Saturday, July 30th- Where Was Lizzie?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:30 pm

Emma at the trial:

Page 1552 / i575

Q. She [Lizzie] did not go to Fairhaven to visit?
A. No, sir.

Q. She was in New Bedford visiting?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long did she remain in New Bedford?
A. Until the following Tuesday.

Q. This is, from Thursday until Tuesday.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. During that time, do you know, did she go to Marion?
A. No, sir, she did not.

Q. Do you know of her going to Marion while you were away?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What day was that?
A. It must have been a week from the following Saturday. We went to New Bedford Thursday.

Q. The Saturday before you came back home?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see her on the way to or from Marion?
A. No, sir.

Q. That is something she told you, I suppose?
A. That is all.

Q. And she told you that she simply spent the day there?
A. Yes, sir.

The girls left Fall River on Thursday, July 21st. Lizzie returned Tuesday, July 26th.
Emma here is being questioned as to Lizzie's visit to Marion on the "Saturday before [Emma] came back", and "a week from the following Saturday", which they are counting from the first Saturday, July 23rd. The week after that Saturday is July 30th.
So here we have Lizzie returning to Fall River on Tuesday the 26th and leaving again, this time to go to Marion, on Saturday the 30th.

We seem to have skipped this event in our discussions. I think the newspapers thought they knew what Lizzie was doing out of town on that Saturday?

Bridget at the Preliminary Hearing, 54:

Q. There is Thursday and Friday and Saturday, three; and if she [Lizzie] came back Tuesday, she was gone five or six days instead of three, was not she? That would be right, would not it?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. So when you said that, you meant she was gone about three days, not exactly three days? Emma was away from that time up, until after this tragedy, this trouble?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Did Lizzie go away any time after that, and before the tragedy?
A. I cannot tell.

Q. Did she not go away a Saturday?
A. I dont know.

Q. Did she go away the Saturday before the tragedy?
A. I cannot remember.

Q. Did she go away Sunday?
A. I do not know.

--Do we know what Lizzie was doing on Saturday the 30th?
This is a separate visit from her day spent there on Monday July 25th.
So she was there in Marion the 25th and the 30th. (According to what Emma says Lizzie told her).

Her total travels during that period just after her birthday and just before the murders included:
4 days in New Bedford- Thurs. 21st Thru Sunday the 24th.
1 day in Marion, Mon. 25th
1 day in Westport, Tues. July 26th, part of the later trip comprised of travel back to New Bedford, and returns to Fall River.
3 days in Fall River- maybe 3 1/2- (26th thru Sat., 30th)
1 day in Marion (leaves on Saturday the 30th, and returns)
5 days home inclusive and then the murders on the 4th.

Lizzie could be up to all kinds of things!
I don't travel that much, and I have a car!

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 3:28 pm

"I don't travel that much, and I have a car!" --Kat

I don't mean to be a wise guy, here, but what the heck else did Lizzie have to do in her life? Summers in this area, by the sea, with friends who are well enough to do to be unemployed, must have been little more than visiting around, taking a boat trip to Marion for a day or two, etc.

Especially now that we know the real "heat wave" had actually been the week before the murders, getting to a cool and shady spot was probably what many people did if the were not otherwise tied down.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:31 pm

I agree, but the papers say Lizzie was visiting lawyers left, right and center.
She may have been on vacation but she seemed to be getting around a lot- 2 Saturdays gone out alone too. (Well, one Saturday was for abt. 90 minutes alone).

The thing is, most people think she went to New Bedford and stayed there, like Emma stayed put in Fairhaven. We could say the same about Emma, except in reverse.

Anyway the main point is these were the days leading up to a double murder and thus should be ennumerated, and made clear for anyone interested in tidbits like this.
Then we can speculate, which is fun.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:13 am

I'm not sure what I think she was doing during these visits. She may have been planning and preparing for a murder, or she may have been trying to spend as little time around the folks as possible. At the very least, it may show a building tension within the household. It also takes place at the time when she and Emma got Pa to buy back the Ferry St. home. Did they suddenly have (or expect to have) new expenses?

If she had consulted an out of town lawyer, wouldn't he have stepped forward as a witness. Do lawyers protect their clients in cases of this sort?Or did she bribe a crooked lawyer to keep his mouth shut? (The Ferry St. cash might be used to buy silence, perhaps.)

