Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I'd like to start this thread so that we can keep track of all the inconsistencies in Lizzie's inquest testimony, statements to the police, and statements made to the other witnesses. Here we can maybe keep a running record of all the inconsistencies, story changes, and statements made that conflict with other witness testimony. I will start with the one that I have always found so glaringly obvious, and I hope maybe you all will add to it. My hope is that by analyzing it like this, we can see just how much Lizzie's story changed over time. Any bold lettering added is mine and does not appear in the original text.

Inquest testimony of Lizzie Borden page 60:

Q. How long had your father been gone?
A. I don't know.

Q. Where were you when he returned?
A. I was down in the kitchen.

Q. What doing?
A. Reading an old magazine that had been left in the cupboard, and old Harper's Magazine.

---------------------------------------------
Q. Are you sure you were in the kitchen when your father returned?
A. I am not sure whether I was there or in the dining room.

---------------------------------------------------
Q. Was that the time when your father came home?
A. He came home after I came downstairs.

Q. You were not upstairs when he came home?
A. I was not upstairs when he came home, no sir.


page 61:

Q. I understand you to say he said he had forgotten his key?
A. No, it was Maggie said he said he had forgotten the key.

Q. Where was Maggie when the bell rang?
A. I don't know, sir.

Q. Where were you when the bell rang?
A. I think in my room upstairs.

Q. Then you were up stairs when your father came home?
A. I don't know sure, but I think I was.

Q. What were you doing?
A. As I say, I took up these clean clothes, and stopped and basted a little piece of tape on a garment.

Q. Did you come down before your father was let in?
A. I was on the stairs coming down when she let him in.

Q. Then you were upstairs when your father came to the house on his return?
A. I think I was.

Q. How long had you been there?
A. I had only been upstairs just long enough to take the clothes up and baste a little loop on the sleeve. I don't think I'd been there over five minutes.

Q. Was Maggie still engaged in washing windows when your father got back?
A. I don't know.

Q. You remember, Miss Borden, I will call your attention to it so as to see if I have any misunderstanding, not for the purpose of confusing you; you remember that you told me several times that you were down stairs, and not up stairs when your father came home? You have forgotten, perhaps?
A. I don't know what I have said. I have answered so many questions and I am so confused I don't know one thing from another. I am telling you just as nearly as I know.

Q. Calling your attention to what you said about that a few minutes ago, and now again to the circumstance you have said you were up stairs when the bell rang, and were on the stairs when Maggie let your father in; which now is the recollection of the true statement of the matter, that you were down stairs when the bell rang and your father came?
A. I think I was down stairs in the kitchen.

Q. Then you were not upstairs?
A. I think I was not; because I went up almost immediately, as soon as I went down, and then came down again and stayed down.

Q. What had you in your mind when you said you were on the stairs when Maggie let your father in?
A. The other day somebody came there and she let them in and I was on the stairs; I don't know whether the morning before or when it was.

Q. You understood I was asking you exactly and explicitly about this fatal day?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. I now call your attention to the fact that you had specifically told me you had gone upstairs, and had been there about five minutes when the bell rang, and were on your way down, and were on the stairs when Maggie let your father in that day---
A. Yes, I said that, and then I said I don't know whether I was on the stairs or in the kitchen.

Q. Now how will you have it?
A. I think, as nearly as I know, I was in the kitchen.

Q. How long was your father gone?
A. I don't know, sir; not very long.

Q. An hour?
A. I should not think so.


page 66:

Q. Now I call your attention to the fact that twice yesterday you told me, with some explicitness, that when your father came in, you were just coming down stairs?
A. No I did not, I beg your pardon.

Q. That you were on the stairs at the time your father was let in, you said with some explicitness. Do you now say you did not say so?
A. I said I thought first he was on the stairs; then I remembered I was in the kitchen when he came in.

Q. First you thought you were in the kitchen; afterwards you remembered you were on the stairs?
A. I said I thought I was on the stairs; then I said I knew I was in the kitchen. I still say that now. I was in the kitchen.

Q. Did you go into the front part of the house after your father came in?
A. After he came in from down street I was in the sitting room with him.

Q. Did you go into the front hall afterwards?
A. No sir.


She seems to change her story when she realizes that to be upstairs would mean that she would have been near enough to Abby's body to see it before it was discovered. She at first states that she was upstairs when she heard the bell ring, and then states she was coming down the stairs when her father was being let in. This meshes with Bridget’s story of hearing Lizzie laugh from up stairs. I'm assuming that Bridget had no knowledge that Lizzie had made these statements when she was being questioned. Therefore she may not have known that Lizzie had contradicted her, and contradicted herself as well.


Lizzie inquest testimony page 77:

Q. When you came from the barn, what did you do then?
A. Came into the kitchen.

Q. What did you do then?
A. I went into the diningroom and laid down my hat.


Trial testimony of Hyman Lubinski page 1409:

Q. Whom did you see?
A. I saw a lady come out from the barn right to the stairs back of the house--- the north side stairs, from the back of the house.

Q. Ride side of what?
A. I saw a lady come out from the barn right to the stairs from the back of the house.

Q. Can you tell how she was dressed?
A. She had on a dark colored dress.

Q. Did she have anything on her head?
A. No, sir.

We could always start off with what she kept telling the police when they questioned her. First she was in the barn, then she was eating pears then she was in the kitchen. Didnt she have three different stories?

Other than her Inquest testimony, what other reliable sources do we have with regard to Lizzie's inconsistencies? The inconsistencies in the Inquest testimony have been discussed (here and elsewhere) a number of times, of course. We might be able to ferret out inconsistencies between Lizzie's testimony and that of other witnesses, but I believe the Inquest testimony is our only real source for Lizzie herself. Some of the inconsistencies between Lizzie's testimony and that of other witnesses concern what she was wearing that morning. However, almost every witness either didn't remember what she was wearing or gave testimony that conflicted with that of other witnesses.

I think Lizzie tried to cover her tracks with regard to Abby's body being visible from the upstairs landing. She (Lizzie) said the door to the guest room was closed at the time she was upstairs. (She consistently admitted to having been upstairs at some time during the morning, so she needed to explain why she hadn't seen Abby's body.)

