Lizzie Borden Society Forum

“Mr. Morse, something terrible has happened, someone has killed both Mr. and Mrs. Borden.”
“What?! Lizzie! ---” Morse rushed into the dining room, hollering as loud as he could Lizzie’s name.

This is the scenario in my mind when I read Mrs. Churchill’s Inquest testimony. I think that whoever reads it might believe, according to his reactions, that Morse was told for the very first time that Mr. and Mrs. Borden had been murdered.

Yes, it was the first time, indeed. But it was the first time inside the house. Outside the house, Morse was already told the horrible news twice, by Bridget and then by Mr. Sawyer. The outside the house was for Morse the backstage, where he ate a pear and remained “a few minutes” after being told the horrible news but he didn’t ask Mr. Sawyer nothing, because he had no room in mind to ask nothing. Using those few minutes, as an actor before entering on the stage, he was trying to calm his nerves and to concentrate his attention on his performance. The interior of the house was the murder place, the stage of the theatre, where his conspirator, the effective killer, had wonderfully – and very luckily – finished his part and had gone away. Now it was Morse’s turn to enter on the stage.

Morse, you planned all the tragedy; as director you brilliantly succeeded, but what a bad actor you were!

“What?! Lizzie!---” After entering into the house, you thought that the performance started, that’s why you acted as if you heard the horrible news for the first time. You hollered loudly Lizzie’s name, because your reason dictated you to do so. But, as the planner of the double murder, your desire to see the murder scene was just too overwhelming at that moment for you. That’s why you hollered Lizzie’s name and rushed into the dining room where Lizzie was indeed, but you didn’t see her! You didn’t see her because you were so curious, so impatient, so anxious to see Andrew and Abby’s bodies and your strong desire betrayed you. You didn’t see her because you didn’t stop at all in the dining room but rushed directly into the sitting room without being informed by anyone the location of Andrew’s body, because you didn’t need such an information, because you knew already that Andrew was lying dead on the sofa in the sitting room, and you knew as well that Abby was killed in the guest room, because all this was nothing else but the achievement of your criminal plan! You went only “two-thirds of the way up” the front stairs, as you testified yourself. Certainly you didn’t need to enter the guest room to see Abby’s body in order to be certain how she was murdered, because it was you and your conspirators who had decided together the criminal weapon.

Oh Morse, what a bad actor you were! You were told three times, by Bridget, Mr. Sawyer and Mrs. Churchill that Mr. and Mrs. Borden were murdered, but none of them told you how they were murdered, none of them said nothing about Lizzie. And you, you never asked them how Andrew and Abby were murdered, because you didn’t need to ask, you knew already everything; Certainly, you could speculate, according to what you were told, that Lizzie was not murdered, but in such a terrible situation, how could it be possible that you never thought to ask anyone of the three persons: “But Lizzie, is she ok? Is she hurt?” You remained “a few minutes” outside but you didn’t ask nothing about Lizzie! Certainly you didn’t need to ask, because you invented the note story just to prevent Lizzie from involving in the tragedy. Maybe you could not be so sure that she was ok, but I think it was highly possible that, before you returned to the Borden house, as you had planned, you met your conspirator somewhere and he told you all! He could have told you that everything was ok, using only a very few words in less than a minute!

Oh Morse, what a bad actor you were! Look at Dr. Bowen, Alice, Mrs. Churchill, or Bridget, all these people had asked Lizzie (some of) these questions: “Lizzie, where were you when your father was killed?” “What were you doing?” “Didn’t you see anyone?” “Didn’t you hear any strange noise?”, etc. But you, Morse, the uncle of your poor niece Lizzie who had just lost, in a so tragic manner, her father and her stepmother, but you didn’t ask her nothing, all what you said was only that too theatrical but meanwhile too weak phrase: “For God’s sake, how did this happen?” Certainly you had no room in mind to ask anything about Lizzie’s safety and about the tragedy, because it was yourself the director of all these horrible murders and, as you confessed yourself, you were “so excited”. Yes, you were so excited of your success, you were completely immersed in your gladness (maybe with some fear mixed in it): you and your conspirators had just accomplished a great achievement, what an exciting performance! You were just too excited to think of asking Lizzie anything!