I find myself intrigued but indecisive on this one.

--Lyddie

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:33 pm

I imagine that Lizzie went to Marion, as did many others, to try to hobnob with some of the most influencial people in America, who summered there.

By the 1880s, Marion had shifted from an old seafaring village to a nationally known summer resort. The biggest mover/shaker of the day was Richard Watson Gilder, editor of Century magazine, who built a summer place there and invited writers, actors, artists and others. Artist Charles Dana Gibson of "Gibson Girl" fame summered there. When author Richard Harding Davis married Cecil Clark Davis in the chapel in the village, Ethyl Barrymore was one of the bridesmaids.

Marion, my friends, was one of the places to be in the summer. (And it still is, actually. When my brother taught choral music at Tabor Academy, the private high school in Marion, one of his students was the daughter of James Taylor and Carly Simon--they used to come to the school concerts! Geraldo has lived there for quite a few years, now.)

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:47 am

Thanks for the info, FairhavenGuy. I never knew that about Marion, I thought it was just a seaside resort town. So, even on her vacations, Lizzie was trying to climb the social ladder.

Bird Island Light, Sippican Harbor, Marion

connecticuthills · Post by **connecticuthills** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 9:01 pm

I voted " Other " Lizzie was on vaca scheming and dreaming of the better life
Not much different from Scott Petersons personality in my opine

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:51 pm

Hey, Susan, nice picture of the harbor. Once again a forum member from afar posts a picture of something that's within 15 minutes of where I live.

I've got to get out with the camera more. I still owe Harry pictures of the Ash Street Jail.

The more I read posts from our out-of-towners, the more I realize how much local lore that southeastern Mass. dwellers just "know" from having lived here forever. While not everybody around here knows the 19th century history of the area, many locals would just have an intuitive feeling about Lizzie and friends being in Marion. Even years ago when I didn't have a clue about Marion in the 1890s, I still had a sense of Lizzie's summer visits, because it really wouldn't be much different from a group of single Fall River teachers going for lunch in Marion today, except today it might be Ben Affleck they'd see instead of Charles Dana Gibson.

I'm sure Mark A., Gramma (Yo, Gramma, where have you been lately?) Bill Pavao, Len Rebello and other Fall River area residents past and present, have similar feelings--just gut instincts about certain aspects of the case, based on a more intimate knowledge of the surroundings.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:52 am

Thanks, FairhavenGuy, glad you liked it. I was trying to find pics online of Marion to get a feel for it, couldn't find much. For some reason I picture it looking like Mystic, Connecticut, a sleepy, little seaside town, frozen in time. Is there much left there from Lizzie's day? Things and places she might visit and see there?

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:12 pm

Good old Yankees never get rid of anything useful if they can help it--old buildings, broken locks, you name it. . .

There's quite a bit in the "village" area of Marion that was there in the 1890s.

Here's a not so great link from the Marion Art Center, which itself is located in an 1830 church building.

http://www.marionartcenter.org/Town_Tour.htm

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:27 pm

Thank you, FairhavenGuy, that was neat! At least I got a bit of the local flavor of Marion, its pretty, wouldn't mind visiting there myself. I wonder if Lizzie would let me come out on the yacht with her and the girls?

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:46 pm

Strange you brought this subject up, Kat! I found a tidbit in researching for an article for the Oct./Nov. "Hatchet" about this. I don't want to give it away before it's published.

I agree with you, Kat. Every day before the murders is worthy of a second or third glance.

Gorgeous photo, Susan. Marion is just lovely. Last spring I got to spend some real time there, and I loved it. Sippican Harbor is the harbor around the town there, which joins Buzzard's Bay. So when we hear Lizzie was going fishing on Buzzard's Bay, I think that was used as a broader term for the harbor.

I can't remember if there are any motels to stay at in Marion. I'd like to spend the night there some time and just enjoy the beauty of it all. It's like a well-kept secret. If you go to Fall River, I would suggest a visit to Marion and Fairhaven and New Bedford ... all the Lizzie towns. They are historical and interesting. It helps to get a feel for Lizzie by going, I found.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:01 pm

Yes, Fairhaven, thanks for the Marion info. I had never looked it up, so I didn't even realize it was a seaside resort town. Doc Handy must have been pretty well-heeled to have a cottage out there, mustn't he? I never had any idea that it would have been a posh place to go--gives a new perspective to the trip to know that. I look forward to learning more in Sherry's article!

