Andrew's shoes

[BrianKLoftin]

Just wondering... in Lizzie's inquest testimony, she testifies at one point that her father took off his shoes after arriving home and it must not have taken him more than "two or three minutes." She does not mention that she helped him with this. Yet, I remember reading somewhere else that she offered and did help him remove his shoes. Is this not some other place in her testimony? One of many contradictions, I imagine. Also, if she or he indeed took off those shoes, what the hell is he wearing shoes for in the crime scene photo.

[snokkums]

Thats what I have always wondered about too. I have heard he took off his shoes, but if you look at the crime scene photos, he's wearing them. I think there was alot of rumors floating around.

[patsy]

I think I imagined that she helped him take off his shoes or maybe loosened the laces but can't recall ever hearing that she did. She did say in the preliminary as you mentioned that she saw him take off his shoes. She said she saw him put on his slippers according to some accounts, and in Pearson we read that he wore congress shoes which had elastic sides with no laces or buttons etc. It has been suggested that she may have been remembering a previous time when he had taken off his shoes. http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/pdf%2 ... nquest.pdf
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/pdf%2 ... earson.pdf

[BedfordCord]

If his shoes had been taken off, they were probably slipped back on by an officer or even the photographer for the sake of propriety after his death. This may explain why one of the shoes does not look like it is on all the way in the photograph. His face was gone and this is Andrew Borden who had been murdered, not some nameless immigrant - it seems it would be inappropriate to preserve his image in death in his stocking feet.

[shakiboo]

If they were going to preserve Andrew's dignity, they'd have put a towel or something over what was left of his face. The fact that he didn't have shoes on wouldn't have mattered, I don't think. I don't remember anyone saying that they replaced his shoes, before the picture was taken. Wouldn't they have mentioned that? Wouldn't some one have noticed that when his body was first found the shoes were off, and then later they were on?

[BedfordCord]

It seems that if they were to take the photo at all, the last thing they would do is cover his face - why take the photo if you are going to cover up the crime? What if he had been killed in bed with his trousers off? They certainly would have covered his legs with a sheet but kept his mangled face uncovered before snapping an official police photo. Therefore, replacing his shoes (as awkwardly as they seem to be replaced) seems a sensible thing to do in the context of Victorian society. Nowadays a crime scene is to remained untouched, but decorum was paramount in 1892.

It's simply a thought to answer Brian's above question: why would there be talk about the shoes being off and then all at once they are back on?

Also, if the question of Andrew's shoes never came up in court, it was probably never addressed formally (not considered a relevent detail) and so any talk of it at the scene would be lost to us now.

[snokkums]

I went to the crime library on the site and looked at the crime scene photos. Seems in the picture of Andy on the couch, his shoes were on. Unless they were put on after the fact, he was killed with his shoes on.

[shakiboo]

I think your right, Robin

[Harry]

There is some interesting trial testimony by George Pettee who was one of the earliest at the scene arriving just as Dr. Bowen was covering Andrew with the sheet. On page 646 he says:

"Q. Now will you tell us anything that you observed with reference to Mr. Borden's body, or the blood upon it?
A. Well, I noticed the position that he laid in. He was lying on his right side, with the left side exposed. His feet was crossed, and one of them rested on the floor. I noticed the condition of his head,---the condition of the blood that came from it."

Obviously the crime photos do not show the feet as crossed. But the photos were taken some 4 hours after and the position of Andrew's body was probably moved several times. They may have tried to reposition him as originally found for the photos.

I think Pettee, an observer of both victims, would have noticed an absence of shoes and so stated it in his reply. He seemed to be a very careful observer and his testimony is worth reading.

[shakiboo]

Thanks Harry! I don't remember reading that at all, I really need to go back and re-read all the testimonies. It's hard to imagine the two of them left laying like that, while people ran in and out, for over four hours! His feet were crossed, with one on the floor? That makes his position even more uncomfortible, don't you think? I still can't help but think he was hit while standing and fell into the position that he was found in, (gonna catch it for that) lol

[diana]

Trial testimony would seem to establish that Andrew was wearing a type of shoe referred to as a Congress boot.
Congress boots had elastic panels in place of laces and a tab in the rear and sometimes the front as well, to aid in pulling the boot on.

