Lizzie Innocent?

bob_m_ryan · Post by **bob_m_ryan** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:38 pm

It seems to me that Lizzie is considered (generally) to have either done the deed or at least been aware of or orchestrated it.

But, what if she really were innocent? If one looks at the evidence and testimony, can a reasonable case be made that she was innocent? Also, can it be believed that she truly never learned who the murderer(s) were for the rest of her lifetime?

I know it sounds corny -- but what if she was completely innocent?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:24 pm

Well, as someone once said about the meaning of cordiality, it really depends upon one's idea and understanding of the word reasonable, doesn't it? If she was in fact legally (and morally) innocent, God help her. That's all there is to say really.

As to your second question - which is particularly interesting in light of your first proposal - there's no doubt it my mind that she knew exactly who did the murders. About the second question - what do you think, Bob?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:34 pm

Doug is right, "reasonable" is the key word. In order for Lizzie's story to be true, it makes others false. In some cases it would amount to outright lying, not just confusion. That would imply an agenda on the part of the liars which is not borne out by their actions, and there is no apparent motive for them to incriminate Lizzie.

We end up with a compound probability in the mathematical sense. While we can't really assign probabilities to the individual events to reach a numerical value, we can recognize that the ultimate compounding of the individual probabilities becomes a very small value. By the time we compound all of the minute possibilities that Lizzie is correct and everyone else is lying, we end up with nearly zip! "Nearly" is the key term, absolutely zero probability is not reached, so there is a very minute possibility that she is innocent. The question is whether a very minute possibility constitutes "reasonable" doubt.

We are not encumbered by the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine, so we don't have to adopt any particular frame of reference. The court which acquitted her was so encumbered, and innocence does not need to be proven. The fact that Lizzie was ostracized the rest of her life tells me that the jury was in the minority in their finding of "not guilty".

bob_m_ryan · Post by **bob_m_ryan** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:44 pm

I am convinced that Lizze knew who the murderer(s) was, either before or after the Inquest. However, my jury is still out as to whether she actually participated physically.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:57 pm

bob_m_ryan @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:44 pm wrote:I am convinced that Lizze knew who the murderer(s) was, either before or after the Inquest. However, my jury is still out as to whether she actually participated physically.

That is a stumbling block for a great many people, Bob. You'll have to reach your own conclusions about that. The only real trick is to separate what you presume from what you know, and approach each question accordingly.

kssunflower · Post by **kssunflower** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:56 pm

If she did have a hand in it somehow, it's just unfathomable to me that some tiny bit of remorse did not plague her. What kind of life must she have had those remaining thirty plus years? Does money really buy happiness?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 pm

Well, she didn't seem to be concerned with finding the murderer if she was innocent. Maybe clearing her name wasn't the priority we might think, or maybe she wasn't innocent. She was an adult and made her own choices. There is an irony in her acquittal, though. It is one thing to live the rest of your life in prison without your freedom. The reason you're not free is clear, you can blame it on the prison. It is another thing to have to imprison yourself due to the attitudes of others, the reason is more abstract.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:21 am

When people ask me for my *short answer* about Lizzie's guilt or innocence- because I can go on and on - I say, well she was acquitted. So a bunch of people thought she did not do it. I think they thought she did not do it because they came in with their verdict so quickly.

So, I like to give her that benefit of the doubt, which the jury gave her.

The prosecution toyed with the idea of including accessory in its charge, so I'm thinking they knew something we don't know. I do think it's possible she did not do it- but that she knew who did.

I also think that a person can justify just about anything in their own minds...and live with it.

As for *lying* or such-like: I don't have black and white answers to that. If I knew Lizzie did it, and thought she totally lied, I wouldn't be here.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:11 pm

I think had Lizzie been questioned by some one who hadn't already believed her quilty, we might know more now. I think she thought herself above, what was happening, and if she truly was innocent, didn't like him and it wasn't so much the wrong answer's to his questions as it was a verble duel between the two. And he knew that and used it to his advantage.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:17 pm

Kat @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:21 am wrote:When people ask me for my *short answer* about Lizzie's guilt or innocence- because I can go on and on - I say, well she was acquitted. So a bunch of people thought she did not do it. I think they thought she did not do it because they came in with their verdict so quickly.

So, I like to give her that benefit of the doubt, which the jury gave her.

