1. "Lizzie & Hiram C."
Posted by Kimberly on Jul-8th-03 at 11:39 PM

I was browsing thru Lincoln tonight & on page 303 she
says: "in time she became more positive and outspoken
in her suspicions of Hiram C. Harrington. She mourned
when he died, saying that now her one chance of being
really cleared was gone."

That seems so odd -- as if Lizzie really thought she
was innocent. What did she think he had done? Killed them?
Tried to frame her for it? Does anyone know the rest of what
she said, what were her suspicions?

In one *Interview* Lizzie supposedly said she could never openly accuse someone without proof as she knew what that was like, and couldn't do that to someone...

It seems like she laid all the blame on him -- I wonder
if it was just needing someone to blame in her mind and
she just wanted it to look like she had an idea of who
the "real killers" were or if she was indeed, innocent.
I guess we'll never really know. At least without seeing
her lawyer's notes. I think he kept all that stuff so
someone would eventually know the truth -- unless he was
in love with her & needed to keep it all because he couldn't
have the real thing.

If you accept the solution of AR Brown, then HC Harrington's stable held the carriage used to transport WS Borden and his half-brother before and after the murders. Not that HCH was guilty, but he also knew what really happened.

In effect, Lizzie said "if you want to know about it, ask HCH". He didn't speak out either.

Does the "real killers" imply there were more than one, or just a mispoken phrase?

One lawyer wrote "if you accuse a person of doing something wrong and you have no proof, they will collect for libel, guaranteed!".

Early on, Lizxie was asked if there was anyone who wasn't on good terms with her father, and she mentioned Hiram Harrington.  I think this is in the Inquest Testimony.  I took that to mean that Hiram Harrington was a person whom Lizzie might consider a suspect in the murders, due to his rocky relationship with Andrew.
I don't take Lincoln's book very seriously, however.  It seems to me to be heavily "novelized."  Where would she have gotten the information about Lizzie's comment on Hiram's death?  She probably had the same sources we have, and maybe not all of those.  --Or maybe it was Fall River gossip that Lizzie had made that remark.  That seems to be one of Lincoln's main sources and IMHO not very reliable.
Are you saying that Lizzie and Hiram could have been lovers?  Surely you jest!  It appears to me that he tried to make her sound guilty, and she did the same for him.  Ex-lovers, possibly...
Oh, now I get it.  You mean Jennings or Adams was in love with Lizzie and kept the notes as a love token?  Sorry, I'm not at my sharpest tonight.

(Message last edited Jul-9th-03  6:51 PM.)

I don't really care for Mr. Brown's solution. If Hiram C.
really knew what happened why did he jump on Lizzie? If
she didn't do it she was a poor little rich orphan who's
parents were murdered by her lunatic secret half-brother.
Give the girl a break!!

If he knew what happened & didn't tell the truth he was as
guilty as the murderer. The "real killers" got by with it.
No, the "real killers" was not a mispoken phrase -- that
was an O.J. quote. Like his saying that the real killer(s)
could be found in the world of Nicole's friends & their
friends. Like Lizzie saying Hiram C. could clear her name.

I didn't mean she laid him -- I meant she laid
the blame on him.

The Lizzie Borden Sourcebook, David Kent, Brandon Publishing, Boston, 1992:  354-55

"TOOK 35-YEAR HOPE TO GRAVE
Lizzie Borden Lived in Expectation of Proving to Sceptical World She Never Killed Kin

By Ruth Bodwell  [no date]

'I would give every cent I have in the world and beg in the streets, if it could only be proved while I live that I did not kill my father and my stepmother.'

This was the prayer and the hope of Lizzie Borden who died the other day in Fall River after living for 35 years suspected, though acquitted, of having killed her father and her stepmother with an axe."....
.......

..."Only once during the friendship of this woman for Lizzie Borden did they talk directly about the gruesome murder.  One night the woman who was cleared of the murder but always suspected talked way into the night and early morning.

'She said she had a theory -- but --"When I know how easy it is to be accused, it ill befits me to accuse in my turn, since I do not know." '

Never Told Theory

'What the theory of the muder was, she never divulged, but she constantly hoped that before she died she would be proven clean-handed in the matter.'"...

Maybe she needed Mark Furhman<sp?> -- wasn't he the one who
found out who killed Martha Moxley after all those years?
Is there anything with DNA on it left? We need some real
professionals to start snooping around -- even if everyone
is too dead to stand trial for the crimes.

Didn't Nicole have a party at her house whose guests included drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes? Now that must be worse than actors and actresses?
...
Others have commented on the fact that HCH was in the house for a few minutes, and the story was much longer. Maybe it was fabricated by the police reporter to "stir up the sheet" and create a controversy?
"Now, Miss Lizzie, let's hear your side of this story."

(Message last edited Jul-10th-03  3:52 PM.)

There is a difference between being the killer and being convicted for it. Read your newspapers. The alleged attackers of the Central Park Jogger were freed after a dozen years, etc.
There was a magazine articel (Atlantic magazine?) that questioned the conviction of M Skakel. Did you read where the people who testified against him got reward money? That's why rewards are seldom offered; too big a change for perjury by an ambitious prosecutor.

I guess basically I'm still looking around for Miss Vicky's story and source on HH..  Our Lincoln is paperback and I can't find even your reference in there.

Is it very near the end, because this copy ends near page 303., at pg. 317.
What chapter # is that?

In this one it is: Book Six Lisbeth of Maplecroft: An
Epilogue #37 -- last paragraph:

Her friends expected her to clear up many questions
once the trial was over. She never did, though in time
she became more positive and outspoken in her suspicions
of Hiram C. Harrington. She mourned when he died, saying
that now her one chance of being really cleared was gone.

Another book quirk:
Spiering's has the broken off handle to the hatchet laying
beside the hatchet head that was used as evidence. That is
kind of wrong, right? Isn't it? (sometimes I just forget how
to remember)

Thanks I found it.  It really is on the top of pg. 303, in paperback.
I don't know her reference for that.  I can't think of anyplace to look, other than news sources and mine jump from Trial to Tilden Thurber to Emma leaves to death notices.

I'd always been thinking she never spoke much of the
murders -- much less point the finger at someone -- if
she did it & knew she did it & got away with it, why
bother? Even if the real killer confessed or whatever
I think she would have still been an outcast, she seems
to have been one before the murders too, at least going
by the Lincoln book.

