Investigative Improv

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Tue Jun 09, 2026 6:12 pm

This thread stays on topic to the Borden case, but this is where we can really bounce around from topic to topic as we think through different aspects of the case, then if we distill something narrow down, we can have a focussed thread. That will allow us to bounce ideas off each other without letting a thread drift too far off topic.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Tue Jun 09, 2026 8:18 pm

Okay. It would be interesting to ask Bridget if she saw the pail of bloody rags, when she went down cellar to get her wash bucket .
If the bloody pail was seen at that time, this would certainly look good for Lizzie.
As far as I recall, Bridget stated she’d not seen the bloody pail before Thursday. —-( but when on Thursday?)
Surely Bridget saw it when Doherty and Mullaly did, but how bout earlier, before the crimes when she retrieved her wash bucket?

Note: I think Abby was killed very shortly after Lizzie appeared at the back screen door.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Tue Jun 09, 2026 8:34 pm

Inspector, maybe go back and reread her comments. My recollection is that she said something like "if a pail was there, I would have seen it when I did laundry or whatever." I don't think she ever said she saw it before the murders. But again, best to make sure.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Tue Jun 09, 2026 9:14 pm

From the trial testimony - very interesting if it really ended Wednesday night -

Q. You spoke of finding a pail near the foot of the stairs---I think you did, as you went
down,---didn't you?
A. I did not. There was one there; I did not testify to that, I think.
Q. There was one there?
A. There was in the wash cellar.
Q. There was one there?
A. In the wash cellar.
Q. There were clothes in it?
A. There were.
MR. ROBINSON.
It is agreed that that pail contained the napkins which had been worn within a day or two by the defendant,---the ordinary monthly sickness---and as to that fact that is all we propose to put in. We do not care to go into the details. It is also agreed that the sickness ended Wednesday night. That is all, Mr. Fleet.

Make your own judgement about whether Bridget would have not seen that pail. Here is what I found if we want to try to back date it.

For a woman Lizzie’s age in 1892 — 32 years old, premenopausal — the best modern estimate is:
Median menstrual bleeding duration: about 5 days.

A large prospective study of regularly menstruating women found that women “bled for a median of 5 days,” with a mode of 5 days and a range of 1–16 days.

For context, modern clinical references generally treat menstrual bleeding lasting up to 7 or 8 days as within normal limits. ACOG says a normal period generally lasts up to 7 days; MSD’s table of normal menstrual parameters gives duration as ≤ 8 days of bleeding per cycle.

This is somewhat hilarious that 3 (I'm guessing - middle aged men - are debating this). By the way, if you wanted a completely hilarious no holds barred book about Victorian life for women - there is a book called Unmentionable: The Victorian Lady's Guide to Sex, Marriage, and Manners
by Therese Oneill She goes into great detail about the specifics of the clothing and customs Lizzie would have been used to. I heard part of the audiobook and the narrator was very good with comedic timing and voice inflection.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Tue Jun 09, 2026 9:16 pm

OK, so since I'm probably on a list already asking all those forensic labs about the hatchet damage, I decided to just go all in and submit an FBI Freedom of Information Act Request. I also checked Library of Congress and they have a lot of Pinkerton Papers, but I think that might involve some manual searching I don't have time for. I think my request with the FBI might take a while, but I'll keep the board informed if I get anything.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Tue Jun 09, 2026 10:18 pm

Robinson declaring Lizzie's monthly period ended Wednesday night is a key and odd admission. Hard to view Lizzie's August 4 solo nighttime trip to the cellar as innocent if anything to do with her period is excluded from the list of potential explanations.

You'll find a goodly number of discussions on the topic of Lizzie's time of month on this forum. I usually kept my mouth shut and just read.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Wed Jun 10, 2026 6:53 am

I bet Robinson was glad to add nothing more to the subject.
Cam, your wording is closer to testimony than my paraphrase, but I believe still barks up the same tree.
My point is that Bridget became aware of the bloody pail sometime on Thursday, but at what time?
I have to surmise based on, and trusting Spencer’s telling, that Doherty found the pail first, then he went to where Bridget and Mullaly were in the middle cellar while Bridget was leading Mullaly to the axes, and told him about the find, that Bridget became aware at that point.