From the Inquest testimony:

"Q. When you went upstairs for a short time, as you say you did, you then went in sight of the sewing machine?

A. No, I did not see the sewing machine because she had shut that room up.

Q. What do you mean?

A. I mean the door was closed. She said she wanted it closed to keep the dust and everything out."

Of course, when Bridget and Mrs. Churchill went upstairs to search for Abby, the door to the guest room, where the sewing machine was kept, was open, and they were able to see the body under the bed. That would mean that (a) the door was open when Lizzie passed through the landing, or (b) the door was closed when Lizzie was upstairs but later was either opened by someone or came open on its own.

I've wondered (as others have) whether Lizzie would have been able to see the body from the landing even if the door had been open, especially if she hadn't been looking in that direction. We've also discussed in the past the fact that freshly-spilled blood has an odor. Would Lizzie have smelled a peculiar odor and sensed that something was amiss?

Just to throw out a few things that have been mentioned before regarding these topics:


As far as the inconsistencies go, some of that on Lizzie's part may be due to the fact that Dr. Bowen gave her morphine. It may have clouded her thinking a bit. Also, I don't think it's all that strange that Lizzie and the others can't recall every little thing in exactly the order that they happened. I think it's rather common for people to get a bit confused. Especially, if they're being questioned about a murder and they might be a bit afraid.

As for seeing Abby's body. How many here have actually been to the house? I have. When I walked up the stairs my guide had to tell me which step to stop and turn my head to be able to look under the bed. I think if a person just walked normally up the stairs they in fact would not have seen the body. You really have to turn and make a point to look in the right spot. When Bridget and Mrs. Churchill walked up those stairs they were already afraid they'd find Abby. To me they were sort of looking for her and so they walked up more cautiously. Whereas, if you didn't expect to find a body you'd walk right by it. Also, I recall reading that the room was also rather dark. Making it even harder to see in. There were no lights in the room. I can't recall if the blinds or drapes were open.

I believe several of us have been to the house and even stayed the night...more than once. I found it much easier to be in a position of "seeing the body" when ascending the stairs versus descending. Not being used to the steepness of the stairs, I had to be more mindful of where I was stepping when I was going downstairs.

Having looked at pictures, maps, etc., I felt very comfortable with my first trip up those stairs being without a guide. We had some time before the official tour started to do some exploring.


Tracy...

I would agree with the fact that you may not be as likely to have seen the body on the way down the stairs and would have seen it more easily on the way up. But when Lizzie was going up the stairs to 'baste a little loop on the sleeve' wouldn't she have seen Abby lying there? Unless, the fact that she was carrying the clothes kept her attention somewhat distracted. These clothes would probably be pretty bulky, especially folded or however they took care of the clothing at that time. That's if you want to believe Lizzie's story.

What I always thought was odd was she states she took this garment up to her room and basted a little loop on the sleeve. Nobody asked what happened to this garment after she had finished with it. Did they find it in her room? Would she have taken it to the dress closet to be put away, which would've put her even closer to seeing Abby's body? Was it the wrapper she put on after the bodies had been discovered? The questions they did not ask really frustrate me .

Another inconsistency in her story that I have always found most frustrating is the fact that she states she did not see Bridget after everyone had gone out, and was unaware of her movements for most of that morning.

These are pictures that I took on my first visit. I had my husband take them because he is a good bit taller than me and didn't have to stand up his toes to see, he's 6'2" and I'm only 5'4". I lay in the guest room taking the position of Abby and had him take the pictures on the way up the stairs. All he really caught in the first one was the railing. The second one I had him get a little closer to the railing, as if someone was trying to peer through. When I resized them I didn't realize they had come out different sizes I was in a hurry.

When someone just mentioned the story Lizzie gave about going up to her room to sew something on her clothes I thought of something. If the seamstress always worked in the guest room to make the clothes, and the sewing machine was kept in that room, wouldn't it stand to reason that all the sewing things would be kept there also? If she was going to sew something, wouldn't she have gone into the guest room to get the thread, needle, etc? If all the stuff was kept in that room it would blow her story that she was sewing something, because she would have HAD to go into the guest room to get the sewing stuff.

By the way-- pretty picture, Allen.

Photographic prints have a 5-1 contrast range. Film has a 8-1 contrast range. Using a flash will not provide a comparable range to human eyesight. You can look this up.

If the door was normally kept closed, nothing would be seen. But this is a household custom. Some do, some don't.

What do you do w/ bathroom door? What conditions?

Not to waste any more time, but I believe that Lizzie was in the kitchen when Andy returned (she called Bridget to go open the door). Lizzie's later story about being upstairs and laughing was just a way to cover up the presence of the Visitor.

Arnold Brown's book tells all, and solves the case in logic if not in a court of law. "Todd Lunday" said the same thing; if it wasn't Lizzie, then it had to be someone else. (Whose presence was kept secret from the law.)

Just apply the case today. If two people are hacked to death, and there are no bloodstains on the two girls who are in the house, THEN it would have to be someone else. QED.

I have often considered the presence of a "visitor", but I have problems with it. It would have to have been a very carefully thought out plan, if Lizzie was merely the helper of the murderer(s). It would have to be someone who knew the family routine, habits, etc., and the layout of the house very well.

I have often thought that when Lizzie said she was in the barn, she was really signaling someone that was either in the barn, or down cellar, or hiding somewhere in the house, or out in the yard? But then you have all these people hanging around outside that never saw anyone leave or enter the Borden house , except for people that would naturally be there, Bridget, Andrew........It must have been a really lucky escape from the murder scene in broad daylight?

Angel @ Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:09 pm wrote:When someone just mentioned the story Lizzie gave about going up to her room to sew something on her clothes I thought of something. If the seamstress always worked in the guest room to make the clothes, and the sewing machine was kept in that room, wouldn't it stand to reason that all the sewing things would be kept there also? If she was going to sew something, wouldn't she have gone into the guest room to get the thread, needle, etc? If all the stuff was kept in that room it would blow her story that she was sewing something, because she would have HAD to go into the guest room to get the sewing stuff.

By the way-- pretty picture, Allen.