I'm not sure to what instance you refer in Spiering, but the handle was supposedly found in the box with the hatchet head at first.  But Fleet claims not, or that he didn't see it.
Is that what you are asking?
They did not take the handle and it was never seen again.

Here is something I heard on a TV show, I think it was Matlock.  (This should bring Edisto out!)

They were taliking about hiding a knife and decided it was possible for the weapon to have been dropped down the rain spout...the downward rain gutter thing that goes down the house.  I wonder if they searched there in the Borden case?

This down-spout thingy attached to the back wall by the side steps, but in the back.

Gee!  Am I supposed to be an avid "Matlock" fan?  I admit I did enjoy the show when it was new.  Andy Griffith and I go 'way back.  (I've never met the man, but some of my North Carolina friends have. One summer when I was around 12, I saw him in the outdoor drama, "The Lost Colony."  He spoke the Queen's English perfectly.  No mushmouth accent at all.  He also used to dine at the same restaurant I frequented in Nag's Head/Kitty Hawk.)  Putting a knife down a rainspout would be a piece of cake, but an axe or hatchet would be quite another matter.  Those things just aren't terribly aerodynamic.

I didn't know you were one degree of separartion!  Cool story!

I only noticed you replied the last time I mentioned Matlock.  I can't recall the context.

If the handle and the hatchet head were separated, do you or does any one think each piece might fit down a rain pipe?  Hoping it got stuck of course.  And stayed IN the guttering instead of going down into, what, a rain barrell?(The Handel-lessHatchet head was about hand-sized I'd say.  My hand size.)  Is that too big for back then?

(Message last edited Jul-11th-03  10:58 PM.)

The hatchet handle story is in the Policeman's Picnic
chapter & it is where Bridget takes the cop to all the
hatchets -- you mean we have been trying to find that
handle & the police may have actually had it too & allowed
it to vanish? If it had the handle with it & the wood
wasn't stained with blood that kind of lessens it as being
the real murder weapon -- could Lizzie have been framed?
Rather than planting evidence they took some away to make
something look like it had been tampered with. This is a
very strange case.

And while looking at the downspout pic -- I was looking
at all those shutters -- some are half closed -- I always
wondered if she could have hid it out the window on the
sill & it was kept in place with the closed shutter --
would the police think of looking there? She could have
hid it there & then got it out later -- maybe hid it in
a coffin underneath the mattress?

--Here is the Trial testimony from Officer Michael Mullaly on the hatchet handle, start page 631:

(He is being cross-examined by Robinson)
Q.  And that piece of the handle which is now out of the eye of the hatchet you think does not look so new as it did at that time?
A.  It don't to me, not now.

Q.  And did Mr. Fleet put it back into the box again?
A.  If I remember right he put it back into the box.

Q.  Had you learned in any way, without giving the conversation, had you learned that that hatchet head had been seen before by any one?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  You didn't know that Mr. Fleet had seen it before?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Were you looking yourself, helping him to investigate to find anything?
A.  Sometimes I worked with him.

Q.  I mean particularly when this head of the hatchet was found in that box.
A.  He came down in the cellar and asked me where Miss Sullivan got those hatchets from, and I showed him.

Q.  In that same box?
A.  In that same box.

Q.  And then he looked in the box?
A.  He went there and he took it out.

Q.  And you had not been there to look before?
A.  No; I had

Page 631

not been there to look in the box.

Q.  Did you afterwards look in the box?
A.  I did not. As I remember of I didn't look in it.

Q.  Do you know anything of what became of the box?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Nothing else was taken out of it while you were there?
A.  Nothing but the hatchet and parts of the handle.

Q.  Well, parts. That piece?
A.  That piece, yes.

Q.  Well, that was in the eye, wasn't it?
A.  Yes; then there was another piece.

Q.  Another piece of what?
A.  Handle.

Q.  Where is it?
A.  I don't know.

Q.  Don't you know where it is?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Was it a piece of that same handle?
A.  It was a piece that corresponded with that.

Q.  The rest of the handle?
A.  It was a piece with a fresh break in it.

Q.  The other piece?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Well, where is it?
A.  I don't know.

Q.  Did you see it after that?
A.  I did not.

Q.  Was it a handle to a hatchet?
A.  It was what I call a hatchet handle.

Q.  I want to know about how long it was?
A.  Well, I couldn't tell you how long it was. I didn't measure it.

Q.  No, I understand, but I mean about.  Give your best judgment?
A.  I don't think it was as long as the handle in them hatchets there.

Q.  Shorter than that?
A.  It was shorter than them, if I remember right.

Q.  Well, did you take it out of the box?
A.  I did not.

Page 632

Q.  Did you see it taken out?
A.  I did.

Q.  Who took it out?
A.  Mr. Fleet took it out.

Q.  Mr. Fleet took it out?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  You were there?
A.  I was there.

Q.  Anybody else?
A.  Not as I know of.

Q.  Did Mr. Fleet put that back too?
A.  He did.

MR. ROBINSON. (To opposing counsel)  Have you that handle here, gentlemen?

MR. KNOWLTON. No.

MR. ROBINSON. You haven't it in your possession, may I ask?

MR. KNOWLTON. Never had it

MR. ROBINSON. The government does not know where it is?

MR. KNOWLTON. I don't know where it is. This is the first time I ever heard of it.

Q.  Did you ever tell anybody about this before?
A.  No, sir, never did.


--Then Fleet is recalled.  There is cross-examination by Robinson and re-direct by Moody with an interjected question by Robinson.
Fleet & Mullaly were the ones to see the HH.  One see's a handle and the other claims not to.  Who to believe?  The state wanted that handle and were not granted permission to take any more evidence from the house.

Trial, 640:

MR. KNOWLTON. If your Honors please, I think that it is important that an investigation should be had to see whether the piece of wood that had been described by Mr. Mullally is still in that box. In order that it be done with entire fairness, I ask that somebody be designated to go over with an officer to do it. I know of no other way to have it done promptly. I make this motion with no other interest than that of justice.

MR. ROBINSON. Justice is what we want.

MR. KNOWLTON. Do you object to the appointment of an officer for that purpose?

MR. ROBINSON. That is not a matter for consideration now.

MASON, C. J. The Court cannot interfere with the preparation of the case.


--The State sent Edson to try and get the handle.  This is a YEAR later, Btw.


Trial, Edson, 652+

Q.  Mr. Edson, did you go last night to the house that was occupied in his lifetime by Andrew J. Borden?
A.  Yesterday afternoon, sir.

