1. "when lizzie gives two different answers to the same question"
Posted by haulover on Mar-27th-03 at 12:22 AM

this is on the general subject of examining lizzie's inquest testimony.  "when lizzie pauses" is one particular oddity.  this is another:  when knowlton repeats a question and lizzie gives a different answer.  starting with the first one i find:

Q. Did you get your breakfast that morning?
A. I did not eat any breakfast; I did not feel as though I wanted any.
Q. Did you get any breakfast that morning?
A. I don't know whether I ate half a banana; I don't think I did.
Q. You drank no tea or coffee that morning?
A. No sir.
Q. And ate no cookies?
A. I don't know whether I did or not.  We had some molasses cookies; I don't know whether I ate any that morning or not.

i've wondered why there is so much confusion about what she ate that morning.  later, the pears become a way of explaining why she was where she was.  she was eating a pear when father came home.  she ate (she thinks) three pears in the barn. 

on the one hand, you can believe that the breakfast particulars of one morning are easily confused with that of another. 

but this:

Q. That is not what I asked you.  You were then, when you were in that hot loft, looking out of the window and eating three pears, feeling better, were you not, than you were in the morning when you could not eat any breakfast?
A. I never eat any breakfast.

yet she isn't sure if she ate this or that on that morning.  and that she got no coffee or tea.

(maggie says she saw lizzie getting her coffee.)

lizzie says she doesn't know if the coffee pot was put away or not.

obviously knowlton wants to know why lizzie is eating 3 or 4 pears when she doesn't feel like eating.

when knowlton first brings up the breakfast question, lizzie is concerned about what maggie might have seen her do?  

Somehow she sounds like a petulant child with those examples.
Knowing she is now an orphan, and hoping maybe, now,  to never have to answer to a dominate male again, she may sound like this too.  I almost see her tossing her curls, but I don't think she had any.

Her own attorney is somewhat shocked during Bridget's testimony to find Lizzie did have coffee and a cookie.
I can see him giving a glance back to Lizzie in that later hearing, a *you -left- that- part -out* look.  And then I would think he wondered whatverer ELSE didn't she tell him, her own attorney!

I suppose you are on again about trying to prove Lizzie was a liar at the inquest. The word breakfast is interesting. Breakfast could be considered to be a number of things. The attorney first asks if she had any breakfast then goes on to ask if she ate certain things "in the morning." Lizzie says she didn't eat breakfast she didn't want any, and as far as is known, breakfast was served in the dining room earlier than the time she came down. So she answers correctly.

As the attorney does not seem to comprehend her answer she then turns to the entire morning and says she didn't remember if she ate anything or not but she didn't drink anything. That you say Bridget saw her getting her coffee has lots of meanings too. She could have seen her even pour the coffee into a cup but if Lizzie decided not to drink it in the end, she didn't have it, as she says.

In light of the way the questions are posed: Is breakfast to be considered a formal affair, a grabbing of something right when a person comes into the kitchen, or eating something any time during the morning?

A morning is a long time, if a person later towards noon is hungrier than they are especially if they never had "breakfast" then what is the problem with eating pears? 

What is the value in examining what Lizzie did or did not eat or when she might have done that?  Do you think that eating a molasses cookie and having coffee gave her more strength to kill Abby and Andrew?

In modern times we know that sugar cookie and coffee will give a quick high, then leave the consumer hungry a few hours later. Or why she ate the pears?
Those with a dietetic background may comment better.

i think i can answer your questions.

i do think lizzie lies quite a bit in her inquest testimony.  but in my post i had something more specific in mind.  i've noticed several places where knowlton asks her a question.  she answers.  he repeats himself.  she answers differently.  i wonder if some pattern or clue can be discovered in it -- trying to get inside her head, so to speak, and ask myself, if i'm saying this, where would i be coming from?  is he asking me something i'm honestly unsure of, afraid to answer, avoiding something, trying to conceal something?

without quoting from the inquest again:  he asks her if she got her breakfast that morning.  she says she did not eat any, didn't want any.  and again, verbatim -- and she says she doesn't know whether she ate half a banana.

perhaps, as you suggest, the first time she answers she's thinking of a formal sit-down meal.  but the second time she answers she's thinking of breakfast as eating.  the question does not change but her answer does.  yes, it would seem an innocuous subject, wouldn't it?  but if so, why do her answers vary so much?  why not this instead:  i didn't eat any breakfast, period.  or:  i don't think i ate much, i might have eaten half a banana.  or:  i poured a cup of coffee but decided i didn't want it and poured it out.

then it's curious how the pear-eating comes into play as an explanation for her time in the barn loft.  it's worth an inquiry.

while i'm at it, i'll move to the second of my three examples:

WHERE WAS ABBY?

