Three's Company.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:31 pm

I have some questions that I am very interested in posing to you all. They may seem like repeat questions that have been asked a billion times and I admit they most likely are. But I am always wondering about the theories and opinions of the other posters on this forum. I also think that in going over old material, one can still find things that have been missed the first billion times. When it comes to the statements given by Lizzie, Uncle John, and Bridget about what happened on the day of the murders, how much do you actually believe? What don't you believe about their statements? Most importantly who do you think is the most credible?

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:52 pm

The nice thing about going through older threads is because newbies may not have had a chance to comment, learn, or teach us something we don't know. I never hesitate to knock the dust off a four year-old thread.

I don't have much faith in most of what Lizzie said. Her alibis changed so much I'm not sure what is fact and what is half-truths or outright lies. I believe Lizzie mainly when her and Bridget are in an agreement but otherwise I am leary.

Uncle John's appearance a day before the murders and his too air-tight alibi leaves me wondering about him. Something is not quite right somehow.

I think most of what Bridget said was true although she may have bent the truth a bit to soften Lizzie's face, to keep peace. Overall I have more faith in Bridget's testimony than the others. I don't think Bridget told outright lies.

-1bigsteve (o:

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:22 pm

I think that Bridget was alittle more trustworthy. Lizzie kept changing her story, so I am like you are, I don't know what to believe from her.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:13 pm

"Uncle John's appearance a day before the murders and his too air-tight alibi leaves me wondering about him. Something is not quite right somehow."

What it tells me (and others) is that Uncle John knew of the murders before he returned, and took careful note on his return.

This suggests to me that he thought he needed an alibi, because he did not expect it to happen. Else he would have been as careful of details on his trip from the home.

But I suppose there will be contrary comments on my post.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:38 pm

I think also too that maybe people were trying to protect lizzie so they might have been changing their stories alittle bit. As for Lizzie, I don't know what to believe out of her.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:03 pm

snokkums @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:38 pm wrote:I think also too that maybe people were trying to protect lizzie so they might have been changing their stories alittle bit. As for Lizzie, I don't know what to believe out of her.

I think you have a good point there, Snokks. People do have a tendancy to "help" the "Damsel in distress" by twisting the truth a bit, especially the family members and close friends. They may have known she did the killing but knew the strain she lived with under her Father's thumb. Like that character in the Lizzie Borden movie (1975) said, "These skirts can become unbearably heavy at times." I believe Emma knew more than she let on about and that must have haunted her.

-1bigsteve (o:

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:12 pm

I think in the begining, alot of them tried to shield her, but I think as time went on, and especially after the inquest, alot of them were changing their minds. I still bounce back and forth from "she did it" to "she didn't do it" but it seems the town found her quilty and never had a change of heart. Wish more of them would have voiced their reason's for feeling that way, it could have been something we haven't run across yet.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:39 pm

I agree, Pam. I think they probably began thinking, "Woops, now what have we done?" They may have felt they had sent a murderer free and didn't like the feeling of guilt. Whether Lizzie used the hatchet herself or not I believe she was involved in the killing somehow, or at least knew more than she let on about.

-1bigsteve (o:

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:18 pm

I wonder if Lizzie had entertained the thought of burning down the house, she told Alice she was worried that someone would burn the house down around their heads. That would be pretty chancy though, unless she could have somehow made certain that only Abby and Andrew didn't get out. But if she had done that, then she would have gotten a different house, new clothes, and new furnishings.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:38 pm

I wonder if Lizzie ever thought of killing her Parents in bed. Secretly unlocking the bedroom door, sneek in wack them both, sneek down the back stairs, unlock the side door and screen, throw the hatchet into the yard, go back up through her Parent's room, enter her own, lock her door and put the dresser back against it, go to bed. Bridget would have probably heard something. Hmm...

-1bigsteve (o:

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:14 pm

shakiboo @ Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:18 pm wrote:I wonder if Lizzie had entertained the thought of burning down the house, she told Alice she was worried that someone would burn the house down around their heads. That would be pretty chancy though, unless she could have somehow made certain that only Abby and Andrew didn't get out. But if she had done that, then she would have gotten a different house, new clothes, and new furnishings.

That's an idea I had never entertained before. Saying she thought someone was going to burn the house down seems sort of an overdramatization to my mind. Most of what Lizzie told Alice the night before the murder seems an exercise in histrionics. Until you look at it in the context of what happened the very next day. But if Lizzie could have burned the house down she would've killed all of her birds with one stone, you're right. She could conceivably have gotten rid of her parents and gotten her hands on the money, the new house, clothes, everything.

