New witnesses?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:32 pm

This item appeared in the Boston Globe of December 2, 1892 during the Grand Jury hearing:

"BORDEN REPORT SOON.

Prospect of Immediate Action
by Grand Jury.

New Evidence is Said to Have Been
Put in This Morning.

Attorney Knowlton Says the Insanity
Story is All Bosh.

TAUNTON, Mass., Dec. 1. – The grand jury resumed its session this morning and began the examination of more witnesses in the Borden case. Detective McHenry and wife are in the court house, and among the witnesses to testify. District Attorney Knowlton stated squarely this morning that the last insanity story is all "bosh." The grand jury called for the blood-spattered pillow shams and linen taken from the room where Mrs. Borden was slain, and these with two skulls of the victims were once more submitted to inspection in the jury room. It is inferred that a resume of all the evidence in the case is on the docket this forenoon. Mrs. Peckham and Mrs. Hall of Fall River were two new witnesses in the Borden case before the grand jury this forenoon. It is intimated that their testimony was in the line of new evidence, gleaned during the recent recess. The grand jury reconvened at 2 p.m., not having finished deliberation in the Borden case. No time can yet be set for the report, as the case is still under discussion, and it will be thoroughly considered in all its bearings before the jury enters the court to make its return on matters given it."

I have no idea who these two women were. There was a Charles Peckham who confessed to the crimes but he lived on a farm in Westport. There was a Louis Hall who ran a stable on Second Street. But neither of them was a "Mrs.". They are not in the Witness Statements, nor the Inquest or Preliminary hearing. They were never called for the trial.

For sure we don't have all the Witness Statements and are probably missing more than a few Inquest statements but the article says they are "new witnesses".

Hmmmm... another mystery to pursue.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:44 pm

There is a "Annie F. Peckham" that was included in a summons to appear on June 5, 1893 for Lizzie's trial (Knowlton papers, p191, HK185).

Glossary A of the papers has this on her:

"PECKHAM, ANNIE F.: an individual summoned as a witness. She was not called upon to testify. Attempts to uncover her identity have to date been unsuccessful."

I don't know if this is the Mrs. Peckham mentioned in the Globe article. Can't find a thing on Mrs. Hall.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:00 am

On what day did Alice Russell testify as to the dress burning? Maybe the two women in question knew something about that, by way of Alice perhaps? If that's true, and if they testified prior to Alice, maybe they forced Alice to come forward with the information.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:52 am

There's a "Norman Hall" in Hoffman's directory of names, but no "Mrs." This guy was a pallbearer for Lizzie and was her gardener at Maplecroft according to Hoffman.
Hmmm... no Mrs. Hall...

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:22 am

Yooper: This from The Lizzie Borden Sourcebook, page 200:

"On November 21, the Jury adjourned without reaching a decision.

"Sometime after the adjournment, Alice Russell, lifelong friend of Emma and Lizzie, became convinced Lizzie was guilty of the murders. Knowlton summoned the Jury back into session and Miss Russell's testimony concerning the dress that was burned on the Sunday following the murders, tipped the scale and Lizzie was indicted for both murders on December 2."

The "new witnesses" should be easy to find. Just look in the Grand Jury transcripts.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:18 pm

augusta @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:22 am wrote:The "new witnesses" should be easy to find. Just look in the Grand Jury transcripts.

Grand Jury hearings are secret. There are no transcripts.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:33 pm

Do subsequent stories (from the Boston Globe, for instance) mention either Mrs. Peckham or Mrs. Hall, Harry? I'd guess offhand that's a "No" owing to secrecy but...it's a thought.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:22 pm

Thanks for the quote, augusta! So it is within the realm of possibility that the two women mentioned might have been used as leverage to ensure the testimony from Alice. I really don't buy the idea that Alice Russell could keep quiet about the dress burning through the Inquiry and the Preliminary, only to figure out nearly at the end of the Grand Jury proceeding that the dress burning was significant and warranted exposure. She knew it was wrong when it happened! Her response at the time was "I wouldn't let anyone see me doing that" rather than "don't do that", in other words, "I know it's wrong, just don't get caught". Something significant pushed her off the fence.