Q. Had you any knowledge of her going out of the house?
A. No sir.
Q. Had you any knowledge of her going out of the house?
A. She told me she had a note, somebody was sick, and said "I am going to get the dinner on the way," and asked me what I wanted for dinner.

i'm sure it's not necessary to go into all the Q&A preceding that.  lizzie may be as innocent as i am of the murders, but there must be an explanation for her reluctance to mention a note.  when questioning resumes the next day, lizzie has it straight then:  she had assumed that abby had gone out (explaining why she never thought it odd that she never saw her).  this does not tell me whether there was a note or not -- just that there is a peculiar sensitive issue regarding it.  concerning lizzie's answers during this particular line of questioning, i don't believe i've ever heard anyone make a plausible case for lizzie's veracity.  perhaps there is one and i'm not aware of it.

and the third:

THE SINKER

Q. Did you bring any sinker back from the barn?
A. I found no sinker.
Q. Did you bring any sinker back from the barn?
A. Nothing but a piece of a chip I picked up on the floor.

this one vexes me the most, since a pursuit of it could lead to something, but knowlton drops it as though he thinks she's just lying anyway.  she got no sinker but picked up a piece of a chip.  from what floor exactly?  the barn?  was it lead? picked it up for what?  did what with it?

i suppose what i'm looking at here is lizzie's way of answering questions in such a way as to evade answers and/or to raise further questions.  that's not what you do if you wish to inform or clarify. and why change your answer in a matter of seconds as though "looking" for an answer?  why not just tell the truth?

The Million Dollar Question! Why not just tell the truth? The truth is always easier to tell as you don't have to think about it, you don't have remember what you said, you just tell what happened. No worrying about making sure your next answer matches the first.

I don't think Lizzie was a very good liar. I think I read into her testimony somebody who is trying to outsmart the questioner, or at least out figure the questioner. What I mean is that she is careful, too careful, with her words. She changes her mind and contradicts herself at times. (where were you when your father came home, what were you doing in the barn, what did you eat, etc.) So many variations to such simple questions.

Either it was the morphine talking or Lizzie was trying to outsmart them, or both.

The most amazing thing to me is how matter of factly she changes her story. Like nobody is listening. Like nobody is taking notes. Like she is entitled to do so. It is her right to tell an entirely different tale each time she opens her mouth.  It must have frustrated everyone there. Especially since she is suspected.

Wasn't there a famous case like this where the suspect told a different story every time he was asked about the crimes? Am I thinking of John Wayne Gacey? Or somebody else?

I am replying to the first part of your post (out of 3 parts.)
I'm pausing here...will read rest later.

Lizzie didn't tell her own attorney that she ate any breakfast, that's why he is taken aback at the Preliminary Hearing.
She either lies or misrepresents to him what she had been doing.  Because he is totally surprised at hearing she did eat and he heard it  through the Prosecution Witness!
So I think she was avoiding a direct answer, that she had lied to her attorney, and therefore was hedging at the Inquest.  (Good instincts there, h)

And it had to be a lie, because her attorney was following a specific line of questioning about timing and Abby and Morse at the Prelim., only to be struck by this info!
So the question is why did she lie and what did the lie gain for her?  (Oh, or else Bridget was lying, I should add that addendum)

Preliminary Hearing
Adams (Defense) cross of
Bridget
pg. 63:
Q.  After breakfast, you say she said "Maggie, what have you got to do today?" as usual, then she said you had better wash the windows?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  You had washed them before; you knew what it was to wash the windows?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  You had been in the habit of doing that every once in a while?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  She told you to wash them on the outside and the in?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  Had Lizzie come down then?
A.  Yes Sir. Lizzie was through her breakfast then, I think, I should judge she was.

Q.  Through what?
A.  Through her breakfast, after eating her breakfast.

Q.  Did she eat any breakfast?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  Where?
A.  In the kitchen.

Q.  What?
A.  Cookie and coffee.

Q.  Are you sure she took any coffee?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  How much, one or two cups?
A.  She does not ever take two cups.

