Have you heard the term "excited utterance"? & few other ?'s

[Missus Pea-Eye]

Hello, Hello...forgive me, I am new to this community and have many questions. My biggest question I have on the case of Lizzie Borden; has anyone considered when Lizzie spoke to both Bridget Sullivan and Mrs Churchill that Lizzie's words were an "excited utterance?"

excited utterance - Legal Definition

n
An exclamation made at the moment of an accident or other unexpected and disturbing event, considered under the rules of evidence to be likely to be truthful because of the urgency of the surrounding circumstances and, therefore, an exception to the hearsay rule.

Lizzie Borden to Bridget Sullivan: "Maggie, come quick! Father's dead. Someone came in and killed him."

Lizzie Borden to Mrs. Churchill: "Oh Mrs Churchill, please come over. Someone has killed father."

Now, I assume most believe that Lizzie did commit these acts (pun not intended). However, I am right down the middle. So, I am considering myself as looking at this case, piece by piece until I have satisfied myself that I have truly looked at all details and facts left from this case.

To me, these words are considered as a criminal investigative term "excited utterance" showing that she never went upstairs and saw her step-mother's body.
IF she were, say, filled with adrenaline from both kills (or one), I am led to believe she would have announced both murders because she had actually committed both of the murders and she would have instead said that both her father and step-mother were injured or dead.

Following this first act by Lizzie after the discovery of her Father. She said she thought she had heard a side door open and maybe her step-mother had returned. Could this have been someone leaving the house?
Then the note to Abby saying someone was sick. How do we not know that she handed the note back to the messenger and relayed that she would go to them when she was done with her morning chores? Which would then be the reason there was no note to be found.

TIA!

[Franz]

Welcome, Missus Pea-Eye.

[Missus Pea-Eye]

Welcome, Missus Pea-Eye.

Thank you Franz. :)

[Franz]

Oh, I like very much your avatar: a little mysterious.

[Missus Pea-Eye]

Thank you, it is actually one of the photos that I took and considered for my fan page. I make cameo jewelry. I am willing to tell you more, if you would like. Perhaps, just send me a private message. :)

[PossumPie]

Hello, Hello...forgive me, I am new to this community and have many questions. My biggest question I have on the case of Lizzie Borden; has anyone considered when Lizzie spoke to both Bridget Sullivan and Mrs Churchill that Lizzie's words were an "excited utterance?"

excited utterance - Legal Definition

n
An exclamation made at the moment of an accident or other unexpected and disturbing event, considered under the rules of evidence to be likely to be truthful because of the urgency of the surrounding circumstances and, therefore, an exception to the hearsay rule.

Lizzie Borden to Bridget Sullivan: "Maggie, come quick! Father's dead. Someone came in and killed him."

Lizzie Borden to Mrs. Churchill: "Oh Mrs Churchill, please come over. Someone has killed father."

Now, I assume most believe that Lizzie did commit these acts (pun not intended). However, I am right down the middle. So, I am considering myself as looking at this case, piece by piece until I have satisfied myself that I have truly looked at all details and facts left from this case.

To me, these words are considered as a criminal investigative term "excited utterance" showing that she never went upstairs and saw her step-mother's body.
IF she were, say, filled with adrenaline from both kills (or one), I am led to believe she would have announced both murders because she had actually committed both of the murders and she would have instead said that both her father and step-mother were injured or dead.

Following this first act by Lizzie after the discovery of her Father. She said she thought she had heard a side door open and maybe her step-mother had returned. Could this have been someone leaving the house?
Then the note to Abby saying someone was sick. How do we not know that she handed the note back to the messenger and relayed that she would go to them when she was done with her morning chores? Which would then be the reason there was no note to be found.

TIA!

