1. "Why So Slow?"
Posted by augusta on Jun-7th-02 at 9:21 PM

I think it's curious that Bridget testifies that she overheard Lizzie tell Andrew about Abby's note "very slowly".

Why would Lizzie tell him that part "very slowly"?  Any thoughts?

[EDIT HERE, you're not imagining things.  I looked up Bridget's test. in Prelim., and Trial, and I was wrong.  so instead of 'splaining, Lucy, I edited...][unedit]
I thought it meant he was becoming hard of hearing.
My next door neighbor is getting hard of hearing but won't admit to it.  But I know, so I make a point of speaking a bit more slowly and ALWAYS face her as I speak.  Even she doesn't realize this...

(Message last edited Jun-8th-02  2:59 AM.)

That is a good guess, Kat.  But it's the only part of the conversation Bridget heard Lizzie say "very slowly". 

Augusta, do you think that Lizzie knew that Bridget was eavesdropping(or was an eavesdropper by nature) and wanted to make sure that Bridget heard what she did VERY clearly?  Thats why Lizzie spoke very slowly, she Bridget could get an earful? 

Several sources I've accessed seem to think that Bridget didn't mean "slowly," but "in a low voice."  I know Bridget had a very thick Irish brogue, and it was sometimes difficult to understand her.  In the (trial?) transcript, she referred to "keys," and the stenographer put it down as "case."  I don't think anyone asked her to clarify what she meant by "slowly."

Edisto, I recall reading that the word "case" was crossed out and "keys" were wriiten in by hand.  I wonder why they didn't check out the "slowly" then also?  Especially since Lizzie telling of Abby's note is such a important piece of information, you think that they would make sure that they had it all correctly!



(Message last edited Jun-9th-02  3:42 PM.)

As I continued reading Bridget's Preliminary Hearing testimony, I found that they DID ask her again about that "very slowly" part.  She said she didn't mean anything by it (!).  It sure sounded like it the first time she spoke about it. 

All through the trial, Bridget recants what she says!  I wonder why?  She makes a statement, they write it down, and then she says either that she didn't say it or they misunderstood her.  What gives?  Me thinks I smell a payoff of some kind or possibly a threat? 

That's the part I edited out in my past post.
I couldn't find the reference so I deleted my response.
Can you now tell where the follow-up question as to the "slowly" is?  Thanks.

When Bridget was cross-examined at the Preliminary Hearing, this exchange took place between her and Lizzie's team:

Q:  He sat down in the dining room?
A:  Yes Sir.
Q:  What passed between them?
A:  I heard Miss Lizzie tell him about a note that the mother had, a note, and had gone out, very slowly.  They were talking very slowly, and were talking to themselves.
Q:  Why do you put in that expression, "very slowly"?  Why do you use that expression, because she said it so?
A:  Yes Sir.
Q:  Because she said that very much more slowly than anything else she said?
A:  Well, no.
Q:  She did not?
A:  No Sir.
Q:  Everything she said, she said very slowly?
A:  Ordinarily slow.
Q:  Do you mean I should understand when she spoke about the letter or note, that Mrs. Borden had got, she spoke more slowly than she did the rest of it?
A:  No Sir, just the same.
Q:  And had gone out?
A:  Yes Sir.
Q:  Did her father make any reply to that?
A:  No sir.  I did not hear him saying anything.

(This comes from the Preliminary Hearing, page 79.)  What a turn around from her testimony just before that to the prosecution!  And I don't think it's because the prosecution never asked her to clarify that.  She came out on her own and said Lizzie said that about the note "very slowly".  What side is she on anyway?  Maybe she had a bit of that sulphate of morphine-one-eighth-of-a-grain-that-was-doubled-the-next-day.

  Good going, Augusta!  Bridget just does this continually, Emma too for that matter, changing their testimony as time goes on!