Q.  Are you sure she took coffee that morning?
A.  She said she was to have coffee and cookie for her breakfast.

Q.  Do you know she took it?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  You saw her drink it?
A.  Yes Sir.

--[I think here is where he "recovers'. KK]

Q.  Was that after Mr. Morse had gone?
A.  I could not tell.
Q.  You saw Mr. Morse go?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Do not you know whether she came down before or after Mr. Morse went?
A.  I dont know. She ate her breakfast in the kitchen.
Q.  If Mr. Morse went, he would have to go out the side door?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  She was in the kitchen eating her breakfast?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  She came down about nine o'clock?
A.  I think it was something before nine, by my thinking.
Q.  Five minutes of nine?
Page 64
A.  I could not tell you.
Q.  Whether it was as early as half past eight?
A.  I think it was later than that; of course I did not notice the time?
Q.  You think it was between half past eight and nine o'clock she came down?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  She came into the kitchen?
A.  I could not tell what time it was. She came right into the kitchen.
Q.  She said she was going to have a cookie and some coffee for breakfast?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Where did she sit down?
A.  By the kitchen table, and this chair was facing.
Q.  What chair did she sit down in?
A.  In a big old chair that is right by the window, by the side of the table.
Q.  Was there any rocking chair there?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did she sit in that?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  This chair is an arm chair?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did you see her reading there?
A.  I did not.
Q.  Did you see her reading there any time that forenoon?
A.  No Sir.

--I couldn't stop.  And I'm not sorry.  Since some folks don't have the Prelim., I thought it'd be a treat!


(Message last edited Mar-27th-03  11:54 PM.)

stefani:

exactly.  why complicate a simple question?  when someone does this, they are usually playing a game, but at any rate, they are not being honest.  lizzie is not a good liar, but she is good at frustrating the questioner.  by the time knowlton is questioning her about the barn and sinkers, she has confused him about the difference between the farm at swansea and where she was going to vacation.  she actually wins the "debate" -- managing to tell next to nothing.

by the way -- i saw your videos tonight (i don't know how i missed them) -- and enjoyed them.  what spooky music!  it works. 

Yes, being prelim-less, I for 1 do appreciate seeing those.

The impression I get when Lizzie is asked questions over again is that she's being led or prompted.  She takes advantage of them thus.  When her 1st answer doesn't jive with what others have stated/testified, she's asked again & she's thus reminded of the stories she gave to Bridget, Churchill, Alice, police officers et al.

thanks for the prelim!  very very interesting.

maggie is good at remembering what chairs people sat in, isn't she?

I see no "lie" in her answers. Even today, many people will not consider a cookie and coffee as "breakfast", do they?
"I don't have time for breadfast, just a roll and coffee." Ever hear somebody say something like this?

Ditto: thanks for writing out the prelim q/a, I had pictured
Lizzie would have sat in the rocking chair.  I wonder why such
importance was put on "breakfast"?  I understand wanting to
place who was where at what times, but what someone actually ate
doesn't seem to matter, unless as someone else suggested did
Lizzie have the strength to perform these dastardly deeds?  No,
not on a cookie and a few pears. 

i understand the difference between having breakfast and grabbing a roll.  my question is:  why answer the exact same question differently.  and you see in the prelim. how at odds her memory is with bridget's memory.  in my remark about the chair, i'm saying that bridget has a specific "scene" or "image" she remembers -- as opposed to a general sense of something she "thinks" happened.

She must have told her attorney, at the least, that she had no coffee Thursday morning.  So, at the least, he is surprised and unprepared by that answer of Bridget.
Lizzie had to lie to her defense and state that, but we don't know for what reason.
He is confident that there was no coffee involved.  Then he finds out there is.
We can't know if this was important or not, it just meshes with the thrust of this thread.
It could mean a bunch of things we will never know because we don't know what she told her defense.
It could suggest that Lizzie implied to her council that the coffee is where she suspected the poison was put which had been making the family sick.  We just don't know. But it's still important.
And my question still stands:  What does she gain from that lie?