Q.  About what time?
A.  Twenty minutes of four.

Q.  And in consequence of some instructions?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Did anyone go with you?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Who went with you?
A.  Officer Mahoney.

Page 653

Q.  Did you obtain admittance?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Did you go to the door and make yourself known?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Did any one come to the door?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Who came to the door?
A.  The servant girl.

Q.  Of course you effected no entrance, you made no entrance?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Did you try to?  I do not mean by forcible means, but by persuasion?
A.  I sent word to Miss Emma Borden through the servant girl.

MR. ROBINSON. You do not want the conversation?

MR. MOODY. No, I do not care for it.

Q.  And you failed to get admittance?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  You had tried to get admittance, did you?

MR. ROBINSON. I do not want the conversation. Let him state what he did.

A.  I requested to be admitted; that is all.

661+  [Back to questioning about his earlier search.  The hatchet head was taken Monday, Aug. 8]
.....Q.  What did you take?
A.  Officer Medley had a hatchet head in his pocket.

Q.  Did you see it?
A.  He showed it to me partly.

Q.  Do you know where he got it?
A.  I do not.

Q.  When did he show it to you?
A.  Just as he was about to leave he came to me and pulled it out of his pocket, and it was in a paper, and says, "I am going down street---“

Q.  I needn't say what he said. He took it out of his pocket?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  It was wrapped in a paper?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  You didn't see it before that?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Did you examine it?
A.  No, sir,---glanced at it, that is all.

Q.  What did he do with it?
A.  Went off with it, or away from the building.

Q.  Did he go away before the rest of you?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  How soon after you arrived there?
A.  Not a great while after.

Q.  It was only the small hatchet---had no handle?
A.  No handle.

Q.  And he didn't have any handle in his possession, did he, that he showed to you?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  You didn't see any loose handle around there?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  And you didn't find one yourself?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  And I think you say you don't know where Mr. Medley got it?
A.  I don't know.




(Message last edited Jul-12th-03  2:27 AM.)

NO, that is one thing that F Spiering got right.

I'm sure that a lot of people still believe that OJ "did it", in spite of all the known facts since June 1994. IF they did catch the "real killers", they would still believe in a cover-up.
Note that killings by organized crime are seldom solved.

Assuming that picture is real and not a fake, it is NOT a downspout. It is not attached to the roof gutters. It could be a drain from the second floor sink, if there was one. But unlikely to be outside, given Mass. winters.

Kat, I believe that downspout thingy on the back of the house was a drain waste venting pipe, its right on the back of the sink room.  I don't quite understand how it works, but, you need air flow to your drains so that they function properly.  From what I've read, normally that pipe would go up and out the roof of the house or all the way up the back of the house to where the sink room would have been on the second floor in Mrs. Borden's dressing room. 

Does it come out of the interior wall to the outside?
Does the elder Borden bedroom have a sink?  I didn't think it did.
If it was from the kitchen level sink room it would make sense...but this is second story at the least.
Do we really know what that is?  More info?
I thought it might be a broken rain spout.
This is interesting.

William explained to me once what he thought that "pipe" was and it was very reasonable but for the life of me I cannot remember.  In fact I thought I started a thread on that very subject but have not been able to locate it. Maybe it was embedded in another thread.

William, can you refresh my mind?

Yes, it would come from the interior wall to the outside in this case.  Normally it would be built into the wall and go up and out the roof, look on the roof of your own home say over the bathroom or kitchen, you should see a pipe sticking up out of the roof.

My first thought was that the Borden house was originally fitted for 2 tenements, so, both floors were built alike.  But, that doesn't necessarily mean that there were 2 sink rooms, my mistake, because there wasn't running water in the house when Andrew bought it.  He had running water installed in the house after it was built.  My thought was that maybe instead of tearing apart all the walls, they made a hole and ran the venting stack on the back of the house.  I don't know this for sure, just a guess as to why there would be a pipe on the house in that vicinity.

I was thinking if it was a rain gutter downspout, it should be at the corner of the house, the gutters would be on the eaves of the roof and end there at the front corner of the house and the back. I don't think the downspout would be so far over from the corner of the back of the house.

I was thinking also that the indoor privy was on that side of the house, there is no venting pipe that I can see on the side of the house where the privy is exactly, perhaps it served for that also? 

(Message last edited Jul-14th-03  1:59 AM.)

Thanks for all that, Kat.  If you look on the current day house pic you can see a venting stack.  Look where the side door is and go up to the roof above there, see that piece of pipe sticking up, thats a vent stack, thats how they are normally done.  Isn't there a window directly where the privy sat?  I'm wondering if they vented directly out of that or if there was a pipe that maybe went into the chimney? 

Yes, if it was a drain to the second floor sink. No running water does not mean they didn't use a well for water, carrying up buckets. IMO.

After the Civil War, the growing threat of cholera forced many public health laws to be passed. No wells, no privies, no pigs foraging in the streets, etc.

You can see the downspouts connect to the roof gutters to carry away the rain water. Very important to keep water away from the foundation!

Hello Harry,

Yes, we had a discussion about this "pipe" on February 7th of this year.

It is my opinion that it was a water collecting device, used to collect rain water(soft water)to wash clothes.  The city water of that day (before Andrew purchased the house)was hard water, and unsuitable for laundry purposes.  I have seen these large diameter pipes on other houses of that period.  Most were removed when the city water "softened" their product. This was a forerunner to the old rain barrel which many farmhouses in isolated districts still employ where the regular water supply is hard. It is also used for vegtable and flower gardens in addition to washing clothes. The "pipe" was of a larger diameter than a drain pipe, and usually ended above a cistern for the collection of the water. The pipe in the picture is only half of the contraption; it was usually hooked up to a drain or other collecting device on the roof. I have seen photographs
of the house that show the cistern. Soft water contains less dissolved minerals.

(Message last edited Jul-14th-03  3:45 PM.)

Back in the 1940s, a time for when I barely remember the details, we used to stay at relatives who lived in the country. No running water (no electricity): a privy out back by the woodshed, a well alongside the house. It was the son's job to fill a bucket from the well to bring water into the kitchen; quite a job when you're 5 or 6 ("builds character"). Obviously they spilled it into the sink; where did it go?

That reminds me about AR Brown's story about Henry Hawthorne. Growing up on a farm taught him about hard work; and that he wanted to something else: selling labor saving machinery to farmers in the country. Yes, hard work teaches you something.

