Crowe's Roof Hatchet

[diana]

It's been mentioned a few times lately that Lizzie said she took off Andrew's shoes. But I don't think she did say that. Does anyone know where the idea got started? At the inquest, Lizzie says Andrew removed his own shoes.

I used to think Hiram Harrington's newspaper interview suggested Lizzie told him she helped Andrew with his shoes -- but the version in the August 5 and 6 Fall River Daily Herald doesn't include anything about Andrew's footwear.

[Yooper]

I think that any burying in the yard would show the disturbed ground, and be pretty obvious in daylight. Try it and see for yourself.

Your results may vary depending on the vegetation there. IMO

Yes, I agree, assuming you use a shovel.

[Kat]

It's been mentioned a few times lately that Lizzie said she took off Andrew's shoes. But I don't think she did say that. Does anyone know where the idea got started? At the inquest, Lizzie says Andrew removed his own shoes.

I used to think Hiram Harrington's newspaper interview suggested Lizzie told him she helped Andrew with his shoes -- but the version in the August 5 and 6 Fall River Daily Herald doesn't include anything about Andrew's footwear.

Oh drat! I thought it might be Hiram as well. I guess in that *statement* she helps him off with his coat?
Is it somewhere that she helped him into slippers?

[RayS]

Ray I notice you are editing your posts after I have already replied.
It's OK- but I just want others to notice that too.

You are free to do the same. Just note the time stamp!!!

Thank you for youir help in jogging my memory. My current policy it to read more about other subjects, given the closing of this case by me (Parts 1 to 5). Or do some want more Parts?

Over the years a project is planned, funded, designed, and implemented. Then most people move on to new tasks. I have done all I can with the time and books available to me.

The Trial Transcript is a record of the trial used for any appeal. If reversible errors were made, that is grounds for a new trial.
All trials have errors in them. A reversible error is one that would have perverted justice (like not allowing an alibi witness, etc.).

[RayS]

It's been mentioned a few times lately that Lizzie said she took off Andrew's shoes. But I don't think she did say that. Does anyone know where the idea got started? At the inquest, Lizzie says Andrew removed his own shoes.

I used to think Hiram Harrington's newspaper interview suggested Lizzie told him she helped Andrew with his shoes -- but the version in the August 5 and 6 Fall River Daily Herald doesn't include anything about Andrew's footwear.

Oh drat! I thought it might be Hiram as well. I guess in that *statement* she helps him off with his coat?
Is it somewhere that she helped him into slippers?

I remember questioning that statement as being provocative. From the books. Did they impute actions to Lizzie that were out of character in order to make her look like a liar.

"RayS says he has no pets, but I've seen him take live chickens into his cellar." Just in case you want to know about the feathers in his back yard.

[diana]

I know what you mean, Kat. I feel I've been told that too -- that Lizzie helped Andrew into his slippers. But I can't find any reference to it in the primary documents or in a quick 'author' search. Maybe it was in a newspaper article somewhere?

But I guess the contradiction is only noteworthy because, even though Lizzie quite plainly states Andrew took off his own coat and shoes and she did not help him with that or adjust the pillow on the sofa etc., Hiram Harrington claims she told him differently -- and his newspaper interview suggests she is lying because it is out of character for her to be so solicitous -- thus delivering the double whammy of branding her a liar and a cold-hearted daughter.

Also, there's an oddity in Knowlton's closing at the Preliminary Hearing where he says that Lizzie: "saw him take off his slippers, when the photographs show he did not take off his boots . . ." ?

[Harry]

The reference to Lizzie putting on the slippers appeared in a Boston Advertiser article, Held For Trial dated 9-2-1892.

"... Then she said she brought the slippers for her father and put them on, but the picture shows the boots on her father's feet; they were never taken off. ..."

The article is summarizing Knowlton's closing arguement. Something similar appeared in the Providence Journal of the same date.

Every other thing I have read about the slippers was that he, Andrew, put them on. Obviously the photo shows him wearing the Congress boots.

[Kat]

Thanks you guys!
The Knowlton closing at the Prelim is from Porter.
Maybe there is more in Porter? Or the FRGlobe, his paper?

[diana]

That's where I saw it first -- in Porter page 137.

Thanks, Harry for the newspaper references. Maybe that's where the idea started? The Herald and the Providence Journal added their own touch to their summary of Knowlton's closing? Because, if we are to believe Porter, Knowlton did not suggest Lizzie helped her father with his shoes.

[Kat]

Is it correct to note that Harrington (*I don't like that girl* and *Andrew wore laced shoes* regardless of the photograph) was the only one to see this rolled up burnt thing in the stove?

[diana]

I think you may be right, Kat. I don't remember anyone else who testified about a roll of paper in the stove.

