Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I was reading an article that was published in the Fall River Herald ( at the time of the murder) and I got confused.
In the article it said, "The first intimation of neighbors had of the awful crime was a groanig followed by a cry of murder, Mrs. Adelaide chruchill who lives next door to the Bordens, ran over and heard miss Borden cry "father has been stabbed; run for the police"
I thought that it was Bridget she said that to and told her to run for the police and the neighbor lady. Have I got my information wrong?

Lizzie never asked anyone to go for the police. She requested Bridget go for Dr. Bowen. She requested Mrs. Churchill go for a doctor since Dr. Bowen was not at home when Bridget went for him.

Nor did Dr. Bowen when he finally came. Officer Allen was the first policeman to arrive. Whether he was in uniform or not has always been a question to me. Apparently not, because Dr. Bowen didn't seem to realize he was a policeman.

John Cunningham, a newspaper dealer, notified the police when he overheard Mrs. Churchill talking.

thanks harry
as always you are a wealth of information
love ya robin

Does anyone else find that scenario strange? More holes for the swiss cheese!

Gramma

From today's perspective, where we are VERY familiar with the idea of calling the police at any sign of 'trouble', it does sound a bit fishy. Afterall, shows like COPS and the like, abound all over the TV these days and have us very use to the idea of calling for the police.

However, I wonder if the people of 1892 were as accustomed to the idea of 'calling the cops' as we are today. Granted, Lizzie and Co. had a dead guy on the couch, but they had no phone. Maybe they thought that calling for the Doctor was the first order of business because in their state of shock, they did not see that clearly Andrew was dead, and they thought he could be helped.

Today, we would pick up our phones and dial 911 without blinking if we were in a similar situation I believe. But in 1892, I am thinking their first thought would be to 'get help'...which in their minds at the time, was Dr. Bowen.


Tracy...

I agree the first thought is aid for the wounded but there were enough people around to send for both the doctor and the police. How about "Bridget, get Dr Bowen and then go for the police."
Did it have to be a newspaper dealer overhearing Mrs Churchill to think to get them. Why didn't she get them???
Darn Media people! They're always fouling things up!

Gramma

To get back a minute to Harry's line of thought regarding the question of whether George Allen was in uniform on the 4th, something occurred to me.

It's impossible to tell from the little squidge there in Allen's report about Charles Sawyer's response - BUT - given what we know about Doctor Bowen's behavior that day (alleged and otherwise) I would ask this: Is it not at least possible that Officer Allen was in uniform, but that Doctor Bowen - a bit addled and consumed by what he had seen in the house - simply did not notice immediately?

My thought is merely that it's possible Allen did not record Sawyer's exact words... that Sawyer might well have said something like "Oh, well, he is a policeman, Doctor."

Supposition here of course, but on the whole (I think anyway) at least a reasonable possibility.

Gramma, you got me thinking more about Cunningham so I did a little digging. There appears to be several versions of Cunningham's involvement with the phone call to the police.

In Arnold Brown's book, p149: "A call to the police was solely Cunningham's idea."

In Kent's Forty Whacks, p18: "Mrs. Churchill responded at once and, seeing that no medical help had come, ran off in search of a doctor. On the way, she passed John Cunningham, a news dealer, and asked him to please, quickly, run to the livery stable just down the street and call the police."

In Douglas' Cases That Haunt Us, p82+: "Cunningham happened to be at Hall's Livery Stable when he saw Mrs. Adelaide Churchill frantically approach her carriage driver, Tom, telling him to go find a doctor. Her next-door neighbor Andrew Borden, one of the wealthiest and most prominent citizens in town, had been brutally attacked in the sitting
room of his house on Second Street. Noticing Cunningham, she suggested that someone call the police. Which is what Cunningham did."

In Radin, p68+: "... John Cunningham, a news dealer, who was lounging at the stable and heard Mrs. Churchill speaking to her yardman.
Cunningham was the first one to think of police."