--Lyddie

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:17 am

Thanks, Augusta. Between what you and FairhavenGuy have said, it makes Marion come alive, that there was a reason that Lizzie used that as her getaway. Its natural beauty, the social strata that summered there, etc. One of these days I need to go back east and visit, preferably during the warmer months.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:26 am

From Thursday, July 21st, to Thursday, August 4th (all Thursdays!), Lizzie was home 8 days. During those 8 days then, was when she saw this *prowler*. This she does not tell her father about, tho by Wednesday the 3rd she is telling it to Alice...and she says she's afraid for her father. Then why didn't she tell Andrew about seeing this man?

Inquest
Lizzie
90+
A. About two weeks ago—
Q. Was you going to tell the occurrence about the man that called at the house?
A. No, sir. It was after my sister went away. I came home from Miss Russell's one night, and as I came up, I always glanced towards the side door as I came along by the carriage way, I saw a shadow on the side steps. I did not stop walking, but I walked slower. Somebody ran down the steps, around the east end of the house. I thought it was a man, because I saw no skirts, and I was frightened, and of course I did not go around to see. I hurried in the front door as fast as I could and locked it.
Q. What time of night was that?
A. I think about quarter of 9; it was not after 9 o'clock, anyway.
Q. Do you remember what night that was?
A. No, sir; I don't. I saw somebody run around the house once before last winter.
Q. One thing at a time. Do you recollect about how long ago that last occurrence was?
A. It was after my sister went away. She has been away two weeks today, so it must have been within two weeks.
Q. Two weeks today? Or two weeks at the time of the murder?
A. Is not today Thursday?
Q. Yes, but I thought you said she was gone two weeks the day of the murder?
A. Is not today Thursday?
Q. Yes, but that would be three weeks. I thought you said the day your father was murdered she had been away just two weeks?
A. Yes, she had.
Q. Then it would be three weeks today your sister went away, a week has elapsed?
A. Yes, it would be three weeks.
Q. You mean it was sometime within the two weeks that your sister was away?
A. Yes. I had forgotten that a whole week had passed since the affair.
Q. Different from that you cannot state?
A. No, sir; I don't know what the date was.
Q. This form when you first saw it was on the steps of the backdoor?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Went down the rear steps?
A. Went down towards the barn.
Q. Around the back side of the house?
A. Disappeared in the dark; I don't know where they went.
Q. Have you ever mentioned that before?
A. Yes, sir; I told Mr. Jennings.
Q. To any officer?
A. I don't think I have, unless I told Mr. Hanscomb.
Q. What was you going to say about last winter?
A. Last winter when I was coming home from church one Thursday evening I saw somebody run around the house again. I told my father of that.
Q. Did you tell your father of this last one?
A. No, sir.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:42 pm

Yes, I too have never understood that, if Lizzie did indeed see a prowler about the house, why not notify her father? She says shes afraid for her father, but, honestly, what about herself? A young woman, by herself, at night and she sees a strange man lurking about the house and yard who is up to some sort of mischief. Wouldn't she have mentioned it out of fear for her own safety? Or even Emma's? Kind of makes me think that this may have been a tall tale afterall.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:01 pm

Lizzie is asked if it could have been a caller after Bridget but she says she doesn't think so.
That question seems like a slap in the face to Lizzie.
No one intimates she has a caller, or a stalker or a male friend who was hanging out waiting for Lizzie!
Oh I bet that rankled.
Bridget might have one, but not Lizzie.

Notice the totals in our poll?
Not one vote for David Anthony.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:00 am

Thats true, I never thought of it that way, lady or not, she still could have had male admirers that stalked her! Even to this day we still don't think of Lizzie with a male friend to call upon. Personally I voted for visiting a lawyer to brush up on the legalities of deaths and wills.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:04 am

Maybe the statement wasn't meant as a slap at all. If it were a beau of Lizzie's, wouldn't he have stepped forward and greeted her? I don't think people thought in terms of stalkers yet. A boyfriend of Bridgie's might be trying to see her on the sly and turned tail and run at the sight of one of the mistresses. The described behavior is of somebody up to no good. Lizzie would never associate with such a man--even that scallawag David Anthony!