Initially, in his report dated the day of the murders, Phil Harrington says: "There was very little fire in the stove, and the ashes which were on top looked as though paper had been burned there." (Witness Statements)

Later -- at the Preliminary Hearing, he is asked:
Q: . . . For any reason did you look in the stove?
A: Not at all.
Q: Not at all? [This answer probably threw Knowlton momentarily but he goes gamely on with] What did you see in the stove?
A: I was going to tell what he [Dr. Bowen] had in his hand. When he took the cover off the fire was very low, and there appeared to be, or there was, larger coal, or larger remains of something that appeared to be burnt paper, and it was quite large. I should say quite large judging from the size of the stove, comparatively speaking.
Q: Why did you say it looked like burnt paper?
A: Because I have seen burnt paper before, that is all the reason.
Q: Where was it?
A: On the back part of the fire place, or the fire part, whatever you call it, the fire part of the stove.
Q: You mean the place where the fire is?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: What sort of a fire was it that there was there?
A: I could not swear that, but there was a small red spot down in the center. (Mr. Adams) Not a blood spot. [One has to wonder here if Adams was secretly enjoying Knowlton's struggle with his witness.]
A: A small spark of fire there that looked to me like coal, but that I would not swear to.
Q: You could not tell whether it was a coal or wood fire?
A: No Sir; but that is the impression I had at the time, it was coal.

Knowlton must have realized he wasn't getting anywhere with this so he moved on to another line of questioning at this point.

But the Prosecutor was no doubt much better pleased by Harrington's answers by the time trial rolled around -- there's a nice rhythm to the questions and answers here --
Q. Now then, did you observe anything as he lifted the lid from the stove?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Go on and state what you did and what you observed.
A. I noticed the firebox. The fire was very near extinguished. On the south end there was a small fire which I judged was a coal fire. The embers were about dying. It was about as large as the palm of my hand. There had been some paper burned in there before, which was rolled up and still held a cylindrical form.
Q. Now will you describe that roll of burned paper by measuring it with your hands, please?
A. Well, I should say it was about that long. (Indicating) Twelve inches, I should say.
Q. And how large in diameter?
A. Well, not over two inches. (Trial, 567+)

So, what started out being "burnt paper" progressed to "large" burnt paper and was clearly recalled almost a year later as a cylindrical roll of burned paper 12 inches long by approximately 2 inches in diameter.

Nicely done, Captain.

[Kat]

Thanks Diana!
I'm reading more of Harrington, because of these questions.

I notice, in the preliminary hearing, he says Lizzie did a *curtsey* to punctuate a point where she seemed in defiance of him. It was during the time she kept saying "20 minutes."

It has been spelled "curtesy"- but in context, I beieve she is performing a curtsey. Isn't this odd? I am trying to picture it. I didn't even remember this and I don't recall discussing it:

page 392
A. Miss Lizzie Borden. I asked her if she could tell me anything about this crime. She said "nothing at all."
Q. What was her appearance at that time?
A. Shall I characterize the way she looked or acted?
Q. I do not want you to give any argumentative terms; describe her exact appearance.
A. She was cool and collected, and stood erect without any support at all. She said she could tell me nothing at all. I asked her if she could tell me anything about this. She said she could tell me nothing at all.
.....
[continued]
...Then I asked her how long she was in the barn. She said twenty minutes. I asked her, could she give the exact time. She said twenty minutes. I said "is it not hard to fix the exact time; was it not half an hour?" She said, no, it was 20 minutes. I said possibly it was 15. She said no it was 20 minutes I was in the barn. I then told her I thought it would be well for her to be careful what she said at this time, owing to the excitement. I said perhaps on the morrow she would be in a better frame of mind to give a more clear statement of the facts as she knew them. She made a curtesy, and said "no, I can tell you all I know now just as well as at any other time."

--Also, it almost seems like Lizzie has been tutored to say 20 minutes- it sounds like a recording. She may have become stubborn tho?- one never knows with Lizzie.

[1bigsteve]

Was there any testimony from Mrs. Churchill, or any one else, about perspiration seen on Lizzie? Any sweating? Dampness around the edges of her dress? Wet hair? I imagine 20 minutes in a hot stuffy barn would make anyone sweat like a race horse, especially if they are wearing a fluffy dress.

-1bigsteve (o:

[diana]

That's true, Steve. Lizzie's described appearance does belie her rummaging around in a dusty barn.

Mrs. Churchill testified that Lizzie was clean, her hair was not wet or disarranged, and she saw no blood on her, or her dress, when she and Alice Russell were fanning Lizzie and bathing her face and hands. (A. Churchill: Inquest, Prelim., and Trial)

But, although it's true you'd expect her to be perspiring and dusty after being in a barn for 20 minutes -- I also think there'd be evidence of exertion and a disarrayed hairstyle if she'd hacked her father to death.

It's been asked by some how Lizzie's hands could be so clean after being in a dusty barn, but isn't it likely she would have washed them at the faucet where Bridget got the water for window-washing before coming back into the house?

Kat, it does appear that Phil Harrington does his best to malign Lizzie, doesn't it? Didn't he and Lizzie have a history of sorts? I seem to remember they went to school together. And didn't he work for Andrew at one point?

