My theory ... Lizzie was not alone

matteosmom2008 · Post by **matteosmom2008** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:27 pm

After reading everything I could find on the case, this is my theory. I know many feel different, it’s only a theory.
Now if I am mistaken on anything below as far as facts, someone let me know.

So I think this was planned.
I think Lizzie was the master mind and that she had help from Dr. Bowen (yes, the good Dr) and it was for the motive of money. So far I have read other comments questioning Dr. Bowen’s actions and claiming he may have help cover due to his closeness with the family…. but I think he was full on involved. In more ways than one. I think him and Lizzie were having an affar. I also think Emma may have been aware and open to have the parents being gone….but was unable to stomach the deed herself so had her alibi by being out of town. Or maybe Lizzie knew she could not handle it and so maybe encouraged her to visit friends in order to do the deed while she was gone.
I do think the family was all sick because she did try to kill them via poison… I think she then tried to obtain more to finish the job but was denied by that clerk. I think she then had to make other plans quickly and went with hatchet. I also think she “faked” being sick herself to make it look like someone was trying to poison them all. And then not eating breakfast that morning and being out the night before, she could have claimed they had 2 more meals at home exposing them to more poison when she was totally fine. That is why they died yet she was just sick. Now they did state that no poison was found in the stomach upon an autopsy, but my question then for that time would be…. If it had been a coupled days (since she was not able to get more and that was a couple days before the murder) would it still be present. Would there be any poisons that would not be detectable back in the late 1800’s and was it possibly another drug that Dr. Bowen gave her that he knew was rare or new enough that the examiner would not find or know to look for leaving that conclusion that there was no evidence of poison.
So then on to the murder with the hachet.
Lizzie was not freaked. I don’t care who you are, especially in that time, when crime was even more rare… that not just a murder, but a murder of such extreme violence would have freaked anyone out. Yes it was later stated she was given drugs to calm her, but when it first happened she was not drugged up.
Lizzie didn’t run from the house. And when she had the maid and Alice with her, she sent them both away leaving her alone in the house…. Sorry, not buying it. If I found someone murdered in my home, even if it was someone I hated, I would be running from that house for fear that the murderer may still be there. Especially since this would have “just happened”. The fact that she sent them away and remained inside the house alone is a big factor here. She was not scared for her own safety. There’s only one reason why that would be. I get people go into shock, but from others statements, that was not the case. She was very clear headed.
Dr Bowen was seen riding extremely fast and appeared stressed at around 10 till 11. So he had not yet gotten the news. Since he was not even home yet….. I think he was part of it. And, I think he took the murder weapon and disposed of it and was hurrying back to be available as planned. I just think the timing is just too close for it to just be a coincidence. Planned!
Lizzie stated she watched her dad remove his shoes and offered to open the window for him. From everything I have read about her, she was not that attentive and she herself even said most of the time when she came and went she entered and went right to her room. I think she was trying to look like a caring daughter and the statement was a flat out lie to sway the juror.
The idea that this murder killed Abby, then waited an hour and killed Andrew. Who does that when there are 2 other people in the house.
Dr Bowen burning those papers. A police officer stated that he saw the name Emma written on something before it was burned. I almost wonder if it was Andrews new will leaving more to Abby and removing his daughters? Either way, the fact that anything was burned at that point in time makes me very suspicious.
Dr Bowen and Lizzie both seemed to avoid answering specific questions about the dress she was wearing at the time when everyone was arriving at the house. I think that dress is a sensitive subject. There is a reason. Otherwise someone would simply state I think it was blue. But they both run around in circles in their statements. I study “statement analysis”, and that’s one thing they always state. Simple questions get simple answers. “What color was her dress”. Either “I didn’t notice” or “It was blue”. Neither could answer this way and proceeded to avoid a direct answer. Statement analysis says that its stressful to lie (especially would be true on trial) and so people will avoid a direct lie. This is a great example. That takes me to my next thought about that dress.
Below is Lizzies testimony during court about that dress. She is here directly asked if she burned it because the dress is stained her parents a blood. Statement analysis says, honest people can answer “No, it was not their blood, I did not murder my parents” but when you are lying, you try to avoid the stress by avoiding a direct answer. Notice how many times they tried to get an answer and failed every time. Think of Michael Jackson. Question: Did you molest those children?”. His answer: “I would never hurt a child”. Now while some see this as a direct denial, it is not. No where did he say “I did not molest those children”. And if in his mind, he does not consider that “hurting” the child, but love, then he would not even by lying in his own mind….. Think about how you would answer. Statement analysis has been proven time again. Lizzie is avoiding answering for a reason. I believe that dress had their blood on it and that is why she burned it. I think she felt she would never be held accountable being a women in those days and felt that there was no cause to even be worried about burning it in front of others. I have more on the dress later.
Statement from court transcripts. The questions were being addressed to Lizzie.
Q: Miss Borden, did you burn the dress in question because you murdered your stepmother, then your father, and the dress was stained with their blood, following your assault?
A: Are you accusing me of murdering Father and Mrs. Borden?
Q: That would be correct.
A: Do you realize how insulting that is?
Q: Miss Borden, you do realize you are present at this proceeding as a suspect in these crimes?
A: Yes, and I believe you are wasting your time, laboring under said delusion.
Q: Miss Borden, did you or did you not burn the dress because it was stained with the victims' blood?
A: I've told you, it was stained with paint.
Q: Were there any blood stains on the dress?
A: It would depend on your definition of "stains."
Q: As in, visible to the naked eye.
A: Mr. Knowlton, had I known you would be so interested in that paint-stained dress, I never would have burned it.