I'm wondering (oh-oh) if Andrew really did go upstairs that "forenoon" when he came home.
I've always wondered this.  They say he took the key from the mantle and went up. 
If Lizzie and Bridget are *in cahoots*, even just *conniving* at a possible story-line to hand out after the fact, if they invented this detail between them....  If he didn't-- there would certainly be more time to do him in.
Say he stayed downstairs and Bridget went UPstairs sooner than she admitted...there would be loads of time.
I tried to think what would BE upstairs, that he would HavE to visit his room before lying on the couch.  I figured if he went up there and wanted to lie down, why not do that in his bedroom?  His indoor jacket was down, the water closet was down, a drink of water was down...his pockets weren't emptied...doesn't a man like to empty his pockets when he comes home for the day?

The ONLY thing I could think of for him to maybe HAVE to go upstairs for, would be to change his shoes....
But we don't know if he did that, and we don't know that he didn't have a change downstairs.....

(Message last edited Jun-14th-02  4:08 AM.)

Perhaps Andrew went up the back stairs looking for Abby.

Heat rises.  Maybe (even tho it was not as hot as some would let us believe that day) Andrew went upstairs to lie down and found it just a little too warm.

That makes sense, Joe.  He wasn't feeling good anyway - that's why he skipped out on a board meeting and came home a little earlier than usual.  I think you're right.  He wouldn't have wanted to stay up there.  There is QUITE a difference in a house when it's hot downstairs than up.  But he might have had a habit of lying on the sofa anyway, like in case a caller came by (he always answered the door when he was at home according to Bridget) - or maybe he didn't want to miss out on the lunch call.  (Mmmmmmm-utton!) 

I always thought he just accepted Lizzie's story about Abby being gone, which is another reason I think she had more friends than writers have always said.  When Lizzie told him "a friend" was sick, he didn't say anything.  I don't think he was looking for Abby, since he seemed to buy Lizzie's note story.  I think he went up to put his little white parcel away.  But I also think that's what was burning in the stove when people started coming in.  SO maybe he put the broken lock in his room, to fiddle with later and had the parcel still with him.  Or maybe Lizzie went and got the parcel from his room before she called Bridget. 

I think we need to keep in mind - and it's hard to - that this scene Lizzie and Bridget described as happening that morning may not have been at all what happened in that house.  Bridget may not have went up to take a nap at all. 

Precisely, Augusta.
I wrote what I always wondered...
And got some interesting answers...
The thread that revealed Bridget LYING about knowing Hatchets & Axes were in the cellar, and WHERE they were to be found etc...led to this :  That the 2 of them may have made up the forenoon's events to suit a story contrived between them.
And again, we read what HOWARD wrote on the 8th TRIAL day, and he says what the prosecution shows so far as evidence against Lizzie could just as well be evidence prepared against BRIDGET.

I think the key would not have been on the mantle if Abby were in their room.  I thought he might be looking for Abby, as well...but then I just realized this.

Does anyone think he may have at least changed his shoes up there?  Why else would he go up there?

(Message last edited Jun-14th-02  10:11 PM.)

Maybe to use the slop pail?  Seriously.  Maybe he needed to relieve himself.  From what I understand of it, the water closet in the basement was used for one purpose and the slop pails for another, without getting too graphic. 

Do you mean he pee's upstairs in a slop pail and then carries it down stairs to empty it in the yard?
Wouldn't a man just "go" in the yard?
I never heard that the water closet was specifically for any one thing...

The safe was upstairs in the little "office" next to his bedroom.  But he would have put that money he had on him in it.  I would think his shoes would be upstairs.  When Bridget is questioned about what the downstairs closet contained, she made no mention of shoes.  Yes, he could have changed from his "town" shoes to yuckier ones he wore just around the house.  Those Congress shoes he has on in his murder photo - are those more comfortable or more suitable for around the house than going to town in?  This would lead us to an important lie that I've never been able to understand.  Why Lizzie said she saw Andrew change into slippers downstairs, when those sure don't look like slippers he's wearing on the sofa.  And if that's the case, why would she lie about that, when it's known he went upstairs anyway?  When we explored the Congress boots before, I think we ended up with maybe she just thought she saw him change into slippers, since he probably did it every day and being on morphine might have muddled her mind about it.