In the section about the note, I think Lizzie is unsure again, as to what other's have- or will -testify to.
(Like with the breakfast).
She tells her father, when he arrives home, that Abby has gone out because of a note.
She is speaking *lowly/slowly*  to Andrew.
At this point, I don't think she knew if Bridget heard.
IF Bridget heard about the note (Which is the one thing Bridget heard), then Lizzie is stuck forever with a note story.  If it was made up just to soothe Andrew's mind so he wouldn't fret about Abby, then he could die being the only one who knew about a phoney (?) note.
But Bridget did hear.  And Lizzie is unsure if she heard.  So Lizzie hedges her story fishing herself at the Inquest until she hears herself and finally states there was a note.
Knowlton's questioning on that point sounded to me as if he is prompting her.  He may have sounded that way to her too.  So she quickly has to figure, Oh he knows about the note so I better mention it.

**You see, I think Bridget did testify first.  I don't know this for sure, but it is assumed by some due to the pagination of the Inquest.  The part we all have begins with Lizzie but is paged at 47.  It is an assumption but if we decide that Bridget came first to the stand, and we have not that record, we can begin to see why Lizzie may be answering as she does.  She knows Briget has testified.  She doesn't know what Bridget has said.  Lizzie is going to need to fish, or buy time or hedge around her answers because of that.
Again, thanks all for joining here.  This questioning and all the input from those here has me realizing more than before....

Prlim.
Bridget
20+
A.  I heard her ask him if he had any mail for her. I heard her telling her father very slowly that her mother got a note, that Mrs. Borden had a note that morning, and had gone out.

Q.  You heard her telling that very slowly?

Page 21

A.  Yes Sir, to her father.

Q.  Had got a note?
A.  From some sick person. Of course the conversation was very low, I did not pay any attention to it; but I heard her telling her father that.

Q.  What else did you hear her say to her father?
A.  Not any more.
...........
**Witness Statements pg. 13--:  "Tuesday August 8, 1892.  P.H. Doherty.  'Went for Bridget, and escorted her to Court.' "

"Tuesday August 9, 1892.  Harrington.  'Went with the Marshal to summons Lizzie.  Returned to the station.  When the Inquest adjourned, remained in the Court Room until 5.10 P. M. "

When I say "assumption", you all may find proof in a book, but I didn't check that just now.

There is another curious statement by Lizzie in her inquest testimony that is puzzling to me.

Here she is being questioned about her speaking with Bridget:

Q. Did you speak to her?
A. I think I told her I did not want any breakfast.
Q. You do not remember of talking about washing the windows?
A. I don't remember whether I did or not; I don't remember it. Yes, I remember; yes, I asked her to shut the parlor blinds when she got through, because the sun was so hot.

If you look at the attached blue print you will see the parlor windows face north and west.  This conversation took place in the morning and the sun was still rising in the east.  It would not be shining through the parlor windows as it wpuld be on the other side of the house. It probably has no meaning but it is curious to me.



(Message last edited Mar-28th-03  11:42 PM.)

That is a good find Harry. It is these little inconsistencies that make this all the more confusing. Perhaps she is making things up as she goes along for some very specific reason. A good liar will come up with a story and stick to it. An "amateur" liar might come up with an implossible story, but still stick to it. To not be able to state the same story each time when asked a question may be her way of telling them all to go pound sand. You will get nothing of substance from me. Passive resistence? Making her words MEAN NOTHING!

Then, when the commonwealth wanted to include her ramblings in the Trial testimony, her lawyers had to think quick so as not to admit her rather damaging words into the official proceedings. She must not have thought at the time of the Inquest that she would be charged or she might have taken it more seriously. Only later do her deviations, omissions, and contradictory answers come back to haunt her. Later, this all makes her look guilty, not passively refusing to participate.

I've always wondered why Lizzie would have made up a convoluted story like the one about Abby's having received a note.  After all, she could simply have said, "Mrs. Borden said she was going out for a few minutes to visit a sick friend," or even, "I felt sure she had gone out, because I heard the door open and then close."  Throwing the note into the mix caused the police to want to know 1)what happened to it, 2)who sent it, and 3)who delivered it.  We've observed that Lizzie's lies (if that's what they were) usually built on the truth, but in this case there doesn't seem to be a germ of truth in her story. Why would she tell a story that was almost guaranteed to get her into more trouble?

