Speculation: The Evolution of Suspicion

[Lorcan]

It is really interesting to think about Emma and presumably John, perhaps even Alice or others having come to the conclusion that the police suspected Lizzie and decided not to tell her. If they were trying to protect her, warning her seems like the way to go. So, protecting her by keeping from her...why?

We may have some evidence by the way she acted when she did find out. Rashly, defiantly. Put out the hands for the cuffs and say I'm ready to go right now.

I don't think it was their own personal suspicion of Lizzie that would cause Emma to word it that way. I think it was something about the nature of the questions the police had asked them about Lizzie that let the others know that she was a genuine suspect.

If I were to pick one person who would be able to read all of Lizzie's micro-expressions and other involuntary and fleeting body language tells, it would be Emma. If Hiram's quotes from the newspaper are accurate, Lizzie wasn't able to tell a convincing account of the morning to him. I think that since the Inquest was also a complete mess, that Lizzie probably didn't do a perfect job telling Emma and Uncle John about the events of the morning.

Yes, this is speculation, but consider the simple things Emma would know from experience of living with Lizzie:

1. Emma would know how many flats would heat up on the stove and how if one was hot enough, perhaps 3 others were also hot enough.

2. Emma would know if Lizzie could easily stoke the kitchen fire.

3. Emma would know if Lizzie would really root around the barn loft for a few pennies worth of lead to make sinkers (she would have to melt and pour molten lead into molds or use hand tools to get them the proper weight and shape to stay attached to a line and work effectively as sinkers - or she could spend a few cents and have a box full of perfect sinkers.

4. Emma would know if the screen was broken and if it was in Lizzie's personality to fix it herself or just tell father, a carpenter, and he would fix it.

5. Emma knew whether the dress peg story was a lie.

6. Emma knew whether burning the dress was her own idea.

I think Emma had enough information about whether or not Lizzie was guilty before the inquest started, but whether she let herself think through the implications of what she knew is another matter.

I think by the time Lizzie burned the dress Emma had enough information to know beyond a reasonable doubt if Lizzie were guilty.

My guesses on the evolution of suspicion of the others:

Bridget: didn't suspect Lizzie until she asked about going to Mrs. Whitehead's house and I think it was only upon reflection that her suspicion would grow. I think in the immediate aftermath she didn't suspect Lizzie.

Hiram Harrington: I only have the newspaper to go on, based on that I think he thought she was guilty. However, the way he testified, I think he did not want to say anything that would put the rope around Lizzie's neck. I wonder if discussing things with his wife (Andrew's sister) softened his position about Lizzie or if the newspapers lied. It doesn't appear that he made an effort to correct the record or make the newspaper retract the story. Does anyone have information that he did? That would change things substantially.

Uncle John: I don't think he knew Lizzie well enough to know, like Emma would. I think he was just trying to protect what was left of the family and then move on with his life.

Alice Russell: I don't think she suspected Lizzie until the dress burning, then I think at some point (pure speculation) she may have talked to some of the Marion girls and they had collectively come to the conclusion Lizzie was probably guilty. I wish we knew what was in that Marion letter.

[camgarsky4]

Many more than one newspaper reported Hiram's interview in which he described his conversations with and view of Lizzie. He also provided an almost identical statement to the police. It is very possible the police were present for the same 'speech' Harrington gave to reporters about his chat with Lizzie.

That he said those things is as close to unimpeachable as we can measure something that occurred in 1892.

Regarding Alice.....have you read the Charles Well's diary entries about Alice and Elizabeth? I think I've posted it a couple times, but will send to you if you don't have it. What people put in personal diaries (never intended to be read by others) reflects what they truly believe and feel, so I find them very compelling insights.

[Inspector]

Has anyone ever sat down and came up with a scenario that would make sense that Lizzie was innocent? Disregarding her contradictions, the best I can come up with is that someone snuck in just after Bridget went out to wash windows, crept upstairs to guest room (Lizzie would have to be in her room-door shut), then after dispatching Abby, hide until Bridget went to her room to lie down. Of course Lizzie would have to of told the truth about going to the barn.
The odds against are almost incalculable, but still possible.
Pearson mentioned that the Grand Jury, 21 were present for the vote, and all but one voted guilty.