Lizzie was wealthy. If someone was murdered in your home, would you stay there if you had many other options?? I know I would NEVER stay there that night and I doubt I would live there ever again. Again, it’s not even like she had no choice. Like being so poor with no where else to go. She was wealthy. They could have stayed at a hotel, at a friends. Anywhere but there. Police said Alice appeared horrified being there. But that Lizzie was calm as could be with her parents bodies also in the home which adds to the level of horror in my mind. And while not much is mentioned about Emma for me to have an opinion, she too stayed in the home. I find that just too weird.
So back on the dress. Police were patrolling the house after the murders. The very NIGHT of the murders, while her dad and step moms dead bodies were laying on the kitchen table, Lizzie went to the cellar with Alice and then returned shortly after alone. Mind you, they had no electricity so the cellar would have been very dark. I have seen video of part of that cellar but with many areas completed where at that time when Lizzie lived there, they said it was all just dirt. A very scary place to be anytime. Add in no lights, a murder just took place, and you have dead mutilated bodies upstairs. So…. they said Alice appeared beyond freaked, yet Lizzie appeared calm. Now go back alone, to me that just adds to the creepy/scariness of that cellar and she then was crouched down for a good 15 minutes they said by the waste basket where the bloody clothes were before that she claimed were due to her lady time of the month. They could not see what she was doing unfortunately. What I think she was doing was working on that dress. Not recall later there were “stains”. Some of you may not know, but Hydrogen peroxide will on some fabric, take out blood stains, yet in others will just discolor the fabric in those spots. I think she had hid that dress and waited for night to avoid being seen. I then think she was trying to clean the blood stains from that dress. That if she had used that, and lets say it turned the blood stains another color instead of removing them all together….. I think she then seeing that the stains were just a different color, she then tried to claim it was paint. But if she was thinking at all, she would have to know they may have looked for paint at or around the home that color and so decided it was best to immediately burn it. But figured she would try to be non chalant about it and state it was just “stained with paint”. And if she was on drugs that helped her relax, that could also add to why she did that in front of others with out fear.

Dr. Bowen refusing to let the police in her room immediately afterwards. They should have checked that whole house first. She was left alone in her room. That was not smart. But that was a very different time so I kinda understand.
Dr Bowen staying in her room alone for some time with the door shut. I think they were having a follow up to the murder and comforting themselves for what THEY just did. Because they were also lovers.
All in all, I think that the lack of forensics and lack of training and experience with the police lead to her being acquitted. That today, if that house was locked down and searched properly.. I think they would have found evidence to convict her. And possibly link her secret lover Dr. Bowen. In fact, I bet had they searched his carriage or re-traced where he had really been (I don’t believe he was doing rounds and have not read anywhere that it was confirmed), there may have been the murder weapon… I almost think she killed Abby, cleaned up in the cellar and it was not rags due to her time of the month, and he then did Andrew, cleaned up in the cellar himself while she called for help if you will, and send people away from the home giving him time…. He then possibly ran down the road, and then came riding back in like he “just found out”
Oh I would love to know the truth.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:22 pm

Well, we have Mrs. Bowen looking out her front window for her daughter that day, or was she looking for her husband? And Lizzie was rather annoyed that she was present in her house after the murders if I remember correctly. It is suspicious. I think Dr. Bowen assisted Lizzie after the fact but was not involved in the crimes.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:24 am

How old was Dr. Bowen at the time of the murders?

DJ · Post by DJ » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:25 pm

First, I posted that "transcript snippet" as a joke hypothetical! (On a recent thread begun by Harry-- sorry if this proved confusing; Lizzie was never questioned in any public forum, directly, about the burned dress. My bad.)

However, much of what you mention has long concerned me-- in reading primary docs posted on other boards re Dr. Bowen, there are details of his business ventures post trial. He sure was throwing a lot of money around in forming corporations. As in, more than thirty thousand dollars. Perhaps he earned it, but MDs of his day were nowhere near as well compensated as they are today. AND: They made house calls, too!

I hate to admit it, but I am old enough to remember an MD making a house call, once! With his black bag and all.

Anyway, that's conjecture of the highest sort, that he might have been "backed" by an unknown source; still one wonders....

As Smudgeman notes, Pheobe Bowen didn't miss much that day, awaiting her daughter's arrival, and she was quick to confirm that Lizzie wore the Bengalene silk dress. I've wondered if she subtly mentioned something she happened to have noticed, to Lizzie and/or Emma??? Perhaps she could have been on the receiving end, too, or by herself?

**************************************************************************************************************************************************One thing for certain, from statements and testimony: Some people were really ruffled by Dr. Bowen escorting Lizzie to church.

It would seem he was highly sympathetic towards her.

One can only wonder, why?
**************************************************************************************************************************************************
If one buys into the notion of incest, was Lizzie trotted over to Dr. Bowen's for an abortion? If so, did she confess to him?
I think, if Lizzie were having an incestuous relationship with her father, it would have been "back in the day," when she was in her late teens, involving the gift of the ring. I think it would have ended some years before the murders.

Lizzie could have felt "rejected," that her father chose her stepmother over her. Or, at least, she could have seen it that way.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************
Anyway, Dr. Bowen was sympathetic to Lizzie. The first person she called for, after the murders. She trusted him.
How did that sympathy and the resultant trust develop?
**************************************************************************************************************************************************I
Their special relationship is singular among all Lizzie's relationships. She seems as close to Dr. Bowen as she ever was to anyone, male or female.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:28 pm

Dr. Bowen was 53. I think it is a bit far fetched that he was having an affair with Lizzie, but I suppose anything is possible. The only actions I find susupicious about Dr. Bowen is:
He sent a telegram to Emma that morning, why? Was he informing her that Abby had come to his house the day before claiming she and Mr. Borden were sick?
He burned that piece of paper in the stove.
Other than that, he had dinner with his wife that day, and they did not get a divorce after the murders, so I assume their marriage was solid.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:10 pm

Sorry DJ, our posts crossed each other's. I wish we knew what the telegram said to Emma! I can only assume he burned whatever remnants he had of such a message in the stove, but why? Maybe he thought it would incriminate him in some way?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:26 am

Dr. Bowen sent Emma a telegram requesting her immediate return after the murders took place. Someone testified he saw the name "Emma" on the piece of paper which Dr. Bowen put in the stove, and Dr. Bowen testified that it was something about his daughter. There is a possibility which makes both of these accounts correct. If Dr. Bowen received a telegram from his daughter that morning prior to, or possibly during his visit to the telegraph office, saying her return would be delayed, and if Dr. Bowen wrote the message he wanted sent to Emma on the reverse side of the telegram, then the sheet of paper contained all of what was claimed. Mrs. Bowen was watching for her daughter that morning, didn't see her by a certain time, and concluded that her daughter wouldn't be home on time according to her testimony.