Excited Utterance doesn't mean everything someone says in the heat of the moment is true, only if they don't stop to think about what they are going to say. If Lizzie killed her father and step-mother, she doesn't necessarily HAVE to shout out the truth. Lizzie's first words after discovering her father actually also include the statement that she was in the back yard, heard a groan, and went in to investigate. Then she changed her story to being in the barn and hearing a scraping sound. Then she changed it to being upstairs in the barn and hearing nothing.
The note theory falls apart when we realize that this trial made WORLD HEADLINES, everyone in Fall River obviously knew about it, yet not one person or their family, or their acquaintances ever admitted to writing or seeing a note to Mrs. Borden. It never existed. The private investigators, the police, the defense team, Emma, none of them ever could come up with a "sick friend" who wrote a note to Mrs. Borden. Never in the years after the case did anyone ever come forward and say, "It was my aunt who wrote that note" There would be no consequences for admitting that. No reason to keep that a deep secret forever, yet no one ever came forward. Franz has a theory that it was taken back by the real killer, which at least would explain why no one ever admitted writing it. My biggest problem with that though is that we have established that the front door had never been unlocked or opened from the night before, and his plan hinges on someone sneaking in behind Mrs. Borden's back while she answers the front door.

I know it sounds like I am convinced Lizzie is guilty, but I am NOT. I have a lot of doubts. My biggest problem is why Lizzie didn't have any blood on her. There was less than 10 min. to clean up after killing her father. IF Lizzie were innocent of the crimes, I have a huge problem with someone else hanging out in the house for an hour and a half, knowing they could get caught. That doesn't make sense.

[NancyDrew]

PossumPie:

I didn't see this thread...but I wanted to comment. I am in the exact same place as you are regarding "who dun it?" I think LIzzie knew who the killer was, may have aided in his escape, but I don't think she swung the axe. Even if she put on Andrew's cardigan backwards, she was just too pristine, too clean, to have engaged in such a gory exercise only 10 minutes earlier.

I implore you...look back in the archives for the poster who called herself "Gramma." It is hard to ignore her; the manner of writing, and her tone were very convincing. She is the one who advanced the "Dave Anthony" theory. I'm simply to lazy to dig and find evidence of his existence, but I guarantee you, it IS there, and he did exist. He died in the 1920's in a motorcycle accident, was seen driving to Maplecroft. I remember Gramma writing about Lizzie having an abortion (performed by Dr. Bowen) and also chiding us for being a tad naive about "the times" back then.

Anyhow, for what its worth...I just can't feature Lizzie pulling off both murders all by herself. Something in me just won't accept it. That doesn't mean she wasn't involved, however...that I DO believe.

[Mara]

Gramma's posts are here: search.php?author_id=39&sr=posts

[PossumPie]

PossumPie:

I didn't see this thread...but I wanted to comment. I am in the exact same place as you are regarding "who dun it?" I think LIzzie knew who the killer was, may have aided in his escape, but I don't think she swung the axe. Even if she put on Andrew's cardigan backwards, she was just too pristine, too clean, to have engaged in such a gory exercise only 10 minutes earlier.

I implore you...look back in the archives for the poster who called herself "Gramma." It is hard to ignore her; the manner of writing, and her tone were very convincing. She is the one who advanced the "Dave Anthony" theory. I'm simply to lazy to dig and find evidence of his existence, but I guarantee you, it IS there, and he did exist. He died in the 1920's in a motorcycle accident, was seen driving to Maplecroft. I remember Gramma writing about Lizzie having an abortion (performed by Dr. Bowen) and also chiding us for being a tad naive about "the times" back then.

Anyhow, for what its worth...I just can't feature Lizzie pulling off both murders all by herself. Something in me just won't accept it. That doesn't mean she wasn't involved, however...that I DO believe.

I've read her posts before. My problem with any theory about a "long lost love" killing them is that after the murders, Lizzie never had a boyfriend or got married. What idiot kills for his lover, and never sees her afterward? No, this was not done for 'love'. If he loved her, why not admit his guilt as she languished in prison for a year? What kind of love is that?

[NancyDrew]

Who knows what happened...the best laid plans of mice and men...you know? Maybe sitting in prison for 10 months cooled her feeligngs for him...maybe he freaked out after killing them and decided he didn't love her after all...? It's possible...people are strange...

[PossumPie]

Who knows what happened...the best laid plans of mice and men...you know? Maybe sitting in prison for 10 months cooled her feeligngs for him...maybe he freaked out after killing them and decided he didn't love her after all...? It's possible...people are strange...