[RayS]

We went over this years ago.
I don't know what Fall River called "slippers", but it could apply to those slip-on shoes Andy was wearing.
Or did somebody change them from lace-ons?

[RayS]

That's true, Steve. Lizzie's described appearance does belie her rummaging around in a dusty barn.

Mrs. Churchill testified that Lizzie was clean, her hair was not wet or disarranged, and she saw no blood on her, or her dress, when she and Alice Russell were fanning Lizzie and bathing her face and hands. (A. Churchill: Inquest, Prelim., and Trial)

But, although it's true you'd expect her to be perspiring and dusty after being in a barn for 20 minutes -- I also think there'd be evidence of exertion and a disarrayed hairstyle if she'd hacked her father to death.

It's been asked by some how Lizzie's hands could be so clean after being in a dusty barn, but isn't it likely she would have washed them at the faucet where Bridget got the water for window-washing before coming back into the house?

Kat, it does appear that Phil Harrington does his best to malign Lizzie, doesn't it? Didn't he and Lizzie have a history of sorts? I seem to remember they went to school together. And didn't he work for Andrew at one point?

I the Jury find the following to be true, and it accounts for the discrepancies in the testimony.
Lizzie's first statement was true: she was in the back yard eating pears.
The later statements were to put her away from the scene so she could claim she saw no one. Part of the coverup.
Note how the facts now fall into place? Clean hair and hands, not in the barn or doing the murder. Just what a proper girl would be doing.

[1bigsteve]

That's true, Steve. Lizzie's described appearance does belie her rummaging around in a dusty barn.

Mrs. Churchill testified that Lizzie was clean, her hair was not wet or disarranged, and she saw no blood on her, or her dress, when she and Alice Russell were fanning Lizzie and bathing her face and hands. (A. Churchill: Inquest, Prelim., and Trial)

But, although it's true you'd expect her to be perspiring and dusty after being in a barn for 20 minutes -- I also think there'd be evidence of exertion and a disarrayed hairstyle if she'd hacked her father to death.

It's been asked by some how Lizzie's hands could be so clean after being in a dusty barn, but isn't it likely she would have washed them at the faucet where Bridget got the water for window-washing before coming back into the house?

Kat, it does appear that Phil Harrington does his best to malign Lizzie, doesn't it? Didn't he and Lizzie have a history of sorts? I seem to remember they went to school together. And didn't he work for Andrew at one point?

It does seem strange, Diana, that Lizzie was not disheveled. Whether she was in the barn for 20 minutes or hacking up her father it would seem reasonable that Lizzie would have been rather unkept, i.e. dirty hands, sweating, dusty dress, bad hair, pear juice on her hands/face, etc. Yet Lizzie was in prestine condition.

Something tells me that Lizzie most likely was a "look out" for the real killer. I don't know. Something is not adding up.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Yooper]

Remember that the original story of an intruder was Lizzie's. She had to be in a position to not notice anyone entering or leaving the house. She places herself in the barn loft where she neither saw nor heard anything with respect to the house (Harrington, page 5, Witness Statements). The problem is, she couldn't have heard Abby arrive, either. The screen door was wide open when she returned to the house, Lizzie had closed it when she went to the barn.

[Susan]

But, at one point in Lizzie's Inquest, she puts herself in the front of the barn loft, looking out the window eating her pears. She has a full view of the side door to the house at that time. Lizzie makes the point that there were two times that she couldn't see the back door; when she passed the jog in the path going to the side entrance of the barn and when she spent the 10 minutes looking for lead on the workbench at the back of the loft.

That was one lucky intruder, not seen or heard when they came into the house and escaped unseen or unheard during that small window of opportunity.

[Yooper]

I imagine while Lizzie was looking out the barn window she didn't notice the open screen door. Maybe it wasn't open then! I agree, that was the luckiest intruder in the annals of crime! It really defies reason! In fact, since the rear door was open after Lizzie had closed it, and since she heard something at the rear door after entering the house which could only be the intruder leaving, the door was open as a result of the intruder entering the house. The second time! "Lucky" only begins to describe it!

[Kat]

I'm a bit at a loss here: What intruder did Lizzie specify and what noise at the rear door did she hear after she came in? What did I miss?

[Yooper]

I'm a bit at a loss here: What intruder did Lizzie specify and what noise at the rear door did she hear after she came in? What did I miss?

I'm not avoiding your question, Kat, but the answer might be a topic for another thread:

viewtopic.php?p=43578#43578

[Yooper]

Yes, Harrington was promoted from policeman to Captain after his testimony before the trial!!! Lawyer Jennings thoughfully drew the jury's attention to this event.

Aside from that, people often are mistaken in their memory.
I think Harrington testified that Andrew had lace-up shoes. Maybe he saw him that way so much that is what he remembered.

PS Thanks for the correction.

