Lizzie Borden Society Forum

In the Lizzie Borden Sourcebook on page 224, article titled Under Fire Bridget Sullivan on the witness stand, it states that Bridget says that Lizzie
said

"Come down Bridget, run for the doctor; father is killed." I thought Lizzie said: "Come quick Bridget father is dead."

Which is it? Thought she told her to get the doctor after she said that.

It's substantially the same statement but phrased differently. If the statements were exactly the same I would wonder if they weren't rehearsed.

I didn't think of it like that Yooper. Thanks. I guess I was reading into it too much.

The Sourcebook is newspaper reportage, correct? They are oftentimes paraphrasing.
What about checking what Lizzie said she said in her testimony?
And you can check Bridget's testimony as to what she says Lizzie said, as well? And report back?

Actually what Lizzie thought the state of her father was is very important. I examined the Witness and Inquest statements. Will do the Preliminary and Trial later.

The following is from the Witness statements, page 2-3, dated August 4th, Fleet's notes. The first is what Fleet says Lizzie told him, the second what Fleet says Bridget told him:

“I was ironing handkerchiefs in the Dining room, which I left and went in the barn, up stairs, and remained there for half an hour. Bridget had gone up stairs, and when I came back I found father dead on the lounge, and went to the back stairs and called Bridget (servant) down stairs. Told her that some one had killed father, and told her to get Dr. Bowen.”

"...Went up stairs at 10.55 to fix my room. After I had been in the room about ten minutes, Lizzie called me down stairs, saying that her father was dead, some one had killed him, go and get Dr. Bowen. ..."

So both Lizzie and Bridget are in agreement as to what Lizzie said - he was dead and someone had come in and killed him.

Lizzie testified at the Inquest, page 78:

"Q. When you saw your father where was he?
A. On the sofa.
Q. What was his position?
A. Lying down.
Q. Describe anything else you noticed at that time.
A. I did not notice anything else, I was so frightened and horrified. I ran to the foot of the stairs and called Maggie.
Q. Did you notice that he had been cut?
A. Yes; that is what made me afraid.
Q. Did you notice that he was dead?
A. I did not know whether he was or not."

Same page:

"Q. Who did you send Maggie for?
A. Dr. Bowen. She came back and said Dr. Bowen was not there.
Q. What did you tell Maggie?
A. I told her he was hurt.
Q. When you first told her?
A. I says "Go for Dr. Bowen as soon as you can, I think father is hurt."
Q. Did you then know that he was dead?
A. No, sir."

This is what Dr. Bowen says Lizzie told hime ehen he arrived (Inquest, p117):

"... I met Miss Lizzie in the hall, and Bridget. I says “Lizzie what is the matter?” I spoke pretty quick. I says “what is the matter Lizzie?” She said she was afraid her father had been stabbed or hurt. I think the word stabbed was used. ..."

Then on page 121 Dr Bowen says:

"Q. The conversation with relation to Mr. Borden’s having had trouble with some man was all right then?
A. Yes, before I went in to see him. She said Mr. Borden I am afraid is injured, or father, I dont know whether it was Mr. Borden or father; “I am afraid he is stabbed”. And just the same as I have said.
Q. Was is not very apparent when you went in that he was not only stabbed, but very much cut up; was it not very apparent that he was very badly cut up?
A. Yes."

Unfortunately Bridget's inquest testimony is lost but we do have Lizzie testifying she at first thought he was injured or hurt and Dr. Bowen says that is what he was told when he first arrived.

That is good stuff, Harry! Just what we needed here, thanks!

Why would she need the doctor for her father if she knew he was dead?

It always seemed like she was sending Bridget for the doctor because she (Lizzie) needed one after finding her father dead.

I know the police weren't always held in high regard, but does seem peculiar whether Andrew was just injured or dear that Lizzie didn't send Bridget to alert the police as well.

You are thinking Lizzie wanted the doctor for herself? I hadn't thought of that.
If she did, he didn't care for her much when he came. He said something like *there was a death here- the living can take care of themselves.*

Here it is:
Inquest
Dr. Bowen
A. . . .By the way, I might put in, it does not
122 (29)

connect, but I will go back to the time when I came down the second time. I can describe her condition at that time when I came down stairs the second time, after I found the mother was dead. Miss Russell was at her side in a chair, and was working over her at that time; in a minute or two she got her into the dining room on a sofa or lounge, on the end of that. She was lying down, and she was fanning her, and had wet cloths put on her head, and they were working over her in that way.
Q. Was she faint?
A. Not as I know of at that time. As I found two people murdered there, I supposed the rest would take care of themselves pretty well.

