Suspect Line Up

[CagneyBT]

Hi Kat

Alfred may have indeed concocted his story for the reasons you state. However, he’s very specific about his movements on August 4 and his story could be easily verified, especially about selling the hatched to Thomas J. Connors.

The notation of "C. Hammond" may have been made by one of the questioners at Alfred's interview. Alfred may have remembered the "C. Hammond" etching on the hatchet, and one of the questioners jotted it down.

If the notation was made by Knowlton, then Knowlton may have taken the statement seriously enough to investigate. Knowlton may have conferred with Connors about purchasing a hatchet from Alfred. If Connors recalled that he did indeed purchase a hatchet, he may have also recalled that it was manufactured by “C. Hammond." It’s also possible that Knowlton either debunked the statement because Connors denied Alfred’s claim, or the evidence was inconclusive.

This is all supposition, of course. But with the exception of known, verified facts, most of the theories regarding the Borden case are based on supposition.

[Reasonwhy]

Just to say, Kat, I am quite enjoying your recent turns of phrase: “That Smith delinquent…” and “Bridget’s odd obfuscating utterances.” I’m imagining your smirk as you write these!

[Reasonwhy]

What follows is a partial post of CagneyBT, from this thread, above:

…
This is all supposition, of course. But with the exception of known, verified facts, most of the theories regarding the Borden case are based on supposition.

Cagney, well-said and you are quite right. Your postings are most well-written — logical, clear, analytically sharp, reasoned — and your research new to me, so fascinating. Thanks for contributing to this forum

About ( to quote Kat) “That Smith delinquent,” I have some doubts. Principally, I think Lizzie acted alone (I’ll explain why in a following post to this thread), so do not think any accomplice deposited the gloves and hatchet outside the house. Logically, I cannot see how depositing these there would have helped Lizzie or even any accomplice:
—someone could have seen this depositing
—even if no one witnessed anyone leaving the house and then dropping the hatchet and bloody gloves, the sight of those objects would have aroused suspicion as soon as they were seen (so potentially shortening getaway (for accomplice)/clean-up time (for Lizzie).

So, if dropped, this must have been done in an unreasoning, (panicked?) state.

It is, of course, possible these WERE dropped in a panic, but I don’t see Lizzie’s emotions or actions as panicked: she had to clean up fast after she murdered her father, so I think she was pretty efficient, which implies mental organization.

Later, I’ll explain why I think Lizzie acted alone…

[Reasonwhy]

To continue my post above, here’s a brief explanation of why I think Lizzie acted alone, written by a former poster, “Debbie Diablo,” whose observations I found valuable reading:



Re: Uncle John’s motive: a conjecture
Post by debbiediablo » Sat Oct 24, 2015 7:21 am

“…Somewhere John Watson says Lizzie was a psychopath who would want no help with the crime. He is right. IF Lizzie is the murderer then she was a psychopath who would act unilaterally. She would be so convinced of her own superiority so as to burn a dress in front of her sister and the neighbor and then be amazed when this behavior was viewed as suspicious. Even if she burned the murder dress itself! No matter how smart or dumb or lucky, a psychopath always thinks they are smarter than everyone.”

[CagneyBT]

hi Reasonwhy!

Thank you so much for your kind words. I've also enjoyed your posts which are always so thoughtful and insightful.

I've always thought that Lizzie acted alone. Now, I'm not so sure. The timeline is a hurdle for me, as well as the huge discrepancies in Bridget and Lizzie's statements.

[camgarsky4]

Knowlton Papers. Page 147 – 153.
Extracted from the initial paragraph from the typewritten report (HK142) of Alfred Smith’s statement. “…..made the following statement to me, in the presence of Deputy Superintendent Charles Hart.”

The primary interviewer, “Me”, is never clearly identified, but I believe it was Marshal Hilliard.

The statement, HK 142, provides several indicators that point towards the Marshal:
1) The interrogator must have been a person of authority in law enforcement to take questioning ‘lead’ over the facilities Deputy
Superintendent.

2) Halfway down page 153 is a telling Q&A.
Question: Why didn’t you tell me when you was in the lock up in Fall River?
Answer: Because I was afraid to. I was going to tell my father, when he came to see me in the lock-up, but he only stayed a minute or
two and I did not have time to tell him.

The question makes it clear that the interviewer was from the Fall River city jailhouse. Also, take a look at this Q&A. There is strange spacing at this point in Arthur’s typewritten statement…as if something was redacted.

3) The interview included displaying photographs of the Borden and surrounding homes to Alfred. That is information the reformatory facility staff would not have had in their possession.

4) But the ‘coupe de grace’ is on page 153.
Question: (by Mr. Holliard) Now Alfred all that you have told us is the truth? Answer: Yes sir.

