A Boy and a Note

[Yooper]

In Lizzie's inquest testimony 83(40) I pointed out that Lizzie says she did not tell anyone she thought she heard Mrs. Borden come in:
A. I did not do anything, except what I said to Mrs. Churchill. I said to her: "I don't know where Mrs. Borden is. I think she is out, but I wish you would look."
Q. You did ask her to look?
A. I said that to Mrs. Churchill.
Q. Where did you intend for her to look?
A. In Mrs. Borden's room.

This was countered with Yooper's statements:

Lizzie told both Mrs. Churchill and Bridget that she thought she heard Abby return. This was the second thing Lizzie said to Mrs. Churchill upon her arrival, and Bridget wasn't there at the time to overhear it. Two individuals on two separate occasions. This was the first response to questions about Abby and came immediately after the fact. Mrs. Churchill frets about having to "tell all" in the witness statements four days hence when she offers this information, knowing it will incriminate Lizzie.

and also he claims:

Lizzie lied about hearing Abby return.

I did more digging in The Witness Statements to find out when Mrs. Churchill and/or Bridget claimed that Lizzie said she thought she heard Mrs. Borden come in. I checked the Statements, not because I place full faith in these, but rather because they were referred to by Yooper and also they are technically the first statements. But they are not under oath, and they were taken down (and written) rather casually and haphazardly, which people find out who have studied their origins.

I find that Mrs. Churchill first mentions that she heard Lizzie say "I think I heard Mrs. Borden come in" in The Second Interview done by Harrington/Doherty, Monday August 8. (W.S. 11).
When I looked for Bridget's first statement made to this same effect, I find it is October 1st. (W.S. 22). We don't have Bridget's inquest testimony so we can't count that.

Also, Mrs. Churchill was spoken to by Harrington/Doherty on what looks like the 6th, Saturday (W.S. 9) where that statement was not made.

This shows that there are faults in the statements, probably gaps as well, and plenty of time for witnesses to compare notes, be influenced by counsel or cop, handwriting had to be deciphered and cops did compose some of their notes just before Knowlton came to town on Monday night before the inquest as they were required to turn in their notes then.

So I still stand with Lizzie on this, because stating she lied outright on this statement of hers firstly cannot be proven, and secondly I think might have been misrepresented by Churchill and Sullivan, and also here in postings. It is not something I dismiss as lightly as others have done.

It was also asked what then propelled Churchill and Sullivan to go upstairs to look for Mrs. Borden and I think Lizzie's statement under oath of:
"I don't know where Mrs. Borden is. I think she is out, but I wish you would look" might be enough.

How likely is it that Mrs. Churchill and Bridget "compared notes"? What possible motivation would either or both of them have for telling the same falsehood? Lizzie had plenty of motivation for her statement. Were they inconsistent in further testimony on the same subject? If we ascribe the supposed mis-information to the police, do we disregard the witness statements totally?

Mrs. Churchill agonizes about having to "tell all" during the second police interview, what was this in relation to? Possibly a first interview when she may not have "told all"? What possible reason would she have for this qualification otherwise?

If it was physically impossible for Lizzie to do something she said she did, then she lied.

[Kat]

I think there are flaws in the Witness Statements.
One example is in Fleet's notes. In Dr. Joyce Williams' book that she edited, Casebook of Family and Crime, she gives Fleet's first efforts at Witness Statements. They are a bit different than what we have inherited: For instance, the original notes state "Lizzie said that she had not seen Mrs. Borden since about 9 o'clock. She thought ____Bedroom when she was _____."

This now, in the Witness Statements we have, appears as:
"Lizzie said that she had not seen Mrs. Borden since about nine o'clock. She then saw her in the bedroom when she was coming downstairs."- pg. 2, last 2 sentences. Someone filled in a big thing. It's a big thing that Lizzie may have seen Mrs. Borden in the guest room as she herself was coming downstairs in the morning.

Also, another example is that of the statements made by Hiram Harrington, pg. 11, which was gone into in some detail on another thread. THe question was raised: *Does this sound like Hiram speaking?* Or does it sound like someone wrote it in their own voice?
There are problems with these statements, and since they are not under oath, they can be viewed as casually as they seem to have been taken down.

[Yooper]

Both Bridget and Mrs. Churchill substantially repeated their witness statements at the trial while under oath. What reason would they have for either individually or collectively giving an identical mis-statement? If the prosecution or the defense had earlier testimony or statements which conflicted with current testimony, they would have confronted the witnesses with the contradiction. They did so many times with several different witnesses. Both Bridget and Mrs. Churchill were consistent with their testimony.

