some questions from Lizzie the story of lizzie borden

[snokkums]

I ahve started reading the book "Lizzie the story of Lizzie Borden", and I already have some questions maybe you all can answer.

1) On the flap it says "On that hot August morning in 1892 the house was locked." Is this true. I never heard this before.

2) Emma and Lizzie discovered that Andrew was planning to place the farm in Swansea in his wife's name. I never heard that either.

3)Under the influence of their Uncle John Morse, Andrew was planning a will to deprive them of the bulk of his fortune to his wife.

I never heard that one either.

I have just started reading this book and I already have questions.

[augusta]

Snokkums -

1) Yes, the doors were locked. The front door had three locks on it, but its spring lock sometimes did not work. The side door had a hook-and-eye lock. It was hot that day, and the wooden side door was open, but the screen door it is pretty sure that it was locked. There is some speculation about if it were actually locked or not, so the best I can say is it "probably" was. The cellar door was locked.

2) It is only the writer's guess that the Swansea farm was about to be put in Mrs. Borden's name. It's possible but there is nothing to back that up that I know of. It would have made Lizzie mad, tho.

3) It is true that Andrew did discuss a will with John Morse, but it was a ways before the murders. He said he would like to bequeath some of his money to an old age home. If Andrew divulged other things to Morse about a will, I think Morse would have told Lizzie and Emma about it. Andrew did comment that he needed to make a will, but it looks like he never got around to it. None was ever found.

It sounds like you are reading Frank Spiering's book. I thought his book was very well written and I liked it. It made you feel like you were there. But he made up some stuff in it.

In the first few pages, he talks about it being over 100 degrees that day. That is just repeating what other writers said. When the weather log was checked it turned out that it only reached a high of 83 in Fall River the day of the murders. BUT everyone who makes a comment on that day that was there says how HOT it was. It was probably high humidity, which was not recorded in 1892.

I've been there several times in the summer, and it was always so humid in Fall River. At least, when I was there. Some towns are like that. I notice they are usually towns that have a bay that protects them.

[1bigsteve]

If I remember correctly, the "heat wave" was pretty much over by the time of the murders. The week before was much hotter. Still, 83 is a bit of a cooker. And to think Lizzie was not even sweating after all that hatchet exersion.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Allen]

And she wasn't even dusty from being up in the loft of the barn. Her clothes were also rather spotless. A little suspiciously so if you ask me.

[RayS]

And she wasn't even dusty from being up in the loft of the barn. Her clothes were also rather spotless. A little suspiciously so if you ask me.

My rational logic says she wasn't dusty because: she first admitted to being in the back yard eating pears. Only later, after Uncle John came over and they decided on a cover up, did she say she was in the barn, then up in the loft. Each put her farther away from where she first said she was.
I think she was trying to protect the Secret Visitor, and told this story so she could claim she didn't see anthing, signalling to the Visitor she would forever keep quiet, or now be convicted of perjury.
No, I wasn't there with a video camera.

Note how that murder in Aruba may be solved from not suspicioning the last people who admitted to seeing Natalie alive?

[Audrey]

And she wasn't even dusty from being up in the loft of the barn. Her clothes were also rather spotless. A little suspiciously so if you ask me.

She may have held them up.....

[Allen]

And she wasn't even dusty from being up in the loft of the barn. Her clothes were also rather spotless. A little suspiciously so if you ask me.

She may have held them up.....

Then what was she rummaging through the boxes and fiddling with the curtains with?

[Audrey]

And she wasn't even dusty from being up in the loft of the barn. Her clothes were also rather spotless. A little suspiciously so if you ask me.

She may have held them up.....

Then what was she rummaging through the boxes and fiddling with the curtains with?

True...

But do we know her hems were clean? Testimony speaks of her bodice area and places those ladies could see.... Did it include hems and other areas?

I just find the whole absence of dust on her clothing and absence of foot prints to be a bit of a grey area since 'Me and Brownie' testified to being in the loft prior to the policeman's visit.

[mbhenty]

I think that to much fuss had been made about dust. How much dust could there be? Did they not use the barn just about a year before? I thought it had just been a year or so before the murders that Andrew had gotten rid of the horse. Thus the reason why some hay was still in the loft. Are we to believe no one ever went up there?