1bigsteve Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:52 pm

"I don't have much faith in most of what Lizzie said. Her alibis changed so much I'm not sure what is fact and what is half-truths or outright lies. I believe Lizzie mainly when her and Bridget are in an agreement but otherwise I am leary. "

The part about believing Lizzie more when she and Bridget are in agreement is true, but there are so few instances where they appear to be in agreement. I tend to believe Bridget the most of the three witnesses who were there that day. She had no motive for the crimes. I don't think she had any reason to lie. I think Uncle John may have figured out more after the fact than he knew before it happened. Maybe he tried to cover up certain things. I don't find Lizzie very believable at all.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:10 pm

snokkums @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:38 pm wrote:I think also too that maybe people were trying to protect lizzie so they might have been changing their stories alittle bit. As for Lizzie, I don't know what to believe out of her.

Here is what I read in some book, one that I believe to be accurate.
The reason Lizzie (and the others?) were asked to repeat their story is so each policeman would hear it, and then compare it to what she told the others.

A guilty person makes up a story and sticks to it. An innocent person has made no preparation and tends to change details as he/she repeats the story to each questioner. Lizzie's changed story tells me she was innocent of the murders. (But not that she didn't know nothing.)

So too the different stories from Lizzie and Bridget show a lack of collusion, they did not prepare their stories in advance to match each others. Bridget's testimony in court was not favorable to Lizzie, hence no collusion and no payoff for her future trip to Ireland (as some have said). But I think Bridget was paid to go away because of what she observed over the years but didn't know what it meant. IMO

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:34 am

Bridget was paid off because of what she observed over the years but didn't know what it meant? It actually seems plausible that Bridget may have witnessed certain events prior to the crime that she didn't know the real meaning behind. Or heard conversations that to her appeared to be harmless in the face of day to day life. But maybe after the murders these events and conversations took on a whole new sinister meaning. She may have held suspicions that she never voiced to anyone. Anything is possible. I, however, never believed Bridget was paid off.

bobarth · Post by **bobarth** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:20 pm

I think Lizzies inquest testimony is all the over the place because she was on Morphine. The more I read on morphine the more I am convinced that she was thoroughly drugged out, showed no emotion, and her answers did not make sense. Of course she did not act like most people after the murder because most people dont get morphine after a shock. Just my opinion.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:59 pm

bobarth @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:20 pm wrote:I think Lizzies inquest testimony is all the over the place because she was on Morphine. The more I read on morphine the more I am convinced that she was thoroughly drugged out, showed no emotion, and her answers did not make sense. Of course she did not act like most people after the murder because most people dont get morphine after a shock. Just my opinion.

Even we want to concede that her answers at the inquest may have been all over the place due to morphine, what then accounts for her giving conflicting statements before she received any of the medications? She had already begun to contradict herself. Especially about where she was when Andrew was killed, and when she was not under the influence of any medication. Dr. Bowen also states that he gave Lizzie the morphine to self administer, but he never actually saw her take any of it.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:06 pm

Allen @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:34 am wrote:Bridget was paid off because of what she observed over the years but didn't know what it meant? It actually seems plausible that Bridget may have witnessed certain events prior to the crime that she didn't know the real meaning behind. Or heard conversations that to her appeared to be harmless in the face of day to day life. But maybe after the murders these events and conversations took on a whole new sinister meaning. She may have held suspicions that she never voiced to anyone. Anything is possible. I, however, never believed Bridget was paid off.

Bridget spent the Thursday night in her bedroom, then moved away never to return.
I think two things might have happened.
1) She noticed the three stopped there whispering when she turned up in their presence; they had some secret to hide.
2) Somebody may have tried to enter her room at night; maybe just to frighten her. A third killing would be too much. It won senserked.

Yes, I have "no documentary prooF" just common sense.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:21 pm

I can't even begin to understand why anyone would spend a night there after the murders, you'd think that would have been the first thing the police would have done, move everyone out, and not allow them back in till everything had been searched, had they done that maybe the dress Lizzie burned would have been found, laying to rest the uncertainty of it being blood or paint on it.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:56 am

It was asked if Lizzie ever thought about how she might commit the murders. Apparently, according to Mrs. Livermore, Lizzie mentions this in a statement to her while incarcerated.

Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject:
I wonder if Lizzie ever thought of killing her Parents in bed. Secretly unlocking the bedroom door, sneek in wack them both, sneek down the back stairs, unlock the side door and screen, throw the hatchet into the yard, go back up through her Parent's room, enter her own, lock her door and put the dresser back against it, go to bed. Bridget would have probably heard something. Hmm...

---1bigsteve

Boston Globe, Sunday, June 18, 1893 – 4

"A GENTLE GIRL.

Lizzie Borden Pictured by a
Friend.

Mrs. Livermore’s Story of the
Borden Household.

She Says She Could Never
Believe Lizzie Guilty.

Interesting Details of
Personal Character."

'I Never Knowingly Harmed
Any Human Being.'

.....
"Lizzie had said to me [Mrs. Livermore]:

'If I had ever wanted to kill my father and mother, how easily I could have done it. Father was a very heavy sleeper, and frequently would lie down and fall into a sound slumber, and it was necessary to shake him vigorously to awake him.

Mother Also Slept

very soundly, and it was difficult to awake her in the morning. What a simple thing it would have been for any one in the house to have slipped quietly into their bedroom at night and have killed them both with a few blows of any weapon. And how easy it would have been to have removed all traces of the crimes and have disposed effectually of the weapon and have left the doors in the house open. Bridget would have discovered the murders in the morning and given the alarm.

'But they claim that I did this in broad daylight, in constant danger of detection by anybody entering the house and almost certain of discovery in removing the weapon and the traces of the crimes.' ”

--As an aside, there was not a bureau on Lizzie's side of the bedroom door, but her bed was diagonally in front of the door area.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:15 am

Didn't Bridget spend Thursday night across the street at the Miller house? Uncle JOhn had to walk her across the street Friday morning to cook breakfast?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:36 am

Shelley @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:15 am wrote:Didn't Bridget spend Thursday night across the street at the Miller house? Uncle JOhn had to walk her across the street Friday morning to cook breakfast?

I'm going by my unaided memory, I don't have a database with details, or even a complete collection. A TimeLine for that day and afterwards would be something to publish.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:38 pm

A very detailed timeline has been published, Lizzie Borden Past and Present- L. Rebello.

The item in question however is Bridget's whereabouts Thursday night. She stayed at the Miller's.

bobarth · Post by **bobarth** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:52 pm

[quote="Allen @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:59 am"

Even we want to concede that her answers at the inquest may have been all over the place due to morphine, what then accounts for her giving conflicting statements before she received any of the medications? She had already begun to contradict herself. Especially about where she was when Andrew was killed, and when she was not under the influence of any medication. Dr. Bowen also states that he gave Lizzie the morphine to self administer, but he never actually saw her take any of it.[/quote]

Allen: I believe she received drugs before the police started questioning her. Dr. Bowen was one of the first people on the scene. I think she was in shock and disbelief and really had no idea that she would seriously be considered a suspect so that she was not real careful in her answering. I think she was trying to piece together the events from the morning and trying to figure out just where she was and what she was doing for those exact times. Not knowing that she was the prime suspect and her contradictions made it look even worse for her. I think if she had done it she would have created a story and stuck to it. Just my opinion though.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:18 pm

On Thursday Dr. Bowen only gave Lizzie bromo-caffeine, a sedative. It was not until Friday that he gave her morphine.

Bowen testified at the trial (p326):

"Q. Did you subsequently see her in her room up stairs?
A. Miss Lizzie?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long after was that, do you think?
A. Some time between one and two.
Q. The same day?
A. The same day.
Q. Did you get a message, or did Miss Alice Russell come to you with word from Miss Lizzie?
A. Yes, sir, I went to her room.
Q. What did you prescribe?
A. I did not prescribe.
Q. What did you give?
A. I gave a preparation called bromo caffeine.
Q. For what purpose?
A. For quieting nervous excitement and headache.
Q. To bring on quiet. to allay nervous excitement?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you give any directions as to how frequently that medicine should be given?
A. I left a second dose to be repeated in about an hour."

I don't think bromo-caffeine was sufficiently strong enough to create confusion. She would have not taken anything before being questioned down stairs.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:19 pm

The bromo-caffeine came before the morphine- and that she received in her room not long after she went upstairs. I would make a guess that was around noontime, or shortly thereafter?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:47 pm

Just to clear things up a bit here - or try, anyway. I'm a bit rusty exactly on what the bromo-caffeine was. I've always understood it to be a predecessor of aspirin, which came on the market as best I can recall in 1899.

