Lizzie Borden Society Forum

The recent focus has been on Lizzie and, of course, Morse.

Some other non-family or household member suspects include:
Hiram Harrington - Lizzie named him, He wasn't a fan of AJB.
Thomas Walker - Fourth St. tenant who was angry at Abby and AJB. Hatchet found 10 years later behind his former workplace.
Joseph Carpenter - Ex employee who had legal and civil jousts w/ AJB. Leduc, barber, claims he saw Carpenter in Fall River time of murder
Curtis I Pierce - Wrote Lizzie peculiar letters after her arrest implying a prior relationship
Charles Sawyer - First man on the scene. There is a youtube video that names him as the killer.
James Scanlon - Rumored boyfriend of Bridget

I'm sure I've overlooked someone. If you are interested in learning about any of them, I'm 99.9% sure there is a detailed thread on the forum.

Pierce is interesting, Lizzie shut him down fast.
She must have really disliked him.

My favorite was the Walker story with the newspaper article.
It was like a nail biter.

I was thinking about Charles Sawyer recently, I’m gonna go back over his testimony, because it is so strange and unique compared to what others said about John Morse specifically. It seems the only way to really explain it is that he was confused or didn’t recognize John,. I wanna go back through it just to see if there’s anything else that stands out even though there’s probably nothing there that can be pursued.

I'll see if anyone has a favorite to look into, but there are a few major problems that all these men would face.

Abby would have to be comfortable being in a bedroom with them and not scream and not have a defensive wound to be struck from the front. I'll post a photo I took standing where she stood so people who haven't been to the house can see that the mirror faced the doorway, there is nowhere to hide except behind the opened door.

For reference, I am almost exactly 6 feet tall. It took me 6 steps to step into the room, around the bed and then a 7th step to square up to deliver the flap wound that is from the cheek backwards toward the ear.

Also, the wounds are completely inconsistent with a male about about 14 years old or older until we get up into the 60s or older - which Hiram was. Far too little damage for even the hardest strikes. So, the killer, if possessing the strength of an average man would have had to swing a lot slower and with less torque than would be a natural full swing.

I've previously posted the Forged in Fire (History Channel) hatchet test to forensic dummy skulls, but it is too graphic for most. To give you a text example: In one experimental study, men produced 162% greater mean forward arm-cranking power than women, meaning about 2.6× the women’s mean output in that task. That study was done recently when far more women have played multiple sports since childhood, including throwing sports. Compare Lizzie's lifestyle and likely athletic experience to an 1892 man who worked manual labor both around his own home and for a career and the difference is likely larger.

I'm not bringing this up to be a jerk. I bring it up because on Forged in Fire the host, who was your average mid-30s guy, buried the hatchet all the way to the handle on the first blow. The second blow shattered the skull completely and removed roughly half the contents of the skull on the 3rd blow, he completely destroyed the entire brain cavity part of the skull. 19 blows is unimaginable.

Inspector - I'm looking forward to your Charles Sawyer investigation. Check out this thread.

viewtopic.php?t=6446

Ha! That thread started off super informative and ended a little tense. The gentleman I was 'debating' with did make a youtube video of his theory about Sawyer. His video implies that Sawyer might have done away with Mercier and this was a sign of his violent nature. I presume that means he stopped reading the thread before Cagney posted her findings demonstrating that Mercier lived on long life.

The 'red shirt' from Kent's 40 Whacks is a big reason I don't have patience or interest in random insights from any of the Borden 'novels'. People waste time chasing them when, if no source is provided, they should assume it is fabrication.

KGDevil and Cagney were remarkable researchers.

Lorcan -- interesting that at the time of the trial, the debate seemed to be whether a woman would be strong enough to do the killing and the study you have shared takes the polar opposite angle, was a man weak enough.

Related quote from witness statement Pg 46:
"finally admitted she got her information from Mrs. Potter and her sister Miss Dimon, the milliners on Fourth street. I then looked up the above mentioned ladies and found them very hard people to handle. I was with them both two hours, and elicited the following; Lizzie Borden has been practicing in a gymnasium for a long time, and she has boasted of the strength she possessed, not to these people, but to others. The place where she practiced was supposed to be in the Troy Block."

Knowlton's opening in the Preliminary Hearing:

As you listened to the description of the blows, you are convinced of the fact that no man could have struck them. You are struck with the thought that it was an irresolute, imperfect feminine hand that could strike, and yet not with the strength of a man, and we do not know who did it. It was not the result of spite as first thought, but the blows were fast, swift blows of somebody who had a reason for doing it.

I think most everyone knew there was too little damage. People tended to be more hands on with butchering back then.

Good post. I stand corrected.

Problem is the jury didn't think there was too little damage.

Trying to find that episode on youtube....no luck so far. Is there an episode #?

Might be part of this series since he links to the thread in question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTilLWmaF6A

I didn't watch any of them yet, just did the search to find a likely match. Watch at your own discretion.

Here's the link to the full playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=168b5ky ... B_ih494rwe

Sorry, I meant the Forge in Fire episode. I searched youtube and indicated it was season 6 episode 10, but when I looked up that episode it didn't match.

I know the other youtube well since I suspect I was posting back and forth with that guy while he came up with the content for the youtube. His forum name was "Leitskev" or something like that. Smart poster, but it seemed like he was looking for a 'different' solution to podcast and forced it.

Here is the relevant clip, but for future forum members who haven't gotten my previous warnings about this video, here it is:

If you want to preserve the Victorian Locked Room Mystery view of the case, don't watch this video. Although it is just ballistic plastic and food coloring, these are meant to be forensic models and it is extremely brutal. The hatchet in this video may be slightly larger than the 3.5 inch 5lb. hatchet that we think was used in the Borden case.

This footage is of the History Channel television show Forged in Fire. The user who posted this clip included a stupid background song with a minor swear word. There is no need for sound with this video. It shows 3 strikes to the skull with a hatchet. Watch at your own risk. Not for kids, although it was on regular tv.