This would be too late to help Lizzie. Spencer believes that Bridget may not have seen the pale because she might not have been to that part of the seller after she did the laundry, but Bridget would’ve probably had to empty her slop pale, just like the rest of the family during the week, rinsing at the cellar sink, and should have visited that area in my opinion. So what I’m trying to figure out is if Bridget saw the bloody pail before Doherty and Mullaly found it, specifically on Thursday morning, because if she did, this helps Lizzie.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Wed Jun 10, 2026 8:35 am

I think it does not help Lizzie - that's why I went into detail. Her period ends Wednesday, by the defense's own admission, which means the pail SHOULD have been in the basement going backwards:

Normal Short Duration
Wed Aug 3
Tue Aug 2
Monday Aug 1
Sun Jul 31
Sat Jul 30

Normal Full Duration
Fri Jul 29
Thu Jul 28

Normal Long Duration
Wed Jul 27

Defense has to say Bridget didn't notice the pail on Any of those days?! Bridget said it was her job to do that specific type of laundry for Lizzie, probably for Emma, and herself. She worked there for nearly 3 years. She absolutely, positively knew Lizzie's schedule.

BTW - my Freedom of Information Act request is for any information about Lizzie Borden in the FBI files.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Wed Jun 10, 2026 9:27 am

And Lizzie did say 3-4 days, so you’re correct about Bridget
“should “ have seen it.
If Bridget wasn’t aware of it until she led Doherty and Mullaly down , it doesn’t help Lizzie.

TeenaBee · Post by **TeenaBee** » Thu Jun 11, 2026 12:28 am

I agree that its maddening that we have no idea if Bridget saw the pail of rags before or after the murders on Thursday. One wonders if she was asked or not. Seems Medley was hot to find evidence against Lizzie, one would think he would certainly ask Bridget whether she'd seen the pail before or after the murders... The fact that he doesn't say one way or the other makes me think she hadn't been near the sink that morning before the murders and so couldn't say if was there before or not, but of course who knows. As I understand it, if Bridget wasn't doing laundry on those particular days, she might not have reason to go near the sink in the cellar where the pail was found. So if she did laundry on Monday, it seems possible she may have not gone near the sink for a couple days before the murders?

Also, I would not expect Lizzie to run down to the cellar every time she changed a menstrual napkin. That would be silly. She probably kept used cloths in her room and took them down every once in awhile to put them in the pail to soak. I seem to recall reading some testimony that said there exactly three cloths in that pail. Not enough to cover an entire period. So if other used ones were stashed in her room (how embarrassing if the room was full of people on Thursday and being searched) she could have had reason to carry more down on Thursday evening even if her "monthly illness" ended on Wednesday. Or maybe she did lie about being on her period to trick whomever, but man, that seems just.... no. I can't even think of words to describe how that doesn't compute for me.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Thu Jun 11, 2026 1:15 am

Thanks, Teenabee - here's Medley's witness statement, but I can't find any testimony from Lizzie or Bridget where these statements are confirmed. Here's the cellar layout - perhaps we could eventually piece together whether the window washing brushes or activities or items other than laundry would have brought Bridget into that room during the week.

Q. “When did you wash that week?”
A. “Monday.”
Q. “Are you sure, did not you wash Tuesday? Was not Monday a stormy day?”
A. “Yes, sir. I washed Monday.”
Q. “When did you hang your clothes out?”
A. “Tuesday.”
Q. “When did you begin to iron?”
A. “Wednesday.”
Q. “If you washed Monday, it was not a good drying day?”
A. “No, sir. I did not hang them out until Tuesday.”
Q. “Then you hung them out by going the back way from the cellar?”
A. “Yes, sir.”

WILLIAM H. MEDLEY.
Fall River, August 4, 1892.

