Lizzie Borden Society Forum

No one described Lizzie as dim-witted. So she had to be fully cognizant of the fact her father was indisputably dead when she 'discovered' his body.

After calling down Bridget, her instructions to the servant were to go fetch Dr. Bowen. Of course the first question is why didn't she, herself, go get Dr. Bowen if it was so necessary. But then again, we'd have to revisit the peculiar decision of Lizzie to remain in a house where clearly a homicidal maniac could very well be lurking since her father must have been killed in the prior 15 minutes.

Anyway, back to summoning Dr. Bowen. Why?

Innocent reasons:
Was he the most authoritarian and respected personage nearby? Did she think she, herself, needed medical attention?

Not so innocent reasons:
Once Bridget was downstairs, did Lizzie suddenly realize she needed Bridget gone for a little while so that Lizzie could do something that she just remembered needing doing?
Or did she have have an actual role for Dr. Bowen to play in the murder saga?

I was percolating on the idea that she remembered she left the pail sitting on the floor of the washroom and she wanted to get Dr. Bowen on board with why the water and towels were bloody. But that seems to fall apart quickly. If that was the case, Lizzie could have hurried to the cellar while Bridget was going for Bowen and emptied the pale. Bowen never mentions Lizzie talking to him about the pail other than to say "its ok" when asked about its contents.

Any ideas? I'm leaning towards Lizzie realizing she needed to check or cleanup something before Bridget or anyone else looked at Andrew. Perhaps AJB had paperwork she wanted, but overlooked in the frenzy of killing him. Perhaps she wanted a chance to to make sure the scene was as she wanted it. So she sent Bridget out to get Dr. Bowen, not because of Dr. Bowen, but to get Bridget out of sight for a few moments.

It’s a good question, and I don’t see how my theory falls apart.
Here’s why:
Lizzie had to tell Bowen about the note because who else could have? Bridget didn’t, nor Mrs Churchill, and the only other possibility is that Bowen himself went to the cellar, I can’t reasonably believe that.
Additionally, in the short time it took Bridget to cross the street and come back, Lizzie was still at the side door
The second time she’s sent away, Mrs Churchill happened to come home from shopping and sees Lizzie in the same spot.
Officer Medley was quick to the scene and discovered the pail, but suspiciously Bowen already knew.
Cam, to your point, perhaps Lizzie did have a note (I hadn’t thought of that) and it explained her monthly cycle,
Later Bowen burned that note, that possibly contained additional information we’ll never know.

Are you thinking she realized she left the pail on the wash room floor and that is why she summoned Bowen? Or she summoned him for another reason and then realized she left the pail out and found a way to chat with him briefly?

I think for this one, I'd have to think about Lizzie as scene director. She calls Dr. Bowen, who was a friend who sometimes walked her to church. She calls Alice, who is a friend who knows about all the mysterious and threatening people Lizzie told her about the night before. Notorious curtain twitcher, Mrs. Russell, I think, can be treated as an unplanned for guest.

Once Dr. Bowen arrives, he does two things we know of for Lizzie, he explains the bloody rags and he burns a note.

Was the note his or Lizzie's?

Was it already torn up and he was reassembling it to read it? (in that case it was Lizzie's note, perhaps it was left in the kitchen trash and retrieved by Dr. Bowen so the police wouldn't find it).

Did it really have the word Emma on it and if so, what are the odds Dr. Bowen lied when he said it was a note about his daughter, Florence, visiting.

Was it a note Lizzie or Emma wrote, perhaps asking for a prescription for something that Dr. Bowen would rather the police not know about?

When and how did Dr. Bowen learn about the bloody rags in the basement?

Did Dr. Bowen know that drugging a suspect or witness with morphine would make their testimony arguably invalid or at least make her detached calmness less suspicious?

Why were the rags left in the basement? Was the fire not high enough to burn wet bloody rags so leaving them in plain sight with an innocent explanation was the best that she could think of? Was the flush privy like a modern septic or sewer system (would Lizzie think she could flush those rags or was the basement toilet not going to work for disposal?)

Cam, that’s a tough question.
Since the time frame is so small as to remember that she mistakenly left the pail —in other words—-(after she summoned Bridget and before Bowen arrived) I lean away from this analysis
I lean more towards the menstrual cycle as being part of the plan all along.
I do like your idea of a note being passed to Bowen. and could entertain several possibilities evolving from that, as in the burning of a note.
No testimony of anyone hearing her tell Bowen—-yet he already knows very early.
Medley is very suspicious of the pail and none of helping ladies mention Lizzie’s cycle.
No, she had to explain it fast, even if she originally planned to hide/dispose of it,( possibly something spooked her just before she could dispose of it and she ran back upstairs) the explanation came from her, and she admitted it was hers. Even regardless of who found it—which officer—-probably Medley—Bowen was already informed.
After recently going through Lizzie’s inquest again, I believe her mind was too sharp to forget the pail.

