Hyman Lubinsky

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:39 pm

Well, he did change the time, regardless of the reason for doing it. To justify the time change and to make sure he had a reason to be certain of the time, he says he was running late. Because of that, he was checking his watch, and that's why he was positive about the time. He knew when he left the stable he was slightly more than a half hour later than normal. If he was all that concerned with being late and positive about the time, why would he tell Mullaly he left at his usual time? The murders were an extraordinary event, that would tend to fix the occasion in his memory, and he told Mullaly he left at 10:30 on the 8th, only four days after the murders.

Changing the time to a few minutes past eleven tends to corroborate Lizzie at least being outdoors, possibly having come from the barn. The other problem I have with the testimony is Lubinsky's insistence that the woman he saw came from the barn to the house. He didn't see anyone leaving the barn, how could he be sure she came from there? He repeats that time after time, it almost sounds rehearsed. When he's finally pinned down as to whether he saw the woman leaving the barn, he says "no", but not until then. The problem with his original story, saying he left the stable at 10:30, is that it might possibly be taken as an opportunity to suggest Lizzie retrieving the hatchet from somewhere outside and bringing it into the house. So, for some unknown reason, Lubinsky goes from the potential to harm the defense to an attempt to help the defense.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:42 pm

The only problem with Lizzie retrieving the hatchet from outside at that time, is Abbie, already dead upstairs, I think the hatchet was in the house already. But I was thinking about Lizzie getting the handle off and then taking it out side and putting it into the ground. If it was hot and it was, and hadn't rained for a bit, wouldn't that make it harder for her to get it into the ground? It wouldn't have been done just by stepping on it, she'd have had to really stomp on it, and I don't think her shoes would have been up to the job. If she'd have pounded on it with, let's say a hammer, that would have been heard.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:57 pm

Oh yeah, I think his English wasn't very good, for one thing, and I think he meant she was coming from the direction of the barn, not coming out of the barn, she was almost to the steps when he saw her, so he couldn't have meant coming out of the barn. But coming from (the direction of) the barn. Which actually could have had her coming from the backyard, or the back of the house.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:33 pm

Clay soil after a dry spell would probably be about the hardest soil to penetrate, sandy or loamy soil after a rain would probably be about the easiest. The only way to know for certain how difficult it is would be to try it. Was the barn floor dirt or concrete?

Difficulty with the English language allows a clever person to be selectively stupid. What he said was from the barn to the house, and we may speculate as to his meaning, but as stated it means he saw her leave the barn and walk to the house. That's what I meant earlier, she was walking away from several things, like the pear tree or the lumber pile or the yard. It could be simply stated as having seen her walking toward the rear door of the house with her back to the yard. The attorney did finally pin him down about having seen her leave the barn; he did not. That settled the matter at the time, and the attorney having Lubinsky iterate and reiterate "from the barn" may have been setting him up to a degree. I wouldn't put it past them, there were all sorts of weasel maneuvers going on during the trial! By finally pinning him down as to exactly what he did or did not see, it makes the earlier "from the barn" contention seem rehearsed, or it makes Lubinsky look a bit foolish. It makes him look as though he may be quick to jump to conclusions, or capable of outright fabrications.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:57 am

I just read Knowlton questioning him, and if Hyman did have a problem with English, Knowlton capitolized on it. I even got confused! lol He (Knowlton) didn't ask one pertinent question, as far as I was concerned! What happend to truth, justice and the American way?? No wonder they didn't get a conviction. If that's how the rest of the questioning went, then they weren't so much searching for the truth as they were trying to rail road some one. That whole questioning was dispicable....