I think the police just made a big-to-do about nothing. Even Brownie and Barlow said they were up in the loft. The police did not see their foot prints. And quite frankly, I believe the young boys before I would believe the police. The police found almost no evidence and were striving to find something, anything, and possibly making things up. I think.(?)

[Kat]

Do we know that Lizzie only said she had been up in the barn after Morse arrived back, as Ray says?

[Harry]

Do we know that Lizzie only said she had been up in the barn after Morse arrived back, as Ray says?

LOL, only if we exclude the facts.

[Allen]

I disagree. I'm pretty prone to believing it was dusty up there for four reasons. It was also hot up there. Hot and dusty, two words that imply to me there should be some sign on her person that she was up there.

1. Dust gathers. It's a fact of life. It gathers on everything to a certain degree. If there is a dust free environment to be found I want to live there. Lord knows my livingroom is the worlds largest dust magnet.

2. Even if the barn was being used, who was cleaning it? Using it doesn't get rid of the dust. See my post above about my livingroom. If it wasn't being cleaned then not only was the dust gathering, it was accumulating. Did Bridget go out and clean the loft in the barn?

3. There are many witnesses who testified it was dusty. So is my attic. There are cobwebs up there because I don't clean my attic much. I tend to think the loft in the barn would be a lot like this, I have stuff stored there but I don't spend a lot of time up there. What is described as being in the barn I think most people would find in their attics. Odds and ends. If I spent much time up in mine searching through things I would be a bit dusty. There is also that nice musty smell.

4. There was dust in the basement of the house, as evidenced in the box the hatchets and axes were found in. They were covered over with a fine layer of dust. This tells me that dust accumulated there at the house when things weren't used much.

[Audrey]

I am not saying it was not dusty.... I am certain it was.

I live on a 'gravel' road. When the weather is dry it kicks up a lot of dust that finds it's way into every part of my house.

What I am getting at is that those two boys testified to being up in the loft BEFORE the policeman. Unless they were out and out liars-- his assessment of the dust on the floor not being disturbed when it should have been may not be accurate.

It is in testimony that they were up there-- and I have said time and time again-- that we cannot decide which testimony to accept or deny. We cannot decide who is either a liar or mistaken to make the facts back up our opinions.

What we have to do it accept that someone may have been up in that loft and not disturbed the dust on the floor and hypothesize as to how this could be possible. Unfortunately we were not in the courtroom to be able to hear the testimony and access the demeanor, body language, etc of those who testified to decide if we think they were telling the truth. We are unable to assign credibility--- we can only read the testimony and go from there.

[Allen]

I was referring to Lizzie's appearance, not footprints. There is nothing mentioned in all of the witness descriptions of her that day which would tend to support or lead me to believe she was ever up in the barn, in my opinion.

I really don't believe the testimony of 'Me and Brownie'. There are no witnesses to 'Me and Brownie's ' presence on the property that day are there? Logic says that somebody is wrong, they can't both be right, no matter whether it's in testimony or not. They can't both be telling the truth. Thomas Barlow also said it was cooler up in the loft than it was outside, when all of the other witnesses stated it had been very hot. This implies to me they were never up there to know. I think if they ever were up in the barn, it was because they were the boys who had been stealing the pigeons. But that's just me.

Rebello page 89:

Note: Thomas E. Barlow age 16, resided with his grandmother and grandfather at 10 Lyon Street in Fall River. Four months after the Borden trial Thomas Barlow and several friends were arrested on Sunday October 8, 1893, for breaking and entering into Daniel F. Sullivan's Boots and Shoes on 40 South Main at 11 p.m. When confronted by the police at the store they were wearing shoes which had been stolen earlier from Sears and Hall Boots and Shoes at 13 Granite Block. Thomas Barlow "the noted 'me' who figured with his chum [Everett Brown] in the late Borden trial as ' Me and Brownie' was arraigned on Monday in district court.

Source: " Me and Brownie: 'Me' and Other Boys Caught in the Act of Store Breaking," Fall River Weekly News, Wednesday October 11, 1893:4.



So not only were they thieves, but they apparently weren't very good ones. They were also greedy. They robbed one shoe store, and were caught robbing another wearing the stolen items.