You are right Angel, I doubt she had needles and thread in her room, if all of the sewing materials were kept in the guest bedroom. Did anyone look for needles and thread when they searched Lizzie's room? Was she asked to produce the article of clothing she was working on to identify anything? I hardly think she was sewing that day. She places herself all over that house doing very mundane, sundry things like ironing, reading a magazine, directing wrappers, putting laundry away, sewing, etc. Maybe she had to cover her tracks, or make it seem like it was another ordinary day in the Borden house, when she was really orchestrating some murders. She seems to have had complete control of the goings on in almost every room of the house if you believe her statements.

Smudgeman @ Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:17 pm wrote: You are right Angel, I doubt she had needles and thread in her room, if all of the sewing materials were kept in the guest bedroom. Did anyone look for needles and thread when they searched Lizzie's room?

I think it's possible that since the ones searching the house were all men they may simply not have thought of certain things. I'm assuming that many of the men going through that house didn't sew and so, it was something they over looked. Just like being too shy to check some of Lizzie's undergarments and dresses or really check out her story about being on her menstrual cycle.

DWilly @ Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:33 pm wrote:
I think it's possible that since the ones searching the house were all men they may simply not have thought of certain things. I'm assuming that many of the men going through that house didn't sew and so, it was something they over looked. Just like being too shy to check some of Lizzie's undergarments and dresses or really check out her story about being on her menstrual cycle.

I think Angel has hit on another important point. They didn't look for the garment she was supposedly 'basting', or look for any needles and thread in her room. I also do not see that they really did any checking on Lizzie's underthings for evidence, and they did a casual search of the dresses hanging in the closet, IMO.

That pail in the cellar with the bloody rags has always bothered me. It's a very convenient thing for Lizzie to have been allegedly menstruating at that time. This is another thing we can only take Lizzie's word for. It's not like they were going to use any means to verify this fact. She says the pail had been there for a few days, in fact had been sitting there on the day Bridget did the wash, but Bridget said otherwise.

Bridget said that pail had not been there a few days before when she did the wash. If she was doing the wash, and there was a pail of bloody rags sitting in the cellar, is she going to leave it there? This was an age where the servants could be given dirty jobs like washing out their employers menstrual rags. I would think if Bridget had seen that pail, she would've remembered it, because if I had a dirty job such as this I wouldn't forget that it had been sitting there.

Allen @ Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:58 am wrote:[
That pail in the cellar with the bloody rags has always bothered me. It's a very convenient thing for Lizzie to have been allegedly menstruating at that time. This is another thing we can only take Lizzie's word for. It's not like they were going to use any means to verify this fact. She says the pail had been there for a few days, in fact had been sitting there on the day Bridget did the wash, but Bridget said otherwise.

Bridget said that pail had not been there a few days before when she did the wash. If she was doing the wash, and there was a pail of bloody rags sitting in the cellar, is she going to leave it there? This was an age where the servants could be given dirty jobs like washing out their employers menstrual rags. I would think if Bridget had seen that pail, she would've remembered it, because if I had a dirty job such as this I wouldn't forget that it had been sitting there.

I've read a few descriptions of how Lizzie looked. Such as this one from Rebello on page 237, it's about her nails:

"...but the nails showed evidence of exceedingly careful attention and shone with remarkable tint of pearly pink and white."


My point on this is I think Lizzie may have been something of a clean freak. Very careful about how her room looked and very careful in regard to her personal hygiene. I can't see her letting a bunch of bloody menstrual rags just lie around in plain sight for anyone to see. She strikes me as the type who cleaned up any mess right away and very well at that.

For what it's worth, I think it very likely that Lizzie had a sewing kit in her room. I've seen thousands of little sewing kits that have survived from the Victorian era. I suspect every lady had at least one and maybe more. My grandmother worked as a dressmaker in her home and kept all kinds of sewing essentials in the front (guest) bedroom. Yet she had a pincushion on the dresser in her own bedroom. Stuck into it were many needles and pins, and she also had a good-sized sewing kit kept in a drawer of the same dresser. This was in the 1940s, not the 1890s, but the house was much as it had been decades earlier. At the Borden house (as at my Grandmother's), the guest room was sometimes occupied, so it was only prudent to keep some sewing essentials elsewhere.

Had Lizzie been asked to produce the garment she had repaired that morning, I have a hunch she would have been able to do so! Even if her story was a lie, she probably based it on a small sewing job she had recently done. Somebody else has pointed out that Lizzie wasn't an especially innovative story-teller. Rather than start from scratch, she usually appeared to embroider on the truth.

Didn't Lizzie also state that perhaps Abby was in the guest room sewing? So she was in her room sewing, and maybe or maybe not Abby had been sewing as well. I don't think anybody was sewing that morning. Just my opinion. Did anyone check to see if any sewing materials were out in the guest room, or see any evidence that someone was sewing? I remember my mother having an old sewing machine, and when she was using it, there were spools of thread, material, needles, thimbles brought out to complete her task. Sure, a quick fix would not require the machine, but I think Lizzie suggested Abby was working on some pillow cases?

I agree with Edisto about the sewing kit. Even today most of us keep a needle and thread somewhere handy. Lizzie spent a great deal of time in her room and it stands to reason she would keep the things she needed there for easy use.

As far as seeing Abby's body.... I think it is entirely possible Abby could have been laying there and have someone pass up and down the stairs without seeing her... Who knows where they were looking? I have a very full dressing gown I like to wear and when I climb my narrow back stairs, I lift it up and look down at my feet to get better bearings... Lizzie may have done the same, especially if her shoes had a heel or a lift on them. Maybe she looked upwards-- where she was going!

I think Knowlton was pissed when he was questioning Lizzie and it shows in his questions... He (like any other prosecuting attorney, I suppose) wanted to mess her up...

Inquests are meant to gather evidence and not so much to question a suspect... his questions are clearly accusatory. (IMHO)

Lubinski not noticing a hat really doesn't rule out that it WAS Lizzie and that she DID have a hat on OR WITH HER while returning from the barn. She may have taken it off (to wipe her brow for example) and been carrying it with her back to the house.... She never did state that she took it off and laid it on the table!

I have spent a great deal of time with someone, ie-- meeting a girlfriend for lunch and perhaps shopping and would have NO idea as to what she had on if I was asked about it later-- especially if it wasn't a particularly striking or noticeable outfit.

