Why call the doctor and Mrs. Russell first? Why not the cops

[Shelley]

Oh I agree, any of these traits and behaviors taken on their own, or even maybe several together, would not raise too many eyebrows- it is the combination of all: testimony, behavior, actions,statements, retractions, changes -the whole business from Wednesday morning until the end of the trial which would cause most people to say Lizzie's story did not ring true- something wrong here. Too much does not add up . Too much defies what most people would say and do under similar circumstances, and too many contradictions on Lizzie's part.

I will have to dig, Diana to find where I read Lizzie offered as a reason she was going into the sittingroom was because she wanted to ask Andrew something. I always thought she had realized a groan would not have been heard outside in the hayloft- then that became a scraping sound, and finally the bit about coming in, putting her hat down and going into the sitting room. I think it was one of the police who asked her why she was going in there, it may take a couple days to dig that out unless someone here knows off the cuff. I think it is in the part about her declaring she never went into the room, just stopped right at the head of the sofa and just looked in.

[Shelley]

"Lizzie was proven innocent in June 1893. Is your mail slow?"

I think the State of Masachusetts could not , given the evidence which was allowed, prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt based on what they had at hand to use against her. To be acquitted is not necessarily proving unequivocally that a person is innocent-it says there was not enough proof or evidence (and in this case some really damaging material was not allowed at Grand Jury) to convince the jury of guilt. How many people have been declared "not guilty" when in truth they are guilty, but have had the money to hire the top lawyers, hoodwink a jury with a sympathetic demeanor, believable character witnesses, garner public and press support, and in Lizzie's case, a benevolent judge or judges who I believe were not totally impartial. No, I will always believe poor Knowlton was outgunned from the start-for all his resources and the admirable Mr. Moody. So Lizzie is acquitted of the three charges brought against her by the State. She walks out a free woman, because the State fails to convince the jury. She is a free woman- not necessarily an innocent one. Nobody but she (and God if you are religious) knows the real truth of the matter, nor probably ever will. People get away with crime every day- some even get away with murder. . . .

[Yooper]

It is possible that the most potentially damaging evidence the prosecution thought they had against Lizzie was the Eli Bence testimony and Lizzie's contradictions in her testimony. I think they may have counted too much on these items and didn't pursue other angles because they thought they had enough. By the time these two items were disallowed, there wasn't enough evidence to convict Lizzie or anyone else. If everyone believed that Lizzie was innocent, why was she ostracized? Fall River didn't seem to think that a not guilty verdict indicated innocence.

[sguthmann]

Oh I agree, any of these traits and behaviors taken on their own, or even maybe several together, would not raise too many eyebrows- it is the combination of all: testimony, behavior, actions,statements, retractions, changes -the whole business from Wednesday morning until the end of the trial which would cause most people to say Lizzie's story did not ring true- something wrong here. Too much does not add up . Too much defies what most people would say and do under similar circumstances, and too many contradictions on Lizzie's part.

Personally I agree with you, that in the end the combination of so many pieces of evidence - circumstantial as some may be - are nonetheless compelling enough to arouse suspicion - with good reason. I just wanted to note that there is limited value in comparing how one might react to a situation as compared to the "norm" or how others would think one should/would act. But even without those subjective examples, there is sufficient reason to look very hard at Lizzie as being involved in the crime. I can see no other road.

[diana]

I will have to dig, Diana to find where I read Lizzie offered as a reason she was going into the sittingroom was because she wanted to ask Andrew something.

Thanks, Shelley. The closest I can find is the following:

"Q. What made you go into the sitting room?
A. Because I wanted to ask him a question.
Q. What question?
A. Whether there was any mail for me. . . .
. . . . Q. When you did go into the sitting room to ask him a question, if it was the sitting room, what took place then?
A. I asked him if he had any mail. He said, "None for you." (Lizzie Borden's Inquest Testimony)

But of course this was prior to Andrew's death.

[Shelley]

Yes, that is the bit I wanted! Thanks, Diana. Yes, she answers the WHY in her response, but not the WHEN. I deduce it must have been just before he was killed. He came home, went into the diningroom to look at some papers by the light of the window, went upstairs to his room, came back down and maybe put on his sweater at that point and sat down in the sitting room. He did not sit down in the sitting room immediately upon coming home so it must have been at the end of the coming home sequence, just before the murder- OR Lizzie rehashed that earlier action to answer the question about how she happened to walk in and find her father dead on the sofa when she came in from the barn, put her hat down on the diningroom table and found Andrew.

I figure either Lizzie says she went back into the room to ask the question just before she went "out to the barn" (if you believe she ever did) or gives that action later as the reason she went in and found him. The body had to be discovered- and soon as it was getting close to noonday mealtime. So she needed a reason to discover it innocently. The guestroom and her room were the only other places she could have been heading if she had innocently walked through the sitting room and of course, with Abby up there, she sure did not want to put herself on the way upstairs. Possibly the parlor would have been an excuse. But what did she need in there? If she knew her father was dozing or resting, seems odd and inconsiderate she would bother him about her mail when she could have done so at lunch easily. I wish she had been questioned more closely on these little details-it would make all the difference. Where did Andrew usually leave the mail he brought home- on the diningroom table? In the kitchen? Most people do have a familiar drop-off place-mine is the kitchen counter. Could Lizzie not have looked? Did Andrew usually squirrel everybody's mail away in a secret place only he knew about- I doubt that. Why did she not ask him whilst she was tucking him up on the sofa, asking about arranging windows, removing his shoes and all that other kindly stuff she obviosuly did not really do?
All food for thought. . . .