--Lyddie

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:31 am

You're right- I don't think it was meant as a slap to Lizzie- or a slam- but how might she have felt anyway?

There was supposedly found indentation(s?) in the hay in the barn loft- people seemed to think that was significant, for a time.
Lizzie in the hay with David?
Bridget in the hay with? (David?) Hmmmm....

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:27 pm

The Evening Standard
"Thursday, September 22, 1892"

"MISS BORDEN DIDN'T.

Denial that She Consulted a
Providence Lawyer.

Last Startling Bit of Evidence
Pronounced Bogus.

A Board of Trade Address on the Case
Delivered in Watertown.

The announcement that the government is in possession of information which goes to show that Miss Lizzie Borden consulted an attorney in Providence in regard to the disposition of her father's estate, has greatly interested the lawyers of Fall River. Two members of the bar who were interviewed yesterday stated that they did not see how the prosecution could compel the prisoners counsel to testify as to anything which she had said to him, but admitted that if the State kept on accumulating evidence it might force Miss Borden to talk. If it were true that she had applied for advice, as reported, the lawyers asserted that it would be damaging evidence in case it could be introduced. The fact that she was in Providence appeared to be well established, unless the authorities are very much at sea, but it was intimated that it was singular that a lawyer had dropped any hint which would betray his client. The police in Fall River are reticent and refuse to say anything beyond making the admission that the story, as it has been printed, is substantially correct. As nearly as can be learned, the Providence lawyer's mistake is explained in this way: On the night of the murder, while in a barber shop, and long before Miss Borden was suspected, he dropped a remark which found its way to the detectives, and which led to further important and interesting developments. It was too late to undo the mischief, and the State naturally took full advantage of it. Another version is that Miss Borden was seen in the waiting room of a prominent lawyer's office, on the Thursday before the tragedy, and that her presence there led to the investigation which brought to light the purchases she made at the Westminster street store.

Miss Borden Didn't.

It has been learned that Mr. Jennings was in Boston yesterday in consultation with Mr. Adams on the Borden case, and they were asked if they had anything to say with reference to the article recently published in the Fall River Globe and sent out by the Associated Press concerning the alleged discovery of evidence of Miss Borden being in Providence and having an interview with an attorney there about the disposition of the estate in the event of her father and mother, or either of them, dying. They both said they were prepared to state that the report was absolutely untrue; that Miss Borden did not then, or ever in her life, consult any attorney in Providence, R. I., or anywhere else, concerning the disposition of the property of her father."

--This item refers to the Thursday before the murders- July 28th. It also makes mention of the purchase Lizzie made while out of town at "the Westminster street store", whatever that was.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:36 pm

In The Evening Standard, we find a reference to the hatchet in Marion:

"Thursday, May 11, 1893 Page 2

BORDEN HATCHETS AGAIN.

This Time It Is Probably a New Discovery
of an Old Weapon.

The news to the effect that a hatchet had been discovered in Fall River and that it might be the weapon with which the Borden murders were committed, created more or less curiosity in Fall River as to which hatchet had now come to the surface, says the Providence Journal. Ever since the tragedy there has been no end of hatchets, but as nearly as can be ascertained, none of them have satisfied all the claims made for it. There was a 'very sharp' hatchet with which wood for a camping party at Marion was to be chopped, and there was a hatchet in the cellar of the Borden house which looked as if it had been scraped with ashes. Then the authorities unearthed an instrument, the handle of which was said to be covered with blood stains. This axe was subjected to an examination which seem to confirm suspicions, until Professor Wood testified that it was free from anything that indicated that it had been used for an illegitimate purpose. After that there followed the story of a flat-headed, mysterious kind of a hatchet, with no handle, which had been found by Officer Medley. This blade, it is understood, was on exhibition when the grand jury met and it has thus far figured as a possible instrument of destruction, though the prosecution did not claim that no further search was necessary. "

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 12:39 am

From Rebello, pg. 64:

"It was Miss Johnston who received a letter from Lizzie the day of the Borden murders. She destroyed the letter because it 'contained reference to something which in the opinion of the young woman [Miss Johnston] ... that might, in the light of subsequent events, be misconstrued.'" --"Boston Advertiser, August 24, 1893."

