{"id":3495,"date":"2018-07-06T18:35:57","date_gmt":"2018-07-06T22:35:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/HatchetOnline\/?p=3495"},"modified":"2025-12-31T16:05:23","modified_gmt":"2025-12-31T21:05:23","slug":"ones-idea-of-cordiality-lizzie-borden-on-the-stand","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/ones-idea-of-cordiality-lizzie-borden-on-the-stand\/","title":{"rendered":"One’s Idea of Cordiality: Lizzie Borden on the Stand"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Kat Koorey<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

First published in August\/September, 2005, Volume 2, Issue 4, The Hatchet: Journal of Lizzie Borden Studies<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Anyone who reads Lizzie Borden\u2019s inquest testimony cold, and out of sequence (she was called three times over three days), is usually left pondering why she answered as she did, leaving the modern researcher with many more questions than Lizzie was ever required to answer. What motivated her to respond with such odd statements that strained her credibility, giving the appearance that she didn\u2019t care how most of her replies were perceived?<\/span><\/p>\n

Anyone remotely interested in her grave situation during that time on the witness stand desperately wishes they were D.A. Knowlton for a few precious moments in order to mount their own inquiry, specifically with emphasis on clarifying her responses with the follow-up questions Knowlton never managed. It is frustrating to read her sometimes almost glib replies without speaking aloud to Mr. Knowlton, as if over his shoulder, to press her harder to gain more detail.<\/span><\/p>\n

Unlike Knowlton, we have the benefit of knowing about the background and outcome of the case so as to be able to place her statements in context within the whole story. We forget that Knowlton was only recently acquainted with the details of the crime, having come to Fall River for his briefing Monday, shortly after 5 pm, the eve of the inquest. Into the night, and early morning hours, officials reviewed the case and acquainted him with the evidence. It was not much time to prepare. Likewise, Lizzie Borden had to prepare to be a witness at such a hearing which would require her to explain her thoughts, words and deeds to the officials of her town, county and state\u2014all while under oath and in mourning.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is interesting to gather the actual data as to the sequence of witnesses, how long they were on the stand, how long detained, and how this might affect their testimony. Since Lizzie\u2019s seemed so erratic and duplicitous, it is even more important to study her ordeal upon the stand, and surmise if there was any underlying reason which might explain at least some of her more evasive answers.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Lizzie Borden was apparently prescribed drugs by Dr. Seabury Bowen to help her withstand such an onslaught to her sensibilities, and it is believed that these drugs directly resulted in her odd and unrealistic answers in the official inquiry. At various times during her testimony she sounds befuddled, uneasy, and even indignant towards those who dared to question her.<\/span><\/p>\n

In attempting to imagine Lizzie\u2019s ordeal, it is helpful to study the progression of events at the inquest to put it in perspective. Victoria Lincoln claimed that Lizzie and Bridget were grilled for an extraordinary and inhumane amount of time.<\/span><\/p>\n

All were questioned briefly except for Bridget and Lizzie. Bridget got the works. She was called as first witness and examined from early morning until four in the afternoon, almost twice as long as any other witness was questioned at a stretch. On the final day she was recalled for the better part of the morning and until three, an hour and a half longer than Lizzie\u2019s longest questioning\u2026On the first day, Lizzie was on the stand for an hour and a half, on the second for the whole afternoon, and on the last day for an hour-long review.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lincoln called it \u201cthree days of confusion and mental torment\u201d for Lizzie. Surely it was a harrowing experience for the uninitiated, but it seems that it wasn\u2019t so intensive an experience, nor was it so long without a break. Perhaps Lincoln exaggerated Lizzie and Bridget\u2019s experiences at the inquest because they were female\u2014no male under suspicion was given such a sympathetic description.<\/span><\/p>\n

Examining the order of witnesses we find that Bridget was first called, on the first day, Tuesday, August 9th, at 10 a.m.\u00a0 <\/span>The judge extended her time in court just past his normal dinner hour of noon in order to complete her appearance- until 12:30 p.m.- two and a half hours total (if they did indeed start on time). It is true that Bridget was documented as leaving the premises around 5 p.m., but by compiling information from various sources a timeline can be constructed which disproves Lincoln\u2019s broad claim by showing other incidents which interrupted that day\u2019s proceedings, and in effect proving that Bridget\u2019s experience was not so heinous. Granted, she was left cooling her heels at the station from 12:30 on, but with no work to do, no extra appearances to be made that day, she basically had a half day off in her otherwise drudging day.<\/span><\/p>\n

