Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Two people, Mrs. Churchill and Bridget, said that Lizzie made the statement "I think I heard her come in" regarding Abby, yet Lizzie in her Inquest testimony denied saying it.

In fact Mrs. Churchill at the trial testified she said it twice, p283:

"Q. Did she say anything besides that at that time?
A. She said that she wished someone would try to find her; that she thought she heard her come in.
Q. Did she say that at that time?
A. I think so.
Q. Are you sure she said that then Mrs. Churchill, or afterwards when Miss Russell came?
A. She said it after again.
Q. But you think she said it this time too?
A. Yes Sir."

Bridget's story agrees in that she (Lizzie) said that to her when she reurned from Alice Russell's when she asked Lizzie if she could go to Mrs. Whitehead's to look for Abby.

Yet Lizzie denied ever having said it. At the inquest she is asked, p78:

"Q. Did you tell Maggie you thought your mother had come in?
A. No, sir.
Q. That you thought you heard her come in?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you say to anybody that you thought she was killed up stairs?
A. No, sir.
Q. To anybody?
A. No, sir."

What motive would Lizzie have for denying it? It was the very reason that Addie and Bridget went upstairs to look for Abby.

Any thoughts?

I think she denied it to avoid getting caught in more lies. If she had admitted to hearing Abby "come in," that opens her up for all sorts of questioning and details...what time was it when she heard her come in, how did she know it was Abby, what precisely did she hear, did she go speak to her, why didn't anyone else around that day witness Abby returning home, etc etc...all more details that Lizzie could not afford to get trapped into lest something be able to prove her answer wrong.

Lizzie likes to leave things open-ended or muddled. It was her saving grace in terms of this case, in my opinion. She would answer people when questioned, but just enough. She did not offer much freely, and what she does offer freely actually says a good deal more about the yarn she was trying to spin at the time.

Regarding the note and the question of Abby being gone, Lizzie had to plant that seed that she was led to believe that there was a note, adn so did not think it strange that Abby was not seen nor heard for several hours. She does not offer any first hand knowledge of the note, mind you, simply that that was what Abby had told her - and Abby cannot be questioned. And so Lizzie offers us a reasonable rationale for thinking her mother was out...and if pinned down to admitting that she had gone upstairs at or after the time of Abby's murder, why she had noticed nothing (since she didn't expect abby was up there anymore anyway).

Harry @ Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:18 pm wrote:Two people, Mrs. Churchill and Bridget, said that Lizzie made the statement "I think I heard her come in" regarding Abby, yet Lizzie in her Inquest testimony denied saying it.

In fact Mrs. Churchill at the trial testified she said it twice, p283:

"Q. Did she say anything besides that at that time?
A. She said that she wished someone would try to find her; that she thought she heard her come in.
Q. Did she say that at that time?
A. I think so.
Q. Are you sure she said that then Mrs. Churchill, or afterwards when Miss Russell came?
A. She said it after again.
Q. But you think she said it this time too?
A. Yes Sir."

Bridget's story agrees in that she (Lizzie) said that to her when she reurned from Alice Russell's when she asked Lizzie if she could go to Mrs. Whitehead's to look for Abby.

Yet Lizzie denied ever having said it. At the inquest she is asked, p78:

"Q. Did you tell Maggie you thought your mother had come in?
A. No, sir.
Q. That you thought you heard her come in?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you say to anybody that you thought she was killed up stairs?
A. No, sir.
Q. To anybody?
A. No, sir."

What motive would Lizzie have for denying it? It was the very reason that Addie and Bridget went upstairs to look for Abby.

Any thoughts?

I think there were many reasons she may have denied saying it.

1.) She would've had to have been more explicit as to when she heard her come in. Was it before or after she went to the barn? And she couldn't very well hear her come in from the barn.

2.) This is the main reason I believe she denied it. I don't think she could've explained how Abby got in, because Abby had no key for the front door. So there isn't any way she could've heard Abby come in, someone would've had to let her in.