[Audrey]

Police rely ALL THE TIME on testimony, tips and 'squealers' from people currently incarcerated! But they do tend to want it both ways! If they want or need the testimony they assign credibility to it-- if it goes against what they think-- they do not.

Again, testimony is testimony. Period.

I think the police decided very early on who was guilty and did little to investigate otherwise.

So, a question for you.

Should the criminal justice system dispense with plea bargains and snitches since most of them are criminals with their own agendas?????????

And as an aside.... They were teenagers who wanted nice shoes? I guess the whole desire for teens to have nice stuff started a long time ago! Nike! Just do it!

I have a good friend who's daugter was caught shoplifting perfume at Walmart. Nice kid. Good parents. Her parents are on a budget and just cannot afford to buy their kids designer scents. Of course-- a great number of children's parents DO provide their children such luxuries. She stole that perfume not only because she wanted it-- but to fit in. I do not believe that a teenager guilty of petty theft should be branded as a life long criminal and have his/her credibility totally drawn into question. It is a dangerous thing to do.

[RayS]

I am not saying it was not dusty.... I am certain it was.
...
What I am getting at is that those two boys testified to being up in the loft BEFORE the policeman. Unless they were out and out liars-- his assessment of the dust on the floor not being disturbed when it should have been may not be accurate.

It is in testimony that they were up there-- and I have said time and time again-- that we cannot decide which testimony to accept or deny. We cannot decide who is either a liar or mistaken to make the facts back up our opinions.

What we have to do it accept that someone may have been up in that loft and not disturbed the dust on the floor and hypothesize as to how this could be possible. Unfortunately we were not in the courtroom to be able to hear the testimony and access the demeanor, body language, etc of those who testified to decide if we think they were telling the truth. We are unable to assign credibility--- we can only read the testimony and go from there.

Every day juries decide what testimony to believe or reject. Or to resolve the differences (mis-identification).
I wasn't there but I believe this:
The barn was cool inside (based on my remembered experiences as a youth in a barn around noontime. The shade keeps it cooler until late afternoon. That's how I remember it. This barn had openings for air in it, unlike the Borden's barn. That could make a difference.
Any year old hay could be disintegrating and create dust. Or maybe it had been swept out (possible, not probable). Most of all, was there ANY dust observed by anyone else at that time? Picking up a handful of hay, then shaking it, could provide a thin layer of dust, IMO>

[Allen]

And as an aside.... They were teenagers who wanted nice shoes? I guess the whole desire for teens to have nice stuff started a long time ago! Nike! Just do it!

A nice pair of shoes is one thing. But to break into two stores and be wearing one stolen pair while you are stealing another says something else to me. If they wanted a pair of nice shoes, they already had them on. Period.

Testimony is testimony, yes I got that part. Both of those statements are made in testimony. I guess it's up to personal opinion who you believe. After all we can't say there were 4 Lizzie's there that day. One on the stairs, and one in the kitchen at the time that Andrew came home. One in the barn looking for lead/tin, and one in the back yard eating pears. We can't consider she was everywhere at once based on testimony.

It is in testimony that they were up there-- and I have said time and time again-- that we cannot decide which testimony to accept or deny. We cannot decide who is either a liar or mistaken to make the facts back up our opinions.

I'm forming an opinion. If I didn't form an opinion, I would be force to believe that 'Me and Brownie' were up there running around making all these footprints, and they evaporated before the officer saw them. It's testimony the officer didn't see any, and it's testimony that the two boys were up there.

What I am getting at is that those two boys testified to being up in the loft BEFORE the policeman. Unless they were out and out liars-- his assessment of the dust on the floor not being disturbed when it should have been may not be accurate.

It's a contradiction of all you have said for you to state this. You accept that they may be telling the truth, and deny that he was accurate. Or you accept that they were not correct, and the officer's testimony was accurate. But you can't have it both ways. This is that forming an opinion thing. I formed my opinion based on what all of the facts told me. I am not using them to try to back up my opinion, they are what made me arrive at my opinion in the first place. This isn't the first time I have read testimony regarding this case.

I have read the testimony, I have considered they might be telling the truth, but where I go from there is I don't believe them. My opinion is that 'Me and Brownie' were never there. You are deciding to deny the officers testimony and believe 'Me and Brownie'. Either way we are denying testimony. When there is a contradiction in testimony I think it is up to personal opinion who you choose to believe. Otherwise we are going to do a whole lot of talking in circles.

