor does he seem the type to play practical jokes on his wife. Bridget might be fired if she was in on a "practical joke" such as this. What remains?

I've made bold within your quote where Bridget is eliminated as part of "they." To me this is arbitrary because there may be a few reasons we can think of why Bridget may very well be one of the "they" who got the key from Abby. Especially since Emma was gone. Emma might be the one who could be left out of the *combination*.

For instance, Lizzie may have been friends with Bridget. It's not impossible because Lizzie's future behaviour towrds her servants shows she lkied them, and if they were loyal to her she was also loyal to then in return, leaving $ in her will, for example. So a combination of Bridget and Lizzie is not so far-fetched that it should be dismissed as not part of the equation.

Also, the key was not "demanded" that we know of.

[Kat]

Trying to be clear here:

Mrs. Churchill, Inquest Testimony, p.128:

... I said “where was you when it happened?” She said “I went to the barn to get a piece of iron.” I said “where is your mother”? She says “I dont know, she had a note to go and see some one that was sick this morning, but I dont know but they have killed her too.” She said “father must have had an enemy, for we have all been sick, and we think the milk has been poisoned.” The she said “Dr. Bowen is not at home, but I must have a Doctor”. I says “shall I go and try to find someone to go and get a doctor”?


This seems immediate to me, but perhaps not to everyone. I don't think I quoted Mrs. Churchill as saying anything about "immediately", but I could be wrong.

What does the sentence imply? What are the possibilities? What is the point?

We had been referring to the phrase *I thought I heard her come in.* And it wasn't Mrs. Churchill who used the word "immediately" it was you. Also, the part you underlined does not include the phrase that she thought she heard her come in.

Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:06 am    Post subject:  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Churchill doesn't say, in her inquest testimony, that Lizzie "immediately...says she thought she heard Abby come in" which is quoting you, yooper. Mrs. Churchill does imply it in her preliminary hearing statement later in the month.
At the inquest she reiterates what she recalls Lizzie to have said but finally states that she's not sure when it was said.

--Kat

[Yooper]

"Taken" might imply demand/surrender, I couldn't rule it out. We still don't know whether it was taken in the sense of hidden or stolen, but it doesn't matter, Abby is without a key either way. I'll include all of the possible combinations of four and we can eliminate what we want. Without demand/surrender we have:

C2(4)=Andrew&Emma, Andrew&Lizzie, Andrew&Bridget, Emma&Lizzie, Emma&Bridget, Lizzie &Bridget.

C3(4)=Andrew&Emma&Lizzie, Andrew&Emma&Bridget, Andrew&Lizzie&Bridget, Emma&Lizzie&Bridget.

C4(4)=Andrew&Emma&Lizzie&Bridget.

[Kat]

Thanks.
As I said, I agree with you that Andrew would probably not be any part of "they" to which Abby referred.

It's possible Emma can be included because we don't know when *they* took the key.

A combination of Lizzie & Emma
A combination of Lizzie & Bridget
A combination of Emma & Bridget

How about adding Hiram Harrington? Being a blacksmith, maybe he made keys?
Hiram & Lizzie?
Hiram & Emma?
Hiram & Bridget?

Hiram was named as Lizzie's *suspect.*

It could be a member of the household, minus Andrew(?) plus someone else close to the family.

[Yooper]

Trying to be clear here:

Mrs. Churchill, Inquest Testimony, p.128:

... I said “where was you when it happened?” She said “I went to the barn to get a piece of iron.” I said “where is your mother”? She says “I dont know, she had a note to go and see some one that was sick this morning, but I dont know but they have killed her too.” She said “father must have had an enemy, for we have all been sick, and we think the milk has been poisoned.” The she said “Dr. Bowen is not at home, but I must have a Doctor”. I says “shall I go and try to find someone to go and get a doctor”?


This seems immediate to me, but perhaps not to everyone. I don't think I quoted Mrs. Churchill as saying anything about "immediately", but I could be wrong.

What does the sentence imply? What are the possibilities? What is the point?

We had been referring to the phrase *I thought I heard her come in.* And it wasn't Mrs. Churchill who used the word "immediately" it was you. Also, the part you underlined does not include the phrase that she thought she heard her come in.

Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:06 am Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Churchill doesn't say, in her inquest testimony, that Lizzie "immediately...says she thought she heard Abby come in" which is quoting you, yooper. Mrs. Churchill does imply it in her preliminary hearing statement later in the month.
At the inquest she reiterates what she recalls Lizzie to have said but finally states that she's not sure when it was said.

--Kat

What I said was:

"Lizzie asks Mrs. Churchill to come over, and immediately, in response to Mrs. Churchill's questions, says she thought she heard Abby come in. She tells Bridget the same thing sometime shortly after that."