The prosecution toyed with the idea of including accessory in its charge, so I'm thinking they knew something we don't know. I do think it's possible she did not do it- but that she knew who did.

I also think that a person can justify just about anything in their own minds...and live with it.

As for *lying* or such-like: I don't have black and white answers to that. If I knew Lizzie did it, and thought she totally lied, I wouldn't be here.

Since I'm the only poster who mentioned lying, I'll assume the last line is directed toward me. I think when a statement potentially incriminates someone intentionally and falsely, it's a lie. When a statement obstructs justice, it's a lie. Not a little white one, or a fib, or confusion. It is done with premeditation and for a sinister purpose.

I'm a bit baffled by the last line, are you inviting me to leave the forum, Kat? That's the second or third time the same phrasing has been used by you with respect to one of my posts. It is mentioned in the same breath as the bit about lying. Are strong convictions not welcome here? Another perspective on the question is: if I were still completely confused about the Borden case after all this time, I wouldn't be here, either.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:43 am

The things which strikes me most are the little changes Lizzie makes in her story. Too many changes for my taste. She gives several reasons for why she went to the barn in the first place, and when hard-pressed for every single thing she did in that interval when Andrew was killed, reluctantly spits out the pear business in the loft. If she had nothing to hide, then why all this flip-flopping around? Her arch manner at the inquest is also to my mind, not ringing true of an innocent person.

For someone who had just witnessed butchery on the scale of what happened at #92- I agree, I would have expected to see a fervent desire to see the guilty punished and the criminal found on her part, and a far different tone and manner on the stand from Lizzie. I found some of her responses downright cagey, including "It depends on your idea of cordiality". Too bad we will never hear her tone of voice-for going by the words alone in print, she does not come off in a sympathetic light to me at all.
And I still put some stock in Hannah Reagan's testimony about Lizzie's "You've given me away, haven't you" crack to Emma. To believe Lizzie innocent, I have to believe too many other people were lying. And what are the chances so many people got it all wrong?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:37 am

Personally, I think she did it, or at least had a hand in it. If she knew who did it, she sure had a funny way of not saying anything. I mean, who in their right mind is going let themselves take a murder rap? I know for me, I'm not going down for someone else.

Why didn't Lizzie say something if she knew who the murderer was? I think the reason she didn't say anything was because she was the murderer.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:03 pm

Sometimes I find it interesting to consider things Lizzie might have said in a certain instance. Why wouldn't it occur to her to offer "I didn't want to disturb father's nap" as a reason to waste time outside the house? It sounds a lot more logical than "pears"!

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:11 pm

Having had little to nothing for breakfast, I didn't think the pears sounded out of line, and as you say Yooper, her father was napping, so going outside and eating a few pears didn't sound as unbelievable as then going in the barn looking for iron or lead did.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:23 pm

It would certainly explain why it took her so long to do anything she might have been doing. While much has been made of a supposed lack of blood on Lizzie, was a lack of dust or dirt from the barn loft ever called to question? Or did she have time to clean up a bit?

bob_m_ryan · Post by **bob_m_ryan** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:03 pm

That year or so she spent in jail might have made a tremendous change to her outlook on life. It seems to me that it had a hardening effect on her personality.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:12 pm

I don't think she had it as hard as what she would have it here and now. They got her food from a restruant, she wore her own clothes, had a woman matron there for her, and her cell was more like a sitting room, which she had to herself. But even at that, for her it would have been terrible.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:55 pm

She would have been relatively isolated, any interactions had to be approved or scheduled. Maybe it was ultimately good practice for being ostracized after her acquittal.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:13 pm

I can't really put much stock in the "You gave me away" that was spoken to Emma. It for one thing implies that Emma knew that Lizzie murdered (butchered) her father and step mother. I don't think if Emma was completely innocent of the deed, she'd have stayed with Lizzie all that time. They were sister's, Lizzie being a somewhat spoiled by Emma younger sister, Lizzie could have said that about any thing,especialy if wanting to make Emma feel quilty about some small slight. And then too, it's all in the way you precieve the sentence as 1. You've told some one I committed the crime. 2. You've turned your back on me. 3. You've given up on me. Does that make sense??