[Yooper]

Another point to be made is that two conflicting testimonies tend to negate each other. If one or the other is not challenged, then that one stands. The jury doesn't necessarily have to play "Who Do You Trust?", they can simply ignore the point.

[Audrey]

Another point to be made is that two conflicting testimonies tend to negate each other. If one or the other is not challenged, then that one stands. The jury doesn't necessarily have to play "Who Do You Trust?", they can simply ignore the point.

I tend to agree...

But both can be true.

[theebmonique]

Maybe it's all about perspective. We know how vastly different stories from eyewitness accounts of the very same accident/incident can be.


Tracy...

[Yooper]

It would be interesting to know what the sun angle is on August 4th in Fall River. It probably has a southerly component at that time, so I wonder if the pear trees provided shade for the barn roof. The hottest part of the day is usually 2:00 to 3:00 in the afternoon, so shortly after that the barn would be the warmest. I just don't think it could be all that warm in the barn at 11:00am.

The whole question could have been resolved by taking a thermometer and several witnesses to the barn loft on a day with a very similar temperature at 11:00am. Apparently the prosecution didn't want to do that for some reason.

[theebmonique]

I remember quite awhile back someone (Harry ? Chris ? Kat ?) did some pictures (?) showing where the sun and shadows were in relation to time, the Borden house and theyard on the day of the murders. Anyone else remember the pictures (drawings maybe ?) that I am talking about ?


Tracy...

[Allen]

It would be interesting to know what the sun angle is on August 4th in Fall River. It probably has a southerly component at that time, so I wonder if the pear trees provided shade for the barn roof. The hottest part of the day is usually 2:00 to 3:00 in the afternoon, so shortly after that the barn would be the warmest. I just don't think it could be all that warm in the barn at 11:00am.

The whole question could have been resolved by taking a thermometer and several witnesses to the barn loft on a day with a very similar temperature at 11:00am. Apparently the prosecution didn't want to do that for some reason.

Anyone want to meet me in the barn 'loft' at 11am in the morning this August 4th? If you do bring some pears. I'll be hungry.

[Allen]

So, a question for you.

Should the criminal justice system dispense with plea bargains and snitches since most of them are criminals with their own agendas?????????

The difference with the jailhouse snitches is that they are getting some form of compensation. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. There is some form of reward offered them for their information. So yes they have their own agendas, but they also know if their information doesn't check out they aren't getting the reward they are doing it for in the first place.

[Audrey]

So, a question for you.

Should the criminal justice system dispense with plea bargains and snitches since most of them are criminals with their own agendas?????????

The difference with the jailhouse snitches is that they are getting some form of compensation. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. There is some form of reward offered them for their information. So yes they have their own agendas, but they also know if their information doesn't check out they aren't getting the reward they are doing it for in the first place.

And IMHO the fact that they are compensated/rewarded makes it worse. I guess we are always going to be the tomato/tomatoe women on the forum!

[Harry]

I remember quite awhile back someone (Harry ? Chris ? Kat ?) did some pictures (?) showing where the sun and shadows were in relation to time, the Borden house and theyard on the day of the murders. Anyone else remember the pictures (drawings maybe ?) that I am talking about ?
Tracy...

It was Chris and it's message #183 in this thread:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... ashing.htm

[theebmonique]

Oh Harry...THANKS for finding the picture ! Here it is again....Chris, please forgive me for pasting it here without getting your permission first.




Tracy...

[Yooper]

The shadows are about what I anticipated, a slight southerly component to the sun angle. From the 1892 photos, the tallest fruit trees in the yard and on the lot behind the Borden yard may be about as tall as the peak of the barn roof, so no direct shade effect from them. They are tall enough to prevent direct sunlight reaching the barn for maybe an hour or two after sunrise.

From my own experience with haymows, don't stack haybales in the afternoon! Morning is fine, especially early, and it is tolerable until about noon. But the temperature near the roof after 2:00 feels like about 150 degrees.