But she did get all those bromo-caffeines and morphine later...

If she was feeling faint and anxious after finding her father dead, it would make sense to send for a doctor.

What did Dr. Bowen do for the dead? Except to do some nosing around.

Perhaps Lizzie wasn't sure who to call for, the police, an under taker, a doctor. Or maybe Lizzie wasn't sure if her father was dead and maybe felt it was best to give her father the benefit of the doubt. I would want the doctor to pronounce my father dead. Perhaps Lizzie felt the same way.

If I were Lizzie I think I would have sent Bridget for the police too and gotten myself out of the house.

-1bigsteve (o:

That's a good point, Cynthia. Also that Lizzie may have wanted the doctor for herself.
But... it seems like a while before Bowen took much notice of Lizzie's state. And I always thought that statement by him was odd- as you ask- what could he do for the dead? The living needed him more. He's an odd one, I think...

I also NBcatlover have always taken it as Lizzie wanted the Dr. for herself. Maybe it's just a New Englanders interpretation of that statement?

Both Lizzie (in her own words) and Dr. Bowen (in his own words) say that Lizzie didn't know if her father was dead when she discovered him.

But Fleet (in his own words) says otherwise.

His record of what Lizzie and Bridget said is interesting in that, according to him, their statements were almost identical --i.e.
Lizzie: ". . . I found father dead on the lounge, and went to the back stairs and called Bridget (servant) down stairs. Told her that some one had killed father, and told her to get Dr. Bowen."
Bridget: "Lizzie called me down stairs, saying that her father was dead, some one had killed him, go and get Dr. Bowen. ..." (W.S. p.3+)

Would mistress and servant use virtually the same words? Would Lizzie not call Bridget 'Maggie' as she did at the inquest when asked the same question? Would Bridget not refer to Lizzie as Miss Lizzie?

I suspect that, although Fleet writes as if quoting verbatim, he was probably paraphrasing -- and we should remember that his report of what Bridget and Lizzie said comes to us second hand.

More applicable testimony. Bridget at the Preliminary:

Page 27:

"Q. You were still lying on the bed---
A. Yes Sir.
Q. --- when she called to you. What did she say?
A. She holloed to me. Of course I knew something was the matter, she holloed so loud. I asked her what was the matter. She said “come down quick”, that her father was dead.
Q. She called your name, Maggie?
A. Yes Sir. I came down, and asked what was the matter, and was going into the sitting room. She told me to go quick for Dr. Bowen."
----------------
Q. Did she say anything when you got down stairs?
A. She said “go for Dr. Bowen”. I ran ahead, I did not know what was the matter. She told me to “go quick and get Dr. Bowen.”

Bridget at the Trial, p240:

"Q. What is the next that occurred as you were lying upon the bed?
A. Miss Lizzie hollered, "Maggie, come down!" I said, "What is the matter?" She says, "Come down quick; father's dead: somebody come in and killed him."

Then on p286+ Bridget throws doubt on the exact wording:

Q. Do you remember the exact words that she used?
A. She says, "Maggie, come down," and she hollered with such a voice that I says, "What is the matter?" She says, "Come down quick. Father is dead. Somebody came in and killed him."
Q. Now, when you gave it before to-day, did you give it just like that?
A. I think so.
Q. Did you say "Father is killed"?
A. "Father is killed" or "dead." I can't tell which of the two, ---just the same any way.
Q. It means the same, but I am trying to see if you could remember the words. You don't quite, do you?
A. I think she said, "Father is killed; somebody came in."
Q. Other times you have said, haven't you, a little something different? It may mean the same.
A. I don't know. I think it is the words she said, either dead or killed. I can't tell which of them.
Q. Now, when you came down were you excited?
A. Why, yes, sir.
Q. You really were, weren't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You found then that Mr. Borden was either very badly injured or else he was dead?
A. I didn't know what was the matter. She said he was either dead or killed. I couldn't tell which of the two words now, of course. She told me to go after the doctor, and so I did."