Perhaps looking at ways for Lizzie to be innocent could help uncover a clue.

[Lorcan]

I haven't read the witness statements in the entitreity yet and didn't know about Hiram's statement to the police. That seems very solid.

I don't remember reading the Charles Well's diary entries - please post again when you have time. Thanks!

What does everyone think about why Emma and the others decided not to tell Lizzie she was a suspect? I'm not sure my interpretation would be shared by everyone and I'm interested in what all of you think.

[Lorcan]

Inspector, the short answer is no. I don't want to give you my 20+ reasons in this thread, but if you want to start a Speculation: Lizzie 100% Innocent thread, we can have a lot of fun throwing ideas around.

[camgarsky4]

The time span between Emma's return to the house on the 4th and her statement on the 6th is really not all that expansive. For the duration of the 4th and probably a chunk of the 5th, Emma and John were still getting their bearings straight on the new reality. John was out getting clothes buried and being followed by the police. Emma was probably meeting family, the police and planning the funeral for the next morning. I'm sure discussions with Lizzie about what she 'experienced' or remembered happened.

Saturday pre-noon was the funeral and extensive police search. And then Hilliard & Coughlin showed up late Saturday and the discussion and statements you mention are shared.

I don't find it troubling or peculiar that Emma, in the first 48 hours after the murders, didn't take the time, and mostly the emotional effort, to ask Lizzie if she realized that it seemed the newspapers were speculating on her guilt. It wasn't like there was an official declaration of Lizzie's suspect status from law enforcement until that same Saturday evening.

[Inspector]

I suppose I have a different take on Emma’s comment that they had tried to keep it from Lizzie. Even with all the going’s on, there must have been some serious eye to eye interaction in a secluded room between the sisters.
My feeling is that all in the house could clearly see where the evidence pointed and probably were concerned.
However, Lizzie, wheather innocently or purposefully wasn’t exhibiting the same or correct behavior under obvious circumstances.
This IMO explains why they were trying to keep it from Lizzie.
Lizzie may have acted obliviously to what the others could see, and it might have been when they all decided to keep it from her.
Just speculating on the mood, and what Emma’s words tell us about Lizzie’s state of mind.
Hmm…Did Lizzie act like a child who didn’t understand or have a care about the predicament?
Also, it appears that Alice took more of a motherly role than Emma, starting Thursday afternoon .
As always, I feel if there are any clues, it would be closest to those in the house, factual testimony, and possibly something so obvious it has been overlooked.
To me Emma’s words are almost as important as Bridget and Lizzie’s because she knew Lizzie and carried her DNA.
Unfortunately Emma was selective with her words, but we do have quite a bit from her.

[Inspector]

Cam, you have a good point about the short time between the Mayors visit,
I’m just thinking there has to be a reason for the group Emma is speaking of, and their covert protection of Lizzie.

[Lorcan]

I edited this and I'm treating it as a copper mine from which we can all throw in our two cents. It's not perfect, but I think it's got enough of a useful framework for what we need to try to see what would need to be true for Lizzie to be innocent and see where suspicion evolves as each coincidence and implausibility adds up and combines.

Contradict these at will and we can filter down to the truly useful items.

We can create seven major conjunctions of evidence when examining the evidence against Lizzie. The first three are structural: any innocence theory must solve them. The remaining four try to explain why Lizzie herself appeared incriminating despite being innocent.

A fully innocent Lizzie requires three large things to be true simultaneously:

An extraordinarily capable or fortunate outsider successfully committed two close-range murders inside an occupied house.

Lizzie was extraordinarily unfortunate, repeatedly saying and doing innocent things that looked exactly like alibi construction, misdirection and evidence destruction.

The outsider’s movements and Lizzie’s movements aligned perfectly, although neither supposedly knew what the other was doing.