--This has another cite somewhere, where a new hatchet brought by Lizzie to Marion, is considered to be the "something" referred to in this segment.

diana · Post by **diana** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 3:06 pm

Here's something on the letter and the hatchet:

"... legend gives Lizzie a sour disposition, but it is quite likely that she had a sense of humor; others besides Kirby have commented upon it. In fact, a humorous note she had written caused a one-day sensation right after the murders when it was misinterpreted as meaning that the had bought a sharp ax. Several days before the murders Lizzie wrote to some friends that before coming up to visit them she would get a sharp ax to make certain she did not freeze. She was referring to an episode that had occurred the previous summer when they were together at the same cottage. On the first chilly evening they found that the logs on hand were too large for the fireplace and the ax so dull they could not chop the wood to fit. They had to search constantly for small branches and twigs in order to keep warm. A reporter who went to Marion to interview Lizzie's friends after the murders either misunderstood her reference in the letter or let his imagination run wild. He wrote that Lizzie had bought a sharp ax just prior to the murders. Before the police learned the real meaning of the letter, officers questioned every hardware merchant in Fall River and for miles around. They found no one to testify that Lizzie had purchased an ax." (Radin, 54)

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 4:03 pm

Re. indentations in the hay:

Lizzie and David sitting in a loft
Making plans for Maplecroft. . .

I love the story about the sharp ax to keep the Marion party warm! I don't remember coming across it before, although the papers are full of more axes than you can shake a twig at.

--Lyddie

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 11:02 am

Thanks for all the info, Kat and Diana. Interesting reading as always.

It also makes mention of the purchase Lizzie made while out of town at "the Westminster street store", whatever that was.

Could that be the store that Lizzie purchased the dress pattern at while she was away? Lizzie couldn't recall the name of the store, just that it was in the same street as a certain book store.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:46 pm

I thought someone would know if that is New Bedford, Marion, or Providence! The allusion sounds like Providence.

Anyone heard of Westminster street?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:58 pm

There is a Westminster Avenue in New Bedford. No Westminster Street located in Marion as of now. There is a Westminster Street in Providence, RI.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:46 pm

Very good! Westminster Street in Providence.
Ahm, I wonder if it was a *street* with a preponderance of dry goods and material stores or tailors or banks or art supplies or?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:23 am

Here is the Peerless Building at 290 Westminster Street in Providence that may have been there in Lizzie's day, it was built circa 1890:

History:
What is now known as the Peerless Building is actually comprised of five individual buildings. This cluster of buildings, except for the Hannah Green Estate building (Paolino Properties), make up the entire block of Westminster between Eddy and Union Streets. This block was famous for housing the largest and most successful regional department stores until the 1980’s when it closed its doors.

Found this too:

Olneyville is the core of a larger historically and geographically defined area called the Woonasquatucket River Valley. Olneyville Square, where Broadway, Westminster Street, Harris Avenue, Hartford Avenue, Plainfield Street, Manton Avenue, Valley Street, and Dike Street all meet, has long been the industrial, commercial, cultural, and transportation hub of the entire west side of Providence.

From this site:

http://www.provplan.org/nprof/oln_bk.html

Also found this if it might be any help?

Providence Preservation Society
21 Meeting St., Providence, RI 02903
TEL (401) 831-7440
FAX (401) 831-8583
Email
http://www.ppsri.org
Director of Preservation Services: Mary Kate Harrington
Hours: Monday-Friday 9am-5pm; closed major holidays.
Appointment recommended.

Holdings (Inclusive dates: 1800's-present):

The Preservation Society's holdings focus chiefly on the history and development of the City of Providence and it's historic buildings. Resources include city directories dating back to 1824, historical maps, preservation planning documents, resources on preservation treatments and standards, copies of National Register documentation for properties in the city, periodicals, and the Gowdey Collection, which includes historical information on buildings awarded PPS house markers. The photo archives include mostly slides as well as some prints of historic buildings throughout Providence. Slides date primarily from the 1970's to the present day.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:51 am

For the record: the New Bedford street where Hutchinson's bookstore was located is Union Street, the main east/west street from County Street to the waterfront. Union Street is four blocks south of Madison Street, where Lizzie stayed in New Bedford.