I once lived for a number of years in a rural county where they had a well (runs on electricty), and a cesspool. Do you know what happens when the electricity is out? Or the cesspool fills up? Or there is a drought? Like Henry Hawthorne, I learned I never wanted to live w/o city water and electricity.

Thank you Bill, that brings it back. 

That picture is so distorted that I had originally thought it was some kind of support holding up the corner of the house. LOL

I wonder where the rest of it is?  And no barrel below it.
Do you suppose they searched for a weapon there and didn't put it back together again?
Knowing that it was wider than a rain spout helps support the idea that a hatchet head the size of my hand might have possibly been crammed in there.
(If they can find a handle-less hatchet in the cellar, doesn't mean there is not another...)
Thanks William.

Susan, in Stef's movie the tour guide mentions venting for the privy and describes that.  I think it was the cellar windor just above the seat, but also another contraption.  If you load the cellar video Stef may repeat what the lady said about venting.

Thanks William, love to learn new stuff!


Kat, rewatched the cellar video, that window was used to vent and there is a hole in the ceiling too.  Stef didn't say whether there was once a pipe going up through there though.  Wow, watching that video makes it sooooooo real, like I can just picture Lizzie walking through those rooms, its wild! 

These are supposedly the original interior cellar door locks from when the house was built.  How the Hostess could know this, I don't know, but at least it is known these locks were there at the time of the murders.  The upper spring lock was likened to the front door spring lock.
These views were taken by me from the C-D of  Stef's movie which she made for me.  I watched it today and took down a bit of what was explained by *Emma*..as tour guide, in 1997.
(Contributed by permission of S.K.)



Please note the steps.  They arise from OutSide the Interior cellar door and must have led to that Exterior cellar door we see stuck on the back of the house like a box...because we see no steps on the outside going down



(Message last edited Jul-15th-03  10:42 PM.)

Thanks, Kat.  Cool to see those images stopped like that, probably the only pics we really have of the cellar.  So, there was a pipe, okay, that makes sense.  Now I'm wondering if the cellar was white-washed in Lizzie's day or if everything was left natural?  The cellar would have been one dark, scary place, actually, it still is with those white walls! 

The Hostess implied there might have been *arsenic* in the paint on the walls down there.  I might have misheard that because it was a beginning of a scene.
BUT,Apparently Lizzie could just scrape arsenic off the walls down there!  (Not proven, guys)

Anyway, yes think how dark with only oil lamps or kerosene!

The floor had been dirt, which I assume it is no longer.
There were a couple of holes in the floor which were for drainage.
There was a place where someone could hide, if you would like me to get that.

Well, unless those walls were painted some other color than white, possibly.  Remember my post from quite some time ago about poisonous paints?  Arsenic was used in yellows, yellow-greens, and certain greens, off the top of my head, white just usually contained vast quantities of lead.

Is the hiding place that big opening in the back of the chimney?  Yes, I would like to see that, Stefani says in the video that it is big enough for someone to stand in. 

The Hostess said this is the back of the fireplace and if there was no fire in there a person could hide.  She pointed UP into the interior, up above, out of sight.  She said the house was built in 1845  while there were still Indians who could scare the community and a person could hide up in the top of the fireplace.  (It sounded almost as if the hiding place was built-in.)

She also pointed to the pegs above the opening and said that Bridget could hang her clean wash there to dry if the weather was inclement.



(Message last edited Jul-17th-03  6:15 AM.)

How deep in does that recess go?  I'm sitting here staring at this photo trying to crane my neck so I can see up into it and wanting a flashlight! 

Is this the "jog" in the chimney that they always refer to where the box of hatchets were found?  I get confused by that statement. 

Those pegs always looked more like a place to hang a ham than clothes --
maybe they kept a leg of mutton in there to cure?

Preliminary
Mullaly
347+

A.  When I came down stairs, I met Bridget Sullivan, and then we went down stairs to look for the axes.
Q.  Did Bridget go with you?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  What took place down there?
A.  We went down cellar, and went along to the left.
Q.  Did Bridget lead the way?
A.  Bridget led the way to the left. We went in, and in a small box, I would not say whether it was a partition across there, or not, but she reached up, and took two hatchets out of this box, and passed them to me. We came out of there, and went into an apartment south of the furnace, I believe, or hot water heater, I believe it was. In there we found two axes. I took them down.
Q.  Where were they?
A.  They were on the south side of the cellar up against the wall. I would not say whether they were on a shelf, or whether there was something put there to hold them up. I know I reached up and took them down.
Q.  Was this a covered box, these two hatchets were in?
A.  No, the top was open.
Q.  Did you take any notice of the hatchets when you got them down?
A.  I did.
Q.  What did you notice about them?
A.  One was larger than the other.
Q.  Anythingelse?
A.  On the large one, there was a small rust spot.
Q.  Anythingelse?
A.  That was all I noticed. On the axes, both handles were covered with ashes.
Q.  Anythingelse?
A.  Then while I was in the wash room, I believe it was Mr. Doherty called my attention to some cloths in a pail.
Q.  Skip them now. You looked at them?
A.  We took them out, and looked at them, and put them back again. No, I wont say I put them back again.
(Mr. Adams)  You disclaim any connection?
(Mr. Knowlton)  For this hearing to this Court, I make no claim about those things, whatever. I do not bind myself to any accidental future discoveries. So far as I am at present advised, I make no claim.
Q.  Go on, Mr. Mullaly.
A.  I left those axes on the cellar floor in the wash room.
Q.  As you go down, you have a kind of walk there, and a passageway that leads right to the water closet, if I remember?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Do you go along that walk to go to the place where you found the hatchet, or steer off from there?
A.  Go towards Second street.
Q.  Go by the water closet?
A.  No, just before you get to the water closet, on the south side of the house, we found those hatchets.
Q.  In that room that is a passageway?
A.  It looked to me like an alley way.
Q.  The first thing you get into when you get down the cellar stairs is what I should call, the same as you do, an alley way; is that right?
A.  Yes Sir, that is the way it looked to me.
Q.  Was it in that alleyway you found those things?
A.  No Sir, I found them in the cellar further to the southward.
Q.  Which side of the house are the back steps on, the north side?
A.  They are on the north side.
Q.  You go right down cellar from that door; now where is the water closet, towards the street?
A.  Towards the street.
Q.  You do not go quite so far as the water closet, before you get to those hatchets?
A.  Just before you get to the water closet, we went into this department in the cellar where there was a lot of wood piled up.
Q.  That was a wood house then?
A.  Yes Sir. We carried out the hatchets, and put them on the cellar floor.
Q.  Hatchets and axes?
A.  Yes Sir.