I don't trust Bridget!  Remember how hysterical she got when a cop came to take her for her inquest testimony and she thought she was being arrested?  If they only would have grilled her then, when she was so vulnerable.  We've caught her lying about the axes in the cellar.  I think something might be amiss in how she describes doing those windows.  She is even asked in the Prelim. if she used a rag on the outside windows as she rinsed them and said no.  Just threw a dipper of water on them after her scrubbing was probably dried.  It just doesn't "wash".

Well, its a possibility, Kat.  But, could you see Andrew going to pee in the yard in full view of Lizzie, Bridget, and Mrs. Churchill? 

Lizzie's Inquest testimony states (69), in answer to the question, "When you went out to the barn, where did you leave your father?", "He had laid down on the sitting room lounge, taken off his shoes, and put on his slippers, and taken off his coat and put on the reefer.  I asked him if he wanted the window left that way."
--WOW...What an answer to a simple question.  It sounds like she is rehearsing what her story is.

Then, (84) "I saw him taking off his shoes and lying down."

--If she didn't see that happen THIS time but it USUALLY happened that way, then he does change his shoes downstairs...whether he changed his shoes THAT day, or not.
--I'm beginning to think he did change his shoes to "slippers" (downstairs) because George Allen (T.438) says when he saw Mr. Borden dead on the lounge, "I noticed the shoes were on, and how small the ankles was for the shoes."
--This sounds like floppy old banged up loose fitting shoes for wear around the house, which is what we see in the photo.
--Dr. Dolan (T. 864) says he noticed Andrew wore "Congress shoes."

We also, sometime, somewhere, need to reconcile Harrington's Trial testimony that directly contradicts the PHOTO IN EVIDENCE, that "my impression was laced boots." (T. 558+)

Anyway, now Andrew ReALLY has no reason to go up stairs.  If a man has to "go", and he's standing in his dining room, and he has 4 choices, which does he pick?
-Out in yard.
-In the privy in the back of the barn
-In the water closet in the cellar
-In his room in a slop pail, which he will eventually have to empty.

Old comfortable shoes worn as SLIPPERS?

(Message last edited Jun-15th-02  10:18 PM.)

Kat, I own two pairs of shoes that I bought back in the '70s (yes, I still have them!) that are very similar to the Congress shoes shown in the two advertisements in your post above. Both of my pairs are high with tops extending over the ankle. A difference is on my shoes there is a metal zipper in place of the wide elastic band shown on the side of the shoes depicted in the advertisements. My shoes are quite comfortable though one of my pairs developed cracks and a hole in the leather on the side of the foot from a lot of use and I don't wear that pair much any more. The other pair is in better shape but for some reason I bought that pair with higher heels, more like boot heels instead of lower shoe heels like the first pair, and after a while I found that I didn't care for the higher heels. If Andrew's Congress shoes were anywhere near as comfortable as mine he might well have worn them around the house while relaxing!

I remember THOSE "boots"!!!!
My boyfriend in a band had those, with heels.

Anyway, here are the shoes.
I tried to blow them up, but couln't do it.
These are not *Important Man In Town* shoes he has on.

So *where* would a man "go"?
PS:  I should take an annoymous poll...even I wouldn't answer this question!



(Message last edited Jun-16th-02  10:17 PM.)

You are assuming the definition of "slippers" to not be those slip-on Congress shoes. Don't they slip on?
To claim Lizzie lied about this is to create a story that nobody then would believe. Her description of "slippers" was not challenged then!

I'm assuming these shoes are the "slippers" Lizzie referred to.

  I am speculating that they were kept downstairs, to change into, as soon as Andrew arrived home, and that Lizzie had seen this action long enough for it to be a habit of Andrew's.

You know, Kat, you may be on to something.  Those shoes did slip on, they could be referred to as "slippers".  There never seemed to be any direct questioning of Lizzie as to what she meant by slippers.

And, while we are on Andrew's shoes, I've always been curious as to what type of shoes Lizzie was wearing that day?  I've heard them referred to as tie shoes and also as boots.  Confusing.  Does anyone know for sure?  Its not a big thing in the scheme of things, just curious. 

The description of those Congress boots as "slippers" did not originate with me.  I couldn't tell you the genesis of it, though, sorry.

I did find Dr. Dolan in the Trial, pg. 966 giving testimony as to Lizzie's shoes, which he examined as being "low shoes, laced, I think."