Dr. Bowen at the Preliminary is also unsure of the wording (p401):

"Q. Describe her manner, and where she stood, not her clothing, everything that took place, as near as you can recollect.
A. I could not say whether she was in the side hall or in the kitchen, I think in the hall.
Q. What did you do?
A. I asked her where her father was- -- or perhaps I asked her---. She said he had been killed, or stabbed. I says "did you see anybody"? She said she did not see anybody. I asked her if she heard anybody. She said she did not. Then I asked her where her father was. She said he was in the sitting room. I went directly through the dining room to the door of the sitting room, the door from the dining room to the sitting room."

Then on page 409:

"Q. Was she alone when you saw her?
A. I think Mrs. Churchill was with her, I am not certain.
Q. What was the first thing you said to her?
A. The first thing I said to her was "why Lizzie, what is the matter?" She said father had been killed or stabbed. That is all I remember just now."

At the Trial, p300, again he is unsure:

Q. Will you state what occurred, what talk there was between you and the prisoner at that time?
A. I said as soon as I entered the house, "Lizzie, what is the matter?"
Q. Her reply, if you please.
A. Her reply was, "Father has been killed" or "stabbed"; stabbed or killed. I wouldn't say which it was.

The confusion appears to be between killed and stabbed. Can we take that to mean between dead and injured?

What I find odd is that Bridget testifies Lizzie told her Andrew was either stabbed or killed -- but when she speaks to Phebe Bowen and Alice Russell right after Andrew is discovered Bridget mentions nothing to either about foul play. She tells Alice that Mr. Borden is worse –“I don’t know but what he is dead” and Alice only hears there has been murder done after she’s been at the house for awhile.(Inquest) And according to Phebe Borden (Preliminary Hearing), Bridget didn’t tell even tell her Andrew was dead – Phebe heard the news from Dr. Bowen when he came back home.

So did Bridget know when she left the house there was murder afoot but just not want to say so?

I don't think Bridget had seen Andrew for herself at the time she went for Alice Russell, so to her, all she had was Lizzie's word that something was seriously wrong with Andrew. Lizzie was not in any hurry to vacate the premises, so maybe Bridget was confused about the likelihood of an intruder having murdered Andrew. What Lizzie was saying did not correlate with what she was doing, so perhaps Bridget didn't quite know what to tell people at first.

I think you're right, Harry. The ambiguity seems to lie in whether Lizzie said her father was dead or injured. But there's also the question as to when murder crept into the equation.

If Bridget's Prelim Testimony is true (Lizzie just told her Andrew was dead but not killed) then it makes sense she didn't say anything about foul play to either Mrs. Bowen or Alice Russell when she first spoke to them. (I think we've had thoughts that Phebe Bowen was a little fragile, so Bridget may not have even wanted to mention Andrew's death to her.)

But if, as Bridget says at trial, Lizzie told her somebody came in and killed him, it does seem odd she wouldn't have at least said something about that to Alice Russell when she went to collect her.

Dr. Bowen also has two different versions of what happened. As Harry's posts show, Bowen suggests at the Preliminary Hearing that Lizzie may have said her father was "killed" whereas at the Inquest he testifies: “She said she was afraid her father had been stabbed or hurt. . . . " . . . "I did not know that he was [dead] when I saw him. I took hold of his pulse, and found he was pulseless. Then I went back and informed them that he was dead."

So, closer in time to the event, Dr. Bowen claims Lizzie told him her father was hurt, but not that he was dead and it had been up to Bowen to make that determination and pass the news on to her. (Bowen, Inquest.)

So I don't know if we're going to glean what Lizzie said from the testimony of either Dr. Bowen or Bridget.

Maybe we have to go back to Adelaide Churchill who was questioned at the Inquest, the Preliminary Hearing, and the Trial and exhibited extreme consistency in her testimony. She says at all three court appearances that Lizzie called her over saying: "O, Mrs. Churchill, do come over; someone has killed father." (She says 'somebody' at the first two hearings, but changes it to 'someone' at trial. She truly is a model of consistency.)

If the message was "father has been injured" or "father is very ill", then going for the doctor makes sense. To a lesser degree so does going for Alice Russell, but what could Alice Russell accomplish under those circumstances that Bridget could not? Furthermore, where is Abby if someone else is needed? The same makes sense if the message was "father is dead", but again, where is Abby? Why would Bridget not ask that question when she was sent to fetch Alice rather than Abby?

If the message was "father has been killed" or "injured", it tends to imply an intruder and the question becomes why is Lizzie not afraid to be in the house alone? Why not go for the police rather than Alice Russell? Why subject these people to possible injury if the intruder is still present? Why are the priorities 1)doctor and 2)Alice Russell rather than 1)police and 2)Abby? If Andrew had been injured by an intruder, why not find another doctor if Bowen was out?