Harrington was promoted for a reason. He was the first to suspect Lizzie the day of the murders.

[Kat]

I'm a bit at a loss here: What intruder did Lizzie specify and what noise at the rear door did she hear after she came in? What did I miss?

I'm not avoiding your question, Kat, but the answer might be a topic for another thread:

viewtopic.php?p=43578#43578

I still don't understand? Your post says you are inferring something? Did you want me to read your previous post entirely and other responses to find your answer?
Can I just get the short answer, with quoted testimony if needed? Thanks!

[Yooper]

I'm a bit at a loss here: What intruder did Lizzie specify and what noise at the rear door did she hear after she came in? What did I miss?

I'm not avoiding your question, Kat, but the answer might be a topic for another thread:

viewtopic.php?p=43578#43578

I still don't understand? Your post says you are inferring something? Did you want me to read your previous post entirely and other responses to find your answer?
Can I just get the short answer, with quoted testimony if needed? Thanks!

The point is that there was no intruder.

[Kat]

Sorry- I seem to be dense tonight.
Did you say this:

Yooper
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject:
"Remember that the original story of an intruder was Lizzie's."

This is what I wish cited please? I don't want to go looking- I'd prefer if you supported this. It's a sincere and legitimate question. If Lizzie told a "story" about an "intruder" then it should be in her inquest testimony.

And specifically you say: "she heard something at the rear door after entering the house..."
I would please like that cited as well from Lizzie's inquest. Thanks a bunch.
This isn't a test- I think if someone wants testimony to support something written here they should be supplied with that.

[Yooper]

Something like "Bridget come quickly, someone has killed father". Bridget's testimony, just about anywhere. "Someone" implies an intruder.

The rest is deduction, as stated in the "Lizzie's Dilemma" thread. She must have heard something at the rear door after entering the house if she "heard Abby return", it was the only opportunity.

[RayS]

Yes, Harrington was promoted from policeman to Captain after his testimony before the trial!!! Lawyer Jennings thoughfully drew the jury's attention to this event.

Aside from that, people often are mistaken in their memory.
I think Harrington testified that Andrew had lace-up shoes. Maybe he saw him that way so much that is what he remembered.

PS Thanks for the correction.

Harrington was promoted for a reason. He was the first to suspect Lizzie the day of the murders.

Really??? Why was he jumped over Sergeant and Lieutenant?
Who did he know?

[Kat]

I've been looking around for what Lizzie did say that day when she found her father. I couldn't reconcile an *intruder* with what she said- prior to Bridget's trial testimony, where the "Somebody came in" phrase finally appears, a year later.

I am going by what Bridget said Lizzie said here.

I have not looked at what Lizzie said she said. Anyone can and see if she did say that, and please report back.

It seems as if the point they were trying to get at in the trial, once the phrase comes out, is whether Lizzie knew Andrew was dead or not- but I think it looks more like they were trying to Not call attention to the fact that Bridget said at Trial that "Somebody came in." Obviously she cannot be asked outright- so the question is obscure: "Q. Other times you have said, haven't you, a little something different? It may mean the same."
In the preliminary hearing Bridget didn't say that Lizzie said "Somebody came in." It was a year later that this comes out. Of course, we don't know what came out of the grand jury.


Prelim
Bridget
27
Q. You were still lying on the bed---
A. Yes Sir.

Q. --- when she called to you. What did she say?
A. She holloed to me. Of course I knew something was the matter, she holloed so loud. I asked her what was the matter. She said "come down quick", that her father was dead.

Q. She called your name, Maggie?
A. Yes Sir. I came down, and asked what was the matter, and was going into the sitting room. She told me to go quick for Dr. Bowen.

Q. Where was she when you went down?
A. Standing in the back door, leaning against it, right by the screen door.

Q. The wooden door, that you opened in the morning, that was not shut during the day?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. That was at the foot of the stairs?
A. Yes Sir.

________



Trial
Bridget (Partial)
286
Q. And you heard no noise or any trouble, and you hadn't seen anybody about the house?
A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. And where the different persons in the house were you didn't know?
A. No, sir, except Mr. Borden and Lizzie in the sitting-room.

Q. Then you heard Miss Lizzie call you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Up stairs?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were up there?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember the exact words that she used?
A. She says, "Maggie, come down," and she hollered with such a voice that I says, "What is the matter?" She says, "Come down quick. Father is dead. Somebody came in and killed him."

Q. Now, when you gave it before to-day, did you give it just

Page 287

like that?
A. I think so.

Q. Did you say "Father is killed"?
A. "Father is killed" or "dead." I can't tell which of the two,---just the same any way.

Q. It means the same, but I am trying to see if you could remember the words. You don't quite, do you?
A. I think she said, "Father is killed; somebody came in."

Q. Other times you have said, haven't you, a little something different? It may mean the same.
A. I don't know. I think it is the words she said, either dead or killed. I can't tell which of them.