[Allen]

The shadows are about what I anticipated, a slight southerly component to the sun angle. From the 1892 photos, the tallest fruit trees in the yard and on the lot behind the Borden yard may be about as tall as the peak of the barn roof, so no direct shade effect from them. They are tall enough to prevent direct sunlight reaching the barn for maybe an hour or two after sunrise.

From my own experience with haymows, don't stack haybales in the afternoon! Morning is fine, especially early, and it is tolerable until about noon. But the temperature near the roof after 2:00 feels like about 150 degrees.

Well at the time Lizzie was supposedly in the barn it was nearing twelve noon.

[Yooper]

Consider whether the attic of the house would have been any cooler than the haymow in the barn at 11:00. Bridget went to her room at the same time Lizzie supposedly went to the barn and said nothing about it being too hot to rest. She didn't remove any clothing or her shoes, according to her testimony. Her room was on the side of the house (south) with direct exposure to the sun.

[RayS]

So, a question for you.
Should the criminal justice system dispense with plea bargains and snitches since most of them are criminals with their own agendas?????????

The difference with the jailhouse snitches is that they are getting some form of compensation. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. There is some form of reward offered them for their information. So yes they have their own agendas, but they also know if their information doesn't check out they aren't getting the reward they are doing it for in the first place.

The problem with eyewitness information, said Judge Dewey, is the lack of corroborating evidence. Still true today. A paid informer will always tell what his employer will want to hear.
Jailhouse informers have an incentive for telling anything that will reduce their time. NEVER talk about your case to anyone. In one Perry Mason story this lesson is reinforced when the widow talked to another inmate, and finds herself in bigger trouble. Not just fiction.

[Audrey]

So, a question for you.
Should the criminal justice system dispense with plea bargains and snitches since most of them are criminals with their own agendas?????????

The difference with the jailhouse snitches is that they are getting some form of compensation. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. There is some form of reward offered them for their information. So yes they have their own agendas, but they also know if their information doesn't check out they aren't getting the reward they are doing it for in the first place.

The problem with eyewitness information, said Judge Dewey, is the lack of corroborating evidence. Still true today. A paid informer will always tell what his employer will want to hear.
Jailhouse informers have an incentive for telling anything that will reduce their time. NEVER talk about your case to anyone. In one Perry Mason story this lesson is reinforced when the widow talked to another inmate, and finds herself in bigger trouble. Not just fiction.

When I worked for a group of defense attorneys as an inmate advocate one of the main things I was asked to stress very strongly was to NEVER speak of their case with other inmates and to be careful when using the phone as well. Of course the phone calls are monitored.

[theebmonique]

The shadows are about what I anticipated, a slight southerly component to the sun angle. From the 1892 photos, the tallest fruit trees in the yard and on the lot behind the Borden yard may be about as tall as the peak of the barn roof, so no direct shade effect from them. They are tall enough to prevent direct sunlight reaching the barn for maybe an hour or two after sunrise.

From my own experience with haymows, don't stack haybales in the afternoon! Morning is fine, especially early, and it is tolerable until about noon. But the temperature near the roof after 2:00 feels like about 150 degrees.

Well at the time Lizzie was supposedly in the barn it was nearing twelve noon.

When you say nearing twelve noon...what do you feel qualifies as 'near'..(minute wise) ?

Prelim
Dr. Dolan
Q. When did you first see the body of either Mr. or Mrs. Borden?
A. Well, about quarter to twelve on the fourth of August.
Q. How do you fix the time?
A. By the time that I was in the house. I was in the house anywhere from ten to twenty minutes,
when I heard the bell strike twelve, the City Hall bell.

Witness Statements
Jon Fleet August 4, 1892.
Went to the Borden house 92 Second Street at about between 11.45 and 12 M. Found Mr Borden
dead on the lounge; head badly cut; Dr. Dolan standing over him. Went up stairs; found Mrs. Borden
dead on the floor between the bed and dressing case; head badly smashed, face downward.


Tracy...

[Allen]

Andrew's body was found by Lizzie somewhere around 11:10 - 11:15 am. She claimed to have been in the barn about 20 minutes. She at first claimed to have been in there for about 30 minutes. But she seems to finally settle on the idea that she was in there until around 11:10 am. To me that is near enough to noon that the temperature should be about the same. I don't think an extra 45 -50 minutes is going to be time enough for a sufficient change in temperature from the time she was suppose to be in there, until noon.