It sounds as though there was a passageway from the stairs at least to the water closet.  I have made red dots there to describe a passageway.
The first room to the south sounds like where the hatchets were, and the next room west toward the street, where the axes were (in the southern part of the room).
This second wood room I have included as the source of the axes because it sounds like Mullaly went into the next room past the hatchets, and also the 1997 Hostess showed that room farthet west as where the implements were found and called it a wood room.

--I had to print out the testimony to study the map.  If anyone disputes this interpretation I will re-do the markings on the map until it is right.


(Message last edited Jul-18th-03  3:18 AM.)

Thanks, Kat.  So that pic of the big opening was on the laundry room side of the chimney and the "chink" or jog(as I've heard it called) where the hachets were found was on the wood room side.  It gets confusing when you see all those images of the basement and don't quite know where it is located.  The privy one was obvious. 

So, from your post, there was some sort of wall that seperated the area where the privy was from the rest of the rooms in the basement.  Must have made it even more dark and gloomy. 

According to the Hostess, the privy itself was enclosed.  So that might have been the artificial barrier or the origin of the *passageway* depending on how big the unit was.  She called it a *two-seater* but I think that might imply, if true, male and female use, because I just can't envision family members *going* together!
This may be disputed by now tho.  Does anyone remember if Mr. Pavao remarked on this?  Or does anyone know?

--Maybe she is referring to when the house was built and there really was a PRIVY in that cellar.  Then it might be divided by FAmily, and divided in 1/2 as well?

(Message last edited Jul-18th-03  3:58 AM.)

Well, I can't say for sure as I've never seen the Borden's privy.  But, I did see an episode of This Old House where there was a multi-seater privy in the barn, possibly 2 seater.  The reason being is that there was one adult sized privy hole and then a smaller, child-sized privy hole.  I guess they didn't have potty seats back then to keep kids from falling in the privy hole. 

You got it Susan.  In the old song,"A Shanty in Old Shanty Town," there is a line that goes, "There's a large hole for Paw, and a small hole for me." ALL two holers were two different sizes, for the very obvious and practical reason - and our ancestors were nothing if not practical.

Did they really have a two-holer in their basement? I thought there was a picture of a regular flush toilet in the basement?

Note no cistern or drain in the back by that gutter (?) from 2nd floor. The two wood and coal bins reflect the fact that the house was originally for two-families. Andy forclosed on it, then turned it into a one-family house. Does E Pearson's "Trial of LB" tell about this? (My library has neither the 1937 or 1963 versions.)

From my personal experience NO ONE EVER put a privy in their cellar!!!
They were in back of the house, and could be moved to a new pit when the old pit was filled. Your experiences invited.

Andrew purchased the house at 92 Second St. in April 1872 while still in the undertaking supply business with his partner Almy. He paid the owner, Charles Trafton, the then huge sum of $10,000 for the property (some 30 sq. rods) on which the house stood.  Charles Trafton had the house built for him by Southard Miller in 1845.

This information is in Rebello, Appendix C and the source is the Registry of Deeds, Fall River, MA (Book 72, page 70)

160 sq. rods = 1 acre.  So Andrew bought the equivalent of 1/5 of an acre. Using the inflation calculator that $10,000 is the equivalent of approx. $145,000 in 2002.

There is no record of this transaction as a foreclosure.

Considering that Second Street was in decline as a neighborhood, maybe it was Mr. Trafton who got the better of the deal. It certainly wasn't one of Andy's better transactions.

Further evidence it was not a foreclosure is Lizzie's inquest testimony, page 47:

"Q. How much of that time have they lived in that house on Second street?
A. I think, I am not sure, but I think about twenty years last May.
Q. Always occupied the whole house?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Somebody told me it was once fitted up for two tenements.
A. When we bought it it was for two tenements, and the man we bought it of stayed there a few months until he finished his own house. After he finished his own house and moved into it there was no one else ever moved in; we always had the whole."


(Message last edited Jul-18th-03  5:00 PM.)

Thanks, William.  I guess we can safely assume this was the case at the Borden's house then.  Its amazing what we come up with when we put our heads together. 

I am only repeating what the Hostess said in 1997.  You can tell her no one ever put a privy in the cellar.
She said it was a convienience, it's being inside, and did call it a *two-seater*.  She also pointed out the places for ventilation and that a pipe used to vent up through the roof the *methane gas*.

The installment of an interior Privy around 1845 or when it was still a 2-family temement might be something Bill Pavao or Mr. Rebello might know about.

Thanks Susan & William for the extra info as to seat size and use.  I never thought of that!

this is something i wish we could clear up.  that privy was "city sewage" wasn't it?  not the same as a primitive outhouse?  and not the same thing as the thing out by the barn?

The city water became available in 1874.  By June of that year Andrew had running water and two fawcets installed at what was then #66 Second Street.
(LBQ July, '97).
Around 1880, maybe there would be the flush toilet.
Prior to 1874, with no running water, the house may have had the indoor privy in the cellar.
The convenience in the back of the barn may have been a real privy, like an outhouse, but inside the back of the barn.

It seems the "Improved Water Closet" was around 1878, and the "Fields Flushing Cistern" was about 1879.  The next bunch of innovations seem to be in the 1880's.


(Message last edited Jul-19th-03  4:06 AM.)

This is an example of an "ash pit privy" and is what I picture in the cellar before the flushing water system.



There's a couple of things to note.  That we are told the girls do not use the convenience in the barn, and then also Emma is asked if she ever has any reason to go in the cellar and I recall the questioner answered himself saying something like *of course you don't*.  I wondered just Where, then Emma goes to the bathroom.?
It's also implied that Andrew does use the privy in the barn.  (this info from Bridget?)

(Message last edited Jul-19th-03  4:12 AM.)

Judging by the look on Emma's face, I don't imagine she ever went to the bathroom at all!  Seriously, maybe she simply used a slop jar in her room at all times.  Of course, that leaves the question of where it was emptied and by whom.  I suppose she could have trudged out into the snow and dumped it in the privy behind the barn.  --Or scattered it all over the yard, as Andrew apparently did.  Sure made them pear trees grow...

