Iam so confused, I don't know what I have answered.

[snokkums]

I was reading thru Lizzie's inquest on this site, and it's amazing. She answered many of the same questions differently or changed her answers.

Her own statement; "I don't know what I have said. I have answered so many questions and I am so confused. I don't know one thing from another. I am telling you must as nearly as I know."

I don't know, if I am being accused of murder, I think I am going to try very hard to remember what I was doing and were I was at. And it seems she never could remember what she was doing or where she was at.

[william]

Consider this: During the interrogation Lizzie answered over eight hundred questions. For the best of us this would be a daunting task.
Lizzie had no council representing her who could have objected to the relevance of each question. We must also take into consideration the possibility that Lizzie was sedated during this period.

I have always believed Lizzie was guilty. I am not trying to excuse her. Just trying to be fair and give the devil her due:

"Just the facts, Mam."

[1bigsteve]

Lawyers are good at getting under the skin of a witness, to confuse the person, to create "cracks" in the witnesses testimony. Whether these cracks are the result of honest confusion or signs that the person is lying is often not important to the prosecuter. He want's a guilty verdict. A witness on the stand who is guilty has a hard time keeping his story straight and that may have been what Lizzie was doing. She may have been changing her story as she went along to keep "cracks" from developing. The truth dosen't have to lie but telling one lie creates an automatic chain of lies. "I was in the loft," "I was in the yard eating pears," no, "I was upstairs," no, "I was downstairs," "I was Ironing," "I was reading a magazine," etc. I think Lizzie had to change her story as she went along. I really don't think she was that confused.

-1bigsteve (o:

[snokkums]

I know that lawyers are good at rattling people, but when the inquest was going on, it's to my understanding that Lizzie didn't feel she was under arrest or a suspect. So why was she so nervous to where she would get confused? If she getting rattled and nervouse, why didn't she just shut up and request a lawyer. It seems to me she was getting nervous.

[1bigsteve]

Guilty people are automatically nervous because they have something to hide and they are afraid it will be exposed. I think Lizzie began lying from the moment the bodies were found and felt she had to keep lying. Entering a court is enough to make anyone nervous but more so to a guilty person. Keeping one's mouth shut and asking for a lawyer is an admission of guilt in the eyes of many people. "Well, would you look at that. Little Miss Goody is asking for a lawyer. She must have something to hide." Lizzie may have been trying to maintain a facade of "respectability and innocence" by not asking for a lawyer. Like William said, Lizzie may have been sedated to some degree but I don't think it was enough to prevent her from focusing in on what was going on and how she had to "change" her testimony as things went along.

I would have loved to have taken a peek into Lizzie's brain to see where those lies are. I don't know what's the truth and what are lies.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

Lizzie was made aware of the suspicions of the State (and city of Fall River) in the visit made upon her by the Mayor and Marshal Hilliard on Saturday.
Sunday she burned a dress.
She was called to the inquest on Tuesday.
I think by then she knew she was the main suspect.

I will say that I once had to give a deposition under oath and to a tape recorder, and even tho I was an innocent victim I was sweating bullets, believe me! My mind went blank at times. It was a very stressful situation.

[Yooper]

The truth tends to be the same story regardless of how many times it is told. There is no need to keep track of it. It is unnecessary to remember what was said previously, there is no confusion involved.

The lawyers tend to begin questioning on a topic of interest, then switch to a different subject, then return to the original topic. They will often pose the same question from a slightly different perspective in an attempt to elicit a different answer from a witness. If the truth is being told, the answer will tend to be the same, regardless of how distracting the line of questioning is.

[Shelley]

Absolutely true. Yooper. Yes, just going through jury selection is harrowing. Twice this year I was in the last "cut" and had to sit in the box and get grilled by the judge and both attorneys. Truth be told, I loved every minute of it. Which is why I did not get selected in the end. But the courtroom and the attorneys are impressive, and the judge is like God- so it s quite an experience. I found when I was not sure of something I just said so. The trouble begins when you either say what you think THEY want to hear- or start getting too detailed and embroider stuff. Keep it simple, don't volunteer your opinions, and other babblings -and stick to the facts as far as you can remember them.

One question put to me was "Do you think a policeman or law enforcement person can lie?"= to which I said "You bet!".

