trial transcripts

[leitskev]

I took on the tiresome task of reading the transcripts. About half way through them. Some early notes:

the search: People keep saying the house was not searched until Monday. This simply is wrong, and very wrong.

The house was searched for many hours Thursday, the day of the murders, but by the police own admissions, their search was not rigorous enough. With the exception of the cellar. That was always a focus.

Friday, the heavy police presence remained, but the search seems to have been limited to the cellar.

Saturday is when the first rigorous search took place. Look to Officer Desmond's testimony(and others) around page 729. He led a team of 5 cops.

"I think we handled most every article there was that was not too heavy."

The roof was searched twice, the attics, the Bordens rooms, Lizzie and Emmas, every dress was searched for blood, including Bridgett's. Beds were overturned, mattresses, couches and sofas. Dresses were handed from one cop to another to search. "Nothing was left untouched". The team made an "absolute, unrestrained and complete search" on Saturday.

They then came back Monday and did it all over again, this time bringing a mason to open the chimneys. During this search they moved the hay stack, coal piles, wood piles, etc. The search lasted until 1pm, starting early in the morning.

They were looking for that weapon.

On Thursday, Officer Allen saw Officer Mullaly pulling cloths from a tub to examine it...in the cellar. I assume this was the menstrual bucket. Several cops mention this in court on their own, and every time they do the prosecutor steers the conversation away for some reason. This buttresses my contention that Victorian sensibilities did not prevent the bucket from being searched...it caused a mutual agreement between both sides attorneys not to discuss it in court since they both understood it to be searched. In any case, the transcripts show the police were interested in the bucket. Now, those rags could have been used by the killer...but there was no hatchet hiding in there.

I found more interesting things, and I'll post more later. But regarding the searches:
Thurs: they were clearly looking for the weapon, and this search included Lizzie's room. The search was significant but it seems to have been lacking. They were inhibited by Lizzie's presence. The house was literally crawling with cops all day, so there was significant searching. The cellar was the focus and was searched thoroughly.
Fri: so far, it seems the searches were limited mostlyto the basement.
Sat: rigorous, top to bottom searching of the house for several hours
Mon: another rigorous search that left no stone unturned.

So we can stop with this "it wasn't searched until Monday" stuff. However that got started, it's wrong. I have the PDF of the transcript and it's online.

[Allen]

With respect I say that the house was searched during those days. But not carefully. I have read the trial transcripts also, several times, and I provided the testimony of the police officers saying their searches were not that thorough. I've been studying this case for a little over 20 years now. Even during the search on Saturday, also by the officer's own testimony, there were dresses hanging in the closet that were not disturbed. They were never disturbed. I wouldn't call that a thorough search. Some of the officers who stated they searched everything there was to search did not even take part in the searches that went on in different areas of the house to know if they were searched well or not. Searching, and searching well, are not the same thing.

[Allen]

Also there is a difference between a pail and a tub. There was a tub down there that was used for heating water to wash the clothes, and to wash items in. A tub is wider than it is deep. Officer Mulally was only present during one search. He was not even present at any of the other searches. And he also admitted that he knew nothing about the search of the closets or any of the other parts of the house he was not in. Many of the officers were not present on each day of the search.


Trial testimony page 744 - 745:

Q. Now, Mr. Seaver, on the Saturday you made some search with reference to dresses did you not?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Or examination of dresses I ought to put it?
A. Yes, sir; in one clothes press.

Q. You were with Mr. Desmond at that time, or with the party?
A. I was with Capt. Desmond up in the garret in the first place, part of the time; in fact, most of the time we were up there.

Q. Where were the dresses that you examine, for that is all I care to call attention to?
A. They were in a large closet over the front hall.

Q. Won't you describe the character of your examination of those dresses on the Saturday?
A. I first went into the closet and the closet blinds were shut, that is, the outside blinds. I opened the blinds -- there were clothes around the window --- hoisted the window and took the cloth down and opened the blinds, and then I went to the hooks. Capt. Fleet was there with me. He had gone in two or three minutes before me.

Q. (By Mr. Robinson.) A little louder please?
A. Capt. Fleet was there with me, and I commenced on the hooks and took each dress with the exception of two or three in the corner, and passed them to Capt. Fleet, he being near the window, and he examined them as well as myself, he more thoroughly than myself, and I took each garment then and hung it back as I found them; all with the exception of two or three which were heavy or silk dresses, in the corner. I didn't pass those down. I just looked at them and let them remain as they were.

Q. (by Mr. Moody.) Those were silk dresses?
A. Those were silk dresses, I am very sure, heavy dresses, and they hung there and I didn't disturb them at all.

Q. Did you discover anything upon any of those dresses?
A. I did not.

So much for the rigorous top to bottom search on the Saturday. And they testified that the only other clothes they looked at were the ones in Bridget's closet.

[Allen]

Officer Mulally trial testimony page 622 - 621;

Q. And Bridget Sullivan went up, nobody else, you two and Bridget?
A. Not at the time.

Q. Well now, you went into her room?
A. Into whose room?


Q. Bridget's?
A. She pointed out a room there, I believe she told me it was hers.

Q. Well, did you go in?
A. I did.

Q. What did you do in there?
A. I looked all around.

Q. Well can you be a little more definite than that?
A. Well, I went in there and looked around the bed and all around the room.

Q. Did you disturb the bed in any way?
A. I did not that I remember of.

Q. You didn't remove the clothing or lift up the mattress or spring bed?
A. I don't think I did.

Q. Did you examine the closet?
A. I didn't know she had a closet in her room?

[Allen]

Trial testimony of Officer Fleet page 517 - 518:

Q. And do you now think that as you looked it over, that Bridget's room was locked at that second visit up there?
A. It might have been; I don't recollect. She had the keys and went upstairs and unlocked the door at this time.

Q. Well, did you make searches in all these rooms?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do?
A. Just looked around the rooms and moved things a little to one side to see if we could see anything.

Q. Did she have any trunk in there?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you examine it?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did not open it?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did not ask to have it opened?
A. Yes, there was a trunk that we opened that was locked, I think. Bridget went and got the key.

Q. I want to get this right now, Mr. Fleet.
A. We did look in a trunk.

Q. Was it locked?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ask her to unlock it?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you take out the things that were in the trunk?
A. I don't think we did.

Q. Did you disturb them at all?
A. Just looked in there.

Q. Well, looked in?
A. By lifting them up, that is all.

Q. Was there more than one trunk in that room?
A. I think there were.

Q. Well, did you look into them at all?
A. We looked into everything we could look into, that is just glanced over them, that is all.

Q. You did not look very closely there, did you?
A. No, sir.

Q. Didn't. Didn't stay very many minutes there did you?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see in that room any dresses?
A. I think there were some clothing in one of the rooms.

Q. Did you examine it?
A. Just looked at it, that is all.

Q. Did you take it down to look at it?
A. No, sir.

Q. You didn't examine that clothing?
A. Not to take them down, but just looked at them.

Q. Not to take them down. And you three officers were there making a search, wasn't you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you did not make a search up there?
A. Didn't we?

Q. Did you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did? Such as you described?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was there any blood on Bridget's dresses?
A. On Bridget's?

Q. That is what I asked you.
A. Not that I discovered.

Q. You didn't discover at all.
A. I did not discover anything in the line of blood.

Q. You did not look for blood, did you, on her dresses?
A. No more than I did the others.

Q. That is not quite correct. Did you look for blood on Bridget's dresses?
A. I looked at Bridget's dresses.

Q. Just tell the jury how you looked.
A. Just looked at the dresses as they were, --- some were thrown on the bed.

Q. Were they in the closet?
A. Some were in the closet.

Q. Did you take them down?
A. I threw them on the bed, that was all.

Q. Were there any grease spots on any of these dresses?
A. I can't say.

Q. You did not look to see, did you?
A. Not very closely.

[Allen]

It's also not the prosecutor who steers them away from talking about the pail and it's contents. It's Robinson from the defense who asked that it be stipulated that the pail held napkins from Lizzie's monthly sickness and they need not go into any details about it.

[leitskev]

Every time the bucket came up, from what I've seen, it was the prosecutor who avoided the topic. I have no doubt the defense did the same. I didn't take notes, so we'll just have to leave it at that.

The PDF I found online is in some kind of locked mode so my copy and paste doesn't work. It's a pain. It means I have to type myself any interesting quotes, so that has limited me, but I did still copy a lot.

Officer Desmond was leading the search teams on Saturday. See around page 729. He goes into detail about how thoroughly the rooms were searched. Trunks opened, beds overturned, sofas overturned...that kind of thing. The testimony is explicit and goes on for a few pages.

