Did Lizzie know that she wasn't a great liar?

[RichardX]

It strikes me that Lizzie lied only a few times in this case. And when she did it really came back to hurt her. The note is the classic example. If she simply explains that she had no idea where Abby was during the hours after the murder who could have taken issue with that? Maybe it's somewhat odd that Abby would go missing for a couple hours, but most of us don't keep track of the movements of everyone in our household. But in making up this story about the note to explain her absence, it begs the obvious question of who then sent it. Since no one ever came forward - and there is every reason to believe they would have - it looks like a fabrication which would be necessary only if Lizzie had something to hide. However, there were other instances when she could have lied and didn't. For example, she could have claimed to have seen or heard someone around the house or cast more suspicion on others like Bridget or Uncle John. That would be an obvious tactic for someone deflecting blame. Many modern murders involving a family member provide a wealth of examples of such false claims. But Lizzie passes on this. I wonder if she realized that minimizing the number of lies told would help her in the long run?

[Yooper]

It has been my belief that the story about the note was concocted to prevent Andrew from searching for Abby when Andrew arrived after his errands. If Bridget hadn't overheard Lizzie telling Andrew about the note, there might be no note story to speculate about. As it was, the prosecutor had to pry the information out of Lizzie at the inquest. She was given eight or ten lead-in questions, opportunities to mention the note, before it dawned on her. The note also serves to explain why Lizzie did not miss seeing or hearing Abby all morning, but that is likely not the primary reason for the note story in my opinion.

[snokkums]

You are right about not keeping up with everyone's movements in our houshold. It just always seemed odd to me that on that particular day, Lizzie knew where everyone was at. If I were the police, that would have gotten my red flags up. She seemed to know to much and made a point of telling it.

[patsy]

Interesting idea, RichardX, that if she was lying and aware that she was then it would be good to know if she realized that minimizing the number of lies told would help her in the long run? That would seem a smart move.

Although depending on how much drug she was given to calm her down beside the trauma of the death it may have affected how much control she had over what she said.

[Allen]

Well I'm not so sure about people not keeping up with the movements of everyone in their house hold. Usually at my house if someone leaves, I know where they are going. It's just a matter of common conversation "Hey I'm going and this is where", and common courtesy so you don't begin to worry if you don't hear from them. And you would know especially if it is their habit to do these things every day and you've lived there for 30+ years. So her knowing their movements didn't strike me as odd. The note story does strike me as odd, however. As did her and Bridget disagreeing on when she started her ironing, her claims of being in the barn loft, of Lizzie hearing a sound that drew her towards the house, then later claiming to have heard nothing, and of her hearing Abby come in.

[DJ]

Well, Lizzie did spin the tale of "Father's Enemy" to Alice Russell the evening before, perhaps (or, doubtless) hoping Alice would inform the police of Lizzie's alleged fears, so they would direct their search to said Enemy.

I don't think Lizzie dared blame Bridget, who could have probably burned the Coppers' ears off with tales of "cordialty" in the household.

As for that Cipher Among Men, Uncle John-- well, who knows how much he knew, via his very dear niece, Emma, to whom he freely passed information re Andrew's finances, as evidenced by Inquest testimony. Who knows? Lizzie and Emma may have left the house in their huffs that July BECAUSE of something they learned through Uncle John.

As for the note, I believe Lizzie was smart enough to realize that lies breed lies, and that it's best to minimize them, because they can be difficult to remember, much less to juggle.

The whole note business begs the questions: If Lizzie knew Mrs. B left because of a note, then surely, surely, surely Lizzie would have asked where she was going. Lizzie evidently knows that Mrs. B is to see a sick relation. If Lizzie knows that much, then surely she would know all. Mrs. B. would have told her, so she could tell Andrew. Also, Lizzie would probably have been aware of who sent it, too. ("Mrs. Borden, who was that at the door?") Also, it seems most unlikely that Mrs. B would have left the house without taking a few steps to clue in Bridget ("I may not be home for luncheon; pity to miss the umpteenth return of the mutton, even if you're throwing in a few potatoes"-- indeed, that was the bill of fare.).