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:33 pm

To me, the idea of Lizzie and Dr. Bowen having an affair is absurd. I wouldn't put anything past Lizzie, but there is absolutely no evidence she was carrying on an affair with anyone, much less her much older neighbor. As for Bowen burning scraps of paper, it may seem suspicious now, but at the time no one thought it significant. Police Capt. Harrington testified at trial that he entered the Borden kitchen and observed Bowen trying to fit some torn scraps of notepaper together. He testified that at the top of one of the pieces he saw the word "Emma" written in pencil. He quoted Dr. Bowen as stating, "Oh, I think it's nothing. It is something I think about my daughter going through somewhere," before tossing the scraps into the stove. Present in the kitchen at the time were Bridget Sullivan, Dr. Dolan and Marshal Fleet. At trial, both Prosecution and Defense agreed the burned scraps of paper had nothing to do with the murders. If the word "Emma" was written on one of the scraps, it could simply have preceded the address where she was staying in Fairhaven, jotted down by Bowen (or possibly Lizzie) on the back of some notepaper he hastily pulled from his pocket. After sending the telegram, he tore the paper up. In the Borden kitchen, he pieced the torn scraps back together before burning them to assure himself the original note was not something he wanted to save. To my mind, that's the most obvious explanation for the burned paper story.

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:10 pm

I don't believe for one moment Lizzie was having an affair with Dr. Bowen.
However-- she was very close to him, trusted him; in return, he seemed to be highly sympathetic toward her, protective of her.
I wonder why she felt close to him, he to her, in a nonsexual way (I presume). How did that develop?

I don't believe he was an accomplice in the murders any more than, say, Emma, John Morse, and Bridget were.
That is to say, they all knew things that could have hurt Lizzie's case, but they kept silent.
I still think Phoebe Bowen saw/didn't see something.
If she were watching the front closely, she could have seen the alleged bearer of the note for Abby. Or not, and not have said anything about it.

Contrariwise, if Addie Churchill had been watching across no. 92, and didn't see a note bearer, I'm sure she would have spoken up. Ditto Alice Russell, but give her three months' of wrestling with her conscience.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:24 pm

I have always suspected that Dr. Bowen may have performed an abortion on Lizzie after an incestuous relationship with the father. Look, that kind of built up violent lashing out towards one's parents had to have come from somewhere. I don't believe it was just because of money. It may have been the last straw, but the rage that caused the murders had to have occurred from something really ugly in her past.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:30 pm

Addendum: I have never understood why there is so much heavy resistance towards the incest theory. Everyone has explored so many different ideas about the case with an open mind, but anytime incest is brought up most people absolutely refuse to dig into that possiblity. Incest happens. There has to be a reason that Lizzie had no relationship with the opposite sex, was so withdrawn and odd in her early years, and had kleptomania.

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:10 pm

"I have always suspected that Dr. Bowen may have performed an abortion on Lizzie after an incestuous relationship with the father . . . I have never understood why there is so much heavy resistance towards the incest theory." - by Angel

Here's a hint: There's not a shread of evidence to support your theory, as to either the incest or abortion.

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:31 pm

Well, there wouldn't be any evidence-- that was not a confessional age, as this one is. In this day, incest is usually only suspected if someone comes forward and speaks of it.

Something was way off in that household, something enclosed and secreted. It very well could have been incest.

Here's a man whose daughters have a spiteful relationship with his second wife. Hey, here's a solution:

Put them on an allowance and move them out!

Peace all around.

Instead, they all stay crammed up against one another.

It's not what anyone would call a healthy situation, not with the peace that Andrew Borden could have so easily afforded to have provided his wife. And daughters.

Well, where could incest have happened? The farm, perhaps. The cellar, perhaps. Oh, and there's always the barn. We're talking about a man with numerous properties. He could have had a secret little room in one of them ....

I agree with you, Angel. I think Lizzie may well have seen Dr. Bowen about an abortion, then confided in him. He would probably have suspected, anyway. It's not as if she was frisking about with a bunch of boys. He becomes her confidant. He begins to sympathize with her.

I'll take this even further. I think Lizzie loved Andrew, in a highly unhealthy, Electra-like way, back in the day of giving him the ring. I think the Daylight Robbery was a test of his love for her. Would he point the finger of blame at her? I believe she hoped to poison Abby, and was testing the waters, if you will, in regard to that. If Abby dropped dead, would Lizzie's father accuse of her poison?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:39 pm

If there were a "shred of evidence" supporting the incest theory, she wouldn't have to merely "suspect" it. We are entitled to conjecture.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:21 pm

I think that maybe Dr Bowen that he might have been an accessory after the fact. I do believe he knew more than he was telling. I could see where he might be involved with the murders in terms of getting some money. Didn't he have some words with Andrew about not paying for a house call or something for Abby? Or am I wrong about that?
Hey Methsomom, are you new? Welcome to the forum. You do have some good, interesting points. Hope to see you around here more often.

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:46 pm

This is kinda like taking a walk in the twilight zone! Okay, let me add a theory that I've been kicking around for awhile: There wasn't just one killer, there were two. They heard that Andrew kept large sums of money in the house, so they waited until he left and walked in the unlocked front door. Abby was killed first when she caught one of them looking for valuables in the guest room. They got away, but spotted Andrew heading home and followed him back. When they observed Lizzie go to the barn, they slipped in through the side door and confronted Andrew. When he started to hollar, they killed him. Hearing Lizzie coming in the side door, they ran out the front without stealing anything. The killers remained in the area of the Borden home, mingling with the crowd, hoping to learn what or who the police suspected. Although both were known to police, they were never connected to this crime. To me, it's always been obvious who the killers were; I can't understand why no one else has figured it out, unless people just cannot bring themselves to believe that "Me and Brownie" could be murderers. As for the murder weapon, it wasn't a hatchet at all. It was a meat cleavor Brownie stole from his job at the butcher shop. He was able to return it before it was missed.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:52 pm

The killer(s) probably didn't enter or exit through the front door, Bridget had to unlock it for Andrew, and officer Allen, the first on the scene, found the door triple locked when he arrived.

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:20 pm

Yooper wrote:The killer(s) probably didn't enter or exit through the front door, Bridget had to unlock it for Andrew, and officer Allen, the first on the scene, found the door triple locked when he arrived.

Point killer!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:29 pm

As to incest it's possible, although I don't believe it myself. However, Dr. Bowen's actions are suspicious.