I think I've had a sort of revelation here. 
Because Bridget's Inquest testimony is gone we've had to rely on her Preliminary Hearimg testimony.  Since the Prelim. came After the Inquest, and our Inquest begins with Lizzie, it has seemed all this time, to me at least, that I was reading or hearing Lizzie *cold*--out of the blue.  She just Starts.  She's first.

Then we go to Bridget at Prelim. and are pretty confident, per Knowlton (who should know) that Bridget's essence of testimony is not that different from her own at the Inquest.

At this point, I realize, I have been putting Bridget second and Lizzie first.
Well, Bridget is first, and so that is a whole new way to read Lizzie's words.

Bridget has been taken to a secret court and grilled.  Lizzie doesn't know what she has said.  (It's not like in the movie where everyone gets to hear all the other witnesses, like Emma sitting there with Lizzie...Emma is not sitting in any court proceeding with Lizzie where she, Emma, is a witness, until she, Emma has testified).

So Lizzie is then taken in to the secret proceeding and she doesn't know what Bridget has told them.  This makes all the difference.

Did Lizzie and Bridget have time to confer?  Did they have a quick talk and establish a broad outline of what certain specific topics Bridget is to *fudge*?  Like a topic that Lizzie would be concerned with, guilty or at least sort-of guilty?  Like Cordiality in the family.
Lizzie's response: *It depends on one's IDEA of Cordiality, becomes *it depends on ONES idea of cordiality*--"One's" being Bridget.  Bridget who would know.  Bridget who lived in that family and saw & knew things we will never know.  And the thing is, they might not even BE things that we or the prosecuter would really care about.  But they are meaningful to LIZZIE. 

What this suggests to me, is when some say Lizzie reacts visably in her demeanor to when Morse is brought into the equation, then again we find Lizzie seemingly hedging and hawing and *distancing* herself, because she does not know what he will say.  She has no Control.

I think, now, that Lizzie cared what Bridget would say, (and at this point HAS said) and then we find Lizzie answering queerly.  She IS fishing.  Maybe she hopes Bridget will not state the tensions in the home.  Maybe that was part of a whispered quick *deal*.  There were probably several quick remarks to Bridget before Lizzie lost control of the situation, by Bridget leaving Thurdsay night to sleep away.

So she cares also what will be said by Morse.  So her answers concerning HIM will be stilted and obtuse.  In a sense, then, she is obfuscating...but she is also trying to keep some control of the hearing/Inquest.

We can start, or I will, depending on if anyone is interested, in re-reading the Inquest of Lizzie with this in mind.  We may find the places where what is important to Lizzie in the Proceeding becomes more apparent.  If we can figure out that, we may figure her out.  No necessarily the truth of what did happen, but which issues caused her major concern.

In my mind it is somewhat similar to what happens with Morse.  Only that the situation is fraught and they may have chosen wrongly.
I'm referring to when Morse is asked back for dinner by Andrew.  Morse answers, but Bridget is nearby and he doesn't know if she overheard.  So since he did mutter yes, but that was a quick decision, he was then bound to return, even tho Mrs. Emery thought he would be going to New Bedford, upon leaving her home.  Morse had to return, because he didn't know if Bridget heard his answer,  Just a throw-away answer.  That had repercussions.

With Lizzie and the note, I remember the day,- I think it was you- that [you] remarked that Lizzie spoke slow or low to her father.  (Isn't there an archived thread called "Why So Slow"?)
I think Lizzie spoke low or slow or both, because Bridget was hovering, but Lizzie hoped she didn't overhear.  Once Lizzie decided that falsehood (?) was overheard, then, as I surmise, she was stuck with that note story.
We are dealing with amatures here, and I have to keep reminding myself because they got away with a *perfect* murder.

(Message last edited Mar-29th-03  2:31 PM.)

I once read some book that said the best lie always followed the truth closely, or something like that.
What is more believable?
I was late for work because of a herd of buffalo, or, I was late for work because of an acciden backed up traffic.



Hint: I really left late because I was watching TV news.

Remember, most trials are based on the testimony taken previously under oath. A smart lawyer (defense or prosecution) know how to ask questions for their effect.

Q. "Did you have breakfast that morning?" (Note ambiguity of "bkfst".)
A. "No."
Q. "Do you mean to say you ate nothing?"
A. "I just had a cookie and coffee." [what sizes?]

Does this passage make the answerer appear to be lying?
Do they teach this in law school?

Has anyone ever heard of coffee being advised for diarrhea?
Any other home medicines? Was this the "summer flu"?