Interesting/off topic s bit
Officer Fleet said that Lizzie last saw Abby about 9 o’clock. She then saw her (in the bedroom)when she was coming downstairs.
WS page 2
This places Lizzie in a visual connection with Abby where and about when she was killed.
I don’t recall Lizzie ever admitting this elsewhere.

My first response to thread contains an error.
Lizzie had to tell Bowen about the “pail” , I mistakenly typed “note.”

Fleet's recollection of Lizzie saying she last saw Abby in guest room is the only reference to this event.

You give me unearned credit for suggesting Lizzie might have passed a note to Bowen. I didn't think of that.

I'm pretty sure I know what Bowen burned in the stove, but I'll give you guys a chance to figure it out. If I'm correct, the burning was totally innocent.

The 'dots' to connect are provided in testimony and witness statements. The best approach is to retrace Bowen and his wife's actions that day.

My guess is Dr. Bowen asked his wife to help him word the telegraph to Emma and the note was the text he used at the telegraph office - as the innocent explanation.

I still get a bit suspicious about that since he testified that it was a note about his daughter visiting. Why didn't he say it was the telegraph message text to Emma?

Camgarsky, don't answer me right away and give away the solution, let's let everyone make their guesses.

Thanks for clarifying Fleet’s statement as exclusive.
Could it be a slip that Lizzie never repeated?
She was quick to learn from any perceived contradictions.
Fleet I believe was the only official who stated that Andrew had a visitor Thursday morning, so maybe he was a bit loose in his words and recollections.
You were the first I recall hearing the theory of Lizzie giving Bowen a note. I thought it might fit into my pail thoughts.
Although I came up with the (Lizzie needed a Dr to explain the pail quickly) on my own, I’m not sure it’s original to me.
I just don’t recall ever hearing or reading it.

Ironically, I was looking for some of Phoebe’s statements earlier today, but either the index has a typo, or it’s missing.

Never mind about the PH page numbers. I’m still trying to figure that out..lol
I tend to concur with Lorcan, since Seabury reviewed the Old Colony times tables. I think when he was asked about the burning, the Dr mentioned Emma going in somewhere.
Must have been about the train.

In going back through Mrs Churchill’s inquest, she stated that Lizzie told her Dr Bowen wasn’t home, and she had to have a doctor. Mrs Churchill asked her. shall I go find someone to fetch one?, to which Lizzie says yes.
This is where I got the idea that any doctor would do so she could explain the pail.

Technically, this is three times Lizzie is left alone at the house, although the first time was brief.

This is probably when Bridget is fetching Alice.

Camgarasky I agree that Lizzie had to know her father was dead when she looked at him, but there is a difference between knowing and having it verified. If I had discovered my parent's bloodied dead body (and I have), I would be haunted by the fact I could be wrong. If Lizzie was innocent and really did discover him, I could imagine how awful it would feel to wonder if he could possibly still be alive and need help, but there would still be no earthly way I could bring myself to go touch the body and verify it myself. She would be frantic for a doctor, especially if there was one right across the street, and apparently she was frantic. I can imagine her being in so much shock that she had no idea what to do with herself, such a surreal thing to have just discovered (IF she was innocent), so just hung there by the back door waiting for someone to come tell her what to do.

The pail of bloody rags, that is oddly one of the things that leads me in the direction of innocence. If she killed them, she'd have to know police would be coming, and I believe she'd have prepared for that and emptied that pail, not left her menstrual rags lying about to be literally lifted up for the eyes of a bunch of insenstive policemen. There are few things more embarrassing to even a modern woman than having their menstrual mess laid bare, I can't even imagine what it would have been like for a spinster virgin in the Victorian era. So I always blink in surprise when someone suggests that Lizzie may have purposely used her rags in some way to cover up things. In my mind, only a horrible unexpected shock would have wiped that from her mind, or yes, she would have run down to the cellar to empty it while waiting for Dr. Bowen.

But as to how the note Bowen burned could relate to any of that, I would have no clue. Certainly neither Bowen or Lizzie were going to announce to police exactly when they had a conversation about her being on her period. And I cannot come up with ANY ideas from what I know is in the transcripts of anything I read what Bowen's note could have been about. So I eagerly await hearing your theory!

Hi Teenabee!

I would tend to agree that confirming Andrew is deceased would be a priority. However, it is Lizzie's interactions with the others over the next 30 minutes that cause me to circle back and ponder on Bowen being the first priority.