1. The Intruder Access Conjunction
An outsider must have:
• Entered the house without being seen.
• Reached the guest room without alerting Abby, Bridget or Lizzie, assuming the killer entered the house after Andrew and John were already out of the house.
• Approached within arm’s reach of Abby without provoking an effective scream or struggle.
• Known, discovered or correctly guessed that the sewing/guest room would remain unused.
• Avoided detection while moving through a small, occupied house.

This is already more demanding than merely showing that a door might briefly have been unlocked. The theory must explain entry, movement, approach and non-detection together.

The absence of an effective alarm particularly suggests that Abby either knew the person, regarded the person as harmless, or was taken almost instantly by surprise. The wound evidence was consistent with an initial standing confrontation followed by most blows being delivered after she was prone.

2. The Two Separate Murders Timing Conjunction
After killing Abby, the murderer must then have:
• Chosen not to flee permanently.
• Remained concealed or left and returned.
• Tolerated an uncertain wait of roughly an hour.
• Avoided Bridget's observation.
• Avoided Lizzie's observation.
• Avoided the possibility that John Morse might return.
• Detected Andrew’s arrival.
• Waited until Andrew was vulnerable.
• Acted during the short interval when Bridget was upstairs and Lizzie claimed to be in the barn.

This is probably the hardest single conjunction in the innocence model.

A random intruder might kill and escape. A person waiting to kill Andrew might only attack Andrew. What is difficult to explain is an outsider killing

Abby, remaining committed to the premises despite extreme exposure, and then successfully obtaining a second opportunity whose timing was not fully predictable.

3. The Escape-Weapon-Blood Conjunction
The murderer must then have:
• Killed Andrew.
• Avoided being seen by Lizzie.
• Left without Bridget hearing or seeing anything suspicious.
• Carried or concealed the hatchet.
• Cleaned up enough to be potentially seen on the street.
• Escaped through a relatively busy urban neighborhood without attracting notice.

This requires not only an unseen killer, but an unseen post-attack killer potentially carrying the physical evidence of two hatchet murders.

4. The Barn Alibi Conjunction
For Lizzie to be entirely innocent, the essential barn account must be substantially genuine:
• She really left Andrew alive.
• She really entered the barn.
• She remained away long enough for the murder and escape.
• The murderer entered or emerged only after she wasn't in a position to be a witness.
• She saw and heard nothing useful.
• The lead, sinkers, pears, screen and stove explanations were genuine activities, intentions or confused recollections.
• The dust observations failed to record her movements accurately.

This is not just a question of whether she could physically have visited the barn. The visit must coincide almost perfectly with the murderer’s opportunity.

The murderer and Lizzie must therefore have moved according to complementary schedules without Lizzie seeing the killer:
Lizzie leaves → murderer approaches Andrew → murder occurs → murderer cleans or composes himself → murderer escapes → Lizzie returns.
That sequence is possible, but it requires unusually precise luck unless the killer was observing her movements.

5. The Controlling the Narrative Conjunction
Several statements that looked like attempts to control the narrative must all have innocent explanations:
• Abby really received a note, or Lizzie sincerely misunderstood something Abby said.
• Lizzie genuinely believed Abby had gone out.
• She genuinely thought she heard Abby return.
• She innocently discouraged Bridget from going to Mrs. Whitehead’s.
• Her reference to the cheap cloth sale was ordinary conversation.
• Asking whether Bridget intended to go out was not an attempt to clear the house.

Her statements about locked rooms were expressions of privacy or security, not efforts to restrict the search.

Her external-threat narrative to Alice reflected genuine anxiety, not pre-emptive misdirection.

The note is especially important because it simultaneously explains Abby’s disappearance and discourages inquiry into where she actually was. No note was found, no writer was identified and no sick person came forward, despite the small number of people who would have plausibly sent Abby a note.

For innocence, that entire evidentiary effect must be accidental.