3.) If Abby came in, where did she go? And how could she have gotten there without Lizzie seeing her? I find it hard to believe that Abby would've come in and gone directly upstairs to the guestroom. They had already established she wasn't in her room when Bridget went up there.

4.) If Abby had come back, where were the items Lizzie stated she was going to purchase for dinner?

5.) Why didn't Lizzie speak to her after she had come in?


I think Lizzie just rethought this statement, and then when she realized what an error she had made, she denied it.

great minds think alike ...

A penny for your thoughts, Harry.
That's more than I get for mine.

I agree. Just like when she was first asked where she was when Andrew arrived home. She answered she was upstairs. Which is also what Bridget said. But later Lizzie thought about it and thought maybe it was a good idea to place herself elsewhere. Far from Abby's body.

Excellent Allen, I'm in agreement with most of what you had to say.

As far as the note goes we have discussed before why Lizzie even had to mention a note. She could have just said Abby had told her she was going shopping.

Lizzie's Inquest testimony is a fascinating read in that she adjusts her testimony as she goes along. She had about 4-5 days to think over her original answers that she gave.

I threw this topic out just to stimulate conversation, and John, I don't need to be told by you when to comment or give my opinion.

I've never told you to do anything, Harry. I had several nice comments about you that were just blasted because of references to women. Are women people too? I should have made the comments about kangaroos or another endangered species.
Anyway, no problem with you Harry.

Abby did have a key to - I think it was - the side door. Bridget testified to this in the first part of the trial. Abby and Bridget were the only ones Bridget said had a key to that one door.

I like everyone's theories and they have a lot of merit.

I always thought that she lied about saying that because she only said it so someone would find Abby's body. I think she was anxious for it to be found, maybe to get this part of the event over with. I think if she admitted it at the inquest, it would be looked at as a suspicious thing to say. Maybe the judge would realize how Lizzie led them to finding Abby's body.

Yeah, augusta, I think Lizzie was frantic for them to find Abby, and so made those rather ridiculous statements about her coming back in to the house.

And her "I don't know but that she is killed, too."

Boggles the mind.

Bob Gutowski @ Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:22 am wrote:Yeah, augusta, I think Lizzie was frantic for them to find Abby, and so made those rather ridiculous statements about her coming back in to the house.

And her "I don't know but that she is killed, too."

Boggles the mind.

I second everything he said.

If Mrs. Churchill is correct, and Lizzie said it twice, that would tell me Lizzie was anxious. What a shame no one asked Lizzie when she heard this. No one else did.

Then she heard a moan when coming from the barn. Bridget who was inside the house heard no moan. Lizzie outside did. Wait, she mentioned that only once and never again.

Oh what a web we weave ....

but why would lizzie be so anxious for them to find abby? if lizzie knows abby to be dead, why worry one way or the other when she is found? did she just want to get it over with? afraid she couldn't keep up the charade much longer without giving up something?

but again, if she was a calm and self-possessed as everyone made her out to be, why would this put her in such a state as to have to hasten the discovery?

sguthmann @ Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:35 pm wrote:but why would lizzie be so anxious for them to find abby? if lizzie knows abby to be dead, why worry one way or the other when she is found? did she just want to get it over with? afraid she couldn't keep up the charade much longer without giving up something?

but again, if she was a calm and self-possessed as everyone made her out to be, why would this put her in such a state as to have to hasten the discovery?

Maybe she wanted the discovery to be made before Uncle Morse came home? Or before the police got there?

Interesting, Allen, and if the discovery was made before the police arrived who would initially investigate it - Dr. Bowen?
Why would that have helped her (if she killed her stepmother) and how?
Abby would be just as dead no matter who found her.
I think it's more likely that she wanted to get people away from herself at that time, perhaps innocently to collect myriad thoughts, or maybe for more subterfucious reasons, to get rid of something that she had on her person. Which seems most likely?
I've discussed this before, and Agusta seems to use my old posts as fact (with no attribution to me) for her comments, so what do you think Augusta?