TeenaBee wrote: Tue May 19, 2026 8:33 pm I can imagine her being in so much shock that she had no idea what to do with herself, such a surreal thing to have just discovered (IF she was innocent), so just hung there by the back door waiting for someone to come tell her what to do.

It is interesting how events can be interpreted so differently. I don't think Lizzie was waiting for anybody to tell her to do anything, neither that morning, nor any other time.

Friends and family consistently describe Lizzie as confident, strong-willed and self-controlled.

Matching up with these personality traits, Lizzie made a goodly number of decisions in those brief, horrifying moments after AJB's discovery:
* Lizzie chose to remain in the house, defying the universal instinct of self-preservation,
* Lizzie chose to summon Bridget. (Not calling for Abby, even though Lizzie claimed to have heard her return)
* Bridget starts to go to check on Andrew. Lizzie stops Bridget.
* Lizzie sent Bridget to fetch Bowen.
* Lizzie sent Bridget to bring Alice.
* Lizzie sent Churchill for a doctor.
* Lizzie informed Bowen of her personal matters.
* Bowen states he will get the police, but Lizzie asked Bowen to first send Emma a telegram.
* Bridget offered to go to the Whitehead house to see about Abby. Lizzie instead asked her to look for Abby 'upstairs'.
* Lizzie decided to change her outfit.

From my perspective, at no point did Lizzie stifle her natural tendencies and lean on anyone else to guide her through that difficult half hour after the discovery. The list above indicates to me someone doing their best to maintain control during a chaotic episode, not someone frazzled or overwhelmed by the situation.

Camgarsky! Yes, I agree SOOO interesting how same events can be intepreted differently. And still make total sense. How you tell the story makes sense, and supports "consciousness of guilt." But it reminds me that each way of looking at Lizzie and the mystifying things she did is a way of telling a STORY that makes sense to oneself and the things one has been through. I've already admitted that my view of how Lizzie acted after the discovery of her father's body is highly colored by my own experience of discovering my mother's body, and in my shock, finding myself acting in ways that probably made no sense to anyone observing me. So it could very well be that I have a blind spot in judging Lizzie at a similar moment. Or it could be I have a better understanding. Who knows?

The only thing I don't understand about your story is why you say, "Friends and family consistently describe Lizzie as confident, strong-willed and self-controlled." I don't think you mean in the hour after the murder, do you? You just mean in general? Because I think the testimony from those who saw her right after the murders -- not counting police officers for whom she clearly pulled it together -- show us she was feeling a great deal distress, and not in control of anything much at all.

Here is what my story looks like --

Bridget was the first to see Lizzie after Lizzie’s frantic call for help, and she testified that Lizzie “was more excited than I ever saw her before.” At the inquest, she would say Lizzie was crying at the time, at least according to the transcript read to her at trial, but at the trial she denied ever seeing tears from Lizzie, or even saying she had at the inquest. Fair enough, as no one else claimed to see Lizzie crying. But clearly Lizzie was frantic for a doctor -- and in my mind she NEEDED someone to come verify he was dead.

As for why she didn't leave the house, that is puzzling, I agree, but shock is stupefying, logic goes out the door, and if it was true she saw the screen door wide open when she came back from the barn, perhaps that gave her the idea the assailant was already gone?

Once Bridget ran off to fetch Alice Russell, what Mrs. Churchill saw out her window was Lizzie standing at the screen door of her house in such “great distress” that Mrs. Churchill opened her kitchen window to ask Lizzie what was wrong. The Jennings Journals says Mrs. Churchill would later tell one of her boarders, “there was such a look on Lizzie’s face— such an awful look when she leaned up side of the door.” At the preliminary hearing Churchiull would say, Lizzie looked “as if she was distressed or frightened about something,” and that she stood with a hand to her head. Lizzie, of course, had no idea that Mrs. Churchill was looking out her window at that exact moment, so it would be safe to say that Lizzie’s visible distress was not manufactured, but a reflection of her genuine state of mind.

Mrs. Churchill found Lizzie sitting on the back stairs near the back door when she came in. Lizzie poured out her fear that her father had an enemy, and how they’d thought they’d been poisoned. She also blurted her worry that Abby had been killed, too, because she thought she heard her come in (Robinson said during his closing that Lizzie thought she heard this before Andrew even came home). Then Mrs. Churchill left to try to get someone to summon a doctor. When she returned “no more than five minutes later,” Lizzie was still sitting there. Apparently, she hadn’t moved as the shock was settling in. (This is why I think she was waiting for someone -- preferably Dr. Bowen -- to tell her what to do.)