Oh Morse, what a bad actor you were. You were a bad actor but you were lucky, very lucky, because the prosecutor’s name was Knowlton. Your performance was so stupid but Knowlton failed to show you up! I don’t want to use any pejorative or even insulting adjective to qualify Knowlton, but I think it’s all my right to say that he was just too quickly convinced of Lizzie’s guilt. He might have put you in corner many times by asking you one of many questions that a prosecutor, with a more open mind, should have asked! But, unfortunately for Lizzie, unfortunately for her barbarically murdered father and stepmother, unfortunately for the American history, and, unfortunately for us, he didn’t! Knowlton was completely responsible for the Borden case’s being unsolved!

(It’s superfluous to say that all I expressed here is nothing but my personal opinion. But my opinion is based on many facts, if we assume that the testimonies in question are reliable:

1. After being told the death news by Mr. Sawyer, Morse remained outside “a few minutes”, without asking nothing about Lizzie's safety and how the victims were killed, and “finally went into the house”, instead of rushing into it. "A few minutes" were a long time for that situation, and, in my opinion, very difficult to understand.

2. When Mrs. Churchill told him the news inside the house, Morse pronounced “what” to express his surprise. But he could not be surprised after having been told already the news twice. And only after that he began to rush!

3. Morse rushed into the dining room hollering Lizzie’s name, it was obvious that he wanted to meet Lizzie immediately. But he didn’t see Lizzie while passing through the dining room where Lizzie and Alice were the unique two persons present.

4. If I am not wrong, none of the 7 or 8 persons in the house at that moment, Morse himself included, in any occasion (Inquest testimony, preliminary hearing, trial testimony), never mentioned that Morse was informed by someone the location of Andrew’s body. Please correct me if I am wrong. Lizzie testified to many different people, in many different occasions, the note story, even though so many people don't believe that the note existed. But If no one never testified Morse was informed by someone the location of Andrew's body, how could I permit me to believe that he was actually given such an information?

5. Morse, according to the testimony of himself, didn’t enter into the guest room to see Abby’s body, but from where he was standing on the front stairs he couldn’t see any detail of Abby’s wounds. In other words, he could not know, if innocent, how Abby had been attacked, and afterwards he didn’t ask anyone about this.

6. Morse didn’t ask Lizzie nothing. The questions that I mentioned above, Morse didn’t ask her none of them.

7. I am more convinced that when Morse returned to the Borden house, there might be an unusual number of people, but he acted indifferently.)

Do you have any theories about a possible motive, Franz? I have a hard time seeing a motive for Morse. He was not exactly rich, from what I understand, but he was quite comfortable financially. I'm not aware of him gaining anything financially from the crime. In fact, it would probably have cost him money, because he would have had to pay the murderer. Also, I get the impression that he liked both Andrew and Abby, so hatred could not have been the motive.

Like you, I have always been struck that upon hearing the news, he shouted "Lizzie!" You are correct, in that he didn't add the question, "Are you all right?" I sometimes wonder if, knowing about the tension in the house, he would not have been more inclined to add, "What have you done?"

Your thoughts, Franz?

Come on now. This nit-picking of tiny details surrounding Morse is getting old. You were not there. You don't know what he did when. Even in sworn testimony people remember things differently. There will be inconsistancies because we are not robots. We don't store every detail and regurgitate it back on command. I have to agree with Darrowfan...WHERE IS THE MOTIVE? I've asked you this multiple times as you build a house of cards case against him. I understand you believe he is guilty, though even you admit he couldn't have done it himself. but to take 2 human lives, 2 elderly people, he must have had a reason. There is no indication in anything I have ever read that he hated them, on the contrary, he wasn't even related to them any longer, yet visited regularly. He didn't get a penny of their money, in fact didn't need their money. He sat up late quietly talking to Mr. Borden. No screaming arguments, no throwing of vases, the quietly retired as friends. In the morning, no fuss no arguments, they had a quiet breakfast and he went visiting. Come on...WHERE IS THE MOTIVE? Yes the prosecution and the police bungled the case, but even these people never suspected him. Ok, he called out Lizzie's name. Hmmm....let's think. Emma was away, he was told Mr. and Mrs. Borden are dead....who would you have called out to??? Superman? Lizzie was home, she was his neice...hmmm? totally shocking that he called out....Lizzie! Sometimes your reasoning is sound, and you attempt to base speculation on factual knowledge, then other times you build a castle in the clouds, taking small inconsequential bits from testimony and building elaborate theories around them. I could just as easily say Lizzie ate pears, Morse ate pears, the pear tree was magically cursed, and anyone eating from it had the desire to kill. Doesn't sound as wacky as some of your theories.