Well I think it's possible maybe she didn't want Uncle John to maybe have the task of finding a body. Both bodies were found before he got home. Did he even see either one of them? It also is interesting that the first person to find the body, would have the opportunity to rearrange things, move things, or take things away.

And the person who finds the body is the first suspect. It would be protecting Morse to have Abby found before he came back. That would mean that Lizzie knew Morse was coming back, tho Mrs. Emery seemed to think he was going on to New Bedford.

I think, in very small quantities, prussic acid, diluted, was also used as a medicine. It's not unreasonable that it could be used as a medicine, a debilitating poison, or a killing device, depending uopn its solution strength.

Edit here:
Ooops.
This post belongs in the "THEORY" thread.
viewtopic.php?t=1581

Perhaps she didn't want Uncle John to see the bodies, but then why would she send for him? Why not just leave him out of everything?
There's no logical reason from what we know for Lizzie to want Uncle John to return. She may have known he was coming back anyway because apparently she knew where he went (from Abby?) and it's a reasonable assertion that (Abby?) might say Uncle John is returning for dinner.
But why want Uncle John back?
He wasn't even related directly to either of the deceased, and according to them both they hadn't even spoken ( Lizzie & UJ ) in years. Rings of a plot. But Uncle John came back of his own accord, and it's hard to imagine UJ involved with the killing of Andrew.
So why would Lizzie want Uncle John back so badly?
There were many others much closer she could have called for that were actually relatives.
Sounds more and more like a plot gone awry.

Did Lizzie own a sealskin cape?
Did the guys at the drugstore want to get famous by fingering Lizzie for the act of another woman who perhaps looked like Lizzie?

allen, morse did indeed see both bodies when he returned to the residence.

good job squthmann

It's an assumption that Lizzie sent for Morse.
It's an assumption that Lizzie knew where he was.

Anyone with a copy of the inquest can post this. It's a free download at the website:
Lizzie
Q. Have you sealskin sacks?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where are they?
A. Hanging in a large white bag in the attic, each one separate.
Q. Put away for the summer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you ever use prussic acid on your sacks?
pg.92 (49)
A. Acid? No, sir; I don't use anything on them.

Finally an answer to a something - thanks Kat, or since you're not talking to me anymore should I call you Secret Kat?
It's not an assumption that Lizzie sent for Morse any more than the rest of the entire Forum is an assumption.
I bet I could look back many times, Kat, and find that you said Lizzie sent for morse - want me to?
And regarding his whereabouts, I think she just thought he wasn't there with her, and I'd like to see what your earlier posts say about that.
He's either involved or he isn't. She's either involved or she isn't, but to solve a crime you have to establish some preconclusions and some determinations. In this instance you have to say that you believe Morse was involved or he wasn't. If he wasn't fine, you look at Hiram Harrington or somebody, or Lizzie or Emma or Bridget, but you methodically rule in or out Morse. The first thing you look at is has he lied? Lets say he didn't. Then we gotta know - is his tale screwy? - you tell me! Then if it sounds bogus we look at it more closely. With all due respect, you're starting from the wrong end of the equation. Morse may or may not have had something to do with the murders - at this point it doesn't matter. Persionally I don't think he was in any way involved. I believe that he was there to witness a signing, and that Lizzie wanted him there for that, and she frosted him and that's why he went away. But of course there are no facts to support this. Second personally I think Borden and Morse were just a couple old drunks who liked to get together once in a while. Third personal is that I don't believe in coincidences and Morse showed up at an unusual time - did Lizzie call him? Emma maybe? Andrew? Abby?
Too much is unknown about morse and I wouldn't grill him - let him fly.