By the time Alice Russell arrived, Lizzie was back on her feet, “leaning against the doorway between the back entry and the kitchen.” Alice described her as “very much overcome” as well as “dazed.” She told Lizzie she should sit down on the rocker in the kitchen. (Finally someone told her what to do!) At the trial, she said Lizzie “sat down as if she was going to be faint, and I asked for a towel.” Alice spent the next little while bathing Lizzie’s face, rubbing her hands and fanning her along with Mrs. Churchill. Again, seems to me she was passively acquiescing to pretty much whatever anyone told her to do.

Charles Sawyer didn’t know Lizzie but when asked at the inquest about Lizzie’s appearance, he replied, “She was apparently grief stricken, or something, although I might not be a judge in that respect… She seemed to be considerably excited and very uneasy, and the ladies seemed to be ministering to her, that is bathing her face.” The Jennings’ Journals records Sawyer remembering that Lizzie was “very much broken up” when he arrived.

Not long after, Alice noted how warm it was in the kitchen, and suggested that Lizzie move to the dining room where it was cooler. (Again, Lizzie doing what she was told) Dr. Bowen recalled that Lizzie “threw herself onto the lounge” there, where she lay down and Alice continued to fan her. Mrs. Bowen showed up, and Dr. Bowen left to send a telegram to Emma. While he was out, Bridget made that offer to go to Mrs. Whitehead's, but Lizzie was still haunted by the idea that she thought she heard Abby come in, her initial worry that Abby could be dead, too. So asked again that someone go look for Abby. When they found her, Sawyer would later tell Jennings that Lizzie “was very much surprised when told her mother was killed.” At the inquest he had put that more strongly, saying that he’d thought that when Lizzie learned Abby was murdered, too, that “she apparently went off into some kind of swoon or hysterical fit, I don’t know what, and Dr. Bowen said she’d better be carried up to her room.” That was surely an overstatement, no one else recalls such an exaggerated reaction, but it was reaction enough that once Dr. Bowen returned, he did tell Lizzie she should go up to her room. And yes Lizzie decided to change her outfit, but a dozen people saw her outfit before she changed, so that doesn't seem suspicious to me, and Bridget changed her outfit that afternoon too, and so did Alice before she came over...

So that's my story of how it looks from my perspective, and sometimes I even believe it happened that way -- at least until I remember Lizzie's claim about the note to Abby, and then my belief evaporates and it becomes a "well maybe...."

Do you believe Lizze was faking her distress for the people she knew? Putting on an act? Of course I think its possible one could feel a great deal of distress even if -- and maybe especially if -- one just committed a murder. But then she showed no distress after Abby's murder. Rather, she laughed at the top of the stairs, so.... Mystifying Lizzie.

Still hoping to hear your theory on what you think the note Dr. Bowen burned was about!

Bridget tells us that when Andrew got home from his walk, he and Lizzie had a chat in the dining room. It was then that Lizzie told her father about Abby's note. If she thought Abby was already home, that would be a really odd conversation the two of them had.

Then, 5ish minutes later, Lizzie tells Bridget the same story about Abby's note.

If Lizzie did hear Abby arrive back home, it seems it had to have been after Bridget went upstairs around 10:50-55.

Yes, Agree it's all odd, no matter how you slice it! But Robinson explained in his closing argument that Lizzie thought she heard Abby come in BEFORE Andrew came home. (I assume this has to be what Lizzie herself told him, because it never came up in testimony, and smart lawyer that he was sort of sneaking her story in for the jury without having to put her on the stand). And it was only because Abby didn't show up downstairs to greet Andrew she supposed she was wrong and so then told Andrew about the note. Only after finding Andrew dead, did it come back to Lizzie that she'd earlier thought she heard Abby come in, and that's why she blurted out to Mrs. Churchill Abby could be dead too. Robinson of course suggested that the noise Lizzie REALLY heard was not Abby coming in, but the intruder moving around the house. Odd very. I do think the note story points to lying, its one of the few things that truly point to guilt to me. Still, how often does truth turn out to be stranger than fiction?

If there was an intruder, and he was hiding, Lizzie must have walked by 'him' several times. To know when to strike Andrew, the hiding spot must have been on the first floor, which limits the places to hide. With the necessity to be out of sight, that leaves the closets and, perhaps, the parlor. That is it. Either place left zero margin for error. Anyone opens a closet door and the games up. Murderer would had to have been at a point of extreme desperation. That doesn't seem to fit with a professional, for hire, killer. Not getting caught would be paramount.

That seems to leave us with someone mad at Andrew due to his role as a landlord or businessman. Andrew was very unfortunate that Lizzie chose to go to the barn. But that leaves us with the question of how did the intruder know Lizzie left the house for the barn and would be out of house for more than a moment or two? So many questions....

-----------------
Teenabee -- please check your PM's.

I covered this in another thread, but one technique I like to use is to try to put myself into the scene and imagine who knew what, when, try to actually walk through the thought process and physical activities the witnesses describe. For Lizzie on that morning, here's what we know she knows or at least what she says she knows.