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:05 am

Sorry bout that, but why would the judge let him go on like that? That whole line of questioning left me wanting to know if indeed the horse got his lunch!

mspitstop · Post by **mspitstop** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:52 am

the ultimate fascination with this case is the time element. whoever killed andrew did not have "15-20" minutes to commit the murder. think of all that had to be done...bridget sees andrew at approx. 10:55. the phone call to the police station is clocked in at 11:15. in that time a murder was committed, lizzie calls bridget down, bridget gets her hat and shawl, runs across the street, back again, then out again to alice russell. mrs churchill comes home from shopping during this time, sees bridget, goes in her house to the kitchen, puts down groceries, sees lizzie, goes back out through the house, around the gate to lizzie, takes a quick look in the sitting room, comes back out, goes out in search of her handyman, finds him at the stable down the street, tells him what is happening and beckons him to come with her, is overheard by the newsdealer who then goes to the shop, first calls the fall river globe to report the trouble at the borden's and THEN calls police. Whew. so do not think that the killer had all that time to commit the murder and clean up. the essential mystery of this is not who did it, but how the hell was it done by whoever!!!!!???!!!!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:37 pm

Bridget and Mrs. Churchill's actions were simultaneous rather than consecutive, but they still used up some amount of time. I wish I had a better idea of when Bridget went to her room, the best we have is the "few minutes" before she heard the clock ring the hour. Maybe the best we can do is to take the last solid time known, probably when Andrew left the store Shortsleeves was working on, and estimate how long it would take Andrew to walk home from there. Then we would need to estimate how long it would take Bridget to finish washing the windows on the inside, to whatever extent that chore was finished. On the other end, people would have had a sense of urgency and may have been moving a bit quicker than normal after the murder, so Bridget and Mrs. Churchill may have been scurrying a bit and others would likely have been similarly inspired, the murderer among them.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:17 pm

Maybe Hyman saw Lizzie in the back yard after Andrew was murdered, and changed his time he saw her, who knows? She could have been out there throwing the weapon up on the neighbors roof. Lizzie was at home all morning in the house for both murders, I don't see how anyone else could have killed Andrew and walked away unoticed. Hyman did not speak English very well either, and I think the attorneys used that to try to confuse him. To Lizzie's benefit of course, and later rewarded him for giving her an alibi.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:34 pm

I guess Lubinsky's testimony is ultimately pointless. If he saw Lizzie at a few minutes after 11:00, it doesn't mean she couldn't have killed Andrew. Even if she had been coming from the barn, it doesn't make her innocent. Once she had the hatchet in hand, it probably wouldn't have taken more than 60 seconds to administer the blows. She could have walked out to the barn, disposed of the hatchet, and washed up to whatever extent necessary. If he saw someone at 10:30, it might have been Bridget and he was mistaken as to identity, or he saw Lizzie at about the time Andrew was entering the front door and Mrs. Kelley was walking to her appointment. That also might have been about the time Bridget was bringing her window washing implements indoors. If he was as certain it wasn't Bridget as he was certain of the time, the testimony becomes highly questionable.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:43 pm

Yeah, I know but it would have been nice to have one little piece of the puzzle, just knowing for sure that Lizzie did in-deed go out side, for what-ever reason. Because if it was just after 11 o'clock she'd have just murderered Andrew and the hatchet is probably out side some where at that point. Maybe in the ground around the pear tree, she mentioned them for a reason, (in case some one saw her there)? Going back in the house, straight to the bottom of the stairs to call up to Bridgett.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:21 pm

I don't think his testismony was pointless, he saw a woman in the yard that day. Whether it was Lizzie or not, it is still relevant. There are very few witnesseses, and he came forward to what he saw.It reminds me of the OJ simpson trial, when the witness heard the man say "Hey, Hey, Hey"

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:23 am

Lubinsky's testimony is unreliable given the conflicting times between what he told Mullaly and what he said in court. It really doesn't impact the opportunity to have committed the crimes, whichever way it is taken. It may shed some light on whether or not Lizzie was outside that morning, but if the time was actually 10:30, it may be unlikely he saw Lizzie. That was about the time Andrew arrived, or perhaps when Bridget was coming in to wash windows on the inside, those events occurred relatively close together in time. Bridget didn't report seeing Lizzie downstairs or outdoors at that time and if Lizzie was entering the house at 10:30, she would have had to walk upstairs in order to be heard giggling on the landing when Bridget let Andrew in, which would take her through the sitting room where Bridget was washing windows.