[Shelley]

"None for you" also confirms that he did indeed go to the post office, and he had some mail. I wonder who the mail was for and perhaps some of that mail was what either ended up in his safe, his room upstairs or in the woodstove burnt? I hope the police looked at that mail, and noted where it was. Of course, we only have Lizzie's word for it that he said that.

[RayS]

"Lizzie was proven innocent in June 1893. Is your mail slow?"

I think the State of Masachusetts could not , given the evidence which was allowed, prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt based on what they had at hand to use against her. To be acquitted is not necessarily proving unequivocally that a person is innocent-it says there was not enough proof or evidence (and in this case some really damaging material was not allowed at Grand Jury) to convince the jury of guilt. How many people have been declared "not guilty" when in truth they are guilty, but have had the money to hire the top lawyers, hoodwink a jury with a sympathetic demeanor, believable character witnesses, garner public and press support, and in Lizzie's case, a benevolent judge or judges who I believe were not totally impartial. No, I will always believe poor Knowlton was outgunned from the start-for all his resources and the admirable Mr. Moody. So Lizzie is acquitted of the three charges brought against her by the State. She walks out a free woman, because the State fails to convince the jury. She is a free woman- not necessarily an innocent one. Nobody but she (and God if you are religious) knows the real truth of the matter, nor probably ever will. People get away with crime every day- some even get away with murder. . . .

You can look up the definition of reasonable doubt. One that I remember is that if the actions of a person can be explained satisfactorily, then the jury must find the person innocent not guilty.
No bloodstains, no murder weapon, an alibi prove reasonable doubt for Lizzie (and for Bridget).
But Lizzie (like Uncle John) knew what was going on. Her refusal to speak out was covered by Arnold Brown's book, and, my Proof for Brown's Theory, Parts 2 and 4.
Juries have no problem finding a person guilty when the evidence is there, all things being equal.

Those who say Lizzie was guilty are themselves guilty of some personal bias.

Remember, most people were in sympathy w/ Lizzie until after the acquittal. That tells you something about the ability to manipulate public opinion, then or now.

[RayS]

It is possible that the most potentially damaging evidence the prosecution thought they had against Lizzie was the Eli Bence testimony and Lizzie's contradictions in her testimony. I think they may have counted too much on these items and didn't pursue other angles because they thought they had enough. By the time these two items were disallowed, there wasn't enough evidence to convict Lizzie or anyone else. If everyone believed that Lizzie was innocent, why was she ostracized? Fall River didn't seem to think that a not guilty verdict indicated innocence.

Remember, most people were in sympathy w/ Lizzie until after the acquittal. That tells you something about the ability to manipulate public opinion, then or now.

Any good book will tell you of the effects of that Providence Journal editorial. Editorials are not news, sometimes not even facts. It does show they believed that Lizzie did know more than she said. And so do I.

[RayS]

...
Thanks, Shelley. The closest I can find is the following:

"Q. What made you go into the sitting room?
A. Because I wanted to ask him a question.
Q. What question?
A. Whether there was any mail for me. . . .
. . . . Q. When you did go into the sitting room to ask him a question, if it was the sitting room, what took place then?
A. I asked him if he had any mail. He said, "None for you." (Lizzie Borden's Inquest Testimony)

But of course this was prior to Andrew's death.

I find that very believable. When I used to come home from work the first thing I would ask "any mail for me?"

Your results may vary.

[RayS]

Yes, that is the bit I wanted! Thanks, Diana. Yes, she answers the WHY in her response, but not the WHEN. I deduce it must have been just before he was killed. He came home, went into the diningroom to look at some papers by the light of the window, went upstairs to his room, came back down and maybe put on his sweater at that point and sat down in the sitting room. He did not sit down in the sitting room immediately upon coming home so it must have been at the end of the coming home sequence, just before the murder- OR Lizzie rehashed that earlier action to answer the question about how she happened to walk in and find her father dead on the sofa when she came in from the barn, put her hat down on the diningroom table and found Andrew.
...

Note that on a hot August day Andy wanted to put his sweater on!
I think this shows he was still affected by the 'summer flu' from the day before. IMO

[RayS]

NO, I think you are both wrong due to your prejudices.

Well, Ray, you may be right, then again you may be dead wrong due to your prejudices. Am I not allowed to state my opinions?

I was going to say you were not allowed to state your opinions. But after checking with Perry Mason, Earl Rogers, Earl Warren, and Warren Earl I was corrected.

Yes, I am forced to admit you have the same right to an opinion as I have. But it turns my stomach and gets my blood boiling. What am I to do? Develop a sense of humor?