1. Her father, mother, and servant have all been sick enough to vomit.
2. Her servant has been assigned washing all the windows inside and out, in the heat of the day with the sun beating down, after going into the cellar for wood, and then coal, bringing in and storing the milk, making and serving breakfast, washing the dishes, and taking care of some laundry.
3. She knows her overweight, elderly stepmother has been dusting, making beds (involves beating them with a stick, fluffing and flipping layers of the mattresses, and has been going up and down stairs to perform these duties. She also has to go shopping for meat for the noon meal. She also has to, according to Lizzie, go visit a sick friend, which I assume to mean bring them food or other comforting to help them in their sickness.
4. With all this activity going on Lizzie decides to sprinkle water on a few handkerchiefs and read a magazine while her irons are heating.

As Spencer pointed out - Lizzie mentioned flats (plural) and that makes sense since you'd heat up all of them and only pull one at a time into use so a hot one is always ready for the ironing. The fire was hot enough to successfully iron some of the handkerchiefs - but not all? Lizzie says she is downstairs the entire time except for just after coming down, going in the basement to use the toilet and returning all the way to her bedroom with laundry and basting a piece of tape (I assume fixing a loop for a button or something like that - regardless, Lizzie says 5 minutes for that).

Now if Lizzie heard Abby come back it cannot be in the 5 minutes she is on the 2nd floor because how would Abby have had the time to visit a friend, go to the grocer, buy the meat for lunch, and return home. Impossible, even if it's only the grocery run. Impossible.

So, now we are stuck with Lizzie trying to argue she heard Abby come back WITH THE MEAT which means Abby had to go into the kitchen and talk to nobody and be seen by nobody. How did neither Bridget nor Lizzie see her trying to get into the house carrying the groceries? Are we to believe Abby would come home with the groceries and not talk to Bridget about the preparation of the groceries she bought? Lizzie said she was in the kitchen almost all the time and just a few steps away in the dining room otherwise.

Maybe the single most frustrating aspect of the case is that Lizzie was not forced to answer the question:

When exactly did you hear Abby come home and which door did you hear her come in?

The front door was triple locked and Abby would almost certainly not use it to bring groceries back during the day. It is almost 100% certain that if Abby showed up at the gate with an armful of groceries and Bridget saw her while washing the windows, Bridget would immediately walk up to Abby, relieve her of the groceries and bring them in to the kitchen herself. They would have used the northside kitchen screen door. Lizzie was in the kitchen.

Lorcan -- I think Lizzie was lying when she stated she thought heard Abby return.

That said, we've been told that Lizzie's only household chore was her bedroom and ironing her own handkerchiefs. Nothing else.
So if Lizzie only read a magazine and ironed handkerchiefs and didn't help anyone, that wouldn't surprise me at all. That doesn't indicate guilt of anything beyond being rude.

Lorcan wrote: Mon May 25, 2026 5:13 pm So, now we are stuck with Lizzie trying to argue she heard Abby come back WITH THE MEAT which means Abby had to go into the kitchen and talk to nobody and be seen by nobody. How did neither Bridget nor Lizzie see her trying to get into the house carrying the groceries? Are we to believe Abby would come home with the groceries and not talk to Bridget about the preparation of the groceries she bought? Lizzie said she was in the kitchen almost all the time and just a few steps away in the dining room otherwise.

Lizzie said she thought she heard Abby come in...she didn't say she saw her. Since we know Abby was killed much earlier in the day, Lizzie was either lying or mistaken. With only those two choices, the quote above doesn't seem to be applicable to proving whether Lizzie lied intentionally or just mistook a noise to be Abby reentering the house.

I, too, think Lizzie was lying about hearing Abby come home because:

1. She told her father Abby was out.
2. She told Bridget Abby was out.
3. When she discovered her father, she only called out for Bridget.
4. She did not fear Abby was the killer nor a victim of the killer.
5. After Mrs. Churchill, Dr. Bowen, and Alice Russell were on the crime scene, she was still telling people Abby was out.
6. It was only after Bridget suggested going to Mrs.Whitehead's house to ask about Abby that Lizzie asked people to look upstairs because she thought she heard Abby come home.

Why then?

1. Other than Mrs. Whitehead and family, and Mrs. Bowen, who else was a plausible close friend of Abby that we know of - close enough to be called out with a sick note?

2. Did Lizzie need Abby's body found fast enough that her blood would be dry and Andrew's still wet to prove the order of death for the inheritance?

That's all I can think of so far.

To address the core question: What does it mean to hear Abby come home, from Lizzie's perspective, if she's telling the truth?