[william]

Kat: I had a similar experience.
When I was fifteen years old I was thrown from a horse, suffering severe damage to my left arm. My dad sued the riding academy citing negligence. I was on the witness stand and said I was provided with a stool to mount the horse by the academy proprietor. Later in my testimony I said that Mr. Hawkshurst helped me mount the horse. The smooth-talking attorney maintained that I gave two different answers even though I meant the same thing.
The judge agreed iwth the attorney and we lost the case.

[1bigsteve]

Thats exactly right, Yooper. Unless memory fades with time the truth will always be the same. A person starting out lying will find he has to keep lying as the facts keep blowing his "story" out of the water. The more a person lies the more rope he or she winds around their own neck. After the Mayor's visit on Saturday I think Lizzie knew she had to stay on her toes. The dress burning the next day I feel is very telling.

On the other hand, if a person's story is always exactly the same with each telling, with no slight variations, that is often an indication that the person has memorized a phony story.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Cheryl]

I always found the inquest testimony difficult to overlook. Lawyers are slick, but I agree with the comment that the truth will always be roughly the same, regardless of how distracting the line of questioning.

I think it was in the inquest that Lizzie remarked that when she went upstairs to sew a little something, that the guest room door was closed. I wonder if she closed it in the morning after the murder to make sure the body wouldn't be discovered too soon. If so, she would have had to climb the stairs and open the door before calling for Bridget to come down.

[Yooper]

If Lizzie was guilty, only she and Abby were anywhere near the guest room that day. There was no one to refute the testimony that the door was closed. Lizzie would have needed to distance herself from the murders, both from the commission of them and the awareness of them. She puts herself in the barn loft during Andrew's murder, out of both sight and hearing, and in the Witness Statements (p.5) she says that she neither saw nor heard anything from either the yard or barn. She still needed to be unaware of both Abby's murder and of Abby's body in the guest room. If the door was closed and she was in the kitchen, the conditions would be optimized for her to be unaware of Abby. If the door was open and she was upstairs, her awareness of Abby becomes questionable. Bridget's testimony about Lizzie being upstairs when Andrew arrived, supported by Lizzie's absence from the kitchen when Bridget brought in her window washing implements shortly before Andrew's arrival, and the fact that no one let Andrew in the side door when he first arrived-he had to come around the house to the front door, puts Lizzie upstairs.

[Allen]

Bridget's testimony about Lizzie being upstairs when Andrew arrived, supported by Lizzie's absence from the kitchen when Bridget brought in her window washing implements shortly before Andrew's arrival, and the fact that no one let Andrew in the side door when he first arrived-he had to come around the house to the front door, puts Lizzie upstairs.

All good points Yooper. Except for one detail I agree with you. We have Bridget coming into the kitchen to put away her cleaning implements, and then going through the house to the sitting room in order to begin washing the windows on the inside. She doesn't see Lizzie anywhere. Which in my point of view puts Lizzie upstairs. But I do not believe that Andrew went around to the side door at all. If he had why hadn't Briget heard him trying to get in through the screen door? Wouldn't he have called out to let someone know he was there? I'm sure he wouldn't have hesitated to try and get Bridget's attention, he knew she was at home, and had no chores that concerned the upstairs rooms. So he would likely assume she was downstairs to hear him calling her. I have a feeling he went straight to the front door. Then there was some sort of problem with his gaining entry, which Bridget did hear. But you're correct. With Bridget moving about downstairs, and not seeing Lizzie, this places her somewhere upstairs in my opinion.

[Yooper]

Those are some valid arguments, Allen, but from a slightly different perspective, if Andrew wasn't concerned with being let in but with letting himself in, he might find the screen door hooked, then go around to the front door which he may have expected to be unlocked to the point where he could let himself in with a key. If he wasn't feeling well he may have been a bit impatient, not willing to wait for someone to hear him, and the screen door being hooked would probably have been an indication that no one was in the kitchen. Bridget was in the sitting room at the time of Andrew's arrival, she might not have heard someone trying to open the screen door if they didn't call out. Mrs. Kelley testified that she saw Andrew come around from the side of the house to the front door. I can't imagine what might have taken Andrew around the side of the house upon his arrival other than an attempt to get in the side door, and even if something else had required him to go to the side of the house, why would he not try to get in the side door at that point? I expect that he was probably as far from the front door as from the side door by the time he was seen by Mrs. Kelley so proximity is not a consideration.