Possum, I agree with you that Franz has some off the wall theories on the case, but I understand his motive. He is one of those people who are anxious to see the crime "solved" once and for all. That, of course, is extremely unlikely to happen, absent some dramatic (and irrefutable) new evidence being discovered.

In a way, I'm even worse than Franz. Whereas he just wants to solve the crime, I feel that I already have. (Lizzie did it.) LOL.

Darrowfan wrote:Possum, I agree with you that Franz has some off the wall theories on the case, but I understand his motive. He is one of those people who are anxious to see the crime "solved" once and for all. That, of course, is extremely unlikely to happen, absent some dramatic (and irrefutable) new evidence being discovered.

In a way, I'm even worse than Franz. Whereas he just wants to solve the crime, I feel that I already have. (Lizzie did it.) LOL.

Darrowfan, I'm going to make an assumption that from your username, you have a knowledge about the law (Darrow was one of the best) I walk a tightrope in this forum, while I encourage thinking outside the box, and strange new theories, we cannot build any kind of solid case by taking one trivial statement or observation made over 100 years ago, and building a whole case on it. In the above conjecture, Franz states implicitly that Morse Found out about the murders THEN ate pears. This is contradictory to everything I have read. He returned from the relatives, grabbed a pear and ate it, noticed people near the entrance, asked what was going on, found out, went in the house. Yes, it used to trouble me that Morse hung out eating pears, BUT I read very carefully all of the documentation, and it appears that there was NOT a mob of people surrounding the house, but one police officer and Bridget. he had no reason to think anything was wrong. I have been following Franz's theory the entire summer, and he side-steps my main concern with it on every post...WHAT WAS HIS MOTIVE??? I too think Lizzie did it, which does take the fun out of trying to 'solve' the crime, but the simplest solution to a problem is usually the correct one. Uncle Morse, we can all agree didn't do it himself. He has an airtight alibi. Franz contends that Morse had an accomplice. But why? He liked them, they liked him, he stood to get nothing, and why kill both? If there were some secret reason he hated Mr. Borden, then kill Mr. Borden! NOT his innocent wife too. As for knowing exactly where the body was, Don't you think if a dead body were in a house, it would be fairly simple to find?? That is just bizarre. EVEN if Morse was guilty, he was proven to be away at a relatives house, how WOULD he know where Mr. Borden's body would be found??? By Franz own admission, an accomplice must have killed them, so HOW did Morse know where the bodies were? Morse would not have known where either body was guilty or innocent! I bet even Franz could find two bodies in a house. I don't know why it frustrates me so much.

This whole "Morse did it" thing...Franz, if you are going to postulate this, get the facts right. The following FACTS are straight from the sworn testimony.
1. Morse returned from the niece's house via a back street. He stopped in the back yard, saw NO ONE, ate a pear, 2-3 minutes time elapsed.
2. Morse walked around the side, saw no one, at the door he saw Mr. Sawyer, and Bridget sitting on the steps. Was then told of the murders.
3. Entered the house into the kitchen, through the door straight ahead of him which led to the sitting room, saw Mr. Borden's body. saw police officers, went up the stairs about 2/3 of the way, could see under the bed, saw Mrs. Borden's body.
4. Came downstairs, talked with various people, including Lizzie. Someone asked who Morse was. Lizzie replied 'My uncle, he stayed in the room Mrs. Borden was found dead in. Lizzie was asked if Morse could have done it. Lizzie said No, he was away all morning.
Morse never stood around trying to 'compose himself' , he knew where the body of Mr. Borden was because when he came into the house via the kitchen, he walked through the next door in front of him right into the next room...where Mr. Borden's body was found.