1. Lizzie would have had to hear either Abby trying to get into the front door or north side screen door, which presents a few issues:

a. With Bridget outside, Lizzie would be the only one who could slide the bolts to let her in. Lizzie cannot say she heard Abby struggling to get in the front door and alone in the house sat there and did nothing and still did nothing when Abby would presumably come to the north side screen door after unsuccessfully getting into the front door.

b. If by some strange series of events those front door bolts were slid open and Abby got in the front door with the groceries, Lizzie would immediately see Abby come into the kitchen with the groceries.

2. Lizzie would have had to hear and almost certainly see Abby enter the north side screen door. All Abby would have to do is call out in a normal volume voice and whether Lizzie was in the kitchen, 6 to 12 feet away, or the dining room, 15 feet away, she would have been heard. If Bridget were on the North side of the house or getting water in the barn, she would likely have been witness to this activity.

If it's not a door Lizzie hears, what does she mean by heard Abby come home? With Lizzie's insistence of her being in the kitchen for the vast majority of the time in question and a few steps away otherwise, what could she possibly mean, plausibly, about hearing Abby come home?

As a lawyer I couldn't accept any answer that doesn't involve both the time and location from Lizzie and it had better have been the front or side door she heard and there better be an explanation of why Abby wouldn't deliver the groceries to the kitchen where Lizzie was sitting. The lawyers are stuck without being able to cross-examine Lizzie.

The trial is not a search for truth, it is a structured set of procedures to protect the accused from the government abusing their monopoly of legal violence. Lizzie and her legal team took full advantage of her rights and the prosecution could not prove the case against her.

Agree with final statement 100%. If trials were about the truth, it should be at the discretion of the prosecution to call them as a witness. I suppose they could plead the 5th amendment, but that would be telling on its own merit.

Lorcan - please add to this line of questioning.
I added the final answer a bit 'tongue in cheek', but its a response that might resonate with the jury that is already compelled to believe her innocent.

Pretend trial Lizzie testimony:
Q. Lizzie -- did you hear your step mother enter the house?
A. Yes, I thought I did.
Q. From which direction of the house did you hear the sound?
A. I'm not sure, I thought I heard something and, right or wrong, I thought maybe it was Abby.
Q. When did you hear the noise?
A. Before my father got back from his walk.
Q. Why then did you tell him about the note suggesting Abby was out of the house?
A. When I went into the dining room to greet Father, I saw Abby wasn't there and assumed I had been mistaken about hearing her.
Q. Where were you when you thought you heard Abby come in the house?
A. I'm not positive, probably the sitting room or kitchen.
Q. You told Mrs. Churchill and Dr. Bowen that Abby received a note to go help a friend. Just minutes later, you tell everyone to look for Abby because you think you heard her return. Why did you mention the note, if you thought she had gotten home already?
A. I don't recall what I said that morning. Everything was confusing and I was disoriented. I might have said anything.
Q. Earlier you stated that you were in the kitchen reading for most of the time your father was gone. If that is the case, where did you suppose Abby had gone after you heard her enter the house?
A. I didn't give it any notice or thought because I usually dismissed and ignored her presence.

Q. From which direction of the house did you hear the sound?
A. I'm not sure, I thought I heard something and, right or wrong, I thought maybe it was Abby.
Q. What exactly did you hear, a door - if so, which one, a voice, if so, describe it, footsteps, if so, from where?
A. ?
Q. Abby, if she returned, was carrying the groceries for Bridget to prepare. You were in the kitchen for almost the entire time - if Abby were home and no groceries or kitchen visit happened, how do you reconcile that?
A. ?
Q. Which screen needed repair?
A. ?
Q. You hadn't been in the barn for 3 months. You spoke to your father who previously told you about the location of lead and other metal in the barn. Why did you not ask him, a carpenter, for help with the screen or the location of the metal you sought - tin for the screen and lead to fashion sinkers?
A.
Q. Did you hear a noise like a scraping sound or groan and go in to investigate or did you simply walk in, take a look at the kitchen stove fire, go to the dining room and set your hat down, then decide to make your way upstairs to sit in your bedroom when you stumbled across the crime scene?
A. ?
Q. How did your stomach feel after eating 4 pears in less than half an hour and then walking in on the horror of your father's brutal murder?
A. ?


Camgarsky - I think you might be better at giving Lizzie's answers. I don't know how she would answer them that wouldn't make me question her even more aggressively and likely get objected to and have the jury think I was badgering her.

