Andrew's arrival

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:09 pm

ayup... not bad at all for an optometrist killing time on slow days.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:10 pm

Lizzie was not talking food poisoning to Alice Wednesday night- it was poisoning of the deliberate nature. Alice poo-pooed Lizzie's notion, saying someone would see anybody tampering with the milk at 4 a.m. on the step, and that others would have been sick on the bread if that had been fiddled with. So one can deduce that Lizzie might well be echoing Abby's point of view from that morning.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:13 pm

Gaslight was a superb suspense movie with Charles Boyer playing the evil husband who was driving his wife mad by making her think she was going insane. Rent it- it is a classic! It has now become a verb of sorts to describe the same sort of plotting and scheming to "put someone away".

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:16 pm

Let's see if Shelley beats me typing this! "Gaslighting" as we use the term here...comes from an old film, dating about 1944 or so, starred Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, etc. In essence, it's creating an atmosphere in which someone (a victim) would be caused to have serious question of his or her sanity.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036855/

(Well, so much for that thought!!)

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:17 pm

My finger was on IMDB -but I stopped for a peanut butter sandwich in between!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:21 pm

Showoff!!

I didn't go near IMDB til I was done typing.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:08 am

Thanks doug65oh and Shelley, I remember the film now, I watched it many years ago, but I had forgotten the content!

Gaslighting is a good description of what I'm getting at. My suspicions run toward Emma as the principal perpetrator, I expect her hatred of Abby was probably the more intense. This would be more Emma's style, subtle and covert. Emma was absent when the murders were committed, she wasn't there to moderate things. Lizzie was probably as subtle as a fart in a spacesuit, but she could be counted upon to act.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:32 am

Yooper @ Sun Sep 03, 2006 4:00 pm wrote: Adelaide Churchill was aware of an inconsistency in Lizzie's story when she was questioned by police (witness statements, Doherty, p.11) and she agonizes about "having to tell all". Something in her statement was incriminating to her way of thinking. I believe it was the part about Lizzie having heard Abby return.

I'm getting caught up on some of these threads, school is back in so I apologize if I'm a bit behind.

The Witness Statements page 11 from the notes of Harrington and Doherty August 8, 1892:

Second interview of Mrs. Churchill. Mrs. Churchill. "Must I, am I obliged to tell all?" "Well, if I must, I cant be blamed. O, I wish I had not to do this. I do not like to tell anything of my neighbor; but this is as it is. When I went over in answer to Lizzie's call, I asked O, Lizzie where is your father? In the sitting room. Where were you? I was in the barn looking for a piece of iron. Where is your mother? She had a note to go and see someone who is sick. I don't know but they killed her too. Has any man been to see your father this morning? Not that I know of. Dr. Bowen is not home, and I must have a Doctor. I think I heard Mrs. Borden come in. Will I go and get one or find someone who will? Yes. I did so. When I returned the first thing I recollect she, (Lizzie) said is, O, I shall have to go to the cemetary myself. No, the undertaker will do that, was my reply. Then Dr. Bowen, Geo. Allen and Charles Sawyer came in. When Dr. Bowen had seen Mr. Borden, he asked me to come into the sitting room to see him, but I declined, and said I would not, I saw him this morning, and he looked so nice, I do not care about seeing him now. The Doctor went out. Lizzie said, I think father must have an enemy, for we were all sick.

Was it that she was agonizing over Lizzie saying she thought she heard Abby come in? Or could it have been something else. She also asked her if a man had been to see Andrew that morning. Lizzie said no. Could Mrs. Churchill have seen someone there? Isn't she the one who supposedly made the statement to someone that she saw something in the house that morning that she would never repeat? If her statements are accurate Lizzie seems to be alluding to the fact that the family may have been poisoned by an enemy of her father to Mrs. Churchill also.

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:40 am

Yooper @ Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:50 pm wrote:The Bowen quote reads:

"The day before, Wednesday morning, about eight o'clock, or before eight, Mrs. Borden came to the door and said she was frightened, said that she was afraid she was poisened."

Does the term "frightened" imply a random occurrence of food poisoning?

Nope, I don't think it does. Not a "random occurrence of food poisoning", at least. And, as Kat argued, Abby wouldn't have served the mutton again if she thought the food had gone bad. So I think random food poisoning from spoiled food is out.
But, there's in my view a huge difference between accidental and deliberate poisoning. Either could have caused Abby to be "frightened". Allow me to relate a personal experience.
Some years ago, while I was at work, at midmorning I felt I was suddenly getting sick. I was feeling so bad that I couldn't continue working, so I headed for home. Luckily I was working close to home at that time, because when I made it home I had the worst vomiting session I can remember. When I calmed down a bit I dropped into bed, piled all bedcovers I could find on top on me, and still couldn't get warm, although it was midsummer and hot outside. So there I lay, teeth clappering, and let me tell you I was frightened! But no, I didn't see a doctor. On that day I was far too weak to manage that, and the next day I was feeling miraculously fine again. So I never found out what caused it, although I heard when I got back to work that half my collegues had been taken ill on that day....
I didn't hear of any other cases of illness at that time except among my collegues. So yes, poisoning comes to mind, perhaps it was our coffee, or something in our airco, I don't know. But I do remember how horrid I was feeling and how frightened I was, because this was nothing like I had felt before when I was ill.
With this experience, can you blame me for not being surprised that Abby said she was "frightened" by what happened to her?