These are entries in the Witness statements. From Officer Harrington's notes (page 19):

"Dr. Bowen stopped me on the street, and was very anxious to know what Mr. Knowlton meant when be referred to having found another agent of death. He was very nervous when talking of this I told him I did not recollect of any such statement in his plea."

Then on page 21:

"Mrs. Jane Grey, No. 215 Second street. “Dr. Bowen’s character is at least suspicious. Four years ago, while the Borden family were summering over the river on the farm, Lizzie remained at home. One Sunday evening during this time, she and Dr. Bowen came to church together, and sat in the Borden seat. I myself saw them this evening. At the time, and since, there was much comment on this act. Some remarked how courageous she was to remain in the house alone; but others replied in a knowing way, perhaps she has very acceptable company. ..."

Then there's the article by one Richard Powers in the 1979 Chief of Police magazine entitled "The Death Of A Massachusetts Trojan." which flat out accuses Dr. Bowen. I need to re-read that article as I remember it wasn't very factual.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:36 pm

OOP! Double post.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:46 am

I have the idea that Dr. Bowen's nervousness about "another agent of death" may stem from the fear he may have misdiagnosed Abby's complaint of poisoning prior to the murders.
Bowen to officer Doherty shortly after the murders: "In low tones the Doctor told me he was satisfied there was something wrong, for they were all sick the day before." (Witness Statements, p.6)
There is no logical progression from food poisoning to hatchet murder, but there is from deliberate poisoning to hatchet murder. Dr. Bowen had diagnosed Abby's complaint as food poisoning and he was likely correct as there was no evidence of deliberate poisoning discovered when the stomachs were examined. At the time of his conversation with Harrington, Bowen was probably unaware of the results of the examination. For this reason, I suspect Abby had expressed a fear of deliberate poisoning to Dr. Bowen, and he downplayed the complaint. Under those circumstances, until the results of the stomach examinations were in, he may have had something to be nervous about. Lizzie had mentioned Abby's visit to Dr. Bowen to Alice Russell the night before the murders, who knew how many people were aware of the visit or the nature of the complaint? I expect Bowen feared for his reputation if poison was discovered in addition to the obvious cause of death.

As to Mrs. Jane Grey's statement, why would people in a clandestine relationship appear in public together, let alone in church? They had to be aware that people would gossip about it. If they were to the point of not caring what anyone thought about it, why is this the only reported incident? My guess is that the obvious age difference and Dr. Bowen's standing in the community were probably considered enough to thwart malicious gossip.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:51 am

Good points, Yooper. I've never thought he was involved with the murders or even smuggling out the murder weapon. He was sympathetic toward Lizzie's plight but not nearly as much as Holmes.

I'm going to attach the article I mentioned. It's not very accurate in many respects and I share it because I believe we are all capable of making judgments to its veracity. It's in .doc format and translated by me several years ago. BTW, I mistakenly said the article year was 1979, should have said 1989.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:01 pm

Hi matteosmom2008, welcome to the forum.

You cite Lizzie's testimony about her burning her dress. What is the source for that? Her only testimony was at the Inquest. She was not questioned about the dress burning because it was not known at that time. It was Alice Russell's testimony before the Grand Jury that revealed the burning,

Again, welcome

DJ · Post by DJ » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:19 pm

Yes, Matteosmom2008-- Welcome!

Harry, I fabricated that testimony as a bit of satire, if you will, in your recent thread on Alice Russell.

I've already accepted the blame near the top of this thread.

However, I'm thrilled that it was "real" enough to be accepted as such!

Thanks for quoting that Witness Statement about Dr. Bowen accompanying Lizzie to church. Apparently, it caused quite a stir, prompting that contemporary witness to suspect an affair.

I believe Lizzie and Dr. Bowen were close, but in a nonsexual manner. The closeness of that relationship, as exhibited by that witness statement, indicates the depth of their friendship.

Something brought them together, tied them together. I'll say it again, and again, and again. He was the first person she called for, when the murders were discovered. That indicates the level of trust she had in him.

There were other MDs, all within a few blocks of the house. However, she called for Dr. Bowen.
**********************************************************************************************************************************************
As for MDs performing abortions, back in the day:
I know several women, aged near 90, in nearby towns, who freely speak of the MDs who would perform them, and those who would not. There was always at least one around, risking his practice in performing the illegal service. It's too bad that someone didn't ask the right questions of some of the Fall River old timers, before it was too late. I'm sure someone like Alice Russell would have known whether Dr. Bowen did or didn't. It would be interesting to know, at least, what the take on that would have been.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:39 am

Welcome to the forum, Matteosmom2008!

I seriously doubt there was more to Lizzie and Dr. Bowen's relationship than friendship and trust.

One other observation, if Dr. Bowen indeed thought he mistakenly downplayed Abby's complaint of poisoning, perhaps he thought he was partly responsible for the deaths. His actions seemed to be disjointed by some accounts the day of the murders and a sense of guilt might explain that. Furthermore, what would prompt Abby to suspect deliberate poisoning?

There was some concern about poison in the food at the Borden residence the day of the murders, the police were aware of it. I don't know who informed them about it, Dr. Bowen, Lizzie, John Morse, Alice Russell, and Bridget were very likely all aware of it.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:19 pm

[quote="Yooper"]Welcome to the forum, Matteosmom2008!

I seriously doubt there was more to Lizzie and Dr. Bowen's relationship than friendship and trust.

I agree with you, but Lizzie sure didn't seem to include Dr. Bowen's wife in the friendship and trust. When Phoebe showed up at the Bordens house and was upset, she was told to leave because she was not fit to stay. I think Mrs. Bowen was friendlier with Abby.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:33 pm

I'm not sure why Mrs. Bowen was thought unfit to remain in the group that day nor am I aware what caused that unfitness. The observation is certainly valid, she was sent home not long after she arrived. It may have been her response to Abby being found dead upstairs, whatever that might have been.

For that matter, Mrs. Bowen might have accompanied Dr. Bowen and Lizzie to church on the occasion being discussed, unless she was ill or away from home at the time.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:15 am

I don't think either that there was a relationship other than friendship with Dr Bowen, but I do think that maybe he might have been covering for her. You know, just out of respet for the family kind of thing.I think that maybe he thought she did it, but didn't want to believe it.