Melissa... you had your husband take the photo from the stairs due to his height in comparison to your? You have made your own argument a bit moot since you and Lizzie are of similar height! If you were not at a good vantage point to stand completely still and take a photo why would Lizzie be at a good vantage point to see Abbie as she was moving up and down the stairs, hopefully watching where she was going in her voluminous skirts?

Men go running and screaming today when a woman mentions her period..... The more things change the more they stay the same!

Audrey @ Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:59 pm wrote:

Melissa... you had your husband take the photo from the stairs due to his height in comparison to your? You have made your own argument a bit moot since you and Lizzie are of similar height! If you were not at a good vantage point to stand completely still and take a photo why would Lizzie be at a good vantage point to see Abbie as she was moving up and down the stairs, hopefully watching where she was going in her voluminous skirts?

But Mrs. Churchill and Bridget had no problems seeing the body with their equally voluminous skirts. Why them and not Lizzie? I'm sure they were not expecting to see a body lying there, and as such were not looking for it. Six of one, half dozen of another.

Audrey @ Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:59 pm wrote:
I have spent a great deal of time with someone, ie-- meeting a girlfriend for lunch and perhaps shopping and would have NO idea as to what she had on if I was asked about it later-- especially if it wasn't a particularly striking or noticeable outfit.

I myself do not have a sewing kit. I know of few people who do. Most of the people I know have to go out and buy a needle and thread if they want to sew something. But that is today, and not back then at the time when people made their own clothing. But why did they not search for this sewing kit?

I myself could not spend a whole day that has not been particularly stressful or overwhelming with someone and not take notice of what they are wearing. I am looking at them, I would hope, through out this day whether their clothes are particularly striking or not. But what I could do, is become confused as to what someone was wearing on WHAT day if I lived with them day in and day out and saw them all the time. Or what I could do, if the situation was particularly stressful and emotionally overwhelming, is become confused as to the little details of the day in the face of a larger and more important issue. Those details might become overshadowed in ones mind by the more immediately important facts and feelings. Which is what I think happened with a lot of the witnesses.

I also forgot to mention that the picture was taken from about halfway up the stairs. From further up I had no problems. I've always thought that they had to be further up than they claimed when they first saw her. This was taken from where I approximated Bridget and Mrs. Churchill claimed to be when they saw the body.

That's it - they gave Andrew the wrong key to get back in (or she gave).

Well, I will agree with ya, but there's a realism here. Noone - man or woman will ever commit siicide with money in their pocket. It's so rare to commit suicide with more than a hundred dollars that's it's become a study in itself. So for my mind Kurt Kobain, and others, Momma Cass, are just most likely accidents. There other issues. Suicides are not normally checked for aids except at the request of family, and that is confidential. Other diseases common to drug use are not normally checked. The family comes out clean - hey bury the guy. The most interesting deaths in the twentieth century were of Liberace and Jim Henson ( Muppets ) who both died of the same causes, (homesexual aids virus contamination ) yet one was reviled and one was glorified.
I guess ya gotta get good press honey!

Bridget does claim to have seen Lizzie ironing handkerchiefs on the morning of the murders, but she claims that Lizzie was ironing handkerchiefs while she was washing the windows in the diningroom. She also testifies that the flats were on the stove, but that she didn't put them there herself. She says more or less that she assumes Lizzie did. The handkerchiefs were also found, and taken up to Lizzie's room later that day.

Lizzie states that she was ironing handkerchiefs on that morning, and that her flats would not get hot and this is what prompted her to go out to the barn in search of sinkers.

Trial testimony of Bridget Sullivan page 237+:

Q. While you were washing those windows, did anyone appear in the diningroom?
A. Yes, sir.

Q.Who was it?
A. Miss Lizzie.

Q. From what room did she appear? Through what door did she appear?
A. She came in from the sitting room into the diningroom.

Q. Will you state what she did when she came in?
A. She came into the dining room, went out in the kitchen, and took an ironing board and placed it on the dining room table and commenced to iron.

Q. You in the meantime washing the windows?
A. I was washing the last window in the dining room.

Q. Did she say anything to you, or you to her, while you were doing that, and she was doing what you describe?
A. She said, "Maggie, are you going out this afternoon?" I said " I don't know; I might and I might not; I don't feel well." She says, "If you go out be sure and lock the door, for Mrs. Borden gone out on a sick call, and I might go out, too." Says I, "Miss Lizzie, who is sick?" " I don't know, she had a note this morning; it must be in town."

Q. Did you complete the washing of your two windows in the dining room?
A. Yes, sir, I washed them before I got through with them.

Q. And in the mean time did she go on ironing whatever she was ironing?
A. Yes, sir; she got through and I went out in the kitchen.

Q. What was she ironing?
A. Handkerchiefs.

Q. And where were the flats that she was ironing with?
A. In the stove, in the kitchen.

Q. Do you know anything of the condition of the fire at that time?
A. No, sir; I couldn't tell how it was.

Q. You say you finished your washing of the windows and went into the kitchen?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do in the kitchen?
A. I washed out the cloths that I had washing the windows, and hung them up behind the stove. As I got through Miss Lizzie came out and said," There is a cheap sale of dress goods at Sargents this afternoon, at eight cents a yard." I don't know that she said "this morning" but "today." And I said " I am going to have one."

Q. What did you do then?
A. I went upstairs to my room.

So we know that Lizzie was ironing handkerchiefs for at least a little while as she stated, if you take the testimony of Bridget at face value. Bridget said she left Lizzie downstairs and the last she saw of her she was going into the dining-room from the kitchen.

If you believe Bridget's story, then Lizzie did not start ironing until after Andrew got home. She states that she did not even get the ironing board out until after Andrew came home, and she was inside washing the windows. It doesn't really give Lizzie enough time to be out in the barn as long as Lizzie says she was after Bridget went upstairs. I also wonder about the route Bridget said Lizzie took from the sitting room to the kitchen to get the ironing board. Why go through the dining room and then into the kitchen, instead of taking the direct route from the door tgat leads from the sitting room to the kitchen?

In Lizzie's testimony she stated that she had begun to iron before Andrew even got home, and had already had the ironing board out before he left. She had started to iron while he was out, and had stopped because her flats would not get hot. She states she did not do any ironing after Andrew got home.