Airmid.

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:06 am

Allen @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:32 am wrote:Was it that she was agonizing over Lizzie saying she thought she heard Abby come in? Or could it have been something else. She also asked her if a man had been to see Andrew that morning. Lizzie said no. Could Mrs. Churchill have seen someone there? Isn't she the one who supposedly made the statement to someone that she saw something in the house that morning that she would never repeat? If her statements are accurate Lizzie seems to be alluding to the fact that the family may have been poisoned by an enemy of her father to Mrs. Churchill also.

Good questions! It could be any of the above, I guess, or perhaps there is a perfectly innocent explanation of her words.
Mrs. Churchill seems to have been quite a chatterbox. At the Inquest testimony, her answers are frequently very elaborate, and she often tells more than the question asked for. Maybe she is even is the gossippy kind, and would like nothing better than to discuss the affairs of her neighbors. But of course, that would be considered indecent in those times. So, before she starts to pour out information, she makes some formal objections just for decency's sake.

Airmid.

Ms. Jo · Post by **Ms. Jo** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:13 am

Hello Everyone. I have been reading & learning quite a bit from this wonderful forum!
Everytime someone mentions that Lizzie "thought she heard Abby return" reminds me of an episode that occurred where I work. (A Maximum Security Prison) One day, an inmate had "remained in bed" most of the morning (nothing unusual, as sometimes they sleep in),missing breakfast.Noon approached, & the inmate was still in bed( the officers unfortunataly, still did not think it unusual that he had been in the same positon all morning)when finally, the inmate's roommate went to his mod officer & stated to the officer, "I think there is something wrong with my roommate"."Someone needs to check on him". It was discovered that the inmate was dead,& not by natural causes. The inmate was ultimately convicted of murdering his roommate. Why did he want someone to "check" his roommate?...No one knows, as he has never said, but I feel ,he was afraid his roommate would "not be discovered". I think Lizzie "heard" her stepmother return, because she knew she was already dead, & wanted someone, besides "herself" to discover the body...Just a thought.

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:31 am

*nods* That sounds perfectly sensible to me. I don't know why it sounds good, I'm not a psychologist, but somehow I think if I had committed a murder I would like the body to be discovered too, and preferably while I was around to hear what people's reactions were.
Don't get worried, folks, I'm not homicidal!

And welcome to the forum, Ms. Jo! It's very nice to see a new face again. Good story too, but weren't you frightened out of your wits at the time?

Airmid.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:14 am

Hello Ms. Jo, welcome to the forum.

If you believe Lizzie guilty, it is better to have someone else discover Abby's body. After all she was the one who "discovered" Andrew. The discovery of both might be a little hard to swallow.

Again, welcome.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:25 am

Yes indeed- what if the intense activity over Andrew had continued, people coming and going and the clock ticking away. When the police went to search upstairs- and they would have pretty soon- to have happened upon another corpse with no preamble to the discovery would have looked very bad for Lizzie.

So, when Lizzie told all that to Mrs. Churchill about Abby's return- she must have been intimating "up front". Lizzie was occupying the back of the house the entire time since she returned "from the barn" and made the grisly discovery of her father. And if you believe her, she had been on the first floor all morning after the initial trip upstairs with clean clothes, until she went out to the barn. She would have seen Abby had Abby really been out of the house and come in at the side door, and heard her if she had come in at the front.

The rooms are fairly close together and not once has anyone entered the side door or front door when I am in the sitting room or diningroom or kitchen that I have not heard the entry. In all fairness, I do keep all the doors open between all rooms though. Interestingly, a 200 pound body falling in the guestroom corner, is not heard in front of the stove in the kitchen if the doors are all closed.

Of course the $64,000 question is - if she had heard Abby come in up front- why on earth did she not SAY something to her? Call out, give an alarm- anything?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:14 pm

Lizzie says she didn't think her father left until 10 am.

Inquest
Lizzie
Q. So far as you know you were alone in the lower part of the house, a large portion of the time, after your father went away, and before he came back?

68 (25)

A. My father did not go away I think until somewhere about 10, as near as I can remember; he was with me down stairs.

--If Lizzie was pushing that time frame,and it is thought here that Abby died near to 10 am, then Andrew would be a suspect in Abby's murder.

Then some think that Lizzie did say she thought she heard Abby come in. If she said that, she would be actually saying that Abby was murdered as soon as she came in, while she herself was within ear-shot of an outside door. That could mean that Abby died second. If the point of a plot to *inherit* was to show for sure that Abby died first- I don't think Lizzie succeeded in doing that, if she said that. It makes more sense that Lizzie didn't say that she thought she heard Abby come in. A *please go look for her* comment would get Abby found.

This has to do with what Lizzie believed or what Lizzie thought.

We know Andrew did not leave at 10. So what does this mean?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:07 pm

Shelley @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:25 am wrote:Yes indeed- what if the intense activity over Andrew had continued, people coming and going and the clock ticking away. When the police went to search upstairs- and they would have pretty soon- to have happened upon another corpse with no preamble to the discovery would have looked very bad for Lizzie.

So, when Lizzie told all that to Mrs. Churchill about Abby's return- she must have been intimating "up front". Lizzie was occupying the back of the house the entire time since she returned "from the barn" and made the grisly discovery of her father. And if you believe her, she had been on the first floor all morning after the initial trip upstairs with clean clothes, until she went out to the barn. She would have seen Abby had Abby really been out of the house and come in at the side door, and heard her if she had come in at the front.