So, Lizzie's little lie begs big questions.

[Yooper]

It makes perfect sense for Abby to have told either Lizzie or Bridget where she was going, and she probably would have told Bridget what to put out for lunch if Abby thought she might not be home by lunch time. If nothing else, she might have left a note for Andrew informing him of where she was.

[DJ]

If you stop and think about it, alarm bells should have been going off left and right in Andrew's mind, even moreso if something were indeed terribly amiss in the household, something that had caused Emma to huff off on her "SpongeBob's My Uncle John" tour of various relatives:

1) He returns home to find Abby gone. Bridget knows Sergeant-Shultz-Nothing about it.
Lizzie coyly knows that Abby has allegedly received a note, but nothing more. Say what, Lizzie?

2) Yes, Abby probably would have left Andrew a note-- wrapped around that touch-it-and-die key on the mantel, no doubt.

Those four things: Bridget knows nothing, Lizzie knows something, Abby has left no word for Andrew, and something is probably terribly amiss (much more than usual) in the household (not the least of which is that Abby believes she was poisoned night before last)-- if I had been Andrew, I would not have taken it all lying down.

So to speak.

********************************************************************************************************************************************

Now, I'm one of those people who thinks that Victoria Lincoln makes some excellent points, as well as some misguided ones.

If you consider the above, then her "property transfer" theory on the Fourth becomes increasingly shaky, because I just don't think there's any way in the World that Andrew would have returned home under that scenario and just accepted Abby's absence as told by Lizzie. Indeed, I think he would have gone out looking for her himself.

[DJ]

Sorry to double post-- just the more I dwell upon it, the more it makes so little sense for Abby not to have left Andrew a note (especially in the event of an important event) as per her absence.

[Yooper]

Someone, perhaps the teller at one of the banks Andrew visited on the 4th, testified that Andrew did not look well that day. He may not have been up to par at the time, so regardless of whatever red flags might have gone up, he just didn't have the energy to pursue the matter of Abby's whereabouts to his satisfaction. Had he been aware of Bridget not knowing Abby had gone anywhere, he might have been suspicious. Why would Abby, who was at odds with Lizzie, tell Lizzie where she was going and not tell Bridget?

[RichardX]

Lizzie's story about the note is crucial since we know to a near certainty it is a fabrication. And the only reasonable explanation to lie about it is to explain away Abby's absence from the time she was murdered until she was discovered. Only the murderer would need to do that. So if you accept that Lizzie lied about the note, then you have your solution to the case. It doesn't explain the whys or hows, but it tells you who is responsible.

[DJ]

Yes, Andrew was doubtless feeling rather poorly, and thus not as leery as he should have been of the odd circumstances at home, upon his arrival. Perhaps he didn't feel himself at any personal risk from Lizzie, but he surely had to have been aware of Lizzie's animosity toward Mrs. B, that she said she thought she had been poisoned, and Lizzie's at home when she's supposed to be at the shore.

For someone who subscribed to locked doors-- he could have thrown Lizzie way out of whack, so to speak, by going up to his room and locking the door behind him.

***********************************************************************************************************************************************
Yes, Richard X-- the lie about the note business makes Lizzie look guilty, as does her little tirade at Alice Russell's. If Lizzie had been truly worried about "Father's enemy," she ought to have informed the police. Lizzie's spiel also makes it look as if she did attempt poisoning, with some agent, because in the story she mentions fearing that the milk cans have been tainted.

So, Lizzie's tale of woe to A.R. serves at least two purposes: Planting the seed of "Father's enemy" being the murderer, as well as the culprit behind the poisoning that she may well have done herself.