[Kat]

I'm talking about the Witness Statements. Here is what Bridget said on the whole matter, page 22. Note how she says things and what is left out:

Fall River, Saturday October 1, 1892.
Bridget Sullivan. “Yes, I left New Bedford for good. I did not like the way the papers spoke of me, said I was in New Bedford jail. And I got a postal card from the Court, requesting me to call for my witness fees, and that was addressed to New Bedford jail. I did not like this, so I thought I would show them I would not stay any longer. I think I will try to get a place here, through Mrs. McKenney’s Agency; if not, I may go to Newport R. I. and work in the hotel where I was employed before. I have relatives in So. Bethlehem, and as I worked there before, I may go again.” In a joking manner she said she may go back to Ireland. She promised wherever she would go, she would let me know through Mrs. Harrington of Division street.

She saw nobody about this case since the trial, but several called at New Bedford, and she would not see them; neither would she in the future, for she was tired of the whole thing.

“I think it will be hard for me to get a place, for no one wants to hire a person for one month. I think the District Attorney should give me something for my time. The papers and postal card made me feel badly; but aside from them, I got tired over there. I had nothing to do but look at the walls of the prison, and I found seven grey hairs in my head. I would rather have a place where I would have something to do.”

22

“No, I never, at any time, saw Lizzie put anything in, neither did I ever throw any milk away. Whatever milk was left, and that wasn’t much, I drank it, for I dont like tea. That story is not true.”

“Did you see anybody wash their hands that day?” “Yes Sir, Dr. Coughlan and Dr. Dolan. I do not see how Dr. Dolan forgot that. I remembered it well, for I gave him a towel. This was in the kitchen. Dr. Coughlan washed first. I know nothing about up stairs. No, I did not empty the basin, and I do not know who did.

I think the wood was chopped over the River. At one time one of the farm hands chopped a few planks for kindling. I never had occasion to use a hatchet but once, and that was to take the heels off of my shoes.

When I returned from Miss Russell’s, I asked Lizzie if I would go to Mrs. Whitehead’s to see if Mrs. Borden was there. It was then Lizzie said, no, I think I heard her come in.”

Bridget was an prosecution witness. She says this October 1st. We have not a record of her saying this before October 1st, because we do not have her inquest testimony. A trial was 8 months in the future. There could have been cross-referencing going on, talking to witnesses to get a consistent story, getting witnesses remembering something they couldn't quite remember. It's naive to think no one spoke to these people in the year between murder and trial. Memories are distorted, they fade, they are propped up by lawyers. If a person is consistent under oath, from inquest to preliminary hearing, to grand jury, thru trial, then it's pretty dependable.

In this particular example, where I made the sentence in bold- it sounds exactly like someone asked Bridget the question of when did Lizzie say to you she thought Abbie had come in? Tell the thing you remember but tell us where that sentence stood in relation to everything else going on.

We can surmise this from the response given which was out of context, where Bridget ends with:
"It was then Lizzie said, no, I think I heard her come in.”

The problem is four: We don't know how this question arose, we don't know if it was in response to an earlier statement made by Bridget, we don't know if Bridget's inquest testimony supports this, and we don't know if the transcription is entirely accurate.
I will agree to disagree with you on this.

[Edited for formatting-KK]

[Yooper]

If a person is consistent under oath with what they stated while not under oath, then why disregard what they stated while not under oath?

Let me try to understand the concept. We can surmise a question based upon an answer, but we can't surmise that two people, without anything to lose, are telling the truth when they consistently substantiate their earlier statements, both individually and collectively? I must absolutely agree to disagree.

[Kat]

I don't disregard what anyone says in any document. I weigh it. Hopefully I have shown with my proofs what my overall opinion is.

Now, I have tried to back up what I say about the Witness Statements. Why not bring out some of your proof?

However, when I made this statement:
"Bridget was an prosecution witness. She says this October 1st. We have not a record of her saying this before October 1st, because we do not have her inquest testimony."- I was wrong. We have her testimony in August, 1892.


So:
We need another source for your argument.
Here is Bridget's preliminary statement under oath. This precedes the October 1st Witness Statement document, and anticedes Mrs. Churchill's observation on the 8th.
I wanted you to show me where it was stated earlier in time. I wish you would get the prelim.- you would benefit.

Here are your proofs:

Bridget
pg. 29
Q. Was anything more said then that you remember of?
A. No Sir.

Q. What did you do then?
A. We were talking, I said I would like to know where Mrs. Borden was. I said I would go over to Mrs. Whitehead's. She said she would like us to search for Mrs. Borden, she told us to go and search for her. I said I would go over there, if I knew where the house was. She said she was positive she heard her coming in, and would not we go up stairs and see.

Q. Who said that?
A. Miss Lizzie Borden. I said I would not go up stairs; and Mrs. Churchill said she was willing to go with me; so me and Mrs. Churchill went up the front stairs. There we found Mrs. Borden.
_______

Churchill
Prelim
272
Q. Coming back again. She said something about going out to the barn, as you have testified. What was the next thing that happened, as you remember?
A. I asked her where her mother was. She said she had a note to go see someone that was sick.
Q. Anything more?
A. But she did not know but that she was killed too. She then said she wished someone would try to find Mrs. Borden, for she thought she heard her come in.
Q. What then?
A. She said that father must have an enemy, for they had all been sick, and they thought the milk had been poisoned.
Page 273
Q. Yes.
A. She then said Dr. Bowen was not at home, and she must have a Doctor. I said “will I go and try to find someone to get a doctor”? She said yes. Then I left and went to find someone.