Dr. Dolan is asked: “What did the body of Mr. Borden have on?” He responds:
“On the outside, a cardigan jacket, that is a woolen jacket, black vest and black trousers, and a pair of Congress shoes.” (Trial: 864)

Lizzie says: “He had laid down on the sitting room lounge, taken off his shoes, and put on his slippers, and taken off his coat and put on the reefer.” (Lizzie Borden Inquest Testimony)

During previous discussions on this forum it was suggested these might be older boots of Andrew’s -- easy to pull on but not good enough to wear outside the house anymore – this may explain why Lizzie referred to them as ‘slippers’. Or they may have served as slippers simply because they were not lace-up boots.

Although Philip Harrington testified that he remembered Andrew wearing a pair of laced boots -- Robinson contradicts him and shows Harrington (and the jury) the crime scene photo of Andrew wearing Congress boots.

Harrington: “My impression was laced boots.”
(Photograph shown to the jury).
Robinson: “Well, that is merely a matter of recollection, I suppose on your part.” (Trial: 578)

[Yooper]

Formal shoes at the time tended toward the ankle height lace up or button up type, Andrew probably would have worn those outside the house. The ankle height Congress shoes may have been the Victorian equivalent of the loafer, more of an informal shoe for around the house, but more formal than house slippers. The term used, "slipper", may have referred to the method of putting them on, much like we would simply slip on a pair of loafers without having to tie them. Andrew shed the Prince Albert in favor of the cardigan and changed from the lace up shoes to the Congress shoes, less formal but still presentable if someone stopped in to see him. I wonder if the lace up shoes were put away somewhere, maybe there was a place he generally kept them? If so, they weren't treated as carelessly as the Prince Albert coat.

[SallyG]

I think these days we take "slippers" to mean bedroom slippers. Andrew may have had shoes he referred to as "slippers" that he wore around the house, as opposed to the shoes he wore in public. I'm sure we all have comfortable shoes we wear around the house (although I always go barefoot); although we probably would not wear them outside in public. Just like Lizzie's "wrapper" that we envision as a bathrobe that was actually a comfortable indoor garment, but not something that would be worn in public.

I can envision people a couple of hundred years from now hearing the term "jeans" and saying "Huh? What? What the heck were THEY?"

[Yooper]

Lizzie seems to have had both street shoes and house shoes, I expect it was quite common.

Lizzie's Inquest Testimony, page 90 (47):
Q. Did you give to the officer the same shoes and stockings that you wore?
A. I did, sir.
Q. Do you remember where you took them off?
A. I wore the shoes ever after that, all around the house Friday, and all day Thursday, and all
day Friday and Saturday until I put on my shoes for the street.

[shakiboo]

Does that mean she didn't give them the shoe's until 2 day's after the murder!!? What were they hoping to find after such a long time, she could have sanitized them by then.

[Yooper]

It does seem to have taken a few days before they got around to asking for the clothing. The only thing I can think of is that they didn't want Lizzie to know they suspected her of the murders. There was plenty of time for cleaning and sanitizing, apparently. To be fair about it, forensic science didn't even seem to exist at the time, and I don't know how sophisticated their blood testing procedures were.

[Bob Gutowski]

I think you people have solved one of the questions of the case, Lizzie's claim she helped her father off with his shoes and on with his slippers. He WAS wearing slippers, but not what WE know as slippers today. Brilliant work! This ranks with "Why did Uncle John come back from his visit on Weybosset Street reeking of alibi?" If Bowen had told him on the phone or in person that Andrew had just been found murdered, of course you'd want to be sure you could account for your whereabouts. It might even explain his sojourn in the side yard upon arrival back on Second Street: he needed a moment to steel himself before having to go in and see his old friend dead on that sofa.

[shakiboo]

That's true, it had to have been a shock to him if he'd had no prior knowledge of it. It would have thrown any one for a loop. He'd just seen them and had breakfast with them that morning. And had not seen them for a long time before that and then all of a sudden he's there and their both murdered. Yep, bet he was in need of a few minute's to get his thought's in order. That pear tree was sure busy that day!