Well, anything is possible, but as I keep telling Franz, that doesn't make it PROBABLE. There is absolutely no evidence to support a lover theory, except one interesting and sweet old lady's tale of intrigue. Heck, we argue over interpretations of primary documents and witness statements, "Heard if from a friend who heard it from..." is a huge leap back from the facts.
I tend to think that if Lizzie had help, it wasn't someone close to her, perhaps she paid someone. I don't know how much money it would take to pay to kill someone back in the 1800's, but I bet $100 would cover it. That amount could be covered by Lizzie. She could make sure he was safe for that infamous 90 minutes between killings, and he would have the blood on him, not her. The biggest flaw in that is that people saw every other coming and going from the house that day, and nobody saw him leave. Perhaps that is why Lizzie stood in the doorway, to make sure the "coast was clear"

[Missus Pea-Eye]

I have a hard time with this, the excited utterance from Lizzie was "FATHER's been killed!"
If she or whomever did this horrible crime because of the inheritance. The law stated that Abbey needed to be pronounced dead first. So why not "out" Abbey's body as the first dead.
Now, if she only saw "Father's" body. Then the excited utterance of "Father's been killed." would not make sense to someone who is killing for inheritance. Wouldn't you think?
They would want Abbey's body found first.
AND, the position of Andrews tall, lanky body as seen in the photos, suggest he was sitting up and speaking with his murder(s) at the time of his death. Or Maybe the body was moved by some keystone cop, doctor or unbeknownst innocent/or not person to stage the body to be posed for a death photo. Which was common in those times. I do not believe Abbey's body was staged.

And, if Lizzie did this, say without her dress, WHO HELPED HER RE-DRESS SO QUICKLY? Corset lacing, shoes, up-doing her hair again, washing her body, etc. She would need to look as prim and proper in a matter of minutes. Again, if she did it, she did not do it on her own. She had a partner in crime.

[Mara]

Good thinking, kiddo. I can't help commenting that Lizzie's excited utterance was, at least grammatically, passive. I will allow you to think "passive-aggressive" and smile a little.

You presuppose a couple of things, even if we accept inheritance for Lizzie's motive: that she knew about the chain of command and that the dress she might have been wearing was one requiring a corset. Reasonable, but so?

As to the first issue, she may have counted on the obvious age of Abby's "encorpséd form" (do you like that? I made it up) to make that case for Emma (and by extension, herself) as heir. She did wait a while before nudging people to go look for her. The longer the wait, the stronger the case.

I'm not the vintage clothing expert here, though like most of us, I've done a little poking around on this subject. Some wrappers/housedresses look to me as if some if them, if intended to be worn for doing actual housework and not as more of an at-home tea gown, they were worn without much restriction underneath, at least nothing of the sort requiring a bedpost and Mammy. Let's dig into that a bit. How long did it take her to switch into that pink striped wrapper? Food for thought.

Now, about the awkwardness of Andrew's pose. Might he gave been sitting up when attacked? Yes. But that would have made the angle of attack even more awkward than the pose. And yet, the day's M.O. might have been to strike first from the front, just so the victim knew who was in charge at long last, with overkill blows from behind to let off steam.

Naked, though? I lean toward no. Too risky. (Risqué?) I would like to know how heavily curtained the first floor windows were on that late summer day, prior to (or just after) washing.

[Catbooks]

IF she were, say, filled with adrenaline from both kills (or one), I am led to believe she would have announced both murders because she had actually committed both of the murders and she would have instead said that both her father and step-mother were injured or dead.

that's an interesting thought. andrew was far more important to her than abby, and she was downstairs, much closer to his body than hers at that point. but it would point more to her guilt if she'd said she'd come in, discovered andrew's body, then went running about the house and then discovered abby upstairs, and then called out for bridget, and she did nudge people to go upstairs and find abby. they already knew she wasn't in her bedroom as they'd gone up there to get a sheet to cover andrew, so the parlor and the front upstairs rooms were all that was left, if she was in the house.

lizzie's 'Maggie, come quick! Father's dead. Someone came in and killed him' has always bothered me. it's so long and awkward. i can see coming in, making the awful discovery, and then shouting 'Maggie, come quick! Father's dead!' but i can't imagine anything else would be on my mind. the 'someone came in and killed him' clunks in my head instead of ringing true.

i tend to think lizzie didn't know about the importance of abby dying first. i think it's that the opportunity to do abby in came first. andrew had left to go about his business, john morse was gone on a visit miles away, bridget was outside washing windows.