--I still maintain that we cannot know that Lizzie lied about this. It's asked what would 2 other witnesses gain from manufacturing a statement such as this. My answer is that I do not know. If I knew what anyone had to gain, I might be able to figure out the crime. I also know that human memory is fallible, that it can be influenced, and the more a thing is repeated, the more it seems to be set in stone.

I also still maintain my comments put forth earlier about the Witness Statements and their origins and authors- that is what started this discussion.

BTW: There is a big thread on this subject of *I thought I heard her come in* already logged in this Forum.

[Kat]

Now I'm wondering why Bridget was re-interviewed in October in order for her to be asked that question again, when they already had her statements under oath.
Preparing for the grand jury maybe?
I don't even know if she could read or write or tell time by a clock face.

[Yooper]

We need to keep in mind that the first time the information came up, it was offered. No one asked "did she say she heard Abby arrive". This was offered by two individuals, on separate occasions, and at a time when they did not have to offer anything with respect to Abby's arrival. They offered the information, Lizzie responded to a question which could potentially put her in jeopardy. Huge difference. What Bridget and Mrs. Churchill had to gain is nothing.

Lizzie's response to the contentions of both Bridget and Mrs. Churchill was to deny them. They weren't all telling the truth, so either Bridget and Mrs. Churchill lied, or Lizzie lied. It's a mutually exclusive concept. We can know this without having to be there at the time.

My "proof" is not the statements themselves, they are self-evident. My "proof" is that some things are physically and logically impossible.

[RayS]

If a person is consistent under oath with what they stated while not under oath, then why disregard what they stated while not under oath?

Let me try to understand the concept. We can surmise a question based upon an answer, but we can't surmise that two people, without anything to lose, are telling the truth when they consistently substantiate their earlier statements, both individually and collectively? I must absolutely agree to disagree.

Yes, your comments are good. But never overlook the possibility that they read the newspapers and this caused the difference in comments.
OR the reporter and editor changed their testimony.

[RayS]

Now I'm wondering why Bridget was re-interviewed in October in order for her to be asked that question again, when they already had her statements under oath.
Preparing for the grand jury maybe?
I don't even know if she could read or write or tell time by a clock face.

Yes, Bridget could certainly "tell time by a clock face". Based on what I know from decades back.

[Kat]

I am agreeing on the concept of mutually exclusive statements made. That is why I can't see this in black and white. Here are my thoughts:
There's a fundamental problem with this situation about no note and that it's claimed Lizzie said *I thought I heard her come in.*
(I use asteriks when I'm not verifying it as a direct quote- but giving substance).

I don't think it can be both ways. It is a contradiction, yes, and an important impasse.

I think Lizzie either knew a note had come for Abbie, calling her away, and so Lizzie could then say *I thought I heard her come in* and believe it

OR

Lizzie made up that a note had come and knew Abbie was still in the house, but then she couldn't say *I thought I heard her come in* because she knew Abbie had never left.

Another scenario could be that Lizzie was told by Abbie that a note had come for her calling her out, and so Lizzie supposed Abbie had gone out, as she testified.

But to have it both ways makes no sense- this is the part we have examined in all respects, including motive to say these things and a timeline to see when Lizzie could possibly think that she could fool people into believing Abbie had just recently returned in time to be newly killed along with Andrew.

We've been unable to figure out any real point to claim a note came, and that Abbie was gone, but then also claim Abbie returned w/in minutes of people descending upon the house during a period of time that was miniscule.

Lizzie was at or near the back door, hall or kitchen, she would know the front door was always kept locked unless she herself opened it, which she hadn't- and possibly knew Abbie had no key anyway. There are too many things that could be proven wrong.

Because no one came forward is why we believe there was no note. Because Abbie was found dead in the house is how we know Abbie didn't go out, note or no note.

Lizzie says *That has always been a mystery,* when asked where she thought Mrs. Borden was all that morning when she didn't see her. I think it would have been too dangerous for Lizzie to make up too much.

The combination of a note coming, and Lizzie later saying she supposed Abbie had gone out and then claiming she thought she heard Abbie coming in might make sense.
I just don't see it as both ways. It's a mystery.

[Smudgeman]

Once a liar starts telling lies, he or she can't keep them all straight. Maybe both her statements about a note and hearing her come in were both just lies.

[Kat]

But the point is they contradict each other and this is so much grey area that we have stumbled over this for years.
The things like this could be proven at the time- like the front door lock, like a note, like knowing just enough about blood that there's no way Lizzie could believe officials and doctors would think Abbie had just returned yet be lying in a pool of coagulating thick blood, and her body be cooling..