Dear Ray;
If you made up that "Testimony" it was very well done to show your point.

But, can it please be stated as imaginary?  It seems so real.

You can say I "made it up", but we all know where I got the idea.
I was once on a jury trial. The wife of the defendant testified he was at home shortly before the crime occurred (but she did leave).
Q. "Do you love your husmand very much?"
A. "YES."
Q. "Would you do anything to prevent him from being convicted?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "No more questions." He walked away with a big smile, and I understood why. He just destroyed her credibility, even tho her husband (who just came home from third shift) COULD have gone out again in his car to do the crime. 

You should look at the "2 different answers" as 1) clarification and 2) just lawyer tricks to make his side look good. While it is supposed to be a search for truth and justice, personal considerations arise.

Did anyone see that film "Presumed Innocent"? I didn't read the book.

Maybe this is the basis for the story or legend, that Lizzie paid off Bridget?  She may have taken Bridget aside and counceled her as to what to not say...and there might be a bonus to her wages.
I'm trying to think what Lizzie would be most anxious about hearing it come from the mouth of the maid.
I think it would be along the lines of:
Don't talk about acrimony or strife in the house.
Don't disparage Father as miserly or mean
Don't say anything bad about Abby, as she has been a friend to you.
You know you don't know anything about Mr. Morse, so don't go there.

These type of family politics may be mostly what Lizzie could ask of Bridget to be vague about.  That's just a *worried* Lizzie.

A *guilty" Lizzie may have had more requests, and it may have required a larger bonus?
The bottom line is this, to me:  Lizzie states WHO didn't DO it.  How can she know who didn't, unless she knew who did?

This is good advice even if you didn't work as a servant.

NEVER badmouth a former employer to a new employer!!!

They will either not hire you, or mark you down as unreliable. They want people who will take all kind of stuff, and smile.

Q. Did you bring any sinker back from the barn?
A. I found no sinker.
Q. Did you bring any sinker back from the barn?
A. Nothing but a piece of a chip I picked up on the floor.

This testimony is not confusing. If she found no sinker as she says she could not bring any back from the barn.  She found only a piece of a chip of a sinker,which she brought back from the barn. She doesn't say what this chip was made of.

Only if you know what the truth is, Haulover, can you say that Lizzie is lying. 

Bridget first says she knows Lizzie had coffee because Lizzie TOLD HER she was going to get her own breakfast. Then she says she did see Lizzie drinking coffee. Was Bridget standing beside Lizzie looking into the cup?  It is more likely that Bridget assumed Lizzie was drinking coffee (she could as likely as not have been drinking water). Bridget was no slouch in the disembling department yet it is only Lizzie who is accused of lying when she can't remember. How often does Bridget say, I cannot say, I cannot recall, etc.

About the parlor blinds. Lizzie says, your quote:
A. I don't remember whether I did or not; I don't remember it. Yes, I remember; yes, I asked her to shut the parlor blinds when she got through, because the sun was so hot.

What is the problem with this answer?  Lizzie knew Bridget would be washing windows and finishing them going on towards noon.  At noon the sun is overhead. The sun is not just hot but bright, it is the brightness that fades curtains, upholstery and rugs not the heat. How do you not know that Lizzie took all this into consideration when she gave her reason for asking to have the blinds shut? If she was a precise person she might have said bright, but she was under the effects of morphine. Her answer doesn't mean she is lying here again.

Bridget never did wash the parlour windows inside, was Lizzie referring to the blinds inside or outside the parlor?

After talking to Andy, didn't Lizzie tell Bridget about a sale? Then release her from her duties, knowing she'd like to rest in her room?
I think this implies that they wanted her out of the way when Andy met and talked to Wm S Borden (or Nemesis).
Yes, you can read into this that Lizzie wanted privacy for herself, but since Lizzie did go outside, AR Brown's theory works again.

"This testimony is not confusing. If she found no sinker as she says she could not bring any back from the barn.  She found only a piece of a chip of a sinker,which she brought back from the barn. She doesn't say what this chip was made of."

why do you say it was a "chip of a sinker"?  she doesn't say that.  she doesn't say what it was made of -- that's part of what i'd like to know.  why do you assume it was lead?

what do you make of the Q&A about abby's whereabouts?

for the record -- the post about the parlor blinds was not mine.  i'm not sure what i think about it.