[Curryong]

I sometimes think that, although Lizzie (if she was the killer) successfully committed two murders, the first one opportunistic, she did not give over-much thought to what would happen afterwards. Too many of her words and deeds in those first hours after Andrew was discovered have a 'flying by the seat of my pants' kind of feel. (Even then it's only when you look at her inquest testimony about her statements and actions, versus what others said happened, that you see all the contradictions, untruths, evasions etc. laid out in black and white.)

[Missus Pea-Eye]

I am delighted to have so many theories being offered! Like I said, I want to be tested. I want to look at all possible sides of this case. But I am just so stuck that if she had ANYTHING to do with it, she would have claimed Abbey's death first, because I feel that Abbey's death was opportunistic because they were alone in the house together. Both daughters knew the inheritance would go to Abbey or Abbey's family if it was shown that Andrew died first. I am excited to spend the next year reading case files, notes, etc. I am closing down a personal store business. I have 2 weeks, then I will be spending all of my time reading up on everything.
Thank you ALL. I am so appreciative of feedback.

[Catbooks]

but how would she have done it otherwise, assuming for the moment she killed them both?

if she announced finding abby first, after killing her, there would have been no opportunity to kill her father. she had to kill him too, because he knew all too well about the long-standing ill feelings lizzie had for abby, and would have immediately suspected her.

if she waited until after killing andrew, then it played out as it did, how would she explain knowing abby was dead? if she claimed she was up in her room the whole time, then went into the guest room (for some fabricated excuse) and found abby, she'd have to explain how it was someone was murdered in the next room, and yet she heard nothing. then she'd have to come down and pretend to discover her father's body. while i'm sure she didn't know a great deal about forensics, it's unlikely she'd have not known the police would be able to recognize the difference between a fresh corpse and one 1.5 hours older.

or am i not understanding you?

as far as i know, we don't know if lizzie and emma had any idea that the inheritance would go to abby's family if andrew died first. there's no evidence on that.

to me, too, the whole thing seems very 'flying by the seat of my pants,' on the part of lizzie. i do think there was some premeditation, but not necessarily that she was going to do it that particular day.

[Missus Pea-Eye]

I think there is a slight misunderstanding. Which, of course, is usual when chatting online. :)
Please look at this with fresh eyes, and as a brand new case for a moment.
Assume, if this was done by Lizzie, she knew Abbey was dead first. For inheritance sake, Abbey needed to be dead before Andrew.
If Lizzie just walked into the house from the barn, then yes, she would have found Andrew first.
Abbey and Andrew needed to be dead for the inheritance to go to the girls. But if Andrew died first, Abbey's family claimed the estate. I am sure I read somewhere that those close to the family knew that this was the case. Just the thought that if Lizzie DID do the deed, to proclaim her father's murder first wouldn't truly benefit Lizzie or Emma inheritance wise if that was the purpose for the murders.
If Lizzie did it (I am trying to look at this case like it is a fresh crime), having been "in the barn" would have given her the alibi she needed to not be in the house at the supposed time of death of her father. (And Maggie/Bridget sleeping in the 2nd upstairs of the house)
Having Maggie/Bridget washing windows and such would give anyone time to kill Abbey in the guest room. Where Lizzie was, who truly knows? ( Just today, I have been home all day by myself, but I couldn't give you full details of my day without remembering something later. I couldn't imagine adding a traumatic event to that.)
Plus, remember, if Lizzie was in the barn, and Maggie/Bridget was "napping", this leaves the screen door unlocked for as long as Lizzie says she was in the barn. Could the "noises" Lizzie claimed to hear from someone entering (in Lizzie's mind) or leaving the home after the commission of the crime? The home so usually locked and secured, and the back screen door unlatched while Andrew is "napping" and Lizzie goes to the barn. She does ask people to search for Abbey. Maybe the "noise" (that Lizzie "heard") was Abbey returning home after the visit to the sick friend?
Which brings us to the matter of the message of a sick friend. Maybe Abbey handed the message back to the messenger with a message attached? If the messenger ever existed? Maybe she told the messenger the message and burned the note herself. (Me, I am always throwing away or shredding unnecessary papers. Since we are to assume the house was kept well, there would be no reason to leave a note laying around just to be burned or thrown out later.)
All just ideas, and thoughts, walking in to the case "fresh"so to speak.