[Allen]

Now I'm wondering why Bridget was re-interviewed in October in order for her to be asked that question again, when they already had her statements under oath.
Preparing for the grand jury maybe?
I don't even know if she could read or write or tell time by a clock face.

Yes, Bridget could certainly "tell time by a clock face". Based on what I know from decades back.

I think Bridget testified at trial to having looked at the clock in her room. One of them little round clocks I think is what she called it. I believe that yes she could tell time, because she testified to having a clock in her room at all in the first place. If she couldn't tell time why does she need a clock? There is some other testimony given by her at trial that to me makes it evident she knew how to read a clock.

[Allen]

Trial testimony of Bridget Sullivan page 204-205:

Q. Did you have any timepiece in your room?
A. Yes, sir; I had a clock.

Q. What sort of clock was it?
A. One of them little round clocks.

Q. Those little round tin ones, or metal ones?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you look to see what time it was when you got up that morning or not?
A. I looked when I came down to the kitchen.

Q. Is there a clock there?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you mean that is the clock you looked at?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time was it when you came down to the kitchen?
A. Thursday morning?

Q. Yes.
A. Quarter past six.

[Smudgeman]

But the point is they contradict each other and this is so much grey area that we have stumbled over this for years.
The things like this could be proven at the time- like the front door lock, like a note, like knowing just enough about blood that there's no way Lizzie could believe officials and doctors would think Abbie had just returned yet be lying in a pool of coagulating thick blood, and her body be cooling..

Maybe you are reading too much into what Lizzie said. All I am saying is that once you start a lie about something you did, it gets more complicated to add more lies upon lies, you know?. I mean if Lizzie did commit these murders, she was going to say whatever sounded the best at the time to whoever was asking the questions. "Oh yes she was out of the house the entire period of time we could have been alone in the house, she probably had a note", but after the fact of the murders, "She thought she heard her come in". Makes perfect sense to me, if I was a murderer and a liar.

[Kat]

Bridget could have heard a quarter-hour chime or bell for all we know. There were clock bells at the Church across the street and on Main Street at City Hall. The Bordens had lots of clocks according to Bridget, and she doesn't use them. They might have chimes. My girlfriend's mothers clock chimes the quarter hour, the half hour and the hour- I hear it over the phone.
That would drive me up a wall, I think.
The fact that she has a clock in her room could be to hear an alarm if she sleeps late sometimes. All she has to do is wind it or whatever- pull out a little thingy to ring in the morning without knowing the time.

Bridget
Trial
Q. Are you able to fix the time or about the time when you received this direction from Mrs. Borden the last time you saw her alive?
A. Well, I can't exactly tell the time, but I think it was about nine o'clock.

Q. How long was it after Miss Lizzie Borden had come down stairs that you saw Mrs. Borden dusting between the two rooms?
A. I don't know; it might be fifteen minutes. I can't tell the time, what time it was. I never noticed the clock, although there was enough of them around.

--Bridget also claims she judged the time by how much work she had left to do. I don't think there's enough evidence that Bridget could read a clock- I'm just not assuming she could.

[Kat]

I understand what you mean- but just claiming Lizzie lied is too simple. That is my point. We're trying to get into her head, and I do believe this thing with the statement and the note is pivotal to figuring out what was going on with Lizzie and Abbie and the timing that day and believing or disbelieving Lizzie. There are those who think Lizzie did not do this thing, and every now and then it's worth looking at Lizzie that way. It's another perspective other than leaving it at "*Well she lied.*

[Yooper]

Kat, if I may, I think you may be over complicating things just a bit. You seem to have too many variables. Try this out, regardless of what Lizzie believed, she told Andrew that Abby was out. Bridget overheard the conversation. Bridget went to her room and Lizzie went to the barn. Lizzie returned to the house, discovered Andrew, and called for Bridget. There was no opportunity to hear Abby "come IN" (perspective), as she stated it. Remember, the front door was bolted and Abby had no key two days before the murders. It is not possible for someone leaving to manipulate all the locks from the outside.

If Lizzie actually thought she heard Abby return, she expressed no surprise that all of the commotion of discovering Andrew, calling for Bridget, and people rushing to and fro had not caused Abby to stir from wherever she had gone when she supposedly returned.

Even if Abby actually did return, by whatever means, while it was possible for Lizzie to have heard it, it means she was killed after Andrew, and the murderer was still in the house!

In order for Lizzie to hear Abby "come in", it implies that Lizzie didn't go to the barn. If she somehow heard Abby from outside without seeing her, she heard Abby "GO in".

Does this help at all, or am I just confusing the issue?

[Yooper]

Come to think of it, nearly everyone else was surprised at Abby's absence except Lizzie.

[Allen]

I don't think there's enough evidence that Bridget could read a clock- I'm just not assuming she could.