The rooms are fairly close together and not once has anyone entered the side door or front door when I am in the sitting room or diningroom or kitchen that I have not heard the entry. In all fairness, I do keep all the doors open between all rooms though. Interestingly, a 200 pound body falling in the guestroom corner, is not heard in front of the stove in the kitchen if the doors are all closed.

Of course the $64,000 question is - if she had heard Abby come in up front- why on earth did she not SAY something to her? Call out, give an alarm- anything?

You have failed to provide a timeline for this. It had to be after Andy's body was discovered, say after 11:30. That would be about the time Abby would return for dinner? So hearing a heavy step on the stairs could mean that Lizzie now expected the return of Abby on the back stairs
not the front stairs (Abby's rooms were reached on the back stairs).

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:20 pm

Why would Abby go clumping up the back stairs at 11:30 with police and Mr. Sawyer, Mrs. Churchill, and other people now milling about the side of the house by the screen door? Would she also not have to go into the sitting room to get the key off the mantel to open up her back stairs room to boot? Did Bridget not also go to the back room to get the sheets to cover Andrew? Surely someone would have bothered to tell Abby her husband was murdered if she came in at 11:30- not that she had ever been out to start with. The thing to pin down now is exactly who said what about this hearing Abby come in, searching for Abby, going to look for her- which is a simple matter of reviewing all the testimonies.

If memory serves- I think Rebello has an excellent timeline.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:27 pm

Shelley @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:20 pm wrote:Why would Abby go clumping up the back stairs at 11:30 with police and Mr. Sawyer, Mrs. Churchill, and other people now milling about the side of the house by the screen door? Would she also not have to go into the sitting room to get the key off the mantel to open up her back stairs room to boot? Did Bridget not also go to the back room to get the sheets to cover Andrew? Surely someone would have bothered to tell Abby her husband was murdered if she came in at 11:30- not that she had ever been out to start with. The thing to pin down now is exactly who said what about this hearing Abby come in, searching for Abby, going to look for her- which is a simple matter of reviewing all the testimonies.

If memory serves- I think Rebello has an excellent timeline.

I wasn't there as an eyewitness. I think it is unlikely that Abby would leave the house without her keys.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:52 pm

None of us were there as eyewitnesses, duh? I think it is quite obvious Abby never left the house that day,

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:28 pm

Smudgeman @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:52 pm wrote:None of us were there as eyewitnesses, duh? I think it is quite obvious Abby never left the house that day,

Quite right! But the testimony from the survivors was that a note was supposed to draw Abby away from the house that morning.
I interpret that to mean she was not to be there when the visitor arrived to see Andy. Or there was no plan to kill Abby before Andy.
If Lizzie, Bridget, and Uncle John are to be believed.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:52 pm

Both Mrs. Churchill and Bridget testified that Lizzie said she thought she heard Abby arrive. They heard this from Lizzie independently at different times. They both testified to this on several occasions each, consistently.

Lizzie testified that she was first in the kitchen when Andrew arrived, then upstairs, then in the kitchen again. She first went to the barn for iron, then lead. She never attempted to buy prussic acid. Lizzie also says she didn't say that she thought she heard Abby arrive.

Assuming a plot to inherit Andrew's wealth, Andrew's murder would have to be planned. How could John Morse be counted upon to be away? How could Bridget be counted upon to take a nap? How could Andrew be counted upon to take a nap?

I find it hard to believe that Andrew's murder was planned. I think it was a crime of opportunity or necessity, and the real target was Abby.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:15 pm

Yooper @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:52 pm wrote:Both Mrs. Churchill and Bridget testified that Lizzie said she thought she heard Abby arrive. They heard this from Lizzie independently at different times. They both testified to this on several occasions each, consistently.

Lizzie testified that she was first in the kitchen when Andrew arrived, then upstairs, then in the kitchen again. She first went to the barn for iron, then lead. She never attempted to buy prussic acid. Lizzie also says she didn't say that she thought she heard Abby arrive.

Assuming a plot to inherit Andrew's wealth, Andrew's murder would have to be planned. How could John Morse be counted upon to be away? How could Bridget be counted upon to take a nap? How could Andrew be counted upon to take a nap?

I find it hard to believe that Andrew's murder was planned. I think it was a crime of opportunity or necessity, and the real target was Abby.

Everybody has an opinion. When they disagree then only one can be right. Or they both can be wrong. Agree?

From my book readings, I have concluded that these murders were not planned (too many things would be needed) but the result of one secret visitor "flying off the handle". I think this simple conclusion can explain it all without imagining some plot that requires meticulous planning to succeed. Sometimes it is just 'dumb luck'.

Now to refute your theory. If Abby's murder was planned or an accident, there would be no need to wait around until Andy was back home. It is the meeting with Andy that kept the Secret Visitor waiting. He may have felt no remorse for killing Abby, but had to explain why he couldn't pay back the loan at this time. If Andy refused, that would set him off again.

If the simplest explanation is likely to be the true one, then a secret visitor who was there about a loan would explain it all. There are many cases where a debtor wipes out the loan by bumping off the lender.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:45 pm

What's that old saying, Ask and ye shall receive ?

I just finished a hunt here for all overt references to the "...I thought I heard her come in..." statement attributed to Lizzie. An interesting quest to say the least.