Kat @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:15 pm wrote:And the person who finds the body is the first suspect. It would be protecting Morse to have Abby found before he came back. That would mean that Lizzie knew Morse was coming back, tho Mrs. Emery seemed to think he was going on to New Bedford.

How would it be protecting him? Didn't Bridget already say she saw Abby alive after Morse left? And of course the thickness of Abby's blood showed she had been killed long before Andrew.

I think Lizzie just wanted the body found so things could just be over with.

That's believing Bridget. I don't believe anyone.
Also, Morse has some possibly missing time, between 8:45 ad 9:20 AM.
And one of the important Dr.'s, whose testimony was going to be for the state's case, didn't agree to Abby's time of death until not long before trial. They were obviously then still arguing about Abby's death time that close to trial. I think it was Draper. There's a letter in the Knowlton Papers which states he is now on board with time of death- clotted blood or not.

My point was that whoever found the body would always be suspected first. That includes the finding of Andrew- Lizzie had control of the timing of the finding of both bodies.
For this purpose, I lump the finding of Andrew together with the seeming need to find Abby.
And yes, getting the ball rolling is another big reason- but the question was "why?"
Trying to think of a reason why.

Could Lizzie have been recovering (assuming her guilt) from the aftermath of the adrenalin surge she must have felt after killing Andrew?

IF she did it-- her mind must have been racing. I cannot imagine being 100% cool and collected after killing two people and being able to think clearly and rationally.

Guilty people often blurt out more information than needed... There are people who (are usually innocent) provide information and those (probably guilty) who try and CONVINCE others of something.

The best "why" could be that she didn't know. Otherwise some of her actions as a murderess don't make sense. Just as a dumb example which we all know - the death of her Father. Either she did know or she didn't know. If she did know why come back into the house, and as you just said, why not let somebody else discover the body.
Same with her mother - if she knew, why direct somebody to find her? The more I learn about Lizzie the more I think she's just really not so bright - not that she didn't do it - just not so bright.

Peace On Earth to you Audry!
But if there were peace on earth, what would we talk about - global warming?

the "why" is indeed the problem. why not let things progress in their natural course? why be so frantic as to very nearly give herself away just so that someone can find Abby lying upstairs with her head bashed in sonner rather than later? Did she perhaps need the freedom to get back up to her room to change or take care of some last detail, etc?

Not likely, because finding a body upstairs would have probably cordoned off the upstairs too. I think, Sguthmann, that she probably was on the functional edge to begin with (see Allen's post of 12/12) and that this (no matter if she did it or not) sent her over the edge. So I don't think we're dealing with 100% after the slayings. But I think a few things that should be determined - for one, there's no way she could have done it - she may have been abled and had the opportunity to kill her stepmother, but no way on her Father, and to say that the hatchet (same murder weapon) was "passed off" is incredible.
Although that leads me to think why not.
Why not is probably the lack of blood around the house. Lizzie didn't have the street smarts to not get blood all over the place - but someone did, including footprints right next to Abby's body - there were none.
Lets just take a simple simple thing - so Lizzie kills Abby - then why go anywhere else? Why wander around and iron handkerchiefs which had no signs of blood on them - why not just wait for Andrew to come home, if that was the plan, and go down then?Nobody cares where she is, and whether she did it or not it shows bipolar, M/D, fidgety. Couldn't sit and wait, but somebody could and they did!

Kat @ Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:49 pm wrote:... My point was that whoever found the body would always be suspected first. That includes the finding of Andrew- Lizzie had control of the timing of the finding of both bodies.
For this purpose, I lump the finding of Andrew together with the seeming need to find Abby.
And yes, getting the ball rolling is another big reason- but the question was "why?"
Trying to think of a reason why.

Could it have been that she wanted to change her dress ASAP? The less time people had to notice what she was wearing the better.

When she finally did get to her room she sent Alice, who had accompanied her, off to tell Dr. Bowen that she wanted Winward as the undertaker. When Alice returned Lizzie had already changed clothes and was coming from Emma's room.