Forensic Notes: the handle hitting the back of the skull is the only thing that stopped the blade going all the way in on the first strike. Notice the percentage of the skull that is removed by the 3rd strike and the structural integrity of the rest of the skull.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/S5imKHL7Jlg

If anyone is wondering what I meant by Victorian Locked Room Mystery, I mean sometimes amateur sleuths like myself are drawn to the case like we would be for the intellectual challenge of playing Sherlock Holmes and not really thinking about the reality the victims went through. It's a more sanitized, intellectual experience of mystery as compared to the brutal reality of the case. There is also the pop-culture aspect of the case, like the Christina Ricci version of Lizzie, the bobblehead dolls, I learned everything I need to know about anger management from Lizzie Borden t-shirts, etc.

I tried to get more info from Forged in Fire, but for now the best I can come up with is:

They were generally described by the show as **ballistics dummies**, not forensic human-surrogate specimens in the strict academic/forensic-science sense.

So the right distinction is:

**Forged in Fire dummies are realistic demonstration / ballistics-gel targets, but not validated forensic skull analogs suitable for precise force comparison.**

What they likely represent well:

* gross cutting ability;
* edge durability;
* whether a weapon can penetrate, chop, sever, or fracture a human-like target;
* dramatic relative performance between blades.

What they do **not** reliably represent:

* exact human skull fracture threshold;
* exact cranial bone thickness by region;
* age/sex-specific skull resistance;
* scalp, hair, skin, periosteum, and support conditions;
* how a real head moves when attached to a living body or lying on a floor/bed;
* exact injury morphology for courtroom-grade reconstruction.

Ballistic Dummy Lab describes its gel heads as skull replicates with gel, blood, and brain-like contents, designed for ballistics testing, blunt-force trauma testing, cutting, and similar demonstrations. ([Ballistic Dummy Lab][1]) But that is still a **test medium**, not a cadaver skull or a peer-reviewed forensic reconstruction of Abby or Andrew Borden’s skulls.

For your argument, use the Forged in Fire example as an **illustrative demonstration**, not as quantitative proof. Better wording:

> The *Forged in Fire* dummy test is not a precise forensic analog, but it is a useful visual demonstration of what a sharp hatchet in the hands of an average adult man can do to a skull-like target. Even allowing for differences between ballistics dummies and real human skulls, the result shows why repeated, relatively limited cranial damage after many blows is hard to reconcile with repeated full-force adult-male strikes.

That framing is defensible. It avoids letting someone dismiss your entire point by saying, correctly, “those weren’t real skulls.”

I wrote a long reply, but it got deleted, so I’ll just give a brief renewal. I enjoyed the articles about Sawyer and the thread was very interesting. That poster that was argumentative, but did not have his facts straight made some comments that I was glad that you guys corrected him on, I was just surprised that it did not change his opposition. You’d think when someone like that does not have their facts straight that they would be more humbled and appreciate the corrections, especially when they’re going by memory alone when it’s obvious that you guys have your facts documented and maintained for quick retrieval. One of the things that I did find interesting as a sidenote was that Dr. Handy had his house broken into and his Prince Albert jacket was stolen, what are the odds of that. Also, one of the things that the poster mentioned about Sawyer, I believe it was, is that he saw or Bridget saw droplets of blood on Lizzie as in plural I did not hear a rebuttal to that so I’m just gonna see if I can find something more on that but I don’t plan on pursuing Sawyer as being involved, because I trust the research that’s been done on him by you guys was much more thorough than anything I could do, but I will go back over his testimony again to see if there’s anything that stands out, and refresh myself with some of the things he said about John Morse.

Used talk to text in previous—-sorry for the sloppiness.

No one saw drops of blood on Lizzie on August 4. We were probably just wore out from the inability to get him to stop chancing ghosts and missed a few corrections.

Of those 'persons of interest' listed in the opening post, Pierce was the most fun to track and Carpenter the most thought provoking.

I'm pretty confident I was able to determine when and how Lizzie and Curtis I Pierce met...at Augusta & Cyrus Tripp's 1881 wedding. Curtis lived literally just down the street from Cyrus Tripp's family home and where Lizzie visited Augusta just prior to the murders. The Augusta & Cyrus Tripp home still stands today, its an easy and pretty drive from Fall River to check it out.
In the years after the murders, Pierce came into some money and headed to the Arkansas Ozarks to be a miner and realtor.

Carpenter was a long time acquaintance, and likely friend, with Officer Harrington, who was the policeman Hilliard sent to verify Carpenter's alibi. Which he did.

That’s a cool picture, that’s neat these houses are still standing.
I imagine it was tiring with that fella. The one that made me chuckle was that Hiram Harrington was embezzling from Andrew?
Then dismissed all Harrington’s validity.
Lietskev came in to crash all the thread had going..lol

Sawyer invented the bottle stopper—pretty cool, and given all his attributes, and no motivation for revenge on Miertzer I have to think he’s a long shot for involving the Borden crimes.

Camgarsky,

I'm planning to go back to Fall River to see the Fall River Historical Society for the first time once all the renovations are done and it reopens. I'll try to add the Tripp house, Alice Russell's grave, the Quequechan Club, and other places - do you have a list of recommended sights or places that could benefit from new photographs?

Kat posted this about Carpenter in another thread. I don't have the Knowton Papers, nor the Jennings Journals yet, but I plan to get both in person when I visit, assuming they are in print.

Also, in The Knowlton Papers, there is reference to Carpenter:

Page99
"#HK098
Notes, handwritten in lead.

Joe Carpenter, about 35.
Stole from Borden & Almy.
Family in F. Riv.

Once in Binghampton, N.Y.
Last known in Holyoke
Peddling ink & before murder!

Man shaved him in Fall Riv Monday Aug. 1 -
(Pete Driscoll, barber.)

Geo. W. Barney is his father in law-
School teacher in F R named Dean knows that Carpenter was in F.R. Aug 4th & left with his wife next day."
______________________________

Page 100
"#HK099
Letter, typewritten.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT,
COMMONWEALTH BUILDING,
Boston, Nov. 22, 1892.

My Dear Knowlton:-
Jennings was here to-day, evidently indisposed to consent at first, but more inclined to before he left, I think. He went away saying that he must see Adams, and that he would let us hear from him as soon as possible.