The following should be all of 'em, with attributions as to whom and when. In all cases, the source is the "Burt transcript," brought to us by Harry. (The search term applied incidentally was the phrase "heard her come in.")

Page 73 – [Opening Statement for the Commonwealth]

Mrs. Churchill came there by accident, and she will testify in detail as to whatoccurred after she came there. She too said, "Lizzie, where were you?" "I was out in the barn. I was going for a piece of iron when I heard a distress noise, came in and found the door open, and found my father dead." Bridget returns from Miss Russell's, and returning says, "Shall I not go down to Mrs. Whitehead's for Mrs. Borden?" "No," said the
prisoner, "I am almost sure I heard her come in." Up to that time, by alarm, by screaming, or by any attempt, there had been no effort on the part of the prisoner to communicate with Mrs. Borden. "I wish you would look," she said, "and see if you can't find Mrs. Borden." Mrs. Churchill and Bridget together went up this front stairway, turned, as they do turn, to their left, and as they turned Mrs. Churchill turned and her head reached above the level of the floor. She looked in and saw Mrs. Borden's dead body as she looked under the bed.

Page 247 [Testimony of Bridget Sullivan]

Q. Where were they when you returned from your errand in seeking Miss Russell?
A. I think Miss Lizzie was in the kitchen with Mrs. Churchill, and Mrs. Churchill and I went into the dining-room, and Dr. Bowen came out from the sitting-room and said, "He is murdered; he is murdered."
Q. What happened then?
A. "Oh," I says, "Lizzie if I knew where Mrs. Whitehead was I would go and see if Mrs. Borden was there and tell her that Mr. Borden was very sick." She says, "Maggie, I am almost positive I heard her coming in. Won't you go up stairs to see." I said, "I am not going up stairs alone."

Page 348 [Testimony of Adelaide B. Churchill]

Q. State if you please, anything that was said between Miss Lizzie Borden and yourself
as soon as you reached the screen door?
A. I stepped inside the screen door and she was sitting on the second stair, at the right of the door. I put my right hand on her arm and said "Oh, Lizzie." I then said, "Where is your father?" She said, "In the sitting room." And I said, "Where were you when it happened, and, said she, "I went to the barn to get a piece of iron." I said, "Where is your
mother?" She said, "I don't know; she had got a note to go see someone who is sick, but Idon't know but she is killed too, for I thought I heard her come in."

Q. Was there any further suggestion about Mrs. Borden from anyone?
A. After Miss Russell came Lizzie said she wished some one would try to find Mrs. Borden for she thought she heard her come in. So Bridget and I started to go to find her, went through the dining room out of the sitting room at the head, or where Mr. Borden was sitting or lying, and up into the hall. Bridget was just ahead of me. She led the way, and as I went up stairs I turned my head to the left; and as I got up so that my eyes were on the level with the front hall, I could see across the front hall and across the floor of the spare room.
At the far side or the north side of the room I saw something that looked like the form of a person.

Page 350-351
Q. Was there any further suggestion about Mrs. Borden from anyone?
A. After Miss Russell came Lizzie said she wished some one would try to find Mrs. Borden for she thought she heard her come in. So Bridget and I started to go to find her, went through the dining room out of the sitting room at the head, or where Mr. Borden was sitting or lying, and up into the hall. Bridget was just ahead of me. She led the way, and as I went up stairs I turned my head to the left; and as I got up so that my eyes were on the level with the front hall, I could see across the front hall and across the floor of the spare room.
At the far side or the north side of the room I saw something that looked like the form of a person.
Q. You had got to the level of the floor?
A. I had got up so I could see across the floor.
--------------
Page 1675
So Lizzie knew that Mrs. Borden had had a note and had gone out, and Bridget knew that she had a note and had gone out, as they both believed; that she had seen her up in the room making the bed and finishing up before 9 o'clock and she had not seen her since, believing that she had gone out, and she recalled that she might have heard her
come in before her father came back, before Mr. Borden did, and she said at once, "Go up and see if Mrs. Borden isn't up in her room. Mrs. Borden isn't here. I heard a noise as though she came in, and she must be up stairs in the front room some where. Go and see."
Now, that is natural. They thought that she was in the upper and back part of the house, and there can be no doubt about that because Miss Russell testifies to the same thing, Mrs. Churchill does, Bridget Sullivan does, and then after they came down there it was that conversation about going to Mrs. Whitehead's occurred. "Q. What happened then?
A. 'Oh,' I says, 'Lizzie, if I knew where Mrs. Whitehead was, I would go and see if Mrs. Borden was there.'" Those two women were acting in perfect good faith about it, relying upon the truth of that note story which Mrs. Borden had told them. Then Bridget would not go up the front stairs because in order to go up the front stairs they must necessarily pass through the sitting room where Mr. Borden's dead body was lying, or else they must pass through the dining room way and go by the corner of the room. They went that way, and found Mrs. Borden was

Page 1676
killed. Mrs. Churchill and Miss Russell tell precisely the same thing in substance about going up and finding Mrs. Borden.
Now, the suggestion on the part of the Commonwealth would be if this evidence was not so clear, that Lizzie knew she was up there, and if you assume Lizzie had killed her, then, of course, it would be quite plain that she knew where she was, but if you do not presume the defendant guilty to begin with, it shows nothing until she is proved guilty. Then we have no difficulty with the statement of these three women. They define
it and make it very plain.
Mr. Borden, you will remember, came in, as I have said, about quarter of eleven o'clock. Now, the inference that Mrs. Borden had come in was the most natural thing in the world. Hearing some noise in the house, perhaps the shutting of a door---by and by we will say something about who might have shut it;---perhaps the movement of somebody else in that house that she heard,---she had no occasion to go to look and see; she was not called to, and her father came in, and, as Mrs. Borden had not appeared in the sitting room, you understand, and as the two women going up stairs found she was not in the back room up stairs, they would undoubtedly think if she had come in she was in the
front part of the house, and then she recalled, as she thought she did, the fact, that she had heard a noise which indicated to her that Mrs. Borden had come in.