Perhaps the "new evidence" referred to is the dress burning, there wasn't anything else introduced at that time that I'm aware of. The women would have had no first hand information to offer, but if Alice had blabbed to them, maybe they could testify as to what Alice told them. This would at least put Alice in a bad light if she didn't come forward with the information, and she might have been brought up on charges for withholding information. The fact that there were two women is telling, assuming they would testify to the same thing.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:47 pm

Do we know the names of the two women from the dress shop to whom Lizzie said- "She's a mean old thing and we hate her" when asked about Abby?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:18 pm

If memory serves Shelley, one of the two was Mrs. Raymond - Mary Ann Raymond. The other - wasn't it Hannah Gifford? That sounds right.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:10 am

Hi Doug-oh! Will you give us the source and transcription so we don't need to duplicate your search? Thanks a bunch!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:57 am

errrrr...ayup, I can do that... let me look here... The - Mrs. Raymond's testimony is in Volume 2...at pg. 1576. Emma Borden identifed her as the family dressmaker (indirectly) at pg. 1538.

Aha! 'twas Mrs. Hannah Gifford who testified as to "hatred" of Mrs. Borden (good for nothing, etc.) at pg. 1169, again Volume 2.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:10 am

Thanks for going back over that Doug-Oh but that wasn't exactly what I wanted. I guess I wasn't clear.

Here is Hannah Gifford at the Inquest, a bit closer in time to the remark made by Lizzie (according to Gifford), page 158:

-Q. When was the last time you made any garment for Mrs. Borden?
A. It must have been as much as two or three years ago.
Q. When last for Emma?
A. This Spring, not made one for her, but I fixed one for her.
Q. When for Lizzie?
A. I made one for her also this Spring, very early this Spring.
Q. Of course that made them come to your house more or less?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Did you ever hear either Miss Emma or Miss Lizzie say anything about their mother?
A. I never heard Emma, but I have heard Lizzie.
Q. What have you heard Lizzie say?
A. Well, she called her mother "a mean old thing."
Q. When was that?
A. That was this Spring when I was doing the last work for them.
Q. How came she to say that?
A. It was some remark I made about her mother's garment, what would be becoming for her. You know Mrs. Borden was very fleshy; I spoke to her of what I thought would be becoming to Mrs. Borden. She says "well she is a mean old thing". I says "O, you dont say that Lizzie?" She says "yes, and we dont have anything to do with her, only what we are obliged to", she says.
Q. She said that?
A. She said that, yes.

--There's not a statement as to "hatred." I don't know how that word entered into this discussion?
I'm on an old laptop- that's why I asked for the testimony transcribed- but I have gone ahead and loaded a disc to find the exact transcription tonight- thanks again for the attempt.

Trial, Mrs. Gifford, with much objection by Robinson for the defense, page 1169:

Q. Now Mrs. Gifford, will you state the talk, what you said and what she said?
A. I was speaking to her of a garment I had made for Mrs. Borden, and instead of saying "Mrs. Borden" I said "Mother" and she says, "don't say that to me, for she is a mean, good for nothing thing." I said, "oh Lizzie, you don't mean that?" And she said, "yes, I don't have much to do with her; I stay in my room most of the time." And I said, "you come down to your meals, don't you?" And she said, "yes, but we don't eat with them if we can help it." And that is all that was said.

--She did the work in her own rooms, page 1170, which question was made to her and she agreed.
She lived at 39 Franklin Street (Trial 1168).

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:28 am

Mrs. Raymond, the dressmaker, lived at 31 Franklin.

She had made clothes in her home for the Borden ladies and also at the Borden home (Trial 1576+).

She answers question about the Bedford cord, the pink wrapper and the getting of paint on the Bedford cord by Lizzie, and the fading of it, as it was cheap goods. This is at the Trial. There's nothing there disparaging of the relationship between the Borden ladies there.

This exchange in testimony with Emma at Trial seems to make it sound like the girls and Mrs. Borden were sewing buddies when Mrs. Raymond was there- but possibly open to interpretation:

Q. Did she usually come to the house in that way to do her work?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Mrs. Borden have her work done at the same time?
Page 1539 / i561
A. Always.
Q. In the same place?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All of you together there?
A. Yes, sir.

--Maybe Shelley meant something else? 2 ladies in a shop? I'm not sure what that is.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:31 am

Moody in his opening statement at the Trial (page 50) used the word "hate":

"... We shall show to you that the spring before these homicides upon some occasion where a talk arose between the prisoner and a person who did the cloak making for the family, the latter spoke of Mrs. Borden as "Mother." The prisoner at once repudiated that relation and said, "Don't call her 'Mother.' She is a mean thing, and we hate her. We have as little to do with her as possible. ..."