[RayS]

A couple of remarks on points others have noted as far as Lizzie's reactions go. To paraphrase:

1. "Lizzie acted suspiciously by remaining in the house while Bridget went for help."

I can say from personal knowledge that people do not always act "logically" in situations of great shock. Case in point - local girl is viciously murdered in her apt. Roomate comes home and discovers the horrible scene. Roomate calls for help, while remaining in the apt, even though the killer could still be there too. She has no way to know, but in her state of shock, she doesn't think about this possibility, she just concentrates on getting help. While talking to the 911 operator, she is advised to immediately leave the apt (i.e. the killer may still be inside). Taken as a single fact, one cannot conclude with certainty that this behavior is indicative of guilt; it's as probable (if not more so) that this behavior could be the result of great shock.
...

Just some advice. If you ever enter your home and find a dead body, you should immediate go outside and call for help! This will provide safety for you, and an alibi to time the event.

Don't even touch the phone, it may have fingerprints!

Most violent deaths take place in the home, just read your local crime news and obituary columns ("died at home"). Its an illusion that you are safest in your home. If someone come to your door and pushes their way in you should immediately run out the back entrance, a window, etc.

[Yooper]

It is possible that the most potentially damaging evidence the prosecution thought they had against Lizzie was the Eli Bence testimony and Lizzie's contradictions in her testimony. I think they may have counted too much on these items and didn't pursue other angles because they thought they had enough. By the time these two items were disallowed, there wasn't enough evidence to convict Lizzie or anyone else. If everyone believed that Lizzie was innocent, why was she ostracized? Fall River didn't seem to think that a not guilty verdict indicated innocence.

Remember, most people were in sympathy w/ Lizzie until after the acquittal. That tells you something about the ability to manipulate public opinion, then or now.

Any good book will tell you of the effects of that Providence Journal editorial. Editorials are not news, sometimes not even facts. It does show they believed that Lizzie did know more than she said. And so do I.

There is little doubt that the media can sway public opinion. The general public did not bear the heavy responsibility of a courtroom jury, and talk was, and still is, cheap. A significant portion of the Fall River population formed an opinion about Lizzie's innocence, or lack thereof, in spite of the finding of a jury. The population segment was sufficient for Lizzie to behave as a bit of a recluse. Maybe Lizzie didn't buy the jury's verdict, either!

[RayS]

...
Remember, most people were in sympathy w/ Lizzie until after the acquittal. That tells you something about the ability to manipulate public opinion, then or now.

Any good book will tell you of the effects of that Providence Journal editorial. Editorials are not news, sometimes not even facts. It does show they believed that Lizzie did know more than she said. And so do I.

There is little doubt that the media can sway public opinion. The general public did not bear the heavy responsibility of a courtroom jury, and talk was, and still is, cheap. A significant portion of the Fall River population formed an opinion about Lizzie's innocence, or lack thereof, in spite of the finding of a jury. The population segment was sufficient for Lizzie to behave as a bit of a recluse. Maybe Lizzie didn't buy the jury's verdict, either!

The most important thing is how people can be swayed by one fact to the exclusion of others. That is why juries are advised to not discuss the case until all the evidence has been presented.

Do you remember the change in public opinion in 1973 vis-a-vis Nixon?

[SallyG]

It is possible that the most potentially damaging evidence the prosecution thought they had against Lizzie was the Eli Bence testimony and Lizzie's contradictions in her testimony. I think they may have counted too much on these items and didn't pursue other angles because they thought they had enough. By the time these two items were disallowed, there wasn't enough evidence to convict Lizzie or anyone else. If everyone believed that Lizzie was innocent, why was she ostracized? Fall River didn't seem to think that a not guilty verdict indicated innocence.

Remember, most people were in sympathy w/ Lizzie until after the acquittal. That tells you something about the ability to manipulate public opinion, then or now.

Any good book will tell you of the effects of that Providence Journal editorial. Editorials are not news, sometimes not even facts. It does show they believed that Lizzie did know more than she said. And so do I.

I think that during the trial, Lizzie was a popular "cause" among different women's groups. Once the trial was over, they drifted away and found another injustice to fight for. Lizzie was left to the residents of Fall River, who most likely had their own ideas of what had happened. Lizzie may have been acquitted, but I believe most of Fall River probably thought she was guilty in spite of the verdict.

Compare that to OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty by a jury, but I would imagine that a large percentage of people in this country feel that he WAS guilty. Has HE been ostracized from society? It seems that way.

It was probably the same situation with Lizzie.

[RayS]

Rick Geary compares Lizzie to OJ in his graphic book on the Borden Murders. One library pasted something on this back cover!

Compare that to OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty by a jury, but I would imagine that a large percentage of people in this country feel that he WAS guilty. Has HE been ostracized from society? It seems that way.

I've read one quote from OJ to say he was about as popular as before. Some doubted this. But think about it, those who think he was framed would still want to see him. The others wouldn't.

I myself have personally seen Mohammed Ali in midtown New York city circa 1971?. When walking down the street he was mobbed by people who wanted his autograph or something. Two cops came along to talk to him, then he got into a private van and left. Those who didn't approve wouldn't go near him. (I am neither a fan or foe, I hate crowds.)