Not enough evidence that Bridget could read a clock? She states she looked at the clock in the kitchen to see what time it was, and gives the time. To me that makes no sense. The testimony posted by Kat sounds more to me as if she was just to busy to stop and notice a clock, and was just guesstimating at times. If we are going by what is said by witnesses in testimony, there isn't enough evidence to prove a few of the witnesses could read a clock face. Should we assume they can't because there isn't any proof otherwise? Or does this go back to Bridget being an Irish servant? I'm not understanding the reasoning behind this theory.

[Kat]

I noticed your segment of testimony says a qurter past six.
That reminded me of quarter chimes.
And that there are lots of clocks.
I also don't take what I posted as testimony as literal.

Of course Bridget also tells about what time she got home Wednesday night- which I thought might come up.
But I figured when she left her friends she would know and then estimate the time that way.

I think lots of kids nowadays find it hard to read a clock face because they are used to digital numbers. I don't think it's so unusual, nor speaks to her level of intelligence. It may be because she was an Irish servant- but there is also a question of whether she can read.
I don't really think, in her line of domestic work, Bridget needed to be able to read a clock face- but I can't prove anything so it's probably moot.

I appreciate that you posted testimony.

[Kat]

No you're not making things more complicated. I think it's good to get this out because I think it's important.
I think Lizzie would have to have heard Abbie come in about the time she was alone after sending people who came to help away. There was a very tight window. We attempted a timeline.

It's asked what could these 2 witnesses have to gain by lying. I don't know- maybe it's a false memory by one and a convenient tool for another?

Lizzie stated she made no effort to look for *her mother*. That shows if she thinks Abbie returned it was pretty close in time to after finding her father. She could have still been to the barn. But she might have heard a killer leaving, rather than Abbie returning, as you imply.

Bridget never seemed to wonder at where Abbie was all morning either, even tho she says Abbie will tell her before she is going out. Bridget doesn't seem to wonder until after Andrew was found. Maybe her version is self-serving? And Mrs. Churchill's is not? Since Mrs. Churchill was not a suspect we tend to believe her, but she was immured in a stressful situation where she had not ever been before.
If we discount or consider suspicious Bridget's version of that one thing, then we have only 1 left against Lizzie's version.

I have heard it echoing in my mind- Lizzie's lament:
"...that has always been a mystery."

I have been stuck on this point for 6 years so I probably don't expect to figure it out.

[Yooper]

What I find interesting about Bridget's having heard the statement was that it was made as a response to Bridget's assumption that Abby had gone out. It was also made specifically to Bridget, but in the presence of others assembled at the time. I seem to remember both Mrs. Churchill and Alice Russell being there when she said it. I don't recall if Dr. Bowen was there or not. Come to think of it, Mrs. Bowen was present because when Mrs. Churchill came downstairs with the news, Mrs. Bowen was sent home.

What amazes me is that Lizzie can deny saying that after initiating a search for Abby in front of several witnesses using the statement.

The only way she could hear a killer leaving was if the killer was capable of manipulating all of the front door locks from the outside. If the killer left from the side door, she would have seen him before hearing him.

[Yooper]

If Abby had returned while others were sent away, wouldn't she have been recognized on the street during the comings and goings? That also implies that the murderer was still in the house while all of the others assembled, because, clearly, Abby was murdered!

[Kat]

Well, remember this:
Lizzie-
"A. I did not do anything, except what I said to Mrs. Churchill. I said to her: "I don't know where Mrs. Borden is. I think she is out, but I wish you would look."
Q. You did ask her to look?
A. I said that to Mrs. Churchill.

Then Bridget and Mrs. Churchill go look.
Mrs. Churchill's testimony at the prelim is out of whack. The timing is off in the segment I supplied, notice. I believe she backtracks to get in what she believes to be the truth.
Bridget and Mrs. Churchill may have had conversation on this subject. Bridget may have implanted the idea that Lizzie said that.
The minimum thing Lizzie could say that would propel these ladies upstairs would be just what she says she said.

May I ask what you mean by:
"The only way she could hear a killer leaving was if the killer was capable of manipulating all of the front door locks from the outside." I don't understand?

[Yooper]

My understanding was that the front door had a sliding dead-bolt lock on it. I could be mistaken. I was also under the impression that the front door was found completely locked.

Was the testimony cited from the time Lizzie was being medicated with morphine? My take on it is that if we need to question testimony, perhaps this needs consideration. The court saw fit to not accept it at all.

[Yooper]

Well, remember this:
Lizzie-
"A. I did not do anything, except what I said to Mrs. Churchill. I said to her: "I don't know where Mrs. Borden is. I think she is out, but I wish you would look."
Q. You did ask her to look?
A. I said that to Mrs. Churchill.