Page 1677

While I am about it, I will read the rest of the statement she made about it. These are not the inquisitorial pryings of the police officers. They are her friends, her relatives, her servant, her confidantes, that she says this story to. Mrs. Churchill came over. "Where is your mother, Lizzie?" She said, "I don't know. She had a note to go to see some one who was sick, but I don't know but she is killed too, for I think I heard her come in."

Page 1878
And that note was not the note of the assassin. If he was the assassin of Mrs. Borden, he never would have written a note for her to go when he went there to kill. If it was the assassin of Mr. Borden, he would not have written a note to ask the oldest and feeblest and dullest of the whole family to have left the house, and leave Lizzie and Bridget there to watch his proceedings. That wild and absurd suggestion is out of the
case, and only the anxiety to find room to let this woman go led to its origin. Nobody has ever heard that the note was written. It never was. But a guilty conscience, gentlemen, is stronger than any power of craft, and this is what I am coming to. She had just told Bridget that she had gone out. She had told her father she had gone out, but she says to
Bridget when she suggested about going out to see her, after it was known that the father was killed, she says to her---to Mrs. Churchill, it was, "She had a note to go and see some
one who is sick, but I don't know but what she is killed too, for I thought I heard her come in." Who predicted disaster the day before? Who was the first one that told of it that day? Then Bridget says, "I will go to Mrs. Whitehead's and find out." She had not heard her come in. The distinguished counsel for the defence says that the noise of the fall was
what deceived her. Great heavens, has he forgotten that the fall was long before she had told this story to Bridget of her having had a note to go out? She had not heard her come in.
[Closing Argument for the Commonwealth]

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:53 pm

RayS @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:28 pm wrote:
Smudgeman @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:52 pm wrote:None of us were there as eyewitnesses, duh? I think it is quite obvious Abby never left the house that day,
Quite right! But the testimony from the survivors was that a note was supposed to draw Abby away from the house that morning.
I interpret that to mean she was not to be there when the visitor arrived to see Andy. Or there was no plan to kill Abby before Andy.
If Lizzie, Bridget, and Uncle John are to be believed.

You are missing my point. The note story was provided by Lizzie, and no I don't believe Lizzie. Once others heard this "story", they repeated it and Lizzie was stuck with it. I think the plan was to keep Abby IN the house that morning. She was definitely a target. We have her thinking she was poisoned, Lizzie attempting to buy poison, her keys being taken from her, and her supposedly expecting unknown guests. Who knows? Maybe Abby was told by someone else that she would be receiving guest, or Lizzie made that up as well.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:58 pm

I crossed you while posting DougOh, thanks for that post! Very nice.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:03 pm

You're welcome!

I did think of something intriguing though - a question that nobody asked at all during the trial that I've been able to find thus far:

Q. Within the scope of your own knowledge or experience as regards the note allegedly received: Can you tell us please - if Mrs. Borden had received a note reporting illness among those within her ordinary circle - her family, close friends, or such like - would she have responded to it, and if so, how? Again, you may answer the question based on information which is within the scope of your personal knowledge of Mrs. Borden's habits. (If you have none, you may say so.)

My own thought is that the whole note story is a sham offered to delay discovery of Abby's body. However, it occured to me that the person offering the story of the note would have had to make it believeable - to the soon-to-be-deceased Andrew, Addie Churchill, Alice, etc. Not extraordinary behaviour for Abby, that is.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:26 pm

Yes, I believe the whole "note" story is a sham as well, but why didn't Lizzie think someone would ask "who is sick". She gives a vague, blanket statement that puts Abby out of the house, because that is where she needs her to be during that time. Then, she thinks she hears her come in, because she can't possibly discover another dead body, please go look, I can't bear to do it myself, I think it is a lie Lizzie wished she never told. If she was on "friendly" terms with Abby, she would have asked who was sick I would think. I think she was incredibly lucky and cunning to pull off that story. I also would think that she would know that this made her seem cold and distant from Abby to others who were asking questions.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:48 pm

Well, we don't really know for certain that Andrew didn't ask that question at this point. It's so difficult to generalize - too often there's a temptation to put words in mouths, or unjustly "read things into" - whatever we have to do to formulate our own acceptable versions of events.

I would say though that if he did ask and was in turn answered as to whom was sick, the answer seemingly satisfied him such that he gave Abby's "absence" no serious thought. That's what I was getting at a bit ago with that question about whether it was typical of Abby to respond to such notes prior to August 4, 1892.

Lizzie only really had to tell the story of the note - and be believed - once. If it was told that one time and no question was raised, then all else was window dressing, so to say. Once the initial hump was gotten over, the story was useless.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:05 pm

Good work Doug...THANKS !