[shakiboo]

I have always found it kinda strange that, only one person saw Andrew coming from around the side of the house. JUST one, had she not been there then he'd not have been seen at all, yet that is the most condemning thing where Lizzies quilt is conserned......that no one was seen around the house that morning, and there were so many people that would have seen some one. Why didn't Mrs. Churchill see him? How did Mrs. Borden miss him? No one saw him go around the house before Mrs. Kelly saw him coming back around......see what I mean?

[Yooper]

So, with Lizzie upstairs when Andrew arrived and the guest room door closed so Lizzie doesn't have to explain why she didn't see Abby from the landing, Lizzie descends the stairs, remains downstairs until her return from the barn and the time she summons Bridget. There was an opportunity for Lizzie to go upstairs and open the guest room door while she was waiting for Bridget and Mrs. Churchill to summon help, but why would she do that? Why did she not say she did that if she did? The open guest room door would prompt an explanation for her not having noticed Abby's body, or perhaps an explanation as to why Abby might clean the room for company or whatever, and leave the room open without Lizzie thinking it was odd and perhaps closing the door herself.

The open guest room door, as found by Mrs. Churchill and Bridget, implies that it was opened between the time of Andrew's arrival and the discovery of Abby's body, if Lizzie is correct about it being closed when she last saw it. This would tend to confine an intruder to the guest room until immediately before Andrew's murder, with the door being left open at that point. I can think of no reason why an intruder would make a point to open the door if he was hidden elsewhere. I can find no good reason why an intruder would spare Lizzie, either. If Lizzie was upstairs before Bridget came inside to continue the window washing, then there was opportunity for an intruder to kill Lizzie while Bridget was outside.

[Yooper]

I have always found it kinda strange that, only one person saw Andrew coming from around the side of the house. JUST one, had she not been there then he'd not have been seen at all, yet that is the most condemning thing where Lizzies quilt is conserned......that no one was seen around the house that morning, and there were so many people that would have seen some one. Why didn't Mrs. Churchill see him? How did Mrs. Borden miss him? No one saw him go around the house before Mrs. Kelly saw him coming back around......see what I mean?

Perhaps there was no reason to take note of Andrew walking to his house, it was a common, ordinary occurrence, nothing unusual. From a distance there would likely have been other distractions, other activity. Mrs. Kelley was within greeting distance, it might have been considered bad manners not to greet a neighbor or to try to ignore him. For Mrs. Churchill to have taken particular notice of Andrew's movements implies snooping, so even if she had she might not admit it. A stranger, perhaps even John Morse, entering or leaving the Borden house might have been unusual enough to cause notice.

[Allen]

For Mrs. Churchill to have taken particular notice of Andrew's movements implies snooping, so even if she had she might not admit it.

Yet she admits she saw him that morning? Not only saw Andrew, but Bridget washing the parlor windows. Why admit she saw him in the yard that morning before he left, but not admit she if had seen him return?


The Witness Statements page 12 ,August 8, 1892, from the notes of Harrington and Doherty.

When Dr. Bowen had seen Mr. Borden, he asked me to come into the sitting room and see him, but I declined, and said I would not, I saw him this morning, and he looked so nice, I do not care about seeing him now.

Inquest testimony of Adelaide B. Churchill page 126:

Q. Up until eleven o'clock you had been at home?
A. I was at home until about eleven.

Q. Had you seen any of the household, or anybody else in the yard?
A. I saw Mr. Borden I should think about nine o'clock, the hour he usually goes down street. I was in my kitchen doing kitchen work. I happened to see him out in the yard.

Q. You saw him going out?
A. Yes, he was going as if he had been out in the yard, out by the barn, coming out around the back steps.

[Yooper]

For Mrs. Churchill to have taken particular notice of Andrew's movements implies snooping, so even if she had she might not admit it.

Yet she admits she saw him that morning? Not only saw Andrew, but Bridget washing the parlor windows. Why admit she saw him in the yard that morning before he left, but not admit she if had seen him return?


The Witness Statements page 12 ,August 8, 1892, from the notes of Harrington and Doherty.

When Dr. Bowen had seen Mr. Borden, he asked me to come into the sitting room and see him, but I declined, and said I would not, I saw him this morning, and he looked so nice, I do not care about seeing him now.

