Lizzie Borden Society Forum

As I was looking on the net for more information about Lizzie and her having been seen by Hyman Lubinsky out side, I ran across some interesting witness's that I'd not heard of before. Two men, Charles Gifford and Uriah Kirby, testified to having seen a strange man, at about 11 o'clock the night before, on the street, near the Borden house. Dr. Benjamin Handfy testified he'd seen a "pale faced man" on the sidewalk by the Borden house at 10:30 the morning of the murder's. Also a plumber and pipefitter testified that he'd been in the Borden barn loft a day or two before the murder's. So there had to have been tracks in the dust on the floor of the loft. I don't remember ever hearing of these witness's, anybody know anything more about them?

Yes<

That was that wild-eyed dude.......oh, oh, what was his name? You know, he hangs around with that grubby character that works down at the Border Mills. Mike, Mike something.........yes, Mike Graham, commonly known as Mike the Soldier. They're drinking buddies. Mike's been seeing Dr. Handy for his drinking problem. Until then, he just hangs around people's porticos.

Alrighty then, clears that up, uh, thank's !

The following provides a little more detail on Gifford, at least.
“Mike the Soldier — Rebello, pg. 132. Also, Hoffman, pg. 195: Uriah Kirby, a foreman for a local company, saw a stranger asleep on the front porch of Charles N. Gifford's house on Third Street. Kirby was with Gifford at the time. Gifford was the next door neighbor of the Chagnon family. Kirby and Gifford woke the sleeping man and sent him on his way at about 11:00 P.M. on Wednesday, August 3, the night before the murders. The defense used this as proof there were strangers in the area who could have committed the crime . . .” Source: http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... tPart3.htm

Dr. Handy testified at the Preliminary Hearing (p.464) and at trial (p.1369) that, somewhere between 10:20 and 10:30 on the morning of the murders, a pale man in front of the Kelly house caught his attention because he appeared to be extremely agitated.

Here’s Dr. Hanley’s bio from the Knowlton Glossary
“HANDY, BENJAMIN JONES 1849 - 1929: born in Marion, Massachusetts, son of Frederick Plummer and Sylvia Grace (Berry) Handy. Educated in public schools in his native town as well as Middleborough, Massachusetts, he received the degree of Doctor of Medicine from Harvard Medical School in 1871. He maintained a successful practice in Fall River, Massachusetts, from 1874 to 1913, when he returned to Marion. He married Miss Susan E. Holmes. Active in several professional organizations, he held memberships in both the Fall River and Massachusetts Medical Societies. Having retired from practice, he died in his native city. A 'witness at both the preliminary and final trials, he gave testimony pertaining to a man he observed in the vicinity of the Borden residence.”

However I don’t recall anything about a plumber and pipefitter being in the barn a few days before the murders – do you remember the source for that information?

The source, I'll need to go back and see if I can locate it again. It was the same place I got the other witnesses......Thanks by the way!

I got it from "'The Trial of LIzzie Borden" by Doug Linder (2004)

More from the pages of the FR Herald of August 11th. This on "Mike the soldier":

"... He was Michael Graham, better known as "Mike, the soldier," a weaver employed in Border City mill No. 2, and for some days previous to last Thursday he had been drinking freely. The officers learned that Graham was in the vicinity of the Borden house just before 10 o'clock on the morning of the murder and that his physical condition, as a result of his excesses, was such as to render his countenance almost ghastly in its color. He reached the mill where he is employed shortly after 10 o'clock and his condition was at once apparent, and the men in charge there declined to allow him to go to work. The officers found the saloons in which Graham spent Wednesday night and learned there that he drank immoderately, and was feeling badly as a result. The description of Graham corresponded in every particular with that given by Officer Hyde, who furnished more details as to the clothing of the man than could be advanced by Dr. Handy. His trousers were of a peculiar texture and hue, and were rendered extremely noticeable on this account. This in itself was believed to be sufficient identification, but in all other particulars there was an unmistaken similarity, and the authorities arrived at once at the conclusion that the man was identical with the person described by Dr. Handy and the police officer. The explosion of this theory afforded much satisfaction to the authorities."