6. The Clothing Destruction Conjunction
Lizzie’s clothing history must also be entirely innocent:
• The clothing submitted to police was genuinely what she wore.
• Witnesses describing another dress were mistaken or confused.
• The dress burning after police suspicion became explicit was entirely innocent.
• Emma genuinely suggested burning it.
• The police either overlooked the dress during their search or saw it without appreciating its significance.

The individual proposition “she burned an old paint-stained dress” is not inherently implausible. The difficult conjunction is:
Police search for bloody clothing → Lizzie learns she is suspected → a potentially relevant dress is destroyed → Alice warns that it was the worst possible act → Emma later supplies an earlier innocent reason for the destruction.

All of that must have occurred without evidence destruction or later narrative repair.

Emma testified that she had told Lizzie to destroy the dress Saturday night; Alice’s account made Emma’s Sunday reaction sound more spontaneous and uninformed.

7. The Cumulative Coincidence Conjunction
Finally, all the following must independently be innocent:
• The prussic-acid identification was mistaken or unrelated.
• The family illness was unrelated.
• The ominous conversation with Alice the previous evening was genuine anxiety.
• The angry stranger and external-enemy material were genuine.
• Lizzie’s conflicting accounts resulted from shock, paraphrase and memory problems.
• Hiram misread her conduct and character.
• Her unusual calmness was simply her crisis response.
• The very clean hands, face, hair, and clothing after the barn excursion was innocent.
• The dress burning was innocent.
• The missing note was innocent.
• The barn timing was innocent.
• The killer’s successful entry, concealment, timing and escape were all independent of her.

This is where the innocence hypothesis becomes weakest. None of these facts alone proves guilt. The problem is their joint occurrence.

1. The concealed-waiting murderer
The killer must remain available between the deaths despite unpredictable movements inside the house. This is the central logistical problem.

2. The barn-window coincidence
Lizzie must leave at exactly the interval needed for the second murder.

3. Silent access to Abby
The killer must approach Abby closely in a confined room without an effective alarm, suggesting familiarity or an extremely successful surprise attack.

4. Bloody escape without observation
The killer must exit with weapon and probable contamination through a heavily occupied and observed area.

5. The nonexistent or misunderstood note
Lizzie’s explanation for Abby’s absence must be sincere despite the absence of corroboration and its powerful usefulness to the murderer.

6. Innocent dress destruction
The timing, police search, Alice’s concern and Emma’s later explanation must all be unrelated to concealing evidence.

7. Innocent narrative management
The locked rooms, external enemies, prior robbery, screen, sinkers and exclusions of other people must represent naïve or anxious storytelling rather than deliberate direction of the investigation.

8. Innocent cumulative contradictions
The discrepancies must arise from shock, reporting imperfections and ordinary memory rather than adaptive changes to an invented account.

[Inspector]

Great write up Lorcan.
It glares as to why I stated “disregarding Lizzie’s contradictions” and I presented a simple way for an intruder to do the crimes.
You’ve presented the obstacles I wanted to ignore…lol
It is of course essential that we consider them if we are seriously debating her innocence.
One of the biggest problems we have is known facts that are possibly not true. We rely on testimony and we all draw the line hopefully close to the same spot, but not the same.

One thought I had in the intruder theory, was that Andrew , and Bridget were creatures of habit.
Andrew took his morning walk, and Bridget would be outside away from the side door, on a regular basis, possibly not always the same day, but still predictable.
Entering the house would be a simple matter.
Then the problems get tougher.

[camgarsky4]

I took the liberty to move the last two posts to a separate thread titled "Proving Lizzie's Innocence"....or thereabouts.

[Inspector]

Cam, you have some really good points about how well Emma would know her sister, and I just read Spencer’s analysis of all the ironing. What a mess, and the whole thing drug out throughout the entire morning until murders.
I learned there was different times the ironing board was brought up as well.
I had always figured the ironing board was only used when Lizzie brought it to the dining room after Andrew got home.
I suppose one could throw a few morning activities into the same pot, such as ironing, the note, Sargents and so on…
Spencer mentioned something I hadn’t remembered that is very interesting in my opinion.
He said that Bridget testified Lizzie never told her about any sales for the 2 years 9 months she’d been there, until the Sargents episode.