Lizzie Borden Inquest testimony page 68+:

Q. What were you doing in the kitchen when your father came home?
A. I think I was eating a pear when he came in.

Q. What had you been doing before that?
A. Been reading a magazine.

Q. Were you making preparations to iron again?
A. I had sprinkled my clothes, and was waiting for the flat. I sprinkled the clothes before he went out.

Q. Had you built up the fire again?
A. I had put in a stick of wood. There was a few sparks. I put in a stick of wood to try to heat the flat.

Q. You had then started the fire?
A. Yes sir.

Q. The fire was burning when he came in?
A. No sir, but it was smoldering and smoking as though it would come up.

Q. Did it come up after he came in?
A. No sir.

Q. Did you do anymore ironing?
A. I did not. I went in with him, and did not finish.

Q. You did not iron anymore after your father came in?
A. No sir.

Q. Was the ironing board put away?
A. No sir it was on the dining room table.

Q. When was it put away?
A. I don't know. Somebody put it away after the affair happened.


Why the inconsistencies in this part of the story? Lizzie said she did no ironing after Andrew got home, but according to Bridget she didn't even get out the ironing board until then. Was it because Lizzie realized it wouldn't give her enough time to be out in the barn?

Is there any point to be made here, Allen?

Allen @ Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:08 pm wrote:I also forgot to mention that the picture was taken from about halfway up the stairs. From further up I had no problems. I've always thought that they had to be further up than they claimed when they first saw her. This was taken from where I approximated Bridget and Mrs. Churchill claimed to be when they saw the body.

Well of course they had to be farther up the stairs then both of them claimed to be! Of course Mr. Lubinski had to be wrong about what house he was looking at when he saw someone in a dark dress who was not Bridget coming back from the barn (with or without a hat on her head or in her hand) because by God Lizzie is guilty as sin and the facts have to be interpreted as such....

Is the point to be made that Bridget is lying, for it would be impossible for Lizzie to get the board out and start irioning in addition to the other things she did or claimed to have done between the time Andrew arrived and died.

Well, that's one way to look at it, that someone is trying to prove Lizzie guilty.
It's also a chance that people are making up their minds based on evidence or witness statements in testimony.
We all find our own way at our own level, and we often change our minds as we explore.

The topic is about inconsistencies in Lizzie's statements.
We have to compare in order to find these.
We often find hidden time in these inconsistencies also- because if someone was not doing something when they said they were, the common question would be what were they really doing?

I have a question:
It's stated:

So we know that Lizzie was ironing handkerchiefs for at least a little while as she stated, if you take the testimony of Bridget at face value. Bridget said she left Lizzie downstairs and the last she saw of her she was going into the dining-room from the kitchen.

--Allen

Did Bridget say the last she saw of Lizzie "she was going into the dining room from the kitchen?"

Just some rambling thoughts on seeing Abby from the stairs.

I don't think it would be natural at all for people climbing the front stairs to stop and look under the bed in the guest room. I certainly would not. Having climbed them myself several times, I found them narrow and the width of the steps short. Naturally I stopped and took the mandatory peek. But would Lizzie? She must have climbed those steps thousands of times and probably did, like most of us would who were familiar with an area, did so unconsciously and by habit.

The problem with seeing the body from the stairs is that the person has to be looking to their left, and to get a good look they have to stop. Neither are normal when climbing those narrow stairs.

If Lizzie was totally innocent and saw the body while going up the stairs then she would have given the alarm or retreated back down the stairs like Mrs. Churchill. She may, like Bridget, unwisely, enter the room. There would be no reason for her not to give the alarm.

If she was the murderess, or part of some conspiracy, and she noticed that she could see the body from the stairs, she would realize that others could as well. It seems to me her natural reaction to that would be to close the door even though it was not likely anyone else would go up those steps. She would want to delay discovery of Abby until Andrew was disposed of. Lizzie did realize this as her testimony that the door was closed (whether it was or not) seems to indicate.

Good job Harry.
The door narrows things down considerably.
If Lizzie singularly did it, she couldn't be absolutely sure that Bridget wouldn't be going up those front steps and see Abby's body, or that Uncle John might not come back and do the same. The door being left open rings of someone else being alerted that it was time to do Andrew, and in haste they left the door open. Lizzie then would have probably hustled (do the hustle!) outside, and, of course, never went back to upstairs.
An important question is why wouldn't Lizzie want Bridget to discover Andrew? Can anyone answer that?

Audrey @ Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:09 am wrote:

Allen @ Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:08 pm wrote:I also forgot to mention that the picture was taken from about halfway up the stairs. From further up I had no problems. I've always thought that they had to be further up than they claimed when they first saw her. This was taken from where I approximated Bridget and Mrs. Churchill claimed to be when they saw the body.

Well of course they had to be farther up the stairs then both of them claimed to be! Of course Mr. Lubinski had to be wrong about what house he was looking at when he saw someone in a dark dress who was not Bridget coming back from the barn (with or without a hat on her head or in her hand) because by God Lizzie is guilty as sin and the facts have to be interpreted as such....

If I had a hard time seeing under the bed from that spot on the stairs at my height, and had to have my husband take the pictures, then I would assume that anyone else of my height or slightly taller would have a hard time seeing from that spot as well. This is something you yourself pointed out. Do you change your mind now simply because I stated I believe they were farther up on the stairs?

Because they did in fact see the body from the stairs, that is a known fact. But I have been wondering since my first visit if they could actually see it from the point they claimed to have seen it from on the stairs. I really don't see how this mean's that "Lizzie had to be guilty as sin". I think it's a matter of logic to ask this question.

Kat @ Sun Jan 01, 2006 4:16 am wrote:
I have a question:
It's stated:

So we know that Lizzie was ironing handkerchiefs for at least a little while as she stated, if you take the testimony of Bridget at face value. Bridget said she left Lizzie downstairs and the last she saw of her she was going into the dining-room from the kitchen.

--Allen

Did Bridget say the last she saw of Lizzie "she was going into the dining room from the kitchen?"

According to Bridget's testimony at the trial, she stated the last she saw of Lizzie before she went up to her room was Lizzie heading into the dining room from the kitchen. This is what I took the testimony to mean anyway.