Inquest testimony of Adelaide B. Churchill page 126:

Q. Up until eleven o'clock you had been at home?
A. I was at home until about eleven.

Q. Had you seen any of the household, or anybody else in the yard?
A. I saw Mr. Borden I should think about nine o'clock, the hour he usually goes down street. I was in my kitchen doing kitchen work. I happened to see him out in the yard.

Q. You saw him going out?
A. Yes, he was going as if he had been out in the yard, out by the barn, coming out around the back steps.

Then perhaps Mrs. Churchill simply did not see Andrew return. I hardly think she needs an excuse for that.

[shakiboo]

Well, no she doesn't need an excuse and neither does anyone else who testified that they were sure no one came or went from the Borden house that morning, or they'd have seen them......but no one saw Mr Borden walk right down the street turn into his propety, go to the side door, come back around and up to his front door, except for ONE person. I don't want to upset anyone but I've just always thought it strange.

[Yooper]

I agree that it seems strange that only one person testified to Andrew's movements outside the house when he arrived. The point I was making earlier is that there were probably several people who witnessed bits and pieces of Andrew's movements and thought nothing more about it. If Andrew had been wearing a bright red Prince Albert coat it may have drawn more attention to his movements, or if someone recognizably not Andrew had entered or left the house, people might have paid particular attention. It may be that people wanted to minimize their involvement in the case or avoid involvement altogether. If they saw nothing out of the ordinary, then perhaps they felt justified in keeping quiet about it. Come to think of it, anyone who was aware of all of Andrew's movements as he walked to the house might have seemed to have been watching him like a hawk. That would not be a good thing to admit, even if there was no bad intent on the watcher's part.

[Kat]

It was remarked earlier here in this thread that Bridget went from washing the outside windows to washing the inside ones. There was time in between, actually- and it's her "missing time"- is what I call it.
This goes to whether *someone* opened that guest room door.
. . .
When did Mrs. Churchill go to the store that morning?

[Yooper]

Kat, is this what you are referring to?

Mrs. Churchill, Inquest Testimony, pages 33-34:

Q. Did you see any other member of the household?
A. No Sir. I saw the girl later washing the windows.
Q. How much later was it she was out washing windows?
A. It might have been ten o’clock. I cant tell.
Q. Washing windows on the outside?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. How long should you say she was out there, that you saw her washing windows?
A.. I cant tell. I stepped into my bed room for something, I saw her throwing water up on to the parlor window.
Q. She was washing the parlor window then?
A. Yes Sir.

Mrs. Churchill, Inquest Testimony, page 34, line of questioning with respect to Bridget's return from Dr. Bowen's residence:

Q. What time, as near as you can judge from everything, was that?
A. I dont know, I think it was about eleven o’clock when I started out of the house, somewhere in that vicinity.
I knew I had got to get down street and get back time enough to get potatoes for dinner, so to have them at
twelve o’clock. I only gave a short order, did not stay long there, and came right back.

Assuming the ten o'clock time is correct and the parlor window is the one facing Mrs. Churchill's house, this gives Bridget roughly 45 minutes to rinse three windows (one parlor and two dining room), prepare to wash the inside of the windows, and be in the sitting room washing the first window at about 10:45.

[Allen]

When did Mrs. Churchill go to the store that morning?

Taken again from:

The Witness Statements page 8 , August 4, 1892, from the notes of Harrington and Doherty.

Mrs. Churchill left her house about 11 A. M. , and returned between 11.15 and 11.20. While away her mother, Mrs. Buffington, was in the dining room off the kitchen, wheeling to and fro a baby carriage which contained a sick baby; and although the windows were opened, she heard no noise.

[Kat]

Yes that's it, you guys- thanks.

Bridget had to put away her outside equiptment, first. Then come inside and get her stepladder and rags. But I think she has a gap between approx. 10:20 and 10:40. She had only done 1/2 of 1 window in the sitting room when Andrew came home.

She is the one who says she did not see Lizzie downstairs during that time. What if together they did something upstairs? They could get their story straight only by saying neither saw the other at all. I mean, that's the easiest way to not forget your *story.*
Also, Lizzie said Bridget went upstairs- and says Andrew did not. I've yet to figure that out.