Bridget may have thought Lizzie was overstating things if her actions were inconsistent with the message. Just the fact that Bridget was going for Alice Russell under the circumstances rather than an alternative doctor, the police, or Abby had to seem confusing to her.

Furthermore, where is Abby if someone else is needed? The same makes sense if the message was "father is dead", but again, where is Abby? Why would Bridget not ask that question when she was sent to fetch Alice rather than Abby?

--Yooper


Bridget
Prelim
29
Q. What did you do then?
A. We were talking, I said I would like to know where Mrs. Borden was. I said I would go over to Mrs. Whitehead's. She said she would like us to search for Mrs. Borden, she told us to go and search for her. I said I would go over there, if I knew where the house was. She said she was positive she heard her coming in, and would not we go up stairs and see.

But Bridget ask that question after she had already gone to alert Alice. In fact after she had already been upstairs to get a sheet to cover Mr. Borden. That is a good question. Why didn't she ask about going for Mrs. Borden before going to get Alice? Could it be that she didn't realize just how serious the situation was until after Dr. Bowen? Maybe she thought Lizzie was sending for Alice to help her tend to Andrew until the doctot could arrive. Neither she nor Mrs. Churchill had seen Andrew for themselves. Lizzie claims to only have seen a brief glimpse herself.

Trial testimony of Bridget Sullivan page 247:

Q. Where were you they then when you returned from your errand in seeking Miss Russell?
A. I think Miss Lizzie was in the kitchen with Mrs. Churchill, and Mrs. Churchill and I went into the dining-room, and Dr. Bowen came out from the sitting room and said, "He is murdered; he is murdered."

Q. What happened then?
A. "Oh," I says," Lizzie if I knew where Mrs. Whitehead was I would go and see if Mrs. Borden was there and tell her that Mr. Borden was very sick. " She says, " Maggie, I am almost positive I heard her coming in. Won't you go upstairs and see?" I said "I am not going upstairs alone."

-----------------------------------

page 248:

Q. When you went up with the key from Dr. Bowen from the sitting room, did you find the entrance to Mr. Borden's sleeping room locked or unlocked?
A. Locked.

Q. When you returned with the sheets did you lock the door?
A. Yes, sir.

Q.It was after that then that the conversation about going to Mrs. Whitehead's occured?
A. Yes, sir.

Yes, that is a good question. Presumably Bridget thought Abby was still out; but why didn't she suggest going for Abby as soon as Andrew was discovered rather than much later?

Note too, that apparently even after Bridget heard from Dr. Bowen that Andrew been murdered, she was only prepared to tell Mrs. Borden he was "very sick".

Maybe that explains why Alice Russell was surprised when she first heard the word "murder" at the house. Perhaps it was a matter of form -- to break the news in stages -- and that's why Bridget didn't tell Alice anything about that part of it.

Initially I thought it more likely that Bridget's Preliminary Hearing testimony was closer to the truth -- that Lizzie told her Andrew was dead and nothing more; but Mrs. Churchill's "someone has killed father" makes me rethink that.

Now I'm leaning towards Bridget's trial testimony where she says:
"Miss Lizzie hollered, "Maggie, come down!" I said, "What is the matter?" She says, "Come down quick; father's dead: somebody come in and killed him." (Bridget: Trial, 240)

Mrs. Churchill also claims she told Thomas Bowles Andrew had been killed when she ran to get help.
"I went across and called for Thomas Bowles. I says “somebody has killed Mr. Borden; go and get a Doctor.” (A. Churchill: Inquest)

[Bowles is questioned in court but not about that.]

So getting back to the original point in this thread where we were trying to establish what Lizzie thought about the state of her father, I'm now of the opinion that when she started calling for help, she probably knew he was past help and furthermore that his death was far from a natural one.

Witness Statements, p44, Albert Chase:
Alice M. Russell says that Bridget Sullivan came to her house, 33 Borden street, at 11.15 and told her Mr. Borden had been badly hurt, and Lizzie wanted her to come up there right away.

Witness Statements, p2, John Fleet quoting Lizzie:
Bridget had gone up stairs, and when I came back I found father dead on the lounge, and went to the back stairs and called Bridget (servant) down stairs. Told her that some one had killed father, and told her to get Dr. Bowen.