[/quote]Darrowfan, I'm going to make an assumption that from your username, you have a knowledge about the law (Darrow was one of the best) I walk a tightrope in this forum, while I encourage thinking outside the box, and strange new theories, we cannot build any kind of solid case by taking one trivial statement or observation made over 100 years ago, and building a whole case on it. In the above conjecture, Franz states implicitly that Morse Found out about the murders THEN ate pears. This is contradictory to everything I have read. He returned from the relatives, grabbed a pear and ate it, noticed people near the entrance, asked what was going on, found out, went in the house. Yes, it used to trouble me that Morse hung out eating pears, BUT I read very carefully all of the documentation, and it appears that there was NOT a mob of people surrounding the house, but one police officer and Bridget. he had no reason to think anything was wrong. I have been following Franz's theory the entire summer, and he side-steps my main concern with it on every post...WHAT WAS HIS MOTIVE??? I too think Lizzie did it, which does take the fun out of trying to 'solve' the crime, but the simplest solution to a problem is usually the correct one. Uncle Morse, we can all agree didn't do it himself. He has an airtight alibi. Franz contends that Morse had an accomplice. But why? He liked them, they liked him, he stood to get nothing, and why kill both? If there were some secret reason he hated Mr. Borden, then kill Mr. Borden! NOT his innocent wife too. As for knowing exactly where the body was, Don't you think if a dead body were in a house, it would be fairly simple to find?? That is just bizarre. EVEN if Morse was guilty, he was proven to be away at a relatives house, how WOULD he know where Mr. Borden's body would be found??? By Franz own admission, an accomplice must have killed them, so HOW did Morse know where the bodies were? Morse would not have known where either body was guilty or innocent! I bet even Franz could find two bodies in a house. I don't know why it frustrates me so much.[/quote]

Your assumption about the origin of my user name is correct. My avatar is a photo of the great man himself. (Leopold/Loeb is another case that fascinates me, despite the fact that it is a solved case. Read Clarence Darrow's final argument to the court, if you ever get a chance. It is brilliant.)

I agree with you that Franz goes pretty far afield in his theorizing. I guess the thing about the Borden case that I find so interesting is that the circumstantial evidence strongly indicates that Lizzie, and no one else, was involved in the crime. And yet so many questions remain. How did she do it? What weapon did she use? How did she maintain her composure during the investigation? Did she supress her own memory of the crimes?

By the way, I have found something else very interesting. It seems to me that Lizzie herself has attained a sort of "cult heroine" status among people who think she's innocent, and even among some who think she's guilty. Or am I just imagining that?

Darrowfan, I answered you 'cult status' observation on your other post. As I said there, It is a real shame that when someone commits a crime, society seems to want to find someone else to blame (violent video games, gun manufacturers, society as a whole, bullies, etc) While these are valid things to look at, it takes away from the guilt of an individual to focus on them instead of the person who commits a crime. How many times have we actually felt sorry for some deranged killer who shoots innocent people after we have been beaten over the head by the media as to how it really is our fault as society?

We 'followers of the Borden case' actually would feel let-down if the truth somehow came out. The fun is in the speculation I think. That is why when someone mentions a mundane theory like Lizzie was greedy, killed both of them, had no accomplices, and was just lucky not to be covered in blood, people don't like that. They want to throw up more exciting wildly speculative theories that admittedly are more exciting. "When you hear hoof-beats, think horses, not zebras." The simplest explanation within a group of possible explanations, is usually correct.

PossumPie: I could not have said it better myself. Both of your posts are spot-on. Well done.

NancyDrew wrote:PossumPie: I could not have said it better myself. Both of your posts are spot-on. Well done.

I agree Nancy. I have noticed that both you and Possum have a way of "cutting through the fat, and getting right to the meat", as my grandmother use to say.