I didn't quote Mrs. Churchill as using the term "immediately", I said "Lizzie says she thought she heard Abby come in" immediately upon Mrs. Churchill's arrival, to paraphrase. I should have eliminated the comma after immediately, or followed the comma with "and". That could have been made clearer, I'm sorry for all the confusion.

[Yooper]

Thanks.
As I said, I agree with you that Andrew would probably not be any part of "they" to which Abby referred.

It's possible Emma can be included because we don't know when *they* took the key.

A combination of Lizzie & Emma
A combination of Lizzie & Bridget
A combination of Emma & Bridget

How about adding Hiram Harrington? Being a blacksmith, maybe he made keys?
Hiram & Lizzie?
Hiram & Emma?
Hiram & Bridget?

Hiram was named as Lizzie's *suspect.*

It could be a member of the household, minus Andrew(?) plus someone else close to the family.

I agree, Emma might have been included based upon timing. The $64,000 question is whether or not Abby had a front door key on Thursday. If she needed to have one made rather than finding the "lost" key, and she was ill Wednesday, she had the balance of Tuesday to do that. I don't know how imperative it might have been for her to recover the key if she still had a back door key. She could be locked out by someone with a front door key if they hooked the rear screen door before locking the inner door, but it's only a screen and might be cut with a key!

[Yooper]

Why "take" a key? Is this some symbolic gesture within the Borden household? Maybe key=trust, or key=power? Possibly the fact that it could be and was "pilfered" sends a message. Abby seemed to be convinced that they were being poisoned, for what it's worth. Mind games? Territorial statement; "the front of the house is OURS!". Pardon the ramble, I just can't imagine a rational reason to take a front door key and leave a rear door key.

[Kat]

Yes that image can very easily lend itself to picturing a power struggle between the mistress of the house (Abby) and she-who-might-wish-to-be-mistress.
A front door key might well represent ownership or top female. Lizzie had already picked the house paint.
I just did that for my home, and believe me it is hard, and a big decision.

[Kat]

Taking Abby's key (or asking for it and her giving it over), can also be to lock her out at some point, I suppose.
Maybe *they* needed control that week over the door locks? Andrew couldn't get in even tho he had his key.

[Yooper]

I could understand the key being "taken" if it was to be used by John Morse while he was there, the term then means "loaned". The trouble is, they didn't know when he would be there, and certainly wouldn't have loaned the key until Wednesday.

Something led Abby to the conclusion that they were being poisoned. I wonder if Abby was being tormented in subtle ways. If the torment was covert, it wouldn't be apparent to outsiders, and Abby couldn't necessarily point the finger at anyone if she confided in her sister(s).

[Yooper]

Examine what happened concerning Dr. Bowen when Abby thought they were being poisoned. Andrew's attitude is consistent with someone who doesn't want an outsider to know about Abby's suspicions (other possibilities exist, also). Abby sees Dr. Bowen and spills her guts (so to speak). The cat is out of the bag, no more suffering silently. Lizzie goes to Alice Russell and tells her substantially the same thing on the theme of "someone is out to get us". This could be someone covering her tracks to shift focus to avoid suspicion. This could lend some immediacy to the situation, it has escalated to fear of death. Now, when was the prussic acid incident?

[Kat]

I have usually been under the impression that Abby did not claim anyone was poisoning her to anyone, including Dr. Bowen. According to him as well.
Have you got testimony that shows Abby thought that?

The prussic acid attempt was supposedly Wednesday morning sometime before noon. Lizzie's *alibi* for that day is fascinating.

[Susan]

Hmmm, the wording is interesting; Abby tells Dr. Bowen that she is afraid she has been poisoned, like she almost means that she has accidentally done it to herself and not that someone has been poisoning her?

From Dr. Bowen's Inquest testimony, pg. 115:

Q. You had not been called that week to the family?
A. No Sir, I had not been called. I went over to see them. The day before, Wednesday morning, about eight o'clock, or before eight, Mrs. Borden came to the door and said she was frightened, said that she was afraid she was poisoned. I told her to come in. She sat down, and she said the night before about nine o'clock she and her husband commenced to vomit, and vomitted for two or three hours until twelve, I understood.

Q. What morning was this?
A. Wednesday morning. I asked her what had she eaten for supper, and she told me. She said she had eaten some baker's white bread, and she had heard of baker's cream cakes being poisonous, and was afraid there was something poisonous in the bread that made her vomit. She said she only ate cake and baker's white bread. At that time she had a sort of an eructation of vomitting, slightly. I was afraid she was going to vomit there, I rather got ready for her. I told her to go home, and told her what to take; and she took it.