Your quote from Fleet...this seems to me like it was regarding the search on Thursday. I mean Desmond went into specific detail about how thorough the search was on Saturday. He even mentions how the marshal searched the roof twice. In his testimony, he describes the search of each room and closet, except the cellar. All I can do is suggest people read it themselves. I've given the approximate page location. I'm not inventing it.

Was the search as thorough as it could be? No search ever is, and from the police testimony they always allow they could miss things.

And there were quite a few dresses in the house. Not easy to search each one for tiny drops of blood. I would not at all be surprised that they could miss drops of blood.

But their priority was the weapon. And that's a lot tougher to hide than drops of blood.

Is it possible that the weapon was missed during the Saturday search? Anything is possible. But let's stop saying the house was not searched rigorously until Monday. A very timely and thorough search was made on Saturday, one that involved 5 men going room to room and overturning everything they could: drawers, mattresses, sofas. A careful search that took hours. Again, page 729.

The question to Desmond was: Did you make an "absolute, unrestrained and complete search". And his answer was yes.

These searches were repeated Monday, but the main difference was that they also searched through piles of hay, coal piles, the septic. And they brought a mason to open the chimneys.

These guys used a lot of manpower and time to try and find that weapon. Maybe they somehow missed it, but it was not for lack of effort. Even the day of the murders, the place was crawling with searching cops. They were not thorough or systematic that day, but they were looking.

- Rufus Hilliard also describes a "thorough" search of the house on Saturday from top to bottom. Saturday evening they collected evidence, which included: pieces of the house itself, hatchets and axes, and the bloody handkerchief.

also:

-- Alfred Clarkson arrived at the house at 11:40, before Fleet and Medley arrived, and he described several people already up in the barn. This is interesting because it's more proof of the activity that was going on around the house when Morse returned.

--when Fleet visited Lizzie's room, Lizzie and Bowen were in there. Bowen took a few minutes before letting them in. So it does seem Bowen was alone for some time with Lizzie not long after the murders. If anyone else was in the room with them at that moment, the testimony does not indicate.

-- when reading the testimony about Bowen burning the notes, it really struck me how truly strange and even suspicious this was. Because from previous testimony(Alice), it emerges that it was Bowen who was the one who conducted the search for the mysterious note to Abby! And that search was conducted early on. So certainly he knew the importance of the note, and yet he so nonchalantly burned notes in the stove.

Of course, despite a reward, no one in Fall River ever claimed to have sent for help, so I'm not suggesting there was in fact a note. I'm just saying whatever Bowen was in fact burning was very suspicious, because it's the oddest of times and places to burn notes.

-- each of the cops testified they saw rust originally on the broken hatchet...rust which had mysteriously been wipe by the time the weapon made it to court. No one can account for it. But one thing we now know: rust tends to eliminate that as the weapon because of the paint chips later found on the skulls. That didn't emerge until later, and wonder of wonders, the rust disappeared from the hatchet.

Conclusions so far IMO:
- it's certainly possible evidence was not found, especially clothing with trace amounts of blood.
- it's more than unlikely the hatchet remained in that house by Saturday. The house was searched rigorously that day, then again Monday. I'm just going by the transcripts.
- it was not in the bloody bucket. That bucket drew every cop's attention. People need to recognize that these cops, though not perfect, were not idiots. They might have had no way to test that blood, and they might not have spread out the rags for examination, but they certainly fished through enough to make sure there was no weapon in there.
- the cops were looking for a weapon in all of these searches. In no way were they confident that they had the weapon. This emerges at least twice in the court questioning.

[Allen]

I am getting ready to go out. So I am only going to post a few replies because I have no time to look up the testimony I want to include. The prosecution stayed away from the subject because as I said, it was the defense who asked that it be stipulated that the napkins were Lizzie's menstrual napkins and they needed no further details. Once stipulated all the prosecution could say without an objection being raised by the defense was there was a bucket of rags in the basement that were bloody. So it was ultimately the defense that put the muzzle on that subject.

One police officer stated that they made an unrestrained search. The search on Saturday was conducted by Desmond, Fleet, Hilliard, and Mr. Seaver. Unrestrained doesn't mean thorough. We see from the testimony of Mr. Fleet and Mr. Seaver how casual they were in their searches. How can Desmond testify to how well Mr. Fleet and Mr. Seaver searched better than they can themselves? This is why I included the testimony of the other officers who made the search. Unrestrained means they were not stopped from searching or hindered. They were not stopped from searching or hindered on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. To say their searches were lacking is a sad understatement. By Saturday Lizzie was a suspect yes? Yet they still searched pretty casually. Just glancing around the room and moving things to one side to look for a weapon. They handled everything yes. But not searching it thoroughly. Not searching all of the dresses hanging in the closet. If their searches were that casual when Lizzie was a suspect, why would their search have been any more thorough on the Monday? Which is four days after the murders. They looked into trunks and whatever else. Just looked into them. But all of the officers did not go from room to room. So the officers can only speak about what they themselves searched. Desmond went into details about the search on Saturday, but so did the officers who were actually searching who clearly show the search was not that thorough. Desmond was not at the house at all on Thursday or Friday. From the testimony of Fleet himself I would say he was casual about searching the house at best. Mr. Desmond testifies he didn't go into the cellar at all on Saturday. So he cannot say how well that was searched. He also took no part in searching the dress closet and other areas of the house. There is no testimony that the officers did anything other than observe the bucket with the rags in it. Period.

Dr. Bowen was not alone in the room with Lizzie when the police came to search her room. Mrs. Charles J. Holmes was in there. There are several witnesses who indicate Mrs. Holmes was in the room with her. Even the officer who opened the door and was held off by Dr. Bowen stated that Mrs. Holmes was in there. Later Reverend Buck was there as well. It's all in the testimony.

I am leaving now but there was more I wanted to say I just do not have time to look over the testimony to include the statements I wanted to add from the witnesses.

[Allen]

Trial testimony page 490:

Q. At that time what searches of the house did you make -- that day?
A. That day?

Q. Yes, sir.
A. Or at the first time?

Q. That day.
A. That day I searched the room of Lizzie and Emma Borden.

Q. I would like you to begin in the order in which you made them?
A. Well, we will commence with Lizzie's room then. I searched Lizzie's room and Emma's room.

Q. Who were there?
A. Officers Wilson and Minnehan.

Q. And yourself?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who else were in the room?
A. At that time?

Q. Yes, sir.
A. Dr. Bowen, Mrs. Holmes, and Lizzie Borden.

Q. Was Mr. Buck there then?
A. No, sir.

Q. Mrs. Charles J. Holmes?
A. That is right.
----------------------------
Page 492:

Q. You explained that. When you rapped at the door Dr. Bowen wanted to know if you must come in, or something of that kind?
A. He opened the door and wanted to know what was wanted.

Q. And stood at that door, as of course he would in opening the door and talking to you. There was nothing unusual about that?
A. No, no further than he seemed to be holding the fort; that is all.

Q. Is that in answer to my question?
A. I should think it applied to the manner in which he did his business.

Q. You looked at it that way?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was he doing anything more than standing with his hand on the door?
A. Yes, sir; standing with his hand on the door and the door ajar about eight inches, as though there was somebody inside there. I don't know but Lizzie might be sick, if you take it that way, or something the matter, he was so afraid about it.

Q. She was in there wasn't she?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Mrs. Holmes was in there?
A. Yes,sir.

--------------------
516:

Q. Then you had that second interview ---and was Dr. Bowen there that time, at the door?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is the time you spoke of?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And at that time Mrs. Holmes and Lizzie were in the room?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Anybody else?
A. Not that I recall.

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

639:

Q. And she said she hoped you would get through soon because it was making her sick, or something of that kind?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Got very tired, did she say?
A. She said she could not stand it much longer.

Q. Do you remember who was in there at the time?
A. Dr. Bowen and Mrs. Holmes.

[Allen]

Trial testimony Mrs. Holmes page 1500:

Q. Do you recollect whether Dr. Bowen was in the room before Officer Fleet came up, or whether he came up from down stairs and came in right before Officer Fleet?
A. My recollection is that he came up a few seconds or maybe a minute or two before Officer Fleet came into the room. We kept the door locked. The house was full of men, and if we did not have that door locked, as they came upstairs, they were apt to open it.

Q. Did you see any holding of the door by Dr. Bowen at the time so that officer Fleet couldn't come in?
A. Yes. He unlocked the door to see who was there. He said it was officer Fleet. He turned around and spoke to Miss Lizzie saying, "The officers wish to come in."