The caffeine suggests a stimulant rather than a sedative effect. One, the other, or both?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:56 pm

From Bowen's testimony June 8, 1893Q. What did you give?
A. I gave a preparation called bromo caffeine.
Q. For what purpose?
A. For quieting nervous excitement and headache.
Q. Did you give any directions as to how frequently that medicine should be given?
A. I left a second dose to be repeated in about an hour.
Q. Did you subsequently give other medicine of that kind that day?
A. Yes sir.
Q. In what way?
A. In the same doses.
Q. Did you carry some bromo caffeine over there?
A. I carried some in a bottle over there to be taken.
Q. That was Thursday night. Did you have occasion to prescribe for her on account of this mental distress and nervous excitement after that?
A. Yes sir.
Q. When was it?
A. Friday.
Q. Was the prescription or medicine the same as the other?
A. It was different.
Q. What was it?
A. Sulphate of morphine.
Q. Well, what is commonly called morphine?
A. Yes sir.
Q. In what doses?
A. One eighth of a grain.
Q. When?
A. Friday night, at bedtime.
Q. The next day you changed that?
A. I did not change the medicine but doubled the dose.
Q. That was on Saturday?
A. On Saturday.
Q. Did you continue the dose on Sunday?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you continue it Monday?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And on Tuesday?
A. Yes sir.
Q. How long did she continue to have that?
A. She continued to have that all the time she was in the station house.
Q. After her arrest, was it not?
A. And before.
Q. In other words she had it all the time up to the time of her arrest, the hearing and while in the station house?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Does not morphine given in double doses to allay mental distress and nervous excitement somewhat affect the memory and change and alter the view of things and give people hallucinations.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:02 pm

This is a note from a bottle collecting expert:

"The Bromo-caffeine bottles are very common. They were competitors of the Bromo Seltzer Company. it was a headache remedy. Orignially it was called "Broma". it was manufactured by the Keasbey & Mattison company in the 1890s. "

Here is a link about that company
http://www.amblermainstreet.org/Ambler% ... ttison.htm

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:22 pm

Seems as if the bromo caffeine was bottled in a cobalt blue glass container as it was thought the blue protected the contents from the sunlight. I recall Brom0-selzer very well , being from Baltimore where the famous city Bromo Seltzer tower is a landmark. I should have a photo of the bottle soon- I asked the collector for one.

A note on the makers from the link above
"In 1873, Henry G. Keasbey, a wealthy financier, and Dr. Richard V. Mattison, a chemist, founded The Keasbey & Mattison Company, a producer of pharmaceuticals and asbestos products. Dr. Mattison made his first fortune in patent medicines such as Bromo Caffeine, made to soothe the anxieties of "the neurasthenic woman or the congestive or anaemic headaches of the fin de siecle man"

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:37 pm

One use for morphine was to stop diarrhea.
Could a mental shock cause this?

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:47 pm

Yes, some people get diarrhea when they get upset

Dr_OBoogie · Post by **Dr_OBoogie** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:27 pm

Lizzie's all over the map. It sounds at times as though she's making it up as she goes along. She went to the loft... she went to the loft to get some lead... she went to the loft to get some lead for sinkers... she went to the loft to get some lead for sinkers and she ate some pears. How much of that is due to morphine, emotional distress, or deception I wouldn't venture to guess.

Morse can't remember how old his niece is, yet he can remember the numbers of the trolleys he took back to 92. That's stretching it a bit; one doesn't remember such things just for the heck of it.

Bridget is probably the most reliable of the three but I wouldn't trust her testimony 100%. Human memory is not as reliable as we sometimes think it is. Besides, a good servant doesn't tell tales out of school. Bridget lived in that house; if anybody knew of the tensions within the family, it was her. But she was mostly tight-lipped, either because she wasn't asked the right questions or because she was guarded in her answers.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:53 pm

Dr_OBoogie @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:27 pm wrote:
Morse can't remember how old his niece is, yet he can remember the numbers of the trolleys he took back to 92. That's stretching it a bit; one doesn't remember such things just for the hell of it.

This I don't find so odd. When someone asks my husband how old he is, he looks at me to answer. He's only in his 40's. He can't rememeber his own age let alone mine or the kids. But he does remember things that happened to him through out the day and can describe them in detail.