Q. Now, when you came down were you excited?
A. Why, yes, sir.

Q. You really were, weren't you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You found then that Mr. Borden was either very badly injured or else he was dead?
A. I didn't know what was the matter. She said he was either dead or killed. I couldn't tell which of the two words now, of course. She told me to go after the doctor, and so I did.

--I have not used The Witness Statements because they are not testimony. If the phrase is found in there, I'd be happy to hear about it and assess it in this context.

[Kat]

As for stating that Lizzie must have heard something at the back door, if she says she thought she heard Abbie come in- we have shown before that Lizzie did not say that she heard Abbie come in.

If someone else said she said that, then it is proper to state that within the argument, isn't it, to be clear?

Inquest
Lizzie
65(22)
Q. Then why did you not suppose she had gone?
A. I supposed she had gone.
Q. Did you hear her come back?
A. I did not hear her go or come back, but I supposed she went.
Q. When you found your father dead you supposed your mother had gone?
A. I did not know. I said to the people who came in "I don't know whether Mrs. Borden is out or in; I wish you would see if she is in her room."
Q. You supposed she was out at the time?
A. I understood so; I did not suppose anything about it.

--I would take this opportunity to inform everyone that the line that is underlined has an error.
The line, in the hard copy reads:

"I did not hear her come back, but I supposed she went."

[Yooper]

Lizzie stated to both Mrs. Churchill and to Bridget that she thought she heard Abby come in. By simple deduction, we find that the only opportunity to do this was while she was to or from finding Andrew. She further denied hearing any disturbance during this time in response to a question by Knowlton at the Inquiry.

Lizzie did not say she heard Abby come in, but she said she thought she heard Abby come in. She said this to two different individuals and they were consistent in their testimony to this fact. Lizzie was clearly trying to steer the search for Abby to the guest room. I don't quite understand the importance in proving that Lizzie did not say that she positively heard Abby arrive, that is not the point. She intended to indicate that she had reason to confine the search, when no reason should have existed if she was innocent. As far as Lizzie knew, Abby had gone on an errand to some supposedly unknown destination, and Abby could be anywhere. Lizzie knew good and well that Abby was in the guest room!

[Yooper]

I've been looking around for what Lizzie did say that day when she found her father. I couldn't reconcile an *intruder* with what she said- prior to Bridget's trial testimony, where the "Somebody came in" phrase finally appears, a year later.

I am going by what Bridget said Lizzie said here.

I have not looked at what Lizzie said she said. Anyone can and see if she did say that, and please report back.

It seems as if the point they were trying to get at in the trial, once the phrase comes out, is whether Lizzie knew Andrew was dead or not- but I think it looks more like they were trying to Not call attention to the fact that Bridget said at Trial that "Somebody came in." Obviously she cannot be asked outright- so the question is obscure: "Q. Other times you have said, haven't you, a little something different? It may mean the same."
In the preliminary hearing Bridget didn't say that Lizzie said "Somebody came in." It was a year later that this comes out. Of course, we don't know what came out of the grand jury.


Prelim
Bridget
27
Q. You were still lying on the bed---
A. Yes Sir.

Q. --- when she called to you. What did she say?
A. She holloed to me. Of course I knew something was the matter, she holloed so loud. I asked her what was the matter. She said "come down quick", that her father was dead.

Q. She called your name, Maggie?
A. Yes Sir. I came down, and asked what was the matter, and was going into the sitting room. She told me to go quick for Dr. Bowen.

Q. Where was she when you went down?
A. Standing in the back door, leaning against it, right by the screen door.

Q. The wooden door, that you opened in the morning, that was not shut during the day?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. That was at the foot of the stairs?
A. Yes Sir.

________



Trial
Bridget (Partial)
286
Q. And you heard no noise or any trouble, and you hadn't seen anybody about the house?
A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. And where the different persons in the house were you didn't know?
A. No, sir, except Mr. Borden and Lizzie in the sitting-room.

Q. Then you heard Miss Lizzie call you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Up stairs?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were up there?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember the exact words that she used?
A. She says, "Maggie, come down," and she hollered with such a voice that I says, "What is the matter?" She says, "Come down quick. Father is dead. Somebody came in and killed him."

Q. Now, when you gave it before to-day, did you give it just

Page 287

like that?
A. I think so.

Q. Did you say "Father is killed"?
A. "Father is killed" or "dead." I can't tell which of the two,---just the same any way.

Q. It means the same, but I am trying to see if you could remember the words. You don't quite, do you?
A. I think she said, "Father is killed; somebody came in."

Q. Other times you have said, haven't you, a little something different? It may mean the same.
A. I don't know. I think it is the words she said, either dead or killed. I can't tell which of them.

Q. Now, when you came down were you excited?
A. Why, yes, sir.

Q. You really were, weren't you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You found then that Mr. Borden was either very badly injured or else he was dead?
A. I didn't know what was the matter. She said he was either dead or killed. I couldn't tell which of the two words now, of course. She told me to go after the doctor, and so I did.