Jennings tells me a story about one Joe. Carpenter, who had a grudge against Borden, who he says ought to have been looked up. He says Pete Driscoll a Fall River barber shaved Carpenter in Fall River Monday, August 1st. He is a son-in-law of George W. Barney, of Fall River, and is known there as a rather shady character. Have you ever heard of this; or
has anything been done about it?
Yours truly,
Attorney General

Hon. H. M. Knowlton"

______

ALSO:

Page 153
"HK143
Affidavit, typewritten, with notations handwritten in ink, notarized.

State of New York,
City and County of Albany, ss:
Joseph W. Carpenter Jr, being duly sworn, says that he resides in said City and County; that from the 18th day of July 1892 to the 13th day of August 1892, both inclusive, he occupied a room in the premises Nos. 33 and 35 Maiden Lane, in said City every night during said time, and that he was not absent therefrom on any night during said period.
Sworn to before me this Joseph W. Carpenter Jr.
24th day of January 1893.
Wm. F. Beers
Notary Public
Albany Co. N. Y."

"State of New York,
City and County of Albany, ss:
Victoria A. Foreman, being duly sworn, says that she resides in said City and County, and occupies the premises Nos. 33 and 35 Maiden Lane in said City, and rents furnished rooms in said premises; that she knows Joseph W. Carpenter above named, and rented said Carpenter a furnished room in said premises during the period mentioned in his affidavit; that she had read the foregoing affidavit by him subscribed, and
knows the facts stated therein, and that the same are true to her own knowledge.
Sworn to before me this Victoria A. Foreman
24th day of January 1893.
Wm. F. Beers
Notary Public
Albany Co. N. Y."
______

ALSO:

"CARPENTER, JOSEPH WILMARTH, JR. 1855 - 1899: born in Fall River, Massachusetts, son of Joseph Wilmarth and Phoebe A. (Kershaw) Carpenter. A partner for a short time with Z. L. Bruce in the produce business, he was subsequently employed as a bookkeeper by the firm of Borden, Almy and Company, until a dispute between him and the firm's proprietors caused his dismissal. He was married to Miss Annie Barney, daughter of George W. Barney of Fall River. In 1882, he relocated to Holyoke, Massachusetts. After this time, he was employed as a traveling salesman in association with an ink manufacturing firm. He died in Worcester, Massachusetts, at the residence of his sister. Although an attempt was made to implicate him in the Borden murders, he was cleared by an alibi provided to Captain Philip Harrington by Mrs. Victoria A. Foreman of Albany, New York."

From:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.

--You see, Carpenter was supposedly cleared by Harrington, but Duniho shows how these 2 could have known each other since "boyhood."

Agree on Sawyer.

The benefit of tracking down secondary and tertiary characters of the case goes beyond the reward of learning new insights, it helps me 'know' these folks and better interpret their actions pertaining to the case.

Regarding Sawyer and his recollections involving Morse. Sawyer had zero idea that a John Morse existed until AFTER the murders. It may not even have been 'murder day' that he was told who was who of the many people he saw in the Borden yard that day. Based on photos, it seems every male of that era and place had facial hair and wore a hat. It would be incredulous if Sawyer's recollections were spot on accurate as it pertains to identifying people and times. For example, Sawyer testified or stated that he first met Morse as John approached from the front of house. That would appear to clearly contradict Morse's claim that he went to the backyard without visually seeing persons on the way. So John must be a liar!!

Maybe not so fast. When John left the house after seeing the victims and Lizzie in the dining room, he wandered the yard for several hours (testimony below). The yard is really not very large, so it would be a safe assumption that Morse ended up circling the house during his wandering time. That would mean he would have approached the side door coming from the front at some point when Sawyer was still on guard (I believe he was there until 6pmish). It seems very plausible to me that is when Sawyer saw Morse coming from the front entry and that is when Morse mentioned being invited back to the Borden's for lunch and maybe spewed one of his emotional comments about God's intent. Of course, it is also possible that Sawyer just got it wrong with some of his recollections.

I constantly remind myself that the hour from 11:15 to 12:15 had to have been pure chaos, with everyone at extraordinary levels of stress. As researchers, we should try to read each statement with that in mind and always look for corroboration. Any key statements describing that first hour after the murder discovery with only a single witness should be assigned an 'asterisk' as we form theories. Just my opinion and approach to the case.

It is because of that philosophy that I tend to put lessor importance on 'one off's'. Instances like Fleet saying Lizzie told him she last saw Abby in the guest room or Churchill recalling that Bridget said Abby told her about the note. No one need be lying, just misunderstandings during a frenzied couple of hours.

Preliminary Hearing. John Morse. Page 256
A. I could not say about that.
Q. How long did you remain out in the yard, Mr. Morse?
A. I do not know but I was out there three or four hours.
Q. Did you notice anybody going into the barn while you were out there, or soon after you got out there?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you remain in some particular place, or did you go around in different parts of the yard?
A. I was walking around in different parts.
Q. You did not really notice what people were doing?
A. No sir I did not.

Lorcan -- on Carpenter, that info (and more) is why he is the most intriguing suspect outside the inner circle. I don't think he was involved, but it sure isn't a slam dunk.

Let's start a new thread titled Joseph Carpenter and you can move the Knowlton Paper info above to that thread. I'm taking off for a drive to Sanibel Island for the afternoon, but will see what I've got to add to the thread when I get back.

I've got a list of places I'll be checking out when I go back again.....as with you it won't be until the FRHS is fully open. I'll let you know the places I think would be fun to actually see and walk. The Pool's (Nancy, Carrie, Augusta, etc.) are buried in a cemetery very near the Tripp house. I think cemetery name is Beech Grove or something like that.

I'll also post an article to the Mark P. Chace thread about his brother being murdered in the 1850's over in Somerset/Swansea. The newspapers describe a giant rock where body found and that rock is now the 'headline' aspect of a state park. I plan to check that location out also. So gratifying to see places that you've only imagined in your mind.

I dug into that murder just in case it turned out that Abraham or AJB had some connection. Maybe a revenge thing. I couldn't find anything connecting any Borden to his brothers death.