We find a kind of haphazard schedule on that first day. The court adjourned for a lengthy dinner and Lizzie Borden was called to appear at 2 p.m. Everything stopped soon after due to the arrival in the city of A.G. Pillsbury, who happened to be early to town. The court shut down as the officials climbed into conveyances and went to visit him at the Mellen House. Thus it was nearly 3:40, after the boss left the city, that the proceeding was resumed with Lizzie and conducted until about 6. This is just exactly the type of information that we may find helpful in understanding the rigors of the process.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is also interesting to surmise, by examining the order of the witnesses, that because Bridget was called first on the first day, some of those almost inexplicable answers given by Lizzie to certain questions may have been more of a direct reaction to the appearance of Bridget before her. Lizzie appeared before that court approximately two and a half hours that first day, after Bridget, and without knowing what that family servant had divulged. Lizzie may have started out by feeling her way through a potential minefield of questions directed at her about her family home life, guarded and paranoid as to what may have leaked out to these strangers.<\/span><\/p>\n

It becomes much more illuminating to study Lizzie\u2019s inquest testimony again in the light of this undeniably uneasy situation. We don\u2019t have Bridget\u2019s inquest statements with which to compare and contrast, but we do have her preliminary hearing testimony, which has been considered by Knowlton to be very similar in content. Since Bridget was removed from the Borden house after her Tuesday inquest appearance, Lizzie obviously had no idea what was gathered from Bridget in her inquisition.\u00a0 <\/span>For someone who may have liked to feel in control, it must have been very hard for Lizzie to overcome such a feeling of helplessness.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, Bridget Sullivan\u2019s answers to questions, especially about sensitive topics such as relationships within the Borden household, were most probably the ones that Lizzie might most dread. It is fascinating to ponder, then, the significance of such a simple question put to Lizzie about her relations with her stepmother Abby: \u201cCordial?\u201d Lizzie hedges, finally settling on what appears to be a non-responsive answer: \u201cIt depends upon one\u2019s idea of cordiality, perhaps.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

This phrasing is a subtle key to what worried Lizzie most. It was not the larger world\u2019s idea of cordiality which concerned her, but the personal opinion of the servant Bridget, and what behaviors she may have witnessed. Lizzie would have to wait a while to find out what Bridget\u2019s view of life at the Borden\u2019s was really like. It wasn\u2019t until Lizzie was expected to explain herself at an inquest that she realized that her fate just might rest upon the judgment of an Irish domestic.<\/span><\/p>\n

The research information that finally resulted in the placement of these characters into their proper order of appearance proved to be a valuable asset in understanding the process of the inquiry we call an inquest. During the sifting through all the newspaper coverage in order to compile a timeline of witnesses, a significant fact was exposed\u2013witnesses appeared at the inquest but their testimony was either never recorded or never combined into what we consider now as a source document. Someday, maybe another curious Borden scholar will discover these forgotten testimonies.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Inquest<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Tuesday, August 9, 1892<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

9:30 A.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Doherty escorted Bridget Sullivan to Second District Court in Fall River Police Station (Evening Standard<\/i>, 10 August 1892: 2, Witness Statements<\/i> 13)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cAwaiting her presence were District Attorney Knowlton, State Officer Seaver, Marshal Hilliard and Medical Examiner Dolan, and soon after they were joined by Mayor Coughlin.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 2)<\/span><\/p>\n

10:00 A.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Bridget Sullivan was the first to be examined behind closed doors when the inquest opened before Judge Blaisdell. (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 2)<\/span><\/p>\n

12:30 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The hearing was adjourned for dinner. (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 3)<\/span><\/p>\n

There was a leak of information as to those inside \u2013 all of the above named, plus district officer Rhodes, and \u201cthe district attorney\u2019s stenographer, Miss Annie Read (sic) and a couple of police officials who were among the first called to the house of the Borden\u2019s last Thursday.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 3, Porter 54)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cJudge Blaisdell dines at 12 o\u2019clock with great punctuality, but he waited considerably later to get as far as possible with the Sullivan woman\u2019s testimony.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 3)<\/span><\/p>\n

1:40 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Officer Harrington drove to the Borden house in a \u201chack\u201d with City Marshal Hilliard who was to serve a subpoena to Miss Lizzie Borden: \u201c. . . a regular summons to appear as a witness at an inquest.\u201d Mrs. Brigham was there with the ladies and she left to go across the street to Dr. Bowen\u2019s, returning a moment later and then the summons was served. (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 3, WS<\/i> 13)<\/span><\/p>\n