If Lubinsky saw Lizzie shortly after 11:00, it means she might have gone to the barn as she stated in her alibi, or perhaps to the barn or outdoors to dispose of the hatchet and clean up. It is the one single piece of testimony which introduces enough information for reasonable doubt in the question of Lizzie killing Andrew, but only if it was actually Lizzie he saw, and only if it was shortly after 11:00. Even then it is a 50:50 chance as to what she was doing. The trouble is, because of the two reported times, the information is questionable.

Granted, he came forward, and likely with good intentions. But if he was late that day and looking at his watch because he was concerned with the time, as he testified at the trial, there is absolutely no reason for him to tell Mullaly the time was 10:30 four days after the murders. It almost sounds like someone got to him and asked him to modify his original story a bit.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:40 am

Charles Gardner, the owner of the stable where Lubinsky picked up the horse and wagon, corroborated the time Lubinsky left as shortly after 11:00. His usual time for feeding the horses was 11:00 and Lubinsky left after he began feeding. This implies that Lubinsky's usual departure time at 10:30 either did not allow for his horse to be fed, or Gardner was in the habit of feeding Lubinsky's horse a half hour earlier than the others. That may or may not be a consideration, Gardner stabled horses owned by others, and they knew Gardner's mid-day feeding time. Most people would have been using their horses at that time, so missing the feeding would have been more common than not.

I can't seem to find Lubinsky called as a witness anywhere other than the trial. He came forward on August 8th and told both Mullaly and a newspaper reporter the story about leaving the stable at 10:30, and these were separate occasions. If both Mullaly and the reporter were mistaken about the time and Lubinsky had actually told them 11:00, why wasn't Lubinsky called as a witness earlier than the trial? Lubinsky also told the man he worked for, Wilkinson, about the incident, so others were aware of what Lubinsky had seen. It seems the first we hear about 11:00 is at the trial when suddenly Lubinsky is called as a witness.

The more I look into this, the more confused it gets!

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:47 pm

Wow, you've done your home work, Jeff! I agree, it is important, IF the correct time can be found. It also seems like no one bothered trying to find out. There had to have been several people who saw Hyman, either leaving the stable or coming down the street. (2n'd street). Your right, it does get more confusing! You'd think the jurors would have wanted more clarity on what Hyman saw, and would have wanted to have it looked in to more. Even for the simple reason, if it wasn't Lizzie and it wasn't Bridgett, WHO was it? That would mean another person was there. Even the reporter's should have picked up on that and set about finding out. It makes no sense.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:57 pm

From yet another angle, if the time had been incorrectly reported in the newspaper as 10:30, why didn't Lubinsky attempt to correct it? For that matter, why didn't Gardner correct it?

In any case, the 11:00 testimony warranted further pursuit. The trouble is, it came up at the last minute, as if by magic. This has all the earmarks of manipulation. The 10:30 time was given on two separate occasions shortly after the murders, and reported in the newspapers. Apparently no correction was forthcoming, so there was probably nothing to correct. The testimony was dismissed early on, Lubinsky wasn't called as a witness until the trial, and he contacted authorities four days after the murders. The 10:30 time would not have been relevant, Lubinsky might have mistaken Bridget for someone else. Lizzie was likely upstairs at 10:30 and Bridget didn't see her go there while Bridget was downstairs.

I don't know, if it wasn't Lizzie or Bridget, it might have been Alice Russel he saw after she killed Andrew and ran home! There may have been a very good reason she had to change her dress before coming to the Borden house!