What was he doing?
A. The man was sawing wood, or had been sawing wood. I saw two other men out towards Second
street in this same yard. They appeared to be working.
Q. A. Do you know who they were?
No Sir. They had not heard of it. I have seen one of the men since in Court here. I told them what
had happened; they seemed to be surprised; that was before 12 o’clock.
Q. I do not care about that. You did not see Miss Lizzie at all?
A. No Sir


A. The first person I saw when I went in was Dr. Bowen. Do you want what I said to him?
Q. No


Two examples of Knowlton stopping Wixon from speaking.
Most frustrating that we couldn’t get this data..lol

I don't have the Knowlton papers, but maybe there are some notes in there that might shed some light on why he stopped Wixon. I think in general all lawyers from both sides absolutely DO NOT want a witness trying to lead the direction of the questioning like this:

A. The first person I saw when I went in was Dr. Bowen. Do you want what I said to him?

For instance, check out this exchange between Lizzie and Knowlton from the Inquest. Lawyers don't like witnesses asking questions one bit, not one little bit. Losing control of the conversation is kryptonite to a lawyer. A lawyer will not ask a question they don't already know the answer to, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Hosea Knowlton: Before that had he been at your house, before he came east?

Lizzie Borden: Yes, he has been here, if you remember the winter that the river was frozen over and they went across, he was here that winter, some 14 years ago, was it not?

Hosea Knowlton: I am not answering questions, but asking them.

Here's the only mention of "Wixon" I could find in the Witness Statements:

There are a few interesting statements in there, but it's he said she said - see the bit about Lizzie at the end.

HARRINGTON & DOHERTY
Thursday August 4, 1892.
11.35
At this hour I, with Frank Wixon, entered the Borden house 92 Second street. Dr. Bowen met me at the kitchen door, and said “I am glad to see you.” I inquired “what is the trouble?” He said “Mr. Borden is dead.” I went into the next room, and there found the remains on a sofa covered with a sheet. In low tones the Doctor told me he was satisfied there was something wrong, for they were all sick the day before. He followed this by saying “to make matters worse, Mrs. Borden is lying dead upstairs. I suppose she saw the killing of her husband, and run up stairs, and died with fright.”
I requested to see her; and on going up stairs found her lying on the floor, face downward, between the bed and dressing case. Several spots of blood was on the bed, and also a large tuft of hair. On examining the body, I found she was lying in a pool of blood. I informed the Doctor of the fact, and he expressed much surprise. I requested the Doctor, Mr. Wixon and reporter to remain by the bodies until I notified the Marshal.
The Doctor stated the deed was committed by an ax, cleaver, or some such instrument. The servant girl said she let Mr. Borden in the front door at 10.50. With another officer I made a hurried search of the house from attic to cellar, but found no trace of any strange person or weapon.
Lizzie said she was in the barn, and said “no, I did not hear any noise whatever.” The work girl said she was upstairs, and heard no noise until Miss Lizzie called her. Miss Lizzie had no suspicious on the farm hands. (P. H. Doherty.) A. M. Although Lizzie did not see the man who called about the store, still she did not explain how she knew it was he who called the second time. (P. H.)

Just a side comment...when considering whether Lizzie was unduly affected by morphine at the Inquest, look at these exchanges:

Hosea Knowlton: Before that had he been at your house, before he came east?

Lizzie Borden: Yes, he has been here, if you remember the winter that the river was frozen over and they went across, he was here that winter, some 14 years ago, was it not?

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

Hosea Knowlton: His real estate?
Lizzie Borden: I know what real estate he owned, part of it; I don't know whether I know it all or not.

Hosea Knowlton: Tell me what you know of.
Lizzie Borden: He owns two farms in Swanzey, the place on Second street and the A. J. Borden building and corner, and the land on South Main street where Mc Mannus is, and then a short time ago he bought some real estate up further south that formerly, he said, belonged to a Mr. Birch.

I recently went back through Lizzie’s inquest. I think it’s essential to do so every now and then, and I came away this time with some added respect for her awareness , recall, and agility in her positional defense.
Knowlton was frustrated with her seemingly dodging some of his questions, but without actually hearing her audibly, it doesn’t appear she became flustered.

As many have. I have noticed the attorneys shutting down the witnesses all throughout the prelims, and trial, and the only reason I can think of as being forefront is expediency besides the one you mentioned Lorcan,
It’s just that this case always yearns for the next detail of primary data, and when we see the witnesses being stopped, curiosity can be a let down.

I wonder if any researcher has compiled a list of all the individuals who were around 92 Second Street on Thursday morning
I read in a thread that it was unusually quiet on the street that morning, but there seems to have been a lot more people right around the house and adjacent areas at the deadly hour.

Does this point to an accomplice, or away from?
It would seem that anyone with blood would be noticed, or easily blend in, or maybe just hop into Mr Handy’s buggy.

I think Camgarsky and a couple of the people in the Carpenter thread have been investigating the case long enough to get a feel for who is who, their role and relationship, and their odds of being accurate in their testimony - I don't mean intentionally lying, but clear, accurate testimony. For instance, that police officer saying this makes me doubt how he quoted Lizzie saying "no, I did not hear any noise whatever." Here's what he said about Bowen which is utterly absurd:

In low tones the Doctor told me he was satisfied there was something wrong, for they were all sick the day before. He followed this by saying “to make matters worse, Mrs. Borden is lying dead upstairs. I suppose she saw the killing of her husband, and run up stairs, and died with fright.”

So, what is plausible? Dr. Bowen standing in the doorway would be looking down at a bit of blood splatter on the sheets, but more importantly her bobby-pinned hair extension that got knocked off during the murder. Bowen may have for an instant thought she fainted, but there was no way - NO WAY - after he examined her and went back downstairs, he said that to the officer.

What I think happened is at some point when Dr. Bowen saw Abby from a distance, perhaps just her feet sticking out from the bed, for an instant he might have thought, "She's fainted." Once he walked around the bed, she was laying in a dried pool of blood, with blood splashed on the wall, the dresser, the bed, and there was a huge pool of dried blood, her skin was cool to the touch, and her head was damaged enough to feel through the hair.