2 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Lizzie Borden, Mrs. Brigham, the city marshal and officer Harrington arrived at the police station. (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 3, Porter 55, WS<\/i> 13)<\/span><\/p>\n

The doors were locked after they entered. (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 3)<\/span><\/p>\n

Sometime after 2 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Attorney General Pillsbury arrived at the Mellen House \u201cbefore he was expected, and the District Attorney, City Marshal and others who were conducting the examination, left the courthouse immediately and engaged in a consultation with him.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 2)<\/span><\/p>\n

3:40 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe attorney general left the city at 3:40 and the inquest was resumed.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 2)\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cAfter Mr. Pillsbury\u2019s departure the examination in the court-house was conducted until 6 o\u2019clock.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 2)<\/span><\/p>\n

Lizzie \u201cwas not pressed hard.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 1)<\/span><\/p>\n

5 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Bridget left \u201cin company with officer Doherty.\u201d Together they \u201cwent to the Borden house for a bundle and, still accompanied by officer Doherty walked to No.95 Division street, where her cousin, Patrick Harrington, lives, and where she passed the night.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 2, Porter 56)<\/span><\/p>\n

6 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Lizzie left the station house. (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 3, Porter 57)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cShe was then driven back to her home in a carriage, Mrs. Brigham and the city marshal with her.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 3)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cMiss Lizzie Borden has been partially examined, and the police had completed their work on the case, so far as the collection of evidence is concerned.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 2, Porter 57)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cInquest adjourned to Wednesday at 10:00 A.M.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 2)<\/span><\/p>\n

Wednesday, August 10, 1892<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Probably before 10:00 A.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cProf. Wood, the analyst, reached the [police] station early in company with Medical Examiner Dolan.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 1)<\/span><\/p>\n

10:00 A.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cShortly after the inquest was resumed the two men were admitted and were behind closed doors about 20 minutes.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 1)<\/span><\/p>\n

10:20 A.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Lizzie Borden was summoned, and examined. (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 6, Porter 59)<\/span><\/p>\n

11:15 A.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Intermission in the hearing. (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 1, 6)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cA few minutes later Marshal Hilliard drove to the Borden homestead and returned with John V. Morse. Miss Lizzie Borden was taken into the matron\u2019s room. Mr. Morse was taken into the court room but it is said that he was not subjected to an examination.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 6)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cMiss Borden was asked some nerve shaking questions, and when she came from the matron\u2019s room she was tear-stained and [still] very much upset.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 6)<\/span><\/p>\n

12:50 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe inquiry was postponed until after dinner. Miss Borden, Mrs. Brigham, Mr. Morse and the city marshal were driven to the house in a close carriage.\u201d (ES<\/i> 10 Aug.: 6)<\/span><\/p>\n

After Dinner<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Emma Borden and John V. Morse were next to appear at the inquest before the district attorney. (ES<\/i> 11 Aug.: 2)<\/span><\/p>\n

2:30 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Dr. Bowen arrived at the court. (ES<\/i> 11 Aug.: 2)<\/span><\/p>\n

4:00 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Mrs. Churchill, Hiram C. Harrington and Ellen Eagan were summoned to appear in court. (WS<\/i> 14)<\/span><\/p>\n

Thursday, August 11, 1892<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

11 A.M.<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Court opened upon arrival of D.A. Knowlton from New Bedford (Fall River Globe<\/i>, 11 August 1892: 1)<\/span><\/p>\n

First witness called: Charles Sawyer (FR Globe<\/i>1)<\/span><\/p>\n

George Allen (ES<\/i> 11 Aug.:1)<\/span><\/p>\n

Mrs. Perry Gifford (FR Globe<\/i> 1)<\/span><\/p>\n

Mrs. George Whitehead (FR Globe<\/i> 1)<\/span><\/p>\n

Miss Alice Russell (FR Globe<\/i> 1)<\/span><\/p>\n

Mrs. Tripp (FR Globe<\/i> 1)\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe deposition of Mrs. Hiram C. Harrington was also taken.\u201d (New York Times<\/i>, 12 August 1892: 2)<\/span><\/p>\n

12:30 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Adjourned for dinner (FR Globe<\/i> 1)<\/span><\/p>\n

2 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Officer Feeney escorted Bridget Sullivan to the afternoon session. (FR Globe<\/i> 1)<\/span><\/p>\n

2:30 \u2013 3:45 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Eli Bence, Frank Kilroy, and Fred Hart appeared. (WS<\/i> 15, FR Globe<\/i> 1)<\/span><\/p>\n