I inquired about some cloths which looked to me like small towels, they were covered with blood, and in a pail half filled with water, and in the wash cellar. She said that was all right; she had told the Doctor all about that. I then asked her how long the pail and its contents had been there; and she said three or four days. I asked the Doctor about it, and he said it had been explained to him, and was all right.

I then had a talk with Bridget about the pail and it contents. She said she had not noticed the pail until that day, and it could not have been there two days before, or she would have seen it, and put the contents in the wash, as that was the day she had done the washing.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Thu Jun 11, 2026 7:12 am

Sorry for the run on sentence you are about to read....too sleepy to take the time to properly edit.

Applying my version of logic (which doesn't prove anything), if before the murders, when Bridget still thought life was 'normal', she saw the pail in the washroom with dirty water and cloths, she would have simply dumped the pail of water into the sink and tossed the dirty clothes wherever they were placed between wash days.
We know Lizzie left the pail, innocent or not, and frankly I can't imagine why she left on the ground just a few feet from a sink and a drain unless it was put down in haste for some reason and then forgotten. Was she really so arrogant that it would be beneath her to perform that very minor self-cleanup chore?

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Thu Jun 11, 2026 7:42 am

The thought keeps recurring that Lizzie offered the information to Bowen right away.
I understand her wanting Bridget to fetch Bowen for obvious reasons of familiarity, and friendship, but any doctor would do, and Mrs Churchill was instructed to find one also.
The monthly cycle was a medical, although natural thing, but what makes the bloody pail glare, is that it seems to be foremost to Lizzie.
I can think of several other things that should be foremost to Lizzie upon a doctors arrival, but not this natural female function.
Not then, maybe later when it was inquired about, but not foremost.
I am trying to help clear Lizzie, so like TeenaBee said, it’s maddening that nobody seems to have asked Bridget “when” on Thursday she became aware of the pail.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Thu Jun 11, 2026 9:57 am

Another thing to consider:

Bridget would’ve had to see the pail before about 9:00 Am on Thursday to exonerate it from being Abby’s blood.

TeenaBee · Post by **TeenaBee** » Thu Jun 11, 2026 11:05 am

Good point Inspector. I don't know, from Medley's statement it does sound like maybe she DID see it in the morning before the murders, or else why ONLY point out that she hadn't seen it two days before? Why not say "I didn't see it earlier this morning?"

Talking to Bowen about being on her period even in the midst of everything going on doesn't seem weird to me, it is strange the things that pop into the mind in the middle of traumatic events, and if it was me and I knew a bunch of police officers were trooping down into the cellar I would be twisting with embarrassment knowing a pail of my used napkins was sitting down there, it would defintely pop into mind, dead father or not, maybe it wouldn't be foremost, but still it would be there --

And I'm not sure what arrogance has to do with allowing bloody rags to soak for awhile? Bridget wasn't going to do laundry again until the following Monday, why would one suppose Lizzie wouldn't return to the cellar at some point to deal with those rags before then?

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Thu Jun 11, 2026 11:46 am

I agree with TeenaBee - those rags would have been expected to be in a bucket with borax or lye to soak for the duration. However, I could see where Camgarsky is coming from. Lizzie's defense team said her period ended Wednesday, so even if she wanted to let the last ones soak in the borax overnight, she could have dumped them Thursday morning when she was in the basement bathroom.

I would say leaving them for Bridget is entirely consistent with Lizzie reading magazines while Bridget, after vomiting, was expected to be outside in the sun washing windows and Abby was dusting and making the guest bed, going to get the noon meal, and according to Lizzie, going to see a sick friend. I think in Lizzie's mind there were extremely clear roles and a class hierarchy in that house.

For me the question is:

Lizzie testified that the bucket was there 3 or 4 days. That is Thur, Wed, Tue, likely Mon, possibly Sun, depending on what she meant by days. Bridget was doing laundry Monday and going back and forth out the adjacent back door hanging laundry out on Tuesday.