Do you think that they looked something like this?

We had a discussion about this on the old LBMB.  I (for one) thought it entirely possible that Andrew used his old "congress gaiters" (what my husband calls them) as house slippers.  My husband also wore that type of shoe back in the 70s and loved them.  He had them resoled several times and finally had to give up on them.  He's still looking for replacements.  I get a catalog for "old folks" that actually has that style in it, but they don't look like very good quality.
With regard to Lizzie's tie shoes (she called them "a pair of ties" as I recall), Victoria Lincoln had something to say.  She described them somewhat differently from what I had envisioned, claiming she herself had worn a similar style.

I thought "shoes" were defined as low-cut ofxords, for example.
"Boots" were any shoes that were over the ankle. This style is important when walking on unpaved ways; no stones can get into your shoes, like with low-cut oxfords.

We can surmise that the "slippers" are the Congress boots, now, unless anyone dissents?

Then so far we have found no reason for Andrew to go upstairs.

Stef had suggested to me the lock or the package.

As far as we know, these were not found.

IF he went upstairs to put away a *package* (of which I'm not convinced) then someone followed and removed it?

O.K.

Andrew returns to the house and tries the side/kitchen door to come in.  He cannot enter that way, so it must be on the hook.  One of Lizzie's stories at Inquest is that she was in the dining room/ kitchen area at that time.  Then why didn't she let him in?  Because she WASn't in the kitchen, or because it was important for some reason that he come in the front door.
Mrs. Kelly see's Andrew coming around the side of the house to the front door as she leaves her house to go to her late dental appointment.

He fumbles with the lock, supposedly cannot enter here either and Bridget testifies she let him in.
So far we have corroboration, at least unto the point AS To Who Let Andrew In.  Even from this point, we have reason to assume that Bridget & Lizzie are lying.  We do not know for sure IF Bridget even let him in, and from 10:40 a.m. until 11:10 a.m. we cannot know what went on in that house. 

Can we clear our minds of the pictures Lizzie and Bridget PUT THERE, and devise a scenerio that fills the gap of that 1/2 an hour?  Calling on imaginations here...no thought-out scene will be refused...maybe debated, but not refused.  Can anyone creatively fill this time frame as well as our 2 perjurers, "L" & "B"?

The simple, obvious reason for Andy to go upstairs is to put something into his safe (or take it out).
What is the reason for questioning the testimony?

How bout this one?
Andrew comes home at 10:40.  Tries back door.  Locked cuz killer is down basement.  Lizzie keeping an eye on the basement.  Andrew goes to front door.  Meanwhile, Bridget lets Andrew in front door.  Lizzie comes to hallway, greets him. 
"Father, why don't you go upstairs and lie down until lunch?" she says.  She accompanies him to the back stairs and diverts his attention away from the basement.  He goes upstairs, takes off his shoes, lies down on bed.  Lizzie waits in kitchen.  After a short time, Andrew finds it is too hot upstairs cuz heat rises, decides to go downstairs and sit.  Puts on slippers (Congress shoes), comes to parlor, sits in sofa.  Bridget washes windows or whatever, Lizzie alerts perp from basement, then goes outside to pear tree, barn.  Perp kills Andrew.  Lizzie sees perp on his escape.

Problem:  what if Andrew falls asleep?  Abby off seeing sick friend he thinks.  Uncle coming back for lunch.  Bridget will go upstairs for her daily rest anyhow.  Perp is safely hidden in basement someplace.  The plan might have been to wait until Bridget out of house.  At any rate, the perp was available at a moment's notice as soon as everything was in place.  Maybe it was planned to kill Andrew in his bed.....
jc

Interesting.  The cellar makes sense.  Is the weapon from the cellar?  Or brought to the scene and taken away?

Maybe Lizzie isn't even in the house when Andrew arrives?
Maybe she is in the barn loft, and when she moves that curtain at the window it is a signal to the perp that all is ready?

Oh.  Yes, the window signal.  Of course.  The perp is in the barn waiting.  Explains the places in the hay where it looked like someone was laying down.  As for the weapon, I guess it depends on who the perp was.  If perp was Davis or Billy, then he would probably use a weapon from home.   Butchers probably used something they felt familiar with.  If Billy, Arnold covers the axe he owned ad nauseum.