DJ · Post by DJ » Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:32 pm

Fascinating article, Harry-- thanks for sharing!

I would mention to the author, however, that an MD would know that the disparity between the times of deaths would point the finger of blame directly at Lizzie and/or Bridget.

If Dr. Bowen had been in on it, how easy it would have been for him to drop by to check on Abby, slip everybody but Lizzie a Mickey Finn, and then chop away, as if--

A real intruder came in and dispatched with everyone, in the moment.

Lizzie could have already been dressed in Bengalene silk and out the door to establish an alibi.

Easy peasey.

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

As for removing the murder weapon from the scene-- it wouldn't have been important, and Dr. Bowen would have known it.
Unless the hatchet had some identifying mark upon it that could trace it to a particular person.
Wipe it off well and leave it where it is. It's more of a risk to remove it from the house.

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

My third argument to the author would be: The motive of the conspiracy is too broad, not to mention nebulous.

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

However, it's understandable why Dr. Bowen is suspected of involvement, given all the help he gives Lizzie. Ditto John Morse and Emma, which is why all have been put forth as possible murderers/accomplices. At the very least, I've no doubt they all aided Lizzie, at least by keeping mum or distracting the authorities. Now, if any or all discussed the murders in advance, no matter who committed them, then there was a conspiracy.

Quite frankly, I believe Lizzie was desperately on some sort of deadline (before a financial arrangement in Abby's favor) to get rid of Abby, in particular, and Andrew, because Lizzie was unsure that he would shield her, keep her in the will, etc.

A lot of things that the author of the article mentions-- the privileges of social standing, for instance-- certainly bear consideration. Also, Dr. Bowen could have easily distracted, confounded, and otherwise impeded the police through his standing as an MD.

If one takes that away from the article, at least, then it's a point well taken.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:12 am

I don't think Lizzie was alone either and Dr. Bowen being in her room and not letting anyone in always made me wonder if he was part of this whole thing.
During victorian times, incest would never ever be talked about. Everything concerning anything sexual was totally taboo. How many stories have you heard over the years where women didn't even know what was going to happen when they married.
I always found it strange that Lizzie gave her father that ring. I can't explain why, it just didn't seem like something a daughter would do. I can see any other gift except a ring.
I also found it very curious that all this happened after Lizzie went to Europe. She finally lived the way she wanted to on that ship and she also saw the luxuries that she did not have or would have with her father alive. If she were to inherit in MA , Abby would have to die before Andrew.

Also Harry, my computer wouldn't open that file is there any other way I can get a copy of it? (I have a feeling it's my computer not yours).

One question I always had & if anyone know anything please forward a reply: Everyone talks of Lizzie not having a drop of blood on her. The blood seemed centralized to exactly where the crimes were comitted. At least that's the impression I've gotten. There must have been massive amounts of blood. No one ever mentions any blood trail or bloody footprints anywhere. That house had carpets, you would think that there had to be some somewhere besides the exact site.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:00 pm

Nadzieja wrote:Also Harry, my computer wouldn't open that file is there any other way I can get a copy of it? (I have a feeling it's my computer not yours).

It's in .doc format so it can be read with MS-Word; Let's try this. I'll send you a private message with the article as an attachment.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:51 pm

Nadzieja wrote:I don't think Lizzie was alone either and Dr. Bowen being in her room and not letting anyone in always made me wonder if he was part of this whole thing.
During victorian times, incest would never ever be talked about. Everything concerning anything sexual was totally taboo. How many stories have you heard over the years where women didn't even know what was going to happen when they married.
I always found it strange that Lizzie gave her father that ring. I can't explain why, it just didn't seem like something a daughter would do. I can see any other gift except a ring.
I also found it very curious that all this happened after Lizzie went to Europe. She finally lived the way she wanted to on that ship and she also saw the luxuries that she did not have or would have with her father alive. If she were to inherit in MA , Abby would have to die before Andrew.

Also Harry, my computer wouldn't open that file is there any other way I can get a copy of it? (I have a feeling it's my computer not yours).

One question I always had & if anyone know anything please forward a reply: Everyone talks of Lizzie not having a drop of blood on her. The blood seemed centralized to exactly where the crimes were comitted. At least that's the impression I've gotten. There must have been massive amounts of blood. No one ever mentions any blood trail or bloody footprints anywhere. That house had carpets, you would think that there had to be some somewhere besides the exact site.

I think you are right. Incest wasn't talked about back then and some of the behavoir that Lizzie displayed towards her father ( th ring she gave him) was definately odd. And I don't thing Dr. Bowen was just an innocent bystander.I think he knew more than he was telling.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:50 pm

Harry wrote:
Nadzieja wrote:Also Harry, my computer wouldn't open that file is there any other way I can get a copy of it? (I have a feeling it's my computer not yours).
It's in .doc format so it can be read with MS-Word; Let's try this. I'll send you a private message with the article as an attachment.

I'll post it here in PDF format

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:19 am

I read the article then I read it again!! It sounds so believable. The one thing that I'm not so sure about is Dr. Bowen staying in the house overnight. Uncle John was in the very next room. Of course if he was in on it, it wouldn't have mattered.
I have to read it again & let everything just sink in some more!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:16 am

Was Mrs. Bowen unaware of her husband's absence if he was in the Borden house overnight? This also involves her in the murders as an accessory. Where were his horse and carriage during the murders? If he had been out making house calls during the murders, he would have had no trouble establishing an alibi. It isn't just a matter of putting one person in a different location at a given time, there are other ramifications as a result.

Dr. Bowen's inconsistent and harebrained behavior the day of the murders was probably the result of a fear for his reputation. The cause of death was abundantly apparent and it had nothing whatever to do with poison. But, for some reason there were two stomachs removed and sent for examination, and the milk was also sent out for analysis. Somewhere, somebody planted the seed of deliberate poisoning in the minds of the authorities. Abby had visited Bowen and he diagnosed the complaint as food poisoning. What if the analysis results came back positive for poison? He had no way of knowing the day of the murders or for several days beyond that. I remember something else about Bowen appearing "greatly relieved" when he heard that the poison tests were negative.