3:20 \u2013 3:30 p.m.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Lizzie and Emma Borden, and Mrs. George Brigham arrived at the police court in a hack with Hilliard and Doherty. (ES <\/i>12 Aug.: 8)<\/span><\/p>\n

The ladies \u201cwere brought into the courtroom.\u201d (FR Globe<\/i> 2)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>5 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Marshal Hilliard and District Attorney Knowlton left the premises in a carriage. The Marshal returned alone and Knowlton was gone for almost an hour. (Porter 64)<\/span><\/p>\n

5 \u2013 6 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBridget Sullivan emerged, and escorted by a police officer walked slowly down the street.\u201d (Porter 64)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSoon the inquisition was apparently ended, and then Lizzie Borden, her sister and Mrs. Brigham were escorted across the entry from the court room to the matron\u2019s room which is situated upon the same floor.\u201d (Porter 64)<\/span><\/p>\n

An officer came\u2026with supper for the party.\u201d (Porter 64)<\/span><\/p>\n

After 6 P.M.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe warrant was quickly drawn,\u201d and then Marshal Hilliard, along with Mr. Knowlton, \u201cproceeded to Mr. Jenning\u2019s residence and informed that gentleman that the Government had decided upon the arrest of Lizzie Borden . . . and deemed it wise to notify him of . . . the contemplated action. The officials returned to the court room and were followed in a few moments by the attorney. George Brigham also came to the station and entered the presence of the women in the matron\u2019s quarters.\u201d (Porter 64- 65)<\/span><\/p>\n

After Mrs. Brigham was asked to leave the room, Lizzie was arrested, waiving the reading of the warrant. Emma Borden and Mr. and Mrs. Brigham left the station by carriage and returned to Second Street. \u201cLizzie A. Borden was accused of the murder of her father, Andrew J. Borden. The warrant made no reference to the killing of Abbie D. Borden.\u201d (Porter 65)<\/span><\/p>\n

That Night<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Lizzie \u201cgave way to her feelings and sobbed as if her heart would break. Then she gave up to a violent fit of vomiting and the efforts of the matrons to stop it were unavailing. Dr. Bowen was sent for and he succeeded in relieving her physical sufferings.\u201d (Porter 66)<\/span><\/p>\n

Notes:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>Ellen Eagan is recorded in the Witness Statements <\/i>as \u201cAllen Eagan,\u201d page 14. Her testimony does not comprise a part of our modern inquest document.<\/span><\/p>\n

Officer George Allen is reported to have testified at the inquest by the Evening Standard<\/i> and the Rochester newspapers.\u00a0 <\/span>However, his statement does not comprise a part of our modern inquest document.<\/span><\/p>\n

The \u201cdeposition\u201d taken from Mrs. Hiram H. Harrington, mentioned in the New York Times<\/i> does not comprise a part of our modern inquest document.<\/span><\/p>\n

We might consider these testimonies, along with Bridget Sullivan\u2019s, as missing from the inquest document that has survived.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>Works Cited:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893.<\/i> Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fall River Globe<\/i>, 11 August 1892.<\/span><\/p>\n

Inquest Upon the Deaths of Andrew J. and Abby D. Borden, August 9 – 11, 1892<\/i>, Volume I and II. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lincoln, Victoria. A Private Disgrace: Lizzie Borden by Daylight<\/i>. NY: Putnam\u2019s, 1967.<\/span><\/p>\n

New Bedford Evening Standard, <\/i>10 August 1892.<\/span><\/p>\n

New Bedford Evening Standard, <\/i>11 August 1892.<\/span><\/p>\n

New Bedford Evening Standard, <\/i>12 August 1892.<\/span><\/p>\n

New York Times<\/i>, 12 August 1892.<\/span><\/p>\n

Porter, Edwin H. The Fall River Tragedy.<\/i> Fall River, MA: George R. H. Buffinton, Press of J. D. Munroe, 1893. Rpt. with new introduction by Robert Flynn. Portland, ME: King Philip Pub., 1985.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Witness Statements<\/i>. Fall River, MA: The Lizzie Borden Bed and Breakfast\/ Museum, 1997?<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Since Lizzie\u2019s seemed so erratic and duplicitous, it is even more important to study her ordeal upon the stand, and surmise if there was any underlying reason which might explain at least some of her more evasive answers.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":5997,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[44],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lizzie-borden-trial"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3495","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3495"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3495\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5998,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3495\/revisions\/5998"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5997"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lizzieandrewborden.com\/hatchetonline\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}