Q. I asked you if there was any holding in the sense of resisting the officers from coming in?
A. I don't know how I shall answer that question. He held it so that he should not come in until he had spoken with us inside and told us who it was that wished to come in. Then Miss Lizzie said, "Open the door."

[Allen]

Wilson was with Fleet and Minnehan on Thursday when they searched Lizzie's room. Which it's already been shown the search of those rooms was casual at best. After searching Lizzie's room he is asked about the search of the rest of the house.

Trial testimony of Mr. Wilson page 639:

Q. Now, Mr. Wilson, did you go with Mr. Minnehan and Mr. Fleet into other parts of the house to make examinations?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you please tell the jury where you went?
A. We went into the closet at the head of the stairs, and then went into the guest chamber. And from there into the attics and searched, not very closely.

Q. Searched round?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And wherever you wanted to go you went?
A. Yes, sir.

Officer Fleet seems to have made casual searches in just about every instance he is questioned about or involved in. He was one of the people searching on Saturday as well as Seaver, who testified he didn't even take all of the dresses down in the closet. The theme to how they searched the house from each officer that is questioned seems to be, aside from Desmond and Hilliard, not very closely.

[leitskev]

Just because Fleet or any other officer took a casual walk through search is irrelevant. The fact is that a team went systematically through the house on Saturday, starting at the attic, and going down room by room. Nothing was left unsearched. Mattresses and couches were tipped, the roof was searched twice, drawers were pulled out. This is the exact way a search would be conducted today. No metal detectors or CSI stuff. Just careful manpower, the way it's been done for centuries.

The trial transcript is exacting. It goes on for pages, room by room, detailing the nature of the search of each room.

Whether other cops took casual walk-throughs searching for stuff does not affect the conducting of a rigorous, "thorough" search by the team led by Desmond.

The possibility that the murder weapon escaped their search can never be ruled out. We can never prove something like that.

But the fact remains a rigorous search was conducted Saturday. No one should take my word. Read the testimony.

Reading the PDF is tedious. It took me a lot of time. I'm not surprised few people read it. But once you know the page to go to, it's easy. And I've provided the page. It's around 728, maybe a little before.

For those that argue the weapon was hidden in the house, and that it remained there until after the trial, this does not change anything. Their argument should assume that Lizzie had a well thought out place to stash the hatchet, someplace she could get it to quickly. A place which would survive multiple rigorous police searches. Whether those searches were Sat, Sun, Mon...it probably doesn't matter if she had such a hiding place.

But at least we can stop saying the place wasn't searched until Monday. That's no longer part of our analysis.

[Allen]

I still do not believe the search was thorough on any of the days. It is still a part of my analysis. And respectfully I've read the same PDF's that you did. The fact that Desmond didn't even take part in the search in many parts of the house shows he has no idea how thorough it was. I've showed you statements of the other Officers who stated that the searches were not thorough and those were ignored in favor of statements made by one Officer who did not even search all parts of the house. Nor was he present at any of the other searches. Desmond was not in the cellar at all that day. So he knows nothing about that search. He was not in the dress closet that day. There are other areas he did not search himself so he knows nothing about how thoroughly they were searched. And for an example when I showed the testimony of Mr. Seaver who was searching the dress closet on Saturday that indicates they did not even remove all of the dresses from the hooks, this was ignored. This is not establishing the house was thoroughly searched. And I invite everyone to indeed read all of this testimony for themselves. You have read the trial transcript and said there was no testimony stating that someone was in the room with Lizzie besides Dr. Bowen but there clearly was, and there was several instances in testimony when this was mentioned. Even by the officer who was held off at the door, our Mr. Fleet. You also stated in another thread that the Officer watched Lizzie urinate. The team of men who were present Saturday under Desmond were Mr. Seaver, Fleet, and Marshal Hilliard. This is by Desmond's own testimony. And Desmond did not go into the dress closet, nor did he go into the cellar, and other areas. That leaves Fleet and Seaver. And I already showed the testimony that proves their search methods lacked in just about every way.

So the lack of a thorough search is still definitely in my analysis.

[leitskev]

The cop outside watched Lizzie and Alice empty their slop buckets. And the attorneys questioning twice were careful to be tactful about what the cop saw regarding a personal matter...disposing of waste. Whether one of them urinating was irrelevant and your're trying to nit pick previous posts as though that somehow disproves matters.

The important thing regarding that testimony: the police were watching the house from the windows outside, even to the point of carefully watching the ladies visit an area of the cellar where personal needs were tended to. This was the "bathroom" of the house. The fact that cops were watching it so closely shows how strongly they suspected Lizzie by that night. It shows how diligent they were in watching the house. That's all I was referring to...and frankly, you know that.

"So it does seem Bowen was alone for some time with Lizzie not long after the murders. If anyone else was in the room with them at that moment, the testimony does not indicate."

This is my statement regarding the first search of Lizzie's room. "Seem" means I was not certain. And that particular testimony did not indicated anyone else in the room. The cops knocked at her door, Bowen answered, only opening the door a few inches. He then closed it to consult with Lizzie. He then opened it again a few inches and explained to the cops she was tired. They explained that it was their official duty to search the room. I forget the exact words. Bowen again consulted Lizzie then relented to the cops. I don't believe it indicated there that anyone was in the room. It's possible there was and it just wasn't mentioned there. My impression remains that no one else was there, but I remain open to more testimony proving otherwise.

Also coming out in this questioning...the cops, after some prodding, admitted they were looking for the murder weapon. Which makes it pretty clear Lizzie was a suspect almost from the start. They did not look rigorously. They were not comfortable at this time, with Lizzie in the room, doing the type of thorough search that was needed.

Maybe Alice was in the room with Lizzie the entire time. Maybe she wasn't. Maybe it's not 100% clear from the transcripts. It's clear Lizzie was under close care from the ever-present Bowen. It's certainly reasonable to guess that Lizzie and Bowen could have had time alone with Lizzie. Mrs. Churchill went home, Emma did not arrive until late. Was Alice with Lizzie every second? Maybe, but it's very reasonable to assume that if Bowen and Lizzie wanted to, they had moments alone.

As far as Desmond searching the cellar, I believe I had already said, he did not. In the Saturday search he led, everything but the cellar was searched. The cellar had been the focus of the searches since day one. And it was in the cellar that searching had persisted Friday. The cellar was the focus of police searching since the beginning. I don't think there is any doubt the cellar was not searched rigorously...over and over and over.

The rest of the house was searched rigorously Sat and Mon. It's probable that they did not examine every dress closely. Maybe that's because they had some description of the dress that allowed them to eliminate certain types of dress. That's pure speculation on my part. I do know that Bridgett(I think it was hers; it was in the attic anyway) had a locked trunk and they went through a huge effort to figure out how to open it. Apparently it had a secret trigger.

In any case, the focus was clearly on finding the hatchet. The entire place was turned upside down in that effort. Sat and Mon.

There certainly is more than enough in the transcript that we should not be insisting to other members here that the place was not searched until Monday. They could have missed the hatchet in some hiding place, but it would be a pretty big miss.

[Allen]

This is my statement regarding the first search of Lizzie's room. "Seem" means I was not certain. And that particular testimony did not indicated anyone else in the room. The cops knocked at her door, Bowen answered, only opening the door a few inches. He then closed it to consult with Lizzie. He then opened it again a few inches and explained to the cops she was tired. They explained that it was their official duty to search the room. I forget the exact words. Bowen again consulted Lizzie then relented to the cops. I don't believe it indicated there that anyone was in the room. It's possible there was and it just wasn't mentioned there. My impression remains that no one else was there, but I remain open to more testimony proving otherwise.

It was not the bathroom of the house. It was the wash room and the slop pail was emptied in the wash sink, and she rinsed it out, with a window right there that the police officer happened to be able to see into. There was a water closet for doing the personal matters which had no windows and was in another part of the basement. This is not nit picking. This is sticking to facts. Something you keep insisting we should all do but seem unwilling to do yourself even when provided with testimony. There is a big difference between watching Lizzie urinate, and seeing her empty a bucket into a wash sink and we have no idea what the contents even were. It's not irrelevant. The fact that you think it is irrelevant whether they watched her urinate or empty a bucket into a sink is really odd.