[Lorcan]

Regarding the ironing, Spencer might point all this out, but here is what I'm thinking.

1. Both Lizzie and Bridget used the plural for ironing flats and that is the norm back then. You're heating up multiple iron flats, taking one to iron, when it gets too cool, you put it back on the stove and get another hot one.

2. The testimony was they had so much wood from the previous year the Swede didn't need to prepare any more that winter, so the wood in the basement was very, very, dry and seasoned for the stove.

3. We know the Bordens had newspapers to start a fire. They had very dry kindling. They had coal once the wood was lit. Lizzie had been around that type of stove her entire life and we know from the Marion trips the women in her social group had experience managing kindling and fires. If Lizzie wanted to kindle a fire she could. She could also just walk 5 steps to the screen door and say, "Maggie, I need you to kindle this fire for my ironing." Bridget had managed the fire in that stove for every meal for almost 3 years.

4. Why ironing? Could be innocent, but it puts you in the dining room where you could keep an eye on the driveway, kitchen, and sitting room, and even a view of the front hall, if needed. Where does it look like the killer struck Andrew? From the dining room doorway.

5. As Spencer points out, having some handkerchiefs ironed and some left to dry out wrinkled is very odd. It would require all the iron flats to be barely hot enough to iron even a single handkerchief. They were designed a capture and hold heat over time. Ironing a handkerchief is not a complex operation. Each one would take mere seconds to iron, especially for a woman who had probably been ironing them for 20 years. If the ironing is simply a prop and every second counted, that is consistent with the project being abandoned as soon as the window for a time-sensitive life or death critical task opened.

[camgarsky4]

I like your probing on why Lizzie didn't 'whistle' for Bridget and have her jump start the fire. Those are the kinds of subtle, but telling observations that this case is calling out for folks to make. Just put ourselves in these folks shoes and things start to get less cloudy.

Lizzie set up the ironing board just prior to the 'closing stanza' of the murders, so she didn't need a sentry post. I think it was a case of 'quick thinking on her feet' and coming up with a means to naturally engage in a chat w/ Bridget. I don't think they talked much and, as Bridget told us, this was the first time in almost 3 years that Lizzie gave Bridget unsolicited shopping tips.

Perhaps the reason she started the irons heating process was to give herself a reason to be loitering around the kitchen. Loran, this is very similar to your dining room thought. I suspect Lizzie stayed upstairs during most days.

[Inspector]

Would it make a difference in levity of suspicion if Abby was killed while Bridget was getting sick, or later after Lizzie appeared at the side door?

[Lorcan]

I currently lean toward Abby being killed immediately after Lizzie confirmed Bridget would be out of the house for a significant time washing windows, just after Bridget offered to Lizzie that she could lock the screen door because Bridget could get the water from the barn.

If Abby was killed while Bridget was throwing up in the back yard (vomiting could be something that takes 30 seconds or 10 minutes, and the killer had no way of knowing how bad it would be), there is a huge risk that Bridget would come back into the house and insist on getting Abby's personal permission to put off the task because she had to lay down after being sick. Plus, wasn't Andrew still in the house when Bridget first exited to throw up? I think Mrs. Churchill saw Andrew hesitate at the east side of the stairs to presumably look into the back yard and make sure Bridget was ok.

If Bridget saw him looking, I think she would have waved him off signaling she was ok or he decided it was better to just leave her to it.