PossumPie wrote:This whole "Morse did it" thing...Franz, if you are going to postulate this, get the facts right. The following FACTS are straight from the sworn testimony.
1. Morse returned from the niece's house via a back street. He stopped in the back yard, saw NO ONE, ate a pear, 2-3 minutes time elapsed.
2. Morse walked around the side, saw no one, at the door he saw Mr. Sawyer, and Bridget sitting on the steps. Was then told of the murders.
3. Entered the house into the kitchen, through the door straight ahead of him which led to the sitting room, saw Mr. Borden's body. saw police officers, went up the stairs about 2/3 of the way, could see under the bed, saw Mrs. Borden's body.
4. Came downstairs, talked with various people, including Lizzie. Someone asked who Morse was. Lizzie replied 'My uncle, he stayed in the room Mrs. Borden was found dead in. Lizzie was asked if Morse could have done it. Lizzie said No, he was away all morning.
Morse never stood around trying to 'compose himself' , he knew where the body of Mr. Borden was because when he came into the house via the kitchen, he walked through the next door in front of him right into the next room...where Mr. Borden's body was found.

PossumPie, would you like to quote the "sworn testimony" in question to support your statements?

[quote="PossumPie
... EVEN if Morse was guilty, he was proven to be away at a relatives house, how WOULD he know where Mr. Borden's body would be found??? By Franz own admission, an accomplice must have killed them, so HOW did Morse know where the bodies were? ... [/quote]

I invite you to read for another time my original post.

Franz wrote:

PossumPie wrote:This whole "Morse did it" thing...Franz, if you are going to postulate this, get the facts right. The following FACTS are straight from the sworn testimony.
1. Morse returned from the niece's house via a back street. He stopped in the back yard, saw NO ONE, ate a pear, 2-3 minutes time elapsed.
2. Morse walked around the side, saw no one, at the door he saw Mr. Sawyer, and Bridget sitting on the steps. Was then told of the murders.
3. Entered the house into the kitchen, through the door straight ahead of him which led to the sitting room, saw Mr. Borden's body. saw police officers, went up the stairs about 2/3 of the way, could see under the bed, saw Mrs. Borden's body.
4. Came downstairs, talked with various people, including Lizzie. Someone asked who Morse was. Lizzie replied 'My uncle, he stayed in the room Mrs. Borden was found dead in. Lizzie was asked if Morse could have done it. Lizzie said No, he was away all morning.
Morse never stood around trying to 'compose himself' , he knew where the body of Mr. Borden was because when he came into the house via the kitchen, he walked through the next door in front of him right into the next room...where Mr. Borden's body was found.

PossumPie, would you like to quote the "sworn testimony" in question to support your statements?

Franz READ MORSE'S TESTIMONY! I can't cut and paste his entire testimony, but what I summarized above came directly from his sworn testimony at the trial under oath. If you have the entire trial transcript, it is on page 124 and onward in part 2 of the transcripts. All of the other "he said, she said" surrounding the case is speculation. What is included in the trial transcripts were given under oath, sworn testimony. That does NOT mean they are not lies, or confusions, but less likely than someone telling someone else that they heard through the grapevine that someone told their grandmother that they overheard....YIKES!

PossumPie, I certainly have considered Morse's testimonies. But the testimony of Mrs. Churchill? Sould I ingore it? That of Alice, should I ignore it? And those of Mr. Sawyer, of Mr. Bowen, etc., should I ignore them?

Under oath or not, what does it matter if Morse were guilty?

Franz wrote:PossumPie, I certainly have considered Morse's testimonies. But the testimony of Mrs. Churchill? Sould I ingore it? That of Alice, should I ignore it? And those of Mr. Sawyer, of Mr. Bowen, etc., should I ignore them?

Under oath or not, what does it matter if Morse were guilty?

I'm a bit confused, I have re-read Alice and Mrs. Churchill's testimony, and I don't see mention of Morse. I did it rather quickly, so may have missed it. Where in the trial testimony did either mention Morse? Page numbers would be helpful.

PossumPie wrote:

Franz wrote:PossumPie, I certainly have considered Morse's testimonies. But the testimony of Mrs. Churchill? Sould I ingore it? That of Alice, should I ignore it? And those of Mr. Sawyer, of Mr. Bowen, etc., should I ignore them?