I think we sometimes forget just how guilty Lizzie appeared to her contemporaries, too, regardless of her social standing. She is deemed the most likely suspect after the Inquest and thereupon sent to prison, where she remains for the duration, until after the trial. The Preliminary Hearing fails to exonerate her, fails to at least cast suspicion on someone else. Then, she is indicted by the Grand Jury, upon the heels of Alice Russell (there she is again!) dropping the bomb about the dress burning.

Lizzie sits in prison about seven months, awaiting trial, which is a fine piece of theater during which the prosecution drops the ball left and right, and a "give 'em the ol' razzle-dazzle" (to reference the defense attorney who successfully defended all the guilty murderesses in "Chicago") attorney comes to Lizzie's defense.

The point is, Lizzie looked extremely guilty then, as now. However, then as now, there's just not that one piece of irrefutable evidence that goes beyond the reasonable doubt.

I still wish Lizzie's letter to Lizzie Johnston would surface. If it indeed, as rumored in the press, mentions Lizzie coming to the shore with a "very sharp hatchet" to chop wood-- well, that would do it for me. She had ample motive, the opportunity presented itself, and-- if she acknowledged her means as such-- then she would have clearly demonstrated an awareness (and capability of executing) of the modus operandi.

If the letter does indicate such, and had it been admitted at trial, then Lizzie would have been much more likely to have been convicted.

It's that "some something" needed to cast out a lingering doubt.

[Yooper]

It may be that the note story was originally made up to prevent Andrew from searching for Abby or to prevent Andrew from asking Bridget about Abby's whereabouts. It would then have served a secondary purpose in explaining why Lizzie did not miss seeing or hearing Abby all morning. The possibility exists that the primary reason for the note was to explain Lizzie's lack of concern over Abby's absence. Lizzie would have dealt with the necessity for answering the two questions after killing Abby and pondering the possibilities. Andrew wondering where Abby had gone was the more immediate need, but explaining why Abby was not missed was inevitable, regardless of whether she had the opportunity to kill Andrew or not. The questioning at the inquest is very telling, the story about the note had to be dragged out of Lizzie. She had several opportunities to use it as a perfectly logical reason for her actions at some point in time, but she instead engaged in intellectual bantering with the prosecutor. I posted the inquest testimony along with comments here somewhere, but I don't remember which thread. At one point Lizzie was answering questions about how she might have missed hearing or seeing Abby by explaining different logistical possibilities, being in the dining room while Abby passed through the sitting room, and so on. The real answer if the note story was true was "to hell with how I MIGHT have missed her, I thought she had answered a sick call from someone, so I didn't give it a second thought". She had several opportunities to express the note story, so if it had been made up ahead of time to explain her lack of concern over Abby's absence, it would have been used early and often during the inquest. This is why I think it may have been made up primarily to prevent Andrew from pursuing the matter of Abby's absence.

[DJ]

Andrew ... and Bridget.

Although Lizzie didn't have to "explain things" or "explain herself" to Bridget in the same manner Andrew expected of her, that wouldn't have prevented Bridget from having her suspicions, as well.

As I recall, Bridget states she overheard Lizzie telling Andrew about the note.

In any event, Lizzie knew she couldn't just say, "I've no idea where Mrs. Borden is, or went to," because she knew such a statement would have precipitated a search of the house.

[Yooper]

Come to think of it, at the time Lizzie told Bridget that Abby had answered a note as Bridget was going up to her room, Andrew might have overheard the conversation. This would have made him aware that Abby's absence was news to Bridget if Lizzie had to tell Bridget that Abby was absent. It might well be that Andrew did not hear the conversation or he was just too ill or tired to make the connection.

[1bigsteve]

I don't know how much of a habitual liar Lizzie was but I think she did a whole lot of lying on this day. Lizzie's lying is one of the reason I have always felt that Lizzie was in on the murders. She seemed to know too much about things that an innocent person wouldn't have paid much attention to. Many criminals end up hanging themselves by being too clever and I think Lizzie came close to doing just that.

-1bigsteve (o: