Outright lie?

[PossumPie]

Here is something I haven't seen discussed. In Lizzie's Inquest testimony she is asked if she bought Prussic acid from Smith's Drug Store at Columbia and Main St. She says NO, then she is asked if she knows where Smith's is, she says "I don't". This HAS to be a blatant lie, it was about 300ft from her house, 2 blocks south and 1 block west. If you threw a stone hard from her front porch, you could hit it. Some of her testimony can be chalked up to being confused about times, etc. BUT to say you don't know where a drug store is that is one street over from your house???

[PattiG157]

This is one of the reasons I believe the THREE people who testified that she tried to purchase prussic acid the day before the murders -- I believe she lied when asked if she'd ever heard of the drug store, when asked if she attempted to buy the acid, etc. I just believe Lizzie LIED about the whole incident. That's why I believe the 3 people that said they witnessed her trying to buy the prussic acid.

[snokkums]

You know, I was just reading some of her testimony and I found some inconsistancies. She was asked if she ate breakfast and she said didn't, wasn't feeling to good. But then goes on to say I don't think I ate a 1/2 of banana. Then goes on to say we had some molasses cookies. I don't think I ate those. I mean the way she was putting it was like I might have or might not have eaten. But, those statements come on the heals of saying she didn't eat breakfast because she didn't feel good. I mean you either ate or you didn't, you know?

And I have to agree with what you are saying about the drug store. If the thing is on your street, a stones throw away from your house, how do you not know where it's at?

I am kind of wondering if maybe the doctor had given her some medication that was making her loopy.

[PossumPie]

You know, I was just reading some of her testimony and I found some inconsistancies. She was asked if she ate breakfast and she said didn't, wasn't feeling to good. But then goes on to say I don't think I ate a 1/2 of banana. Then goes on to say we had some molasses cookies. I don't think I ate those. I mean the way she was putting it was like I might have or might not have eaten. But, those statements come on the heals of saying she didn't eat breakfast because she didn't feel good. I mean you either ate or you didn't, you know?

And I have to agree with what you are saying about the drug store. If the thing is on your street, a stones throw away from your house, how do you not know where it's at?

I am kind of wondering if maybe the doctor had given her some medication that was making her loopy.

Yea, reading her WHOLE inquest testimony at one sitting, you see A LOT of inconsistencies. She was upstairs when Father came home, she was on the stairs, she was downstairs, She ate nothing, she ate half a banana, she ate no banana, she ate molasses cookies, She didn't know about a drug store 2 blocks from her house. Mr. Borden arrived home about 10:30 and she sat reading a book and a magazine for about 1/2hr, asked him about the window, then went to the barn for 20min. That would take us to about 11:20 long after the body was discovered. I think the questioner was a bit hard on her, no one could remember every detail in order from their morning, BUT she was lucid enough to correct him several times when he tries to twist her words, she was NOT doped up and "loopy" I find it interesting that she casually said she had been on the stairs when Bridget let Mr. Borden in, a statement that fits with Bridget's statement, then very strongly changes her testimony to say she was in the kitchen NOT upstairs or on the stairs. Even when they say "you said you were on the stairs" Lizzie denies it, like she knew admitting to that was bad.

I've seen the medication question before with Lizzie b/c of the opiates. Morphine/opiates in the amount given her would at MOST make her sleepy. It does not cause memory loss or other psychological effects. I have seen some mega-doses of morphine given to elderly patients, who went loopy, but everyone else just fell asleep with too much morphine. in the amount Lizzie was given (even after the dose increase) it calmed her and helped her sleep. Even her lawyers didn't pursue that angle.

[Aamartin]

Even not under the scrutiny of testifying-- I might be not able to state where I might have been at a specific time at home... But who doesn't know where a store is? Especially one minutes from their house?

Even drugged-- you don't forget places and things. Events perhaps.... But not IMO things like a pharmacy

[NancyDrew]

Good points. I think Lizzie's inquest testimony is best read all at once. In my opinion, it gives one the clearest idea of her state of mind.

My impression of Lizzie, from doing the above, was that she was evasive, confused, and outright lied. She also put on airs, wanted to appear to be worldly and more sophisticated than she was..."I'm away so much myself." Oh please. Lizzie. Except for the one ONE trip to Europe and your Fruit and Flower Mission duties, you aren't away "so much" at all.

And lying about the druggist and the fact that the drug store even existed...why didn't the prosecution jump on her for that?

In short, when I read Lizzie's testimony, my initial impressions were that she was LYING...and also trying to present herself in a certain light that wasn't necessarily accurate.

[PossumPie]

Good points. I think Lizzie's inquest testimony is best read all at once. In my opinion, it gives one the clearest idea of her state of mind.

My impression of Lizzie, from doing the above, was that she was evasive, confused, and outright lied. She also put on airs, wanted to appear to be worldly and more sophisticated than she was..."I'm away so much myself." Oh please. Lizzie. Except for the one ONE trip to Europe and your Fruit and Flower Mission duties, you aren't away "so much" at all.

And lying about the druggist and the fact that the drug store even existed...why didn't the prosecution jump on her for that?

In short, when I read Lizzie's testimony, my initial impressions were that she was LYING...and also trying to present herself in a certain light that wasn't necessarily accurate.

I read Lizzie's testimonies all the way through to get a more comprehensive picture. Much of the contradiction could be from simple confusion. She honestly didn't know if she picked up the magazine or the book first. BUT there was testimony that she was obviously lying. She was sure of her whereabouts when Father came home, UPSTAIRS. No question. Bridget's testimony backs her up. Yes Upstairs. Then she suddenly says that she was not upstairs. Bridget was confident of the order of things. Lizzie was upstairs, Bridget fumbled with the locks, Lizzie laughed, Bridget let Mr. Borden in, Lizzie came down 5min. later, talked in a low voice with father, talked with Bridget about a sale, Bridget went upstairs to her room, heard the clock strike 11, Lizzie called her that Father was dead. There was no mention of going out to the barn at first, only later did she insert that after she sat reading a magazine waiting for her flat irons to get hot.