If Bowen seemed overly attentive to Lizzie after the murders, it might be the result of trying to make up for a perceived inattentiveness to Abby and her fear of poisoning. Maybe he felt partially responsible for the deaths of Andrew and Abby. Maybe he thought Lizzie called him over to rub his nose in it if he blew off a complaint of deliberate poisoning. This was all downplayed at the trial, likely because his diagnosis of food poisoning had been correct according to the examinations of the stomachs and the milk. There was no need to sully the doctor's reputation with conjecture at that point. It could also be a good reason to disallow Eli Bence's testimony about prussic acid!

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed Feb 13, 2013 3:00 pm

I think you've hit the nail on the head, by mentioning the prussic acid. I think Dr. Bowen was on tenderhooks about the lab tests because a positive for that poison would have pretty much screamed, "Lizzie did it!"

That is, that she somehow obtained the poison that Eli Bence says she was seeking and managed to administer it. Whether or not she wielded the hatchet would have been moot.

Bence's I.D. plus a positive on the poison would have spelled L-I-Z-Z-I-E.

Let's face it-- the evidence of ingestion of another, weaker poison would have looked terribly bad for Lizzie, too. When coupled with Bence's testimony, it would have looked as if Lizzie tried and failed to obtain the lethal drug.

If poison had shown up in the tests, Team Lizzie would have had a much harder time of establishing a reasonable doubt at trial, expensive ex-governor for the defense, or no.

I'm sure Dr. Bowen was well aware of the above, and the ramifications for Lizzie.

*************************************************************************************************************************************************
I have a fascinating cousin who just turned 97. He began practicing law during the 1930s, in a small Southern town. Retired at age 90. This past November, he discussed all the cases he had that first year-- 1938, I believe. One was a murder trial, which he won for his client, the defendant. His pay? $50.00!!!

He also said that on another case, which he lost, he didn't charge the client anything, because of the loss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:54 pm

DJ wrote: As for removing the murder weapon from the scene-- it wouldn't have been important, and Dr. Bowen would have known it.
Unless the hatchet had some identifying mark upon it that could trace it to a particular person.
Wipe it off well and leave it where it is. It's more of a risk to remove it from the house.

Personally I think that finding the weapon wiped off in the house would point directly to an insider. Wouldn't it be better to think an outsider took away the murder weapon than that somebody wiped off the murder weapon and hid it inside the house?

Seeing this article by Richard Powers made me examine the timelines again more closely.

So far I have found quite a bit of Bowen's own account seems to change, particularly about WHEN he first arrived at the house, who was or wasn't there when he arrived, and when he left again.

At the Inquest, he claims that Mrs. Churchill was not there when he first arrived and that he was the first outsider as far as he knew.

Q. When you got there who did you find?
A. I found Miss Lizzie.
Q. Anybody else?
A. Bridget.
Q. You were the first outsider then to get there?
A. So far as I know.
Q. Mrs. Churchill had not then got there?
A. No Sir.

This statement seems to be backed up by the account of Bowen's driver James Leonard, who say's it was about 11:05 when they got there. By the account of William Sullivan, clerk at Hudner's store where Mrs. Churchill was shopping, she did not leave there until 11:05 to 11:10.

Later in the inquest testimony, Bowen is asked if he can fix the time of his first arrival. He places the arrival at about 11:10, give or take a bit, saying he arrived at that "earlier" time based on what his driver remembered.

Now according to the "official" timeline 11:05 to 11:10 is about the time when Lizzie is supposed to be first calling up the stairs to Bridget. It's before Bridget first runs across the street to go for the doctor. It's before Mrs. Churchill, returning from Hudner's, see Bridget running back home from first speaking to Mrs. Dr. Bowen.

Somehow, though, by the time we get to the trial, Bowen cannot place the time of his arrival closer than the half hour between 11:00 and 11:30

Q. May I assume it was after eleven and before twelve?
A. After eleven and before half past eleven.
Q. You had no occasion at the time to note the time of day?
A. No sir.

There are other inconsistencies in Bowen's story regarding when he left to send the telegram, when officer Allen arrived, etc. At the trial, during cross examination, Mrs. Churchill says of Dr. Bowen, "Oh he went in and out several times."

Bowen, by all accounts, was inside the Borden house before officer Allen arrived. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Dr. Bowen was inside the house before Mrs. Churchill arrived and that she was sent on her errand as a way to buy more time for Bowen to clean up evidence and begin damage control.

As Powers points out in his article, no one at all in the neighborhood was paying attention to the Borden house until after Mrs. Churchill alerted a group of men to find a doctor and call the police.

Even without a bigger conspiracy or having Bowen climbing over the back fence, it's unlikely that anyone would have noticed the doctor making an earlier visit to the Bordens' house before the general alarm had been raised.

By the way, did Dr. Bowen's daughter ever get home that day from wherever she was supposed to have been? Could Mrs. Dr. Bowen have been in on a plot or a coverup? Was she really sitting at the front window waiting for her daughter to appear or could she have been watching the street for another reason?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:35 pm

I think the main difficulty in establishing an accurate timeline is the number of people involved and their effect on the recollection of the others. Bowen mentioned that his driver influenced his recollection to some degree, and that may be typical. The number of different timepieces involved will probably show a good deal of disparity as well. Maybe a sequence of events without assigning a time value is the best approach. For instance, Mrs. Churchill saw Bridget returning from the Bowen house as she (Mrs. Churchill) was returning from the grocery store. I don't know how long Mrs. Churchill was occupied at her house, but Dr. Bowen would have to be right on Bridget's heels to arrive before Mrs. Churchill. The only other possibility is for Dr. Bowen to have already been in the Borden house, but what about his carriage and driver? What about Mrs. Bowen and her testimony? What about Bridget's run across the street? That's three other people involved which complicates things exponentially.

Mrs. Churchill left at one point to find a doctor or send someone to do so. Was that about the time Dr. Bowen arrived? If Dr. Bowen didn't see or didn't recognize Mrs. Churchill on the street, it might explain things to a degree.

I'm not sure if Dr. Bowen's daughter arrived that day. Mrs. Bowen said that if her daughter hadn't arrived by a certain time, she probably wouldn't on that day. That was Mrs. Bowen's reason for watching the street when she did, she knew when the train would arrive and approximately how long it would take to travel from the station to the Bowen residence. Mrs. Bowen's testimony might be a good source if we want to assign a chronological value to events, at least in part.