Then Bridget and Mrs. Churchill go look.
Mrs. Churchill's testimony at the prelim is out of whack. The timing is off in the segment I supplied, notice. I believe she backtracks to get in what she believes to be the truth.
Bridget and Mrs. Churchill may have had conversation on this subject. Bridget may have implanted the idea that Lizzie said that.
The minimum thing Lizzie could say that would propel these ladies upstairs would be just what she says she said.

May I ask what you mean by:
"The only way she could hear a killer leaving was if the killer was capable of manipulating all of the front door locks from the outside." I don't understand?

If Lizzie did not know where Abby was and knew she had gotten a note, then why prevent Bridget from doing what she offered, to go to Mrs, Whitehead's to find her?

[Allen]

My theory on her saying she heard Abby come in, is that she wanted that body found. She did not want to be the one to find the body. She wanted it found by others, and quickly. She had already 'discovered' Andrew. I don't think she wanted to wait out a search to find Abby in town. She couldn't even get to her room until Abby's body was found in my opinion. So she couldn't change her clothing,or lock herself into her room beyond prying eyes of those present. She would have to walk right by the body to get to her room. So she was stuck downstairs with a house full of people, in what could possibly have been clothing that did have something upon it she did not want noticed. And she is supposed to wait while they are offering to go and look for her at Mrs. Whiteheads, or maybe about town, when Lizzie knows she is right up stairs on the guestroom floor? GO and find her and get it over with, I think that was the point of her saying that. The note was to keep Andrew and Bridget from looking for her. Saying she heard her come in was to speed up the body being found.

I do not believe Mrs. Churchill would let Bridget plant any seeds in her head with regard to what Lizzie 'might have' said. She seems to be pretty consistant in her statements from beginning to end.

[Shelley]

"why prevent Bridget from doing what she offered, to go to Mrs, Whitehead's to find her?"

Oh, good one Yooper! That is just what she should have done indeed! It would have made her note story perfect.

I love the bit when she was asked if anyone suggested she should change her clothes and I think she said something like "They thought I should change". I wonder who "they" were?

[Yooper]

My theory on her saying she heard Abby come in, is that she wanted that body found. She did not want to be the one to find the body. She wanted it found by others, and quickly. She had already 'discovered' Andrew. I don't think she wanted to wait out a search to find Abby in town. She couldn't even get to her room until Abby's body was found in my opinion. So she couldn't change her clothing,or lock herself into her room beyond prying eyes of those present. She would have to walk right by the body to get to her room. So she was stuck downstairs with a house full of people, in what could possibly have been clothing that did have something upon it she did not want noticed. And she is supposed to wait while they are offering to go and look for her at Mrs. Whiteheads, or maybe about town, when Lizzie knows she is right up stairs on the guestroom floor? GO and find her and get it over with, I think that was the point of her saying that. The note was to keep Andrew and Bridget from looking for her. Saying she heard her come in was to speed up the body being found.

I do not believe Mrs. Churchill would let Bridget plant any seeds in her head with regard to what Lizzie 'might have' said. She seems to be pretty consistant in her statements from beginning to end.

Good point, Allen, I hadn't thought about a possible motivation for steering the search for Abby. The idea that Lizzie thought she must change her dress, whether she needed to or not, would force the issue. It is possible that she could have thought that a second body would tend to narrow the focus of suspicion and she didn't want to be the discoverer of both bodies.

Just for speculation, Lizzie might have worn the paint stained dress first thing that day. She would have had time to inspect it and clean it if necessary. She then changes into a dark dress with a white figure in it, as Mrs. Bowen described it, with the intent to go out and dispose of the incriminating evidence and provide herself an alibi. Andrew returns a bit earlier than anticipated, Lizzie knows from his reaction to the robbery that he has her number so she won't get away with murdering Abby since he knows she was at home. This might have sealed Andrew's fate. Lizzie is stuck downstairs until Abby is found, but a dark (blue?) dress might hide any minor blood spatter, if it exists. She could then turn any dark (blue?) dress over to the police as the one worn by her on the day of the murders. It might not differ substantially from what the witnesses might remember. If I remember correctly, many of Lizzie's dresses were blue, hence the suggestion of a dark blue dress or dresses.

[Shelley]

Now I am bewildered. For ages I have understood Bridget to have heard the city hall tower bell chime 11 -which would easily have been heard from her open bedroom window upstairs, a loud exterior bell, not a household clock. It could not have been a quarter chime ringing because she was not up in her room or on her bed at 10:45- she was still downstairs. St. Mary's church across the street would have rung the Angelus- and that was done at noontime, not 11 a.m.

[Kat]

Oh I was also thinking of Borden clocks in the house with a quarter chime. Do you recall that supposed Borden mantle clock on e-bay for sale? Weird!

I was thinking about what Lizzie might have heard if she did say that and realized we have not discussed the exterior cellar door. Morse goes around mentioning it.
Also does anyone know if the exterior cellar door (in that little hut projection) could be seen from the west barn loft window?