By Lizzie's own testimony, if she is innocent and accurate in her testimony, Bridget had to have not seen the bucket on Monday while doing laundry - presumably for hours, in that tiny room, and also not see it on Tuesday when she was bringing the washed clothes out the back door, which is adjacent to the laundry room (see map above).

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Thu Jun 11, 2026 4:05 pm

These all sound plausible. but unless there’s something I’ve missed, we can’t really help Lizzie with the topic as I’d hoped.

I still have to suspect that Bridget would have used the cellar sink to rinse her own pail a few times during the week.
Even if at night, the lamp in that small cellar sink room would reveal the bloody pail to Bridget IMO.

The fact that Lizzie took her slop pail and rinsed it Thursday evening with Mrs Churchill. at least showed a possible pattern of the ladies of the house.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Sat Jun 13, 2026 7:35 pm

On August 15,1892, Attorney General Pillsbury wrote to Knowlton and asked if the ashes in the house had been sifted, and examined, etc. He was concerned about burnt clothing or even a button.
I wonder if it was too late. This must have been a late revelation to Pillsbury

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Sat Jun 13, 2026 8:56 pm

No Knowlton response? I don't have the book with me.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Sat Jun 13, 2026 10:00 pm

Unfortunately not in Spencer.
I don’t have the Knowlton papers, maybe there is a response there.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Sat Jun 13, 2026 10:37 pm

I think we need the Knowlton Papers - I don't have them yet, but I think we might have the reference number we'll need, see below:

The Fall River Historical Society inventory lists HK014 as a letter from Attorney General Albert Enoch Pillsbury, written from Toronto, Canada, to Hosea M. Knowlton, dated August 15, 1892. Its subject is catalogued only as “Opinion regarding crime.” The inventory does not transcribe the letter, so it confirms the letter exists but not the exact “ashes / button / burnt clothing” wording. The same inventory says the Knowlton Papers were published in 1994 by FRHS as The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Lizzie A. Borden: The Knowlton Papers 1892–1893.

The interesting adjacent item is HK015, also dated August 15, 1892: a letter from Knowlton to Marshal Rufus B. Hilliard, subject “Preparation of prosecution.” If Pillsbury asked Knowlton whether the ashes had been sifted, HK015 is the most obvious candidate for Knowlton passing that instruction down to Hilliard. But the inventory alone does not prove that; it only shows that Knowlton wrote Hilliard the same day.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Sat Jun 13, 2026 10:50 pm

That’s good work Lorcan.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Sat Jun 13, 2026 11:07 pm

Knowlton Papers is very well indexed, so finding a response letter would be easy and quick. I'm just hundreds of miles from my book. If you guys have patience, I'll post anything on the topic then.

Teenabee might have a copy, I'm not sure.

All that said, it would be very unlike Spencer to open a topic and not 'close it' if the info was in KP. He isn't infallible, but this would be a sloppy mistake and he didn't make a lot of those.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Sun Jun 14, 2026 9:22 am

Kinda makes me think, if there’s nothing in the KP, that Knowlton had already done so, or took it in stride. I vaguely remember reading about the subject, but too many years have passed to add more information.

Spencer had a brief comment about the brown and white plaid apron that was found at Maurice Libby’s,
Spencer felt the detectives got frustrated that nothing more could be found out, and shifted the investigation to other areas.
This is a irritating for me, I can imagine the same for the officers

Side note:
Going through Spencer’s CALB, started highlighting passages after page 80 or so which was basic history and grounding information.
I get the impression Spencer has gone through entire police reports, filtering newspapers, and witness testimony in a way that allows him to add details that are fresh to the reader. All this while adding his ideas in a way the reader is able to distinguish his suspicions, from known facts
I’ve not seen this from other authors, at least not as clearly and uncluttered. Spencer’s ability to blend his thoughts and ideas are not just that, but explained in a way the readers can discern fact, fiction, and his personal analysis, even if he is just theorizing like we do. He gives great reasoning and references for most of his thoughts on the case.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Sun Jun 14, 2026 9:52 pm