[Yooper]

Charles Sawyer's testimony has John Morse talking with him outside the door for a while after Morse returned. Sawyer said a crowd had begun gathering in front of the house and Morse was shocked by the information, which we might well expect. At the time, Morse's actions weren't called to question, maybe they thought he was dazed for a while by the news and that explained his not noticing the crowd and wandering around the yard. However, that doesn't explain his photographic memory about the trip back to the Borden house. I've noticed an effort at times to avoid questioning witnesses under oath in a manner which might tend to embarrass them. An example is Dr. Bowen starting to mention something about his diagnosis of food poisoning the day before the murders. The attorney more or less cuts him off, almost as though the attorney is aware it might make Bowen look bad. I think it was in the inquest testimony. They didn't seriously question Morse's account of his reaction to the news and his account of his movements immediately after getting the news. Morse was not on trial, so it was ultimately unimportant if his alibi was good.

[shakiboo]

I thought Morse was their first suspect......but he had an alibi, and of course all the other stuff to go along with it, so they let him off the hook. Why didn't they think his alibi was over kill (so to speak)? COULD he have killed Abby before he left the house that morning? Did anyone see him leave the house and go down the street?

[Yooper]

I don't think anyone saw Morse leave the house so there might have been an opportunity for him to kill Abby, but why would he return to the house? He didn't know who saw what or when they saw it at that point, and it is unlikely he was aware Andrew had been killed. It could be that his walking back into the lion's den was inconsistent with guilt.

[shakiboo]

It was his elaborate alibi that saved him from being suspected. They didn't have much forensic's back then, so I was wondering about the time of Abby's death, could the room being warm have kept her body temperature from cooling down?

[SallyG]

It's possible that John Morse was just a very observant individual with an extremely good memory. Was the number on the conductors cap prominent enough, and was he in such a position that John Morse was able to glance at his cap and number several times during his ride? That might have made it easy to remember. Some people are very observant and are able to remember details that most people don't even bother with. John Morse may have been one of those people.

We have to remember that he was a houseguest...he did not live there. If I was staying with relatives and a tragedy like that occured, I would probably hang back a bit myself. He may have been in a state of shock and wanted a little bit of time to regain some sense of composure before he went inside.

[Yooper]

If the badge number was on the conductor's cap, and if Morse was perhaps half a head taller than the conductor, the badge might have been at eye level while Morse got on the trolley and paid the fare. It could be that simple. Or, he might well have been observant of numbers, who knows? Different people seem to focus on different things, someone else might have noticed the color of the conductor's hat, or the type of horse pulling the trolley. In any case, he was evidently correct with his observation of the badge number, and that information was ultimately unnecessary because it really didn't matter which car he rode. He had witnesses putting him well away from the house at the time of the murders, and others who saw him arrive.

[Fargo]

Its possible that Morse remembered the number of the conductors cap as well as the number of the trolley he took because of something else. If the number on the cap had some meaning to him as to something in his life, like an address or a phone number or something.

I always remember that Princess Diana died on Aug 31st because my Granddad died on the same day of a different year.

I always remember I stayed at the Lizzie B and B on 0ct 27th because I arrived in Fall River the day before on Oct 26th the same day my grandmother died in a different year.

Morse could have has some kind of association with the numbers that he remembered.

[Yooper]

The real value of the badge number information is that it puts Morse on that particular car, on that particular street location, at that particular hour and day. He was definitely on that car at that time, how else would he know that conductor's badge number? The real question is whether he needed to know the information, or whether he simply noticed and recalled it because the need to know it implies he might have been aware of the need for an alibi. The trouble is, we would have to know what he was thinking at the time in order to make a determination, and we don't have enough information to do that. The best we can do is to trust that the authorities at the time dropped Morse rather quickly as a suspect, they were there to read the mannerisms and body language associated with the questions and answers. All we can conclude is that he was well away from the crime scene at the time of the murders.

[crystalsmith]

Lots of common sense comments in this thread.

I think you are right about Morse just being very observant. period.