What really struck me was reading down the pages and pages of witness testimony from friends and neighbors. Almost everyone said something like "It wasn't the most pleasant house to live in" or "they really didn't get along" or "Lizzie didn't like Mrs. Borden". I think for that many people to offer that opinion, it was worse than Lizzie had let on even to them, and things were beyond 'uncomfortable' or 'cool relations'. Couple that with Lizzie's constant remarks to people like "I think someone is out to get us" or "Someone is trying to poison us" WHY would you keep saying that unless you were trying to set up a picture of a dangerous environment?

[Darrowfan]

Good points. I think Lizzie's inquest testimony is best read all at once. In my opinion, it gives one the clearest idea of her state of mind.

My impression of Lizzie, from doing the above, was that she was evasive, confused, and outright lied. She also put on airs, wanted to appear to be worldly and more sophisticated than she was..."I'm away so much myself." Oh please. Lizzie. Except for the one ONE trip to Europe and your Fruit and Flower Mission duties, you aren't away "so much" at all.

And lying about the druggist and the fact that the drug store even existed...why didn't the prosecution jump on her for that?

In short, when I read Lizzie's testimony, my initial impressions were that she was LYING...and also trying to present herself in a certain light that wasn't necessarily accurate.

I read Lizzie's testimonies all the way through to get a more comprehensive picture. Much of the contradiction could be from simple confusion. She honestly didn't know if she picked up the magazine or the book first. BUT there was testimony that she was obviously lying. She was sure of her whereabouts when Father came home, UPSTAIRS. No question. Bridget's testimony backs her up. Yes Upstairs. Then she suddenly says that she was not upstairs. Bridget was confident of the order of things. Lizzie was upstairs, Bridget fumbled with the locks, Lizzie laughed, Bridget let Mr. Borden in, Lizzie came down 5min. later, talked in a low voice with father, talked with Bridget about a sale, Bridget went upstairs to her room, heard the clock strike 11, Lizzie called her that Father was dead. There was no mention of going out to the barn at first, only later did she insert that after she sat reading a magazine waiting for her flat irons to get hot.

What really struck me was reading down the pages and pages of witness testimony from friends and neighbors. Almost everyone said something like "It wasn't the most pleasant house to live in" or "they really didn't get along" or "Lizzie didn't like Mrs. Borden". I think for that many people to offer that opinion, it was worse than Lizzie had let on even to them, and things were beyond 'uncomfortable' or 'cool relations'. Couple that with Lizzie's constant remarks to people like "I think someone is out to get us" or "Someone is trying to poison us" WHY would you keep saying that unless you were trying to set up a picture of a dangerous environment?

When reading Lizzie's testimony, I get the impression of a person who is refusing to be "tied down" to any particular location or activity at any particular time. Rather than Lizzie being confused, I think she sought to confuse her interrogators.

[leitskev]

the drug store

The testimony of the pharmacists should be disregarded. We saw the internet flood with similar things in the Boston Marathon bombing, things which get started and turn out to be completely false. Let's imagine Fall River in the hours after the killings. Quickly spreading was the report that Mrs. Borden had visited Dr. Bowen the day before complaining she thought her family was being poisoned. The proper way for a Victorian lady to kill was with poison. It fit their expectations. No doubt if not by supper that evening, certainly by lunch the next day everyone in Fall River had heard some version of the speculation that Lizzie had tried to poison her parents.

The pharmacists would have heard this too. And as we see in modern cases, people are eager to insert themselves into a big case. Someone might have remembered a young woman in the shop at some time...maybe she wanted to buy poison? Between the various employees talking, the story would have grown and taken hold in their minds. Soon they would have pinned the thing on Lizzie,who they had never met. And by the time they were telling their story to police, they would have made sure their story fit what police were looking for. Were they lying? Not necessarily. Memory is very prone to suggestion in situations like these. It happens in literally every famous case, and prosecutors end up having to discard all kinds of wild statements from "witnesses".

Did Lizzie lie about the drug store? Maybe. Maybe not. This was a busy part of the city. Even their residential neighborhood was filled with businesses. And these people didn't have cars. They were on foot and only walked certain define routes. And ladies would have avoided certain areas.

Breakfast

Some of these inconsistencies are more suggestive of someone being honest. Someone covering up a crime is more likely to "remember" detailed sequences of events that they have concocted to cover up true events. Real memories are always messier. This is well established.

There is a difference between breakfast, which was probably seen as a communal type thing, where people sit down at a table at a certain time...and grabbing stuff to snack on. And why would Lizzie lie about meaningless things like bananas unless she simply didn't quite remember?

I do think Darrow makes an excellent point about her testimony about her location in the house. It could be honest confusion, but it does come off like someone trying not to be pinned down.

Weird thing about this whole case is the seeming slowing of time. Whether it's Lizzie testimony or Bridgett's, or even Mrs. Churchill's, it almost doesn't seem like there was enough time for all these things to happen.

Take Lizzie: she visited the barn, ironed her clothes, put clothes in her room, read a magazine, talked with Bridget, talked with her father, killed Andrew, hid the weapon, cleaned herself up, called for help...all within minutes.

Andrew left downtown at 10:45, walked home(5 minutes at least), tried the backdoor, went to the front, fumbled with his keys, was let in by Bridgett, sat in the dining room with Lizzie and talked, took a package to his bed room, returned to the sitting room for a nap, and got killed around 11:00, 11:05 at the latest.

Or think of all the things Bridgett did in these minutes and still managed to be in bed for her own nap by 11:00

Weird.

[Darrowfan]

the drug store

The testimony of the pharmacists should be disregarded. We saw the internet flood with similar things in the Boston Marathon bombing, things which get started and turn out to be completely false. Let's imagine Fall River in the hours after the killings. Quickly spreading was the report that Mrs. Borden had visited Dr. Bowen the day before complaining she thought her family was being poisoned. The proper way for a Victorian lady to kill was with poison. It fit their expectations. No doubt if not by supper that evening, certainly by lunch the next day everyone in Fall River had heard some version of the speculation that Lizzie had tried to poison her parents.

The pharmacists would have heard this too. And as we see in modern cases, people are eager to insert themselves into a big case. Someone might have remembered a young woman in the shop at some time...maybe she wanted to buy poison? Between the various employees talking, the story would have grown and taken hold in their minds. Soon they would have pinned the thing on Lizzie,who they had never met. And by the time they were telling their story to police, they would have made sure their story fit what police were looking for. Were they lying? Not necessarily. Memory is very prone to suggestion in situations like these. It happens in literally every famous case, and prosecutors end up having to discard all kinds of wild statements from "witnesses".

Did Lizzie lie about the drug store? Maybe. Maybe not. This was a busy part of the city. Even their residential neighborhood was filled with businesses. And these people didn't have cars. They were on foot and only walked certain define routes. And ladies would have avoided certain areas.

Breakfast

Some of these inconsistencies are more suggestive of someone being honest. Someone covering up a crime is more likely to "remember" detailed sequences of events that they have concocted to cover up true events. Real memories are always messier. This is well established.

There is a difference between breakfast, which was probably seen as a communal type thing, where people sit down at a table at a certain time...and grabbing stuff to snack on. And why would Lizzie lie about meaningless things like bananas unless she simply didn't quite remember?

I do think Darrow makes an excellent point about her testimony about her location in the house. It could be honest confusion, but it does come off like someone trying not to be pinned down.

Weird thing about this whole case is the seeming slowing of time. Whether it's Lizzie testimony or Bridgett's, or even Mrs. Churchill's, it almost doesn't seem like there was enough time for all these things to happen.

Take Lizzie: she visited the barn, ironed her clothes, put clothes in her room, read a magazine, talked with Bridget, talked with her father, killed Andrew, hid the weapon, cleaned herself up, called for help...all within minutes.

Andrew left downtown at 10:45, walked home(5 minutes at least), tried the backdoor, went to the front, fumbled with his keys, was let in by Bridgett, sat in the dining room with Lizzie and talked, took a package to his bed room, returned to the sitting room for a nap, and got killed around 11:00, 11:05 at the latest.

Or think of all the things Bridgett did in these minutes and still managed to be in bed for her own nap by 11:00

Weird.

Very good points about the pharmacists' testimony, leitskev. You may be right about Lizzie's memories of what, or even whether, she ate that morning. I recall that at one point, she responded to Knowlton that she didn't have a "regularly prepared breakfast". As you say, that may be the only thing she knew for sure about eating that morning.

I think where Lizzie seems deliberately evasive is in her testimony about where she was when Abby went upstairs, and when Andrew came home.

[PossumPie]

I understand what you are saying about a "busy city" and would accept it EXCEPT that the next street over and down a block-and-a-half??? I don't care if it were an X-rated theater, that close to your home you would know it. I lived in downtown Philadelphia for a while. Anything within about a 4 block radius of my home I knew of, even if I didn't go in it.

About the amount of activity in a short time, I think we have no idea how long things take. Since the above comment about the microwave, I have been taking notice as to what I can accomplish in the 4 min. it takes my Raman Noodles to cook...today I went upstairs, changed clothes, put the dirty clothes in the laundry, got my clothes out and ready for tomorrow, came downstairs, peed, washed my hands, and was back in the kitchen with 13 seconds to spare!!! I agree with the few definite times we know...The Dr.'s wife saying it was 10:40 by the clock, and Bridget hearing 11am ring on the clock...those times we know for sure.

[leitskev]

Hey Possum

You have to remember our world in many way was different than theirs. We are used to driving around, so we have a stronger sense of the areas around us. And shops now have large, bright signs. 92 Second street seems to have been on the dividing line between the right and wrong side of the tracks. It was a mixed area. That's why Lizzie wanted to move. There were parts of town she would not have walked down. I thought I remember reading that the pharmacy was in one such part of town. And I'm not sure how much lying about it would help her. All she had to do was say she knew where it was but had never been in there.

I'm not defending Lizzie, and I'm not saying she didn't go inside and try to buy poison. She may have. But in a case with a wide range of conflicting evidence, you have to dismiss things that cannot be substantiated. With word of Abby's complaint to Dr. Bowen about poisoning spreading around town, I think it was highly likely that a story like this would emerge. Look at it this way, what are the odds of both things happening: Abby mistakenly thinking they were being poisoned, and a story emerging of Lizzie trying to buy poison? It's too coincidental for there not to be a connection. The connection is that that Abby's fears inspired the pharmacists story.

Possum, are you practicing to kill someone? lol, just kidding. Yeah, a lot can happen in 5 minutes. But she couldn't have got that hatchet out of the house and where it would never be found...not by herself!

[Franz]

It is possible that Lizzie was lying when she said that she didn't know that drug store. But by doing so, she could have wanted to protect herself better in a dangerous situation for her. I think, as many, that the store staff's testimony was reliable, but meanwhile, I think that Lizzie was trying to buy the poison for an innoncent purpose. If Lizzie did kill her father and her stepmother for money, I think the improbability of using poison by Lizzie had been convincingly demonstrated by Harry in one of his previous thread.

[PossumPie]

It is possible that Lizzie was lying when she said that she didn't know that drug store. But by doing so, she could have wanted to protect herself better in a dangerous situation for her. I think, as many, that the store staff's testimony was reliable, but meanwhile, I think that Lizzie was trying to buy the poison for an innoncent purpose. If Lizzie did kill her father and her stepmother for money, I think the improbability of using poison by Lizzie had been convincingly demonstrated by Harry in one of his previous thread.

Ok...Franz, WHAT innocent purpose? Prussic Acid, used by the Nazis to kill 6 million Jews has WHAT innocent purpose???

[Franz]

It is possible that Lizzie was lying when she said that she didn't know that drug store. But by doing so, she could have wanted to protect herself better in a dangerous situation for her. I think, as many, that the store staff's testimony was reliable, but meanwhile, I think that Lizzie was trying to buy the poison for an innoncent purpose. If Lizzie did kill her father and her stepmother for money, I think the improbability of using poison by Lizzie had been convincingly demonstrated by Harry in one of his previous thread.

Ok...Franz, WHAT innocent purpose? Prussic Acid, used by the Nazis to kill 6 million Jews has WHAT innocent purpose???

PossumPie, if you want to kill, you could do it with almost everything. A poison is an innocent object when you don't use it to kill.

Was Prussid Acid used at that time, among eventually other uses, to clean clothes, as Lizzie said (she could even wrongly think so)? Many erudit members, as Allen, can give me some clarification.

[Aamartin]

Who's going to have such a thing for 'self defense'? What is she going to do? Throw it in someone's face? If that would indeed render someone injured-- why say she wanted it to clean a sealskin cape? Handling it would be incredibly dangerous.

[Aamartin]

Who's going to have such a thing for 'self defense'? What is she going to do? Throw it in someone's face? If that would indeed render someone injured-- why say she wanted it to clean a sealskin cape? Handling it would be incredibly dangerous.

[PossumPie]

It is possible that Lizzie was lying when she said that she didn't know that drug store. But by doing so, she could have wanted to protect herself better in a dangerous situation for her. I think, as many, that the store staff's testimony was reliable, but meanwhile, I think that Lizzie was trying to buy the poison for an innoncent purpose. If Lizzie did kill her father and her stepmother for money, I think the improbability of using poison by Lizzie had been convincingly demonstrated by Harry in one of his previous thread.

Ok...Franz, WHAT innocent purpose? Prussic Acid, used by the Nazis to kill 6 million Jews has WHAT innocent purpose???

PossumPie, if you want to kill, you could do it with almost everything. A poison is an innocent object when you don't use it to kill.

Was Prussid Acid used at that time, among eventually other uses, to clean clothes, as Lizzie said (she could even wrongly think so)? Many erudit members, as Allen, can give me some clarification.

I agree that if you want to kill, you could use anything. I don't see any innocent reason for wanting Prussic Acid. This is also known as Zyklon B by the Nazi's and when added to water, gives off cyanide gas. As experts testified, it can't be used to clean a coat. Using it as an insecticide would be possible, but a dangerous overkill when there were many other less dangerous things available.

[Aamartin]

It's sickening to even think about wanting to acquire such a chemical.

[PossumPie]

Hey Possum

You have to remember our world in many way was different than theirs. We are used to driving around, so we have a stronger sense of the areas around us. And shops now have large, bright signs. 92 Second street seems to have been on the dividing line between the right and wrong side of the tracks. It was a mixed area. That's why Lizzie wanted to move. There were parts of town she would not have walked down. I thought I remember reading that the pharmacy was in one such part of town. And I'm not sure how much lying about it would help her. All she had to do was say she knew where it was but had never been in there.

I'm not defending Lizzie, and I'm not saying she didn't go inside and try to buy poison. She may have. But in a case with a wide range of conflicting evidence, you have to dismiss things that cannot be substantiated. With word of Abby's complaint to Dr. Bowen about poisoning spreading around town, I think it was highly likely that a story like this would emerge. Look at it this way, what are the odds of both things happening: Abby mistakenly thinking they were being poisoned, and a story emerging of Lizzie trying to buy poison? It's too coincidental for there not to be a connection. The connection is that that Abby's fears inspired the pharmacists story.

Possum, are you practicing to kill someone? lol, just kidding. Yeah, a lot can happen in 5 minutes. But she couldn't have got that hatchet out of the house and where it would never be found...not by herself!

We're going to have to agree to disagree...I don't care WHAT year you lived in, you knew the houses, shops, and streets 2 blocks from your home. ESPECIALLY if you walked or took an open carriage everywhere. Bad part of town or not, you knew of the shops that close. I'm not saying she was the one asking for poison, In fact I am skeptical b/c the story didn't come out until AFTER she was a suspect, and the shop owner didn't even know her. I'm dubious that it even was her...BUT I guarantee that she knew of the shop, it was on the next street over!! I think at that point, she was in the frame of mind to lie about anything that put her in a more suspicious light. One thing that has always made me suspicious of her was the amount of times she lied. I'm not talking about confusing trivial details, we all would do that under stress, but she lied about larger things. I don't think that we have enough information to say that she was a 'sociopath' but she does seem to have a long history of lying and getting caught. That is why when there is a disagreement between testimonies, I tend to give hers less weight...

[Curryong]

Lizzie certainly didn't mind a lie or two and, the mark of a bad liar she couldn't keep her story straight. When being questioned by Knowlton at the Inquest as to her whereabouts on the Wednesday before the murders she stated she had been at home all day until the night. Earlier, when answering Knowlton's questions about her uncle's afternoon arrival at 92 Second St, she answered "I don't know. I was not there when he came. I was out". Confusion, evasion, or an out and out lie?

[NancyDrew]

Oh Lizzie lied alright...in my opinion (and that's all any of us have here...our own opinoins. No one can state anything irrefutably). One other variable that I haven't seen throw in amongst the others when considering the veracity of her inquest testimony is that Lizzie may have suffered from some sort of mental illness. In fact, given that she probably at least participated in the brutal slayings of her parents, I'd say its quite probable.

Possum Pie is our expert here...he has a long history of working in the psych. field. She could have suffered any number of mood or personality disorders...and confabulation or outright lying could be a feature of any one of them.

This was not a normal chic with a healthy, optimistic view of life. She strikes me as moody, stubborn, needy, and neurotic. Definitely neurotic. The whole daylight robbery business...her penchant for having sticky fingers in local shops...heck, FIVE years after the trial was over, she was still stealing (the Tilden Thurber incident.)

Thoughts?

[Curryong]

I've always wondered whether perhaps there was a genetic component. Wasn't Sarah, her mother known for violent outbursts of temper 'spells,' moodiness and the like?. I agree, I think aside from her misery about her circumstances there was definitely something not right about Miss Borden.

[PossumPie]

Oh Lizzie lied alright...in my opinion (and that's all any of us have here...our own opinoins. No one can state anything irrefutably). One other variable that I haven't seen throw in amongst the others when considering the veracity of her inquest testimony is that Lizzie may have suffered from some sort of mental illness. In fact, given that she probably at least participated in the brutal slayings of her parents, I'd say its quite probable.

Possum Pie is our expert here...he has a long history of working in the psych. field. She could have suffered any number of mood or personality disorders...and confabulation or outright lying could be a feature of any one of them.

This was not a normal chic with a healthy, optimistic view of life. She strikes me as moody, stubborn, needy, and neurotic. Definitely neurotic. The whole daylight robbery business...her penchant for having sticky fingers in local shops...heck, FIVE years after the trial was over, she was still stealing (the Tilden Thurber incident.)

Thoughts?

I was just addressing this in another thread. While I would not presume to diagnose from the limited information we have, some things are striking. Lizzie, above all others in the house repeatedly talked about people trying to harm, kill, or burn down their house. The paranoia exhibited here may be justified- they lived in a rougher area of town and father made some enemies in business. But to go on and on about their safety may point to some paranoia, UNLESS she was setting people's minds for the murders she planned. Personality disorders differ from other mental disorders by developing almost after birth and being almost impossible to change. These include Schizoid personality disorder (characterized by a lack of interest in relationships, a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, emotional coldness, and apathy.) and Borderline personality disorder ( pattern of impulsiveness, mood swings, manipulative in interpersonal relationships, and poor self image.) I see traits of both in Lizzie, but we don't have enough of a biography of her to know for sure.
Even giving her the benefit of the doubt that it was hectic and confusing being questioned by so many people, there are definite lies that Lizzie told. Not contradictions based on memory, but outright lies. To have the ability to calmly lie to authorities right on the spot takes some lack of guilt feelings. She told Bridget immedieately after the discovery of Mr. Borden's body that she was in the back yard and heard a groan. This statement was made less than a minute after it supposedly occurred. Later she said she was walking back from the barn. Later she said she was in the barn and heard a scraping sound from the house. Later she said she was in the barn and heard nothing. These cannot be pushed aside as "mis-rememberances" They were definite changing of her story. I don't remember everything I did on 9/11, but I remember EXACTLY where I was when I saw live on TV the second plane crash into the tower. It was an emotional impact that permanently implanted my location into my brain. Finding your father dead would also lock your location into your head. To lie to the police shows some antisocial personality traits. Franz used to say she lied b/c of an embarrassing truth she was covering. But to lie to law enforcement, during a murder investigation, no matter the embarrassing truth, takes to anti social personality traits.


Something that MAY just be coincidence, but is worth exploring, is that Lizzie states that she had her menses during the time the murders occurred. Having your period can be brought on early by stress. IF she were planning to kill her parents a few days early, it may have been enough stress to bring on her period. Just a speculation though.

[Curryong]

Just saw this on 'wiseGeek' on the Internet with regard to the historic uses of Prussic Acid.
'Uses of Prussic Acid are varied, engraving, explosives and dye processes. Historically it has been used in vermin or INSECT POISONS.'
Perhaps Miss Lizzy may have read in that book she was supposed to have possessed with its page open on Prussic Acid, something about its use in killing insects stone dead and used it as a half-baked excuse when she visited the pharmacy. IF it was used to kill vermin in furs in the 19th century (among other uses) Prussic Acid would only have been used by furriers under controlled conditions. I hope!

[Mara]

In the early 19th century, some doctors used Prussic acid (a.k.a. Hydrocyanic acid) as a remedy for dysmenorrhea (painful periods) and the heavy bleeding associated with "abortion," a term which could at that time include miscarriage. Here's one book on the subject, printed in 1820, that should be an interesting read for those amongst us who wonder what old tomes Dr. Bowen might have had in his study.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HQUAAA ... on&f=false

I believe that decades later, Hydro-cyanic acid was among the many chemicals used by women (mixed with water, of course) as douches to prevent conception. You probably already know about Lysol having been used in this way. Knowledgeable women knew that "germ-killing" also meant "sperm-killing." Some advertising made the connection quite obvious by relating this use with personal (as opposed to kitchen) hygiene and attendant marital bliss.

[FactFinder]

Hydrocyanic acid was used for a variety of things in the nineteenth century. But I believe there was some testimony by a furrier, which was ultimately ruled inadmissible, that he had been in the business for about 20 or some odd years and had never heard of using prussic acid in the care of furs. By the mid nineteenth century commercially made douche kits were also available in most drug stores. Some of them were marketed as spermicides or preventatives because they had already made a crude connection with douching and spermicide. Although they were not always referred to as such. They were called everything from "toilet vinegars." to "disinfectant fluids" to "sanative washes" to "Female regulative injections". These were marketed under such funny names as "Bradfield's Female Regulator" and "Ade's White Clover Injection". Many varieties of ingredients went into making them including vegetable products, soda waters, and vinegar. Home remedies for spermicides and douches were common place and passed along just as we pass along our home remedies today. One was called "Hannah's Preventive Lotion." By the time of the Borden murders the lethality of prussic acid was well known. Dr. Dolan testified to such at the trial.

[leitskev]

I remember EXACTLY where I was when I saw live on TV the second plane crash into the tower. - Possum

But do you remember what you had for breakfast before you heard about the attacks?

Lizzie would remember details AFTER she found her father killed. She would be fuzzy on stuff that happened BEFORE. I'm not suggesting her changing story is not suspicious...it is. But these odd things seem to come up in so many cases.

I posted a thread on Villisca ax murders. There were several suspects that turned up that were guilty of statements far more incriminating then Lizzie's, and yet all or at least some of these people had to be completely innocent.

Let's say Lizzie went into the barn as she claimed. Nothing unusual happened. Maybe she saw a squirrel, birds chirped, the church bell toned, a carriage went by, someone was hammering at a pile of wood nearby, etc.

Then she went in the house and found Andrew murdered, a horrible scene. A shock to the brain.

The brain had not been neatly storing information before that. It had no reason to. So mundane events such as squirrels and birds went "unfiled" in the memory.

Then police question her while she is in shock. No doubt they must have said repeatedly "what did you hear? You must have heard something. Think, what did you hear?"

Thereby creating the conditions for suggestion. As her brain tried to recapture events that at the time it had no reason to place significance on, it was vulnerable to suggestion and would have tried to accommodate the need to maybe have heard something. This is subconscious activity of the brain, not conscious. So she imagined a groan, then later a scraping. If one is going to consciously lie, wouldn't it be easy to just start with a lie and stick with it?

I suppose it's possible she said groan, and then the doctor said Andrew would have died from the first blow, so changed it to "scraping". Is there any evidence Bowen would have said this to her? Is it likely he would have? Why would Lizzie change her story unless she had some reason to?

[FactFinder]

This would be a compelling argument if the events Lizzie was attempting to recall had happened hours, days, or months after the fact. But it becomes less compelling when we realize she was already contradicting herself moments after coming in from the barn. A very short period of time had passed. I don't think the memory becomes hazy that quickly. The police were actually not the ones she initially told these contradictions. They were initially explanations to her concerned friends and neighbors who only asked questions that would be quite natural under the circumstances. Where were you? Lizzie offered up the details of being in the barn, hearing a noise, and what she was doing in there. How does one forget why they went out to the barn ten minutes after being in there? That's quite different from hearing or not hearing a random noise in itself. This required that she made a conscience decision to go outside, leaving the house, into the barn. The officer told her she could wait until she felt up to it to give her statement. She said she could tell all she knew just then. If you check out the order in which she told her contradictory stories, as the day unfolds, and who she told her contradictions to it becomes interesting also. If one is going to consciously lie with no alibi thought out beforehand your story is likely to change with each telling as it evolves and adapts to the situation as it unfolds.

[leitskev]

Hello FactF,

Not really arguing your points, because these inconsistencies in Lizzie's version are suspicious. The question for me is just how conclusive that is. Many of the comments you are referring to come from third party witnesses, such as Mrs. Churchill. By the time Mrs. Churchill was giving her statements, the suspicions and accusations against Lizzie had been well established, so her brain was processing her own memories through that influence.

More reliable are the notes taken down by the police in the hours after the event.

So let's take a quick look, going from memory so I don't have all the relevant info before me:

the sources on Lizzie's inconsistent statements: notes from the police who questioned her that day; inquest testimony from Lizzie; and testimony from witnesses such as Bridgett, Mrs. Churchill, Dr. Bowen.

the inconsistencies in her story: where she was when Andrew got home, how long she was in the barn, what she was doing in the barn, what she heard.

I've discussed elsewhere, but I don't place much weight on where she said she was when Andrew got home: in her room, on the stairs, on the way to the kitchen. She seems to have been on the move, starting from her room.

Her estimation of time spent on the barn was first 30 min and then 20. I think at most, if she ever was, she could have been in there 15. But estimations of time are always difficult, and would have been more so in that non-digital era.

She mentioned two things she was doing in the barn: getting irons for her fishing trip, and I think getting something to repair a screen or something. Is it possible she did both? This is perhaps the most suspicious of her inconsistencies to me, but how much can we draw from it? If she's lying here, why was it so hard for her to come up with one lie and stick with it?

As far as what she said she heard, again, it's slightly suspicious, but it comes from the testimony of others, and her statements could have been unintentionally influenced here. You say people remember things that happened moments before...well, sometimes. But testing has shown that even this kind of memory is EXTREMELY unreliable. Especially when we're talking about events that were insignificant at the time the person experienced them. For example, the testimony shows that neighborhood to be surprisingly busy and crowded with activity. It's very possible Lizzie did hear some distant noise that could be similar to a groan or a scratch. Her mind would have given it no significance. Later, under questioning, her brain would have been influenced by the power of suggestion and the need to make sense of the events.