Under oath or not, what does it matter if Morse were guilty?

I'm a bit confused, I have re-read Alice and Mrs. Churchill's testimony, and I don't see mention of Morse. I did it rather quickly, so may have missed it. Where in the trial testimony did either mention Morse? Page numbers would be helpful.

Why do you mention only the trial testimony? Because it was given under oath? And the witeness statements? Inquest testimony? Preliminary hearing? would you like to ignore them all? These testimonies were given very soon after the murder, but the trial testimony almost after one year.

To be honest with you, under oath or not, for me this matters little, if not nothing. All marriages take place under oath. And what do all the American presidents when they assume their office? (Sorry Harry, this is politics, I stop.) What does an oath matter for the worst creature of this world, who is called "human being"?

P.S.: PossumPie, if you wanted to consider only the trial testimonies, excluding all others testimonies, then, I think - I don't want to be impolite but I must say - that you should not consider at all Lizzie's Inquest testimony, because it had not been even introduced in the trial!

Franz your idea that Knowlton was so hot to pin the murders on Lizzie doesn't hold weight. He did not even want to take the case to trial at all. He also had no illusions what so ever that Lizzie would be found guilty. Also the fact that Morse didn't ask any questions about what had happened doesn't hold weight. Alice Russell had been sent for and had been in the house before Morse arrived. Yet she must also not have asked any questions. Because she didn't seem to know the Borden's had been murdered until after Morse arrived. Even though Abby's body had been found. Even though Mr. Borden had been covered with a sheet. Is she guilty because she did not ask important questions? Is she guilty because she seemed confused about the manner of death? And Morse did speak to Lizzie about the murders. And since Alice Russell said Morse 'looked up' to Lizzie, it's my inference that he was kneeling before her with his head down when he spoke to her.

From the The Pearson- Knowlton Papers - Copy of letter from Hosea M. Knowlton to Pillsbury dated April 24, 1893

Hon. A.E. Pillsbury, Attorney General:

My Dear Sir:

I have thought more about the Lizzie Borden case since I talked with you, and think perhaps it may be well to write you, as I shall not be able to meet you probably until Thursday, possibly Wednesday afternoon.
Personally I would like very much to get rid of the trial of the case, and fear that my own feelings in that direction may have influenced my better judgment I feel this all the more upon your not unexpected announcement that the burden of the trial would come upon me.
I confess, however, I cannot see my way clear to any disposition of the case other than a trial. Should it result in disagreement of the jury there would be no difficulty then in disposing of the case by admitting the defendant to bail: but a verdict either way would render such a course unnecessary.
The case had proceeded so far and an indictment has been found by the grand inquest of the county that it does not seem to me that we ought to take the responsibility of discharging her without trial, even though there is every reasonable expectation of a verdict of not guilty. I am unable to concur fully with your views as to the probable result. I think it may well be that the jury might disagree upon the case. But even in my most sanguine moments, I have scarcely expected a verdict of guilty.
The situation is this: nothing has developed which satisfies either of us that she is innocent, neither of us can escape the conclusion that she must have had some knowledge of this occurrence. She has been presented for trial by a jury which, to say the least, was not influenced by anything said by the government in favor of the indictment.
June seems to be the month, all things considered. I will write more fully as to the admission of her confession after I have looked the matter up.

Yours Truly,

H.M. Knowlton


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

Inquest Testimony of Alice Russell page 148:

Q. When did you first you learn that they were murdered?
A. I got Lizzie in the dining room, on to the dining room lounge, and we were there, I don't know how long, when her Uncle came in.

Q. That is Morse?
A. Yes sir. And something he said about their being murdered, and looked up to her, then it dawned on my mind it was cold blooded murder.