I provided all of the testimony that shows that even the police officer, Mr. Fleet, who knocked on the door to search Lizzie's room, and was met by Dr. Bowen, stated Mrs. Holmes was in the room. The intention was to provide the testimony that indicates Mrs. Holmes was in fact the room, and that Dr. Bowen was not alone with Lizzie at the time. You seem to have ignored it. I provided the testimony of Mrs. Holmes herself who stated she was in the room when the police officers knocked on the door, Dr. Bowen turned to speak to Lizzie, and then the officer was let in. She even said she was in the room before Dr. Bowen came. It was made quite clear by several people, in testimony, that Mrs. Holmes was in there. You ignored all of the testimony that I posted. It's starting to seem as though you ignore a great deal. So I think that my adding anything else to this thread is a waste of time. There was no description of the dress for them to have left out searching any dresses. There never was a reliable description of the dress Lizzie wore that day. Nobody was sure what it looked like. The only windows the police could look into from the outside were the basement windows. The house sits up too high to see into the windows from outside.

You keep insisting that Desmond said it was a thorough search and everything was handled top to bottom. But even you concede he was not present for much of the searching. Why should we take his word for something he was not even present to witness?

I never said the place was not searched until Monday. I said all of the searches were lacking. They searched. I wouldn't say they were actually doing their best. And in insisting that we stick to trial testimony, I wish that you would read all of the testimony and not ignore things that clearly indicate my points are valid and correct. I respectfully bow out of this conversation.

[PossumPie]

There are a few assumptions being made.
1. Because police searched the house the day of the Murders they must have suspected Lizzie.
2.Because no weapon was found it wasn't there.
3 Because no weapon was found Lizzie must have been innocent .
4. Because Police were involved anything hidden would certainly have been found.
I don't believe any of those assumptions. You make a huge leap to believe the cops would have found a weapon if it were there. Cops are not perfect. The police didn't even find JonBenet Ramsey's BODY in her own home, friends of the family did...and you think cops would have absolutely found a small hatchet in Lizzie's???
Perhaps Lizzie was innocent, but not for ANY of the above reasons.

[Allen]

I was looking for testimony by Hilliard and a few others present at the time of the searches last night but I was in a hurry because I went Christmas shopping. I did look it up today and will add it now since it was in my intention to do it last night, but I didn't have time and was too tired when I got home. Regarding the search on Saturday it was said by Marshal Hilliard that the search of the house, in his opinion, was completed on Saturday. Except for the cellar and the chimney which would be done Monday morning. He also admitted that he didn't search many areas of the house himself. That they all split up to search. The same as Desmond admitted to not having searched many areas of the house himself that day. Present for the search was Marshal Hilliard, State Detective Seaver, Assistance Marshal Fleet, and Desmond. The others present were Dr. Dolan and Lizzie's lawyer Andrew Jennings.

Trial testimony of Rufus Hilliard page 1138:

Q. Well, now, you came into the kitchen, all of you, and where did you go? I want you to describe to the jury the effectiveness and the thoroughness of your search in all details, and take one room at a time and follow the order of your going.
A. Well, I would say I didn't search all of the rooms. We divided up, searched here and there. I didn't search every room in the house.

Q. Well, you were the head of the searching party?
A. Well, I was one of them; yes sir.

Q. I don't want to underrate your dignity and office, but you were the captain?
A. Well, I was with the immediate men in my police department ---

Q. Everybody but Mr. Seaver and Mr. Jennings?
A. Mr. Seaver and Mr. Jennings and Dr. Dolan.


Trial testimony of Emma Borden page 1540 (Being asked about the paint stained dress):

Q. Now where was this dress, if you know, on Saturday the day of the search?
A. I saw it hanging in the clothes press over the front entry.

Q. At about what time?
A. I don't know exactly; I think about 9:00 o'clock in the evening.

Q. How came you to see it at that time?
A. I went in to hang up a dress that I had been wearing during that day, and there was no vacant nail, and I searched round to find a nail, and I found this dress.

Trial testimony Alice Russell page 411 - 412:

Q. Now, didn't the officers come right into the house as quick as the funeral party went and search the house in her absense?
A. No, sir.

Q. Didn't they come in during that time?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they made searches?
A. They made a search, but they didn't search everywhere.

Q. Did they go into her room?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you go up into the room while they were at work there?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did they do?

Moody. This was on Saturday?

Mr. Robinson. This was on Saturday while the bodies were at the grave.

Q. Do you wish to answer the question?
A. Yes, sir. I think one of the officers took the key that lay on the bureau after Miss Lizzie had left and unlocked one or two of the drawers in her bureau, and didn't search any farther there. I think they opened what was called her toilet room, pulled the portiere one side, just looked there a little. I don't know how much they searched, I don't think very much, and they went into Miss Emma's room and looked around, and opened the cupboard door in her room, and I remember one of the officers pressing against a bundle after he shut it, I think so, some pillow or blanket, something of that kind, and the bed was taken to pieces. That is all that I saw.

[leitskev]

This website is frustrating me. Not for the first time, I've come back to find a lengthy post deleted. I don't understand it.

I replied respectfully to Possum's post regarding assumptions. Should I waste more time replying again? Time is valuable...I hate to completely waste it. I don't know what's going on here. The worst thing is to post, like Possum did, and then feel like your post was ignored. I'll try again, but please be assured, I am not ignoring your post. Someone is deleting it, even though there is nothing offensive in it.

1) they did suspect Lizzie, early on, a suspicion that grew throughout the day, and this bleeds through in the testimony. They suspected her for the same reason we all do: her story doesn't add up.
2) there may have been a weapon there...hell, maybe it still is. No once can say what happened to it. But we can say that following: the police were looking for the weapon. When they tested the axes and hatchets found in the cellar against the cuts in the scarf, the only match they found was the handle-less hatchet. And they did not have confidence in this being the weapon. So they looked hard in that house. Rigorous searches were done on Sat and Mon. And they didn't find it.
3) no weapon was found, and Lizzie never left the property. That does not mean she was innocent...but it is a problem. A fairly big one. It's possible the searches simply failed. It's also possible she had an accomplice help remove it. It's possible an accomplice did the killings. And it's even possible she was innocent.
4) as far as police being perfect...from my experience, they are often incompetent. So I'm not claiming these cops were perfect or even good. But searching is a very basic function. The key question is motivation. If they believed they had the murder weapon and enough evidence, they might have lacked motivation. But the transcripts do not at all suggest this. They believed Lizzie was the killer, and they wanted to find that weapon. They spent hours searching Sat then again Mon.

[leitskev]

more reading...I wish copy and paste worked or I'd show more.

Allen, if you keep reading from where you copied, it's interesting. On the one hand, Hilliard says that was the only search "that day". But then, a moment later, he says they came back at 3 in the afternoon and stayed 3 and half hours conducting a "top to bottom" search. He affirms the search was "thorough".

Hilliard: "...we searched...all of the trunks, we looked at the stove, the inside of the stove, in fact we searched everything that was in the room...went through bureaus, drawers, went into the closet, went through the shelves, looked around everything that was there, and we looked into a place where there was a cupboard by the chimney, where we was trying to get a stick down in by the chimney in order to poke around in there..."

They requested a mason so they could get inside those chimneys, and the mason was with the Monday search.

And he says they were looking for "the weapon and bloody clothes."

They also searched a water tank of some sort in the attic.

No way of saying whether mistakes weren't made, but it was a search by 6 men that lasted at least 4 hours. And there seems to have been other less formal searches going on by involved officers throughout the day.

So I'm honestly not sure what to conclude. The search was thorough and intensive...but was it exhaustive? Probably not. They searched places they deemed it possible to hide a weapon. But did they miss something? I think odds are against them missing a hatchet, but certainly not impossible.

[leitskev]

Reading this again, it's more clear.

Hilliard didn't search every room...of course he didn't. They had 6 men and divided the tasks.

And the searching of Lizzie's room seems to have been twice that Saturday.

First, when the family was at the funeral, they took advantage to do a quick search of things before the Bordens returned.

But then later, with Lizzie and Emma back, they began their more methodical search of the entire house. That's when Lizzie stood in the doorway to Emma's room while they searched. And that's when they got her to give up her shoes and socks from Thurs. And that's when Lizzie or Emma helped them with the trunk they could not unlock. This makes total sense. Search Lizzie's room quick before she comes back.

This is how it seems to me. And I can see where it's confusing.

[Allen]

There were only four police officers present for the search on Saturday. Marshal Hilliard, Assistant Marshal Fleet, Desmond, and State Detective Seever. The other two men mentioned were Andrew Jennings, Lizzie's lawyer, and Dr. Dolan the medical examiner. I read the entire testimony of each witness. I was aware he said he did leave at one point and came back. That did not convince me they searched any more thoroughly when the family got back. If they had the house to themselves and could search freely without the family there, why would they make a more thorough search once the family were there in the house? That for me just didn't add up. It doesn't explain how they missed the paint stained dress either. No matter where it was in the house.