I don't disagree with your excellent points, FactF. On a certain level, these inconsistencies do create suspicion. The thing is, though, these little things seem to crop in many cases, and are later washed away by the material evidence that emerges. That doesn't happen here because there never really is much material evidence. So what we're left with is on the one hand, inconsistent statements by Lizzie, and the fact that no one else may have had the opportunity to commit the crime; and on the other hand, little or no physical evidence, and no murder weapon, despite the fact that she never left the property and had mere minutes before the alarm was sounded.

[Curryong]

But surely, leitskev, although you don't put much weight on it, it is significant if Lizzie was standing on the stairs while Bridget was struggling with the door. She later took great pains to deny that she had been upstairs because anyone going up or down would have been faced with some rather gory handiwork in the spare bedroom. Similarly, it is rather odd that the police found thick dust on the upper loft of the barn where Lizzie had been supposedly searching for iron so assiduously. There was no evidence that anyone had been searching for anything in spite of her assertions.

[PossumPie]

When we take a microscope and examine every word or deed uttered or done by Lizzie, or any one else, we can bend things to fit our idea. Many suspicious things said and done were just coincidence or confusion. I step back a few steps, look at possible motive ($10 Million in today's money) opportunity (Lizzie and Bridget seem to be the one's with the clearest opportunity,) and inconsistencies (EVERYONE involved had inconsistencies in what they said.) We all agree there is no smoking gun, no clear killer. Even my tongue-in-cheek theory that the Pope hired someone to kill them cannot be dis-proven. But in science, the burden of proof NEVER falls on someone to DISPROVE a theory, it falls on someone to PROVE it. I can't prove my (silly) theory of the Pope, Franz can't prove his theory it was people hired by Morse. We can give supporting evidence that points to a theory, (obviously there is none for the Pope, and almost none for Morse) Many fine people on this forum have given supporting evidence for Lizzie's guilt, but any example given can also be brushed aside as coincidence or misunderstanding. She was not convicted precisely because every word or deed could be explained away.
I have read and re-read all the testimony of witnesses, and one thing has stood out. Bridget's testimony is clear, fairly consistent, and she says "I don't know or I don't remember" and leaves it at that. Lizzie's testimonies are full of authoritative statements, later recanted or changed, denials, and inconsistencies. People say "why doesn't she pick a lie and stick with it...that would be more indicative of a murderer." No, as Lietskev pointed out, if she told Bridget immediately after finding Mr. Borden's body that she was coming in from the yard, heard a groan, then realized that he was dead from the first hatchet blow, it makes more sense to recant that statement, and say "scraping sound". Then, recant that and say "I heard nothing" It is very rare a suspect sticks to a lie when inconsistencies are pointed out.

[leitskev]

Curry, hello. Later testimony destroyed the undisturbed dust in the barn claim when it was shown that several kids and perhaps one cop(not sure, I forget) went up in the loft BEFORE the cop who testified the dust was undisturbed.

As far as Lizzie being upstairs, her testimony was that she had been up there bringing laundry and mending a dress shortly before Andrew came home. The only question was where she was when he actually came home. There was never any question of her being up there. So it really didn't matter precisely where she was when Andrew came home. Unless it mattered for some other reason to Lizzie. For example, if she was in the kitchen, and Andrew tried the side door, why didn't she let him in? Or if she was on the stairs coming down, why didn't she let Andrew in the front?

If Lizzie had tried to claim that she was not upstairs at all in the hour before Andrew came home, that would be suspicious. That would show she didn't want to put herself near the crime scene. However, I believe she was consistent on the point that she upstairs. The only part of the story that varied was precisely where she was when Andrew was let in.

As far as seeing the body...if the door was closed(with the killer perhaps inside the guest room with it), she would not see it. If the door was open, the most likely time to see it, and perhaps the only way to say it, would have been coming up the stairs, because the body was behind the bed and could only be seen by looking under the stairs.

Just to be clear, I believe Lizzie committed the crime. I just don't put a lot of weight on these confused statements by Lizzie, some of which come through the testimony of other witnesses, some of which come from the inquest when she was likely under the influence of morphine. Let's put it this way: if Lizzie was in fact innocent, would it shock us that under these circumstances certain inconsistencies emerged? When you look at other famous cases, similar things crop up and sometimes you're left scratching your head.

I think Lizzie was likely the killer mostly because it's so improbable that someone got inside and killed Abby unseen and unheard, then waited around and achieved the same with Andrew, and then escaped through a neighborhood full of watchful eyes...and no one saw him. There might not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt here...but it's hard to imagine Lizzie was not involved. But strange things do happen. Maybe the Fall River Historical Society built a time machine that linked to the guest room, went back and killed Abby and Andrew, in order to create the mystery which keeps them in business!

[FactFinder]

Leitsev I take this from Lizzie's inquest testimony. Lizzie did not remain consistent in any part of her story. And I think it was Allen who pointed out that the morphine Lizzie was taking was administered only at bed time to help her sleep, and nobody saw her actually take any doses of the morphine. It was sent over by the doctor to be taken at bed time. If such was the case, and she took it as prescribed, she would not have been under the influence of it the next day at the hearing. The effects do not last that long. I happen to agree this is one of the myths about the case that keeps getting perpetuated.

Q. You were always in the kitchen or dining room, excepting when you went upstairs?
A. I went upstairs before he went out.

Q. You mean you went upstairs to sew a button on?
A. I basted a piece of tape on.

Q. Do you remember you did not say that yesterday?
A. I don't think you asked me. I told you yesterday I went upstairs directly after I came up from down cellar, with the clean clothes.