People think OJ Did It because that's what the media said. Joseph Bosco said when he saw the edited news version on TV it seemed like a totally different trial from what he witnessed during the day.

You do know how the news can be manipulated by selecting quoting? You surely have seen how the tone of voice can telegraph a message?

[shakiboo]

I will have to dig, Diana to find where I read Lizzie offered as a reason she was going into the sittingroom was because she wanted to ask Andrew something.

Thanks, Shelley. The closest I can find is the following:

"Q. What made you go into the sitting room?
A. Because I wanted to ask him a question.
Q. What question?
A. Whether there was any mail for me. . . .
. . . . Q. When you did go into the sitting room to ask him a question, if it was the sitting room, what took place then?
A. I asked him if he had any mail. He said, "None for you." (Lizzie Borden's Inquest Testimony)

But of course this was prior to Andrew's death.

Bridget testified that Lizzie asked her father about the mail right after he got home, before he went upstairs. And right after she came down stairs.

[Shelley]

Or if we are to believe Lizzie- right after she came out of the kitchen. She surely changed her mind about that didn't she? Bridget also developed selective memory later on when she claimed to have forgotten all about that laugh on the stairs - "I don't know where the girl was".

It's hard to know just who to believe sometimes. Bridget did some little flip-flops, and Lizzie did some major ones! Lizzie still does not say when she went in though when asked in that testimony quoted above. Do we assume she went in the sittingroom from the hallway, the kitchen, or the diningroom- who can tell? I wish someone had nailed Bridget down more and asked from where it was that Lizzie entered the sittingroom to ask about mail because Lizzie's being in the kitchen when Andrew gets home presents some more interesting speculations.

[shakiboo]

Or if we are to believe Lizzie- right after she came out of the kitchen. She surely changed her mind about that didn't she? Bridget also developed selective memory later on when she claimed to have forgotten all about that laugh on the stairs - "I don't know where the girl was".

It's hard to know just who to believe sometimes. Bridget did some little flip-flops, and Lizzie did some major ones! Lizzie still does not say when she went in though when asked in that testimony quoted above. Do we assume she went in the sittingroom from the hallway, the kitchen, or the diningroom- who can tell? I wish someone had nailed Bridget down more and asked from where it was that Lizzie entered the sittingroom to ask about mail because Lizzie's being in the kitchen when Andrew gets home presents some more interesting speculations.

Q. Did anyone else appear at that time? A. Miss Lizzie came sown stairs, probably five minutes couldn't tell exactly the time: she came down through the entry into the dinning room, I suppose to her father Q. And in going to thedinningroom did she have to go through the sittingroom in which you were? A. Yes, sir.

[Shelley]

Yes that all makes sense. Andrew did go into the diningroom with that sheaf of papers. Lizzie had to just catch the corner of the sittingroom walking into the diningroom from the entry hall. Bridget was working on the righthand window, from which she had been interrupted when Andrew knocked. So Lizzie must have come down the stairs fairly soon after Andrew came in if Bridget was in the sitting room still. SO, then Andrew must have gone into the sittingroom, Lizzie and Bridget were in the diningroom, and this is when Lizzie must have gone back into the sittingroom to ask the question about the mail just as Andrew was picking up his key and getting ready to go upstairs.

[shakiboo]

No, Andrew was sitting in the dinningroom on the chair at the head of the lounge, then Lizzie came in and asked about the mail and told him that Mrs. borden had had a note and went out, then he went into the kithen came back in the sittingroom got the key and then went upstairs. This from Bridgets testimony.

[Yooper]

I'm confused. Who's on first?...

[shakiboo]

I can see why your confused, trying to pin Lizzie down to anything that happend that day is confusing! lol

[Yooper]

She is a slippery little devil, isn't she? Everyone else is relatively consistent. Sometimes I think the only thing consistent about Lizzie is her inconsistency!

[shakiboo]

yes slippery she is! Actually everything she did and everything she said was wrong, or off or not right, and yet in the end it all worked out for her! It's just mind boggling.............and when it's all said and done, your left with the question, did she or didn't she?

[Yooper]

It's amazing to say the least. Never the same way twice, rarely agreed with others, and didn't often agree with herself! Aside from the iron/lead, window repair/sinker business, the inconsistencies are spatially related in what seems to be an attempt to distance herself physically from a corpse. Kitchen/Abby, barn/Andrew both put her somewhere away from the bodies. If this is deception, it almost seems child-like.

[Yooper]

I think the flip-flop about Lizzie being upstairs, then in the kitchen, then upstairs when Andrew arrived is the most telling. She couldn't possibly have been in the kitchen, she would have let Andrew in the side door if she was there and Bridget would have seen her there, or somewhere downstairs, when she brought her cleaning supplies indoors. Why even attempt the deception? It implies knowledge that Abby is lying dead upstairs if the idea is to distance herself from the body.

[twinsrwe]

NO, I think you are both wrong due to your prejudices.

Well, Ray, you may be right, then again you may be dead wrong due to your prejudices. Am I not allowed to state my opinions?

I was going to say you were not allowed to state your opinions. But after checking with Perry Mason, Earl Rogers, Earl Warren, and Warren Earl I was corrected.

Yes, I am forced to admit you have the same right to an opinion as I have. But it turns my stomach and gets my blood boiling. What am I to do? Develop a sense of humor?

Well, Ray, I am sorry that my opinions turn your stomach and get your blood boiling, although, I do have to wonder why? What is it about my opinions that upset you so? Developing a sense of humor is not going to it - perhaps you should try accepting the fact that I my opinions are different than yours, and let it go at that. It is really quite simple.

[shakiboo]

All she would have done, as far as Abby's body, was just say that door was closed and she had no reason to suspect anything as Abby had shut the door after cleaning. She could have come up and down the stairs 20 times that day and never knew about the body. And Andrew, all she would have had to do was take her Harper's and wonder around the yard (making sure someone saw her) sit under a tree, eat a few pears, read her magazine and then go back in..........

[RayS]

...
I was going to say you were not allowed to state your opinions. But after checking with Perry Mason, Earl Rogers, Earl Warren, and Warren Earl I was corrected.

Yes, I am forced to admit you have the same right to an opinion as I have. But it turns my stomach and gets my blood boiling. What am I to do? Develop a sense of humor?

Well, Ray, I am sorry that my opinions turn your stomach and get your blood boiling, although, I do have to wonder why? What is it about my opinions that upset you so? Developing a sense of humor is not going to it - perhaps you should try accepting the fact that I my opinions are different than yours, and let it go at that. It is really quite simple.

I'm sorry that you did not see my attempted humor as funny. I guess its just a failure to communicate.

Yes, not all opinions are equal. Some have read or learned more than others, or have a deeper-seated passion.
Is all the testimony about the Borden Murders equal in weight? Juries select the Best Evidence, what they think happened. This goes on every day.

I've already thanked you for your doubts about Brown's Theory of Willy's motive as not being in the will. Correiro killed Bertha because he did not get his pay. That works.
SO, thinking about it some more, I came up with Part 4 for the surmised real reason for the killings and cover-up.

[RayS]

All she would have done, as far as Abby's body, was just say that door was closed and she had no reason to suspect anything as Abby had shut the door after cleaning. She could have come up and down the stairs 20 times that day and never knew about the body. And Andrew, all she would have had to do was take her Harper's and wonder around the yard (making sure someone saw her) sit under a tree, eat a few pears, read her magazine and then go back in..........

I agree 1000% with you. But I once read a story that said blood will give off a smell (no mention of time involved). Could that be possible?

[Shelley]

No, Andrew was sitting in the dinningroom on the chair at the head of the lounge, then Lizzie came in and asked about the mail and told him that Mrs. Borden had had a note and went out, then he went into the kitchen came back in the sittingroom got the key and then went upstairs. This from Bridget's testimony.


""Q. What made you go into the sitting room?
A. Because I wanted to ask him a question.
Q. What question?
A. Whether there was any mail for me. . . .
. . . . Q. When you did go into the sitting room to ask him a question, if it was the sitting room, what took place then?
A. I asked him if he had any mail. He said, "None for you." (Lizzie Borden's Inquest Testimony) "

Well shoot, we can't have it both ways!
Somebody is not telling the truth- it was either the diningroom or the sitting room, and admitted, both are so close together it only takes a step to go from one to the other. That is why I wonder if it were not two separate incidents or else Lizzie was fishing around for a reason she went into the sitting room later to discover her father. No, clearly something is not quite right with these two different recollections, Too bad Lizzie could not have been there when Bridget gave her story, then she could have made darn sure hers gelled with the maid instead of having to retread it later! Bridget , I think can be trusted with her first statement on August 4th- I have to wonder about what she said after that as things alter and get forgotten.

[Yooper]

All she would have done, as far as Abby's body, was just say that door was closed and she had no reason to suspect anything as Abby had shut the door after cleaning. She could have come up and down the stairs 20 times that day and never knew about the body. And Andrew, all she would have had to do was take her Harper's and wonder around the yard (making sure someone saw her) sit under a tree, eat a few pears, read her magazine and then go back in..........

I agree, Lizzie could have made it much simpler and more believable. I suggest that if she was going to knowingly lie about something, she would probably begin and end with a lie. I expect that's easier to keep track of than telling part truth and part lie.

[twinsrwe]

All she would have done, as far as Abby's body, was just say that door was closed and she had no reason to suspect anything as Abby had shut the door after cleaning. She could have come up and down the stairs 20 times that day and never knew about the body. And Andrew, all she would have had to do was take her Harper's and wonder around the yard (making sure someone saw her) sit under a tree, eat a few pears, read her magazine and then go back in..........

I agree 1000% with you. But I once read a story that said blood will give off a smell (no mention of time involved). Could that be possible?

Absolutely! Blood has a very distinct smell within a relatively short period of time.

[shakiboo]

ok, blood has an odor, but where are we going with that? You mean, she couldn't have done it that way, leaving the door upstairs shut because she'd still have been able to detect an odor? If so, then in reality there would have been an odor, and I don't think anyone mentioning that.