Witness Statements, p3, John Fleet quoting Bridget:
After I had been in the room about ten minutes, Lizzie called me down stairs, saying that her father was dead, some one had killed him, go and get Dr. Bowen.

Statements can sometimes be embellished with current knowledge. Lizzie might have originally said that Andrew had been injured, but the statement evolves to Andrew had been killed when that has been realized. In this case, given the witness statements, I don't think that was true. John Fleet's notes were taken on August 4th.

Lizzie requested that Dr. Bowen understate the gravity of the situation in his telegram to Emma out of consideration to Emma's hostess, in deference to her age or physical condition. It may well have be considered good form to buffer the message in some way in general to allow some privacy or to follow a hierarchy with the news.

Yooper quote-partial

John Fleet's notes were taken on August 4th.

Here is what Joyce Williams had to say on the matter of Fleet's Notes:
Assistant Marshal Fleet's Notes of His Interview with Lizzie Borden, Bridget Sullivan, and John Morse.

The only known records of the police investigations in these early days are the handwritten notes of Assistant Marshal John Fleet. He recorded his questioning of Lizzie, Bridget, and Uncle John on the day of the murders. Fleet's manuscript is printed here just as written, including spelling and punctuation errors and his abbreviations. Illegible manuscript is indicated by _____. --page 18, from LIZZIE BORDEN: A Case Book of Family and Crime in the 1890s, Joyce G. Williams,J. Eric Smithburn,M. Jeanne Peterson, editors,1980 T.I.S. Publications


--The problem is that we don't know when exactly Fleet put down his notes on paper that became the first part of The Witness Statements. As Williams read the manuscript first hand in Fleet's writing, and included blanks where it was illegible, and as these blanks were later filled in by someone when included in the document we call The Witness Statements, we read the sections and cannot know if they were recorded on the day the witness spoke, or composed from memory hurriedly once it was known when Knowlton was coming to town. He came Monday night before the Inquest started. The newspapers note that information which was gathered was brought to him when he came that evening, the 8th.

So, I am not assuming any of the statements were penned while the person was being interviewed, altho it is possible they were- and also possible that if they were not at first, that the police got better as days passed at taking down info whilst it was given. I think the police learned somewhat from this investigation.

As to a fine reading and interpretation of when Fleet may have written his notes from August 4th, notice Dr. Williams states: He [Fleet] recorded his questioning of Lizzie, Bridget, and Uncle John on the day of the murders.
That can read as Fleet questioned Lizzie/Bridget/Morse on the day of the murders and recorded it.

As we read on, we do see Fleet giving Morse these timely expressions:
I arrived here yesterday afternoon from New Bedford.
and
...got up about six o'clock this morning got breakfast about 7 a.m.
They do sound like the 4th.

Then at the end of Morse's statement is included this:
Mr. Morse afterwards asked if I suspected that the Murderer could have been concealed in the house last night? I replied that I did not, then I said that he might have been in the house, but could not see how he could have been there without some of them seeing him. He said it was very strange that this should be done in the daytime, and right in the heart of the city. It put him in mind of the Nathan murder which was twenty or twenty-five years ago. In that case they never found the murderer.

Again, this may be suspected of being added later, but probably the same day, or that night, etc. because of the "last night" comment.
It's possible too, that Morse was recorded as he spoke on the day, but the others (Bridget/Lizzie) recorded later that day or some other time from jottings or memory.

My only point is that without backup information as to when any notes were written by anyone, or a very careful analysis of the notations and finding such words as *today* or *this morning*,we would be assuming.

If we look at it another way, someone called the police (Cunningham). Why would the police be needed if Andrew's condition was due to anything other than death or injury caused by someone unknown? If Andrew had been reported as simply injured or even dead with no cause given, there would have been no need to involve the police. All anyone involved in the conversation which lead to summoning the police knew for certain was what Lizzie had said about it.

What counts is the accuracy of the notes, not the time they were written. If we are to assume inaccuracy, then we must know for certain that the notes were written after the fact by a person with a bad memory. I have no reason to believe either contention.

Does Dr. Williams' statement have some context? The statement that Fleet recorded the notes might be in response to a question about if he recorded them. With or without a question about when he recorded them, the statement referring to when makes sense by itself.