One reason for someone having witnessed Dr. Bowen's carriage traveling at a high rate of speed might be if he wanted to meet his daughter at the train station and he was running late. If he was late enough, he would have stopped at home to see if she had arrived in the meantime.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:47 pm

Well, Bowen says that he leaves early, then mentions something about trying to go round once an hour. Does that mean stop by his house? If that's the case, Bowen and his carriage might have been on the street a few times during the course of that morning. And if that was his usual routine, it would have gone relatively unnoticed. The "arrival" of Bowen that everyone remembers could very well have been his returning from the telegram errand. Bowen states that even when he got back to the Borden house there weren't many people on the street.

We know Bowen arrived at the house, went on and errand and arrived at the house a second time. Do we have any street witnesses mentioning those two separate arrivals? If he came up the street the second time, stopped at his own door for a moment to have a word with his wife, then crossed back to the Bordens', a witness seeing that later arrival could very well assume it was his first arrival.

How many people witnessed Bowen going across the street after breakfast on Wednesday morning when he spoke with Mr. Borden? Neighbors seeing other neighbors stopping by each other's houses probably pay very little attention to it because it's pretty unremarkable normally. Bowen himself couldn't recall whether he'd seen Andrew on the street Thursday morning, because at that point in the day, it would be the same as if it were Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday. . . nothing very noteworthy.

So I can see Bowen with or without his carriage being at the Borden house earlier than when Mrs. Churchill or the street witnesses think he first arrived.

Bridget may or may not have been aware of his presence in the house. He could have been in the sitting room when Lizzie called Bridget downstairs and sent her out of the house. Same with Mrs. Dr. Bowen. All she knows when Bridget runs across is her husband isn't at home. Out of Lizzie, Bridget, Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Dr. Bowen, only Lizzie would almost definitely have to be in on it.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:00 am

I agree, neighbors moving about the neighborhood would indeed be pretty unremarkable, a lot would go unnoticed.

There's still the problem of James Leonard and the carriage. Mrs. Bowen would certainly be aware of her husband's return, along with his horse, carriage, and driver. She directed him to the Borden house on his return. The carriage and driver were available when Bowen went to the telegraph office. Neither Bridget nor Mrs. Churchill saw Dr. Bowen's carriage on the street. If the carriage had been parked in front of the Bowen house, Mrs. Churchill would likely have summoned Dr. Bowen rather than sending her hired man elsewhere.

To put Dr. Bowen in the Borden house during the murders, James Leonard has to have driven an empty carriage around for quite a while. Mrs. Bowen has to have lied about directing her husband to the Borden house at 11:15-11:30, and James Leonard needs a reason to allow himself to be an accessory to murder if he testified that Dr. Bowen was with him.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:28 am

Yooper,

I agree Leonard and the carriage are the stumbling blocks here. But Leonard is the one who first mentions the very early arrival time in the beginning.

And I'm not sure how we should take Bowen's initial story that he was the first outsider in the house. If his neighbor Mrs. Churchill was in the back entry with Lizzie when he arrived, how could he not see that? He is specifically asked who was there and he says Lizzie and Bridget. He's asked about Mrs. Churchill and he says "No Sir."

It really seems as though his arrival at at later time and Mrs. Churchill's presence is decided on between the inquest and the trial. His story does change.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:36 am

I have to agree too. Leonard would have to have driven a empty carriage, and for what purpose? Waiting on Bowen to come out of the house after the deed was done?And Mrs. Bowen would have had to have lied, as you've stated. That whole scenrio doesn't work at all for me.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:21 am

Speaking of Dr. Bowen's driver, this curious article appeared at the close of the trial in the New Bedford Evening Standard:

Thursday, June 22, 1893 Page 2

WAS HELD IN RESERVE.

How Defense Would Have Secured
New Trial In Borden Case.

FALL RIVER, June 22. - It is said the defense in the Borden trial had a bombshell prepared, but it was not found necessary to fire it.
This bombshell was in the nature of testimony relating to a mysterious visitor to the Borden household two days before the murder, who acted like an insane person, but whose identity has not yet been discovered.
The witness who was to give this testimony was the young man who drives Dr. Bowen's carriage when the physician makes his calls on his patients.
Dr. Bowen's driver was in readiness to be called as a witness in the case the during the early part of the trial, but as the government's case gradually fell to pieces, and points which promised to be of importance proved to be worthless, it was decided that he would be a good witness to fall back on in greater time of need, and while the counsel for Miss Borden felt reasonably certain that Miss Borden would not be convicted, they said nothing about the doctors driver and his testimony, for fear that there might be a disagreement which would unquestionably have resulted in a new trial.
It is also felt that in case of a conviction and a trial granted on the exceptions the witness would come in very handy in contradiction of an anticipated stronger case on the part of the government.
The young man's testimony as it would be given substantially at the trial was this:
On the Tuesday forenoon preceding the murder as Mr. Chase was sitting in Dr. Bowen's carriage in front of the physicians residence, he saw a buggy driven up to the Borden dwelling and stop at the gate leading to the side door instead of that opening to the front steps.
There were two men in the carriage, both about forty years of age, perhaps a little younger, certainly not over that age. One had a grayish moustache, while the other had a darker one, unmixed with the traces of age.
The younger man got out of the vehicle and walked into the Borden yard. Mr. Chase thought nothing of that, but when the carriage drove on from under the shady tree up to the corner of the next street south and turning, stood in the sun waiting, the young man sitting in the doctor's buggy became very much interested and wondered what was up.
In about ten minutes the driver's curiosity was partially gratified, for he saw the man who had gone into the house come stamping down the back steps and walk to the side gate, go out of it and up to the carriage at the corner, which he entered and which was driven away almost immediately.
The stranger as he walked through the yard and up the street was unquestionably laboring under great excitement. He not only muttered to himself as loudly that the watcher across the street could hear him, but he shook his fist at the Borden house, and struck his left hand with his clutched right as he walked on the street.
When the stranger re-entered the carriage the man waiting in it whipped up his horse and hurriedly drove off.
The episode was a great source of wonderment to Mr. Chase, and although he attributed it to some victim of Mr. Bordens sharp dealing, regarding which he had several times heard in his journeyings about town, he mentioned casually the matter to Dr. Bowen, who says he thought no more about it until the murders were discovered.
Mr. Chase did, however, and pondered for several days, but he did not happen to see Mr. Jennings until Monday or Tuesday following the tragedy, and the lawyer, knowing then that his client was suspected of committing the murder, deemed it best to use the information for the benefit of Miss Borden when the occasion arose.
That did not come during the trial, because the attorneys for the defense agreed among themselves that the case of the state did not need any very strong evidence to injury it in the eyes of the jurors, and so Dr. Bowen's young man was not called to tell what he knew, for, while Mr. Robinson and his associates knew that the government case was weak, they were not sure what the jury would do in the matter and did not know but what the testimony would be available as new evidence if the state had any success with the 12 men.
Now, however, the contingency will not arise and the matter has been dropped.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:57 pm