I started watching the 48 Hours documentary. It featured a zoom of the street view looking Northeast, down the hill. Since this is the improv thread, I thought I'd post this to give a refresher to all of us as to what the street looked like at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYDiEcyDUBU

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Mon Jun 15, 2026 6:23 am

Cool picture.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 6:14 am

Since this is improv, I’ll throw this out there.
I hope our dynamic duo of Doherty and Harrington thought to ask Bridget if she recognized the brown and white, plaid apron that was found in the yard adjacent to Maurice Libby’s haberdashery.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:36 am

I did a bit of searching and couldn't find anything about it. Even as bad as some of the police work appears to be, I would hope they did follow up on it, but if it wasn't spattered with human blood (the corpuscle size test, like was done with the undergarment) maybe they didn't bother. I couldn't find an original source to that piece of evidence, can you post it here?

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:47 am

I found a good photo of one of the Maplecroft mantlepiece carvings.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 8:21 am

Witness Statements page 17.
If you want to look into it, I’d be curious as to what the “adjacent yard “ was. Inhabited or a dumping site.
The apron could possibly be tied to Morse’s visit to see Hiram shortly after the crimes as Hiram lived close to Libby’s shop.
Morse certainly wanted to bury certain items that were blood stained,
Interestingly in Spencer, a reporter noted how nervous Morse was while being questioned by Knowlton, ringing his trousers.
Then when Jennings took over he calmed down.
I like your high res pictures. Thanks for sharing.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 5:23 pm

Camgarsky and I were discussing the kitchen stove situation and I did a bit of research. I'm not posting the links to the original websites because they are full of cookies and ads and one is behind a subscription firewall, so I'll just post the summary from ChatGPT - the first is a direct quote and the second is a summary, but it sounds reasonable to me and for our purposes, I think we can assess if it's accurate:

From a Lance Zaal interview:

"My first purchase was The Historic Lizzie Borden House. It was a big investment, and as soon as I took over, I went looking specifically for risks to the property and people. One of many things I found was an antique stove restored to function as a gas stove. The stove had pilot lights on at all times, and when the previous owners had the house, a guest or a breeze would blow out the pilot light, filling the house with dangerous gas and forcing people to evacuate and the fire department to arrive on scene. That was a clearly unacceptable risk to the property and people, so I moved the antique stove and disconnected it from the gas line and bought an electric stove for our staff to cook on. A thousand dollars to eliminate a potentially catastrophic risk was clearly worth it.”

Also:

In a podcast transcript, Zaal pushed back against rumors that the stove had been removed, saying they were not using it to cook but had kept it because it remained useful for the tour. The transcript also describes it as not original to the house and says it was moved to a more visible place in the kitchen. The Boston Globe similarly reported that the antique stove now sits as a display beside a modern stove.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 5:45 pm

Investigation updates:

The FBI denied my initial request for free, unlimited research, which they encourage people to try as a first attempt. I put in for authorization up to $100 in case we find something truly spectacular - which I doubt - but who knows? The first 200 pages are free and I think the odds are 0 pages or a few pages, but if we get something that truly adds to the case, I'll donate it to the Fall River Historical Association. Obviously, if I find something it's not truly an exclusive, the FBI would have to provide the same exact information to any US Citizen who asks.

I got tired of waiting for the FRHS to put the Jennings Journals back in print and found a "very good" first edition out of Hull, MA, so that should be here in a week and I ordered the Knowlton Papers and Knowlton Letters, and a 2nd copy of Parallel Lives which I will leave in the plastic in case that goes out of print. Although the binding and book appears to be extremely high quality, it is huge and I can see me putting some wear and tear on it over the years. So, hopefully between all of us we'll have a complete set of reference books.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 6:31 pm

Interesting story about the stove, and cool pics.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 6:34 pm

Parallel Lives is almost impossible to really use without the binding taking a beating. If they ever reprint, I hope they consider a 2-volume set.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 6:36 pm

Anyone care to take a swing at why John Morse would spend brief moments with Lizzie on his return from the Emery’s. then go outside for 3 to 4 hours, knowing he was the closest relative there?
I mean, the young lady just lost both her parents.
I can’t understand his abandonment, if I might be so bold.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:07 pm