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:28 pm

Well, the whole pears story is a bit thick. She has on a calico 2 piece dress, no pockets, and was not wearing an apron when Mrs. Churchill saw her. So we are to believe: 1. She suddenly decided to save money on penny sinkers one Thursday morning and braves the stuffy and dusty old hayloft to root around in to find something to make sinkers out of
2. On the way to the hayloft she spies some juicy pears and thinks she would like to eat some 3. She stops to pick up 3 or 4 in her hands and carts them up to the hayloft 4, She places the unwashed fruit down in the dusty hayloft while she turns boxes and debris over looking for tin, iron, metal, tea lead-( pick one) 5. Not finding any metal she recalls her pears and decides to stand up in front of the window eating these pears slowly with her dirty hands - and sees nobody scuttling out the side door and down the driveway. wouldn't it have been far more logical to have picked up the pears on her way back to the kitchen after searching the hayloft? Who stops to eat fruit in the middle of an errand when the fruit could have been eaten under more comfortable and NORMAL circumstances a few moments later? Lizzie was described as a meticulously NEAT person- I can't see it- gobbling pears under such a scenario.

No, she had to have a reason to be out of that house and in the barn a while. she had her own bathroom in the cellar, there was no horse to feed, or pets, or cleaning equipment to fetch- so this was the best thing she could come up with on the spot to explain why she was out in the barn. Of course she might have just said- "I was looking for a sharp hatchet".

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:21 pm

I just read your note here Yooper:
Sorry- it is not my intention to make anyone uncomfortable here.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:23 pm

Shelley @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:28 pm wrote:Well, the whole pears story is a bit thick. She has on a calico 2 piece dress, no pockets, and was not wearing an apron when Mrs. Churchill saw her. So we are to believe: 1. She suddenly decided to save money on penny sinkers one Thursday morning and braves the stuffy and dusty old hayloft to root around in to find something to make sinkers out of
2. On the way to the hayloft she spies some juicy pears and thinks she would like to eat some 3. She stops to pick up 3 or 4 in her hands and carts them up to the hayloft 4, She places the unwashed fruit down in the dusty hayloft while she turns boxes and debris over looking for tin, iron, metal, tea lead-( pick one) 5. Not finding any metal she recalls her pears and decides to stand up in front of the window eating these pears slowly with her dirty hands - and sees nobody scuttling out the side door and down the driveway. wouldn't it have been far more logical to have picked up the pears on her way back to the kitchen after searching the hayloft? Who stops to eat fruit in the middle of an errand when the fruit could have been eaten under more comfortable and NORMAL circumstances a few moments later? Lizzie was described as a meticulously NEAT person- I can't see it- gobbling pears under such a scenario.

No, she had to have a reason to be out of that house and in the barn a while. she had her own bathroom in the cellar, there was no horse to feed, or pets, or cleaning equipment to fetch- so this was the best thing she could come up with on the spot to explain why she was out in the barn. Of course she might have just said- "I was looking for a sharp hatchet".

Or maybe she had to wash one off!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:34 pm

From Lizzie's timeline:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Lizzie.htm

I see we should include the time Lizzie says she spent in the yard before going up in the barn:

Lizzie went right out to the barn-not less than 5 minutes [after Mr. Borden returned]. (pg. 84).

Lizzie got some pears first. (pg. 72).

Lizzie stayed under the pear tree 4 or 5 minutes. (pg. 88).

Lizzie was 15 or 20 minutes in the barn "trying to find lead for a sinker", and ate pears. (pg. 69, 77).
...................
She said she thinks she ate 3 pears. We didn't hear about any pear cores or her bringing back out any uneaten pears- so maybe if she did do this, she only brought 3 pears up there.

I have to ask: Lizzie had no pockets throughout this time?

Why does she say she spent all that time in the yard prior to going up in the loft.

[edited to put the info of the timeline into italics = quoted material]

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:26 pm

Well, looking at fashions comparable to the 2 piece calico house skirt and waist- no, pockets were a man thing in general. There would have been apron pockets, or when going out, a lady had her pocketbook or reticule to keep her money, handkerchief and key in. Her watch was worn either on a brooch type pin on the bosom, or if on a longer chain, one end hooked around a button and the other was on a latch clasp which was pinned like a chatelaine at the waist.