[RayS]

David Kent in his "Forty Whacks" presents a timeline for Lizzie's alibi. He says her alibi of being in the back of the barn loft was impossible, according to his assumptions and timing.
This would mean that Lizzie's first explanation was the true one (in the backyard by the pear trees).

[Yooper]

Eleven o'clock is as close to ten o'clock as it is to noon. If timewise proximity is an indicator of temperature, the barn would either never heat up or never cool off.

[Allen]

What I was getting at is that it is a gradual change, in my opinion. As the day gets later, yes, it does get warmer. I didn't state there would be no change, just that the change wouldn't be that significant from 11:10 to noon. The rise in temperature is gradual, not non existant. But that's just me. Gradual enough that the temperature at noon should be around the same as it had been when Lizzie was in the barn at 11:10 or so supposedly eating pears.

[Allen]

Kat Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 9:51 pm (in Fall River and It's Environs, Topic Hot Muggy Weather:)

July, 1993, Letter from Howard Brody: "At the centennial conference at BCC in August 1992, I was struck by Professor William Masterson's claim that (based on an unspecified newspaper report) the high temperature in Fall River that day was 72 degrees, far below the high-90's described by almost all previous Borden authors....The two newspapers for August 4-5 which I have in facsimile editions (the New Bedford Evening Standard and the Fall River Daily Globe) both give weather reports in very general terms such as 'fair' (not 'hot', I noted), but specified no temperatures...James Starrs has shown a slide from the U.S. Weather Bureau indicating a low of 64-67 degrees and a high of 83 degrees. (The weather station was not specified.)..."

Ed Thibault, in the October '93 LBQ excerpt:
"...rely on local newspaper almanacs for my information. Following is a summary of my findings.

Fall River Daily Herald

* Monday, August 1 -8:00 am -60 degrees; 12:00 noon -66 degrees; 2:00 pm -66 degrees; HI -66 degrees, LO –60 degrees.

*Tuesday, August 2 -8:00 am -61 degrees; 12:00 noon -66 degrees; 2:00 pm -66 degrees; HI -66 degrees, LO –60 degrees.

*Wednesday, August 3 -8:00 am -66 degrees; 12:00 noon -74 degrees; 2:00pm -76 degrees; HI- 78 degrees, LO -63 degrees.

*Thursday, August 4 -8:00 am -74 degrees; 12:00 noon -80 degrees; 2:00 pm -80 degrees; HI- 80 degrees, LO –69 degrees.

Both of the other Fall River newspapers, The Daily Globe and The Evening News, did not record temperatures in their weather almanacs, only weather forecasts.

viewtopic.php?t=1150&start=0

The degree of humidity is also not known, which means it could've felt hotter than the actual temperature. But on Thursday, August 4 at 8:00 a.m this information recorded the temperature as being 74 degrees. At noon it was recorded as being 80 degrees. So from 8am to noon if we go by this information there was only a 6 degree rise in temperature. This is what I was trying to get at in my post, but I guess I just wasn't very good at explaining it. I wish we had some record of the degree of humidity somewhere.

[Yooper]

Allen,
You're correct, the air temperature is a relatively gradual change, and humidity has a great deal to do with the perception of both heat and cold. The sun warms objects in addition to the atmosphere. A dark colored car can become unbearable to touch on some summer days. The surface temperature of the car is well above the air temperature.
Direct sunlight transmits infrared light which heats whatever it strikes. Absorption is determined by the color of the object, heat transfer by the material the object is made of.
The barn is an object which is heated by the sun and we could almost look at it as an oven with an unregulated heat source. The air inside a closed haymow is heated indirectly by heat transfer from the roof and has no way to dissipate the heat in the confined space. Damp air is "heavier" than dry air, it can hold more heat. The effect is cumulative with a bit of a time lag relative to the sun's position. That's why the hottest part of the day is about 2:00 rather than right at noon.
Another factor to consider is whether August 4, 1892 was clear or cloudy.
If anyone wants to attempt recording temperatures over time, remember that there was no daylight saving time in 1892, they were on Eastern Standard Time. Ben Franklin came up with the idea for daylight saving time, but we didn't adopt it until 1918.