[shakiboo]

No, Andrew was sitting in the dinningroom on the chair at the head of the lounge, then Lizzie came in and asked about the mail and told him that Mrs. Borden had had a note and went out, then he went into the kitchen came back in the sittingroom got the key and then went upstairs. This from Bridget's testimony.


""Q. What made you go into the sitting room?
A. Because I wanted to ask him a question.
Q. What question?
A. Whether there was any mail for me. . . .
. . . . Q. When you did go into the sitting room to ask him a question, if it was the sitting room, what took place then?
A. I asked him if he had any mail. He said, "None for you." (Lizzie Borden's Inquest Testimony) "

Well shoot, we can't have it both ways!
Somebody is not telling the truth- it was either the diningroom or the sitting room, and admitted, both are so close together it only takes a step to go from one to the other. That is why I wonder if it were not two separate incidents or else Lizzie was fishing around for a reason she went into the sitting room later to discover her father. No, clearly something is not quite right with these two different recollections, Too bad Lizzie could not have been there when Bridget gave her story, then she could have made darn sure hers gelled with the maid instead of having to retread it later! Bridget , I think can be trusted with her first statement on August 4th- I have to wonder about what she said after that as things alter and get forgotten.

Well, double shoot! I went to check Bridgets inquest testimony and it's missing so that didn't help any. I can't see any reason why Bridget would lie about that, so that would mean Lizzie took a little liberty with the truth IMHO I don't think it would have bothered her one little bit to go in and wake her father from a nap to find out something she wanted to know, there could have been several reasons she could have given, ie 1. Is uncle John going to return for lunch? 2. I'm going to Sargent's to their big sale 3. Where did you say I could find sinkers in the barn? etc She eveidently wasn't quick on her feet.

[Shelley]

As time went on, I think Bridget tried to distance herself from that horrible day, that house and that family by later on not recalling exactly, saying she was not sure, couldn't remember, etc. I think it very interesting that Bridget got right out of that house once Abby's body had been found-then she was gone in a dust trail from that house

. Some people suggest Bridget was given a little cash to travel out of town when the trial was over, before she shows up in Anaconda- but she may have wanted to get out of town even without that incentive. If I knew more than I was saying about Lizzie and August 4th- I would feel much safer far away from her and Fall River. And I bet she would have been hounded for inside details from everyone.

I have always had a picture in my mind that Bridget was given a little off the record "chitchat"- maybe by Jennings, something like-"You wouldn't want to be the cause of Miss Lizzie hanging for murder- would you? Be very sure of what you recall, and if you aren't sure, just say so-don't be afraid, we want to help you as much as we can", etc. Then perhaps after the acquittal a nest egg was given to help Bridget resettle elsewhere-so much nicer for Lizzie and Emma not to have the only other member of that household gone from the city -far from gossiping tongues and prying minds.

Also very interesting that Alice Russell and Elizabeth Johnston had a change of heart towards Lizzie. This is from the Charles Wells letter published in 2002-the whole article link is below and requires Adobe acrobat to read

"The burning of the dress was later in the trial
explained by Emma Borden, (Lizzie’s sister,) as the destruction of a dress which was covered with paint spots but from this time Miss Russell’s feelings regarding Miss Borden underwent a sudden change and almost simultaneously Miss Johnston’s feelings also. Where both had proclaimed their belief in her innocence and had been intimate with her, now they ceased to declare their faith in her and ceased all intercourse with her. This intercourse was never resumed. Neither would talk but it appeared as though, no longer convinced of her innocence, they regarded her as possibly, if not probably, guilty."

http://www.lizzieborden.org/pdf/Fall2002vol14num3.pdf

[bobarth]

Wonderful article
Thanks for the link

[snokkums]

Hi,

This is my first responce after observing for a while, so please bear with me. Could Lizzie not have called on the police because it was a class & sexist issue. Could it have been instinctively not the thing for a woman of her class and sex not to even think of asking the police to enter into her father's home. In the 21st century we immediately think of calling the police, but in the late 19th century weren't most of the police Irish mere servants in the upperclass mind? Thanks and please be gentle!

Bob

Welcome to the forum, Bob. I think you have a good point on that. She might have felt alittle scared calling the cops because of the class and sexist issue. She might have been scared too that they might accuse her, which they eventually did. And I don't think the cops were used to dealing with this kind of crime, and I think they were kind of beside themselves because everything looked to Lizzie for doing the crime. I don't think they were sure how to deal with that.

[Yooper]

As time went on, I think Bridget tried to distance herself from that horrible day, that house and that family by later on not recalling exactly, saying she was not sure, couldn't remember, etc. I think it very interesting that Bridget got right out of that house once Abby's body had been found-then she was gone in a dust trail from that house

. Some people suggest Bridget was given a little cash to travel out of town when the trial was over, before she shows up in Anaconda- but she may have wanted to get out of town even without that incentive. If I knew more than I was saying about Lizzie and August 4th- I would feel much safer far away from her and Fall River. And I bet she would have been hounded for inside details from everyone.