[Allen]

Also, Lizzie said Bridget went upstairs- and says Andrew did not. I've yet to figure that out.

Maybe Lizzie says Andrew did not go upstairs because she didn't see him go. Was she upstairs at the time this happened? So she didn't know or think that he had. If this is true, it implies that the women were not together on their stories.

[Kat]

In answer, one makes up their own mind as to how important it might be as to what Lizzie said. She said "I do not think he did go upstairs either." It seems as if she is pretty sure. But, as jurors do, we each must decide how much weight we give to her meaning.
Inquest
Lizzie
Q. Don’t you remember he took the key and went into his own room and then came back?

85 (42)

A. No, sir.
Q. You don’t remember anything of that kind?
A. No, sir; I do not think he did go up stairs either.
Q. You will swear he did not?
A. I did not see him.
Q. You swear you did not see him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were either in the kitchen or sitting room all the time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He could not have gone up without he had gone through the kitchen?
A. No, sir.
___________
Earlier, 60(17) About Bridget
Q. You were not up stairs when he came home?
A. I was not up stairs when he came home; no, sir.
Q. What was Maggie doing when your father came home?
A. I don't know whether she was there or whether she had gone up stairs; I can't remember.
......
68(25)
Q. A large portion of the time after your father went away, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were alone in the house?
A. Maggie had come in and gone up stairs.

Lizzie doesn't say which stairs. It could be the front stairs (?)
I'm not sure that these divergences between Bridget and Lizzie's story of not seeing each other at all negates the possibility that they had agreed to a straight story.

[Yooper]

All we have from the time Bridget came inside to wash windows, or from the time Mrs. Churchill saw Bridget rinsing the windows outside, is Lizzie's word about Bridget, and Bridget's word about Lizzie. Involving both Bridget and Lizzie in the murders, or just in Andrew's murder alone, tends to maximize the time involved in the murders and provides a method to dispose of the murder weapon. The largest stumbling block I can see is a viable motive for Bridget's involvement. This is less of a problem if Bridget was not involved in Abby's murder.

[Smudgeman]

In answer, one makes up their own mind as to how important it might be as to what Lizzie said. She said "I do not think he did go upstairs either." It seems as if she is pretty sure. But, as jurors do, we each must decide how much weight we give to her meaning.
Inquest
Lizzie
Q. Don’t you remember he took the key and went into his own room and then came back?

85 (42)

A. No, sir.
Q. You don’t remember anything of that kind?
A. No, sir; I do not think he did go up stairs either.
Q. You will swear he did not?
A. I did not see him.
Q. You swear you did not see him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were either in the kitchen or sitting room all the time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He could not have gone up without he had gone through the kitchen?
A. No, sir.
___________
Earlier, 60(17) About Bridget
Q. You were not up stairs when he came home?
A. I was not up stairs when he came home; no, sir.
Q. What was Maggie doing when your father came home?
A. I don't know whether she was there or whether she had gone up stairs; I can't remember.
......
68(25)
Q. A large portion of the time after your father went away, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were alone in the house?
A. Maggie had come in and gone up stairs.

Lizzie doesn't say which stairs. It could be the front stairs (?)
I'm not sure that these divergences between Bridget and Lizzie's story of not seeing each other at all negates the possibility that they had agreed to a straight story.

What reason would Bridget have for going upstairs? She did not do the housework up there, and she would have known if the guest bedroom door was open or closed if she was up there at that time. Maybe Lizzie meant she was upstairs in her room? Personally I think Lizzie is full of it, and she was the only one upstairs and wanted to cast the possibility that Bridget may have been upstairs.

[shakiboo]

No, I don't think Lizzie was trying to put suspicion on Bridget, if so, she could have done alot more. I think she meant upstairs in her room. She knew Bridget never went up on her side of the upstairs, and probably never gave it a thought, when she said that. When Bridget said Andrew took the key and went upstairs, she didn't specify which stairs either, she too, just took it for granted, that like her, everyone else would know which stairs she was talking about.

[snokkums]

I don't think Lizzie was wanting to try to lay blame on Bridget. Bridget was too important to her after the fact. Some one had to help clean up. If she was trying to frame Bridget, Bridget would not have been able to help, or want to. She was locked up because she was a suspect, she wouldnt be able to help, and she had a grudge because Lizzie was trying to frame her she wouldn't help.