Cunningham himself testifies at the Preliminary, p215:

"Q. Did you telephone at any time?
A. I stood on the sidewalk for a few moments, and these four or five men were standing there. There was a young boy about 17 years old there. He walked towards me and said that Mrs. Churchill wanted a policeman, and was speaking to these men, calling on them to get a policeman.
(Objected to.)"

Amazing how these authors have their own versions.

On a side note, on being questioned at the trial, p420, Cunningham tells what he was doing on Second St.:

"Q. What did you do there?
A. Well, my business was collecting money for newspapers.
Q. And how much did you collect?
A. Twelve cents.
Q. Just the weekly payment?
A. Yes, sir."

Wow, 12 cents for a whole week. Not as bad as it sounds though. That's roughly $2.15 in today's dollars.

doug65oh @ Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:31 pm wrote:To get back a minute to Harry's line of thought regarding the question of whether George Allen was in uniform on the 4th, something occurred to me.

It's impossible to tell from the little squidge there in Allen's report about Charles Sawyer's response - BUT - given what we know about Doctor Bowen's behavior that day (alleged and otherwise) I would ask this: Is it not at least possible that Officer Allen was in uniform, but that Doctor Bowen - a bit addled and consumed by what he had seen in the house - simply did not notice immediately?

My thought is merely that it's possible Allen did not record Sawyer's exact words... that Sawyer might well have said something like "Oh, well, he is a policeman, Doctor."

Supposition here of course, but on the whole (I think anyway) at least a reasonable possibility.

Doug, you are so right. I checked Allen in the Witness Statements, p1:

"I ran out of the station up Second street, and just before I got to Mr. Borden’s house I met Mr. Sawyer. I told him I wanted him to go with me; and he went. When I got to the side door of Mr. Borden’s house, I was met by Dr. Bowen. He said he wanted a police officer. Mr. Sawyer said I was one. He said “all right, come right in.” I told Mr. Sawyer to guard the side door, and not allow anyone to come in, only police officers."

So Dr. Bowen would have know there was a policeman there whether in uniform or not..

theebmonique @ Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:43 pm wrote:From today's perspective, where we are VERY familiar with the idea of calling the police at any sign of 'trouble', it does sound a bit fishy. Afterall, shows like COPS and the like, abound all over the TV these days and have us very use to the idea of calling for the police.

However, I wonder if the people of 1892 were as accustomed to the idea of 'calling the cops' as we are today. Granted, Lizzie and Co. had a dead guy on the couch, but they had no phone. Maybe they thought that calling for the Doctor was the first order of business because in their state of shock, they did not see that clearly Andrew was dead, and they thought he could be helped.

Today, we would pick up our phones and dial 911 without blinking if we were in a similar situation I believe. But in 1892, I am thinking their first thought would be to 'get help'...which in their minds at the time, was Dr. Bowen.

That's a very good point, Tracy. The police were far more a mystery to the average person in 1892 then they are today.

Thanks Harry,
As for me I'll put my money on the preliminary testimony by Cunningham himself. Especially since it was objected to. It has the ring of a true scenario and there hasn't been time to fidget with the witnesses as much as before the trial itself.
The closer to the horse's mouth the surer the bite.

Gramma

Thank you Harry. As I read what you posted about Allen in the Witness Statements, you got me thinking. I found it interesting that Dr. Bowen did not seem to know that Allen was an officer. I would think that a citizen of Dr. Bowen's prominence/position in Fall River, would have recognized that Officer Allen was a member of the police force, even if he wasn't in uniform, or if he didn't known his exact name. Or, maybe 'ol Seabury was just too upset by all the goings on ?


Tracy...

Bowen, at first, says he wanted the police and was going to go get police, but then it seems he got sidetracked by Lizzie asking for a telegram to be sent.

Later, (at trial, I think) he says he didn't leave until he assured himself there was police there.

It always seemed to me that he realized later that he had been distracted by Lizzie's request- because he never did notify any police while he was out.
It has seemed to me she did that on purpose.

Kat @ Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:34 am wrote:
It always seemed to me that he realized later that he had been distracted by Lizzie's request- because he never did notify any police while he was out.
It has seemed to me she did that on purpose.