[PossumPie]

Compare the Trial testimonies, witness reports, and all papers connected to the case to religious people looking at the Bible. For 2000 years people have fought over the interpretation of different passages of Scripture. They read the SAME THINGS, yet interpret them completely differently. I read and re-read trial testimonies, etc. in this case, and sometimes marvel at how differently other people interpret them. Some people have taken bits and pieces and made an entire theory. Others focus on one passage or another to support their beliefs. We read something like "We thoroughly searched..." and none of us know what that means. We weren't there. I keep fantasizing that I could pull back upholstery tack under a mattress, or stuffed chair, jam the wedge of the hatchet head between two planks so it won't rattle around, and push the tack back in. Even if someone turned the couch, mattress, chair over, it would look fine. Something that simple would be explanation of how it could be overlooked. Break the hatchet head off in a vise, and now you just have to hide something smaller than a wallet. I have a corner cupboard, and if I reach up underneath, there is a cross piece there. jamming a hatchet head up there, even if the cupboard was moved away from the wall, or a light shined under, it wouldn't be found. These are just a few NON-OBVIOUS places someone could put something. Police, no matter how good look in obvious places. Looking inside a stove seems smart. But did they think that if you reach way up the flue, and forward, that there is a ledge called a smoke box? They could poke around in the ashes or reach a light into the flue, even pull the whole stove away from the chimney, and not find it up on that small ledge. I'm just giving some examples of places where a hatchet may go unnoticed. Police pull out drawers and search. What about underneath a drawer? What about false bottoms to things? A hollowed out book? In a time before bank accounts were insured by the FDIC, many people had hiding places in and around their house for valuables, or money. These were given a lot of thought b/c a thief couldn't accidentally stumble across them.

[leitskev]

Yes, Possum. There is no way for us to know for sure. They used the word thorough in describing their search. And they went into detail demonstrating the nature of their search...turning beds, searching stoves and chimneys, and so on. But there is no way to ever no for sure. It also helps to keep in mind their level of motivation, which seems to have been high. They felt confident Lizzie was the killer, but they needed the weapon, and they knew it was likely in the house(unless there was an accomplice).

Do we really feel Lizzie was that competent that she could hide a hatchet...no small thing...in such a way that 2 "thorough" searches and multiple smaller searches could not find it? Do we know of any similar examples where someone hid something like that and the police didn't find it?

Would you admit that if you knew nothing at all about this case, and you were told that police searched thoroughly in a house for a hatchet, wouldn't you expect that they would find it? Look around you in the room you are sitting in. If I told you that yesterday while you were at work someone sneaked in and hid a hatchet in that very room, do you think you could find it? When it comes down to it, it's very hard to hide something that size if people are looking for it.

Allen, let's suppose you are a group of cops and you've been trained to do a house search in a methodical way, top to bottom. But before you begin, there is a window when Lizzie is not home. Why not take a quick stab at finding something? I would.

It's pretty evident in the testimony that eventually her room was thoroughly searched Sat. Desmond says they tipped the mattress, the sofa, looked under the bed.

As far as the dress, it's harder to find a dress with tiny blood drops than it is a hatchet. It's easy to miss drops, and there were a lot of dresses it sounds like. If I were with those cops, I would have been more focused on the weapon. Like you guys, they were sure it was in the house somewhere...just a matter of finding it.

[Allen]

leitskev I have a degree in criminal justice. I was trained in how police do searches. I conducted mock searches. I staged crimes scenes, and recreated crime scenes. I learned all the techniques police officers use including drawing crime scene sketches. I've studied the history of how police do their searches and how our law enforcement came to be established the way it is today. I do know about how police are trained to conduct searches. This was also a different time. I've also seen several real life searches that were so botched my two year old grandson could have done better. This to me does not make sense. No, it doesn't. To say that the police making casual searches the first two days of the murders doesn't matter makes no sense. Even if Lizzie was NOT a suspect it was their job to search for evidence from the minute they were called to the house. Not two or three days later. Because somebody did kill the Bordens, and they had no idea who. That they didn't do it that first day speaks of how inept these police searches really were. What one officer terms a thorough search on SATURDAY, two days later, is not a strong indication they were determined in their search to find evidence. Do we know of any other cases where the weapon was hidden and never found? I couldn't even begin to list every single case if I had seven years to write them all down. Yes, it has happened countless times. Do we know of any other cases where it the search was so botched the evidence probably could have been sitting on the coffee table and not found? Yes, I do. And you keep returning to Desmond and how he says the house was searched. Which neglects to mention he didn't search the entire house. And the other officers present were basically inept at searching to say the least. It doesn't make sense to say maybe they missed bloody clothing, but wouldn't miss a weapon. Wouldn't bloody clothing be just as important? If not MORE important than finding a weapon? Clothing is linked to a certain individual. A weapon is not. They couldn't even get fingerprints from it at that time. I don't think a male intruder is going to wear Lizzie's dress. And you are forgetting this police force had never handled a murder such as this before. This was basic police work to search the house. It was their job not to miss any evidence. And their searches were lacking.

[Allen]

And if you are in a house to search for evidence of a murder, and the family is not at home, and you came there for the purpose of searching while the family is not home, you don't make a quick stab at searching. You search. And you keep saying they were focused on finding the weapon. It's also not a policeman's duty to just search for a weapon at the expense of all other evidence. And it was a weapon that could point to Lizzie doing the deed. But not conclusively. Not like, a bloody dress that belonged to Lizzie. Bloody clothing used to cover herself from blood spatter. It also really doesn't come down to how clever Lizzie was, as it does how botched the searches that could have found evidence were. If the searches weren't botched we would know for sure if it was paint on that dress or not.

[Allen]

Can evidence of a murder be hidden so well, by a woman like Lizzie who everyone thinks was not clever enough to evade being caught, that it was never solved? Yes, it can. You do not have to be a brilliant criminal mastermind with several murders under you belt. One example. Constance Kent was sixteen years old in 1865 when she took her four year old brother out of his bed in the middle of the night, with the nursemaid also asleep in that same room, and carried him outside to slit his throat with a straight razor in the privy. She then dumped his body into the privy where it was found the next morning. She did it to get back at her step mother. She said she killed the thing she loved the most. Scotland yard was called in to investigate because the local magistrate was dissatisfied with how the local police were handling the case. And Detective Whicher of Scotland yard, one of the most world re known law enforcement agencies in the world, could find no conclusive evidence that could incriminate Constance. Even though Detective Whicher suspected her and focused a great deal of energy and man power on trying to find proof she had done it. But his sixteen year old first time killer managed to outsmart Scotland Yard. The only reason she was convicted is she confessed and gave herself up five years later. Is Lizzie less clever than a sixteen year old first time killer? Were the Fall River police more thorough than Scotland Yard?

[PossumPie]

Look, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point.
Leitskev believes in competent police who in all likelihood would have found a hatchet given the searches that were made. He also believes Lizzie never had an opportunity to dispose of it off-property during those searches. OK. We can't prove or disprove that.
Allen and I believe that police botch cases, fumble around, miss well-hidden items, and at times, sadly, miss items in plain view. We believe that well meaning officers made valiant attempts to find it, but that it was Lizzie's home "turf" and she knew where to hide it. Nothing in the evidence will prove or disprove either story.
We are all filtering the evidence (or lack of it) through our own personal filters. Both Allen and I have admitted our personal distrust and dislike for law enforcement officers. I happen to be a Libertarian, and think too much "Law enforcement" goes on in this country. This taints my objectivity I am sure.
BUT...
In Little Rock AK a prisoner who was frisked TWICE shot himself in the head in the back seat of a police cruiser while handcuffed, with his own gun. An officer was reprimanded for not conducting a thorough enough search of the prisoner. If a cop can miss A GUN on a person's body, I bet they can miss a hatchet in a house....

[leitskev]

Nothing frustrates me more than when people continuously misstate my position or beliefs...despite the fact that I have addressed the matter many times. Possum, you and I share the exact same understanding when it comes to police! And I also am a libertarian! Perhaps because I am a man you are assuming I am an "arch conservative"? I don't know. I've said several times that in my experience police are often incompetent.

Let me try again, and sticking with this case:

There is ample evidence of police dishonesty in the Lizzie Borden case.

* Each cop testified that the handleless hatchet appeared newly broken. But this testimony did not hold up under questioning. The police were not credible in describing what that even meant, and one of the cops was a former carpenter. The police and the prosecution apparently fell on the handleless hatchet by default. When they took Abby's handkerchief down to examine it with the axes and hatchets, none of the ones with handled matched. So very conveniently, the handleless one became the weapon of choice. And police testimony on the handle was contradictory, as one cop testified seeing the handle right next to it in the box. And yet this handle disappeared.