It's not in the trial testimony however.

The NY Times of June 15, 1893 reported the testimony as this:

"Mrs. Hannah H. Gifford of Fall River, who next took the stand, said: "I am a manufacturer of ladies' outside garments. I have made cloaks for the Bordens. I made a sack for Lizzie Borden last Spring. I had a talk with her about the stepmother, I think in March, 1892."
Mr. Robinson objected to witness's telling the conversation, because it was too remote, but the question was put, exceptions being taken.
"I spoke," witness said, "and called Mrs. Borden 'Mother.'
"She said: 'Don't call her mother; she is only my stepmother, and she is a mean, hateful old thing.'"

A lot of the authors picked up the words "and we hate her". Some use "hate", others "hateful". Perhaps it came from the Times.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:13 am

So, Doug's original answer to Shelley's question is correct, Raymond and Gifford. Peckham and Hall they were not, so perhaps Shelley has the direction she was seeking.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:00 pm

Though I don't think either was a Peckham or a Hall, there was some incident with two ladies that worked in (I believe) a millinery shop. They were Lizzie's relatives through Abby, I don't think they had anything nice to say about ol' Lizzie. Perhaps it was a newspaper article, I don't recall the source for the story?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:37 pm

doug65oh @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:33 pm wrote:Do subsequent stories (from the Boston Globe, for instance) mention either Mrs. Peckham or Mrs. Hall, Harry? I'd guess offhand that's a "No" owing to secrecy but...it's a thought.

They just disappear. Whatever they said couldn't have been important enough to have them testify at the trial. Still, it would be nice to learn what they knew.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:24 am

Yooper quote:

Yooper @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:13 am wrote:So, Doug's original answer to Shelley's question is correct, Raymond and Gifford. Peckham and Hall they were not, so perhaps Shelley has the direction she was seeking.

The ladies did not have a shop together that we know of. Hannah Gifford does not have a listing in the City Directory for a business. She is in the 1892 Directory as "Gifford H Ella, clerk, 45 1/2 S Main, boards 39 Franklin."
(I think that is she.)
Only one of the 2 ladies had testimony as to Lizzie having a negative reaction to Mrs. Borden in conversation. That's why I'm showing the breakdown of info and who's who.
Mrs. Raymond is not in the 1892 Fall River City Directory. Again, no shop.
Maybe Shelley could be more clear until we figure out what she meant?

It's not that Doug-Oh is correct or incorrect and I'm sorry to leave that impression. I would have liked the testimony so it would be clear, so I provided it. Now we can separate the Gifford from the Raymond and what was stated to have been said under oath as evidence. It's pure and precise.

We all know the New York Times to be pretty bad at their coverage and continued to be bad in later more modern articles on the case simply because once they got it wrong the first time, they reprinted the same mistakes. They did not go back in time and check their own *facts.*

That's a good find Har, about the use of the word "hate" as recounted paraphrased by the lawyer. Thanks.

But you guys know that Moody wasn't exactly unbiased to say Lizzie used the word "hate." That is supposedly a chain-of-custody of words: Lizzie to Gifford, Gifford to Moody, Moody to the courtroom. I don't think anyone here would like words that far removed from their own mouth, and a year later, being accepted in a court of law now-a-days against them. The inquest testimony says differently, you all will notice.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:42 am

Maybe I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there were only two women associated with dressmaking to whom Lizzie said something about Abby being "mean" or expressing dissatisfaction with Abby. Unless we know of two others who owned or worked in a dress shop and provided the same testimony?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:56 am

You're confusing me my dear. That's not so hard to do so late at night.

Let me try again...
These 2 ladies did not have a shop. I do think they are related tho. Do you think "clerk" at "45 1/2 S Main" is a dress shop of some sort? Gifford said she worked out of her house.
But Shell had posted:
"Do we know the names of the two women from the dress shop to whom Lizzie said- "She's a mean old thing and we hate her" when asked about Abby?' "

And only one gave evidence of a disparaging remark, not both.
So nothing *fits* except one woman, Gifford, who made cloaks in her home said Lizzie said about Mrs. Borden: "well she is a mean old thing"- which is the direct quote from the inquest. At that time she was not recorded as saying the word *hate.*

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:13 am

Actually, I don't know if Gifford and Raymond were related, pardon that.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:24 am

I think I may have found Mrs. Peckham, there is a newspaper article from The Fall River Herald on page 133 in the Lizzie Borden Sourcebook.