Thanks, Harry! Curious article, indeed! Is that obstruction of justice, withholding evidence? While it isn't the responsibility of the defense to solve the crime, don't they have an obligation to the court to see that justice is done, especially if the information tends to exonerate their client?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:53 pm

The inconsistency seems to be between what Dr. Bowen said early in the investigation and what he said later at the trial. Dr. Bowen said he did not check the time of his arrival when he drove up to his house just before being directed to the Borden house. His driver gave the time as 11:05, but based upon what? The time given may have been incorrect for any number of reasons. If Dr. Bowen didn't check the time and he thought his driver had, it seems natural that he would support the driver's contention rather than contest it. It may be that after considering the sequence of events, the driver's arrival time seemed a bit off to Dr. Bowen. His position does not change to a specific time of arrival, only a broadened range of times favoring a later time. Dr. Bowen testified at the trial that the best he could do was to approximate 11:00-11:30 as his arrival time, rather than the original 11:05 given earlier.

Dr. Bowen probably arrived after Mrs. Churchill's original arrival, and after she returned from across the street. Otherwise, Dr. Bowen's carriage would have been on the street and there would be no need for Mrs. Churchill to send her hired man anywhere. Mrs. Churchill would probably go directly to Dr. Bowen's house and summon him. Mrs. Churchill was certainly in the house when Bowen arrived, he testified at the trial that both she and Lizzie were at the door leading from the kitchen to the rear hallway. Lizzie was on the steps next to the rear door when Mrs. Churchill first arrived. The carriage was not on the street when Bridget left to summon Alice Russell, this would have been about the time of Mrs. Churchill's first arrival.

As I've mentioned earlier, Dr. Bowen's actions the day of the murders seem rather disjointed. I believe he was focused on an earlier complaint of poison, and may have been surprised to find that they had been murdered with a hatchet. His early testimony might have reflected preoccupation or confusion, and he may not have noticed Mrs. Churchill's presence at first. Under those conditions, time might well have modified his original testimony.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:10 pm

Just for the record, the driver says it was the bell ringing 11:00 that gave him his estimated time. That would be the same bell that Bridget used to estimate her time upstairs. One might assume the police would more or less set their clocks/watches by that too.

That brings up another point, though. Someone called the police at 11:15 and Allen was sent right down. At a brisk walk, he should have been there in just a couple or three minutes, but Bowen is there when he arrives. So clearly Mrs. Dr. Bowen's estimate of sending her husband across at 11:25 has to be wrong. That's fully ten minutes after the police have been called.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:48 pm

If there was a discrepancy between Allen's arrival and Mrs. Bowen's testimony, then either Mrs. Bowen's time was incorrect, or officer Allen did not walk briskly, or officer Allen did not leave immediately, or it took a few minutes to find officer Allen at the police station, or the time the police received the call was incorrect. If the police appeared, for whatever reason, just a bit slow to react, they probably wouldn't admit it given the gravity of the situation. If each of the listed possibilities were true and accounted for a couple of minutes apiece, how accurate does the time for the sequence of events become?

We have a series of judgment calls where time is concerned, including estimates of an amount of time passed after having heard the 11:00 bell. Even if a watch or clock is checked to time an event, there is no guarantee that it was keeping time properly or was synchronized with all the other clocks. I would trust the sequence of events as being more accurate than the estimated time assigned to any of them by those involved.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:16 pm

Harry, that was a great article, thanks for posting. The man was in the house only 10 minutes and came out aggitated. It made me wonder, did he just walk in without knocking? Also I wonder who he saw and spoke to in that time. Did Lizzie ever mention him?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:21 pm

I guess I don't understand why Leonard's testimony would not have been used, either during or after Lizzie's trial. It seems to me that anything furthering the case for the defense would have been used to secure acquittal and there seems to be no valid reason to hold it in reserve as the article implies. In reserve for what? If Lizzie was convicted, the deal was done. The information might have been of some value to the authorities since Lizzie was acquitted, the case was still open and it might have provided a lead. If the information proved viable, it might have led to Lizzie's release altogether. I wonder if the authorities ever followed this up?

DJ · Post by DJ » Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:08 pm

Call me cynical-- but I think the driver's story was being reserved for a last-ditch, muddy-the-waters moment in the courtroom if it looked liked Lizzie was going down right before the defense rested.

I agree with everyone who says, "Why not bring it out as part of the scheduled testimony," if it's true. Maybe the whole story was a hoax supplied by a Lizzie sympathizer. Hhmmm, who could that have been?

Anyway, it's notable that it would be someone closely connected with Dr. Bowen who might have saved the day for Lizzie, had she seemed to be in need of it.

Thanks for sharing, Harry.

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

Going back to the hatchet at the scene-- why take the risk of leaving the house with it, with traces of blood on the handle that couldn't be wiped away, then being caught before disposal could be effected?

Just leave it, if it's not traceable. (Why use a traceable hatchet in the first place?)

Why are the police scouring the house for it?

An outside jobber would have either left it or run off with it. He/She wouldn't have had time to hide it, much less cut off the handle. He/She would have been getting out as soon as possible.

That the police think the "handle-less hatchet" is the murder weapon practically screams "inside job." No outsider would have taken the time to do that.

I think the absence of a murder weapon at the scene led the police to believe that it could well have been an inside job. Lacking modern forensics, it would have made more sense to leave the thing than to risk being seen/caught with it out of the house.

One of Lizzie's mistakes (if she did it), I think.