* The police testified that no one could have been in the barn loft because the dust on the floor was undisturbed. But then it emerged that kids had gone up into the loft looking for the killer...before the cops inspected it.

* there were numerous chain of custody problems with the handling of the evidence.

* rust spots observed by at least 3 of the cops on the handleless hatchet were no longer present by the time it got to court. Only speculation can be made on what happened, but it seems likely to me that the rust was removed after the examination of the skulls found no rust...and found blue paint chips on Abby that indicated the hatchet was new and unused.

If cops believe they have the right suspect, and they evidence does not quite add up, they WILL fudge things to get the conviction. It happens everyday. No, I don't trust cops at all.

But they won't fudge evidence if they don't have to. Find the weapon, and there is no need. And they believed the weapon was in that house.

Allen, of course Desmond did not search everything. He was not by himself. This was teamwork, as expected. But it's impossible to read the Desmond testimony and not come away thinking the police at least attempted a rigorous search. Could they have missed things? We'll never know. Maybe Lizzie was wearing the dress under her clothes for a couple days. Maybe the dress with the paint was a different type of dress than what they were looking for. And I would imagine that searching all these dresses in poor light for a few tiny drops of blood...or paint...was difficult.

That these cops probed chimneys, later brought in a mason to open them; searched water tanks, the roof; moved lumber piles, hay stacks, coal piles; searched stoves, trunks; tipped sofas and beds, etc. They believed that weapon was there and they were determined to find it.

I don't trust police testimony, so maybe they exaggerated the rigorousness of their search. But police are more likely to lie when they need to. They couldn't find the weapon, so they needed to start fudging.

All we can go by is the police testimony, and the transcripts detail thorough searches on Sat and Mon.

Allen, that's an interesting case, not sure without more info if it sheds any light on the Borden murders. Did they have the murder weapon(the blade)? A hatchet is not a small object to hide. And it probably would take some cleverness to hide one. Cleverness that is never evident in anything Lizzie does. I mean she doesn't even take a moment to open the front door and make it look like someone escaped that way. Imagine if she had done that one thing how different our discussion might be? But as it is, Lizzie asks us to believe that a killer got in the house, presumably through the side door(cellar was also found locked), killed Abby without being heard, waited an hour and a half, killed Andrew and then left through the side door without Lizzie seeing him. It's too hard to accept. But if the front door had been found open...at least there could be a possible way of her explaining things.

[Aamartin]

I don't think Lizzie was a dullard at all.... I think arrogance played a large part in her behavior after the murders.

[leitskev]

Hey, Aamartin. On the one hand, she seems to have gotten away with murder, and to somehow have hidden the evidence. So that's in favor of the Lizzie was no dunce angle. On the other hand, she couldn't keep her story straight, even about what she was looking for in the loft; and she made no attempt to stage a crime scene. I mean even just opening the front door so it looked like someone ran out would have been a huge help to her cause.

You know what? That could make an interesting new topic!

[Allen]

I don't think Lizzie was a dullard at all.... I think arrogance played a large part in her behavior after the murders.

I agree with this. I believe Lizzie thought she could get away with things because she was a woman so nobody would suspect her. I think she counted on hiding evidence in places the police would not look because she was a woman. Let's face it, she was basically acquitted because she was a woman. If she murdered her parents she did outsmart police. No evidence was found that conclusively incriminated her. It didn't matter that the front door was not left unlocked. It didn't matter that she didn't stage it to look like an intruder got in. All of this evidence was presented at the trial and she walked free. If her inquest testimony and the attempt to buy poison had been allowed I'm not sure she would have been convicted even then. Many people insist that she was under the influence of drugs at the time she testified. Which is incorrect. And that Bence identified the wrong woman or made it up. I think no evidence being found is a combination of Lizzie being more clever than people give her credit for and the botched searches. It doesn't matter how many dresses there were. Or the poor lighting. Take them to a better place and search them. Imagine an officer saying "I couldn't search the dresses too good it was dark and there were too many."

Finding the weapon would have been good but not conclusive. The weapon as evidence is not that strong. Fingerprinting wasn't available. The most they could say is whether or not it was human blood. If any blood was found. All she had to do was wash it off. And not even whose blood it was if they found it. I'm iffy about the accuracy of their testing methods for what they could supposedly discern. They found zip. Taking pieces of the house to show blood spatter at the trial was absurd. Taking the carpet sample only proved there was blood there. Everyone already knew that. Today they could separate the DNA of the perpetrator from the victim if there was any but then it was just bloody carpet. Even the evidence they did collect was pretty much worthless. Except for the handle-less hatchet which I still believe is the weapon. And the defense managed to blow it out of the water so well no one even considers it a possibility anymore. They didn't even know if the clothes that Lizzie gave them were the clothes she was really wearing that day. They had no reliable description of what she was wearing. All the blood found was explained away as menstrual blood for the bloody rags, and the spot on her dress was the result of Lizzie "having fleas".


As for Constance I think it has some bearing on the Borden case. She slipped this little sleeping boy out of his room with his nursemaid sleeping right there. She carried him out and through the rest of the house to slit his throat outside in the privy. Slitting of the throat is not like hitting someone with a hatchet. Even the police at that time were aware this could have caused arterial spray. It would have been very bloody. Their focus was finding any evidence she had done it. But especially the bloody night dress she had worn or any blood spattered clothing. Finding a straight razor in the house was not uncommon. People shaved with them. People cut themselves shaving which produces human blood. A straight razor hidden in the house would have looked suspicious, but not conclusive. Bloody clothing, as I said in Lizzie's case, is another matter. But even with an investigation by the local police and Scotland yard no conclusive evidence was found. She was arrested but released without being put on trial. There was public outcry because again it was insisted she was a young lady with "good breeding" being railroaded by lowly law enforcement. When she was found guilty after she confessed she was sentenced to death. Her sentence was commuted to life in prison. She didn't spend life in prison she was released after 20 years in 1885. Some people to this day think her confession was false and there are wild theories about who really did it and why. They think she confessed to cover for her father, or her brother, or the nursemaid. Some people even tried to imply she was responsible for the Jack the Ripper murders. Interestingly enough in 1892 she became a certified nurse, had changed her name to Ruth Emilie Kaye, and was at that time living in Australia. She lived to a pretty ripe old age and if she murdered her brother that was the only act of violence she ever committed.

[PossumPie]

Leitskev, I still don't think I misrepresented your position. You have consistently stated that:
1. Thorough searches were done, and
2. If a weapon were there it would have been found.
Ipso Facto you believe the police were competent- at least in searching. You have argued that throughout this thread. You imply that IF Lizzie murdered them, the weapon would have to have been in the house, and therefore found by the police.
I now understand you to say that police can be corrupt. I agree to a point, but for the most part I think that they are arrogant egomaniacs, often less-than-competent, but overall fairly honest.

BTW, can't wait to watch my Ravens beat your Patriots Sunday...We really gave you 'what for' on the road to the Super Bowl last year!

[twinsrwe]

... Let's face it, she was basically acquitted because she was a woman. ...

Allen, I have a question that I hope you can answer; please, correct me if I am wrong.

It is my understanding that someone involved in Lizzie’s trial said that if Lizzie were a man, she would have been convicted.

Is this true, and if it is, do you know who said this?

[Franz]

Without considering how the jury arrived to the sentence, I think they made a correct decision. In my opinion the reasonable doubt are just overwhelming. If the Boden case occured today, and if I were a juror, I would vote for "not guilty", not because Lizzie was a woman, not because I am 100% certain of her innocence, but because I have many, many, doubt --- and I think they are reasonable doubt --- about her guilt.

[Allen]

... Let's face it, she was basically acquitted because she was a woman. ...

Allen, I have a question that I hope you can answer; please, correct me if I am wrong.

It is my understanding that someone involved in Lizzie’s trial said that if Lizzie were a man, she would have been convicted.

Is this true, and if it is, do you know who said this?

Twinsrwe I believe many statements to this effect about were made that if Lizzie were a man she most probably would have been convicted. I think this opinion was voiced by many people around that time. I am doing some digging to find the best examples. I do think that Judge Blaisdell's statement at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing runs pretty much in the same theme. The full statement can be found on page 162 of Lizzie Borden Past and Present and this is where I quote it from.