Hi Haulover"
"why do you say it was a "chip of a sinker"?  she doesn't say that.  she doesn't say what it was made of -- that's part of what i'd like to know.  why do you assume it was lead?"

I said I thought it was a chip of a sinker because of the way the attorney worded his question:
Q. Did you bring any sinker back from the barn? 
He specifically asks Lizzie whether she brought "any sinker" back (any sinker means to me he has narrowed his inquiry to a very particular and specific item, a sinker. I would include in "any sinker" that it could then be a fully developed sinker, a portion of a sinker, a damaged sinker, etc. Therefore she answers:
     
A. Nothing but a piece of a chip I picked up on the floor.
Her answer indicates to me she is specifically following his pointed line of inquiry and says in response to the "any" that she only found a chip and since the question related to sinkers, I deduced that it was a chip of a sinker. That's my interpretation, I'm not asking anyone else to agree.

Your second question: "she doesn't say what it was made of -- that's part of what i'd like to know.  why do you assume it was lead?"
I didn't say I thought it was lead, I don't know what it was made of because she didn't say.

I'll have to give more thought to Lizzie's remarks about Abby's whereabouts, that's a big question, timing is involved etc.

Your're right, I forgot to clarify where that parlor blinds question came from, sorry.

One more thought about that is I don't believe Bridget ever made it clear why she didn't go in and finish the insides of the parlor windows.  She said she came inside and started on the sitting room windows then went to the dining room, then to the kitchen and her room.  If she did the parlor windows it would have thrown her time line off from finishing the dining room to her going to her room. So either Abby told her not to, Lizzie told her not to, she decided on her own not to, or if she wasn't allowed into the parlor she just never considered it, or some other reason.

i wonder WHY lizzie would pick up a "piece of a chip?"  that was the question knowlton should have asked her.  it seems so trivial, yet she makes a clear statement there without explanation.  you could speculate that it was something she might have thought could be used to fix her screen.  victoria lincoln speculated it was a wood chip from the hatchet handle. 

I wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder why, why did Lizzie pick up the chip.

Yes, the attorneys frequently didn't ask needed follow-up questions. Maybe Lizzie was like her father and picked up something whether or not she had a specific use for it.  Maybe Lizzie didn't pick up the chip for use on the fishing pole because a chip wouldn't have done the job and some other reason sparked her interest in it. 

I have wondered why the attorney didn't ask her at the inquest if she killed Andrew and/or Abby.  Maybe that question was not one they could ask according to the rules of inquest, or maybe since they had a warrent out but not served and allowed her to be questioned without her attorney present they knew they would have been in trouble.

Would a round washer be called a "chip" of a sinker? I've seen them used on fish heads (?) when crabbing in the bay.

If a round washer could have been used as a sinker and Lizzie was aware of it, maybe. "any sinker" could also have meant anything that Lizzie felt could have been used as a sinker.

Robert Pinkerton is quoted (Masterton's book) as saying that "innocent people often change their stories in the retelling". I guess a guilty person decides on a story and sticks to it?
What is YOUR experience from the real world? (A teacher may have an advantage!)

This is from www.merriamwebster.com. Still have no
idea what Lizzie was talking about. I wonder if she
even knew?


Main Entry: 1chip
Pronunciation: 'chip
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English; akin to Old English -cippian
Date: 14th century
1 a : a small usually thin and flat piece (as of wood or stone)
cut, struck, or flaked off b : a small piece of food <chocolate chips>: as (1) : a small thin slice of food; especially : POTATO
CHIP (2) : FRENCH FRY
2 : something small, worthless, or trivial
3 a : one of the counters used as a token for money in poker and other games b plural : MONEY -- used especially in the phrase in
the chips c : something valuable that can be used for advantage in negotiation or trade <a bargaining chip>
4 : a piece of dried dung -- usually used in combination <cow chip>
5 : a flaw left after a chip is removed
6 a : INTEGRATED CIRCUIT b : a small wafer of semiconductor material that forms the base for an integrated circuit
7 : CHIP SHOT
- chip off the old block : a child that resembles his or her parent
- chip on one's shoulder : a challenging or belligerent attitude

I agree with that -- I think you are able to remember
certain things at later times -- especially after a
shock like that. I always thought she might have just
been remebering new things as she went along & it wasn't
lying exactly.