ADDICTED TO SPELLS

The Westport Man Forgets That He Accused Himself of Murder.

Charles H. Peckham, the self-accused murderer of the Bordens, has been released and is at work today on his Westport farm. Mrs. Peckham called at the station Thursday night and told the marshal that her husband had such spells about once a year. He was perfectly harmless, but had caused her lots of trouble. He would remain unconscious of his surroundings for two or three days, during which time he would not sleep. When he closed his eyes in repose and awoke all that he had done during his abberation would be forgotten. The cause of these spells was attributed by Mrs. Peckham to a wound he received in the war. As he was harmless, the wife asked the marshal to be allowed to take him home and the request was granted.

The article goes on about how he turned himself in for the murder of the Bordens and his confusion upon awakening the next day and finding himself in jail.

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:36 am

From familysearch.org

There's an Annie from Fall River who's husband was an mill overseer:
James PECKHAM M Male 33 N.H. Overseer In Cotton Mill
Annie PECKHAM M Female 33 ME Keeping House
Walter H. PECKHAM S Male 18 N.H. Clerk In Store
Lena PECKHAM S Female 15 N.H. At School
James E. PECKHAM S Male 10 MASS At School
David H. PECKHAM S Male 6 MASS At School
Frank E. PECKHAM S Male 3 MASS

More probably, they meant to imply Charles Peckham's wife. Also from
familysearch.org

Charles PECKHAM M Male 42 MA Laborer
Louisa PECKHAM M Female 49 MA Keeping House
Annie PECKHAM S Female 12 MA At School

Charles seems to have been living in Dartmouth in 1880. Wife was Louisa and daughter was Annie, but we know about the accuracy of yellow journalism. At least, Annie was a name in the family.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:58 am

Kat @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:56 am wrote:You're confusing me my dear. That's not so hard to do so late at night.

Let me try again...
These 2 ladies did not have a shop. I do think they are related tho. Do you think "clerk" at "45 1/2 S Main" is a dress shop of some sort? Gifford said she worked out of her house.
But Shell had posted:
"Do we know the names of the two women from the dress shop to whom Lizzie said- "She's a mean old thing and we hate her" when asked about Abby?' "

And only one gave evidence of a disparaging remark, not both.
So nothing *fits* except one woman, Gifford, who made cloaks in her home said Lizzie said about Mrs. Borden: "well she is a mean old thing"- which is the direct quote from the inquest. At that time she was not recorded as saying the word *hate.*

Actually, both women referred to Lizzie describing Abby as "mean", and both women were engaged in dressmaking with respect to the Borden family. The only anomalies are "dress shop" and "hate". Everything else fits.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:24 pm

Yooper, this is my earlier post:
She [Raymond] had made clothes in her home for the Borden ladies and also at the Borden home (Trial 1576+).

She answers question about the Bedford cord, the pink wrapper and the getting of paint on the Bedford cord by Lizzie, and the fading of it, as it was cheap goods. This is at the Trial. There's nothing there disparaging of the relationship between the Borden ladies there.

--Will you please give testimony to refute this and prove that Mrs. Raymond as one of the *both women* to whom you refer, as also alluding to Mrs. Borden as "mean." Also, we have a distinction between the dressmaker and the cloakmaker so that there is no confusion between the two. Do you know if the cloakmaker is also a dressmaker?
Then I'm done with this distinction. It's too bad Shelley did not come back and explain this herself- she probably has a good idea of what she really meant and I don't think we've gotten to the bottom of it yet. There may be more to it.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:34 pm

Thank you Susan!

Cynthia, are your results from that family search 1880 Fall River?

Aren't there Peckhams all over the place?
How about Hoffman or Knowlton Papers Glossary?

[Edit here: Harry did check The Knowlton Papers for Mrs.
Peckham, I see, in his second post on this topic. Hoffman has not much more. They both say they could uncover nothing about her or what her testimony would have been.]

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 pm

I am back and it is the testimony that Hannah Gifford gave that I was thinking of. No big mystery- I thought it had been overheard by some others too.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:45 pm

Hi Shell. I think there is more in the Witness Statements but I've not had a chance to look- maybe it is there?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:00 am

Kat @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:24 pm wrote:Yooper, this is my earlier post:
She [Raymond] had made clothes in her home for the Borden ladies and also at the Borden home (Trial 1576+).