Q. From which direction of the house did you hear the sound?
A. I'm not sure, I thought I heard something and, right or wrong, I thought maybe it was Abby.
Q. What exactly did you hear, a door - if so, which one, a voice, if so, describe it, footsteps, if so, from where?
A. I thought I heard a door close. I think I presumed it was the front door.
Q. Abby, if she returned, was carrying the groceries for Bridget to prepare. You were in the kitchen for almost the entire time - if Abby were home and no groceries or kitchen visit happened, how do you reconcile that?
A. As I mentioned earlier, Abby and I rarely interact, so after hearing the noise, I didn't give her another thought until father got home.
Q. Which screen needed repair?
A. My window overlooking the Kelly house.
Q. You hadn't been in the barn for 3 months. You spoke to your father who previously told you about the location of lead and other metal in the barn. Why did you not ask him, a carpenter, for help with the screen or the location of the metal you sought - tin for the screen and lead to fashion sinkers?
A. I didn't wish to wait for father to get home and he has always taught us to tend for ourselves.
Q. Did you hear a noise like a scraping sound or groan and go in to investigate or did you simply walk in, take a look at the kitchen stove fire, go to the dining room and set your hat down, then decide to make your way upstairs to sit in your bedroom when you stumbled across the crime scene?
A. I don't recall hearing any noises. My intention was to go upstairs to my room when I found father in the sitting room.
Q. How did your stomach feel after eating 4 pears in less than half an hour and then walking in on the horror of your father's brutal murder?
A. I don't think I ate 4 pears. I must admit, I got a bit coy with you during the inquest because you asked so many silly questions. I'm sorry. I probably ate 1 or 2. Either way, I do recall feeling nauseous, but thought it was because of the sight of Father.

Camgarsky, you have a Ph.D. in Lizziespeak! I'm a bit closer to Sheldon levels of language having to be precise - when Lizzie says things like no or never that to me is an absolute - whereas the prosecution let her get away with no, none to speak of - and utter nonsense like that. To close out the thread on topic, I think if you combine your comprehensive analysis of Dr. Bowen and the note and add in when in that timeline Lizzie explained the pail of bloody cloths - round it out with his walking Lizzie to church on occasion and his general protectiveness of her - and your assessment of whether the morphine was actually administered to the level and frequency as described at the trial - you have the makings of a complete Dr. Bowen chapter of a future book. Lizzie's detailed answer about the real estate holdings makes me believe that although not initially intended to shield her, Dr. Bowen, Lizzie, or one of Lizzie's defense team realized that the morphine was a strong argument to protect her from her own Inquest testimony, however I don't believe she was not on morphine, especially a double-dose, the whole time with no visible health consequences. Yes, Bowen prescribed it and may have delivered it, but did Lizzie consume it steadily? I very highly doubt it - except in the immediate aftermath.

Oh my goodness, yes Camgarsky I think you do fine Lizziespeak, and I do hope you are writing a book!

I also see "eye of the beholder" arguments to made everywhere in this thread, it is hard to know which to pick to respond. I will go with what Lorcan just posted, that "the prosecution let Lizzie get away with no." I read the inquest testimony, and I see a prosecutor who absolutely will let other witnesses say no, or they don't remember, but he does not give Lizzie Borden the same latitude. She says she doesn't remember, and he pushes and pushes her to come up with an answer, and when she continues to says she doesn't know, he tells her to give her best guess. So she guesses even though she's already said she doesn't know. Here is an example. Knowlton clearly wanted to determine if Lizzie was telling the truth about going up into the barn loft during Andrew’s murder. She told him she had looked inside a "sort of a box" on a workbench for pieces of iron or lead.

Q. How large a box was it?
A. I could not tell you. It was probably covered up—with lumber, I think.
Q. Give me the best idea of the size of the box you can.
A. Well, I should say I don't know. I have not any idea.
Q. Give me the best idea you have.
A. I have given you the best idea I have.
Q. What is the best idea you have?
A. About that large. (Measuring with her hands)

Yes I know it was a actually a basket up in the loft, an actual box was downstairs, but they don't say in court if the basket was square like a box or not, and if it was square that would qualify as "sort of a box." My point is that if Lizzie had been wrong about the estimation Knowlton pretty much forced her to make about the box, he would have then been able to say, "Aha! Liar!" Refusing to accept an "I don't know" is an innocent seeming way to make a liar of someone.

I don't know if Lizzie was lying about thinking she heard Abby come in or not. If one assumes her guilt first, then she was probably lying. If one assumes her innocence, then maybe she wasn't. I don't see how one can get to guilt from that comment though. It's one of the stray pieces that can only be colored in only if guilt is already proven, at least in my mind. I know if one puts together a lot of those stray pieces they appear to more collectively point to guilt, but they first have to all be interpreted in a guilt-friendly way....

That is definitely a good example of poor interrogation techniques. Anything he might come up with will be unusable. I suspect questioning witnesses wasn't his greatest strength and that is why Moody handled most of that work at the trial.

On the flip side, I think Knowlton's closing statement was very strong. Guessing we disagree on that perspective.