I used to go to Hutchinson's as a child. The store later became Saltmarsh's and moved to Purchase Street, which was one of the main north/south streets in the downtown New Bedford area.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:53 am

As everyone knows a Lawyer couldn't be forced to testify due to the attorney-client confidentiality rules. The only way a lawyer would be required to come forward would be if Miss Lizzie came right out and said she intended to engage in criminal behavior or murder. A lawyer who heard this would be subject to censure for not coming forward. If Lizzie did not have any more of a relationship with that attorney than a one time visit, the prosecution could argue that no real relationship existed. It is a long shot but it might be worth a try.

Did Lizzie have a regular attorney she used in a town other than Providence? Her attorney's imply that she had NO lawyer. But look closely at their wording. They specify only that Lizzie never consulted a Providence lawyer about Andrew's estate. The specificity of their wording should be a red flag for the prosecution.

Gary

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:36 pm

For the record: the New Bedford street where Hutchinson's bookstore was located is Union Street, the main east/west street from County Street to the waterfront. Union Street is four blocks south of Madison Street, where Lizzie stayed in New Bedford.

Thanks, Chris, good information to have! It sounds like they focused on different places Lizzie may have visited while out of town.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:41 pm

Thank you Susan!
That department store might be just Lizzie's thing!

Gary, here is a lawyer who sounds like he was *tricked* into responding, tho he doesn't say much and I doubt he was Lizzie's lawyer ever.
Once someone is misquoted, it is human nature to try to rectify the mistake. I think it's somewhat clever, tho ruthless- as of course Trickey and McHenry were...

It also can sound as if Owen is attempting to insinuate himself into the case.

Knowlton Papers:

HK092
Letter, handwritten in ink.

"PAGE & OWEN,
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
19 COLLEGE ST. ROOMS 17, 18 & 25
P.O. BOX 1030
CHARLES H. PAGE. FRANKLIN P. OWEN.

Providence, R.I. Nov. 14, 1892
Hon. H.M. Knowlton
Atty.
Dear Sir
Yours this day received - At the request of Mr. Hilliard I desire to state that I told Mr. McHenry that from the appearance of the cut in the news-paper I thought I had seen Miss Borden on the street in this city about a
week before the murder. I also said sometime subsequently that I felt quite positive some member of the Borden family had called to see me about the property but I did not know who it was - I never told McHenry that Miss Lizzie Borden had been to my office and I never came to Fall River to the court and I am of the opinion that if any communications
were made to me by her they are privileged. I could not tell if she did unless I should first see her.
Yours Resply
Franklin P. Owen"

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 2:39 am

You're welcome, Kat. Westminster sounds like it housed many different types of shops, some hotels. From what I was reading, most of these old buildings are now art studios, it sounds cool!

Yes, I agree, it sounds very much like this lawyer was "Trickeyed" into tipping his hand, he probably didn't even know what hit him!

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:45 am

Mr. Owen sounds to me like someone who is trying to cover his tracks. It is rather doubtful that he could have had a consultation with a member of the Borden family and not know with whom he spoke. McHenry appears to have tricked Owen into some sort of admission that he had seen Lizzie in town and that IF he had a consultation with an unspecified member of the Borden family, that consultation would be privileged.

He is using semantics to obfuscate the whole incident because he knows he has already disclosed too much to McHenry

Gary

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:52 am

As to the purchase of the dress pattern, this was in the August 30, 1892 Evening Standard:

"... When the court was again called to order Mr. Knowlton resumed the reading of the record of the inquest. He showed that Lizzie had bought a dress pattern on Union street in New Bedford. ..."

How that was done is not explained. Looking at the transcription of the Preliminary I could not find that testimony.

However, if I remember correctly we didn't have that level of detail of what Knowlton read into the record of Lizzie's inquest statement or whether he added additional comments of his own.