Now, that leads me to believe Lizzie was asked what she heard at a specific time and she replied with that answer. Remember, her very first version of her alibi was the I heard a scraping sound and came in, or I heard a groan and came in. If she really said that exact quote to that officer when he asked her did she hear anything from the yard or barn - directly contradicting the alibi she had been giving out to a couple of people within that hour or two...that looks very bad for Lizzie. Until I learn more, I don't trust that officer's testimony.

Just a couple things as I look at some of Sawyer.
Couple times he’s stopped by attorneys, and also how he actually bolted the cellar door.
Or was it the door leading down to the cellar?
It must have been the door leading down to the cellar
(in the hall), because I don’t recall him going down cellar.
It was curious how Sawyer found one hatchet on the table, examined it, rubbed yellow rust off it, flipped it over and that it was just left there for whoever to mess with.
Times have changed. lol

Q. What did you do after you heard of the stabbing?
A. I went out and went downover the steps, and I saw Mr. Hall, the man that keeps the
stable connected with the building that I was in. I asked him what he had heard.
Q. You cannot tell what you asked him. Who else did you see about that time?

Well, what did you do when you got to the Borden house?
A. When I got to the gate I said I guessed I wouldn't go in.
Q. Don't tell what you said; tell what you did.
A. Well, I turned around and came away, started back.

What did you do then?
A. Went down stairs again and stood at the door. It was facing on the inside when I---

Did you at any time shut the cellar door going down cellar,---lock it or anything?
A. I pushed the bolt in that door.
Page 1478
Q. You don't mean the outside door, of course?
A. I mean the one that goes down in the cellar from that back entry.
Q. What did you do that for?
A. Well, I didn't know but what somebody might be concealed round there.

Were you a little nervous yourself?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Was that one of the reasons you went out on the steps?
A. No, sir, not entirely.
Q. You were rather afraid of the assassin coming down upon you?
A. I didn't know what might come. I was there alone part of the time.
Q. And didn't feel very easy to be there alone?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. And you locked the cellar door up on that account?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And possibly you went out doors because those stairs were pretty near that he might
come down?
A. Well, I had that in my head.

Lorcan -- you are providing great examples of what I was trying to articulate earlier. Everything said or quoted from that first 1-2 hours after the murders needs corroboration before basing a theory upon. Otherwise in my opinion, it should just be treated as input and not evidence or a fact.

By the way, off the subject, ran across this photo and thought you guys would enjoy it. Always nice to put a face with a name.

Mr. Curtis I. Pierce in 1911, 19 years after the murders. He had moved to Mountain Home Arkansas about ten years earlier. Click on image to enlarge.

I seem to have answered my own question about which door Sawyer bolted.

Cam, this may interest you…
Remember all our discussions about the hall sink, well Sawyer made a comment about what he could see from that hall area.
You would know since you’ve been to the house, if the stove/Lizzie burning the skirt would be visible from the hall or not.
It’s probably nothing, but I thought about the kitchen sink location and all that Sawyer could see from what use to be the hall sink area.

Crying?
A. I cant say that she was crying. I could not tell exactly. I did not go way into the kitchen at all [until] after
that some little time. I stood near that door. You know there is quite an entryway.
(Judge Blaisdell) Which door?
A. At the door facing north, the side door with the screen and hook.
Q. You could see into the kitchen?
A. I could look into the kitchen. I could not see the whole of it, but I could see the biggest part of it.
Q. Did you go into the house?
A. I walked into the door. I kept the door locked on the inside. I walked in at the door; the cellar door, which
was right close there, I bolted it. There was a bolt on the side in the entry. I did not know but from the actions
around there, there might possibly be somebody in there.

Nice find - I've been trying to save the photos that are posted around this forum in case it ever goes away. I have 1372 items in my Borden case folder structure so far. I'm sure some people have 5x that if not more. Many of mine of duplicate photos of various quality stored as a someday AI photo editing may actually be reliable rainy day fund.

I'll be heading off for a real vacation next week - out to Lake Tahoe and Yosemite for the first time, so I'll be off the board for a while.

Here is the door he was talking about. In the kitchen view, the door just to the right is the door to the basement stairs with the sign on it that says Lizzie Borden. That's the door he bolted.

It took me 15 paces to walk from the front door the the back of the kitchen, In this view you can see the kitchen, the hall to the screen door and back stairs, part of the dining room off to the right, the sitting room straight ahead, and the front parlor. If I had stood on step more to my right, you would have seen through to the front entryway as well. I added the opposite view - it may be useful to people to see the whole length of the house from both directions.

The other view is up the basement stairs and you can see the ceiling of the kitchen.

There is a view down the staircase from the 2nd floor that ends right at the door for the north side screen door. That is why he thought Sawyer was afraid and went out that screen door because that staircase would not give him much warning if a hatchet or a man came flying down on top of him.

He’s not Lizzie’s type. Nice to put a face to him.

I know some will disagree, (Cam), but I believe Sawyer recognized JVM, not because he knew his appearance, but because Sawyer repeated something only Morse would have said.
Charles Sawyer is also very careful in all his speech, and he doesn’t speak loosely which leads me judging his testimony as accurate as anyone’s.
He’s an intelligent man, and admits when he can’t remember particulars.
I also believe this is John’s arrival from Weybossett, and not after time spent in the yard, just my speculation on the latter point.

Can’t put my finger on it, but this also has a ring of how John Morse speaks.
How this affects my accomplice pursuits,
Who knows?

He came towards me from the gate. I stood on the steps at that time, standing outside of the door and
holding the door outside. He came along to the steps, and he says “for Gods sake what has happened here”? I
looked at him, I had not seen him, he was a stranger to me, I told him Mr. and Mrs. Borden have been murdered,
been killed, something to that effect. “My God”, he says, “and I left Mr. Borden right at this door, and he told
me to come back to dinner.”
Q. How long was that after you got there, as far as you can estimate time?
A. I should judge somewhere in the neighborhood of very near twelve o’clock, or a little after; of either way, I
should say a little after.
Q. Where did you see him first?
A.. Coming [from] towards the gate, along the walk; whether he had come through the gate or not, I dont know.