Trial testimony of Bridget Sullivan page 285+:

Q. Now, you went upstairs after you got through with your work?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And she was in the dining room ironing handkerchiefs?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. The dining -room door from the sitting- room you think was open?
A. Yes, sir, from the dining-room into the sitting-room was open.

Q. Perhaps I stated wrongly. From the dining-room into the kitchen?
A. Yes.

Q. You think that was open?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Wasn't the kitchen warm that morning?
A. Why, I suppose so.

Q. Do you think you surely noticed that the door from the kitchen into the dining-room was open?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Feel confident about that?
A. Yes, sir. I saw her going back into the dining-room. Whether she shut it after I had gone out of the kitchen or not, I can't tell.

Q. You went directly up stairs?
A. Yes, sir.

That is a really good observation about the door to the guest room and Lizzie saying it was closed, Harry.

Harry @ Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:46 am wrote:
The problem with seeing the body from the stairs is that the person has to be looking to their left, and to get a good look they have to stop. Neither are normal when climbing those narrow stairs.

Here is a thought as to why Mrs. Churchill and Bridget saw the body on their way up the stairs, when someone else normally walking up the steps may not have. When they headed up those stairs, their intent was to look for something. They were looking for Abby. They were probably being very cautious about their actions, in my opinion, because I think both of them were very scared as to what they might find. So they may have been walking up the steps at a slower pace than someone normally would. If you picture that they are walking up the steps slowly, peering around as they went, and they reached a point on the stairs where they both could see under the bed, this might possibly explain why they saw Abby lying there.

If Lizzie were innocent, I guess it's quite possible that she could travel the stairs and not see the body at all. She may have been preoccupied with carrying the clothing up the stairs, the door may have been closed, she may have been lost in thought and didn't notice much of anything, there are any number of reasons why she couldn't have I suppose.

If she was the murderer, could this be why she created the story about the note, to keep Bridget and Andrew from going to look for Abby before she was ready to have her found? Then once everyone was gathered around and Andrew had been found, then she 'thought she heard Abby come in', so they now would go and look for her? Just a couple of ideas I had after reading Harry's post. I guess I've gotten off my own topic a little, but it is still 'loosely based' on the topic of whether or not Lizzie went upstairs.

Did you ever think that probably not even Lizzie would wear a hat to go out to the barn, and that maybe she was going downtown but for some reason changed her mind?

Also, you have a very long discussion of semantics here, because if Lizzie did it, it wouldn't matter if the door was open and she could see the body or not, and if Lizzie didn't do it, the door was probably closed at the times of her passings.

Allen @ Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:45 am wrote:

Audrey @ Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:09 am wrote:

Allen @ Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:08 pm wrote:I also forgot to mention that the picture was taken from about halfway up the stairs. From further up I had no problems. I've always thought that they had to be further up than they claimed when they first saw her. This was taken from where I approximated Bridget and Mrs. Churchill claimed to be when they saw the body.

Well of course they had to be farther up the stairs then both of them claimed to be! Of course Mr. Lubinski had to be wrong about what house he was looking at when he saw someone in a dark dress who was not Bridget coming back from the barn (with or without a hat on her head or in her hand) because by God Lizzie is guilty as sin and the facts have to be interpreted as such....

If I had a hard time seeing under the bed from that spot on the stairs at my height, and had to have my husband take the pictures, then I would assume that anyone else of my height or slightly taller would have a hard time seeing from that spot as well. This is something you yourself pointed out. Do you change your mind now simply because I stated I believe they were farther up on the stairs?

Because they did in fact see the body from the stairs, that is a known fact. But I have been wondering since my first visit if they could actually see it from the point they claimed to have seen it from on the stairs. I really don't see how this mean's that "Lizzie had to be guilty as sin". I think it's a matter of logic to ask this question.

I agree.. they were looking therefore they saw.... Simple as that. Perhaps your wording confuses me... Where you post you thought they were farther up the stairs than they claimed to be... I would take the use of the word claimed as meaning you suspect they lied....

However, and with all due respect.... IMHO I think your total conviction of Lizzie's guilt coupled with your current course of studies make it hard for me to discuss the cases points with you without getting frustrated. ie-- Your post where you speculated that Mr. Lubinski must have been looking at the wrong house... Or they had to be higher on the stairs than they 'claimed' to be.... Yet you do not comment at all on my suggestion that (if she had been in the barn) her hat may have been in her hand...

Maybe it is all semantics... English is my 5th language. I have lived in the US for nearly 20 years now and I still think in French.....

I studied Psychology and Criminology and earned advanced degrees in both and there are times when I think I tend to want to be your professor and say 'wait..... look...... listen......'

As far as inconsistencies-- I agree-- She made many of them!

BTW-- I see you frequently use Wikipedia as a resource... Surely you have seen the news that the resources there have been under question? Do a Google news search for them....

Hey Audrey, I know you're kinda upset, but I was just wonderin'-
Visit the most views site in the history of the Lizzie Andrew Borden Society and make up your own mind about her guilt. "Could All The World Have Known This Was Coming Down;" see what the experts say and really decide for yourself - did Bowen have a telephone; why wasn't the crime phoned in? Why did Lizzie wear a hat to go out to the barn? Why couldn't Andrew enter his own house? See John's posts on "keys," "guest room," and more. Learn big about Lizzie!

I am not upset.... But I am tired of your copy/pasting.

Audrey @ Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:51 pm wrote:
I agree.. they were looking therefore they saw.... Simple as that. Perhaps your wording confuses me... Where you post you thought they were farther up the stairs than they claimed to be... I would take the use of the word claimed as meaning you suspect they lied....

However, and with all due respect.... IMHO I think your total conviction of Lizzie's guilt coupled with your current course of studies make it hard for me to discuss the cases points with you without getting frustrated. ie-- Your post where you speculated that Mr. Lubinski must have been looking at the wrong house... Or they had to be higher on the stairs than they 'claimed' to be.... Yet you do not comment at all on my suggestion that (if she had been in the barn) her hat may have been in her hand...

Yes, I do have conviction of her guilt. This is what I have read into the evidence for myself over the years to form my own personal opinion. I have read over the inquest testimony and trial testimony many times over the years, I did not just start when I became a member of this forum. This is my personal belief based on my study of the evidence.