Tracy...

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:09 pm

Sa`right.

Looks like the only Rubicon left to cross belongs to Alice as far as that story goes.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:51 pm

Thanks for posting all of that Doug. These are exactly the quotes I had in mind when I was laboring to say that it seemed apparent by deduction that Mrs. Borden was to be looked for up front, and that was the underlying intent of Lizzie's mentioning that she wished someone would go look for Abby.

None of us needs to have been an eyewitness to know that by 11:30, Dr. Bowen, Mrs. Churchill, George Allen, Mr. Sawyer, Officer Mullally ("He was there by 11:25" testimony of George Allen))Officer Doherty, Bridget at the least were there. -So the point was, the side door was a no-go for anybody coming in unobserved- the insinuation had to have been the front door all along. Naturally we know Abby did not go out or come in- of course she was long- deceased by 11:30. It was the suggestion that she did which caused the needed search for Mrs. Borden up front.

Actually we have gotten far from Andrew's arrival, the subject of this thread, and well into Abby's "imagined arrival that never happened"

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:23 pm

Yes, I wonder what was going on in Andrew's head when he lay down and if he thought maybe the somebody sick was Little Abbie or Sarah Whitehead. Probably he was more concerned with his dinner being on time and hoping Abby would get back in time to see to that and give Bridget her orders, knowing men and their stomachs.

I have always formed an impression that it was mostly to Fourth Street to see Sarah that Abby was in the habit of going, or to the market, but not much of a social butterfly otherwise. Don't you just wonder what Bridget thought when she had heard about the note? As she had been outside and saw nobody come to the house with a note that morning-nor had Mrs. Borden told her she was going to be away from the house awhile, it must have been a surprise to learn of it. Sounds like she believed it to be Sarah because Bridget says she does not know where Mrs. Whitehead lives when the topic of finding Abby is introduced.

Women dwell on and relish details as a rule-men are satisfied with generalities. I bet Bridget's wheels were turning over this note thing, but Andrew took it at face value and put it out of his mind.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:46 pm

I dunno... It makes me wonder if Andrew's mind was much on food at all that day, given the recent household ailments.

That's always been my impression too, that Abby's social circle was something more akin to an arc at best. It's odd how Abby Borden is described at times both in the papers and in the trial record, at times as if she barely existed at all. Short, fat, shy, retiring, "the oldest and
feeblest and dullest of the whole family." (That quoted part is from the Trial transcript, pg. 1878.)

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:56 pm

You may well be right about Bridget's thoughts regarding the note, Shelley. But look at it like this: If Bridget had raised the issue with Andrew at the time ("Excuse me, Mr. Borden, Sir, but I'm not aware of any note coming to the house for Mrs. Borden...") the result...might not have been all that pleasant, you might say. (Skkkeeeeeek!!)

Say, that worked pretty good - sound effects usually don't translate well to print.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:45 am

Thanks for all the testimony.

I can't help thinking tho that Robinson bended facts in his summation- like he did about Bridget and the note. I don't know if he truly believed the falsity of his argument in that quarter or if he genuinely did not fully understand the note problem. Still, he convinced a jury!

As for the consistency of these trial testimonies about *hearing Abby come in*, my feelings are that by the time these people testified, nearly a year had gone by and any amount of witness prep may have occurred, and also witnesses may have discussed among themselves these stories and unwittingly tainted their own memories.

I think statement made closer in time are more likely to reflect what they thought they remembered. But, also, in that case, once someone says that, they will always remember that and think it is true. That is human nature.

There is also the problem of these policemen's memories too. They may have gotten together at the end of the day and compared notes. Especially the *team* of Doherty & Harrington. I'm not sure that these police, at the time, took exact notes at the scene. I only know that by the time Knowlton got to town on the eve of the inquest, these witness statements were somewhat ready for his perusal. At least the ones dated up until the 9th of August.

I know this is all we have to go by for the early accounts. But I try to keep in mind that these policemen were possibly writing up their notes after the fact.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:46 am

For me it makes sense that Lizzie would say she heard Abby come in, for one obvious reason. She had told the story about her going OUT of the house. She told Bridget that Abby had left the premises. Bridget had been in the house at the time Andrew came home. She could say she hadn't seen Abby come down to greet her husband when he got back. The note would keep them both from looking for her. She told other witnesses that Abby had gotten a note calling her to the bedside of someone who was sick. So she had placed Abby out of the house when she probably knew very well she had never left the upstairs guestroom alive. The house got full of neighbors, police, etc..she was losing control over who was going to look where and when. For example Bridget wanting to find out where Mrs. Whitehead lived. Nobody was thinking to look inside the house for Abby because they did not think she was at home. She also probably just couldn't stand the suspense anymore. So instead of leaving others to wonder where Abby was, and go gallavanting all over looking for her, she said she thought she heard her come in. This places Abby back IN the house...now go look for her and discover that body!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:49 am

As for the topic being on Andrew's arrival, way back on the earlier page I had asked about Andrew leaving around 10 am in Lizzie's estimation and if Abby was thought to have been killed around 10 (as posted here as a theory) then how do we reconcile this and does that point to Andrew as a suspect in our deliberations, or in Lizzie's?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:54 am

Yes, Allen, that can be so but then Lizzie would have to not know that officials could tell the time of Abby's death and then the point of having Abby killed so much earlier in time from Andrew would be to show conclusively the right of inheritance.
She would be removing the reason for killing Abby so early as to be noticable when the body was found.