[Inspector]

Yes, Bridget would have seen Andrew walk through the kitchen if he had left before she got sick. It appears he must’ve been close behind her, and noticed her, while she probably never saw him.
I’ve always believed Abby was killed right after Lizzie appeared at the side door, it fits all the scenarios best in my mind.
I thought it interesting to look at the possibility that Abby died while Bridget was getting sick, and it’s possible, but I have a hard time thinking Bridget was so incorrect in her recollection.
The Bridget getting sick episode could have been a lie, and as soon as Andrew walked out, the girls killed Abby, it’s a stretch, but a theory nonetheless that would clear Bridget.
She said the dining room conversation happened after being sick. no mention of pillow shams though, so I feel that it was simply known by Bridget and Lizzie that the pillow shams would be taken up to the guest room.
I feel Lizzie, Bridget, or both had decided to use that particular time to go after Abby.
The problem is…we don’t know precisely when Abby went up with the shams.

[camgarsky4]

Sounds like a 2 to 1 vote.

What time do you guys think Abby was killed?

[Lorcan]

I vote that as soon as Bridget told Lizzie that she could use the water in the barn, the window of opportunity was open. Whether or not Abby was already in the guest room I don't know, but perhaps Lizzie offered to get the shams from the laundry room or upstairs closet and walked up with Abby. So, I vote the window of opportunity opened when Lizzie knew Bridget would be outside for an extended period of time. How Lizzie got to within arm's reach with a hatchet, we may never know, but there many plausible scenarios.

My current idea is what I said about Lizzie getting the pillow shams and her own laundry together for Abby, mention the needed sewing, then follow or lead Abby into the sewing/guest room.

I spent a lot of time wondering about Bridget being involved in a conspiracy with Lizzie, but these all argue against it:

1. Bridget testified she didn't see the pail of bloody rags in the laundry room.
2. Bridget testified that Abby never told her about a note and additionally that Abby normally would have made Bridget aware she was leaving the house.
3. Bridget suggested going to Mrs. Whitehead's house, which Lizzie obviously did not want to happen.
4. Bridget testified Lizzie was laughing upstairs when Andrew came home.
5. Their timelines contradict each other a lot.
6. Why not both go shopping and stage a break-in?
7. Why not really stage a crime scene - walk a man's shoe print in the blood, drop a man's hat or glove, etc.

[Inspector]

It’s hard for me to place the time because I still wonder about other, not so popular theories, even one that doesn’t involve Lizzie swinging the axe.

[Lorcan]

I heavily edited my post above, so re-read for a more coherent response. Inspector, tell us your top theories (just a sentence or two will do) and we can see if there are any unrecoverable flaws/contradictions or if they are something we should look into.

[camgarsky4]

Lorcan -- what time estimate are you putting the murder or Lizzie/Bridget interaction at the back door? Most folks put the time guess on the interaction at around 9:30. Curious where you place the time. I'm sticking with my vote, so I lean towards Abby's death occurring 9-9:10

Inspector -- you must have a time you think Abby was killed....unless you don't think she died over an hour before Andrew. If that's the case...please do tell!!

[Inspector]

1) If guilty. and Lizzie acted alone, she brought the hatchet upstairs, probably Thursday morning from her trip to the cellar or perhaps during Wednesday evening while all were asleep.
She kept it in a slop pail with no water, wrapped in rags for concealment, and wiping any evidence as she went about, thus no trail.
Kept the pail in the parlor between crimes possibly, for quick access.
Of course all the known manipulative subjects she brought to the table like the note, Sargents, hearing Abby come home, and the ironing debacle that lasted for hours trying to start a fire, as well as the 9 o’clock visitor who didn’t ring the doorbell are just a few things that show her probably guilty.
All that without mentioning he contradictions.

2) Bridget helped Lizzie. It’s not a top theory, but for obvious reasons of proximity,
The prosecution needed help, and I wonder if Bridget was pressured to say certain things. I suppose we have no evidence to support this , but she was their witness. I recon she could’ve said more.

3) Variants involving JVM, or a friend of Lizzie’s.
As Spencer points out, the lack of blood helps an intruder similar to how it helps Lizzie.
Without extraordinary fortune, I can’t see how an intruder could act alone without Lizzie’s help.
If Bridget was the culprit, how could she act without Lizzie’s knowledge?

[Lorcan]

Here is a rough draft we can work on that contains testimony quotes that can be double-checked as needed. ChatGPT helped me with this, so it may not be 100% at the moment, but it should give us a convenient framework to work with.