I have a hard time going up those stairs both in the barn and house with a set of towels in a long skirt and petticoat. To juggle three pears going up the steps seems unlikely and totally unnecessary to me when she would just as easily have picked them up on the way back into the house. I recall testimony that Andrew brought pears into the house and put them down in the kitchen on the table. I wonder why Lizzie did not eat those. I think she needed desperately to put herself outside that house- and for a longish time to account for a murder inside. She also changes her story on how long she was out there. I have never managed to eat three pear cores and stems either.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:01 pm

Watches on bosom brooch and on pendant chain

1892 calico morning ensemble with gore, back hooked walking skirt- no pockets

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:58 pm

Thank you for the pictures.
The outfit that Lizzie turned in to the court as what she wore that day- the Bengaline Silk, had a pocket. A "smooch" was found there that had to be ruled out as blood.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:08 pm

If there had been a pocket, I doubt 3 pears would have fit inside it. An apron pocket- yes.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:09 am

Well, here is Prof. Dr. Wood at the trial, on that smooch, if anyone wants it:
pg. 1003+:

Q. I think then that is all. I won't interrupt you. You were then going on the dress.
A. The blue dress skirt next.

Q. Well, go on with that, please.
A. The blue dress skirt has near the pocket, if I can get it --

Q. You told me you had stuck a pin in it?
A. Yes, I have it here. That inner pocket here, a brownish smooch with a part of it I have cut out, and underneath which I have placed a pin in order to note the position of it. It is situated about three inches from the corner of the top of the pocket. That in color simply resembled or might have been blood, but upon holding the cloth up to the light, it could easily be seen that it did not, clog (?) the meshes of the cloth in any way, and probably therefore was not a blood stain, but to be sure the portion was removed and thoroughly tested and soaked out in order to remove any blood pigment, and found not to be blood. There was another spot similar to that lower down in the skirt. That was also tested and no blood was detected on it whatever. Those were the only possible suspicious

Page 1004

stains on the whole skirt.

Q. Did you determine what those were?
A. I did not. I simply tested them for blood and found that they were not blood, and went no further. The dress waist was thoroughly examined, and there is not even a suspicion of blood stain on it.

Q. Where is the other stain on the dress?
A. I don't think I can find it now, but it was between the pocket and the bottom of the dress.

Q. Inside?
A. On the same side of the dress.

Q. Nearer the front or nearer the back?
A. It was about in the same place.

Q. The same line up and down?
A. The same line, I think. I had a pin under that, but that has gotten lost out, the dress has been handled so much.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:22 am

Did anyone ever ask Lizzie if she had indeed found the sinkers she was supposedly looking for? And, if so, where were they? If she could have produced them from somewhere in the house it would have proved her story.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:48 am

There was a pocket in the dress that was turned over. Problem is, is that the dress she wore Thursday morning?

Personally, I think that dress helped heat the kitchen Sunday morning.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:01 am

I'm with you there Harry! Hmm, the pocket they refer to on the bengaline at the waist may also have been a small watch pocket. If the watch pin had been fastened there , the "smooch" could have been a rust stain. All pockets aside- the minor point I was shooting for is that it is ODD to be going up to the loft for a good rooting around, only to stop in the yard to pick up pears when there were some in the kitchen- then fill your pocket (if you had one) with pears to take up to the loft when the SMART and normal action would have been to pick them up on the way back from the loft- eat them in the cool of the yard or under the pergola. Why encumber yourself with fruit while going up the hayloft? Makes no sense to me. Who decides to walk out of the house to go to the hayloft on an errand, then loads up on pears on the way, takes them to the dusty loft in August eating them slowly there, an hour before dinner? Nope- none of that tale works for me.

patsy · Post by **patsy** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:19 pm

Didn't Lizzie say that she has always been outside a great deal when someone visited her in jail? I believe I read it in the Joyce Williams book. I'll have to look again.

In my mind I could see her loiter around under the tree, then take some pears and put them in her scooped up dress which she most likely picked up as she went up to the loft.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:06 am

Those are nice pictures. By the way, who is the lady?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:08 am

No name on the back. I pick these "instant ancestors" up at flea markets to get examples of clothing of the period for a buck or so. My walls at home are full of total strangers!

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:44 am

Women's pockets, by the way, were once separate from dresses altogether. They were cloth bags worn on a ribbon tied around the waist under the skirt. They were generally worn in pairs, one pocket on each side. Opening at the side seams of the skirt were used to reach inside and access one's pockets.

POCKETS

The samples in the above link are 14" pockets, so they could hold a few pears.

I'm not at all sure how long into the 1800s they might have remained common.