She could do that if she didn't know these things which had seemed rather important to the *scheme.* Just to get a body found?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:11 am

I think if a person hates another person that much and wants them out of the way enough to kill them, it's possible that at some point all bets are off and plans can go out the window. Then they are left to clean up the mess and try to make as many excuses and lame alibi's as they can. It can probably be hard to remember who you told what, and when, if you have just killed your mother and father without any idea of how you were going to cover your butt beforehand and are forced to think on the spot. Which is exactly what she did in my opinion. Also how do we know conclusively that Abby was killed for inhertance money? I haven't really seen that proven to be a definite conclusion.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:26 am

Well, it would depend at least partly, wouldn't it, one the question How big around is around?

As best I can recollect at the moment - wasn't the latest estimate Dr. Wood gave (this is at about pg. 998 in the trial transcript) for Abby's death something near between 9 and 9:30 - approximately 90 minutes or just over that before Andrew's murder was discovered?

It's difficult to be more precise presently, but on and around 996-998 they are discussing determining time of death (from the looks of this, it's a wee bit technical) based on digestive actions and so forth.

There's a reference to poison here also, but it reads as being almost incidental; the general discussion goes far more toward establishment of a time of death and the methods used to do so.

I'd thought Dolan went into that too, but have not located a reference as yet. Possibly I'm thinking of his preliminary hearing testimony.

Q. And have you been present and heard the evidence in the case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So far as relates to the condition of the bodies?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the condition of the intestines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the various witnesses who have testified to the appearance of the bodies after they were discovered, and to the description of the intestines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Taking all those facts as you have heard them, and also the examinations that you made yourself, what of them do you deem to be important in determining the time, the relative time, of the death of those two people?
A. The difference in the period of digestion, both stomach and intestinal, the drying of the blood, and the temperature of the body.
Page 997
Q. And also the intestines?
A. I mentioned that.
Q. Yes, I guess you did. And taking all those circumstances that you say you regard as important, as a whole, all together, considering them together, do you desire to modify in any way what you have already said as to the difference in time of death of the two people?
A. I should think that one corroborated the other, that they all tended to the same conclusion.
Page 998
Q. And that conclusion---will you state that, Professor, so that there may be no misunderstanding?
A. And hour and a half, more or less, it might be half an hour more or half an hour less.
-------
So we have an approximate window of 90 minutes between the two deaths, plus or minus thirty minutes as I read this. Correct?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:46 am

I've always relied on that, thank you again, DougOh for testimony.

But we know now that the time of death is hard to pin down even now.

Recall the letter in the Knowlton collection where it is stated that Draper was now in line with the prosecution as to the time of Abby's death*? That was not too long before trial that he got on board with the rest as to time. I think that implies there was still a reasonable question in his mind and I'd have to wonder why that was and what that was.

I do agree that relying on the experts at the time is probably the best bet.

*May 27th, 1892:
..."Dr. Draper is coming round on our side in great shape. All doubts he may have has as to the time of death are now fully dispersed.
Yours Truly,
H. M. Knowlton
per E."

I usually think of a 9 o'clock death time, but am considering a 10 o'clock to see how far we can get with Shelley's theory as to time.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:58 am

You'll end up tight - very tight, but it might just work. That plus or minus thirty is the key.

Nobody ever mentioned a liver temp reading, did they? I know that's generally thought of as a modern technique, but it might just be older than we think. I'll see what I can scrounge up about that.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:21 am

We all may recall they checked by touch at the scene, didn't they?

The fact that Draper was there at the autopsies gives him more credence to me, and that he was bucking the system up until someone convinced him as of May 27th. seems significant.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:59 am

Well, yes that's true, they would have done a check there in the house. But in all probability what they checked would have been femoral or carotid pulses, cardiac sounds, and so forth. Checking the body temperature by touch on a particularly warm day wouldn't have done all that much insofar as actually determining time of death. The general character of the bodies - the wounds that is - at the time of discovery or examination would have told the most.

The first postmortem exams would also have been the most reliable organically too.

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:39 am

Kat @ Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:49 am wrote:As for the topic being on Andrew's arrival, way back on the earlier page I had asked about Andrew leaving around 10 am in Lizzie's estimation and if Abby was thought to have been killed around 10 (as posted here as a theory) then how do we reconcile this and does that point to Andrew as a suspect in our deliberations, or in Lizzie's?

Lizzie was quite mixed up about the time of Andrew's leaving the house.
Lizzie's Inquest p. 59:
Q Tell me again what time you came down stairs.
A It was a little before nine, I should say about quarter; I don't know sure.
Q Did your father go down town?
A He went down later.
Q What time did he start away?
A I don't know.
Q What were you doing when he started away?
A I was in the dining room, I think; yes, I had just commenced, I think, to iron.

p. 59/60:
Q About what time do you think your father went down town?
A I don't know. It must have been after nine o'clock. I don't know what time it was.

p. 68:
A My father did not go away, I think, until somewhere about 10, as near as I can remember. He was with me downstairs.

p. 83:
Q Have you any idea when it was that your father came home?
A I am not sure, But I think it must have been after 10, because I think he told me he did not think he should go out until about 10. When he went out I did not look at the clock to see what time it was. I think he did not go out until 10 or a little after. He was not gone so very long.