Q. You did not see Morse until he got into the room where Lizzie was?
A. No. I had not seen Mr. Morse for years before.

Allen wrote: From the The Pearson- Knowlton Papers - Copy of letter from Hosea M. Knowlton to Pillsbury dated April 24, 1893

Hon. A.E. Pillsbury, Attorney General:

My Dear Sir:

I have thought more about the Lizzie Borden case since I talked with you, and think perhaps it may be well to write you, as I shall not be able to meet you probably until Thursday, possibly Wednesday afternoon.
Personally I would like very much to get rid of the trial of the case, and fear that my own feelings in that direction may have influenced my better judgment I feel this all the more upon your not unexpected announcement that the burden of the trial would come upon me.
I confess, however, I cannot see my way clear to any disposition of the case other than a trial. Should it result in disagreement of the jury there would be no difficulty then in disposing of the case by admitting the defendant to bail: but a verdict either way would render such a course unnecessary.
The case had proceeded so far and an indictment has been found by the grand inquest of the county that it does not seem to me that we ought to take the responsibility of discharging her without trial, even though there is every reasonable expectation of a verdict of not guilty. I am unable to concur fully with your views as to the probable result. I think it may well be that the jury might disagree upon the case. But even in my most sanguine moments, I have scarcely expected a verdict of guilty.
The situation is this: nothing has developed which satisfies either of us that she is innocent, neither of us can escape the conclusion that she must have had some knowledge of this occurrence. She has been presented for trial by a jury which, to say the least, was not influenced by anything said by the government in favor of the indictment.
June seems to be the month, all things considered. I will write more fully as to the admission of her confession after I have looked the matter up.

Yours Truly,

H.M. Knowlton


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

Very interesting letter, Allen. Thanks for posting it.

Franz wrote:.

Why do you mention only the trial testimony? Because it was given under oath? And the witeness statements? Inquest testimony? Preliminary hearing? would you like to ignore them all? These testimonies were given very soon after the murder, but the trial testimony almost after one year.

To be honest with you, under oath or not, for me this matters little, if not nothing. All marriages take place under oath. And what do all the American presidents when they assume their office? (Sorry Harry, this is politics, I stop.) What does an oath matter for the worst creature of this world, who is called "human being"?

P.S.: PossumPie, if you wanted to consider only the trial testimonies, excluding all others testimonies, then, I think - I don't want to be impolite but I must say - that you should not consider at all Lizzie's Inquest testimony, because it had not been even introduced in the trial!

I hold trial and inquest testimony in the highest regard, it is the most formal with opportunity for cross examination. I look at the case as bulding a house. My foundation is "Lizzie is probably guilty" This is built on many small but strong bricks found in inquest testimony, trial testimony, etc. The letter by Knowles to the Attorney General is interesting, but I only give it a small place in the foundation. Your approach is to take one or two sentences by a witness out of context, build a whole foundation on these flimsy theories, and when the whole thing crashes down, you have nothing. If you really believe Morse is guilty, find multiple small but strong stones of evidence, place them together as a strong foundation, and then we'll see about it.

PossumPie wrote:
... If you really believe Morse is guilty, find multiple small but strong stones of evidence, place them together as a strong foundation, and then we'll see about it.

Please tell me, what have I been doing these months on the forum with my serial posts about Morse?

You said: "Your approach is to take one or two sentences by a witness out of context". I would like to be enlightened how I took them out of context.

PossumPie wrote:
I hold trial and inquest testimony in the highest regard...

If so, I invite you to re-read the inquest testimony of Mr. Sawyer, Mrs. Churchill, Alice and Dr. Bowen, especially their statements concerning Morse, and that of Morse himself.

Franz wrote:

PossumPie wrote:
I hold trial and inquest testimony in the highest regard...

If so, I invite you to re-read the inquest testimony of Mr. Sawyer, Mrs. Churchill, Alice and Dr. Bowen, especially their statements concerning Morse, and that of Morse himself.

Franz, I am not alone in saying this. I read you very well written, and well thought out article in the Herald News...but virtually all of the comments by readers say the same thing.
1. Too many speculations, this may have happened, then these men may have done...Speculations without independent convergent support.
Consider this Logical Fallicy:
"Cherry picking- suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. " (Copied without permission from Wikipedia)

2. WHAT THE BLOODY HECK WAS THE MOTIVE?

You have a colorful theory, one I haven't seen before. BUT there are too many fanciful ties that have no supporting evidence.