[Yooper]

I should probably stress the cumulative effect of heat in a confined space, it is different than in the open air. The haymow peak temperature might well occur later in the day than the peak outside temperature. In my experience, a confined space like a haymow starts getting very warm at about noon and becomes extremely hot at about 2 or 3 o'clock. It remains hot while the sun is still up and is still quite warm after sunset.
Also, daylight saving time will have the same event (sunrise, sunset, etc.) occurring later by one hour. In other words, if the hottest time of the day on EDT is 2:00, on EST it occurs at 1:00.

[Allen]

Picture from the LABVM site. If this door was opened as it is in the pictures would it affect the temperature? It would allow some circulation of air inside, as from a breeze if there was one.

[Yooper]

Anything which moves the air from inside the barn to the outside will definitely lessen the inside air temperature. The biggest component of the "oven effect" is the confinement of the air. I would think that a barn would probably not be as tightly constructed as a house, so it would be easier for air to flow into it and ventilate it with the door open.

[Allen]

I know about heat in confined spaces. As an example I own a vehicle which sits in an uncovered driveway on hot summer days. I have to open the door to cool it down before getting in sometimes or I can't even touch the steering wheel. My car is a sort of dark green. But my husbands car is white, and it gets just as hot on the inside. It's all due to the fact that there is no air moving through it to dissipate the heat, I understand that.

As another example I sold my old car to a relative last summer. It needed some minor repairs which they didn't feel like getting to right away. So instead they left it sitting in the driveway. They didn't open the doors or windows after parking it. The heat built up to such a degree that it blew out one of the rear windows. I understand that. I think having the door opened in the loft might lessen the temperature to some degree, but I guess it actually depends on how much the air was moving. Was there a breeze, and if so was it a warm breeze due to humidity?

(sorry for the edits my fingers aren't working with me today, they keep pushing the wrong keys out of spite I think.)

[Harry]

Alfred Clarkson. one of the earliest people in the barn testified at the Preliminary hearing that the door on the southside of the barn (the same one in the photo that is used to load the hay into the barn) was open. Here is his testimony (p468+):

"Q. Were you at the Borden house on the morning of the murder?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. At what time, as near as you can recollect?
A. About 11.40.
Q. Did you go into the barn at all that morning?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. About how soon was it after you got there before you went in?
A. I should say about seven or eight minutes.
Q. Did you go up stairs in the barn?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What did you observe up there, in the upper part of the barn, if anything?
A. I noticed that the door on the south, where they put the hay in stood open about seven or eight inches, and there was considerable hay
there that extended from the south west corner to the north."

I don't believe Clarkson was the first one there but he was one of the earliest. It depends whether you believe Medley, "me and Brownie", etc. as to whom was first. There may also have been others prior to them. I couldn't find if Lizzie mentioned this door, but I don't believe she did. They asked her about whether the window was open and she said no.

Police Officer Harrington testified at the trial (p569+)

Q. Did you return to the house again that day? [the 4th]
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time?
A. That I cannot say.
Q. Whether in the afternoon or---
A. Yes, sir, it was in the afternoon.
Q. What did you do after your return?
A. The marshal and I went there together: we entered the barn. In the barn was two or three officers. He gave orders and we set out to execute them. That was on the ground floor. When we got through there he ordered us upstairs. We went up, I just ahead of the marshal. When we got there, Officers Connors, Riley and Doherty, I think, were the men in the barn.
Q. What did you do in the loft at the barn?
A. Received further orders there; went to work to execute them, threw over the hay from one side, or end of the barn to the other and examined it thoroughly, as I thought.
Q. At that time was the hay door of the barn open?
A. Not when we went in. It was open later.
Q. Was it open?
A. Yes, sir, one of the officers opened it.
Q. What was the temperature in that loft of the barn?
A. As to degrees, I cannot say, but it was extremely hot."

If it was open when Clarkson seen it why would anyone close it if it was so hot up there? Mmmmmm.

[Yooper]

The motion of heat transfer is always from hot to cold. If we imagine the barn door open, even with no breeze at all the heat would transfer to the outside through the door. Given that the area of the opening relative to the capacity of the haymow is small, it would take a while to realize a change. A breeze would have a chimney effect on the open door and tend to pull the air from inside to outside and increase the rate of change. A second opening such as a window would lower the inside temperature even faster.