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:08 pm

The time he saw this woman is what is important. It does sound like he was coerced into changing it from 10:30 to 11:00. Why didn't the prosecutors pursue this? Maybe it was Ellen Eagan? I don't see any reason he would have to lie, but I do see a reason the defense would want to fix a time that suited their cause. He did say the woman was walking "slowly", and we know Lizzie said she never did anything in a hurry!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:49 pm

It wouldn't have been the first attempt to manipulate testimony by the defense. That business with Hannah Reagan seems a blatant attempt at manipulation. The only refutation offered in Hannah Reagan's testimony are the suggestions made by Jennings during questioning. She didn't change her story one iota. The "Me and Brownie" testimony sounds awfully coincidental. I imagine all the defense needed was to put it before the jury, it would have been damaging even if it was subsequently disproved or discredited. People quite often get lost in the wrangling involved in disproving a point, sometimes even to the extent that they aren't aware the point has been disproved. They tend to retain the initial surprise they experienced, even though the information is wrong. The defense may have figured this was enough to provide a crack in the slippery rock surface for fingernails to catch on in case the jury found themselves sliding downhill toward a guilty verdict.

The prosecution really should have pursued it further, maybe asking why he told two different people the 10:30 story right after the murders. They should have asked both Lubinsky and Gardner why they didn't come forward to correct the information published in the newspapers if it was incorrect. I think the prosecution just rolled over at some point and didn't care anymore. The court had rejected Lizzie's inquest testimony and Bence's testimony, so maybe the handwriting was on the wall by then. As it was, they refuted the time with Mullaly's testimony, so maybe they thought that was enough.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:22 pm

Well, it's too bad it wasn't looked into a whole lot closer then it was! Knowlton didn't even try to find out anything useful when he questioned Hyman. Doesn't his questions strike you as odd? I'm still bumbling around trying to find any more references to Hyman, but so far not so much. At least not pertaining to his testimony. Yep, let's blame Alice! lol She at least admitted to the need to change her dress!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:49 pm

It looks to me as though Knowlton was trying to find out if Lubinsky was subject to suggestion or easily confused. If he could make Lubinsky look confused it would be to Knowlton's advantage.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:30 pm

I think the time not being corrected in the papers really doesn't prove anything one way or another. For those first few days after the murders there were loads of "facts" reported about the case that were totally off the mark. I do not recall many of the other witnesses or authorities contacting the papers either, or there being any retractions or even acknowlegement that the errors were made. They simply went on with the story.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:45 pm

II agree Allen, i am just so aggravated with the legal counselors, i feel like they dropped the ball.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun May 01, 2011 6:38 am

Smudgeman wrote:Just 2 questions here. Hyman said he saw a woman in the backyard on the day of the murders and it was not Bridget. The woman was wearing a dark colored dress and no hat. Does this collaberate Lizzie's story that she was out in the barn before Andrew was murdered or hurt her alibi? Did Lizzie go out to the privy in the barn to dispose of the murder weapon, or was she helping someone else to kill Andrew? Also, Hyman also lived at the borden residence years later, whats up with that? He was only 16 or 18 years old at the time of the murders, do you think he knows more than what he stated at the time?

I think she might have been out there disposing the murder weapon. I' m not sure if she was helping someone else kill Andrew or not. I'm still out on that part. I mean why would you keep quiet and not testify at your trial if you didn't kill someone, unless you were in out the deal or you did it yourself.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Sun May 01, 2011 9:24 am

snokkums wrote:
Smudgeman wrote:Just 2 questions here. Hyman said he saw a woman in the backyard on the day of the murders and it was not Bridget. The woman was wearing a dark colored dress and no hat. Does this collaberate Lizzie's story that she was out in the barn before Andrew was murdered or hurt her alibi? Did Lizzie go out to the privy in the barn to dispose of the murder weapon, or was she helping someone else to kill Andrew? Also, Hyman also lived at the borden residence years later, whats up with that? He was only 16 or 18 years old at the time of the murders, do you think he knows more than what he stated at the time?
I think she might have been out there disposing the murder weapon. I' m not sure if she was helping someone else kill Andrew or not. I'm still out on that part. I mean why would you keep quiet and not testify at your trial if you didn't kill someone, unless you were in out the deal or you did it yourself.