The text below is based on Bridget Sullivan’s trial and preliminary-hearing testimony, Mrs. Churchill’s trial testimony, and Abraham Hart’s trial testimony.

Do we have testimony markers for this period? Yes, but they produce a range rather than an exact minute.

Mrs. Churchill placed Andrew near the back steps “somewhere near nine o’clock.” She said he “stood near the east post of the steps, towards the barn,” at the point farthest from Second Street. Abraham Hart later saw Andrew at Union Savings Bank “about half past nine,” adding that it “wouldn’t vary but a few minutes.”

The bank was approximately 950–1,000 feet from the Borden house, roughly a four-to-six-minute walk. Therefore, if the bank was Andrew’s first stop, he probably left home around 9:24–9:27. That does not fit Churchill’s “near nine” estimate particularly well. Either her time was loose, or Andrew made another stop before reaching the bank. The idea that he was checking on Bridget after she vomited fits the sequence, but no witness actually says that was what he was doing.

Bridget testified that after Lizzie came down, she went into the yard because “I had a sick headache and I was sick to my stomach.” Asked how long she remained outside, she answered: “I may be ten minutes, I may be fifteen; I can’t tell exactly the time.”
After returning, Bridget finished the dishes. She said Abby then instructed her to wash the windows “inside and outside both, they are awful dirty.” Bridget placed this conversation at “about nine o’clock.”

At the preliminary hearing, Bridget was asked how long after Abby’s instruction she went for the water and equipment. She answered: “Half an hour I should judge.” She then described meeting Lizzie at the screen door:

“She asked me if I was to wash windows. I says, ‘Yes. You no need to lock the screen door. I will be around here. You may lock it if you want to. I will get the water in the barn.’”

That places the screen-door exchange most plausibly around 9:30–9:40, with a reasonable broader range of approximately 9:20–9:45. Bridget then went directly to the barn for the brush handle and began washing.

Mrs. Churchill later saw Bridget “rinsing the parlor window.” She corrected the attorney when he called it washing: “Rinsing the parlor window.” This was not the beginning of the job. Bridget testified that she first scrubbed the outside windows with the brush, then obtained a dipper and made a second circuit rinsing them. Unfortunately, Churchill gave no reliable time for this sighting, so it confirms that the work was underway but does not provide a useful clock-time bracket.

My working estimate:
About 9:00 — Churchill sees Andrew near the east post of the steps; Bridget receives the window-washing order.
About 9:30–9:40 — Bridget encounters Lizzie at the screen door and says she can obtain water from the barn.
Immediately afterward — Bridget begins the outside window washing.
The strongest single estimate for the screen-door conversation is approximately 9:35 a.m.

[Lorcan]

Let's check the route. We can use that as a timeline for bracketing the house activity. From Rebelo's book. We have at least a barber shop and post office visit, let me try to correct chatgpt.

[Lorcan]

Updates:

Mrs. Churchill saw Andrew near the east post of the back steps “somewhere near nine o’clock.” The map of Andrew’s last walk shows him going first to Pierre Leduc’s barber shop, then to the Post Office, and only afterward to the banks.

Lizzie’s inquest testimony also supports a Post Office errand:

“Maggie went out of doors to wash the windows and father came out into the kitchen and said he did not know whether he would go down to the post office or not.”

She also testified that she had written Emma that morning and that “my father mailed the letter for me.”

This means Andrew could have left the house close to 9:00, spent roughly twenty to thirty minutes walking, being shaved, and visiting the Post Office, and then reached Union Savings around 9:30. We should therefore discard the earlier calculation that placed his departure around 9:24 merely by subtracting walking time from the bank sighting.

Revised working sequence:
About 8:55–9:05 — Churchill sees Andrew near the east side of the back steps; he begins his walk.
About 9:00–9:30 — probable barber and Post Office stops.
About 9:30 — Hart sees Andrew at Union Savings Bank.