It is possible that the police officer's testimony and that of "me and Brownie" were both true, depending on the time of day and the other conditions. For some reason, neither the defense nor the prosecution put it to the test. It seems to me that the defense had created doubt with testimony in opposition to that of the police, so their mission was accomplished. The prosecution would have benefitted from a very simple test showing an unbearably hot haymow. Nothing was said about a test being conducted, but that doesn't mean there was not a test with possibly unfavorable results. Perhaps they thought it would only confuse the jury, "unbearably hot" might mean twelve different things to twelve different people, and Lizzie's interpretation was still another consideration. Confusion and interpretation only further the cause of the defense because uncomfortable for one is not necessarily uncomfortable for another and Lizzie might well have a high tolerance for the heat.

[RayS]

...
It is possible that the police officer's testimony and that of "me and Brownie" were both true, depending on the time of day and the other conditions. For some reason, neither the defense nor the prosecution put it to the test. It seems to me that the defense had created doubt with testimony in opposition to that of the police, so their mission was accomplished. The prosecution would have benefitted from a very simple test showing an unbearably hot haymow. Nothing was said about a test being conducted, but that doesn't mean there was not a test with possibly unfavorable results. Perhaps they thought it would only confuse the jury, "unbearably hot" might mean twelve different things to twelve different people, and Lizzie's interpretation was still another consideration. Confusion and interpretation only further the cause of the defense because uncomfortable for one is not necessarily uncomfortable for another and Lizzie might well have a high tolerance for the heat.

Don't forget what the witness was wearing. Boys in short pants and no jacket would be cooler than an officer with long pants and frock coat.
No, I have no pictures from that day. Nobody measured with a thermometer either. Quotes from newspapers are not wtinesses in court. But the temperature seems to have been rising.

[mbhenty]

Once again I think the Police made to much of the Barn's "Heat Factor."

I love the heat. I prefer it in the 90s. Then again I have a friend who sleeps, in the winter when it's in the 30s, with his window open. When it goes above 80, he's suffering with the heat. If I was Lizzie, I would have no problem staying in the barn for some time.

I remember this old barn we use to play in when I was a child. It sat on Wamsutta Street and belong to the Fall River Lumber Co. I remember when it was in the 90s outside, it was in the 70s inside the barn. We use to go into the barn to keep cool. Of course, there were no windows and the space was kept dark.


Unless you have glass windows, letting sun light in and acting like a greenhouse, it should have been much cooler in the barn than outside. And 11 a.m. in the morning is still early in the day for the heat to rises. Of course if the barn had glass windows, it could get very hot inside. Though the barn ran east and west, most of the windows should have been on the north and south sides.

No, don't believe it.

I think this was just another angle the police used because they had nothing to go on.

But, this being said, I don't fully support Lizzie's story either or do I believe her.

[RayS]

I know about heat in confined spaces...
It needed some minor repairs which they didn't feel like getting to right away. So instead they left it sitting in the driveway. They didn't open the doors or windows after parking it. The heat built up to such a degree that it blew out one of the rear windows. I understand that. I think having the door opened in the loft might lessen the temperature to some degree, but I guess it actually depends on how much the air was moving. Was there a breeze, and if so was it a warm breeze due to humidity?
...

I learned decades ago to always leave a car window open at least half-inch when parked in the sun, on both sides if possible.

[Yooper]

I think the prosecution's case reached the "damage control" point fairly quickly. I also think the police were under tremendous pressure to solve the case. Questions to the effect of "Why were you in the barn while your father was being murdered?" imply knowledge that the father was being murdered at the time. Everyone has to be somewhere, why not in the barn, cellar, attic, etc? The fact that the murder weapon was never found would tend to indicate that Lizzie was either innocent or had help in the murder. I think she had a degree of help from family and friends after the fact at least. I can imagine Uncle John or even Dr. Bowen doing things to minimize suspicion.

[Audrey]

Wow.. That was some barn those Bordens had! Thermal windows. insulation, dry wall...

Actually...

I doubt it was insulated... I doubt it had dry wall. Iexpect that the windows were single pained... I am confident that a certain amount of air flowed through the walls let alone around the doors and windows.

It can not possibly be compared to a parked car!!!