Edit: Folks, forget about the next bit. There's nothing in the sources to indicate that Andrew went out on wednesday. Sorry if I confused you, and thanks, Kat, for alerting me!

Lizzie was very confused during the examination ("I have answered so many questions and I am so confused I don't know one thing from another.") so I have been wondering if she simply didn't mix up wednesday and thursday. After all, on wednesday Andrew did start for town later than usual.
Lizzie herself indicates that she might have mixed up the two days on another occasion too (p. 62):
Q What had you in your mind when you said you were on the stairs as Maggie let your father in?
A The other day somebody came there and she let them in and I was on the stairs; I don't know whether the morning before or when it was.
On wednesday, Dr. Bowen called to the house and was let in by Bridget while Lizzie was on the stairs.
Is it then posible that Lizzie indeed was on the first floor when her father came home?

Airmid.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:18 am

If Andrew left the house at ten, how does that affect the testimony of those who saw him during his rounds?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:01 am

{Ray: quote:}If the simplest explanation is likely to be the true one, then a secret visitor who was there about a loan would explain it all. There are many cases where a debtor wipes out the loan by bumping off the lender.[/quote]

That theory makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If it was just a matter of a loan, then why on earth would William come into the house when Andrew wasn't there and wouldn't be for quite some time. Do you think he was passing the time watching Abby put the pillow shams on the bed and went beserk because they were the wrong color, so he ran downstairs, found an axe, ran back up the stairs and hacked a passive old woman to bits while she was dusting? Then, calming down, he sits patiently for an hour and a half, and waits for Andrew to come home. Maybe he was in the kitchen with Lizzie discussing a recipe for plum pudding out of her Ladie's magazine. Or he was upstairs rearranging the pillows to his satisfaction and then saunders down to talk to Andrew when he comes home, Andrew not thinking anything of William drifting downstairs from the private upper chambers of his residence. They get into an argument, and William, who has just killed someone an hour and a half before, has a loan on his mind as a top priority. Maybe he thinks that if Andrew hears that William will pay off the loan in installments, then he will be so relieved that he won't think a thing about discovering his wife is lying in pieces in the upstairs bedroom and won't be able to fix dinner.

You're right--- this theory puts all the others to shame.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:16 am

I guess we would have to ask someone who is used to being in the house on a regular basis whether or not they look towards the guest room when going up the stairs. We look towards the guest room because we are touring the house. We need to ask someone who is used to the house enough that they don't think about what happened in the guest room every time they climb the stairs. It might even be good to ask someone who lived there before it was a bed and breakfast because then it was regular home and people wouldn't have thought about the murders as much. Now it is a bussiness that has to do with the case, so it might be harder not to think about it.

The shutters on the north window of the guest room were closed when Bridget and Mrs Churchill climbed the stairs so it was darker in there. That would have made it harder for Lizzie to notice anything unusual in the guest room if she wasn't looking for it.

It kind of makes you wonder why Bridget, who was too afraid to go upstairs alone would run into the darkened guest room by herself after seeing a body on the floor. While Mrs Churchill went back downstairs. The killer could have still been in there, but maybe Bridget knew that it wasn't so.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:10 am

Lots of points here to comment upon. First, - no, as a rule, one does not look to the left when climbing those stairs. The flight is very step, and the treads are somewhat shallow. If you are elderly, have stiff knees, are carrying something, your attention is focused on getting up the steps and straight ahead. I hang on to that hand rail as long as possible. At the top, the landing railing is extremely low, in fact coming down the stairs, the first few steps are tricky because this railing is so low. I imagine there must have been accidents over the years-and I am paranoid whenever youngsters are in a tour group about one of them tipping right over and down the stairs. Actually, the murderer could have shoved Abby right down the front steps with little effort and she might have broken her neck- much easier to explain!

One great boon to the armchair detective is that we know when and where Andrew was nearly all morning-from the barber to the last stop on Main Street, to his crossing the road from the corner of Spring Street, to his entry. Of course, Lizzie had no way of knowing how many people saw her father, and when and where he was seen. Probably did not count on that. Although there were the usual discrepancies of various clocks and pocket watches, even Bridget changes his arrival time from 10: 40 to 10: 50- I think we can pretty much bet on his arrival home near 10:45. Personally, I always placed in my mind Abby's attack around 9:20-30, although it may have been a little later.

In my humble opinion, I think Lizzie wanted the two homicides to appear closer together. So, if she said her father went out at 10, and he was killed about 11, while Bridget was listening to the clock in City Hall, then the two murders seem tied together closer in time. It is harder to buy Abby murdered at 9:15 (and she may have been) and Andrew at 11, and ask people and the police to believe a maniac with a bloody hatchet skulked around the house for an hour and a three quarters without being seen or heard by Lizzie and Bridget.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:25 am

Shelley @ Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:10 am wrote: It is harder to buy Abby murdered at 9:15 (and she may have been) and Andrew at 11, and ask people and the police to believe a maniac with a bloody hatchet skulked around the house for an hour and a three quarters without being seen or heard by Lizzie and Bridget.

That's why it has always seemed to me that Abby was murdered right after she went upstairs and then Lizzie thought she had time to clean things up and leave the house to establish an alibi. But then her dad came home, she panicked, felt she had to kill him too and change her whole scenerio in a short period of time, and that's why there are so many discrepancies in her story. She didn't have time to think everything through properly, so a lot of things are contradictory.