This actually strengthens the approximately 9:00 departure and removes the apparent conflict between Churchill’s sighting and Hart’s bank time. It does not necessarily move the later Bridget–Lizzie screen-door exchange, which can still fall around 9:30–9:40 based on Bridget’s stated interval after receiving the window-washing order.

[Inspector]

Good question Cam. I think the whole pillow shams mystery could hold part of the key to it. That’s why I pursued the subject.
If JVM is innocent and left at 8:45 or so, Lizzie may have had very little time to attack. The pillow shams were her last chance in the secrecy of the guest room.
Lizzie may have done so as Andrew walked out—-closer to your time 9 o’clock or thereabouts.

Officer Hyde quoted Bridget as saying Abby went upstairs the final time a little before 9, and some time (after) coming down for the shams. This places the dining room conversation with Bridget and Abby a bit earlier.
Perhaps I’m splitting hairs, but I still can’t discount that Bridget spoke to Abby after getting sick.
I don’t think Hyde could invent the pillow shams comment from Bridget out of nowhere, so that complicates an already complicated timeframe of seemingly contradictory statements from Lizzie and Bridget.
As far as the time , I’d say you are correct, though we may perceive the reasons for deducing the timeframe differently, based on how we treat the testimony.

[Lorcan]

Jo Ann Bentley - if you are still around, I didn't notice the 1980 copyright on that map. I think we'd all buy the Rebelo book if it were in print. Not sure if you'd call the forum fair use, but if need be, it can be removed. I have a feeling that there are only 4 of actively posting and maybe some lurkers, so I don't think we did too much harm.

[Inspector]

Looking at Bridget’s testimony, we can see that John left about 10-15 minutes before Andrew . We see that she got sick about the same time Andrew left —8:55 to 9 o’clock.
She says she was sick 10 to 15 minutes, but problematic is her comment that she saw Abby at 9 o’clock.
How could Bridget see Abby go upstairs a little before 9 o’clock like Hyde reported?
Perhaps the entire timeframe can be shifted back 10 minutes or so.


I was out in the back yard; I was not feeling very well, and I was out there.
Q. How long did you stay out there?
A. I might be out there ten or fifteen minutes.
Q. Were you at the water closet?
A. No Sir.
Q. I do not want to ask you any questions you do not want to answer about it.
A. I was sick to my stomach, and was out in the yard, and I was vomiting.
Q. Where in the yard were you?
A. Out near the pear tree.
Q. You went out there to vomit?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Morse went off at that time or not?
A. He was gone off then.
Q. How do you know?
A. I know he was
Page 10
Q. When you came back, did you see Mrs. Borden?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you see her after you came back?
A. Not until nine o’clock.
Q. When you went out in the back yard, was it before Mr. Morse went off ?
A. No Sir, after he went off.
Q. How soon after he went off ?
A. Maybe ten or five minutes; I cannot tell.
Q. When you came back again, where did you go then?
A. Into the kitchen.
Q. Where did you see Mrs. Borden after that?
A. After washing my dishes.
Q. Did you wash your dishes before you went out in the yard sick, or after you came back?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. When you saw Mrs. Borden, where did you see her?
A. In the dining room, dusting. She wanted to know if I had anything particular to do that day. I
told her no. Did she want anything? Yes, she said she wanted the windows washed. I asked her
how. She said on both sides, inside and outside; they were very dirty.
Q. Did you have any usual time to wash the windows?
A. No Sir.
Q. How often did you use to wash them?

[camgarsky4]

Its a precarious task to build Borden theories that are super time sensitive. Few folks seemed to have worn watches and even in those cases, we still have debates on accuracy.
People were living their normal, mundane lives and then all of a sudden, people demand to know what exactly happened and exactly when! I doubt many witnesses knew precisely the time something happened when it was actually happening, much less hours, days and months later.

A fun exercise....figure out how long Bridget took to 'wash and put away the dishes'. If you accept Bridget's timeline after she was sick, it seemingly took her longer than it took her to wash and rinse the exterior windows.