Kimberly, I vote for the cow chip.

Um, no comment.

Harry, don't you mean horse chip?  What was a cow chip doing in the Borden's barn. Wasn't it a horse that was stabled in the barn until they sold it one year before the murders. Was Mr. Borden out collecting cow chips on the farm along with the eggs, and selling the cow chips to the neighbors for fuel?

Obviously you are a city girl who never even visited on a farm.
Horse droppings are usually rounded, and larger than a hen egg.
Cow cookies tend to be flat like a pancake (more moisture?).
Watch where you step when you next visit a farm!

Actually I was just kidding.  I saw once a cow chip tossing contest on TV and that dictionary definition just happened to hit me as amusing.  Wouldn't be much good as a sinker though.

I think the generally accepted definition of a chip would be a wood one. That doesn't mean that it can't be metal.  Lead is mighty hard to chip though.

When I was a kid we used bolts much to the displeasure of my father and his tool box.

that reminds me of victoria lincoln's notion that it was a wood chip.  of course, that was total speculation on her part.

it bothers me because there are so many things you can do with it and never be sure. 

to pick up a piece of a chip -- meaning, to bring it back to the house, and to do what with?  could this have been something she thought she would fix a screen with?  i don't know.  i'm suspicious of statements like that where she doesn't explain what she's talking about.  i think knowlton was too frustrated at that point to pursue it.  i know at that point he doesn't believe her anyway.

okay, but isn't that a valid question to ask?  it was lizzie who said she went there looking for sinkers.  i have to question when she says she did something but doesn't say why or what.

These flat "cow cookies" would fly like frisbees. Maybe that's where the students got the idea?
A wood chip could be used as a float?

Did they have monofilament back then?
What were their *lines* made of?

Rays, what are you on about?  I'm from the city, I'm not a girl, I have been on a farm, I do know the difference between a cow chip versus a horse chip visually, if you want to call their droppings chips.

I also have in my possession a buffalo chip which I bought from an Indian reservation during my western studies. Buffalo chips were used for fuel by the Indians and pioneers quite successfully. A little more info on the buffalo chip...the Indians had multiple uses for them, one of which was as a powder for their baby diapers, and it was far better than what's out today!

Good joke Harry. At first I thought you were commenting that Lizzie's story was just BS but then we'd be getting into bull chips. Anyway, it's all OK as long as we don't end up in Las Vegas.

Frisbees were originally Victorian "Frisbie" pie tins --

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa980218.htm

(Message last edited Apr-13th-03  11:38 AM.)

In answer to your question, Kat, before the 1800s braided horsehair or horsehair and silk was used for fishing lines.  During the 1800s when braiding machines were refined, cotton and flax lines were made.  By the turn of the century, oiled-silk lines were the standard fishing line.  So, no monofilament for the Victorians.

I kind of have the feeling that even Lizzie's fishing lines were special made, probably had a linen core wrapped with silk, kind of like that Bengaline dress. 

Info from this site:
http://homepages.enterprise.net/davefink/history.html

I wonder why no one called them "flying saucers"?

Ray, I believe the concept of "flying saucers" comes from the era of early film-making.  We've only become obsessed with the concept of aliens in this century...invention of the airplane, WWI...in conjunction with increased technology & ultimately, human space travel.  Carl Jung hypothesized belief in aliens came from a basic fear of the unknown, compounded esp by the world becoming a smaller place & human's fear of cultures that are different from their own.  As in the term, "illegal aliens".

Thank you so much Susan!
You are one to always recognize that when I ask a question I really want to know!
I looked here when I first got up today to see if my fishing-line query was answered.  I wondered all along.

----

The flying saucers came about as prelude to Godzilla type movies, Big maurauding monsters in the movies, King Kong, stuff like that.  40's and 50's.  The Communist threat.

Now, what equates/corresponds with the resurrgence of those Jurrassic Park movies and King Kong re-duex, last decade?

--I'm sure Ray knows all about this stuff...

Well, you are most welcome.  I try.    I always supposed that they just used twine or something, so I too learned something from my search.  I swear, we all probably would make the best Trivia game players! 

I think the term "flying saucers" occurred around 1947 by a pilot who saw this formation in the empty western US skies.
This generic term was in public domain, and could not be trade-marked like the word "Frisbee". Maybe somebody remembered the old pie plates?