I did speculate that Lubinski may have been looking at the wrong house. I did not say he must have been. That is attributing something to me I did not say. This is what I did say:

"I have some doubts as to whether or not he was remembering a woman in the Borden yard as opposed to another yard on that street. But he claims to have sold ice cream to Bridget at the house so maybe he did. He knows Bridget to be the servant and stated that when he sold the ice cream at that residence two or three weeks prior to the murders he saw both Bridget and 'the woman'. But he doesn't state who 'the woman' is for the record. I guess this is supposed to be implied. He never actually identifies Lizzie as the woman he saw in the yard either, in my opinion. "

"I guess it is in debate as to whether or not it was the Borden yard."

"I'm also wondering how much attention he actually gave to the woman in the yard. Both Lubinsky and the man who owned the stable testified that he was in a hurry because he was getting the team out later than he normally did. When someone is in a hurry they usually do not pay close attention to things. "

viewtopic.php?t=1496&start=0

That was his regular route. He took that route many times prior to this day. If someone can become confused as to what Lizzie was wearing on that day, why couldn't he be confused as to which house he saw the woman coming from, on a route he took quite often and also while he was in a hurry because he believed he was late? I don't see where this is any wilder than some of the other speculations. Such as the fact that Emma came rushing home to Fairhaven and killed her parents, and then rushed back, and then came back again and nobody was the wiser.

The fact that they were higher up on the stairs than they claimed to be comes from the experiment of me actually standing on those stairs, at the height of 5'4", and not being able to see above the railing at the point that I approximated they claimed to be standing. I could not see without standing on my toes or moving further up the stairs. My husband is 6'2", in that first picture imagine someone who is almost a foot shorter standing there. Could they see? So unless they were a good deal taller than me, or I was mistaken as to what they testified to, I would say that in my opinion they were higher up on the stairs than they claimed. I didn't just sit and speculate that I probably couldn't see over the railing. I actually stood there and tried it for myself. I never said I thought they lied, I said this is where they claimed to be.

I think your frustration probably equals mine. I get just as frustrated when someone cannot see my point of view...for example you. I also understand that the people who think Lizzie did not do it are probably just as passionate about their opinion, or their theory, as I am of mine, and that is there right to be so. There are quite a few times that there have been issues raised on the forum that brought some doubt into my mind about Lizzie's guilt. So I would not say that I am just single minded.

But I ask, if I have already studied the evidence, and this is the conclusion I have come to, why is it imperative that I change it from time to time and believe she isn't, and then she is, and then she isn't? There is NO new evidence on this case. The evidence is over 100 years old; we aren't getting any new leads. What we can do is look at the evidence we have from differing points of view, speculate about different theories, and arrive at the conclusions that best makes sense to us. Did Lizzie do it alone? Did Emma know before hand, or was she an accomplice? Was Bridget involved? Was there a mysterious unknown person involved? Did Dr. Bowen know anything either before hand or after the fact? I don't know. But what I do believe is that Lizzie did it. And if there is a theory that is raised that I don’t particularly believe in, yes I am going to argue as to why I don’t think it’s plausible. I feel that a theory is plausible, I’m going to argue as to why there also. I thought that was the point of this forum?

And I did not comment on your suggestion that she was holding her hat in her hand. I did not know I was required to.

the definition of claim btw:

To put into words positively and with conviction:
affirm, allege, argue, assert, asseverate, aver, avouch, avow, contend, declare, hold, maintain, say, state.
Idiom: have it.
See affirm.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/thes/c/c0255500.html


3 a : to assert in the face of possible contradiction : MAINTAIN <claimed that he'd been cheated> b : to claim to have <organization...which claims 11,000...members -- Rolling

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/claim

To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain: claimed he had won the race; a candidate claiming many supporters.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=claim

claim (SAY) Show phonetics
verb [T]
1 to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD

Good points, all of them... And I agree with most of them.

Personally, I think Lizzie was guilty... I think she acted alone and was incredibly lucky.

However, legally-- she is not guilty (I intentionally did not use the word innocent). Then and now.

I respect a strong woman, and I think we probably have more in common than either of us think. I do not expect you to change your opinion of Lizzie's guilt or innocence. But, you cannot change the evidence, it's inclusion or exclusion from the trial-- and I firmly believe that IF the prussic acid and Lizzie's inquest testimony had been allowed, she would have been found guilty--- and had more than enough basis for appeal. There is no dispute in my mind, legally her inquest testimony should have been excluded from the trial. The prussic acid testimony was red hot and did show intent-- But I am not sure it would have been enough to convict her if offered at trial.

If the p. acid testimony had been included in the trial and she had been convicted, I am not convinced she would have been granted an appeal-- nor am I convinced she would not have been.

As a law enforecement professional, it would be your duty to follow the evidence... and your instincts. Many arrests and convictions have been made based on a good cop following his gut-- TO new evidence which is incriminating.

If you were an investigator in this case and you thought maybe Hiram was mistaken or Bridget and Mrs. C. were mistaken-- you could go and question them and see if that helped them remember better or perhaps provide them new insight to some clue previously missed-- but you cannot do that in this case-- so it is a sort of a waste of time and NOT what a law enforcement professional should do.

I would think it would be hard to come to a truly rock solid conclusion without ALL the evidence being "in". If all the evidence in this case was "in", it would have been solved already. There is too much that is unsettled for me to say Liz IS guilty. I know if it were someone I loved or cared about being accused of this type of crime, I would want every single, possible, bit of evidence "in" and discussed before they were convicted or not. I could not in good conscience send a fellow human being, let alone a family member, to the death chamber, or to life in prison, etc., if there was even the slightest chance that they were innocent.


Tracy...

edit...edit.... edit...I would like to thank you all for letting me be a member of this forum. It's been fun while it lasted...but I do not think it would do me any more good to remain a member.

Melissa, please, stay with the forum. You have made valuable contributions and are an active member. We all disagree with one another now and then.

I agree with Harry, Melissa.