Q. You now say after your father went out, you did not go upstairs at all?
A. No sir, I did not.

[PossumPie]

Just to poke my Nurse's head in here...Neither Morphine, Roxinol (Liquid morphine) nor any other opiod is hallucinogenic, or would do anything to alter her perceptions of reality, memory, or anything else. In the doses she was taking, at MOST it would make her drowsy, and less anxious. Not saying guilt or innocence, just a medical observation. SURE a slick bottom feeding lawyer could probably persuade a jury differently, but take it from not only a nurse, but one who has had Roxinol and morphine in greater doses than Lizzie, they don't play into it.

I think we don't disagree with Leitskev as much as we think...we are all in agreement that Lizzie can't be expected to remember everything exactly. He just plays devil's advocate more than some people! In the end, Leitskev and Allen, Nancy Drew, and I all agree that the circumstances we can be sure of point more to Lizzie than anyone else. Not beyond reasonable doubt, and perhaps not alone, but given what we know, she is out in front.

[FactFinder]

But surely, leitskev, although you don't put much weight on it, it is significant if Lizzie was standing on the stairs while Bridget was struggling with the door. She later took great pains to deny that she had been upstairs because anyone going up or down would have been faced with some rather gory handiwork in the spare bedroom. Similarly, it is rather odd that the police found thick dust on the upper loft of the barn where Lizzie had been supposedly searching for iron so assiduously. There was no evidence that anyone had been searching for anything in spite of her assertions.

Interesting points made Curryong. I agree with a lot of what you said. As for the boys who were supposedly up in the barn, I have my doubts as to their credibility. But aside from the lack of dust being disturbed, there is little evidence to support Lizzie's claims of being in the barn and what she did there. She claimed to have moved some boards to get to an old box full of various materials. I don't think any evidence was found of that activity. She claimed to have been looking out the window as she ate her pears. I believe the police found the curtain closed and covered in cob webs. There was an abundance of the materials Lizzie claimed to have been searching for but no evidence she obtained anything from all of her efforts. There is nothing that substantiates her story, not even so much as a pear core. No dust visible on her clothing either. No evidence of perspiration. Nothing supported her claims.

And if she had been on the steps coming down as Andrew was coming in she also laughed as Bridget exclaimed at not being able to open the door. This would be something that would stick with her.

[FactFinder]

Just to poke my Nurse's head in here...Neither Morphine, Roxinol (Liquid morphine) nor any other opiod is hallucinogenic, or would do anything to alter her perceptions of reality, memory, or anything else. In the doses she was taking, at MOST it would make her drowsy, and less anxious. Not saying guilt or innocence, just a medical observation. SURE a slick bottom feeding lawyer could probably persuade a jury differently, but take it from not only a nurse, but one who has had Roxinol and morphine in greater doses than Lizzie, they don't play into it.

I think we don't disagree with Leitskev as much as we think...we are all in agreement that Lizzie can't be expected to remember everything exactly. He just plays devil's advocate more than some people! In the end, Leitskev and Allen, Nancy Drew, and I all agree that the circumstances we can be sure of point more to Lizzie than anyone else. Not beyond reasonable doubt, and perhaps not alone, but given what we know, she is out in front.

Thank you PossumPie for your explanations of the morphine. I am not a nurse myself, but I've been in contact with people who have had morphine administered. I also agree that a lawyer looking for a good defense for his client could spin the morphine prescribed to make his client look as if she was not in her right mind.

[leitskev]

From that snippet of testimony, it looks as though at one point she tried to establish herself as not being upstairs at all any time near Andrew's return. That is suspicious if that's the case. She might not remember exactly where she was when Andrew got home, but surely she would remember being upstairs after Andrew left that morning.

I'm still not sure why should would then change her story to being upstairs to bring laundry. Was that based on Bridget's testimony that she was upstairs? I don't think Bridget's testimony was certain enough of that where Lizzie should change her story.

As for "hallucinogenic" drugs that "alter the perception of reality"...no one that I have heard is suggesting that. There's a difference between perception of reality and memory of events that were perceived as insignificant at the time. Simple fatigue would be enough to accomplish that, as well as stress and emotional trauma. Any drug that could impact the functioning of the mind would further enhance that type of confused thinking. In fact, her problem does seem to be beyond memory, because she can't stick to a consistent story,which she should be able to do either if lying or accurately remembering.

True, I play devil's advocate to a degree, but this also represents my own shifting thoughts. I've seen too many cases where things are presented in a way which is very convincing, but which turns out to be simply wrong. For this reason I just don't trust statements by witnesses or by the suspect.

[twinsrwe]

Just to poke my Nurse's head in here...Neither Morphine, Roxinol (Liquid morphine) nor any other opiod is hallucinogenic, or would do anything to alter her perceptions of reality, memory, or anything else. In the doses she was taking, at MOST it would make her drowsy, and less anxious. Not saying guilt or innocence, just a medical observation. SURE a slick bottom feeding lawyer could probably persuade a jury differently, but take it from not only a nurse, but one who has had Roxinol and morphine in greater doses than Lizzie, they don't play into it...

Thank you PossumPie, I think there are too many people who do not know what the true effects of Morphine are. It is great to have you on the forum!

… In the end, Leitskev and Allen, Nancy Drew, and I all agree that the circumstances we can be sure of point more to Lizzie than anyone else. Not beyond reasonable doubt, and perhaps not alone, but given what we know, she is out in front.

You can also add my name to this list of people. The Fall River Police Department also felt that the circumstances they encountered on August 4th, 1892, pointed to Lizzie, and that is why she was the only one who was arrested and tried for these homicides.

[twinsrwe]

… As for "hallucinogenic" drugs that "alter the perception of reality"...no one that I have heard is suggesting that. …

No one has recently suggested this, but there have been several people in the past.