A closer look at Williams' statement seems to indicate the word and phrase "on" the day of the murders. If the question was "if" he recorded the notes, the word "on" is completely unnecessary. The statement refers to when, not if.

diana @ Fri May 01, 2009 2:12 pm wrote:Yes, that is a good question. Presumably Bridget thought Abby was still out; but why didn't she suggest going for Abby as soon as Andrew was discovered rather than much later?

Note too, that apparently even after Bridget heard from Dr. Bowen that Andrew been murdered, she was only prepared to tell Mrs. Borden he was "very sick".

Maybe that explains why Alice Russell was surprised when she first heard the word "murder" at the house. Perhaps it was a matter of form -- to break the news in stages -- and that's why Bridget didn't tell Alice anything about that part of it.

Initially I thought it more likely that Bridget's Preliminary Hearing testimony was closer to the truth -- that Lizzie told her Andrew was dead and nothing more; but Mrs. Churchill's "someone has killed father" makes me rethink that.

Now I'm leaning towards Bridget's trial testimony where she says:
"Miss Lizzie hollered, "Maggie, come down!" I said, "What is the matter?" She says, "Come down quick; father's dead: somebody come in and killed him." (Bridget: Trial, 240)

Mrs. Churchill also claims she told Thomas Bowles Andrew had been killed when she ran to get help.
"I went across and called for Thomas Bowles. I says “somebody has killed Mr. Borden; go and get a Doctor.” (A. Churchill: Inquest)

[Bowles is questioned in court but not about that.]

So getting back to the original point in this thread where we were trying to establish what Lizzie thought about the state of her father, I'm now of the opinion that when she started calling for help, she probably knew he was past help and furthermore that his death was far from a natural one.

Maybe Bridget thought that Abby was still out, and the killer wass in the house;or that maybe Abby did come back much later and was gotten. Maybe thats the reason for not looking for Abby later.
abb

My post about Fleet's Notes and the Witness Statements is purely cautionary- not really debatable. It's not a commentary on anyone's opinion here- just a word to the wise upon reading and interpreting, obviously.

And yes, we have agreed in the past that statements made closer to the time of the event, by a witness, may be more believable. But, remember, if the policeman wrote it down Monday evening because the D.A was coming, and after talking about the case with his brethren, there might be some hearsay or embellishment added in. It's also been agreed that these were not the most top-notch trained professionals whose notes we're reading.

A search for "stabbed" and "hurt" in the Primary Documents. Some of this has already been posted but still added here.
(I did not search the Prelim. oops.)

Dr. Bowen
Trial
300
Q. Will you state what occurred, what talk there was between you and the prisoner at that time?
A. I said as soon as I entered the house, "Lizzie, what is the matter?"

Q. Her reply, if you please.
A. Her reply was, "Father has been killed" or "stabbed"; stabbed or killed. I wouldn't say which it was.
~ ~ ~ ~
Charles Newhall
1432
Q. How did you go to the bank?
A. Went right down Second street.
Q. Who with, if anybody?
A. Mr. Gardner.
Q. Walk?
A. No, sir, ride.
Q. In going down did you hear anything about any trouble or difficulty?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was it?
A. Some one said there was a man stabbed another one.
Q. Did you know who, or did he say who?
A. No, I didn't understand he did.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Trial
CHARLES S. SAWYER, Sworn.
1468+

Q. (By Mr. Jennings.) What is your name?
A. Charles S. Sawyer.
Q. What is your business?
A. Well, I am a painter; ornamental, fancy painter.
Q. Do you recall the day of the Borden murder?
A. I do.
Q. What was the first that you heard of the trouble, Mr. Sawyer?
Page 1469
A. I heard there was a man stabbed by the name of Borden.
Q. Where were you at that time?
A. I was in Mr. A. E. Rich's shop.
Q. Where is that?
A. It is No. 81 Second street.
. . .
1476+

CROSS EXAMINATION.