Then in the September 3rd Evening Standard:

"Fall River, Sept. 3. --- The day after the Borden murder City Marshal Hilliard put two New Bedford officers at work in that city with orders to trace Lizzie Borden's actions during the two weeks previous. They found that she had purchased a dress pattern of cheap material in a dry goods store in that city, and it was to this pattern that reference was made at the trial. Some importance was attached to the matter at the time of the discovery of the purchase. The police failed to find the dress pattern or any dress of it in their search at the Borden house. They made demand on the members of the family to produce the piece of goods or the made-up dress. If they could not do this the police wanted to know what had become of it. The family refused to move in the matter and the police at New Bedford searched the store to get a sample of the goods bought by Lizzie."

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 7:12 am

As to the alleged visit by Lizzie to a Providence lawyer, this was in the Sept. 22, 1892 Evening Standard:

"Thursday, September 22, 1892

MISS BORDEN DIDN'T.

Denial that She Consulted a
Providence Lawyer.

Last Startling Bit of Evidence
Pronounced Bogus.

. . . . . . . . .

The announcement that the government is in possession of information which goes to show that Miss Lizzie Borden consulted an attorney in Providence in regard to the disposition of her father's estate, has greatly interested the lawyers of Fall River. Two members of the bar who were interviewed yesterday stated that they did not see how the prosecution could compel the prisoners counsel to testify as to anything which she had said to him, but admitted that if the State kept on accumulating evidence it might force Miss Borden to talk. If it were true that she had applied for advice, as reported, the lawyers asserted that it would be damaging evidence in case it could be introduced. The fact that she was in Providence appeared to be well established, unless the authorities are very much at sea, but it was intimated that it was singular that a lawyer had dropped any hint which would betray his client. The police in Fall River are reticent and refuse to say anything beyond making the admission that the story, as it has been printed, is substantially correct. As nearly as can be learned, the Providence lawyer's mistake is explained in this way: On the night of the murder, while in a barber shop, and long before Miss Borden was suspected, he dropped a remark which found its way to the detectives, and which led to further important and interesting developments. It was too late to undo the mischief, and the State naturally took full advantage of it. Another version is that Miss Borden was seen in the waiting room of a prominent lawyer's office, on the Thursday before the tragedy, and that her presence there led to the investigation which brought to light the purchases she made at the Westminster street store.

Miss Borden Didn't.

It has been learned that Mr. Jennings was in Boston yesterday in consultation with Mr. Adams on the Borden case, and they were asked if they had anything to say with reference to the article recently published in the Fall River Globe and sent out by the Associated Press concerning the alleged discovery of evidence of Miss Borden being in Providence and having an interview with an attorney there about the disposition of the estate in the event of her father and mother, or either of them, dying. They both said they were prepared to state that the report was absolutely untrue; that Miss Borden did not then, or ever in her life, consult any attorney in Providence, R. I., or anywhere else, concerning the disposition of the property of her father. ....... "

I note that the source of the story was the Fall River Globe, not exactly a newspaper favorable towards Lizzie.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:22 am

It would appear that the statements made by Mr. Adams and Mr. Jennings must have had as their origination the denials of Miss Lizzie. They would not have been in a position to know her every movement in on the days in question.

It is true that the Fall River Globe was hostile to Lizzie and wrote some very biased editorials and stories about Lizzie. It often showed a lack of integrity and responsibility toward the facts. However, I do not believe eveything it reported can be discounted.

Based on some of the reports it did make, Lizzie would have had a good case for libel and I do not understand why she never pursued this if she was not quilty of had no quilty knowledge (mens rea).

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:28 pm

It is suspicious that Lizzie never sued for Libel, especially after the Tricky-McHenry article claiming she was pregnant. We've been told to believe that Jennigs had his hands full at the time and was too swamped to pursue a lawsuit.

So Lizzie missed out on a civil case and she didn't feel like defending her name?

Also, the two sides in the trial pretty much stipulated that they were no longer interested in this dress pattern. I wonder why not?

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:14 am

I think they changed their minds because of Alice Russell and the Bedford Cord. That story was sensational and might have been weakened by the added clutter of the dress pattern.

I agree with Gary that there is something very intriguing in the word choice of the Providence lawyer--even beyond the usual legal doubletalk.

--Lyddie

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Saturday, July 30th- Where Was Lizzie?

What Did Lizzie Do In Marion Saturday, July 30th?

Saturday, July 30th- Where Was Lizzie?