The typist inadvertently typed a ‘o’ instead of a ‘I’.

For me, it is conclusive that Marshall Hilliard took the time to personally interview Alfred. Which means the lead was taken seriously and must have been followed up and investigated upon. Hilliard Papers where are you!!??

This is the full article that Cagney quotes from earlier in this thread. As you read the article, notice that it seems Marshall Hilliard personally interceded in the treatment of Alfred. Limiting his charges to a single charge vs. the multiple that could have been thrown at him. This interaction gives Hilliard's question in the Alfred statement, "Why didn't you tell me when you was in the lock up in Fall RIver", must better context. He and the boy had actually communicated before the interview at the Reformatory.

Screenshot 2023-10-27 211137.png

[Reasonwhy]

And that would explain why it was not written in “delinquent-ese”…

[Reasonwhy]

Partial post by CagneyBT:

…
I've always thought that Lizzie acted alone. Now, I'm not so sure. The timeline is a hurdle for me, as well as the huge discrepancies in Bridget and Lizzie's statements.

To clarify, even Ms. Diablo wavered in her forum posts through the years as to whether or not Lizzie was a sociopath or psychopath, and whether or not Lizzie acted alone. I do, at times, entertain my own doubts on those issues. And I agree, Lizzie’s and Bridget’s accounts vary enough to cause me discomfort, in some instances. (We should start a thread posting on those variations!)

Additionally, none of us can accurately diagnose Lizzie’s mental health, although it is riveting to read each other’s attempts. But I do feel confident that Lizzie had a haughty belief in her own abilities (as per the egg contest at the jail, and her enthusiastic offer to chop the wood for the young ladies at Marion, for example). Additionally I agree with the following recent article, that an individual’s degree of sociopathy/psychopathy exists on a continuum:

https://apple.news/A5-Ma06HZTMmq6PxnzZt05g

To me, Lizzie leaned toward the “dark triad” side of the spectrum

[CagneyBT]

Psychopaths are also very manipulative. I wonder if an accomplice was somehow coerced by Lizzie, maybe by blackmail. And if there was an accomplice, it may have been someone who also had something to gain by murdering the Bordens.

[Reasonwhy]

I agree that Lizzie was manipulative, and I’ve written about that in the past here on the forum. Prima facie evidence of that was Lizzie’s trip to Alice’s Wed. night to plant the suspicion that ‘father has an enemy…’

I don’t see Lizzie as morally beyond blackmail. And that would help to insure secrecy.

[CagneyBT]

Camagarsky, I agree with your post about Alfred's statement. I also think Marshall Hilliard was conducting the interview (great catch!)
Alfred's father, Robert Smith, was known and well-respected in Fall River. I posted his obituary in this thread. That may explain why Hilliard lessened the charges against him.

Re: the notation at the end of Alfred's statement: "1 C Hammond, Phila, Cast Steel." This may refer to model #1 of the hatchet. Here's a link to it:
https://picclick.com/Hatchet-Axe-Vintag ... 64524.html

Here are links to other Hammond hatchets of the period:

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/ ... -478267115
https://www.georgesbasement.com/galoots ... ndhalf.htm
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/ ... -167065047

[CagneyBT]

I found this rather interesting relating to Henry Palmer, whether relevant or not.

In her Last Will & Testament, Lizzie designated Charles C. Cook as executor of her estate. Her second designee, in the event of Cook's demise, was Frederick E. Beemis, cashier of the Fall River National Bank.

willbemis.PNG

Beemis and Palmer worked together at the bank during the same time period. Beemis was employed as a clerk and Palmer was the teller. A few days before Palmer surrended in April 1893, Beemis was promoted to second teller.

Bemisclerk.PNG

Fall_River_Daily_Evening_News_Tue__Apr_11__1893_fredbemis.jpg

Probably just series of coincidences

[CagneyBT]

Two articles reporting the exploits of young Henry B. Palmer, Jr.:

Fall_River_Daily_Globe_Tue__Sep_20__1904_hpalmerjr2.jpg

The_Evening_Herald_Wed__Sep_21__1904_hpalmerjr.jpg

Looks like young Henry embezzled from his father, the embezzler

[CagneyBT]

This was reported in the Providence News, January 11, 1893:

hilliarddiscovery.PNG

According to the article, Hilliard left New Bedford on Friday, January 6. Alfred A. Smith was questioned, we believe by Hilliard, on January 9. Was the mystery related to Alfred's alleged discovery of the bloody hatchet and gloves?

The Boston Globe, January 13, 1893:

hilliarddeniesbostonglobeJan131893.PNG

Was the supposed "compromise" towards Lizzie's defense team the offer of a possible plea deal? If Alfred's story had any validity, maybe the prosecution was considering charging Lizzie as an accessory?