[Yooper]

Apparently, Abby thinks "she was poisoned". She blames the food, which implies the baker is at fault. This tends to focus suspicion away from the Borden household. The timing for purchasing prussic acid is still oddly coincidental. Something made the prosecution think that they had a viable contention with Eli Bence's testimony. The court disallowed it based upon the fact that the Bordens were not poisoned, and this is correct because even if she was successful in the purchase, she would only have been guilty of possession of poison. The prosecution would still have had to ascribe intent to the purchase. The medical examination of both stomachs indicated negative for prussic acid. Dr. Bowen's testimony, by itself, does not support the idea that "someone is out to get me/us". Dr. Bowen also mentions a suspicion that "something is wrong" to Dr. Dolan based upon Abby's visit Wednesday morning.

It is possible that the prosecution had other witnesses who were never questioned due to the Bence testimony being inadmissable, we'll never know.

One other item I neglected to mention earlier about the "they took my key" incident is that if Andrew is left out of the combination, "they" must include at least one Borden daughter.

[RayS]

Examine what happened concerning Dr. Bowen when Abby thought they were being poisoned. Andrew's attitude is consistent with someone who doesn't want an outsider to know about Abby's suspicions (other possibilities exist, also). Abby sees Dr. Bowen and spills her guts (so to speak). The cat is out of the bag, no more suffering silently. Lizzie goes to Alice Russell and tells her substantially the same thing on the theme of "someone is out to get us". This could be someone covering her tracks to shift focus to avoid suspicion. This could lend some immediacy to the situation, it has escalated to fear of death. Now, when was the prussic acid incident?

Just to clear things in my mind. Did Alice repeat this story right after the murders, or weeks or months later? The stories closest in time to the event are likely the unvarnished truth.

[Yooper]

I can't find anything from Alice about Wednesday night in the early testimony. I agree, earlier statements reflect less embellishment. Alice Russell mentioned in later years that seeing Lizzie burn the dress was some sort of a "turning point" for her. To me, that implies that she was uncertain about Lizzie's innocence, but was willing to keep quiet, up to a point. Her phrasing; "I wouldn't let anyone see me doing that" rather than "I wouldn't do that" seems to support this.

Concerning Abby's visit to Dr. Bowen on Wednesday morning, Lizzie didn't necessarily know what conversation took place between Abby and Dr. Bowen. She may have only known that Abby was going to the doctor to complain of being poisoned, and Dr. Bowen was sufficiently concerned to pay the Borden household a visit shortly after Abby's visit. Lizzie didn't have to know that Abby had blown the whistle, she only had to suspect it.

[Kat]

Alice Russell mentioned in later years that seeing Lizzie burn the dress was some sort of a "turning point" for her. To me, that implies that she was uncertain about Lizzie's innocence, but was willing to keep quiet, up to a point.

--Yooper

Do you recall where you read this?

I'm also looking for the first time Alice finally mentioned what Lizzie said to her Wednesday night.

[nbcatlover]

This source has Alice's testimony online:

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

[Yooper]

Alice Russell mentioned in later years that seeing Lizzie burn the dress was some sort of a "turning point" for her. To me, that implies that she was uncertain about Lizzie's innocence, but was willing to keep quiet, up to a point.

--Yooper

Do you recall where you read this?

I'm also looking for the first time Alice finally mentioned what Lizzie said to her Wednesday night.

I think it was somewhere on this forum recently.

[Kat]

Well, all I can say is I don't recall it. It's not testimony tho, right?

Cynthia, I posted elsewhere that it is maybe not quite a good thing to rely upon testimony outside our site mainly because of common transcription errors, not proofread by a professional.

[Yooper]

Whether we accept the source or not, the dress burning seemed to be a turning point according to what Alice Russell did. We need not reject the entire concept due to a personal disbelief in a part of it. Her actions at the time seem to support her later comments.

[theebmonique]

I don't think the concept is being rejected inwhole, just the possible inaccuracies of some of the sites providing testimony.


Tracy...

[Yooper]

The quote was from a thread, "Cover-Up", and was quoted with the FRHS as the source.

[Yooper]

OOPS!

[Yooper]

One of Bridget's first instincts was to be afraid to go upstairs alone to find a sheet to cover Andrew, according to Mrs. Churchill in the Witness Statements on August 8th. She apparently knew enough to look for a sheet in Abby's room. If she was afraid of encountering the murderer, taking Mrs. Churchill with her would not prevent an attack within the narrow confines of the stairway, it would only necessitate dealing with the murderer one-on-one, one at a time. She had come down those stairs a short time before and no murderer was present at that time. If she feared the murderer was hiding in Andrew and Abby's bedroom, the door was locked and the key was on the mantle. It is unreasonable that the murderer would open the door with the key, return it to the mantle, then lock himself in the bedroom. Neither Mrs. Churchill nor Bridget armed themselves when going upstairs either time.

It seems Bridget may have been more afraid of finding Abby than of finding the murderer.