--I have not used The Witness Statements because they are not testimony. If the phrase is found in there, I'd be happy to hear about it and assess it in this context.

Fleet, page 3, Witness Statements. "...some one had killed him", Bridget.
Fleet, page 2, Witness Statements. "...some on had killed father", Lizzie.
Harrington & Doherty, page 11. Witness Statements. "...I don't know but they killed her, too.", Mrs. Churchill.

The word "intruder" is not used. If we must have testimony which specifically uses that word, we're out of luck. What is the point? Does the use of the word "somebody" imply something other than an intruder?

The point is that the first story of an intruder was Lizzie's.

[Kat]

My point has been that what Lizzie says she said is as valid as what others say she said. It cannot just be discounted and thrown out or misrepresented because someone doesn't believe her. To be fair.

My request is that when another character's words are used to say what they think Lizzie said, that should be specified. That is how we use testimony. It keeps confusion down- plus any assumption or implication by the poster becomes clear.
I'm sure posters/readers would appreciate *clarity.*

This may not seem important, but it is.

[Kat]

As for stating that Lizzie must have heard something at the back door, if she says she thought she heard Abbie come in- we have shown before that Lizzie did not say that she heard Abbie come in.

If someone else said she said that, then it is proper to state that within the argument, isn't it, to be clear?

Inquest
Lizzie
65(22)
Q. Then why did you not suppose she had gone?
A. I supposed she had gone.
Q. Did you hear her come back?
A. I did not hear her go or come back, but I supposed she went.
Q. When you found your father dead you supposed your mother had gone?
A. I did not know. I said to the people who came in "I don't know whether Mrs. Borden is out or in; I wish you would see if she is in her room."
Q. You supposed she was out at the time?
A. I understood so; I did not suppose anything about it.

--I would take this opportunity to inform everyone that the line that is underlined has an error.
The line, in the hard copy reads:

"I did not hear her come back, but I supposed she went."

The Evening Standard, that has the accepted version of Lizzie's Inquest testimony, does have the statement in full that I show first:
"I did not hear her go or come back, but I supposed she went."

[Yooper]

My point has been that what Lizzie says she said is as valid as what others say she said. It cannot just be discounted and thrown out or misrepresented because someone doesn't believe her. To be fair.

My request is that when another character's words are used to say what they think Lizzie said, that should be specified. That is how we use testimony. It keeps confusion down- plus any assumption or implication by the poster becomes clear.
I'm sure posters/readers would appreciate *clarity.*

This may not seem important, but it is.

If fairness is the objective, then the testimony of people other than Lizzie can not be discounted, either. When two statements contradict each other, either one or both is/are probably wrong. When one statement contradicts more than just one other, possibly several other statements which are all in concurrence among themselves, then in all fairness, the contradictory statement is probably false. When these concurrent statements are consistent, from the Witness Statements to the Trial Testimony, and the person making the contradictory statement is on trial for her life while the others have nothing to gain or lose, then we can make a judgment as to the validity of the contradictory statement. We can only believe one or the other, not both statements, when they are mutually exclusive. This neither "discounts", "misrepresents", nor "throws out" the statements made. It puts them in proper context. When the individual makes a habit of contradictory statements, even to the point of contradicting herself, while others are generally very consistent, then we can attach a proper value to any statement made by that person within the parameters of the issue at hand. We reach a point where we must consider what is actually necessary to continue to believe that individual. We can not simply say "well, she COULD be telling the truth" without weighing what else is necessary to make that so. By saying something is true we necessarily imply that something else is false. It boils down to a belief system and someone on trial for her life or about to be put there does not have the same validity as someone not in that position and who stands to gain or lose nothing. Does that person have a reason to lie or contradict others when the contradiction puts her in a better light?

I understand the point about clarity and the need to separate what Lizzie said from what others said. It is often diametrically opposed to the statements of others and tends to stand as self-evident proof of her veracity. I hope this is all clear.

[diana]

I wholeheartedly agree that it is important to credit statements to the correct person! To me, there is an inestimable difference between the words 'Lizzie said she heard a groan' and 'Bridget said Lizzie told her she heard a groan.'

The contradictions in Lizzie's testimony are often pointed up as being indicative of her guilt but we should remember that Bridget Sullivan, the only other person left alive in the house, contradicted not only Lizzie, Mrs. Churchill, Mrs. Bowen, and John Morse, but also herself. As an example of this, here are some instances of how Bridget's version of the Borden household was re-colored between August 1892 and June 1893.

INQUEST: " . . . if anything was the matter with Mrs. Borden, Lizzie did all she could for her".
TRIAL: “ . . . I know that she [Mrs. Borden] was sick one time and none of them went into the room while she was sick.”

INQUEST: "[Mr. and Mrs. Borden and Lizzie] always ate together when she was in the house, except when she was out on an errand."
TRIAL: Q. Now the daughters, Miss Emma and Miss Lizzie, usually came to the table, did they not, as the father and mother did?
A. No, sir, they did not.