"The long examination is now concluded, and there remains but for the magistrate to perform what he believes to be his duty. It would be a pleasure for him, and he would doubtless receive much sympathy if he could say, "Lizzie, I judge you probably not guilty. You may go home.' But upon the character of the evidence presented through the witnesses who have been so closely and thoroughly examined, there is but one thing to be done. Suppose for a single moment a man was standing there. He was found close by that guest chamber which, to Mrs. Borden, was a chamber of death. Suppose a man had been found in the vicinity of Mr. Borden, who was first to find the body, and the only account he could give of himself was the unreasonable one that he was out in the barn looking for sinkers, then he was out in the yard, then he was out for something else. Would there be any question in the minds of men what should be done with such a man? So there is only one thing to do, painful as it may be -, the judgement of the Court is that you are probably guilty, and you are ordered committed to await the action of the Superior Court."

[Allen]

Another interesting tidbit I'd like to throw in since Mr. Desmond has figured so much into this particular thread.

Lizzie Borden Past and Present page 36:

"Mr. Borden immediately reported the affair [robbery] to the authorities with the request that it be kept a profound secret. It was kept quiet for over a year and had it not been for the terrible developments in the family last August, the robbery would almost have been forgotten. In any event, it never would have reached public prints. It is understood that the fastenings on the desk had been tampered with, although the final entrance may have been effected with a key which fitted the lock, either by accident or intention.

It is coincidence that an officer [Dennis Desmond] was put upon the case who knew the Borden family thoroughly. In fact, it may be said that he had, in a sense, grown up with the daughters.

There had been a series of robberies in Fall River just preceding this, and a young man was finally tripped up with a lot of sized keys in his possession, but there seems to have been something distinctive in this theft that did not indicate an expert.

Mr. Borden was the director in the street railway company, and the tickets stolen were those issued only to directors. Consequently, being of such limited use, it was comparatively easy to trace the thief the minute the tickets were presented. The amount of money taken was not large.

A watch was kept on the street cars for several weeks, but just what the detective's work disclosed will not be known before the trial, for suddenly, Mr. Borden told the officers to drop the case. It is said, however, the tickets were traced to some person.

It does not appear that anything else was taken from the house at this time, nor were any other of the houses in that neighborhood robbed." Fall River Daily Herald, May 26, 1893: 7."

Also on page 36:

"Chief Hilliard [allegedly] told the members of the grand jury why it was the mysterious burglar who stole Mrs. Borden's watch...The chief said he was satisfied that Lizzie committed the theft, and went on to say how he convinced Mr. Borden that such was the case. All the articles stolen at the time were property of Mrs. Borden and included, beside the watch and money, a quantity of free horse tickets. A number of persons were found presenting free tickets who were not entitled to them. The police asked them where they secured these little pasteboards. They said Lizzie Borden gave them to them. Lizzie never had any of these tickets until after the theft from Mrs. Borden, so Mr. Borden requested that there be no further investigation...."


----------------------------------------------------------------
From The Knowlton Papers:

H. M. Knowlton,
per M. E.

Enclosure:

On or about the 24 of June 1891 I was called into City Marshal's office.

"Marshal Hilliard said "Mr Desmond, Mr Borden says his house has been robbed. You go with him, and see what there is to it." Mr Borden and myself left the office and went direct to Mr Borden's house Second St. I found there Mrs Borden, Emma Borden Lizzie Borden & Bridget Sullivan.

On 2nd floor in a small room on north side of house I found Mr Borden's desk. It had been broken open. Mr Borden said "$80.00 in money and 25 to 30 dollars in gold, and a large number of H car tickets had been taken. The tickets bore name or signature of Frank Brightman."
Brightman was a former treasurer of Globe St. railroad co.

Mrs. Borden said "her gold watch & chain, ladies chain, with slide & tassel attached, some other small trinkets of jewelry, and a red Russia leather pocket-book containing a lock of hair had been taken. I prize the watch very much, and I wish & hope that you can get it; but I have a feeling that you never will." Nothing but the property of Mr & Mrs Borden reported as missing.

The family was at a loss to see how any person could get in, and out without somebody seeing them. Lizzie Borden said "the cellar door was open, and someone might have come in that way." I visited all the adjoining houses, including the Mrs Churchills house on the north, Dr Kelly's house on the south, Dr Gibbs house & Dr Chagnon's house on the east, and made a thorough search of the neighborhood to find some person who might have seen someone going, or coming from Mr Borden's house; but I failed to find any trace.

I did get a 6 or 8 penny nail which "Lizzie Borden said she found in the Key hole of door," leading to a sleeping room on 2nd floor, east end of building. So far as I know this robbery has never been solved.

P .S. Mr Borden told me three times within two weeks after the robbery in these words "I am afraid the police will not be able to find the real thief."

[twinsrwe]

... Let's face it, she was basically acquitted because she was a woman. ...

Allen, I have a question that I hope you can answer; please, correct me if I am wrong.

It is my understanding that someone involved in Lizzie’s trial said that if Lizzie were a man, she would have been convicted.

Is this true, and if it is, do you know who said this?

Twinsrwe I believe many statements to this effect about were made that if Lizzie were a man she most probably would have been convicted. I think this opinion was voiced by many people around that time. I am doing some digging to find the best examples. I do think that Judge Blaisdell's statement at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing runs pretty much in the same theme. The full statement can be found on page 162 of Lizzie Borden Past and Present and this is where I quote it from.

"The long examination is now concluded, and there remains but for the magistrate to perform what he believes to be his duty. It would be a pleasure for him, and he would doubtless receive much sympathy if he could say, "Lizzie, I judge you probably not guilty. You may go home.' But upon the character of the evidence presented through the witnesses who have been so closely and thoroughly examined, there is but one thing to be done. Suppose for a single moment a man was standing there. He was found close by that guest chamber which, to Mrs. Borden, was a chamber of death. Suppose a man had been found in the vicinity of Mr. Borden, who was first to find the body, and the only account he could give of himself was the unreasonable one that he was out in the barn looking for sinkers, then he was out in the yard, then he was out for something else. Would there be any question in the minds of men what should be done with such a man? So there is only one thing to do, painful as it may be -, the judgement of the Court is that you are probably guilty, and you are ordered committed to await the action of the Superior Court."

Thank you, Allen!!!

I was pretty sure I had read this statement before, but for the life of me, I couldn’t remember where I had read it. However, after reading through your post, I believe it was Judge Blaisdell's statement that I had read.

Again, thank you, I really appreciate the research you did to provide me with the answer!

[Missus Pea-Eye]

I recently found some photos of someone's trip to the Borden home. I do not remember if it was on another forum or someone's personal site.
I found one picture quite interesting. It was a picture of a hidden cupboard inside Lizzie's closet. The closet, I do not know if it is the original piece, but the cupboard would have been hidden. The reason being, when the house was made into a 1 family home, they crudely sealed off the kitchen oven chimney. I doubt it would be visible in a finished room after the 2 family home was changed into a one family home. If I can find them, and they are not on the other forum that I am on, I will link the pictures for all to see.
My thought in this, is if the police were looking "everywhere" in the house, did they know about the home conversion? Would they have found the cupboard odd and worth mentioning in their search? Perhaps, because of the house conversion there were other similar hiding places.

[twinsrwe]

Ohhh, now that would be an interesting picture to see! I hope you will able to find it and post it here.

BTW: Welcome to the forum, Missus Pea-Eye.

[Missus Pea-Eye]

Ohhh, now that would be an interesting picture to see! I hope you will able to find it and post it here.

BTW: Welcome to the forum, Missus Pea-Eye.

Thank you for the welcome.
You know how you search all kinds of pages on the internet on one subject, think "hmmmmm, this is a keeper!" then forget to bookmark it? Yeah, that's me. I will do my best to find it. Because it brings many questions up for sure.

[twinsrwe]

... Thank you for the welcome. ...

You're welcome. I do hope you find many hours of enjoyment as a member of this forum.

… You know how you search all kinds of pages on the internet on one subject, think "hmmmmm, this is a keeper!" then forget to bookmark it? Yeah, that's me. I will do my best to find it. Because it brings many questions up for sure.

Oh, believe me, you are not alone when it comes to doing things like this! I refer to these actions as: ‘My mind going on vacation without me!’

I hope you are able to find that picture. Not only would the picture be pretty cool to see, it would be even better if it is actually a true hiding place within the Andrew Borden House!