I'm thinking these trolleys pretty much ran on a schedule for the same trolley's to be at certain places at specific times. Sort of like bus schedules today. So it probably wasn't that much of a stretch to remember the numbers if he had taken the same routes in the past. I remember somewhere in testimony that a trolley was nick named for the time it arrived at a specific location everyday. I think it was one of the officers testifying to this but I'd have to go back and check. Trolley's also had thier numbers right on the side or front of the car itself. I don't think it would be that different from a New Yorker remembering what subway train he rode today.

Dr_OBoogie · Post by **Dr_OBoogie** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:01 pm

Allen @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:53 pm wrote: This I don't find so odd. When someone asks my husband how old he is, he looks at me to answer. He's only in his 40's. He can't rememeber his own age let alone mine or the kids. But he does remember things that happened to him through out the day and can describe them in detail.

I'm thinking these trolleys pretty much ran on a schedule for the same trolley's to be at certain places at specific times. Sort of like bus schedules today. So it probably wasn't that much of a stretch to remember the numbers if he had taken the same routes in the past. I remember somewhere in testimony that a trolley was nick named for the time it arrived at a specific location everyday. I think it was one of the officers testifying to this but I'd have to go back and check. Trolley's also had thier numbers right on the side or front of the car itself.

I'm not saying it's impossible. It just seems like a stretch to me. I've ridden in taxicabs many times; the company's phone number is plastered on the side of the cab but, if I needed to dial the cab company, I'd have to look it up.

Besides, didn't Morse have trouble remembering the numbers of the trolleys he had taken earlier that morning?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:12 pm

Allen @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:53 pm wrote:
I don't think it would be that different from a New Yorker remembering what subway train he rode today.

Oops looks like I past you somehow while I was editing. Sorry.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:15 am

A taxi usually doesn't have a regular set route that it travels every day. At least not in my area. Here they go where they are needed. I couldn't say "Well if I hurry I can catch the number 3 cab on Main Street at 3pm." That was the point I was trying to make by comparing them to the buses and subway trains we have today.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:28 am

Smudgeman @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:47 pm wrote:Yes, some people get diarrhea when they get upset

Yes, and some people get upset when they get diarrhea.

Bromo-Seltzer is a name I have not heard of in decades. It's strange how our memories get jogged around.

-1bigsteve (o:

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:29 am

1bigsteve @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:28 am wrote:
Smudgeman @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:47 pm wrote:Yes, some people get diarrhea when they get upset

Yes, and some people get upset when they get diarrhea.

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:09 am

Morse walked that morning to the Emery's.
As for remembering the trolley car # I think that is a fabrication by an author that got blown out of proportion. It sounded good so other authors copied it.
It was really 6 priests that got the attention, as to the car Morse rode back.

Dr_OBoogie · Post by **Dr_OBoogie** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:34 am

Kat @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:09 am wrote:Morse walked that morning to the Emery's.
As for remembering the trolley car # I think that is a fabrication by an author that got blown out of proportion. It sounded good so other authors copied it.
It was really 6 priests that got the attention, as to the car Morse rode back.

Well, that changes things considerably. I've never suspected Morse of involvement in the crime but I've always found the trolley car thing suspect.

One has to dig through so much nonsense to get to the facts of this case - and even then, the "facts" don't seem to be set in stone.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:17 am

From the corner of Fourth Street, Weybosset St. is only about a mile. I imagine old long-legged Morse, being an outdoorsy type could have managed that at a good clip. I have been meaning to time it , if my knees would only cooperate.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:27 pm

I appreciate that you believe me. It beats debating the memorized trolly car numbers.
I spent considerable time chasing the origin of this *myth* of Morse's alibi and was going to write an article about it. It's been a couple of years tho.
I could dig out my proof if anyone wanted it- it might take a little time if I was asked to.

Dr_OBoogie @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:34 am wrote:
Kat @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:09 am wrote:Morse walked that morning to the Emery's.
As for remembering the trolley car # I think that is a fabrication by an author that got blown out of proportion. It sounded good so other authors copied it.
It was really 6 priests that got the attention, as to the car Morse rode back.
Well, that changes things considerably. I've never suspected Morse of involvement in the crime but I've always found the trolley car thing suspect.

One has to dig through so much nonsense to get to the facts of this case - and even then, the "facts" don't seem to be set in stone.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:08 pm

Kat @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:09 am wrote:Morse walked that morning to the Emery's.
As for remembering the trolley car # I think that is a fabrication by an author that got blown out of proportion. It sounded good so other authors copied it.
It was really 6 priests that got the attention, as to the car Morse rode back.

Didn't Morse also remember the conductor?
SO who was that author? WHAT is in the Sources (Inquest)?