We may come from different POV's, but that does not mean because we are at impasse on some issues, that you should leave the table. My opinions are just that...opinions. I could be so wrong that...well, I could just be wrong. However at this time, and until I find out more information by which to adjust my ideas, I am sticking with what I have...foolish or otherwise.


Tracy...

Edit here- Stuff going on while I was composing my post- It wasn't there a minute ago. Oops.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

We have an interesting example of 2 ways to look at the same thing- 2 "views" so to speak:

Harry--"If Lizzie was totally innocent and saw the body while going up the stairs then she would have given the alarm or retreated back down the stairs like Mrs. Churchill. She may, like Bridget, unwisely, enter the room. There would be no reason for her not to give the alarm.

If she was the murderess, or part of some conspiracy, and she noticed that she could see the body from the stairs, she would realize that others could as well. It seems to me her natural reaction to that would be to close the door even though it was not likely anyone else would go up those steps."
. . . . . .
John--"Also, you have a very long discussion of semantics here, because if Lizzie did it, it wouldn't matter if the door was open and she could see the body or not, and if Lizzie didn't do it, the door was probably closed at the times of her passings."

--I don't know if anyone noticed, but the food for thought is that each of these observations makes sense, and represents a different viewpoint upon the same subject.
Very interesting.

I've been on those stairs too and on my first visit, with Bill Pavao lying on the floor where Abby was, anxiously awaiting my ascention of the stairs so I could have the unique and ulitimate Borden murder experience- I forgot to look under the bed as I passed up because the stairs were so shallow I felt safest watching my step!.
I actually had to go back a few steps and take the view.
(Thanks Bill!)
I agree with Harry.
The steps are awkward and the railing is too low as well.
But also, I think one would have to be looking to notice anything.
And we don't know how much different this bed there now may differ from the original, in clearance off the floor for visibility's sake.
There were 2 steps upon which, at 5'3", I could see the form lying there. One, I think, is the 7th stair. But I could also see from the next one- so there were 2 chances to see.

I may be way off, and maybe this has been previously mentioned, but when Bridget and Mrs. Churchill went up the stairs to look for Abby, could they have been making their ascent from a 'side-ways' position, with their backs leaning against the wall (south)...slowly inching their way up the stairs in frightened anticipation of what they may find ? (If Bridget didn't already 'know" ?)

This way, the 'under-the-bed' view perspective would be more easily attained...without having to worry as much about the steepness/size of the steps, position of the handrail, or skirts getting in the way...?


Tracy...

According to Bridget's testimony at the trial, she stated the last she saw of Lizzie before she went up to her room was Lizzie heading into the dining room from the kitchen. This is what I took the testimony to mean anyway.

Trial testimony of Bridget Sullivan page 285+:

--Allen

Thanks for the testimony.
I hadn't realized that Bridget saw Lizzie leave the kitchen before she went upstairs.

TY for quoting me. I hope Allen doesn't dump, she's cute.
Lubinski had no reason to lie, but Bridget did. Whether she was involved or not, she had to get her horse in the right track. So what Bridget said should be looked at more closely, and I think this is what Allen was getting at. I have never ostracized a member, and I think you guys weren't very nice to Allen.
But it's a new year - maybe we'll all be better.

Oh, by the way, your clock is slow by about 2 and 1/2 minutes according to satellite time. I wouldn't have even mentioned it, but that I'm not sure why you even list it anyway.

Missy, you've invested a lot of time and thought into your posts here and maybe that will be useful to you later?
You can consider this a place to argue, make a point, discuss- it's all honing your writing skills and communication abilities.
Maybe you can even collect your stuff from here and use it on a resume someday!
Maybe taking a break- but surely not leaving?
There's a lot of respect for you here.

I've done a lot of thinking, and I think that actually leaving the forum would be a silly thing to do. I enjoy being a member and talking about the case with everyone here a little to much to go away that easily. Even if I don't always agree with what someone says, I'm still gaining a new incite from their thoughts and opinions. I enjoy that very much. I enjoy the exchange of ideas and opinions a great deal, even the ones I don't agree with.

I apologize for my behavior. I was terribly frustrated, and I thought that if I'm apologizing for my behavior I should also explain it.

Can I go back and question witnesses? I sure can't. But I do not like being told that to speculate about things is a waste of time, and NOT what a law enforcement official should do. I took that statement to mean I wasn't supposed to speculate as to what could've happened, or give any thought to the idea a witness may have been mistaken because the witnesses could never be requestioned to prove it. That I should never think that anyone could've been mistaken, or lying, because I had no way to verify my ideas. If you could prove a speculation, it wouldn't be a speculation, it would be a fact. Maybe I misinterpreted her meaning. But if this is what it was intended to mean everyone on this forum could be said to be wasting their time at one point or another. I personally don't think that any question or speculation is a waste of time for anyone. If it is something that you truly think is a plausible idea, follow it, investigate it, argue it.

I'm not trying to change any evidence, there is no way after all of these years the prussic acid or inquest testimonies could be made admissable. But I can still argue as to why I think they should have been. Many people before me have argued the same thing. I believed Audrey was implying that explaining why I thought it should have been admissable was a waste of time also. Again, maybe I misinterpreted her meaning.

I'm not trying to twist the evidence to fit my theories of Lizzie being guilty either. Everyone interprets things differently, and there are more ways than one to look at the same piece of evidence. Something being a member of this forum has really shown me. I don't want to lose that.

I also didn't much like the statement that sometimes Audrey feels like she 'tends to want to be my professor'...I don't need anyone to teach or show me how to form my own opinions...and I also felt this was in essence putting herself up on a higher level than me intellectually, and that I need to be shown how to interpret things for myself properly. Again, if I have misinterpreted the meanings of her statements, I apologize.

I also understand what Tracy is saying about wanting someone on trial for murder to get the best trial possible, and that in her words "I could not in good conscience send a fellow human being, let alone a family member, to the death chamber, or to life in prison, etc., if there was even the slightest chance that they were innocent. " But not even the most wild speculations are going to send Lizzie to jail or the the death chamber at this point. We are neither the judge nor the jury in this case. This is what leaves it open for speculation, that it has technically never been solved, nor will it ever be solved, the witnesses are dead, any new evidence lost to time, and etc... And as I said before, if a speculation could be proven, it wouldn't be a speculation, it would be a fact.