INQUEST: "Was she [Lizzie] crying?" "Yes, sir, she was crying."
TRIAL: Was she [Lizzie] crying?” “No, sir.”
[source: trial transcript pp. 255 - 342]

Bridget's Inquest testimony is not available to us now -- but it was to the attorneys at trial -- and the quotes from her Inquest testimony were read aloud to Bridget at the trial in an effort to show the court not only how her testimony altered but also how her portrayal of Lizzie changed from that of a young lady who ate with the family, did all she could for her stepmother when she was ill, and openly wept on the day of the tragedy to a cold individual who avoided the family table, stayed out of her stepmother's sickroom, and shed not a tear when her parents were killed.

[Kat]

That is what I am getting at, thanks Diana! That's good stuff.
It shows the big picture.

I hadn't it in me at the time to argue that other's statements could certainly be biased (over time or influenced in some way, or unknowingly). It just seems logical that they could have an *agenda.* I just don't happen to assume that they don't. I don't assume much. The assumptions should be clearly pointed out by the writer of the post. That is clear thinking and showing a willingness to show clarity.
If a poster's opinion, or slant, is valid it will stand up to this kind of scrutiny.
Just because 2 characters seem to agree, doesn't mean to me that they are correct and Lizzie is wrong.

[Allen]

INQUEST: "[Mr. and Mrs. Borden and Lizzie] always ate together when she was in the house, except when she was out on an errand."
TRIAL: Q. Now the daughters, Miss Emma and Miss Lizzie, usually came to the table, did they not, as the father and mother did?
A. No, sir, they did not.

Emma herself admitted there were times they avoided eating meals with their parents. There were other witnesses who testified that the girls refused to eat meals at the dinner table. So the second statement is actually more in agreement with other witnesses. I would wonder what made her decide to tell the truth later instead of sooner.

[Yooper]

The statements made by Lizzie to Mrs. Churchill and Bridget about having heard Abby return were consistent. If we assume Bridget has an agenda, it doesn't apply in this instance because the statement was made in response to an offer made by Bridget in the presence of others, including Mrs. Churchill. Bridget would not likely lie about something said in public, nor would anyone else. What else might have prompted a search in the guest room when logic would indicate a search of the cellar or the parlor made more sense, given the necessary circumstances for having heard Abby return?

There is a difference between Bridget's attempts at trying to portray domestic harmony in the Borden household and Lizzie's seemingly never-the-same-way-twice testimony. Once Bridget realized the cat was out of the bag concerning the relationship between the Bordens, she corrected her earlier attempts. People were generally trying to help Lizzie, they tried to slant things to cast Lizzie in a favorable light throughout the proceedings.

What would Mrs. Churchill's "agenda" be?

[Kat]

I see what you mean Missy (dueling testimonies), but Morse seems to concur with the *Lizzie-ate-at-the-table* household harmony theme...just to keep that in the equation.

[RayS]

Any Trial Transcript records the answers to the questions. Most witnesses have told and retold their testimony before it comes out in court.
Either way, there are conflicts in testimony. "Did" or "Didn't".
The jury hears their words, observes their demeanor, and decides what is the "best evidence".

In June 1893 they said of Lizzie "not guilty". Case closed? In any case like this, there will always be people who way they were really guilty. Or innocent if they were convicted on less than perfect evidence.

Professor Borchard (of Yale) wrote a book circa 1935 about people who were innocent but convicted. Mostly on eyewitness evidence "it looks like him", or worse. No fingerprints or blood evidence, etc.

So just citing an answer from the Trial Transcript alone is not proof of guilt when the jury has decided otherwise. Perhaps better than citing one sentence from secondary sources?
But its fun for some people.

[Kat]

You're talking to people who have read source documents and as many books and articles and news accounts they could get their hands on- and who still are reading more, constantly.
That sort of leaves you behind here with that statement.

[diana]

There is a difference between Bridget's attempts at trying to portray domestic harmony in the Borden household and Lizzie's seemingly never-the-same-way-twice testimony.

Perhaps I used the wrong example to illustrate my point. I had meant to point up that Bridget's answers were as inconsistent as Lizzie's. Here's some more examples.

Bridget contradicted Morse's statement about when Abby told her to do the windows, she contradicted Mrs. Churchill's observation about how often she cleaned the windows, according to a police report she said that on the day of the murder Abby went upstairs just before nine and came down sometime later for some pillow shams – later her story changed to never having seen Abby after they spoke in the dining room at 9 a.m. Initially she says Andrew and Lizzie both took up piles of clothes from the kitchen table on Thursday morning. But at trial, she says that the clothes were all put away on Wednesday. She and Mrs. Bowen had differing ideas of what Bridget told the doctor's wife when she came over. She says more than once that Andrew and Abby were in charge of answering the front door when they were at home – but although they were both home when Bowen came on Wednesday morning – it was Bridget who let him the doctor in through the front door. (I have deliberately not included all the contradictions between Bridget's testimony and Lizzie's here.)