She had 2 women fanning her, rubbing her hands and bathing her forehead. I'm an INTJ and in that situation, especially if I really cared about Mr. Borden as a friend and liked Abby - and Lizzie had almost zero relationship with him - not even enough to say hello on Wednesday - I think many things might be going through his head:

1. I don't want to be in that house with the dead bodies of my friends.
2. Lizzie is being fawned over by two women, what am I going to do other than stand there in awkward silence?
3. I need to think - me being the only man in the house, a relative outsider, and Abby being killed in my bedroom - is there any gap in my alibi?
4. Does he suspect Lizzie? I have no idea on this one.
5. Is he replaying every conversation Andrew and he had about business dealings trying to think of a suspect (bad deal, someone embezzling again, perhaps from the bank Andrew was president of, an enraged evicted tenant)?

My gut feeling is he was extremely uncomfortable, angry, sad, nervous and getting some air seemed the best option. Lizzie didn't need him. The police could question him outside, if needed. There really was no compelling reason to be inside that house in that situation as far as I can think of.

Just to be clear - that's my assessment of the situation as it was. Had Mrs. Churchill and Alice Russell not been sitting on either side of Lizzie actively physically comforting her, then yes, as the uncle, no matter how much Lizzie usually ignored him, in that situation he should sit with her and be there for whatever she needed. But, that wasn't the situation, so I gave him a lot more latitude to get some air.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:39 pm

I like Lorcan's writeup. Can you imagine how his head was spinning. He swiftly glanced at both bodies, probably so he could confirm inside his own mind that it was real, he spent a moment with Lizzie and then outside to get his equilibrium back.

Unless we all miss the boat on the Borden family dynamics, after he got his mind rebalanced, he had to have wondered about Lizzie. I've thought it possible that he showed up that day at Emma's beckoning, to check in on the 'temperature' in the household.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Tue Jun 16, 2026 7:51 pm

I was going to post that was an interesting take about Emma sending John to the house to check on things - and make the comment - how many trains did she skip before making the dreaded journey back to Fall River? The answer is apparently, zero, contrary to some reports of her delaying the trip back (assuming this quote from the thread described below is accurate).

"The train schedule in the August 5, 1892, New Bedford Evening Standard lists departure times as 8:45 a.m., 3:40., 6:15 and 9:40 p.m. It is stated in testimony she took the 3.40 which would have been the first available one to her."

However, after a search, I might have found our next thread to take a look through. I'll post to it to get it back to the top: Bloodless Emma is the title.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Wed Jun 17, 2026 8:55 pm

That Bloodless Emma thread might not get much traction. I thought there would be more in it. It can drift back downward.

I was re-reading beginning of the Spencer CALB book and he mentions that on Wednesday morning, Eli Bence comes to the house and successfully negotiates putting a store in one of Andrew's buildings. They are still friendly as they further discuss it Thursday morning on Andrew's final walk.

It struck me reading it this time as being suspiciously like her testimony about an unknown out of town man trying to put a store in one of Andrew's buildings and Andrew refusing and asking him to leave. The same story with the opposite outcome.

Am I missing something or does it sound almost like a retelling of the Bence conversation from Wednesday, but reversed, from friendly and successful, to acrimonious and unsuccessful?

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:45 pm

You got a couple names mixed. You are meaning Johnathan Clegg. Too much prussic acid on the brain!