I have always had a picture in my mind that Bridget was given a little off the record "chitchat"- maybe by Jennings, something like-"You wouldn't want to be the cause of Miss Lizzie hanging for murder- would you? Be very sure of what you recall, and if you aren't sure, just say so-don't be afraid, we want to help you as much as we can", etc. Then perhaps after the acquittal a nest egg was given to help Bridget resettle elsewhere-so much nicer for Lizzie and Emma not to have the only other member of that household gone from the city -far from gossiping tongues and prying minds.

Also very interesting that Alice Russell and Elizabeth Johnston had a change of heart towards Lizzie. This is from the Charles Wells letter published in 2002-the whole article link is below and requires Adobe acrobat to read

"The burning of the dress was later in the trial
explained by Emma Borden, (Lizzie’s sister,) as the destruction of a dress which was covered with paint spots but from this time Miss Russell’s feelings regarding Miss Borden underwent a sudden change and almost simultaneously Miss Johnston’s feelings also. Where both had proclaimed their belief in her innocence and had been intimate with her, now they ceased to declare their faith in her and ceased all intercourse with her. This intercourse was never resumed. Neither would talk but it appeared as though, no longer convinced of her innocence, they regarded her as possibly, if not probably, guilty."

http://www.lizzieborden.org/pdf/Fall2002vol14num3.pdf

The dress burning seems to be a real turning point for Alice. Her first response to the act was "I wouldn't let anyone see me doing that" rather than "I wouldn't do that". Alice knew it was wrong to burn the dress at the time. If the dress contained nothing incriminating, why get rid of it? Why not store it away if it could only prove innocence? It makes more sense to lock the dress up than to burn it! Alice must have mulled this over for a while, she came forward with the information about the dress burning in December, and I think this was after the grand jury finished with testimony in November. Apparently she wasn't sure what to do about it while the grand jury was in session.

[Shelley]

Yes, it was in December- and it must have been an anguishing decision for a real church-going lady- what to do? On one hand there was her good friend, former neighbor, companion in the christian endeavors of the church- and on the other hand, I believe as she stayed in that house for a few days after the murder, she began to have doubts.

Those doubts must have gnawed at her dreams and waking moments, knowing full well what revealing what she knew might do to the case. She probably remembered all Lizzie had said on Wednesday night too- and wondered if that story had been deliberately planted.

And then- how awful to suspect someone you had known for years could, might possibly have done such a heinous deed. It went against all Alice believed in. I would not have been in Alice's shoes for all the world. To wrestle with one's conscience and the bond of friendship must be the hardest inner struggle. Imagine having to betray someone who trusted you. I would bet it was no light matter in Alice's mind.

[Yooper]

Alice had told the private detective Holmes(?) that all of Lizzie's dresses were intact. She remembered this when the dress burning occurred and went back and told him about it. He told Alice that it was the wrong thing to do, Alice told Lizzie, and the response was "why did you let me do it?". Was Lizzie Alice's responsibility at age 32? Alice had insinuated that burning the dress wasn't a bright idea at the time, but Lizzie burned it anyway! Now, all of a sudden, WHOOPS, it's YOUR fault! Maybe that weasel maneuver on Lizzie's part clinched it for Alice, because she left the Borden house shortly after that.

[Nadzieja]

Alice had told the private detective Holmes(?) that all of Lizzie's dresses were intact. She remembered this when the dress burning occurred and went back and told him about it. He told Alice that it was the wrong thing to do, Alice told Lizzie, and the response was "why did you let me do it?". Was Lizzie Alice's responsibility at age 32? Alice had insinuated that burning the dress wasn't a bright idea at the time, but Lizzie burned it anyway! Now, all of a sudden, WHOOPS, it's YOUR fault! Maybe that weasel maneuver on Lizzie's part clinched it for Alice, because she left the Borden house shortly after that.

It was interesting because when I read this Yooper I suddenly realized that one thing we don't know is "How" Lizzie said "Why did you let me do it". She was probably stressed out by this time and was really trying to keep it together. If she said this in a mean way toward her Alice also could have taken offense. After that she probably started to think in a different light, that just maybe Lizzie was trying to hide something. I've heard the saying that the best way to hide something is in plain sight. Maybe she was trying to do this with the guard outside so she would appear that this was something not out of the ordinary.

[Yooper]

Alice had told the private detective Holmes(?) that all of Lizzie's dresses were intact. She remembered this when the dress burning occurred and went back and told him about it. He told Alice that it was the wrong thing to do, Alice told Lizzie, and the response was "why did you let me do it?". Was Lizzie Alice's responsibility at age 32? Alice had insinuated that burning the dress wasn't a bright idea at the time, but Lizzie burned it anyway! Now, all of a sudden, WHOOPS, it's YOUR fault! Maybe that weasel maneuver on Lizzie's part clinched it for Alice, because she left the Borden house shortly after that.

It was interesting because when I read this Yooper I suddenly realized that one thing we don't know is "How" Lizzie said "Why did you let me do it". She was probably stressed out by this time and was really trying to keep it together. If she said this in a mean way toward her Alice also could have taken offense. After that she probably started to think in a different light, that just maybe Lizzie was trying to hide something. I've heard the saying that the best way to hide something is in plain sight. Maybe she was trying to do this with the guard outside so she would appear that this was something not out of the ordinary.