Thank you Lorcan, was there no door from the side hall to the kitchen?
Looks to be just an opening going into the kitchen, but some floor plans show a kitchen door.

There looks like hardware in the door frame of the kitchen entry. I don't remember there being a door now, but I might have missed it or it was removed at some point, but it looks to me that the kitchen had a door separating it from the hall to the back stairs and north side screen door.

I’m thinking it was removed,and now just a walkthrough, but do you think those are the original doors in the interior?
I think the front door has been changed, but I may be wrong.

I think yes on the interior doors being original. The front door locks have been changed at least three times. Once when Morse, right after the murders, fixed the spring lock - I think by changing it - but maybe he just fixed it, at least once when the older manual (but modern) deadbolt was installed, and now it's push button electronic locks on the front and north side door.

I got a very close up shot of Lizzie's side of the door to her parents' bedroom.


A separate preservation/tour write-up says the doors, doorframes, and hinges are all original, with some windows and radiators also surviving. Lizzie Borden Warps & Wefts gives a more careful version: doors, many knobs, moldings, framings, stairs, mopboards, some sitting-room windows, and radiators appear confirmably original, while noting that some knobs/backplates are later replacements

Morse testified that after the murders he discovered the front-door spring lock was unreliable, removed it, had it repaired/“fastened back,” and then had a new latch/lock put on.

The key passage is in John V. Morse’s trial testimony. He said the spring lock would catch only if the front door was shut hard; otherwise the door could be opened “without any trouble.” He said he noticed this after the tragedy, within “a day or two.” Then:
“I took the lock off, had it fastened back so it would catch, and a new one was put on while I was there.”
“A new one was put on?”
“I had it put on.”
“...the old lock is there and a new latch also?”
“Yes, sir.”

Why would John say he went back to grab a pear if he didn't, but instead had a conversation with Sawyer at the door?

It’s a valid question Cam, I suppose we would all like to find a chink in John’s testimony, and obviously John has a list of suspicious things said and done in my opinion, however that may be, I’m not sure I have a sufficient answer.
Seems there was plenty of pear eating going on, and to think those pears were overcooked by everyone as clues is one of the most frustrating aspects of the case for me personally.
Teeth marks and locations could have added so much to solving, for instance if Lizzie had simply tossed 3 pear centers into to barn loft with her teeth marks, we wouldn’t be having this whole discussion probably.

I’ll continue.

In fairness to your question, I may not have made myself clear in my first post about Sawyer I’m not saying that he didn’t have a pair before he came up to Sawyer, there’s a good chance that John passed the screen door while Charles was inside the hallway and just didn’t notice him, then grabbed a pair and walked clockwise around the exterior of the building.
In order to believe this theory, you’d have to think that there was no crowd gathered outside, ,BUT, not that Morse didn’t say any of the things he said to Sawyer.

Sawyer did not testify that he saw him come through the gate, only that he approached him from the north gate in the front of the yard there and towards the side steps.

Sorry for the multiple posting, but I keep getting interrupted and I don’t wanna lose what I’ve already written.

One thing that I forgot to mention, is that John Morse‘s appearance is very striking, especially the eyes, similar to Lizzie. I just think his facial features are not easily forgotten.

Similar to other areas in this case, sometimes you just have to believe one or the other and there’s not much middle ground. I do think that a lot of what John, Morse do or said seems to show that he was trying to protect Lizzie.

I 100% agree that John walked by the side door at a moment when Sawyer was inside the house. Sawyer himself tells us that he was in and out of the house that morning.

At the Inquest, Mrs. Churchill recalled that she met John at the side door and told him that both Borden's had been murdered.

Churchill Inquest Testimony.
Page 130 (37)
Q. Did you see Mr. Morse before you went home
A. Yes Sir, he came before I went home.
Q.  About what time in the order of events did he come?
A. Both Mr. and Mrs. Borden had been found when he came. I think I was the first one that let him in. I says "Mr. Morse, something terrible has happened, somebody has killed both Mr. and Mrs. Borden." He says "What", and hollered "Lizzie", as loud as he could holler, and rushed into the dining room. Alice Russell heard him, and I think let him in, and he went into the sitting room and the door was closed between the sitting room and the kitchen. 

...and shortly later in her testimony she shares that she believes she met Morse as he came from the direction of the backyard...

Q.  Where did Mr. Morse come from?
A. The back part of the yard, or from the street. this is a strange sentence. it fits better as an extension of the prior question. perhaps typist error.
Q.  Where did you first see him?
A. He stepped up on to the steps. I think he came from the east, the steps that come from the yard, but I am not sure, I can't tell you surely.

The main point is that Churchill seemingly validates Morse's claim that he went to the backyard to get pears, but it would negate the possibility that John circled the house at that time. It is also interesting that Sawyer doesn't seem to be aware of this interaction between Churchill and Morse in spite of all of them being basically standing within a couple feet of each other. For me, this adds substance to the idea that Sawyer was inside the house when Morse arrived and that Sawyer's recollection with Morse is not the initial arrival of John.

Sorry for starting to repeat myself, but to wrap this post up, for me, there is no reason to think John didn't circle the house when he went back outside for the extended period. That would match up with him approaching Sawyer from the front, but not coming thru the gate. I think it would be natural for Morse to engage with Sawyer and tell him about the irony of being invited back and his view that God might not have been on his 'A game' allowing the murders. In his later years, Morse would hang out with folks (maybe the NB mayor?) in New Bedford and he
made it known that he was not a big believer in a loving God. I can find the newspaper snippet that gives that insight....might have to ask Kat because I don't have the best 'filing' system.

I think we may be in more agreement about John than I thought.
I probably took for granted that John arrived and went straight to Sawyer, based on my (current) belief that Sawyer did recognize John (not by appearance), and didn’t give much thought to the possibility that he went passed the north side door first.
If John did go around the house first and approach Sawyer from the west, it still has its own problems.
1) John said he didn’t notice people hanging around—my words—
and
2) John would’ve been informed of the situation to some degree in order to make the comments he gave to Sawyer, which means people hanging around the yard would’ve had to inform him.