I recall that Clegg stopped by the house Tuesday (not wednesday). But either day or way, it is interesting to also note that he was an english immigrant. Lizzie also mentioned that the speaker 'was english', so perhaps she also borrowed his accent in her retelling.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Fri Jun 19, 2026 6:40 pm

Just FYI:
I have only credited Officer Fleet with claiming Lizzie said Andrew had a visitor on Thursday morning , but Spencer on page 325 CALB, points out that Mullaly had a similar statement from Lizzie.
After the second search he had a second talk with Lizzie, when she was in her room. He asked her if she had seen anyone around the house. Lizzie said she saw a man that morning. He had on dark clothes and was about the size of Officer Hyde. After that he went out and searched yard and both floors of the barn. In the yard, he looked around the pile of boards that was near the back fence,

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Fri Jun 19, 2026 8:51 pm

Hard to imagine that Morse (who was up 2nd after Bridget) and stayed the entire time in either the sitting room or the dining room having breakfast, wouldn't have been aware that Andrew took a caller at the front door and engaged in conversation.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Fri Jun 19, 2026 9:34 pm

That’s a great point.
Now with the Assistant Marshall, and Mullaly both having similar and separate statements about the visitor. for me, this at least gives a degree of confirmation that Lizzie was going with it early on.
Too bad the question wasn’t presented to Morse.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Fri Jun 19, 2026 9:48 pm

That's a good point. Let's try to guess odds:

1. John Morse is talking to Andrew almost the entire morning, once they begin their time together. What are the odds of Andrew receiving a visitor and John not knowing about it?

2. What are the odds of two separate men, within 48 hours, showing up at Andrew's front door, both with a British accent, and both asking to put a store in one of Andrew's buildings?

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Fri Jun 19, 2026 10:51 pm

To your second point Lorcan , I think Lizzie was only considering one visitor, not two.
However, the time allotted for the visitor is only a few minutes, and it would be after John left,
I don’t think there was any visitor Thursday morning, and Lizzie dropped the narrative after thinking along the lines that Cam did.
She was quick to spot her own self incriminating statements, and had a way of disposing them.
Lizzie’s inquest has several examples that show her ability to do so.

As far as 48 hours, that’s a different matter.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Sat Jun 20, 2026 12:16 am

I made a mistake, I think. Are there two separate Mystery Men - the guy with the English accent asking for a store and insulting Andrew saying he loved money so much he'd rent his store for any purpose AND another Mystery Man the morning of the murders?

Here's what I was originally trying to point out:

Jonathan Clegg, English Accent, Successfully arranged for a store in one of Andrew's buildings. Friendly with Andrew.

Mystery Man, English Accent, Denied a store, insulted Andrew, asked to leave.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Sat Jun 20, 2026 7:22 am

Back to Morse being in the sitting room that morning the entire time Andrew was also there. Andrew would have to have heard the door bell or the door knock. We have no indications that Morse was hard of hearing.

It would be difficult to argue that the Borden's DID have a visitor before 9am Thursday morning that Morse was unaware of. That goes for the note delivery or a potential tenant.

Inspector · Post by **Inspector** » Sat Jun 20, 2026 9:36 am

Lorcan, I think Lizzie’s telling of a visitor early in her questioning by Fleet, then Mullaly, was an imaginary offshoot of the actual visit/visits earlier in the week.

Cam, I agree and see it as strange that the prosecution didn’t highlight this improbability, or if they did ask Morse whether a visitor came Thursday before he left, I don’t recall it.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Sat Jun 20, 2026 12:05 pm

In general, I don't think the prosecution did a good job helping the jurors connect the dots. He waited until the closing to do the dot connecting and that was far too late. Plus his closing would have been more effective if he had been a bit more succinct...if I had been on the jury, I would have zoned out on both their closings.

Maybe not allowed back in those days, but I think displaying a chalk board noting the various pieces of circumstantial evidence and then note on the board as each witness added info. Would help the jurors keep track during the trial.

Lorcan · Post by **Lorcan** » Sat Jun 20, 2026 12:56 pm

Camgarsky and Inspector - grab your chalk boards...

Do either of you have the complete list of visitors Lizzie claimed and their date/description/purpose? I'll try to start the list:

WIthin 2 weeks of August 4th:
Mystery Man #1, English Accent, Denied a store, insulted Andrew, asked to leave.

Tuesday, August 2nd:
Jonathan Clegg, English Accent, Successfully arranged for a store in one of Andrew's buildings. Friendly with Andrew.

Thursday, August 4th:
(Return of Mystery Man #1, or Mystery Man #2) ?