The incident was looked into by the odd combination of Detective McHenry and Officer Medley

Thanks for providing your reference, shakiboo. I took a look at the Doug Linder piece which does indeed say there is “testimony” by a plumber and pipe fitter leading us to assume they may have been witnesses at the trial. Can anyone come up with their names?

That’s a nice bit on Mike the Soldier. Thanks, Harry.

It’s interesting that Dr. Handy describes the man he saw as being “well-dressed” in a “light suit of clothes” with “absolutely nothing in his clothes or about his clothes that attracted [his] attention in any way” whereas Officer Hyde’s man’s “trousers were of a peculiar texture and hue, and were rendered extremely noticeable on this account.” Still the authorities were convinced (and pleased) that both Dr. Handy and Officer Hyde had seen Mike Graham. (I'm guessing this report was before the police department distanced themselves from Detective McHenry.)

The pipe fitter was Alfred Clarkson who testified he was in the barn the morning of the 4th.

Neither Bridget nor Lizzie said that they saw or heard anyone in the barn the morning of the 4th. Did Alfred Clarkson say what time he was there?

He testified for the defense. Clarkson's testimony, p468, Preliminary:

"Q. (Mr. Jennings) What is your name?
A. Alfred Clarkson.
Q. You are a plumber?
A. No Sir.
Q. What is your business, steam fitter?
A. Steam engineer.
Q. Were you at the Borden house on the morning of the murder?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. At what time, as near as you can recollect?
A. About 11.40.
Q. Did you go into the barn at all that morning?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. About how soon was it after you got there before you went in?
A. I should say about seven or eight minutes.
Q. Did you go up stairs in the barn?
A. Yes Sir."

Then on p470, on cross:

"Q. Was anybodyelse up there at the time that you recollect?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Who?
A. There were three gentlemen that I did not know.
Q. Any of them officers?
A. No Sir.
Q. Do you know officer Medley?
A. I think I do.
Q. Did you see him up there in the barn?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you see him up there around the premises when you first got there?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you see him afterwards?
A. In the afternoon."

At the Trial, p1399:

"Q. Were you at the Borden house on the morning of the murder?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did you get there?
A. I should say 11:30.
Q. And did you go into the barn at all that day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How soon after you got there?
A. Seven or eight minutes.
Q. Did you go in the upper part of the barn?
A. Yes, sir."

Charles Sawyer, the guard posted at the side door and one of the earliest there said this about Clarkson: (p1475)

"Q. Do you remember seeing Mr. Alfred Clarkson round there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember when he came?
A. He was there almost as soon as I was, I think. He was there early; He was one of the first."

I don't believe Lizzie or Bridget were in any position to see who entered the barn after the murders.

Thanks, Harry! That puts Clarkson there after the murders, along with several others, and he probably wouldn't have been noticed by Lizzie or Bridget if he had arrived then. There's nothing quite like a stuffy haymow to attract so many people on a hot day!

My question is "What were they doing there?"

Thanks for the name, Harry.

It's Doug Linder’s assertion that “A plumber and a gas fitter testified that in the day or two before the murders they had been in the Borden's barn loft” that creates confusion. Most likely he was referring to Clarkson who was in the barn the morning of the murders and not a day or two before. That makes more sense.

There are more than a few errors in Linder’s piece, though. For example he claims Bridget Sullivan testified that Lizzie was wearing a blue dress on the morning of the murders. That’s not true. At the Preliminary Hearing Bridget says she can remember nothing about the dress Lizzie wore that morning (Prelim. p.200) and at trial she is asked whether she can describe the dress and her reply is: “No sir, I couldn't tell what dress the girl had on.”(Trial: p.244 & p. 271)

Linder throws around the word 'testify' with abandon and It’s errors like these that perpetuate myths about the Borden case.

As to why Clarkson et al were in the barn -- the police did little to protect the scene of the crime and it was soon awash with random gawkers.

