letter to Joseph Conforti
Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:43 pm
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote the following letter to Joseph Conforti, author of "Lizzie Borden on Trial." I post the meat of that letter here along with his reply.
Hello, Mr. Conforti,
Recently I started reading a new book on the trial by Cara Robertson entitled "The Trial of Lizzie Borden: A True Story." In going over the notes I made several years ago when reading the three-volume work on the trial by Widdows and Koorey, together with their book on the preliminary hearing, it occurred to me that the subject of Abby's going to market the day of the murders was not a matter of any importance to the attorneys. It was no more than mentioned. At the preliminary hearing, you'll remember, Lizzie was asked three or four times about the conversation she had had with Abby when Lizzie came down for breakfast. Each time, she testified that Abby had told her she intended to get dinner for the family, though Lizzie herself wanted nothing.
My question to you is this: Doesn't it strike you as a significant oversight on the attorneys' part that no inquiry was made about what Abby (supposedly) returned home with from market? If she had in fact gone there, she would have returned with food, needless to say. And Bridget, who did the cooking, would have certainly been able to testify that no new food had been placed in the icebox or pantry that day--which would have demolished Lizzie's assertion. (Bridget, after all, remained at the Borden house until after the funeral on Saturday, when she moved out for good.) What's more, what is the likelihood that Abby wouldn't have encountered Bridget in the kitchen or thereabouts with the things she'd bought at market?
Please tell me what you think. You shouldn't hesitate to tell me if you think I'm on the wrong track.
Conforti's reply (excluding his writing about Robertson's book):
You raise a good question that I wish I had thought of. I do think it was an oversight. I’m not sure why it never came up.
Hello, Mr. Conforti,
Recently I started reading a new book on the trial by Cara Robertson entitled "The Trial of Lizzie Borden: A True Story." In going over the notes I made several years ago when reading the three-volume work on the trial by Widdows and Koorey, together with their book on the preliminary hearing, it occurred to me that the subject of Abby's going to market the day of the murders was not a matter of any importance to the attorneys. It was no more than mentioned. At the preliminary hearing, you'll remember, Lizzie was asked three or four times about the conversation she had had with Abby when Lizzie came down for breakfast. Each time, she testified that Abby had told her she intended to get dinner for the family, though Lizzie herself wanted nothing.
My question to you is this: Doesn't it strike you as a significant oversight on the attorneys' part that no inquiry was made about what Abby (supposedly) returned home with from market? If she had in fact gone there, she would have returned with food, needless to say. And Bridget, who did the cooking, would have certainly been able to testify that no new food had been placed in the icebox or pantry that day--which would have demolished Lizzie's assertion. (Bridget, after all, remained at the Borden house until after the funeral on Saturday, when she moved out for good.) What's more, what is the likelihood that Abby wouldn't have encountered Bridget in the kitchen or thereabouts with the things she'd bought at market?
Please tell me what you think. You shouldn't hesitate to tell me if you think I'm on the wrong track.
Conforti's reply (excluding his writing about Robertson's book):
You raise a good question that I wish I had thought of. I do think it was an oversight. I’m not sure why it never came up.