I’ve entertained the idea that John may have actually entered and exited the house already before Sawyer had his meeting on the steps.
It is bothering that Sawyer doesn’t mention John hollering for Lizzie, nor anyone else besides Mrs Churchill.

I haven’t quite finished going back through all Sawyer’s testimonies, but if I see anything that might lend itself, I’ll try to share.
It is quite obvious that John never held God in high regard, but I’d be interested in seeing the article you mentioned, but don’t put yourself out over it.

Have you given much thought to how scary it would be for those involved to sleep in the house Thursday evening?
If Lizzie is innocent, how could she trust John, who came to visit?

If John is innocent, how could he sleep, knowing Lizzie just killed her parents?

Does this point to the accomplice theory?
Slightly—in my opinion.

click on image to enlarge

Thanks you for the article.

During the nights between the murders and Lizzie's arrest, I imagine everyone spending the night were grateful for the interior door locks! That would be the only way I could fall asleep if I was there.

While in our minds, we think Emma and John must have either known or strongly suspected Lizzie, but in actuality we just don't know. My eyes have been opened by the long running true crime documentary shows 48 Hours and Forensic Files. It is startling how often family members will continue to believe in their seemingly murderous relatives after they are accused and either convicted or exonerated for killing another family member.

Do you think there was a plan to kill Abby first for inheritance reasons?
Supposedly according to Massachusetts law (or so some say) if Abby was killed second, her family would receive a partial split even if Andrew was killed also.
Maybe a technicality, but that would ruin my thoughts that the time gap wasn’t meant to be found out.

I haven't confirmed this myself, but as I understand it, if Andrew died without a will, it would have been 1/3 Abby, 1/3 Emma, 1/3 Lizzie. Because Abby died first, the 4th street house portion in Abby's name, and anything else Abby had in her name went to Andrew and 90 or so minutes later, it went to Emma & Lizzie, but they voluntarily gave that money to Abby's family. It was a tiny amount of money in the grand scheme of things and I think the lawyers and hopefully Emma and Lizzie all agreed it was the least they could do for her family in her memory.

This is a long read.....enjoy!

The Boston Globe, Saturday, August 13, 1892 - Page 1, 4
"TO WHOM THE PROPERTY?"

Interesting Legal Questions Arising Regarding its Disposal.

FALL RIVER, Aug. 12. - That neither Andrew J. Borden nor his wife, each possessed of property in their individual right, left a will, seems to be pretty thoroughly established, as a search of the premises does not reveal any will and all the legal papers and documentary evidence of the murdered people's holdings was found this afternoon in the family safe which had been broken open.

Yet it is authoritatively stated that, although every other paper the man presumably had in his possession has been found in good order, nothing in the shape of a last testament was found.

With the fact of no expression from either as to their desires in the disposition of their property, the distribution of the large estate must necessarily be according to the dictate of the common and statute law regarding inheritance.

In this case the deaths of these people, so nearly together that it may be impossible to determine, according to the lines of legitimate evidence, to the satisfaction of the law, just who died first, odd complications upon the matter of the settling of the estate may ensue.

In the case of Mrs. Borden, this absence of a will, if report is true, will cause a disposition of her estate entirely opposed to her intentions.

This question of the disposition of the property is freely discussed and has been since the arrest taken up in the city as the latest topic of interest in connection with the murder.

It is presented upon eccentricities of law not upon the statute books, of which the legally informed public has such an extensive knowledge.

The determination of the exact time each died means a fortune, or the loss of one, for each of Mrs. Borden's heirs.

One of the heirs is so thoroughly convinced of her equity right in Mrs. Borden's dowry that she talks of taking a hand in the settlement of the estate.

According to the ideas of the interested public which are being disseminated about the city tonight, if the husband was killed first, then the wife was entitled to a widow's share of the deceased husband's estate, and consequently upon her subsequent decease her property thus acquired by widow's right would naturally revert to her heirs, and Lizzie and Emma would be relieved a third of the estate on the common law dowry.

It is astonishing how extensively this presentment of the situation has gained credence today, and the prejudice in favor of Mrs. Borden's heirs is illustrated in the assiduity with which their case is being argued upon the street.

There are reputed facts and arguments presented in support of the theory of Mr. Borden's death having been first to be worthy the testimony of an expert medical man.

And yet their theory and their law is wrong.

Upon no legal condition can Mrs. Borden's two sisters, her only heirs-at-law, obtain any of the estate, that is in the absence of a will.

The right to will her own individual possessions to whomever she chooses is undisputed, but she does not seem to have done it, hence this interesting condition of affairs.

A GLOBE reporter this afternoon spent some time with a prominent attorney of Fall River, poring over the probate laws and considering the Borden inheritance complication from its different aspects.

Arguing now upon the hypothesis that Andrew J. Borden died first, the old common law gives as a widow's dowry a portion of her deceased husband's estate.

If the husband dies intestate, the widow shall be entitled to a dowry of the lands of her husband, and shall be entitled to his real estate in fee, that is, with the right of sale at her pleasure, or willing at her death, according to her own desire, to an amount not exceeding $5000; and she shall also be entitled during her life to one-half of the other real estate of which he died seized.

If her husband dies intestate and leaves no kindred, then the widow shall take all the real estate in fee.

If these two sections of the Massachusetts statutes were only applicable to the Borden estate, then Mrs. Borden's two sisters would be in most agreeable circumstances. But they are not, in spite of the fact that these two heirs-at-law confidently expect a portion of the estate.

Mrs. Borden's dowry, assuming that she was a widow before her decease, would, according to common law, be only a life interest, and with the husband's issue still living would be unassignable by her to any of her kindred.

It is commonly supposed that a dowry amounts to one-third of the deceased husband's estate, but it is not so.

The widow's portion of her husband's estate is regulated by a table of dowries, dependent upon the age of the widow. In determining the proportionate part of the estate to be settled, Smith's probate law has a table of the amount widows at certain ages should receive.