[camgarsky4]

Just my opinion, but I don't think there can be much doubt that the Arthur Smith claims are what stirred up the hornets nest (law enforcement) in early January. He obviously had verbalized his claims at the reformatory and the leadership at the reformatory had likely called Hilliard and given him a verbal download. That might be what sparked Hilliard's visit to New Bedford to talk to Knowlton. Then Knowlton sent him up to get a written statement.

Proof of the advance call and conversations is that Hilliard brought photos of the homes around the Borden home, clearly with the intent to pin down that his story did involve the Borden house and not Churchill's or Kelly's.

Nothing about Arthur's statement would get Lizzie 'off the hook', so to say. He saw a woman (implication lizzie) unwrapping something that had a handle and then a bit later finds a bloody hatchet in the front yard and sees the same woman at the side door. All of that would have been highly prejudicial for Lizzie, if Lizzie was the person he claimed to have seen.

This further supports the supposition that the police thoroughly checked out Arthurs claims and they weren't able to validate anything. If any of his claims had been corroborated, its a safe bet that the next step would have been asking him to identify Lizzie herself....either via photograph or a 'line up'.

This is excellent work Cagney! This set of information creates such a clear storyline....piecing this together barely feels like speculation.

By the way, regarding Palmer & Bemis.....we have all heard of the concept of "6 degrees of separation". I think Fall River and the Borden cast of characters lived in a world of "1" degree of separation! As you know, it seems like everyone is intertwined with everyone at some point in time.

One of my favorite '1 degree' examples is that, per Fall River city directories, Alice Russell boarded with the Caleb Potter family on Third Street in the years after the murders. As we all know, Caleb's son Arthur found the hatchet on top of the Crowe barn. What are the odds that Alice Russell and Arthur Potter lived under the same roof for several years? Did they ever discuss the case? A conspiracy theorist could have a hay day with all these coincidences and '1 degree' relationships.

Lastly on Bemis and Palmer (I so wanted to type Bevis and butthead ), it would have taken an auditor or a co-worker to have caught Palmer in his skullduggery, so i would bet a dollar that Bemis got suspicious and informed on Palmer. His reward was to get Palmer's job.

Speaking of raw material for conspiracy theorists.....not sure if they had something like 'white out' back in those days.
Page 151 Knowlton Papers

Screenshot 2023-10-29 202608.png

[CagneyBT]

Beemis & Butthead (Beemis and Palmer)! Thanks for the chuckle, Camgarsky! They're the Lizzie Borden version of the game, "Six Degrees From Kevin Bacon", for sure

Until the Hilliard papers are released, we'll never know if Alfred's tale checked out. But the dates of the news articles coinciding with his statement suggest that his claims were investigated.

In the Knowlton Papers (pgs. 94-95), there was correspondence between Pillsbury & Knowlton about including an accessory charge (accessory before & after the fact). This was before Alfred's statement came to light. I wonder if any subsequent information convinced them that a plea deal was possible. Perhaps this was "the compromise" to the defense that was rumored about in the article.

However, IF the investigation into Alfred's claims had indeed uncovered "the smoking gun," Knowlton's best evidence would have been for naught, considering that he had the worst witness to present it...namely, Alfred himself. The defense would have made mincemeat out of young Alfred. Would the jury have put any credence into the testimony of a convicted juvenile hoodlum over the word of a well-respected, gentile, socially prominent, Christian lady? Considering the risk, Knowlton may have decided not to pursue that avenue and plowed ahead with prosecuting Lizzie as the sole perpetrator.

Now I'm curious about what the heck that yellow mark is in the Knowlton Papers.

[camgarsky4]

I put the yellow mark there to call out the strange blank space in that answer to Hilliard's question. Sorry for confusing. Why in the world would the typist randomly type her notes that way?

If Alfred's claim about selling the hatchet and storing a glove in his drawer had proved out, that would have made his testimony more palatable for a jury. Did you mention that one of the authors mentioned that the glove wasn't found in the drawer? I usually ignore all of the non-sourced author stuff, but that is interesting.

[CagneyBT]

Hi Camgarsky

We don’t know what model of typewriter was used. It’s possible the typist used a “blind” typewriter, like this one:

"The Sholes & Glidden, like many early typewriters, is an understroke or "blind" writer: the typebars are arranged in a circular basket under the platen (the printing surface) and type on the bottom of the platen. This means that the typist (confusingly called a "typewriter" herself in the early days) has to lift up the carriage to see her work."  (From: https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriter ... story.html)

The gap could have been a formatting issue, caused by the typist lifting & resetting the carriage.