It's pretty common for the accused not to testify. After all, the prosecution has the burden of proof. It really doesn't reflect guilt or innocence on the accused.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun May 01, 2011 10:21 am

The information not being corrected in the newspapers would have been of absolutely no importance on its own merit. The point is, it was reported in the newspapers and Lubinsky and Gardner were likely aware of it. Neither one apparently was concerned about not being called to give the testimony before the trial. They had to have realized the importance of the testimony and it should have made them wonder if the correct information had been given to the police if the 10:30 time was incorrect. There was an inquiry, a preliminary, and a grand jury hearing, all taking place with nary a peep from Lubinsky or Gardner. Either both were as dumb as a ball peen hammer, or there was nothing to correct.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun May 01, 2011 11:35 am

Smudgeman wrote:II agree Allen, i am just so aggravated with the legal counselors, i feel like they dropped the ball.

Lubinsky's testimony came at the end of the trial, it was a surprise. The fact that no one associated with Lizzie's defense thought enough of the information, whichever time was involved, to bring it up until then speaks to its authenticity. I'm sure the prosecution would have pursued it further if they were aware of it and if time had allowed.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun May 01, 2011 4:41 pm

So, they deliberately waited till the end of the trial, to let that little zinger out? Actually, that's not a bad idea, as it would then still be fresh in the minds of the juror's. That Lizzie was in deed out side and presumably headed back in to find her father murdered, when Hyman saw her. I guess that's why they got paid the big buck's.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun May 01, 2011 6:20 pm

One other observation, if Lubinsky was a few minutes off with the time or if his watch was off a bit, he might have seen Mrs. Churchill or Alice Russell near the steps if it was a bit later than 11:10.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:04 am

That's a possibility, but Hyman said the woman was walking slowly from the direction of the barn, that's not the direction Mrs. Churchill would have been walking, when she first arrived to talk to Lizzie and from that moment on, every movement she made wasn't slow. There was too much going on for it to have been her, Bridgett would have already been running either to Dr. Bowen's or on her way to get Alice. Mrs. Churchill didn't waste a minute spreading the word. He'd have noticed all the unusual activity. Had he been another two or three minutes later he'd have seen Bridgett hurrying across the street. By the time Alice got there, the activity level was deffinately something he wouldn't have missed.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed May 04, 2011 12:24 am

Here's another monkey wrench to throw into the Lubinsky saga. From the pages of the Fall River Herald of August 11th:

"... Another woman dropped into the case Wednesday afternoon, but she did not stay long. A lad who drives for Wilkinson, ice cream man, said he saw a woman come out of the Borden yard about 10:30 o'clock Thursday. Officers Harrington and Doherty went to work to find this woman, and they succeeded in discovering that Ellen Eagan was passing that way Thursday morning when she was seized with a sudden illness. She went into the first yard she came to, but it was Dr. Kelly's yard, which is next to the Borden house, and the boy was mistaken. ..."

There was a large lot to the right of the Kelly house as you face the house. Shades of Arnold Brown!

The photo I have seen of Ellen Eagan in no way resembles either Lizzie, Bridget or Addie Churchill. She was, however, I believe, quite older when the photo was taken. Secondly, since she was out walking on Second St. returning from shopping she undoubtedly would have been wearing a hat. No 1892 woman would be caught on the street without one.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed May 04, 2011 10:11 am

There was no shortage of traffic or pedestrians on 2nd Street the morning of the 4th, other observers mentioned seeing any number of people somewhere near the Borden house that morning. Hard to imagine an intruder running that gauntlet completely unnoticed.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Wed May 04, 2011 4:21 pm

Yep, that's one way to look at it, but look what all was missed, no one saw Ellen taken ill, and go INTO the yard, not even anyone at the Kelly house. They had some one in their yard, for how ever long and didn't even know it, and She wasn't even trying to hide.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Wed May 04, 2011 6:12 pm