She answers question about the Bedford cord, the pink wrapper and the getting of paint on the Bedford cord by Lizzie, and the fading of it, as it was cheap goods. This is at the Trial. There's nothing there disparaging of the relationship between the Borden ladies there.

--Will you please give testimony to refute this and prove that Mrs. Raymond as one of the *both women* to whom you refer, as also alluding to Mrs. Borden as "mean." Also, we have a distinction between the dressmaker and the cloakmaker so that there is no confusion between the two. Do you know if the cloakmaker is also a dressmaker?
Then I'm done with this distinction. It's too bad Shelley did not come back and explain this herself- she probably has a good idea of what she really meant and I don't think we've gotten to the bottom of it yet. There may be more to it.

You're right, there is no direct testimony from Raymond about Lizzie referring to Abby as "mean". I thought there was, but it was in Moody's opening statement where he refers to a statement made by a cloakmaker who worked for the Bordens the Spring before the murders. This was when the Bedford cord dress was made by Mrs. Raymond for Lizzie. The conclusion calls for a possibly incorrect assumption, sorry for the confusion! If Mrs. Gifford also worked for the Bordens in Spring, then he may have been referring to her statement, if not, then he was referring to something Mrs. Raymond said. Both women are referred to as a "cloak maker" at other times during the trial, so it seems to be synonymous with "dress maker", at least as they were used to using it.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:32 pm

You're in the right church there Yooper but the wrong pew. But Mr. Justice Dewey made a similar mistake in charging the jury oddly enough, so I suppose it's all good.

From the trial transcript, near bottom, pg. 1169:

Q. Now Mrs. Gifford, will you state the talk, what you said and what she said?
A. I was speaking to her of a garment I had made for Mrs. Borden, and instead of saying "Mrs. Borden" I said "Mother" and she says, "don't say that to me, for she is a mean, good for nothing thing." I said, "oh Lizzie, you don't mean that?" And she said, "yes, I don't have much to do with her; I stay in my room most of the time." And I said, "you come down to your meals, don't you?" And she said, "yes, but we don't eat with them if
we can help it." And that is all that was said.
---
Mrs. Raymond's testimony dealt primarily with types of garments she had made for the ladies of the house (material, coloring, etc.) She gave no testimony whatever concerning conversations with any of the Bordens. (Her testimony is recorded at pgs. 1576-1583 of the transcript.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:59 pm

Thanks Yooper.

Yes Doug-Oh, please see the first page of this topic where I posted the same testimony. I recall asking you for that at the time you first brought this up. It's nice to have it again from the Trial here on this second page, for reference.

Has anyone had a chance to look in The Witness Statements?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:20 pm

I have notes I made from the Fall River Daily Globe of May 27, 1893, from the Terence Duniho Collection. (The paper itself is misfiled at the moment.)

please excuse.

There is a list of the supposed Grand Jury witnesses from the earlier Nov/Dec:

Dolan/Wood/Sullivan/Cunningham/Churchill/Bence/Hart/E.S.Wright/? H.Church/Alice/Emma/JVM/Margaret L. Crapo/Jane Gray/Frank Wixon/
Dennis Sullivan/Robert Nicholson/Alexander Coggeshall//Lewis L. Hall/Patrick McGowan/George W. Allen/Catherine Leary/Lizzie Gormley/Lucy Collet/Hannah H. Gifford/Fred A. Pickering/Phoebe D.N. Bowen/Hilliard/Handy/Moris Manley/Sawyer/Mary A. Durfee/Mary A.Chagnon/Arthur Johnson/Frank Cody/Edward Downs/Alfred Clarkson/Fleet/Medley/P.Harrington/John Devine/Desmond/Edson/Patrick Connors/John Riley/Hyde/Mary Wyatt/Thomas Burke/Charles Cook/Harris E.Pierce/Thomas J.L.Brown/George L.Douglass/Oliver Durling(?)/William Hacking/Mullaly/Dr.Bowen/William R.Martin/P.Harrington(repeat name)/John Denny/John H.Gallagher/Frank Kilroy/May B.Kilroy/Elizabeth Johnson(sic)/Carrie Rogers/Sarah Whitehead/Mary B.Dubor?/Hannah Reagan/James E.Cunneen/George E.Petty/Mark P.Chace/Orrick Smalley/Mrs. Peckham/Mrs. Hall/McHenry/Mrs. McHenry/John F.Golden

It goes on to say that (Dec.1) Jerry Golden-McHenry's office boy- appeared, and Mrs. Peckham and Mrs. Hall asked to re-appear.**
Also Alice, Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Dr. Bowen.