[Catbooks]

i'm trying to look at it with fresh eyes, but it ain't easy :)

okay, if lizzie was innocent, we have no reason to not believe her testimony, right? which means she was in the barn, as she said. who dies first doesn't matter, if it wasn't lizzie or emma. we know it wasn't emma, because of her alibi. she was in fairhaven, and had been for two weeks, with witnesses who confirmed it.

if it was someone else, that means lizzie heard someone else leaving the house, at some period within a very short timeframe, which isn't at all clear. she said to both bridget and mrs. churchill she thought she'd heard abby return. if she's innocent, then that could only have happened after she told her father abby had gone out (no point saying that if she'd heard abby come back) and before she came back from the barn.

20 minutes of that time period she states she was standing at the barn window that faced the front of the house. if anyone had come from that direction (which abby surely would have), she'd have seen them, and said so.

don't forget, lizzie denied quite a few times that she'd heard abby (or anyone) come in the house, even though both bridget and mrs. churchill testified that she did. if lizzie's innocent, why would she do that?

then you have to look at how and when did a stranger get into the house sometime before 9:30 to kill abby? the side door was locked, the front door was triple locked. and what motive would someone other than lizzie and emma have to kill abby and andrew?

[Curryong]

In a sense, Mrs Pea-Eye, it didn't really matter when Abby was found, until John Morse came home for the mid-day meal. She would 'keep' in a way, as she was in a part of the house in which Bridget never went, and only Lizzie's room was up there.
On the other hand, Andrew was killed in a downstairs room. John Morse was expected home by about 11:30 am, Bridget would be coming downstairs at about the same time. You couldn't have Andrew lying there in the sitting room for over an hour.
It was necessary that he be 'discovered' when he was, or shortly afterwards. In an age when most people died at home it's quite likely that many, including Lizzie, who read voraciously, knew all about rigour mortis, and that doctors could estimate the length of time a person had been dead, (especially when blood was flowing from their body, or had clotted.). They knew that Abby had died first pretty well straight away, and its likely that Lizzie guessed that they would.

[PossumPie]

Some observations from me.
1. Nobody EVER admitted to writing a note. The whole Commonwealth of Massachusetts was talking about this. Everyone in and around Fall River knew of the horrible murders, yet nobody ever said "it was my note" or "my granny wrote it" I think most people even if they believe Lizzie was innocent agree that for whatever reason she lied about there being a note.
2. Trauma causes us to mix up facts, forget things, etc. BUT there were several things that Lizzie Purposely lied about. She said she was on the stairs when her father came home, Bridget confirms this and said she heard Lizzie laugh. Suddenly Lizzie vehemently denies being upstairs, and even denies that she said it in the first place. Lizzie said she was coming in the house and heard a groan. Then she said she was in the barn and heard a scraping sound. Then changed it to in the barn and heard nothing. She told Bridget less than ONE MINUTE after discovering her Father's body that she was coming in the back and heard a groan. There was no time to 'forget' what she heard in less than a minute. She lied about some things that much is sure. That doesn't make her guilty, but certainly suspicious.
3. I have doubts about the idea that Lizzie knew Abby had to die first b/c of the inheritance, but the fact is that Abby did die first, about an hour and a half earlier. No matter how I look at it, no matter how people try to convince me otherwise, I just cannot believe a stranger sneaked into the house, killed Abby with a hatchet, sat there with the dead body for 90 minutes, knowing that if they were caught there they would be hanged, then when Andrew came in , they sneaked downstairs not knowing where he was, or the rest of the people were, happened to find him lying on the couch, killed him, then strolled out of the house onto a busy street bloody with a hatchet, and was not seen by anyone.

I guess my belief in Lizzie's guilt comes more from the absolute ridiculousness of the alternative- that a stranger did it.