All this has made me wonder if there was an original two seater privy in the basement that was converted to some sort of flushing system or if it was installed that way with the advent of the city water system?  From what I've been reading on many different sites, toilet bowls as we know them today have been available since about 1873.  Perhaps this was part of Lizzie's discontent with the lack of "modern conveniences" at #92, no pretty, modern toilet, just an old, primitive 2 seater flush system.

From the sounds of it, I'm thinking that the questioner was asking Emma if she had any chores that would take her to the cellar; laundry, chopping wood, etc., which of course, she didn't.  I don't think he was asking her whether she used the privy facilities in the basement or not, it would be considered indelicate for the times.  So, my take is that Emma, like Lizzie, used the cellar facilities.

Wasn't Abby also stated as using the barn privy sometimes?  I think it may have been Andrew's "waste not, want not" mentality, they had an extra privy facility, why not use it? 

Preliminary
Bridget
33
Q.  That privy out behind the barn, was that used by any member of the family, was that in use?
A.  Mr. Borden used it.
Q.  Did anybodyelse besides him?
A.  Mrs. Borden sometimes.
Q.  Did you ever know the girls to use it?
A.  No Sir.

--I thought Andrew might like to go sit and think in the privy in the barn, especially if the females of the house used the cellar.
..........

Here is Emma at Inquest.  The questions are put so delicately to her and practly answers himself:
110

Q.  Do you know whether there were two axes down stairs before about this time?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Do you mean by that that you dont know whether there were or not, or that you know there were not any?
A.  I dont know whether there were or not.
Q.  There might have been for all you knew?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  You had no occasion to use them, of course?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Probably did not have a great deal of business down cellar?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  The water closet I believe was down cellar?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Besides that, you did not go down very much?
A.  Not very often. I had nothing to go for.
....
--Then she admits to seeing a hatchet in the wood room several months before.  I think she needs more roughage.

If I were Andrew, I think I'd rather sit in the privy &
think about my miserly, miserable existance rather than
sitting under the trees in the backyard.



I think Emma could hold everything in -- but Lizzie
couldn't hold as much, and one day -- she exploded. I'm
talking about rage & resentment, of course.

Thanks, Kat.  So, Emma admits to using that cellar privy.  One other thing that I thought of was that if Emma was still menstruating, she would need to do as Lizzie and go down cellar and rinse her cloths and put them under the laundry room sink to await washing.  Do you think she may have hit menopause already? 

Don't laugh, but, I've read before that in certain foods that sawdust is used as "filler" and it is considered acceptable. 

you're funny, edisto.  mr. borden's pears certainly were popular, it seems.

That's exactly what I was wondering, personal laundry.
I don't know why Emma would insist that she had nothing to go to the cellar for.  I would think the cellar might be where she did small wash.  But maybe not.  There was a drying rack as I recall in Emma's room.  So maybe hankies and such were washed in their room basins and then the items wrung out there and hung on that rack and the basin emptied outside later?

BTW:  From what Emma said, tho, she doesn't exactly say she uses the cellar toilet.  The questioner answers himself....It's always tricky when they do that:
Q.  Probably did not have a great deal of business down cellar?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  The water closet I believe was down cellar?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Besides that, you did not go down very much?
A.  Not very often. I had nothing to go for.

Yes, maybe the word "admits" wasn't the correct term, its more like Emma allows that she uses that cellar privy.  She doesn't disagree with the questioner on that point.

Q.  Besides that, you did not go down very much?
A.  Not very often. I had nothing to go for.

I went on a search to check if Emma did have some sort of drying rack in her room and couldn't find it.  My assumption was that maybe she had some sort of towel rack in her room by her wash basin.  I did find this though, couldn't locate it in any of the other documents where Alice Russell testified.  From Alice's trial testimony when questioned on Lizzie's hankies:

Q. Do you remember what became of them?
A. I took them upstairs and as I was went in Miss Lizzie said, "Oh, yes, those are what I was ironing."

Q. What was done with them?
A. I said,"What shall I do with them, and she said, "Lay them in this drawer." and I took those that were sprinkled and lay them over Miss Lizzie's towel rack to dry.

Is this another one of those weird misconceptions we've been laboring under?  This makes more sense to me than Alice putting Lizzie's damp hankies in Emma's room to dry.   

That was a good job finding that.  I remembered it was Alice but I didn't look it up at the time.  Thanks.  Lizzie's  towel rack, hmmm?
Do you mean there is not a drying rack then for extra items specifically washed by the girls in their rooms?
That was my misconception then.
I also had some idea that the rack was temporarily in Emma's room because Emma was away and it took up space.
I wonder where I got that from?  I guess I need to wipe that visual from my mind!

No, no, this has been my misconception too!  I recall very clearly reading that Alice took the damp hankies and brought them up and put them on some sort of rack in Emma's room to dry.  Where?  I couldn't tell you!  After reading Alice's trial testimony it makes much more sense that they stayed in Lizzie's room as they were hers.  My guess is that this might be one of those author inventions, hence my question whether that was one of those things we just took at face value when Alice states otherwise. 

It's not "sawdust", its "cellulose" (refined processed wood fiber).
Check YOUR ingredients for this bulking product. You should know you get this cellulose whenever you eat vegetables.

This sounds like Emma is saying "Bridget does the laundry", and, "I don't know much about what's down there".

Susan, you were right.  It's Lincoln who says:

"Alice was Emma's intimate friend, not Lizzie's; so from time to time she tactfully left Mrs. Holmes and Lizzie alone and moved about downstairs, tidying up. She brought up Lizzie's hat, and some handkerchiefs that had been lying beside the ironing board on the dining-room table. There were five or six of these, two or three only sprinkled and not yet pressed. Lizzie told her to hang them on the rack in Emma's room."  (Lincoln 129,130)

Thanks, Diana.  Now the question is, where did Lincoln obtain this information?  I couldn't find it in any of the source documents, maybe someone else might have better luck? 

Yes, really, thanks Diana!  I can't believe I retained that from Lincoln!
The picture is so vivid in my mind.  I thought Lizzie might be *taking over* Emma's room because Emma was gone.  Maybe because I might do the same?  Drying rack in there, and Lizzie did come out of Emma's room tying her red ribbon on her Pink wrapper the day of the murders.  It seemed as if Lizzie kept that dress in there to me and so changed in there, but that was just an impression.

I wonder why Lizzie was coming out of Emma's room that day?