Thank's Harry!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed May 04, 2011 10:10 pm

That's true, apparently no one in the Kelley house saw Ellen Eagan, but someone else did, she didn't go unnoticed. Traffic was a good deal slower then, people driving horses had a lot of time to look about and take notice of nearly anything.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sat May 07, 2011 12:23 pm

10:30 That would have put Andrew coming down the street, or at his own door, wouldn't it? But she didn't see him or hear him at his front door. Wonder, if she entered the yard at that time, how long she was there. Those other people who saw him by his house, at that time, didn't see her? How did the guy who saw her, not see Andrew, a long the street?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat May 07, 2011 3:45 pm

While I can't say exactly what time it was, a couple of things occurred sequentially about that time. First, Bridget brought her window washing implements indoors and possibly put away anything she didn't need to wash the inside of the windows. Very shortly after that Andrew arrived at the front door, Bridget had just started on the sitting room windows when she heard Andrew and let him in.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:42 pm

Using triangulation, Hyman Lubinsky had between 2 seconds at a fast trot, and 6 seconds at a slow walk, to see someone at the corner of the Borden house. This is using Len Rebello's diagram on page 45 of his book. There was about 28 linear feet of roadway where he could see between the northwest corner of the Borden house and the arbor on the Churchill house to the northeast corner of the Borden house, from a viewpoint somewhere near the middle of Second Street. A slow walk for a horse is three miles per hour, and a fast trot is ten miles per hour.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:50 pm

Harry wrote:I have always had a very hard time with Lubinsky's trial testimony. It doesn't agree in several things with a newspaper article of the 8th when he was first heard of. This is a portion of the article from what I believe is the Fall River Evening News:

"... He [Lubinsky] is apparently straightforward in his statements, and as he could have no interest in saying that he has seen what he has not seen, the account he gave this afternoon of what he saw last Thursday is of importance. He relates that while riding in his cart past Andrew J. Borden's house, at half past 10 a.m., on Thursday, he noticed a woman walking from the barn to the door on the north side of the house, which she entered. The woman was, he thought, a little taller than himself; that is, about 5 feet 4 inches; was bare-headed; wore brown or dark clothes - he didn't take particular notice which; and had one hand on her hip, and the other hanging or swinging; that she walked at an ordinary gait; that he did not know who she was, and did not remember that he had ever seen her before; that the woman was not Bridget Sullivan, to whom he once sold ice cream at the house, and whom he could identify if she passed. ..."

His trial testimony.

The time, p1409, Vol II:

Q. Can you tell about what time it was when you left the stable?
A. It was after eleven.
Q. How much after eleven?
A. Well, a few minutes after eleven.

Entering the house, p1410:

Page 1410

Q. Did you see her go in the house?
A. I don't know; I couldn't tell this.

Could Lizzie's blue dress, either the Bedford Cord or the one she turned over to the police, be taken for "brown or dark clothes"?

Undoubtedly Lizzie's defense team was aware of the Lubinsky interview in the newspaper but they don't seem to have taken advantage of it for on the 10th Lizzie gave her testimony about the hat. She should have not even mentioned the hat or said she wasn't wearing one.

Lubinsky in his trial testimony says he told Officer Mullaly his story on the 6th but didn't tell Phillips, Jennings' assistant, until 2 weeks after the Inquest.

Could Lubinsky be a sufferer from the tritanopia, and therefore took blue as brown? He could ignore all about the color-blindness, but could feel difficulty in seeing colors. In the trial, for being less incorrect possible, he said (in an imprecise manner): “She had on a dark-colored dress.” Was it possible?

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:46 pm

I think that the lack of the "hat" that Lizzie was supposedly wearing, and Lubinsky saying the woman was not wearing a hat leans towards Lizzie telling tall tales again or it was Ellen Eagan. Nobody could tell what color that damn dress was! Read everyone's testimony, they all seem to blunder in this department. I would think Bridget would know what dresses Lizzie wore on a regular basis.