Why I view Lizzie as undoubtedly guilty of involvement in the crime is because of the numerous 'stray' indicators of guilt that you reference. I won't list them because you know them. After jousting with posters for years, I've learned that it is much easier for 'guilt doubters' to dispute the issues one-by-one, but the task becomes exceedingly more difficult when the guilt indicators are viewed in their totality.

But please keep up the good fight...it keeps our wits sharp and I love the banter!

Yes, Camgarsky, I love the banter as well! I agree it keeps the wits sharp. Some people do Soduko to keep thier minds limber, I puzzle through the Lizzie Borden case haha.

Thank you for acknowledging Knowlton's poor interrogation skills (at least in that example) at the inquest. It made me laugh to read your thought, that's why he may have let Moody take on a lot of the interrogation at trial. I have to say, I can't think of much to complain about Moody's performance, whereas Knowlton often makes me see red, I start to feel sorry for Lizzie even when I know logically she may not have deserved sympathy. I sometimes wonder if that was how the jury felt about Knowlton, that he triggered their protective streak, made them want to help poor persecuted Lizzie Borden.

And I do absolutely agree with your assessment that viewed in totality those stray pieces fit like a glove with the guilt scenario. But one by one, this guilt-doubter feels up to the task to taking them on. Well, except for a few. There are definitely a few almost impossible to knock the stuffing from. But in my mind those few are outnumbered by the many that can be deflated...

Q. Lizzie, what did you do with the three pear centers you had up in the loft?

A. I ate them.

Excellent point Cam makes, what purpose would it make for Lizzie to tell Andrew that Abby was out, yet she thought she heard her come in before Andrew came home.

Did anyone else try the 4 pears (1 in the kitchen, 3 in the barn loft) in under 30 minutes test? I tried it and could only eat 2 in a row without forcing myself. I don't know the variety of pear and I tried to use the photos of the yard to figure it out, but was not able to. Anyone up for a real-world pear experiment and then report your results?

Any doctor would do, similar to what Spencer says in Mrs Churchill fetching a Dr.
I have to maintain that the pail had to be explained and fast.
Only a Dr could give validity to the menstrual excuse.
I suppose no Dr would try to give her an exam, but could verify its possibility for the investigators.


One could say it was left by accident, or part of the plan.
If it was left by accident, it IMO was from Abby’s murder.
Andrew’s murder would be a learned killing and much cleaner, and if Lizzie simply went to the barn and rinsed off a bit, there’d be no need to visit the cellar again, hence the pail was forgotten.

Good point Lorcan, that’s a lot of pears for someone who didn’t know if they wanted any breakfast.

After living with Lizzie and Emma for over 2 years and it being her responsibility to do that particular type of laundry for those women, according to her own testimony, do I think Bridget would be unaware of the schedules involved?

No.

Do I think Bridget would have not seen that bucket if it were being used for the week?

No.

The fire in the kitchen stove was relatively low, for sure after Andrew's murder - so if bloody rags wouldn't burn, what might come to the mind of a 32 year old woman in regard to blood and rags - seems to be the most familiar solution.

Do you remember when one of the witnesses, I think Alice, was asked if Lizzie was wearing more than one dress? That prompted me to try to get a bit too clever with AI and I asked it if the dress material Lizzie bought a few days before the murder was likely made into a slightly larger than normal dress or simply as a disposable duplicate of a known dress so no known dress would be missing from her collection even if she had to discard it. I then asked if girls of Lizzie's era played with dolls where the dresses could be changed and maybe that gave her the idea of layering.

It replied that every woman was already dressed in many layers on a regular basis in that era, so the doll experience was not required.

So, I think to figure out the bucket, we need to try to put ourselves into the life experience of the women at the time. I assume each woman's bucket would be left in a specific discreet area in the basement and would be used for the entire week, since they used borax or something like it for the soaking to remove as much of the blood as possible. I know those are a lot of assumptions, but I don't think it's unreasonable that there would be a standard personal laundry routine among those 3 women.

Lorcan wrote: Fri May 29, 2026 1:01 pm It replied that every woman was already dressed in many layers on a regular basis in that era, so the doll experience was not required.

I'm interpreting this AI response as referring to the varying types of outer and undergarments that made up a typical woman's ensemble.

Chemise, corset, petticoat, drawers, bustle, stockings along with the gown or skirt and bodice.

Yes, that is correct - the AI was just pointing out to me that you don't need to speculate about Lizzie playing with dolls as a child and putting two dresses on a doll for it have been obvious for her to layer clothing. It was just trying to get me to see how obvious the use of aprons or other layered clothing would have been to Lizzie at that time.

There is something much more specific I want to get at, so I'll start a thread about it regarding the dresses and dress material.