Mrs. Churchill gets her memories of that day a bit twisted in a timeline sort of way. She tells of events out of order and then catches herself. I think by the 8th she could have had that thought planted. It was a big deal to the police if they are still asking Bridget about it in October.
I don't trust Bridget in everything, and knowing Mrs. Churchill was flustered in her sequences, still gives me pause to consider Lizzie as truthful in this.

I also think it is easier to check out the rest of the house before sending Bridget away to Fourth Street.

Muriel Arnold claims that when Bridget went to find Alice Russell she dumped the hatchet in the river that ran under the city. Makes one wonder why was Bridget so ready to go running around the neighborhood?

[Shelley]

The exterior cellar door - on the back (East side) of the house is easily seen from the hayloft window. In fact, that west hayloft window gives an amazing birdseye view of the back of the house, Kelly's side yard, the Borden driveway, part of Second St., Bowen's house and what would have been the southside of the Churchill house. It would have been The Place to be that morning to see anyone coming in or out of the doors.

[Harry]

Shelley, according to a lot plan in Rebello, page 45, the distance from the top of the back step to the barn was 15 feet. I estimate the house extended another three feet past the back stairs. That would make the house 12 feet from the barn.

On the rare times that you are not busy can you measure how far the current barn is from the top of the back step as shown in Rebello? That would be much appreciated by me. I was planning to do that the next trip up.

[Shelley]

Can do Harry! Friday I will measure from the landing outside the side screen door to the front facade of the barn and also from the rear cellar step to the front of the barn.. I know the barn is currently set back further east into the lot to allow for the driveway turn into the parking lot.

[Harry]

That will be great, Shelley. Thank you.

The current "barn" looks about the same size as the original. This will also give us some idea of the space behind the original barn.

[Yooper]

Wouldn't it seem more straightforward for Lizzie to come up with the concept of "I don't know where Abby is, would you come with me and help look for her?". To me, this seems reasonable. I think reasonability is implied, given that discovering her father did not trigger the "fight or flight" response. If Lizzie was trying to make things easier, it implies clarity of thought. Clarity of thought should give rise to the idea that the murderer could still be in the house, once the subject of searching the house comes up. I would not ask others to go in harm's way unless I went first.

[Yooper]

Lizzie had to be prompted to search for Abby. Lizzie did not call out to both Abby and Bridget after discovering Andrew. Abby did not come running with all the commotion. Why did Abby's absence not seem odd to Lizzie?

[Shelley]

These are all great questions I'm sure we've pondered whether or not we feel Lizzie is guilty or innocent. Everyone reacts differently in crisis, and Lizzie's defense sure wanted that point driven home. To flee from a horror such as Andrew must have presented on the sofa would have been a typical response- just a gut reaction, primitive and primal. Dr. Bowen himself was floored by the spectacle.

One of the favorite moments in the house tour for me is the discovery of Andrew's body by Lizzie. We "freeze-frame" this moment and I ask "What would you do now?" To a man, (and woman) the answer is to send for help instantly by the quickest means. Many of the women on tour say, "Scream bloody murder, then race to the front door and open it, yell for help, get someone's attention, and stand safe and visible in that doorway until assistance comes.

I suppose if the victim were someone you love dearly, it would be natural to try and see if any life was still evident, even though the wounds were so alarming, and try to reassure the victim help was coming. If it were very clear the victim was surely dead, and I would imagine that apparent at first view of the wounded face and head, then to set up an alarm would be my first priority.

What strikes most visitors to the house as very peculiar is that 1. How did Lizzie know Bridget was still alive, and how wise was it of Lizzie to yell up the stairs, thereby alerting a killer in the house of her presence? 2. Why send the only remaining living person out of the house thus leaving Lizzie alone with a possible killer. 3. Why not send for a close neighbor for help, when Bowen was not readily available, such as someone from Kelly's or Churchill's house. 4. Why send for Alice Russell at all? 5. Why were the police not first on the "Go-Get" list?

I agree, Lizzie could have played a very convincing hand , had she had time to think it all through carefully. I can't recall where I read once that she was a "poor liar". Some people are great at improvising, know just what people want to hear, and how to say it. Others dither all over the place, catch themselves up, contradict things they told another person, or make up illogical moves to cover up their real actions. If you are going to kill somebody, keep it simple, look as bewildered as everyone else -then stick to your story!

[Yooper]

I expect I would be my own worst enemy under the same circumstances. I would very likely be hysterical. Once I got over the disbelief, I would be tearing the doors off their hinges looking for the SOB who killed my father. By the time anyone got there, I would no doubt be the prime suspect for behaving in such a manner! I suggest that even this is a more believable reaction than what Lizzie showed.

[Shelley]

The only brush with real crime was when I got "mugged" in an underground parking lot in Baltimore in 1968 with an elderly great aunt. By the time I realized what was going on- and it seemed like slow-motion- the purse snatchers had thrown my aunt to the ground and scrammed with her purse. I stood frozen and watched, wondering if they had a knife or gun, and oddly made note of what the "perps" looked like in great detail. I forgot to scream and run off and miraculously hung for dear life to my pocketbook. So- I guess we are all different.