[PossumPie]

I recently found some photos of someone's trip to the Borden home. I do not remember if it was on another forum or someone's personal site.
I found one picture quite interesting. It was a picture of a hidden cupboard inside Lizzie's closet. The closet, I do not know if it is the original piece, but the cupboard would have been hidden. The reason being, when the house was made into a 1 family home, they crudely sealed off the kitchen oven chimney. I doubt it would be visible in a finished room after the 2 family home was changed into a one family home. If I can find them, and they are not on the other forum that I am on, I will link the pictures for all to see.
My thought in this, is if the police were looking "everywhere" in the house, did they know about the home conversion? Would they have found the cupboard odd and worth mentioning in their search? Perhaps, because of the house conversion there were other similar hiding places.

There seems to be two schools of thought on this forum right now. Those who think the police did a fantastic, complete job of searching every square inch of the house and furniture, and couldn't possibly have missed anything....and the rest of us who know better A hidden cupboard would be intriguing, but I fear those who think that no one could hide a hatchet in a house don't have enough imagination to accept that maybe the cops would overlook a hidden cupboard.
There is much that I am willing to concede about this case INCLUDING the fact that Lizzie may not have committed the murders, BUT I will never believe that the police couldn't possibly have missed a hatchet in a search of the house. They botched so much else those few days after the murders.

[leitskev]

Those that "don't have enough imagination"? Like the imagination on display in the "loose floorboard" theories. And I doubt anyone here has ever seen a loose floorboard except on TV.

No one said it's impossible that the police missed the hatchet in their searches. What we're dealing with here, in all aspects of the case, is probability. No one saw Lizzie do it, there is no physical evidence that she did it. Emma inherited the estate, technically. There is no evidence of animosity between her and Andrew, and some evidence to the contrary. There is evidence of friction with Abby, but it's not all that compelling.

What we have are two basic things: inconsistent statements on Lizzie's part about events; and a probability problem.

The probability problem is what really makes it hard to argue for Lizzie's innocence. There were 2 murders, an hour and a half apart, and there were two people in the house, both of which did not see the killer, or really hear the killings(leaving aside what Lizzie heard in the yard). Furthermore the house was well locked up, limiting access and movement. So it's extremely unlikely that one of these people did not see the intruder, if there was an intruder. The overwhelming probability is that one of these 2 were lying...that one of these 2 either is the murderer or witnessed it.

With Lizzie's statements being inconsistent, things thus point strongly to her.

The problem with the missing hatchet is just another probability problem.

And look, there is a reason people have been arguing about this case for over a hundred years. And if you watch recent videos put out by the Fall River Historical Society, those experts recognize that there are huge inconsistencies with the case. Some of you guys feel satisfied that the case is completely solved. But there's a reason the case still tantalizes.

It's not impossible that the hatchet remained hidden in the house. Maybe it's still there. But as a matter of probability, it's no easy thing to hide something that large and have it remain undiscovered by a police crew looking for that very thing...conducting "thorough" searches on 2 days...opening chimneys, digging coal piles, moving stacks of hay, etc. The odds are overwhelmingly against a hatchet surviving such a search. This isn't the Hardy Boys. And no CSI is required. Determined human beings searching for something like that in a small, solidly built house will almost definitely find it. Not definitely. But almost definitely.

So it's a matter of lining up probabilities here. Barring new evidence, the case will not be solved. I'll assign a number, for the fun of it, obviously just my opinion.

1) given the circumstances of the locked house, the 2 people present, the inconsistent statements, the overwhelming probability is that Lizzie either committed or was part of the crime. 95% probability
2) given the fact that no one else was seen entering or leaving the house, despite numerous potential witnesses, it is somewhat probable that Lizzie did the acts on her own. Only somewhat. 70% probability
3) given the fact that Lizzie did not leave the property during the murders, and was watched very closely after, and the place was searched thoroughly on Sat and Mon, it is probable that the weapon was removed with someone's help, probably before Saturday. 90% probability

The motive for helping her? Because we cannot say does not mean there is not one. People tend to forget that. The same applies when people say "Bridgett" had no motive. No. We just don't know of any motive for Bridgett helping Lizzie, but there could be one, and it's fairly easy to imagine one.

Likewise with Uncle Morse or Dr. Bowen. It's not a matter of concocting theory...it's a matter of rectifying probability problems...probability problems which suggest there is something very important that is still unknown with this case.

The murder weapon was not found. The suspected murderer did not leave the murder location. She was suspected early and closely watched. The location was thoroughly searched twice, along with other less thorough searches by police determined to find the weapon. This is a problem. And if you want to rely on imagination to solve it, go ahead...but that's no different than any of the other wild theories surrounding the case. Loose floorboards, secret compartments, portals to other dimensions. Hey, I'm game! Sounds like fun!

[NancyDrew]

PossumPie:

I know what you mean. It's rather sad when you think about how incompetent the police act sometimes. I hope it's only sometimes.

The Jon Benet Ramsey case is a great example: the police broke protocol, botched chain of custody, ruined evidence. And that's in the 20th century. We're talking about a police force at the end of the 1800's. They had never dealt with this type of incident. A great many of them were at an outing at Rocky Point in Warwick, RI. (Home of another gruesome set of murders by The Warwick Slasher.) The fact that the scene wasn't secured is what stands out most to me. Deputy George Allen arrived, and he should have immediately:

1. Sent for a matron. When she arrived, she should have accompanied Lizzie upstairs and watched her change clothes, then the items she had been wearing should have been bagged and tagged.
2. While he sent for matron, he should have asked for back up. At least 3 more officers, better for 4. One on each side of the house, and one inside. No one leaves or enters until their statement has been taken and until their person and belongs are searched. Dr. Bowen left to send Emma the telegram; why him?
3. The search in the house wasn't at thorough as it could have been. Lizzie was present when her father first bought the property; she stated so in the inquest testimony. It was originally meant as a 2-fer, and her father made changes so that the house would accommodate the family . I'll bet there were plenty of hiding places she could have hidden hatchet.

Would it be amazing if it were still in the walls of the house as it stands now?

[PossumPie]

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (Sherlock Holmes)

[Franz]

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (Sherlock Holmes)

PossumPie, in your opinion, what is the impossible in the Borden case?

[PossumPie]

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (Sherlock Holmes)

PossumPie, in your opinion, what is the impossible in the Borden case?

I think it is impossible that we solve it here in this forum!

[Aamartin]

The impossible is that it was a murder/suicide

[leitskev]

One more thing on the murder weapon and the search.

Each of the cops testifies that the broken hatchet looked "recently broken". When questioned, even the cop that was a former carpenter struggled to explain what that meant.

My understanding is that the broken hatchet emerged late as a desperate contender for the murder weapon. The cops had all the axes and hatchets lined up in the cellar. Eventually they brought in Abby's handkerchief with the cut in it to match it to the blades...and none of them fit. So they tried the broken one...and it fit!

Police testimony in court showed dramatic contradiction, as one cop said the handle was actually in the box right next to the blade, which destroyed the elaborate theory constructed by the prosecution and which cast police conduct in serious doubt.

The prosecution theory was that Lizzie broke the hatchet, either during the killings or intentionally afterward, and then burned the handle in the stove. Even before the contradictory testimony, there were problems with this theory. It seems unlikely that a hatchet would break from striking a skull, and it would be difficult for someone to break it on their own. Also, it seems unlikely to me that a handle would completely burn in a stove. And there was a little piece of wood still attached to the hatchet: why wouldn't Lizzie dispose of that also? And why was no blood found on it?

If we believe the cop who testified to seeing the handle in the box, what happened to that handle? Did police destroy it in order to make their case?

The picture that emerges is one where the police were sure they had their killer, and they were sure the weapon was in or near the house. They were absolutely desperate to find it. So desperate that the broken hatchet theory was born!

I don't think it was necessarily a case of outright deliberate deception, though it could have been(especially as the broken handle went missing). It might be mostly a matter of cops talking themselves into something. And thus they all convinced each other that the handle looked recently broken in order to fit their emerging theory.

The theory was forged in the fires of desperation...desperation to find a weapon they knew must be in the house. That kind of increasing desperation was fueling the searches of the house on Saturday and then again on Monday. One would expect such desperation to result in a very rigorous search.

[Missus Pea-Eye]

Hi all, I haven't forgotten about that cupboard photo. I have been looking for it like crazy. Even checking tripadvisor and yelp. I know it is out there. The picture amazed me!
I guess I could call the B&B and ask if someone could send a picture? They must know it exists.

One thing I have to mention from the reads here, the officers said when they touched the closets in the home, they just touch a few dresses. No mention of pulling everything out and searching nooks and crannies inside the closets. And in a house that had been renovated on a miser's budget..I can only assume that some corners were cut in the budget. And maybe, just maybe, there were secret panelings in other areas. You know, besides this cabinet I viewed.