And you're absolutely right, Missy -- it's true that others testified as to disharmony within the family, but Bridget's testimony as to the family dynamic was one that definitely changed over time. What I think happened was, as the defense hinted, once Marshal Hilliard and Detective Seaver became her sureties and she was given a position in the household of the keeper of the New Bedford jail -- her loyalties shifted somewhat.

[Yooper]

There is a difference between Bridget's attempts at trying to portray domestic harmony in the Borden household and Lizzie's seemingly never-the-same-way-twice testimony.

Perhaps I used the wrong example to illustrate my point. I had meant to point up that Bridget's answers were as inconsistent as Lizzie's. Here's some more examples.

Bridget contradicted Morse's statement about when Abby told her to do the windows, she contradicted Mrs. Churchill's observation about how often she cleaned the windows, according to a police report she said that on the day of the murder Abby went upstairs just before nine and came down sometime later for some pillow shams – later her story changed to never having seen Abby after they spoke in the dining room at 9 a.m. Initially she says Andrew and Lizzie both took up piles of clothes from the kitchen table on Thursday morning. But at trial, she says that the clothes were all put away on Wednesday. She and Mrs. Bowen had differing ideas of what Bridget told the doctor's wife when she came over. She says more than once that Andrew and Abby were in charge of answering the front door when they were at home – but although they were both home when Bowen came on Wednesday morning – it was Bridget who let him the doctor in through the front door. (I have deliberately not included all the contradictions between Bridget's testimony and Lizzie's here.)

And you're absolutely right, Missy -- it's true that others testified as to disharmony within the family, but Bridget's testimony as to the family dynamic was one that definitely changed over time. What I think happened was, as the defense hinted, once Marshal Hilliard and Detective Seaver became her sureties and she was given a position in the household of the keeper of the New Bedford jail -- her loyalties shifted somewhat.

Does Bridget contradict herself with respect to her offer to go to Mrs. Whitehead's house to look for Abby and Lizzie's subsequent answer that she thought she heard Abby return? Does Mrs. Churchill change her testimony about Lizzie's response to her question about Abby's whereabouts when she first came to Lizzie's assistance? We can either believe Lizzie, or Mrs. Churchill and Bridget, they can't all be right. If Lizzie is correct, why did Mrs. Churchill and Bridget go directly to the guest room to find Abby, walking right past the parlor to do so?

[theebmonique]

Hadn't Bridget already been upstairs the back way to get a sheet to cover andrew ?...so she knew Abby was not up there ? I thought Bridget and Mrs. Churchill went through the dining room, and into the parlor, then upthe front stairs, bypassing the sitting room where Andrew was to check upstairs for Abby.





Tracy...

[Yooper]

Hadn't Bridget already been upstairs the back way to get a sheet to cover andrew ?...so she knew Abby was not up there ? I thought Bridget and Mrs. Churchill went through the dining room, and into the parlor, then upthe front stairs, bypassing the sitting room where Andrew was to check upstairs for Abby.





Tracy...

I don't remember anything about them going through the parlor. Bridget and Mrs. Churchill had gotten some sheets to cover Andrew with by then. They needed the key for the bedroom which was on the mantel, so they knew at that point that Abby wasn't in the bedroom.

[theebmonique]

I thought the key on the mantle was just for the door between Lizzie's room and Andrew/Abby's room ? If Bridget went up the back stairs to get the covering sheet...so she wouldn't have needed a key would she ?

When I mentioned going through the parlor, I thought Bridget and Mrs. Churchill used that route in order to avoid having to see Andrew's body in the sitting room...no ?





Tracy...

[Kat]

"Lizzie's subsequent answer that she thought she heard Abby return?"

--Yooper

Inquest
Lizzie
"I did not hear her go or come back, but I supposed she went."

Tracy, I think that Mrs. Churchill and Bridget went thru the edge of the sitting room to get to the foyer to go up the front stairs.
The mantle key was for Andrew and Abby's bedroom door off the rear hall.
Bridget did need a key to go up there for sheets. The sheets were in Abbie's *dressing room.*

[theebmonique]

Thank you, Kat.





Tracy...

[Yooper]

"Lizzie's subsequent answer that she thought she heard Abby return?"

--Yooper

Inquest
Lizzie
"I did not hear her go or come back, but I supposed she went."

Tracy, I think that Mrs. Churchill and Bridget went thru the edge of the sitting room to get to the foyer to go up the front stairs.
The mantle key was for Andrew and Abby's bedroom door off the rear hall.
Bridget did need a key to go up there for sheets. The sheets were in Abbie's *dressing room.*

If Lizzie did not hear Abby return, why did she tell two people that she had? Why would Lizzie suppose that Abby might have been killed? She had absolutely no reason to think Abby had returned.