I wish I knew the time gap between the time Mrs. Churchill reported that Abby was found and when Lizzie went to her room and changed. Lizzie at the inquest said she went in the "afternoon" which is vague.

That's an interesting reason...
But Lizzie could have changed before calling for help, right?
I mean, if she was *in charge* of when the bodies were discovered?
But it's a good point that she did change very soon after getting to her room.
But also- she went to her room alone after all. Alice didn't realize she didn't actually accompany Lizzie upstairs until she testified.
So we have Lizzie going up alone and then still sending Alice away when she came up very soon after.

I think we can figure out approximately how long Lizzie was in her room. We would have to figure out about how long Alice was with the police showing them what she showed them, and also about when Bowen thinks he told Lizzie to go up stairs. After being in the house a lot, you could probably estimate the time these things would take, actually.

Changing before calling for help would be further narrowing the time between the killing of Andrew and the calling for Bridget. I don't think that is likely but who knows.

According to Lizzie at the inquest (p89) somebody took her upstairs:

"Q. Did you afterwards go into the room where your father was found killed, any more than to go through it to go up stairs?
A. When they took me up stairs they took me through that room.

Then Alice testified at the trial (p383)

"Q. When she went up stairs did she go up alone or did anyone go with her?
A. I am not sure.
Q. Did you go with her?
A. I have always thought so; I am not sure.
Q. Were you in the room with her at any time upstairs before a change of dress?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was anyone else there besides you and Miss Borden at that time?
A. No, sir."

I kinda think Alice did go up with her.

I recall Alice's info that she realized she had been showing the officers something around the house at the time- the parlour maybe?
It's in Lizzie's interest to say someone went with her...
I'm sorry I can't look it up right now...but I will try to in a bit?

Yes, I read all that. It's in the Preliminary. She was not cetain of that as well.

"Q. Do you know whether they went into other rooms or not?
A. I remember going into the parlor with these officers, with some officers.
Q. Was that before Lizzie went up stairs?
A. I think it was about the same time. I had an idea they were making the first search through the house, looking for whoever might be in it, or whoever they might find.
Q. That was before Lizzie went up stairs?
A. The other part was; but the parlor I am not positive of."

Alice was less than truthful at the Inquest and Preliminary in that she left out the visit by Lizzie and the burning of the dress and there are more "I can't remembers" than I care to count.

I prefer to believe what she said at the trial.

But Alice says she is not sure, at trial?
Is that a yes she was with Lizzie or a no she wasn't with Lizzie?
Should we add up all she says in order to decide?

I'm sorry- you were Editing when I posted- I missed the transcription of testimony.
Thanks for looking that up!

There are only about five scenarios here, so it's not that much to figure -
One is that Lizzie killed her Stepmother and didn't kill he Father:
If she did that and wanted it to look like an intruder, why not just scoot or have someone else find the body earlier? Bridget, or maybe even UJ if he was still around.
Kat's not totally right in Lizzie controlling the discovery of the bodies because Bridget would have come down soonly, and UJ could arrive at any time.
The important part is UJ, and it rings of collusion. If Bridget discovers the bodies and she is on Lizzie's page, is it better than UJ discovering them?
It always seemed kinda lame to me that Bridget rushed up to Abby's body because she cared for her so much. Who wants to see dead bodies anyway, especially ones close to you?
Take the scenario of Lizzie killing both of them. Why would she leave the guest room door open if that's where UJ was sleeping, and from some indications was expected back. The guest room door being left open is a v big clue! It had to have happened after Lizzie went downstairs or she would never have let it happen. That alone pretty much rules out Lizzie's guilt.
So if Lizzie didn't kill her Stepmother and it was done by someone else, who did?
Grisham's novel, "The Pelican Brief," speaks muchly of professional killers. I never thought that someone cauld kill Abby, not leave any signs or blood trail, and hang around for an hour and a half or two hours to do Andrew, but now I do believe it.
So the third of five scenarios (two are too far offbase) is that someone who knew what they were doing killed the senior Bordens. A hit.
Of course a killering would have to be arranged by someone, and how could Lizzie - not so street-wise have accomplished it?
Lets say she got lucky - remember the nice horse and buggy in front of the house at the time of the murders, remember the unexplained trips Lizzie made prior to the murders, remember the questions about the barn on the night before the murders, remember the way Lizzie was ostracized?
But if that were the case, and the town knew, why wouldn't someone in the town talkWhat would make it more beneficial for the town to not talk, than to talk? I think Lizzie more than likely had affairs with Dr. Bowen and the Rev. Jubb.