Q. (By Mr. Knowlton.) Mr. Sawyer, how soon did you know that there had been a killing?
A. Well, it was after I had been in the house some time when I knew there had been a killing.
Q. When you were stationed at the door, what did you suppose there
Page 1477
was?
A. I thought a man had been stabbed.
Q. When you were stationed at the door you did not know that there was more than one at that time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Of course before you went up stairs you found that both were killed?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. So that you had been there perhaps ten or fifteen minutes before you found it out?
A. I don't know as it was quite that long. I could not state the time accurately on that.
~ ~ ~ ~
Knowlton
Trial
Closing
1794+
. . .Then when Bridget came back she wanted to find her. She knew that one of the mother's only relatives was Mrs. Whitehead, the sister of her husband, as it turned out, because it turned out by Miss Borden's cross-examination, and she said, "Oh, Lizzie, if I knew where Mrs. Whitehead lived, I
Page 1795
would go and see if Mrs. Borden is there, and tell her that Mr. Borden is very sick."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lizzie
Inquest
78(35)
Q. Who did you send Maggie for?
A. Dr. Bowen. She came back and said Dr. Bowen was not there.
Q. What did you tell Maggie?
A. I told her he was hurt.
Q. When you first told her?
A. I says "Go for Dr. Bowen as soon as you can, I think father is hurt."
Q. Did you then know that he was dead?
A. No, sir.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Inquest
Dr. Bowen
117(24)
Q. What was the first information that you had of the tragedy.
A. I drove up to my house, and my wife came to the door, and made a motion, and says “they want you quick over to Mr. Borden’s.” The same time I think Thomas Bowles, a man that works across the street told me, at the same time, I dont know which was first. I thought probably they were worse, so I went right over quick.
. . .
. . .I says “Lizzie what is the matter?” I spoke pretty quick. I says “what is the matter Lizzie?” She said she was afraid her father had been stabbed or hurt. I think the word stabbed was used.

~ ~ ~

Witness Statements
43
L. L. Hall, 83 Second street, says that Mrs. Churchill came to his stable after a man that works for her to go after a doctor for Mr. Borden, who had been badly hurt. Mr. Hall says it was then 10.30. He is positive of this, for he looked at his watch.

John J. Cunningham, who carries papers, was going by Mr. Hall’s stable, and says Mrs. Churchill and several men were talking very serious. He asked them what the matter was, and a boy by the name of Albert Pierce told him that some one had stabbed A. J. Borden at his house. Cunningham says be went right into Mr. Gorman’s store, corner of Second and Borden streets, and telephoned what he had heard, first to the City Marshal, then to the Daily Globe office. By the clock in Mr. Gorman’s
44
store, it was then ten minutes to eleven; but it may not have been right.

James Leonard, who drives for Dr. Bowen, says be had drove up to the house with the doctor, when his wife came out and told the doctor to go right over to Borden’s, as something terrible had happened. It was then five minutes past eleven.

Alice M. Russell says that Bridget Sullivan came to her house, 33 Borden street, at 11.15 and told her Mr. Borden had been badly hurt, and Lizzie wanted her to come up there right away.

Charles Sawyer says that he went up Second street with Miss Russell and that she went into the Borden house, and as he turned to go away, he met Officer G. W. Allen, and went into the house with the officer.

Alexander B. Coggeshall, a stable keeper on Second street, left his stable at 11.10 to go to diner. He stopped to talk with Mrs Buffington, and she told him that there had been trouble in the next house. Just then Bridget Sullivan came out of the house on the run, and went over to Southard H. Miller’s house, and went in. Soon after Mr. Miller came to the door, and called him over, and said “Here Alex, I want you to listen to what this girl says,” Bridget then told them that Mr. Borden and his wife had both been murdered. Mr. Coggeshall then went to dinner at Mrs. Tripp’s No. 80 Second street, and he told her of the murder. It was then 11.20 by the clock in the restaurant.

--Do you guys want newspaper references? I have not yet looked there. Someone can do a timeline, maybe?

If the police notes are substantially corroborated by later testimony, then they are probably accurate, regardless of when they were written. If the notes were written at a later date, it does not necessarily imply inaccuracy. If there is nothing to indicate the notes were written at a later time, then there is no basis for an argument of inaccuracy or embellishment. The statement by Williams seems to indicate the notes were written by Fleet on the day of the murders. I am unfamiliar with what has been agreed to with respect to the inaccuracy of the witness statements, are those in agreement trained professionals?

I used to think the date of each police statement in the Witness Statements indicated the day it was written. But if you read Albert Chase’s report, for example, you can see that’s a fallacy.

He writes: “Fall River, Mass. August 5, 1892. The following articles and wearing apparel were this afternoon taken from a washtub in the cellar wash room of the Borden House by orders of the City Marshal and Medical Examiner, and were buried under my direction in the yard back of the barn.”

And in the same report, with no date change, he goes on to say: “About the middle of the next week Dr. Dolan ordered all the articles dug up. After taking out pieces of clothing and of the carpet, they were ordered buried again. This time they were all put in a box.” (Witness Statements,42)

So statements were obviously expanded on after the fact.