Indictment December 2nd, 3 against Lizzie and an indictment against "Trickey and others."
[My notes of what the paper reported.]
All but 1 man voted to indict.
Dec. 4 Trickey died.
Also, this is the first story of the *burned dress.*
"No other incident has produced such an effect."

There were a few mistakes in this reportage, so a careful examination might be in order before accepting this info.

I will look for the original xerox of the paper that I have somewhere. It might be with my Emma stuff. I usually keep the Collection together tho.

--*I've found the article. Names in dark blue have been updated.
**This is not quite right. Please see post after Harry's where I will have transcribed news article particulars.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:01 pm

Well. maybe Peckham and Hall were testifying against Trickey? If McHenry's office boy was there and the grand jury returned an indictment against Trickey, I guess it's possible.

I'm wondering if there would have been more made of their appearance if it had to do with the dress burning? The fact that they were asked to re-appear implies that they appeared at least once prior, and the grand jury would not likely adjourn without having heard all of the witnesses. If the dress burning came out after their first appearance, then they had nothing to do with Alice's testimony about it which was coincidental with their second appearance.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:24 pm

That's weird.
I hadn't thought of that.
I didn't assess the context yet of their "re-appearance."
If it had to do with Trickey, that is an interesting prospect...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:27 pm

We should all keep a lookout for the names listed who we aren't familiar with- if they come up somewhere, hopefully y'all can bring the info here to all of our attention.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:10 am

Thanks Kat for the list of names. Sometimes researching the minor names leads to new stories and theories.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:04 pm

Please see revision in earlier post with names.
Also I will transcribe the pertinent part I gave wrongly from my earlier notes.
(I think my notes were from about 3 or 4 years ago. I'm better at it now...

)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:36 pm

Partial section on grand jury, Fall River Daily Globe, May 27, 1893, Terence Duniho Collection, facsimile. Headline: "The Great Tragedy."

It will be seen by a perusal of the names that
Precautions Never Taken
before characterized the sitting of the grand jury. Witnesses who had stormed and fumed at every little piece of alleged evidence that would, apparently, tend to show the criminality of the accused, witnesses who became prominent early in the history of the crime by their loud protestations as to the innocence of the prisoner- these people were allowed to give testimony in order that the grand jury could better arrive at a just decision. Such a thing has been very rarely done in the history of crime, but this was not all.

On Friday, Nov.18th, the jury viewed the premises in this city and then came a most peculiar proceeding. The jury was dismissed on Monday, Nov. 21st, until Thursday, Dec. 1st. It leaked out afterwards from the grand jury room that Attorney General Pillsbury had caused the delay, for the reason that he felt satisfied that Lizzie Borden was insane. He wished to have her examined by experts. This caused another great sensation, especially since it appeared that if such a claim must be made, it would come from the counsel for the defense, and from the fact that Mr. Jennings, in his argument at the preliminay hearing, said "my client is not insane."

However, there were more sensations. When the grand jury reconvened on Thursday, Dec. 1st, Mrs. Churchill, Miss Russell and Mrs. Bowen reappeared. Detective McHenry and wife, Jerry Golden, McHenry's office boy, and a Mrs. Peckham and Mrs. Hall were present.

The first three named gave testimony about the burning of the dress, which had been forgotten on their appearance earlier in the month.

Afterwards came the statement about the trio of ladies mentioned wiring the district attorney for permission to come back, and the consent to do so, which explained their presence a second time in Taunton.

McHenry's evidence is supposed to have touched on the matter which caused an indictment to be found against Trickey, and others unknown, for an illegal attempt to tamper with Bridget Sullivan.

The indictments were found on Friday, Dec. 2d, by ballot, according to the request of Mr. Pillsbury, but it is doubtful if the Bristol County grand jury ever came to a decision by this means before. Indictments were generally found by a show of hands.

The indictments against Lizzie were, first for the killing of her mother, second for the killing of her father, and third for the double crime. Another indictment affected "Trickey and others," but nothing more definite has ever been learned of it since. All but one man voted to find the indictments. The grand jury adjourned and then came "leaks."

On Sunday, Dec. 4th, Henry G. Trickey was killed by a railroad train in Hamilton, Ont., and so ended another chapter of a horrible story.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:58 pm

Peckham and Hall seem to be mentioned as part of a group including McHenry, his wife, and his office boy. Whether they comprised a group with respect to testimony against Trickey, or whether they were just mentioned more generally as others present without a common purpose, is less defined.