Apparently it was Emma's rack as well.  From the trial, p-399:

"Q. Do you remember what became of them?
A. I took them upstairs and as I went in Miss Lizzie said, "Oh, yes, those are what I was ironing."
Q. What was done with them?
A. I said, "What shall I do with these? and she said, "Lay them in this drawer," and I took those that were sprinkled and lay them over Miss Emma's towel rack to dry."

Speaking of racks, Porter, in the Fall River Tragedy (page 18) quotes an alleged interview with Dr. Bowen in speaking of Mrs. Borden.  This is also quoted in the Evening Standard (Aug. 6, 1892, page 2):

"One glance blow cut off nearly two square inches of flesh from the side of the head. In my judgment, the dead woman did not struggle. She was rendered unconscious by the first blow. Not a chair was displaced and not a towel disturbed on a rack near by.

I hadn't heard of a towel rack in the guest room.  Porter probably got it from the paper.

Thank you, Harry!!!  I guess there may be a typo in the Alice Russell Trial Testimony document then, that is where I pulled up the info that it was Lizzie's rack.  I'm assuming that the original trial document is the correct with the reference to Emma's rack?

Its the same bit of questioning. 

It seems the hard copy of the trial does have, on the page number specified, the information in testimony of Alice Russell, that the towel rack referred to was Emma's.

In my computer there is an older, Word document version of the trial and that testimony does say "Lizzie's".

This document has recently been proof-read by Harry so it's great he noted the discrepancy.

I'm not sure if the proofed version has been yet made available on the web-site as around that time Stef was away while Harry was busy checking that whole document.  Watch this space.  Either the new proofed version is available or will be very soon.

This is really good work we do here and finding these kinds of discrepencies helps everyone!  Goddess!  Remember our discussion as to whether Alice went upstairs initially with Lizzie?
That led to a re-proof of the Inquest part II and an improved download available at the web-site.  (We're accomplishing things on many different levels!)

--Sorry Susan your post wasn't there when I was composing mine

(Message last edited Jul-21st-03  11:51 PM.)

I'm currently proofing the Preliminary.  Almost through Volume 4 and have some of Volume 5 done as well.  Another 5 to 10 days and that should be done.

(Message last edited Jul-22nd-03  1:22 AM.)

No problem, Kat.  Glad that it was found, so, Emma's rack is the correct way the trial document should read? 


Thanks, Harry.  Your hard work and diligence is greatly appreciated!  I know I go crosseyed reading and re-reading the documents sometimes. 

OOPS, Susan you and I going in circles find out the most interesting things don't you think?
And it's always poor Alice.
What is she trying to tell us?

Yes Harry has worked very hard proofing and HE deserves a vacation!
It is really head-ache producing work, proof-reading!

Hmmm, yes, we do.  I'm not sure, but, do you think that Alice's info only had the surface scratched and theres alot more there than she allows?  We do keep having issues with her and have to go digging, wish we could go back and dig at her in person and see what secrets we could pull out of her. 

I love that book, but Lincoln is an expert writer of fiction and can't resist providing descriptions of actions which are given unadorned in court record.  Therefore, Alice may have stated that she left Mrs. Holmes alone with Lizzie; Lincoln feels compelled to add "tactfully."

And she has the nerve to assure us in her forward that she is NOT inventing.  Well, maybe not inventing, but certainly embellishing.  I'd still like to know how she came to the conclusion that Abby's old calico just about glowed ("showed up') in the shuttered, darkened guest room, or that Lizzie was incapable of bearing rebuff, "even from a child."

This is a novelist at work.

I agree, Bob G.  Love the book, hate all the false impressions it gave me.  Thats why I've chosen recently to just stick to the documents and use what I find there and come up with my own conclusions. 

But doesn't Victoria Lincold say she wrote her book based on "in-group gossip", the Legend of LAB? Probably some research from the few secondary sources. E Radin's 1961 book basically reopened the case, and disputed the Legend.

Lincoln's was the first book I read about the case. This was years ago when I lived in a tiny little apartment in West Hollywood with zero dollars and a library card as my only entertainment ticket. I brought that book home and read it cover to cover in one sitting -- and the hook was in! 

When people indicate to me that they want to know something about the murders -- that's the book I recommend.  I'm not happy that it may turn out to be the only knowledge they get about about the case -- but because it inspired me to pursue the Borden mystery further -- I continue to hope it will fuel that thirst in others.  Since then, I've read, and bought, shelves full of books about the Bordens -- some better, some  worse.  (And of course I agree that the primary source documents are the best resources.) But it was Victoria Lincoln who brought the case to life for me. 

One of the historians on the 'Murder at Harvard' program said that it's possible the fictionalizing of history provides a means to get at the truth simply because it raises questions that surface only when the evidence is reworked in an imaginative way.

So, although it's unwise to put much stock in any of these fictionalized accounts of the Borden case -- they do provide us with a way to examine what really happened from a number of different angles -- skewed or otherwise.  It's all grist for the mill.

Oh, I couldn't live without my copies of Lincoln on the shelf, and she certainly makes you feel what it was like back in old Fall River.  It's only with the recent ability to discuss the case across great distances on the Net that I've been forced to rethink my first impressions and conclusions.  I regretted having to read the book a few years ago with a somewhat jaundiced eye, concentrating on Lincoln's need to connect everything and to helpfully fill in motivation for everyone's actions.  It's a brilliant book, but Lincoln creatively uses at least as much sleight of hand as she accuses Robinson of (when she tells us how he, in the courtroom, made her choice of murder weapon - the handleless hatchet - "disappear").

For example, Lincoln theorizes how she, as Lizzie, would not discover Abby's blood on her stockings until she changed her dress for the street.  Lincoln has us suppose that Lizzie wrapped the stockings in "something - let us say a blanket," and that she then sneakily placed the bundle in Emma's closet.  So, later, when Lincoln reveals that the police reported that they had to push hard on Emma's closet door to close it, as a bundled-up blanket was in the way, we're meant to be stunned, and convinced that the blanket indeed contained something sinister.  Lincoln was, of course, merely working backwards, as many of the best mystery writers do, but she certainly and skillfully works to convince the reader that, had the police simply not ignored the contents of that bundle, the outcome of their investigation would have been very different.

(Message last edited Jul-23rd-03  5:13 PM.)

Am I the only one who thinks that if I had a choice to
run into Lizzie Borden or Victoria Lincoln in a dark
alley, I'd feel safer with Lizzie?

