Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Can someone please explain to me if the original inquest that Lizzie gave is lost, then where does the one on the LBS come from? I'm not sure I understand

Bridget's inquest was lost, not LIzzie's.

Aamartin wrote:Bridget's inquest was lost, not LIzzie's.

I'm reading a thread called "Lizzie's Missing Time" and the original poster mentioned her inquest was missing. I am not sure which it is that is missing.

Bridget's inquest evidence was lost (don't know how) and it all had to be collated from newspaper reports of the time from 'respected' newspapers, (not scandal sheets.)

Don't know about Lizzie's inquest report. Could it be that her executors couldn't stand the thought that unauthorised people might get their paws on it so they had it stored away where reporters ( heaven forbid) or others couldn't get it? Pure speculation!

Curryong wrote:Bridget's inquest evidence was lost (don't know how) and it all had to be collated from newspaper reports of the time from 'respected' newspapers, (not scandal sheets.)

Don't know about Lizzie's inquest report. Could it be that her executors couldn't stand the thought that unauthorised people might get their paws on it so they had it stored away where reporters ( heaven forbid) or others couldn't get it? Pure speculation!

Oh, I see. I googled it and Bridget's was lost. There are 3 that are usually quoted from- is that what you mean?

Yes, what I mean is the evidence that Bridget gave at the 1892 inquest was lost for some reason. This was the inquest where Lizzie also testified. For research purposes, I presume, Bridget's evidence at that inquest was later cobbled together from newspaper reports.

LATER.

Just taken another look at the LBS and it says BOTH Lizzie Borden's and Bridget's 1892 Inquest evidence is 'lost to history' and Lizzie's had to be taken from the Bedford Evening Standard. Curiouser and curiouser!

Anthony, could you look in one of your many books, please, and see whether there's any explanation for that phenomenon. There isn't any in mine. I might have a look in old posts.

Could it be that Bridget's inquest was "lost" because she mentioned what Lizzie was doing in the barn during the first murder?

Ooh! MysteryReader, if it's anything scandalous talk to Franz. Smile!

By the way I took it at first reading of your first post that Lizzie had an inquest after her death, at home, in 1927! Nothing solid has come up in the old posts about the lost inquest evidence from Bridget and Lizzie, just speculation, same as us.

Could it have been that a souveniring clerk pinched the testimony copies during the 122 years? They then might have been chucked out when the thief died? (I know that's what presumably happened to masses of Jack the Ripper stuff that was kept on file and that was at Scotland Yard!) All the same, you would have thought the official court reporters would have made spare copies

Sure will, in the morning....I'm going beddy bye early.

The official volume of Lizzie's inquest was lost-- but The Evening Standard of New Bedford, MA published it on June 12th 1893. Coincidentally, this was the same day the court ruled it inadmissible. However we came to have the document, I understand it to be verbatim.

Yes, but what happened to the originals Anthony? Nobody knows! Pinched, purloined, burned on orders, burned by accident, buried like the clothing, who knows! It's just odd that the testimony of both Bridget and Lizzie, the most important, disappeared. And I'm not a conspiracy theorist!

we don't know....

Please remember another lost piece --- the letter allegedly written by Andrew to Morse who brought it with him probably the August 3rd. Lizzie pretended there was a note but never found. OK. I can agree that it's possible that the note might never existed. But the letter, we are 1000% sure that it did exist, but what happend? It was lost!!! It was lost after it came into Knowlton's possession. Imagine what we could do with it if it had been conserved.

Do I hate someone of the Borden case? Yes I hate Knowlton, I don't deny. I hate him, I hate him for his failing to think of asking a number of very crucial, IMO, questions, either to Lizzie or to Morse. I hate him for his being too soon to be so certain of Lizzi's guilt. IMO this is totally inadimissible for a presecutor. IF we are here today to discuss still the Borden case as a mystery, I think we should be grateful mostly to him, our brilliant Mr. Knowlton!

I think under the Anglo adversary system, it is quite easy for attorneys, (barristers) to get caught up in a belief (if they are for the defence) that their client is completely innocent. I expect it works for the prosecuting counsels too. Of course, there are some who couldn't give a cracker what the verdict is, so long as they get their fees, but many of the best attorneys do care, whether they are prosecuting or for the defence of their client.

Aamartin wrote:The official volume of Lizzie's inquest was lost-- but The Evening Standard of New Bedford, MA published it on June 12th 1893. Coincidentally, this was the same day the court ruled it inadmissible. However we came to have the document, I understand it to be verbatim.

Okay, thanks Anthony. I thought I had a copy.

MysteryReader wrote:Could it be that Bridget's inquest was "lost" because she mentioned what Lizzie was doing in the barn during the first murder?

Franz, what are your thoughts?

MysteryReader wrote:

MysteryReader wrote:Could it be that Bridget's inquest was "lost" because she mentioned what Lizzie was doing in the barn during the first murder?

Franz, what are your thoughts?

No one never testified that Lizzie was in the barn during the first murder.

I thought someone had mentioned that if Lizzie was in the barn during the first murder then Bridget would have either seen her or ignored her.

All I know is that during the time the first murder was probably taking place Bridget was cleaning the outside windows, and seems to have gone to the barn to get water for the task.

I think Franz's theory of Lizzie in the barn refers to the period of time when Andrew was being killed.

Curryong wrote:All I know is that during the time the first murder was probably taking place Bridget was cleaning the outside windows, and seems to have gone to the barn to get water for the task.

I think Franz's theory of Lizzie in the barn refers to the period of time when Andrew was being killed.

Lizzie herself testified that she was in the barn when her father was being killed. This is not my speculation. The point is only if you believe her or not.

I think whoever believes in Lizzie's innocence might accept her testimony that she was being in the barn while her father was being killed. At this point, one should face this question: then why did Lizzie give different versions about what she was doing in the barn? And only from here my theory begins: she could have been doing something there that she didn't want to be known to the public, therefore she lied.

Sorry Franz, I should have said your theory of what activities Lizzie was up to in the barn, while Andrew was being murdered.

Franz wrote:
I think whoever believes in Lizzie's innocence might accept her testimony that she was being in the barn while her father was being killed. At this point, one should face this question: then why did Lizzie give different versions about what she was doing in the barn? And only from here my theory begins: she could have been doing something there that she didn't want to be known to the public, therefore she lied.

Yes, I see. I only wondered if Bridget's Inquest was lost, sealed, stolen, etc. because she tells what Lizzie was doing in the barn.

Had Bridget testified to anything that would have been completely different from her preliminary and trial testimony-- we would know about it. By trial documents by means of objections and rulings to make parts of her testimony inadmissible. Simply because she would have been asked those questions at trial. I don't think there is a smoking gun in her inquest testimony. But I would immediately devour it should it come to light.

Quite frankly, I think that the original volume (1) of the trial testimony got pinched quite early on by a souvenir-hunting clerk. What I do find odd is that the original copies of the testimony both Bridget an Lizzie gave weren't kept as a sort of record, either.