It is interesting that Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Bowen seem to be included in some way with the dress burning testimony.

The idea that Pillsbury thought Lizzie might be insane might be the result of a realization that the prosecution would have a difficult or impossible time obtaining the conviction of a woman for first degree murder.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:27 pm

In The Knowlton Papers there is an idea about insanity and Batchelder is sent to assess what family members and long-time friends of the family have to say on the matter. His results are dated November 24, 1892 to Knowlton (pg. 102+).

Notice in the news item the Peckham & Hall ladies are referred to as "a Mrs. Peckham and Mrs. Hall were present."

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:52 pm

I've got something else for you and Doug-Oh. It is from The Evening Standard of Thursday, June 8, 1893, page 5, from Terrence Duniho Collection:

Pursued By Conscience
How Miss Russell Went Secretly to District Attorney Knowlton

The Advertiser printed this morning the statement of a close friend of District Attorney Knowlton explaining the apparent discrepancy commented on freely everwhere between the silence and general uncertainty Alice Russell showed at the preliminary hearing, regarding her connection with the Borden murder, and the assertion of District Attorney Moody, Tuesday, that Miss Russell would swear that Miss Borden had on her arm the Sunday after the crime a light blue dress and that she said she was going to burn it.

There is but one explanation of Miss Russell's conduct and that is that she could not bear to testify to anything that would greatly damage Miss Lizzie Borden, her old and intimate friend.

The story of the light blue dress is the strongest corroboration of this. District Attorney Knowlton, the Advertiser is assured upon the authority of a close friend, learned this secretly, in person, from Miss Russell. No mention of it was made before the grand jury, even.

But just before Mr. Knowlton finished with her there, he put to her one general question.

"Now, Miss Russell, is there anything else regarding the murder which you know which you have not ___?"

She said there was not and was allowed to go.

A few days later she sought out Mr. Knowlton quietly and said she had a confession to make. There was one thing which she knew which she had not told. Then she told the story of the burning of the blue dress on Sunday morning, the dress of which Miss Borden wished to be rid, because of the "paint" that was "all over" it.

Out of that interview came other facts also, when Miss Russell finally made up her mind, pursued as she was by her stern New England conscience, that it was her duty not to hold back one detail of the story.

--This story may be made up, or true- who knows.
Mrs. Livermore, upon championing Lizzie in jail, claims in statements to the press that it was not unusual to burn clothing covered in paint as the rag man had no use for such items. I will look that up if needed?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:08 am

I suspect that neglecting the information about the dress burning had to be the result of Alice trying to protect Lizzie, nothing else would ring true. She had to admit to a bit of wrongdoing. Alice knew at the time she witnessed the dress burning that it was wrong, given her comment to Lizzie to not let anyone see her doing it. She was also told by Hanscom, the Pinkerton detective, that it was wrong so Alice was aware early on that it was important. She couldn't very well contend that she realized the importance just recently. If she had tried to make up some other story about why she took so long to speak up, it might have called to question the entire incident, she may have appeared to be making that up, too.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:18 am

Another important point is that Knowlton asked her specifically if there was anything else regarding the murder she was aware of, and she said "no". She had lied to the grand jury, which made withholding the dress burning information no longer a sin by omission, it became a sin by commission. I can understand if she might have agonized over that for a bit, maybe sought support from Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Bowen, and they might have agreed to help her make things right.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:31 am

This is a bit of a reach, but if Alice went to Mrs. Bowen and Mrs. Churchill for support, why them? Might there have been some common interest in keeping some things quiet? Mrs. Churchill went through some verbal contortions about having to "tell all" in the Witness Statements, maybe that was her inclination, to say nothing unless specifically asked about it. I have to wonder what else was being kept quiet on Lizzie's behalf. It may be that telling something less than the whole truth was acceptable to some, if it kept a friend from harm.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:47 am

I was thinking along similar lines. That those 3 ladies returned together almost seems like support for Alice Russell, in what she finally felt she had to do.