I think in Lizzie's case, it was odd she was not more "tender" and said she never came into the room at all to check her father further, just the head of the sofa. So I guess how dear the murdered person is to you can affect whether or not you are frightened or furious and hellbent for revenge. There seems to be no evidence of either in Lizzie's case- all very strange.

[Yooper]

Either extreme seems more plausible than the lack of either. We can credit unreasonable behavior to someone who appears to be out of control, and to a correlated degree.

People tend to dig themselves a hole when they try to say too much rather than too little. Imagine the pages of testimony which might have been unnecessary had Dr. Bowen simply stated from the outset that he was too preoccupied with other considerations to have noticed Lizzie's dress, and couldn't begin to describe it. It was when he tried to give his impression of the dress that he started tap-dancing.

[Shelley]

Less said- the better. "Don't volunteer" unless asked and pressed hard for an answer if you have something TO HIDE. I get the impression the "tap-dancing" was some fancy footwork damage control.

[shakiboo]

I wish we could have more on what Emma's reaction was to her father's death, I can't help but think that Lizzies reaction was partly from the code by which they lived....ie be calm, don't make a scene, don't lose control, must be a lady, keep all dirty laundry in the family etc. because if she was flabbergsted and fighting to remain calm and keep her demeaner calm, and in control of herself, she would have been saying and doing things really off the wall to the rest of us. Didn't her friends say that her actions were just what they would expect from her? And if she really were all that calm and uneffected why would Dr. Bowen be prescribing so much medication for her? I can't remember reading anywhere about Emma being given anything. And I don't think people back then were as prone to call for the police like they are today, most of the people didn't even want to talk with them. What I was getting to with Emma is that if she remainded calm, didn't break down, cry, or fall apart then Lizzies reactions weren't too far off based either.

[Shelley]

I always thought Bowen medicated her right away to the gills and all along over time to keep her from blabbing inconsistencies to the wrong people, and potentially damaging statements to the police. Being medicated is a great safety parachute for being "unavailable", "Undisturbable", and just in case your various stories do not quite jell, it can be attributed to "medication".

I think little was said about Emma because her alibi was air-tight and nobody was watching and listening to her with a beady eye and radar ears. Emma, being the private, strong but silent type also probably wisely kept her innermost thoughts to herself.

[Smudgeman]

I do think it was odd of Emma not to ask more questions than she did when she arrived home. I have been looking for the thread, but I can not find it, it was one that Harry started about Emma asking just one or two questions when she got home. I would have quizzed Bridget, Lizzie, and everybody that was there as to what happened? I am sure she and Lizzie had some interesting conversations we will never know about, but what about what is on the record? There is not much, I will keep looking for the thread I am referring to.

[Allen]

I always thought Bowen medicated her right away to the gills and all along over time to keep her from blabbing inconsistencies to the wrong people, and potentially damaging statements to the police. Being medicated is a great safety parachute for being "unavailable", "Undisturbable", and just in case your various stories do not quite jell, it can be attributed to "medication".

From what I get out of the evidence, I wouldn't consider her dosages "medicated to the gills." She wasn't medicated right away. Most of the answers she had offered to witnesses on the day of the murders pertaining to where she had been they occurred, she gave before any medicines had ever been ingested. The first statement was given to Mrs. Churchill, and already by the time Alice Russell asked where she was her story had changed. She was first prescribed Bromo Caffeine and it wasn't until later she received the small dosage of morphine. So I have never bought the theory that her statements were made inconsistant due to being medicated. But through out the years this has indeed been a popular belief for some, and still persists today.

[Susan]

I do think it was odd of Emma not to ask more questions than she did when she arrived home. I have been looking for the thread, but I can not find it, it was one that Harry started about Emma asking just one or two questions when she got home. I would have quizzed Bridget, Lizzie, and everybody that was there as to what happened? I am sure she and Lizzie had some interesting conversations we will never know about, but what about what is on the record? There is not much, I will keep looking for the thread I am referring to.

Scott, its in the Inquest, page 113, Emma is on the stand talking about Bridget:

Q. What did she tell you about it?
A. She did not tell me anything. I don't remember but asking her one question, two questions.

Q. What was that, please?
A. I asked her if she would stay with us.

Q. If the other one one has no more to do with this matter than that, I don't care for it.
A. I asked her if she saw any boy come with a note. I do not remember asking her any other questions.

[Shelley]

Okay- maybe not "to the gills" (Southern expression) but morphine is no light matter- it is also addictive, especially when she was given it repeatedly over time. As she showed no sign of hysteria on the day of the murder, I wonder why she was given the bromo-caffeine at all. I was under the impression she got the bromo-caffeine the day of the murders when Bowen went up to her room as she lay on the fainting sofa. Will look at Bowen's statement. . . .