Thanks for the comprehensive excerpts on 'stabbed' and 'hurt', Kat!

diana @ Tue May 05, 2009 4:53 pm wrote:I used to think the date of each police statement in the Witness Statements indicated the day it was written. But if you read Albert Chase’s report, for example, you can see that’s a fallacy.

He writes: “Fall River, Mass. August 5, 1892. The following articles and wearing apparel were this afternoon taken from a washtub in the cellar wash room of the Borden House by orders of the City Marshal and Medical Examiner, and were buried under my direction in the yard back of the barn.”

And in the same report, with no date change, he goes on to say: “About the middle of the next week Dr. Dolan ordered all the articles dug up. After taking out pieces of clothing and of the carpet, they were ordered buried again. This time they were all put in a box.” (Witness Statements,42)

So statements were obviously expanded on after the fact.

Thanks for the comprehensive excerpts on 'stabbed' and 'hurt', Kat!

Albert Chase seems to have made a note to the effect that he directed the burial of clothing from the Borden washroom. That seems to have been done on that day, it was a record of what he did on that day. At a later date, Albert Chase made a note of the fact that the original action was countermanded and the clothing was dug up. This action is mentioned with respect to the original action as "about the middle of the next week", somewhere around the following Wednesday, August 10th, give or take. These actions should be corroborated by notes taken by the persons ordering the burial and retrieval of the clothing. Forensic science was not then what it is today, clearly, allowing the clothing to be buried the day after the murders indicates that. The clothing may have seemed unimportant by the standards of the day. The fact that Albert Chase was involved in both the burial and the retrieval of the clothing might account for the notes appearing together rather than separately, perhaps as a matter of convenience. Unless the notes are inaccurate, there is nothing inappropriate about Albert Chase recording his actions in this way. His statements were not expanded upon, they are separate statements.

No one has said the Witness Statements are inaccurate.
The point, stated again, is to read with caution, and check for words or references that tell the day or date within the notes, and try not to assume.

Yooper, you yourself posted:

Statements can sometimes be embellished with current knowledge. Lizzie might have originally said that Andrew had been injured, but the statement evolves to Andrew had been killed when that has been realized.

I'm not sure what is the controversy? Surely a cautionary note to readers can be helpful? It should train the investigator to look further for corroboration (a good thing) or make a timeline if they want accuracy and wish to decide for themselves.

Personally, I'm not deciphering these Witness Statements.

By the way, I think a person could get lost in those Witness Statements- they are really so full of information- accurate or inaccurate- true leads or red herrings...

That was a lot of *stabbed* and *hurt*, I agree, Diana!

Even Thomas Bowles (sic) didn't know from Mrs. Churchill what had happened- Dr. Bowen mentions seeing him and in the same breath says he himself got the impression "they were worse" [from Wednesday's illness].
And Sawyer! Wow!

As I see it, the problem is not understanding the difference between probability and possibility where the witness statements are concerned. They were probably recorded in a timely fashion, they were possibly entered at a later date. They are probably accurate even if recorded later, they are possibly inaccurate due to time delay. If the possibility of time delay is 1% and the possibility of inaccuracy due to time delay is 1%, the total probability of inaccuracy due to time delay is 1/100 of 1%. Is it really reasonable to view the witness statements with suspicion based upon that? The fact that some unknown "we" have agreed that it is does not necessarily make it so. If the example of Albert Chase's notes about the clothing being buried and later dug up is a representation of the basis for the consensus, I have to wonder.

Statements can indeed be embellished as time goes on, ordinarily by witnesses in an attempt to bring their stories more within the main line as it unfolds with the inclusion of other witness testimony. That is the real value of the witness statements, especially those taken early enough that the person interviewed was not aware of what anyone else was saying. There would be no reason for them to modify anything. The police have quite the opposite agenda, they are looking for inconsistencies between statements, not agreement. The only way they can do that correctly is to take accurate notes.

Nothing stated so far makes it reasonable to assume inaccuracy until accuracy is proven with timely phrases within the notes. Quite the opposite, I think it is reasonable to assume accuracy unless proven inaccurate in some way.

Well there's a challenge for you!
Try measuring the inaccuracy for a time and maybe try a new perspective...

That would indeed be a challenge! I don't know if I could force myself to be illogical enough to pull it off, though.
It might be worth a try, just for fun!