Just what Mrs. Borden's proportionate amount of the half a million dollars her husband left, if she ever was a widow, cannot be determined tonight, as the only lawyer in town who has a copy of the Smith's probate law is away on a vacation.

In regard to the personal property, the probate judge would determine the widow's portion.

It will be seen that no construction of the Probate Laws, in the absence of a will, will in any way provide for Mrs. Borden's heirs, as a good part of the city is anticipating.

If Mrs. Borden was killed after her husband, then she held a widow's dowry right to the possession of an income from a certain part of her deceased husband's $500,000 only during the few moments between the time of the murders.

Her income from the possession of the property disappeared the moment the axe descended upon her head, for death was in the first blow, and her opportunity to benefit her relatives had passed.

All the estate must necessarily then go to the two daughters, Emma and Lizzie Borden.

Mrs. Borden had both real estate and personal property in her own right, which she might have bequeathed in the manner she always said she would to her two sisters and their heirs.

But she undoubtedly neglected to draw up a testament, and the matter is in the same condition it is on the opposite assumption of the relative time of the death of each.

Assuming that Mrs. Borden was killed first, as some contend, she was, at 9.30 in the morning, there is just as interesting a Legal Construction governing the disposal of her estate.

The Public Statutes provide that when a man and his wife are seized in their own right to real estate, and when a married woman is seized to her sole and separate right to an estate by an inheritance in lands and they have one issue living which might have inherited such estate, the husband shall, on the death of the wife, hold the lands for his life as a tenant thereof by courtesy.

If they have no such issue, then the husband shall hold one-half of such lands for his life.

If she dies intestate and leaves no issue, he shall take her real estate in fee to an amount not exceeding $5000 and shall also have her other estate through courtesy or other life interest.

“You see,” said the attorney, submitting the law on the question, “this is the only legal clause which in any way would enable the heirs of Mrs. Borden at any time to acquire the rights in any part of her real estate.

“Assuming that Mrs. Borden died first, then Mr. Borden inherited in fee her real estate to the value of $5000 and a life interest in other of her real estate.

“Upon his death, of course, this $5000 worth or real estate would naturally go to his heirs, not to hers.

“So, if the wife was killed first, then for the short intervening space of time before he, too, was murdered, he would be holding an interest in other of her real estate over the value of $5000.

“He did not hold this in fee, that is with the right of bequeathing it to any one of his kin.

“Consequently, arguing upon this theory, that Mrs. Borden was slain, that is the first opening of the heirs of Mrs. Borden to receive any of her real estate.

“This seems, at a cursory glance, favorable for the heirs-in-law of Mrs. Borden, and with the husband dead it would seem that the life interest in the dead woman's additional estate, over the $5000 worth, would come into the possession of Mrs. Borden's two sisters.

“The law on such a point would authorize such a disposition.
“But let us look at the facts of Mrs. Borden's estate and apply this total provision.

“Mrs. Borden's Heirs Can Get Nothing, as, although she may have a total estate amounting to more than $5000, still she is not recorded as possessed of that amount of real estate.

“Her bank stock and shares in mills here form, I understand, the bulk of her estate, and that as personal property without a will becomes the property of her husband upon her death.

“So, you see, a condition dissipates the possibilities of the heirs accruing property under this clause.

“Now, we will assume that Mrs. Borden died first; her husband was, I just contended, possessed of her real estate to the value of $5000, and a life interest in the estate; we will assume for the purposes of this argument that Mrs. Borden had real estate of the value of more than $5000, then you would say her heirs-in-law will receive this additional real estate now that Mr. Borden is also dead.

“Very true, but now let us go back to the actual condition of things.

“Did Mr. Borden or Mrs. Borden die first?

“This must be legally determined before any real estate in excess of $5000, if she possessed it, could be given to her heirs, and I judge it would be hard to establish in the eye of the law.

“Doctors might say that Mrs. Borden was murdered first, or they might also contend that Mrs. Borden was, at some, however infinitesimal, time, a widow.

“But it would not be acceptable according to law.

“It would not be the establishment of a fact; it would only be on two men's opinions, and that would have no weight.

“The only way I see to come to a decision in any deduction in this matter, would be through a Confession.

“If the murderer came forward and said: 'Mr. Borden died first,' or “Mrs. Borden was killed first,' then there would be evidence of the actual fact.

“If this statement of a witness never could be obtained, you see, the property of Mrs. Borden, in excess of the husband's $5000, would never revert to her heirs.

“If a married woman dies intestate and leaves no kindred, the law reads that the husband would be entitled to hold in fee all of her real estate, and, upon his death, it would descend to his legal heirs.

“With the fact well established that Mrs. Borden did not leave real estate of the value of $5000, it would seem that none of her heirs can ever, reasonably, expect anything.”

Those who have known this estimable lady, and who have been cognizant of her intentions regarding her property, her affection for these two younger sisters of hers, are fully aware that this legal circumstance was farthest from her thoughts and desires.

If she could have foreseen any condition of this kind, she never would have neglected the making of her will.

But she did neglect it, and although some may say that it served the heirs right for ever entertaining any such anticipations, it is particularly hard upon one sister of the murdered woman, Mrs. A. G. Whitehead, who lives at 45 4th St.

Mrs. Whitehead is a half-sister, being the daughter of Mrs. Borden's father by his second wife.

She resides in the house where her father lived for many years, and where the wedding of Abby Gray, as she was, to Andrew J. Borden, and the marriage of the other sister, Mrs. Priscilla Fish of Hartford, was celebrated.

It was owned by her father, and when he died, he left the old home to Mrs. Whitehead.

About five years ago Mrs. Gray, the mother, did not care to keep the half interest any longer, and rather than have it bought by persons outside of the family, and have her half-sister thus annoyed, Mrs. Borden induced her husband to purchase it.

He did so, paying something like $1500 for it, and the Deed was recorded in Mrs. Borden's name.

This is, as far as known, the only piece of real estate Mrs. Borden held a separate title to.

In the absence of a will, half of this house, together with the sum of money left her by Mrs. Borden's father, will become the property of the Borden girls, Lizzie and Emma.

This lady [Mrs. Whitehead] is a woman of no great means and will deeply feel her misfortune.