So Lizzie IS in the house when Andrew comes home.
Who moves the curtain as a signal?
The way Lizzie describes it ,sounds like she did.
Could SHE have sat in the barn waiting after making sure the perp was safely ensconced in the house?  (Cellar or parlour, take your pick?)  But, wait a minute, she'd have barn dust stuff all over her clothes, wouldn't she...

If the perp is in the barn waiting, of what use is the signal?
(Let's see...that signal could probably be seen from the north cellar windows or the north parlour windows, but Not from the guest room unless one opened the window and leaned out?)

Couldn't the side door of the house be seen from the barn window?  Lizzie could have gone to the kitchen and opened the screen door, or actually gone to the barn and let the murderer know that Andrew was home.  Then after waiting a time, she comes out, back to the house and is seen by Hyam Lubinsky.

After seeing the photo, it seems it would be hard to see that west curtained window from the parlor at all (it would be as hard as from the guest room, obviously).
The only places to view a signal from that window would be an east cellar, or ATTIC window?  Or the kitchen steps, or UNDER the kitchen steps, which has been surmised by our member.

Well, can we postpone the dropping of the curtain as  a signal...

How about Andrew being bonked on the head as soon as he arrives home and enters.
A wound made by a flat-iron?  A concussed wound, which is then  obscured by hatchet after dragging ole' Andy to the couch?  It would be a face to face attack in the entry hall...
The point of this would be to have immediate, surprise control of the victim, rather than wait for him to *compose himself* for death...

(Message last edited Jun-21st-02  6:04 PM.)

Well, Bridget states that Lizzie follows Andrew into the sitting room and hears her speak, but, I don't think she hears Andrew say anything.  Do you think its possible she conked him one in the sitting room and then spoke like she was talking to him? 

If Andrew was conked in the hall, it would take a minimum of two girls to haul him to the couch.

If Bridget knows nought, then it couldn't happen like that at all because Lizzie couldn't be sure Bridget wouldn't find Andrew too soon, while she was still downstairs.

I could be wrong about this, but wouldn't hacking someone multiple times with a hatchet/axe/cleaver make quite a bit of noise?  At least I would think someone in a nearby room would be able to hear something.

I would imagine it would make some sort of noise, not to get grisly, but, crunching of bone?  Plus the fact, that if Bridget needed or wanted to get to the front of the house, she would have to go through the sitting room, straight through or cattycornered.

First I think, "look at all the doors...did Southard Miller have an excess he wanted to unload when he built this place"?

Then I remember this was a 2-family home, and these rooms off the sitting room were bedrooms, so of course they need doors.

THEN, I wondered if this house really IS so different  from other multiple-family dwellings or duplexes in the area.

The photo of  the Ferry street house seems to show a similar shaped house.

Has anyone been inside any of these other "tenements", to verify that  92 Second street was so different it was remarked upon by the press?  And we've been led to believe that the lay-out of the house inspired the crime in the WAY it happened, or at least that the floor-plan needs to be understood to imagine the crime?

The duplex I am currently living in is built much the same as the Borden house in that to get to one room you must go through another.  There are no hallways!  It leads to no privacy, thats for sure.  If I have friends over, I must make sure that my bedroom is picked up because you have to go through it to get to the bathroom.  The living room is the main thoroughfare of the house with 3 doors in it, which gets crazy as to how I can arrange the furniture so that I have access to all the doors.  I still can't see why the Borden's opted to put the lounge where they did in that room, what an awkward position!  Why not against the wall with the windows?  And put one chair in it's place so as not to take up so much room. 

The house on 92 Second St was probably finer than their old Ferry St homestead. The experts should know (floorplan?).

Like the house I grew up in (originally no central heat until after the War - that's WW II for the youngsters), each room had a door. Thats to close off unused warms in winter time to save heat.
Don't ask what happened if you were changing clothes too close to the stove (used for heating & cooking).

(Message last edited Jun-25th-02  4:06 PM.)