***One of the historians on the 'Murder at Harvard' program said that it's possible the fictionalizing of history provides a means to get at the truth simply because it raises questions that surface only when the evidence is reworked in an imaginative way.

So, although it's unwise to put much stock in any of these fictionalized accounts of the Borden case -- they do provide us with a way to examine what really happened from a number of different angles -- skewed or otherwise.  It's all grist for the mill. ***

i agree with that.  there is definitely something to it.  many people tend to think that fiction and history, for example, are worlds apart -- when actually it takes a literary talent to reveal truth, to make it real.  you've got your fact-collecting but then it has to be "put together."  at some point you'll be required to understand a human dynamic.

funny you should say that about reading lincoln's book from the library (1st book) -- that was my experience as well.  it was before i saw the '75 movie, but i must have heard of lizzie borden before.  i can't remember when i had not heard of lizzie borden.

as far as the borden case is concerned, i've recently been testing some pretty wild solutions just to see if it might shed light on something or as you say, raise a question.  i think it would be worthwhile to construct a bridget is guilty scenario, a bridget&lizzie guilty scenario, etc.  for one thing, if it's possible to do so with an overall veracity equal to that of lincoln or brown, for example -- what does that in itself say?

I think a book could be made out of that very idea & Stef and I had discussed something along those lines.  We discarded it for ourselves, but as a group effort, eveyone adding a bit as they can toward a certain theory at a time, here, would be very interesting.  And challenging.

We each would have to suspend our belief in whatever is our pet theory and sincerely dedicate to following all the details through each scenario.
It would be mind opening.  There could only be constructive criticism tho as we head for a common goal.  Who better than a large group with resources, to pitch a theory and work it up.

Then pitch another and work that up.

(Message last edited Jul-24th-03  12:38 AM.)

Now you're talking, Kat!  Writing a group book would be a valuable contribution to the Borden mystery.  And there are so many on the forum who are creative, knowledgeable and experienced.  I like that idea.

The best and quickest introduction to the Borden Murder Mystery is Rick Geary's illustrated booklet. Next, D Kent's "40 Whacks" pretty much summarizes the know facts (fictions?) circa 1991.
Too bad he is with the Silent Majority, like AR Brown.
...
Both books should be readily available in your Public Library, if out of print.

(Message last edited Jul-24th-03  11:59 AM.)

Fiction is one thing that must be plausible to the reader; or why truth is stranger than fiction. Making up things can't be defended. But deducing events from known facts is another. Use this test for any writings on the subject.

Writing, then publishing, a book needs a great deal of time (and money). There is a very limited audience for this.

But a site like this can be used. Ever hear of those puzzles: Tom owns a Ford and lives in a duplex, Sam owns a green car and lives in an apartment, Mary owns a yellow car and lives at home, etc.

You create a matrix (like a spreadsheet) with the KNOWN FACTS then deduce how to fill in the empty boxes and discover the hidden truth.
But I suspect the known facts are so few as to make this solution impossible. Else AR Brown would have discovered and printed this truth.

that's a great idea.  i would participate.

We have come close to doing this in some of our discussions.
I have actually thought we were near a viable solution a few times, coming at the case from a couple of different directions.
But we tend to veer off.  Or, more likely, tend not to see the possibilities staring us in the face.  We've dropped it just when I thought we were close.
I could not figure this out.
Anyway, we don't necessarilly need continuity of posters, just the common goal.  I realize not everyone has the same amount of time to devote to this type of thing.
I would prefer it be informal, in the way of our discussions, but if someone would like to make a plan or outline to start, we could try that.
Basically I think any theory would have to explain some main mysteries:
What happened to the weapon
Was there a note
Why did Lizzie burn a dress
Did Lizzie try to buy poison
Were the murders planned to such a degree that the Borden's had to die where they did.
And who do we believe?

--We could start with "Who do we believe?"  That might give us the jumping off place:
One scenario could be based on what Lizzie said in her statements.
Another on Bridget.
Another on Morse
Another on Dr. Bowen
etc.
[Hint:  We would have to believe each person in order to fill out the scenario.]
 

I'm game, sounds like fun!  Actually, it is rather like a game of connect the dots, we just have to find how to link one dot to another and we can have something. 

Problems:

1) Not enough dots?

2) We'd all have to agree on each dot utilized, wouldn't we?  Those we couldn't agree upon we'd have to discard, correct?  Leaving us with...

3) Even fewer dots.

I like this approach, Kat.  You've inspired me!

Yes to your notation Bob.
But just think, for once we'd all be on the same page trying to prove a simple solution and taking it to the end.
It's the stopping short that gets me wide-eyed that we neglected to follow through.
And just think, for some they will be in heaven when we try believing Lizzie and proving she didn't do it.

--Should we be allowed to use authors, just not you-know-who-x-2?
(Brown & Lincoln...if we all approve of a certain point they have made...)

good question about using the authors.  brown, lincoln, radin, etc.  i'm not sure how far we could go with their fictional suppositions as "facts" to build on.  however, we can do what they did -- which is to fictionalize where there is an absolute blank (meaning no "fact" exists to prove or disprove).  but all facts of testimony and witness statements have to be fair game.  if "facts" cannot disprove a theory or an incident, and said theory or incident can be plausibly worked into fabric of known facts -- then such is within the confines of what we're trying to do.  that's how i see it; what do you think?

Yes that was well put.  I think an author might be useful for bridging those gaps as well as our own imaginations and common sense.
Some of us have already incorporated these authors accidently into what we think so sometimes it is a fine line anyway to divorce from that.
As long as we all find that *imagine* acceptable and it fits, I agree.

Aside from its subjectivity, there is a better approach.
Begin a diary by date and time. List under each day what each author said. If copyright problems, list the book and page number.

This may just be "chasing your tail" since it won't convince the knowledgable, those who formed an opinion. Remember, the facts chosen lead to the result. Like in a trial?

The point is not to rely on the authors.  The point would be to rely on a collective knowledge and awareness and common sense.  I'v stated before we are as good as any author.  We have better sources and resources as well.  Plus we are not hampered by gossip and innuendo as was deMille and Lincoln and Brown.

I think this should be limited to the first week, from 8/3/1892 to Lizzie's arrest (no longer able to confer confidentially w/ JVM).
These are the critical times. Unless you want to create a long-running project that may just decay from a loss of interest.

Problem: how to correlate many inputs into one document?