If Lizzie/Emma never associated with Alice again, maybe they never associated with Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Dr. Bowen again? I do think there is the story that Dr. Bowen still championed Lizzie and eventually lost his practice over it. That may or may not be so. He might have retired.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:09 am

BTW: Alice under oath was asked several times "anythingelse?" and had not ever announced the dress-burning incident, at :

Inquest
Alice Russell
Q. This is an inquiry in which every person is interested, to get at the bottom facts; is there any other I have not asked you about, which you know which is material to the question, that you have not stated? Can you tell me anythingelse concerning this matter that you have not already done? It is as much your duty to tell, as it is mine to ask.
A. Well, I am in a much better condition to tell it than I have been.
Q. That is one reason why I postponed it as long as I could. Is there any other fact that you can tell me that you have not told me?
A. The morning of the funeral I went out to do some errands; and when I came back my hair was tumbled, and I took my dress waist off, and combed my hair. When I had gotten through I put my waist on again, and had nearly finished it, and I turned, and I saw something in under the bed that frightened me almost to pieces.
Q. You were sleeping in the house?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. That big stick?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. It is the one you gave to the marshal, the round whittled stick?
153
A. Yes Sir.

________

Now doesn't this next bit sound like Knowlton is getting close to the question? Alice must have been sweating bullets! Poor Alice! Lizzie and Emma were not nice to leave her holding the bag...

--This is still the inquest:
Q. Is there any other fact that has to do with this matter that you can tell us, that you think of? My inquiry is not directed to, or at, or against anybody, or in favor of anybody.
A. I dont know of anything.
Q. What sort of a dress was it Miss Lizzie had on before she changed it?
A. I dont know. I have not any idea.
Q. You must have been badly flustrated.
A. Perhaps it does seem so to you. I can tell you, any other time I have been out with the girls, sometimes a whole season, and I could not tell you what kind of hats they wore. That was not as strange as it would seem to some people. I do not observe, and I care very little about such things.
Q. You know she changed her dress and put on a pink wrapper?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Whether the dress she had on before that was dark or light?
A. I havnt any idea, I cant recollect a thing.
Q. Do you remember whether the dress she had on was all one piece, or a two part dress?
A. No, I cant.
_______

--This was about the murder day but could be understood by a paranoid Alice as meaning any day and any conversation:

Preliminary Hearing
291
Q. Do you remember anything that took place at all?
A. I remember nothing very connectedly.

Q. Did you say anything to Lizzie about it [the murders], talk with her?
A. I do not know what I said, I am sure.

Q. Did you at any time say anything to her about it [the murders]; have you at any time?
A. I did not ask her any questions. In general conversation, I do not know but what I might have; but I do not remember.

Q. At any time since then?
A. That is what I mean, I did not talk on the subject with her very much I am sure.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:26 am

You're right about that second exchange cited, it almost seems like Knowlton is prompting Alice by mentioning the dress!

I still have a hard time believing that Alice suddenly realized through an attack of conscience at the time of the grand jury, that she needed to come clean. I don't believe it was a moral decision at all. The morality didn't bother her when she kept the information from the authorities from the time she was aware of the dress burning. It didn't bother her during the Inquiry or the Preliminary to overtly lie by saying she had nothing else to offer. I don't think morality forced it, I think legal liability did.

It could also be that as time went on, Alice confided in Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Bowen about the dress burning. Maybe the burden got to be too much for her to bear alone, who knows? It could be that they found out about her side stepping the question yet again and confronted Alice with "now looky here, you're gonna fess up!", grabbed an ear apiece, and marched her to the district attorney's office. Or, they could have explained the possible ramifications of perjury and suggested she see a lawyer about it. In any case, it wasn't a moralistic consideration, it was a legalistic consideration which forced the information from Alice after all that time, in my opinion.

The question remains; why did she keep quiet in the first place? If the estrangement between Alice and the Borden sisters began at the time of, or right after the dress burning, maybe it was the result of Lizzie and Emma realizing that Alice may not be relied upon to keep quiet about it. If she had gone to Hanscom with the information, she could blab to anyone. Maybe Alice thought she had something to prove to Lizzie and Emma.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:47 am

Furthermore, if the estrangement began immediately following the dress burning, and Alice kept quiet to appear worthy to the Borden sisters, why such an extreme reaction to a purportedly innocent act? After all, burning the dress was not a big deal, it was common practice, wasn't it? Emma supposedly suggested that Lizzie get rid of that old rag, just go ahead and burn it, no one will think anything of it. Sure, it's no big deal. Until it is mentioned to someone else, like Hanscom. Then, let the estrangement begin! If all this is true, then there were others besides Alice who knew it was wrong to burn the dress. If the dress was burned with the knowledge it was wrong to do so, it implies, dare I say it, guilt?