Thank's Diana, and Harry! So, Clarkson got up into the loft before the police did, and still they say they found no track's in the dust? How is that possible? Did anyone ask Clarkson if he'd seen any tracks? That's pretty gutsy, going into someone else's property, what ever could they have thought they might see from up there? It must have been a circus, around the house. Morse didn't see anyone either. wonder how long they stayed up there? It was Linder , (mistakenly) saying that they had been up there a day or two before the murder's that confused me. You're right Jeff, the barn probably saw more activity that day, then it had seen in months!! lol Strange, very strange.......

[It’s interesting that Dr. Handy describes the man he saw as being “well-dressed” in a “light suit of clothes” with “absolutely nothing in his clothes or about his clothes that attracted [his] attention in any way” whereas Officer Hyde’s man’s “trousers were of a peculiar texture and hue, and were rendered extremely noticeable on this account.” Still the authorities were convinced (and pleased) that both Dr. Handy and Officer Hyde had seen Mike Graham. (I'm guessing this report was before the police department distanced themselves from Detective McHenry.)[/quote]
It doesn't sound all that close to the same discription to me, as a matter of fact, it's actually quite different. I think they made a pretty big leap to presume it was Mike the soldier in both instances...... Thanks again Diana

Smudgeman wrote:My question is "What were they doing there?"

I have to agree, Clarkson arrives at either 11:30 or 11:40, and seven or eight minutes later marches directly to the hayloft in the barn? Why? If the police hadn't been there by then, being found in the hayloft would have made him or anyone else look like a suspect.

I would guess being nosey, why else would they presume to enter another person's property? That still dazzles me. Higher up and close to the back door, the better to hear something, maybe? Just look at the evidence they messed up! They should have been arrested. It almost sounds like a circus, people tramping all over the place. And while doing some reading I come across some information I hadn't known before, Dr. Handy was a friend of Lizzies, and so was his daughter. That's where she stayed in Marion. Isn't that a bit strange?

Officer Medley testified that he arrived at the house about 11:40 and saw several people around the yard, some of them were police officers. He checked in with Assistant Marshal Fleet and sometime later went outdoors and tried the cellar door. He went into the barn and up the stairs to the hayloft when he observed that the dust on the floor was undisturbed. That would not be possible if, according to Clarkson, there were several people in the hayloft at the time. They can't both be right!

You're right, one of them is wrong. It could be Officer Medley got there just minutes before the boys decided to go up into the hayloft. But wouldn't he have had a guard there to keep people out? Wouldn't he have sent some one to make sure that what happend, didn't happen? Once he looked and knew Lizzie hadn't been there, wasn't that then part of the crime scene? Why hadn't any of the police office's noticed men standing in the barn window? I wonder if anyone even bothered asking the boys if they'd noticed any tracks in the dust? Or if Officer Medley had gone all the way up into the loft, would they have seen hIs?

I think Medley told Fleet about it but Fleet didn't check on it until later. By then the damage was done. You're right, there should have been a guard posted at the barn, and regardless of what Medley found.

Well,it's too bad, now it's just a he said, she said, and a couple of looky-lou's to thank for it.

shakiboo wrote:Well,it's too bad, now it's just a he said, she said, and a couple of looky-lou's to thank for it.

In a way, that's a good way to describe this case in general....

I don't quite know how to deal with some of the contradictory testimony in the case. Clarkson first said he arrived at 11:40 and was in the hayloft seven or eight minutes later. This was amended to 11:30 with the same seven or eight minute differential. The first time, 11:40, makes it possible for Medley to see an undisturbed hayloft and Clarkson to enter it very shortly after Medley had been there, if we grant a few minutes leeway. The 11:30 time makes this almost impossible. It seems odd that when times are amended, they always seem to favor the defense. If we assume that Clarkson was correct and Medley was mistaken about what they found in the hayloft, it implies that the police might have been trying to frame Lizzie. If that was the case, it would be a simple matter for the police to have several officers corroborate Medley's story if they were willing. Did any of those purported to be present in the hayloft before the police testify to when the police entered the hayloft? They should have been there to witness that.