Kat's not totally right in Lizzie controlling the discovery of the bodies because Bridget would have come down soonly, and UJ could arrive at any time.

--john

The topic title is "I Think I Heard Her Come In" so that is the context upon which I rested my statement that Lizzie "*was in charge* of when the bodies were discovered."
She was the instigation for the women already there to go looking for Abby, after Andrew was already found.
However, I think Lizzie says she didn't say that.

When I put asterics around a phrase, it means there's a chance of another person substituting their own phrase there which might more closely match what they think happened: as you changed it to "controlling the discovery."

"...remember the nice horse and buggy in front of the house at the time of the murders, remember the unexplained trips Lizzie made prior to the murders, remember the questions about the barn on the night before the murders..."

--john

I don't think the equipage was out front at the time of the murders. I think it was between murders?

And there were questions about the fence noises from the night before, but not barn questions from the night before.
If there were signs of someone having been there in the barn it could have been Lizzie. If there were no signs of anyone having been there, then the little round indentation in the hay could be from anytime, but not the night before.

Duh - she was in charge of when the bodies would be discovered - she just had to get it done sooner - and that's the main point - of course, if she didn't do it, why get them discovered at all, if she killed only her Stepmother why have anybody look for her Stepmother, if she killed only her Father, why wake up Bridget, etc. I agree with you, but I think whoever killed Andrew was expecting him to go up to his room - nada for Bridget.

So if I, for example, put question marks around my text, as, ?opercular?, it would mean that it may or may not be a word that everyone was free to look up, but they could of course fill in their own word?
So if I type "the man was ?deranged?," they could just fill in 'a genius?'
I'm just trying to learn your style.
For me I just love putting commas correctly after question marks.
Dickins-
"What is this?, a bit of beef?"

In fact, it would be interesting to know, according to Lizzie and Bridget, exactly what DID happen when Andrew went up to his room. Of course he soonly returned, but where did the women go and do while he was gone, etc. I can't recreate the scene from memory, and of course with the last few moves have lost more books.

"What is the answer Alice? Oh hell, what is the question?"
Gertrude Stein's last words

Lizzie claims she went upstairs to put clean clothes away and sew some tape on a garment, she also said she saw Andrew remove his shoes and lay down on the sofa - how could she if she was upstairs sewing? Bridget was supposedly still washing those damn windows, and Lizzie really doesn't know if she was in the kitchen reading a magazine, or in the dining room doing who knows what, or in the sitting room. She leaves all options open for your enjoyment. Or wait, maybe she was on the stairs, or in the dining room explaining away the "note" story. She was so damn busy she doesn't remember where she was. You would think she could come up with a solid story, but she places herself all over the house as if she was busy doing something important. I don't believe anything she said, and Bridget conveniently tied up with a chore all morning, or so it seems, is a bit suspect. I am sure she stopped every once in a while to rest, or go the bathroom, or goof off, or gossip with the Kelly's maid. I just don't think we can trust what either one of them said to be 100 percent accurate.

And Bridget said Andrew went up to his room and Lizzie says he didn't.
We've yet to figure that one out...