David Kent, in Forty Whacks, is the author who stated, without a cited source, that no glove was found in the bureau draw. He also described Alfred in an addendum at the end of the book as “a crank who confessed.” As we know, Alfred’s statement was not a confession.

In a letter from Pillsbury to Knowlton (pg. 61 of the Knowlton Papers), Pillsbury addressed the theory floating around that the murders were the result of a botched burglary. Alfred was a convicted burglar which would have made his presumed testimony even more problematic.

However, there’s this interesting blurb in a letter sent from Knowlton to Pillsbury in April, 1893. “Nothing has developed since which satisfies either of us that she is innocent, neither of us can escape the conclusion that she must have had some knowledge of the occurrence.”

So if nothing new had developed since Alfred’s gave his statement in January 1893, did this mean that his story was completely debunked or that it simply couldn’t be verified?

Nonetheless, Alffred would have been a terrible witness if his facts had indeed checked out. Whether verified or not, Pillsbury and Knowlton were still convinced Lizzie was either the sole guilty party or was an accessory to the crime.

[Kat]

So if nothing new had developed since Alfred’s gave his statement in January 1893, did this mean that his story was completely debunked or that it simply couldn’t be verified?
Nonetheless, Alffred would have been a terrible witness if his facts had indeed checked out. Whether verified or not, Pillsbury and Knowlton were still convinced Lizzie was either the sole guilty party or was an accessory to the crime.— partial, Cagney.

Yes, I do agree with this as a very reasonable assessment.
It may sound simplistic at this point, after all the fab and interesting research and discussion you all have been involved with (and very cool), but if Jennings and his investigator Phillips did not include any notation on this issue, chances are there was not much to it, or not enough to worry them, maybe??
Wouldn’t we have something from the defense?
And still a $5,000 reward: wouldn’t our larcenous little reprobate just love to get in on that action?
That’s a lot of candy!

[Before the grand jury sat in November and December there was a lot of misinformation being printed in the papers and they really were vying for a story, some ready to print anything.
This case was the beginnings of yellow journalism, and sensationalism was becoming rampant -think National Enquirer…I remember wondering how a grand jury could even be picked.
When I earlier mentioned the Tricky/ McHenry sad debacle, Tricky was about to be indicted by this same grand jury for witness tampering (Bridget) and they would hear Alice Russell’s statement about the dress burning incident (which resulted in Lizzie’s indictment) and Tricky fled town and died soon after. (I’m sure you all already know this. Just reminding the readers and adding context.)]

[camgarsky4]

Kat -- I've been curious since first buying Jennings, what the time frame for the JJ notes and articles might have been. The vast majority were clearly gathered in the initial weeks after the murders. So far I have identified only a handful of updated notations from learnings post-October, 1892. Example is the reference to Alice Russell being aggressively interviewed by Medley when Alice was ill in the days just prior to the trial. However, such updates seem to be the exception vs. the norm.

An example that the journals were not kept thoroughly updated involves Alice once again. Nowhere in JJ does it include information about Alice's grand jury testimony about Lizzie burning the dress. That is perhaps the single biggest discovery after September, '92 and up to the trial itself. Yet that story is nowhere to be found in Jennings Journals. I'm not a legal expert, but (after watching hundreds of Law & Order episodes) the process of 'discovery' would have required the prosecution to share the evidence they had with the defense and visa versa. There is a fair chance I have something about evidence sharing wrong.

My guess on where the majority of the more updated notes by Jennings might be if not in his own journals?
I suspect that once Governor Robinson got involved, he may have required that all information compiled after his involvement be collected and stored with his law firm and we all know that information is locked up until someone figures out how to get legal access. My instincts tell me that is also where 'we' will someday find a copy of Bridget's inquest testimony.
This is just a guess that is hopefully fairly logical.

Cagney - here is another article regarding Marshal Hilliard's travels on January 9, the day the Arthur statement was dated. Lowell, Ma is 15 miles north of the Concord Reformatory. So he went north, but final destination appears to be a bit past Concord. But nothing to say if he did or did not stop over in Concord.

Screenshot 2023-11-01 064116.png

[CagneyBT]

hi Kat!

Great point about the $5,000 reward. Heck, Alfred could've bought the whole candy store for that amount of money!

I agree as well that it's important to keep the McHenry-Trickey affair in our minds when referencing leads or sources. That's why I always try to verify my research and not rely solely on newspaper accounts or books spouting theories about the case.

[CagneyBT]

Interesting article, Camagarsky...now I'm curious about what business Hilliard had in Lowell.

[camgarsky4]

Charles Clarke Cook. I don't recall seeing a pic of him before. Looks pretty much like I've imagined.

Screenshot 2023-11-21 140442.png