The implication in the statement is that someone other than Lizzie is responsible for Lizzie's actions when Lizzie does something wrong. Burning the dress was Lizzie's choice, not Alice's. I'm trying to imagine how tone of voice or context might change the message, but I'm not seeing it.

[snokkums]

I think the flip-flop about Lizzie being upstairs, then in the kitchen, then upstairs when Andrew arrived is the most telling. She couldn't possibly have been in the kitchen, she would have let Andrew in the side door if she was there and Bridget would have seen her there, or somewhere downstairs, when she brought her cleaning supplies indoors. Why even attempt the deception? It implies knowledge that Abby is lying dead upstairs if the idea is to distance herself from the body.

I think you are right on that, it would imply that Lizzie knew Abby was dead. That would indicate that she did to the killing. And she might have paniced thinking that her father was going to find out and she had to kill him too. I think that's why she couldn't maybe get her story straight as to where she was. She didn't want anyone to know or think she did it, so she was trying to come up with a good alibi.

[Nadzieja]

Alice had told the private detective Holmes(?) that all of Lizzie's dresses were intact. She remembered this when the dress burning occurred and went back and told him about it. He told Alice that it was the wrong thing to do, Alice told Lizzie, and the response was "why did you let me do it?". Was Lizzie Alice's responsibility at age 32? Alice had insinuated that burning the dress wasn't a bright idea at the time, but Lizzie burned it anyway! Now, all of a sudden, WHOOPS, it's YOUR fault! Maybe that weasel maneuver on Lizzie's part clinched it for Alice, because she left the Borden house shortly after that.

It was interesting because when I read this Yooper I suddenly realized that one thing we don't know is "How" Lizzie said "Why did you let me do it". She was probably stressed out by this time and was really trying to keep it together. If she said this in a mean way toward her Alice also could have taken offense. After that she probably started to think in a different light, that just maybe Lizzie was trying to hide something. I've heard the saying that the best way to hide something is in plain sight. Maybe she was trying to do this with the guard outside so she would appear that this was something not out of the ordinary.

The implication in the statement is that someone other than Lizzie is responsible for Lizzie's actions when Lizzie does something wrong. Burning the dress was Lizzie's choice, not Alice's. I'm trying to imagine how tone of voice or context might change the message, but I'm not seeing it.

Tone of voice has alot to do with things. If I came into work I could smile at someone & say good morning in a nice voice or I could glare at them & growl good morning. Same words, different type of meaning. Did Lizzie jokingly asked Why did you let me do it or did she say it in a hostile manner. If she was hostile and her body language showed her as angry I'm sure a whole different message was received by Alice. It was just a thought.

[Yooper]

You're right, tone, body language, context all have a bearing on the message. Alice had told Lizzie that burning the dress was the worst thing she could have done. I guess the mood was more or less panic. Lizzie's response was to shift the blame. No one was joking at the time!

[Kat]

Sorry I have been so long gone. You get to endure my -I hope- subtle corrections- or questions as to what you-all have been talking about. Or not.
Here goes:

Lizzie says she went into the sitting room after putting down her hat in the dining room (after coming in from the outside) in order to go to her room to sit down. That is when she pushed open the door and saw her father. His eye was not hanging out on his cheek. It was cleaved in half but all she said she saw was a bloody face.

Earlier when he first arrived home, she had appeared from the entryway (according to Bridget) and came into the dining room where Andrew was to ask if there was any mail for her. Later Lizzie could not recall if she had even been in the dining room, that's true. But she did ask the question there and just forgot. I don't think where she asked the question matters too much. Unless a reason can be found as to why she would forget it happened in the dining room.

The easiest way to remember the sequence is to follow Bridget as she washed the windows. We know she started in the sitting room, and let Andrew in at the front door. Andrew obviously did not want to be in the same room as the servant doing chores, so he went into the dining room. We have testimony that he usually leaves his outside coat there too. So he may automatically go in there. But I bet he usually enters the house from the kitchen side door. Anyway-as Bridget finishes the sitting room he goes upstairs, comes down again and moves into the sitting room while Bridget finishes the dining room windows.
Bridget says he went upstairs. Lizzie says he didn't.
Bridget says she didn't see Lizzie after she saw her in the dining room talking to Andrew. The next she saw Lizzie was when she herself was washing the last dining room window and Lizzie entered from the sitting room, into the dining room, into the kitchen and got the ironing board and brought it into the dining room.

[Kat]

Alice lived on Borden Street and to get there Bridget would have to go north down Second Street and turn right, onto Borden. It was suggested that she would need to go to Pleasant and then to Fourth.

To get to Mrs. Whitehead's- which Bridget did not do- she could have gone south up the hill of Second Street to make a left onto Rodman and turned left onto Fourth. Anyway, Bridget said she didn't know where Mrs. Whitehead lived, which was stated already. (The other way to Whitehead's house would be down Second to Borden, then right on Borden to Fourth, turn right on Fourth to Whiteheads.)

That's north and 2 rights, or south and 2 lefts.