I would be inclined to agree with you on that Kat. Lizzie heard Dr. Bowen talking about notifying the police and used a very plausible stall tactic.She could appear concerned about notifying her sister of the tragedy, and keep Dr. Bowen occupied with other things besides the police.

Yes, it does indeed sound like a stall tactic to me too, but, I've been mulling over what Lizzie had to gain by not having the police there earlier. Could it be to let a hired assassin time enough to get out of town? Could it be once Lizzie let others into the house and they began to question her on her whereabouts and such that she realized she needed to get an alibi downpat before the police questioned her? Or did Lizzie simply have a dislike and distrust of the boys in blue?

Oh! A stall tactic to help somene buy time to get out of town is a good one!

It sure is!

Gramma

Oh yes...an excellent idea indeed ! I particularly like it because it leans to the idea that Lizzie did NOT do it.


Tracy...

Maybe Emma needed enough time to get back to Fairhaven. By the way, is there out there anywhere an actual formal statement from the people Emma was staying with? Saying, ok, this is where and when Emma received the telegram etc. Did they account for where Emma was during the day or the day before?

Emma says she was at 19 Green Street, Fairhaven, at the time the telegram arrived. (Actually, she says Spring Street, which intersects with Green nearby.)

EMMA’S TESTIMONY at TRIAL, June 16, 1893

Q. On the day this happened you were in Fairhaven?
A. Yes sir.
Q. How long had you been in Fairhaven?
A. Just two weeks.
Q. At whose house?
A. At Moses Delano’s, Spring street.
Q. You received a telegram from Dr. Bowen?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And came of course as soon as you could?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Where were you when you received the telegram?
A. I was at the house.

A New Bedford Standard reporter spoke to Mrs. Brownell at the time of the inquest, mostly in regard to a letter Lizzie was supposed to have mailed to Fairhaven the day before the murders. Mrs. Brownell doesn't say whether Emma was in or out of the house on either August 3 or 4.

I haven't seen an actual police interview with any of the Fairhaven folks.

Why do you suppose Emma got the street name incorrect? Could she not be bothered to know the name of the street she stayed on?
I never noticed that before.

I do say I have lived on and off in this neighborhood for 40 years but could not name many streets where they are located on a map, within 3 or so blocks of me...

Could it be a simple explanation?

Maybe she didn't want innocent people to be draged into the situation, so she didn't mention the names of the people she was staying with.

It could be that Spring street was better known and easier to relate to than Green. We used to do that if trying to convey the area or neighborhood of an address. I used to say I lived on Meridian St but my address was actually on a small street off Meridian. Everyone knew Meridian at the end of New Boston, Rd.
When dealing with a trial, though, one should be more precise. Or was it deliberate deflection, as snokkums said, to keep the media away from innocent folks.

Gramma

If you look again at the map I posted in the Fairhaven Had A Telegraph Office thread, you'll see that Green Street and Main Street are parallel. Today they are both busy north to south roadways into the center of town.

In 1892, however, Green Steet did not connect to Bridge Street, the street that came from the Fairhaven-New Bedford Bridge.

So, from the train station or downtown New Bedford in general, one would come into town on Bridge Street and take a right on Main. To get to the Delano/Brownell house, one would then watch for Spring Street, where you would take a left. At Green Street, one would take a right and the Delano/Brownell house is maybe three houses down on the right side.

I think if you went there relatively often, Spring Street might come to mind first, because that's the turn you want to watch for and you're actually on Spring Street for three blocks vs. half a block for Green.

Unfortunately that is one of the images that did not come through for me. I am having this problem of getting some images and not others. It is getting frustrating because there are many like this one I would really like to see. Another that did not show up was the Halloween one of 92 Second St. I feel like I am missing a lot of fun!
Thanks for posting it, though, Chris.
Gramma

Here is Christopher's cool map.
I hope it's OK to put it here for you, Gramma.

If it is OK, then I will also go re-publish the Halloween photos as well, of Marks.
You are right to say when you cannot see a picture.
It's tricky to post a picture tho, outside the "box."

Got it Kat! Thank you!
I have no idea why some show up fine and others all I get is the description box. I usually handle pics with no problem.