What if Andrew never went upstairs that Thursday forenoon?
What would this mean to the case?

Inquest, Lizzie, pg. 84+

Q. Was not the reason he went in the dining room because she was in the sitting room washing windows?
A. I don't know.

Q. Did he not go upstairs to his own room before he sat down in the sitting room?
A. I did not see him go.

Q. He had the key to his room down there?
A. I don't know whether he had it; it was kept on the shelf.

Q:  Don't you remember he took the key and went into his own room and then came back?
A:  No sir

Q: You don't remember anything of that kind?
A: No sir;  I do not think he did go upstairs either.

Q:  You will swear he did not?
A: I did not see him

Q: You swear you did not see him?
A: Yes, sir

Q: You were either in the sitting room or kitchen all the time?
A: Yes, sir

Q: He could not have gone up without he had gone through the kitchen?
A: No, sir

--we were on the right track to try to re-write in our imaginations what really went on in that 30 minutes after Andrew returned.

WHY does Bridget swear Andrew took his key and went upstairs, while Lizzie says no, he didn't?

If they meant to get their stories straight, they have failed miserably.

What if it is Bridget who is doing all the lying and Lizzie who is telling the truth?

Anyway, if Andrew did not go upstairs there was more time to kill him downstairs than previously thought.  We may increase the *killing window* by at least 3 minutes.

Wow, neat idea!  While Bridget pretends to go upstairs for a nap, Lizzie goes out to the barn and whack!!!  Then she could sneak back upstairs and change her dress as she testified to doing. 

In Lizzie's Inquest she keeps reiterating that she didn't see Bridget during the morning; she didn't know where Bridget was at any given time.  She does not KNOW that Bridget washed the windows as she Did Not See Her.  Lizzie implies, pg 68, that Bridget went upstairs before Andrew even came home.
But she doesn't specify WHICH upstairs...
Was Bridget up the FRONT stairs stalking Abby?
Lizzie says she saw her father when he came in; she made sure he was comfortable, and then implies she almost immediately went to the barn.
If Andrew didn't visit his room, after returning at 10:40, but went straight to the couch to lie down...and Lizzie went then straight to the barn...there is 20 minutes unaccounted for by BRIDGET...and that Happens to be the exact span of time Lizzie says she was in the barn.

?????

The shoes! The shoes!  I keep looking at that photo of Andrew on the sofa.  What if he DID take his shoes off and then slipped them back on in anticipation of going outside, answering the door for company, or whatever.  And WHY does he look as if he was sitting up and keeled over after he was whacked?  Maybe Lizzie ain't lying and she really DID help Dad off with his shoes, but Dad put them back on after a power nap.

Yea, if someone entered, Andrew would NOT meet the person in his socks.  He would sit up & put his shoes back on.

The thing about Andrew facing an attacker while somewhat alert, though, is denied by his watch and chain in the photo.  It is undisturbed...(?)

I don't mean to double up posts on you here, Joe.
But what I think I'll do is read Lizzie's inquest over again with her complete innocence in mind.  (Of course I'll have to make Bridget the liar to do this...)  But it should be interesting.

Lizzie the rich, spoiled girl who has never had to account for her actions to Anyone before.
Prideful.
Lizzie badgered and treated like scum on the witness stand by Knowlton...("I don't even know your name...", is pitiful).
Lizzie drugged and grieving, aghast that the lowly Irish servant is treated better than she, and believed over Lizzie's OwN WORD.

I'll try that angle...to make sense out of that confounded testimony, contradictions and all...

If Bridget and Lizzie's stories differ in some details, it shows NO collusion or conspiracy. One book I read in 1965 supposed that Lizzie did Abby (when Bridget was seen outdoors), and Bridget did Andy (when Lizzie was outdoors).
I believe they are innocent (Bridget) and not guilty (Lizzie). You are free to disagree with any reasonable statement.

The problem with their stories is they don't meet or match Anywhere, until after Lizzie calls Bridget downstairs for help.

Up until that point, they might as well be speaking about a different day and a different time, altogether!

Now, there's a little imagination required here, too...the topic is "What If?"    Quoting already established theories or authors doesn't work here too well...need more like your own vision....