Gramma

That map iscool, Chris. Thanks for that.

I'm confused by these references to Green Street and Spring Street, however. You posted an excerpt from Emma's trial testimony that shows her saying she stayed on Spring Street in Fairhaven.

EMMA’S TESTIMONY at TRIAL, June 16, 1893

Q. On the day this happened you were in Fairhaven?
A. Yes sir.
Q. How long had you been in Fairhaven?
A. Just two weeks.
Q. At whose house?
A. At Moses Delano’s, Spring street.
Q. You received a telegram from Dr. Bowen?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And came of course as soon as you could?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Where were you when you received the telegram?
A. I was at the house.

But all I found in the trial transcript is this:

"Q. How long had you been in Fairhaven?
A. Just two weeks.
Q. Where were you in Fairhaven?
A. Do you want me to tell you the street?
Q. What house?
A. At Moses Delano's, on Green Street.
Q. Is that a relative of yours?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or some friends?
A. No, sir; he is not.
Q. The people in the house were?
A. The people that I was visiting were living in his home.
Q. And who was it that you were visiting?
A. Mrs. Brownell and her daughter.
Q. And you received a telegram from Dr. Bowen?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And came, of course, as soon as you could?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were you when you got the telegram?
A. At Mrs. Brownell's."
(Emma: Trial, 1550)

Although the wording is fairly similar, there are differences in addition to the Green Street/ Spring Street reference. Is Emma queried twice on the Fairhaven visit and is the series of Q&A you posted in a different part of the trial than page 1550?

Hmm.
The inquest also says Green Street.
And she didn't testify at the prelim.

I think Christopher may have gotten the Spring St. reference from the Evening Standard transcription of the testimony. I checked the book (Lizzie Borden, Did She Or Didn't She) and it does say Spring.

The official record, page 1550, (image 573, vol. II, for those with the .tiff file) reads Green Street. Here is that portion of the page:



On my transcription of the Trial one of the things I did was deliberately avoid all transcribed versions or comments from the papers as the papers were not intended to be an official document. The reporter who wrote the article was probably a local reporter and wrote it as he knew the area.

Right you are, Harry!

I copied my Emma testimony from Lizzie Borden, Did She Or Didn't She before I discovered the LAB site and your trial transcription.

This makes me wonder about the accuracy of our Lizzie testimony, which is from a transcription that was published in the Standard.

This sort of accident is really very useful, as we gain info even from mistakes! It's a Good Thing.
Thanks Har and Diana and Christopher!

FairhavenGuy @ Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:03 am wrote:Right you are, Harry!

I copied my Emma testimony from Lizzie Borden, Did She Or Didn't She before I discovered the LAB site and your trial transcription.

This makes me wonder about the accuracy of our Lizzie testimony, which is from a transcription that was published in the Standard.

This question has come up before so I thought I'd provide some info here on Lizzie's inquest testimony.

LBQ, Oct. 2001, Vol VIII, No 4, pg. 14:

Footnote 11-
"Gaw, Cooper. 'Borden Case Has No Parallel in Country,' The Sunday Standard Times, July 20, 1924, Sec. 4:31-32.
This source is given on page 245 of Len Rebello's Lizzie Borden Past & Present. He quotes Mr. Gaw as follows:
'It may be noted, in passing, that a copy of the Lizzie Borden testimony was given to the Standard in advance by Mr. Knowlton, subject to release the moment it was admitted or excluded.' In a recent communication with Maynard F. Bertolet, Rebello added, 'The matter had been into type and printed in the form of a supplement to the regular edition, these supplements being kept under lock and key. The release came at a time which permitted the rejected evidence to be distributed with the first edition of the Standard, which was the only newpaper in the country to print it that day."- front page article entitled "Will The Real Inquest Testimony Of Lizzie Borden Please Stand Up?" co-written by Terence Duniho and Stefani Koorey.

--The force of the argument is that the testimony of Lizzie which was taken down by the State's stenographer, Annie White, was given whole to The Standard Times to be published on a certain date, and it was.