There was in the barn a secret that must be covered (part 2)

[Franz]

In the original post I conjectured that Lizzie was probably innocent, and at the moment her father was being murdered, she probably was in the barn for some intimate activities. In order to cover her secret, Lizzie lied, and therefore her alibi testimony contained a number of contradictions.

Now I continue to try my best to demonstrate the possibility of my theory.

1. In The Witness Statements (p. 46), Edwin McHenry notes that: "... one George Wiley, a clerk in the Troy Mill is the one who is authority for the statement that Mrs. Churchill made that she (Mrs. Churchill) said, that there was one thing she saw in the house the day of the murder, that she would never repeat, even if they tore her tongue out."

While reading for the first time this testimony, my first thought was: is it possible that Mrs. Churchill, accidently, saw Lizzie when the latter was masturbating herself in the barn? In the Victorian time, a woman’s masturbation was indeed something that another woman would never talk about, “even if they tore her tongue out”.

This is J. Donnelly’s testimony in the Preliminary Hearing (p. 437):

Q. What did you see in the hay, anything about the hay that indicated anything, except the usual condition of hay piled up there?
A. It looked so to me as though there had been somebody laying on it; I do not know whether there had or not.
Q. Where was that?
A. On the pile this way.
Q. When you say "this way", what do you mean by that, north or south?
A. I should call it north west.
Q. Near the north west part?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Towards the window?
A. Yes Sir.

On the pile of the hay near the north west part, towards the window, was found the form of somebody lying on it.

Now let’s read an extract of Mrs. Churchill’s testimony in the Preliminary Hearing (pp. 280-281):

Q (By Mr. Jennings): But you think you were perhaps making beds during that time (which elapsed after you saw Bridget rinsing the windows, and when you went to Mr. Hudner’s)?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: That would carry you into the upper part of the house?
A: Yes Sir.
…
Q: Those two on the south side would be directly opposite the Borden house?
A: Yes Sir.
…
Q: Did you make those down stairs first, and then afterwards make those up stairs?
A: I do not remember.
…
Q: Were any of these bed rooms up stairs on the south side of the house?
A: One.
Q: Where was that located, the front or rear of the house?
A: The south west corner.
Q: So that would be directly opposite Mr. Borden’s spare room?
A: Yes Sir.
…
Q: You said you went to Mr. Hudner’s, you think somewhere near eleven o’clock?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: How did you get that idea, did you look at the clock?
A: Yes Sir. I thought I must go, if I was going to get my dinner.

According to this testimony, before Mrs. Churchill went to Mr. Hudner’s somewhere near eleven o’clock, she had been making the beds. Near eleven o’clock Lizzie was just in the barn (if her testimony was true about this precise point). So, if the last bed that Mrs. Churchill made was in that room in the south west corner on the second floor, from the window (or from one of the windows, that one nearer to the Second Street) of that room, Mrs. Churchill might have had the best angle of view to see the interior part of the Borden barn through its west window of the loft. Yes, it was the west window, but at eleven o’clock of the morning, in August 4th, can the sun light penetrate in the loft of the barn through the west window?

Now an extract of Lizzie’s Inquest testimony:

Q. Did you look for anything else beside lead?
A. No sir.
Q. When you got through looking for lead, did you come down?
A. No sir. I went to the west window over the hay, to the west window, and the curtain was slanted a little. I pulled it down.
Q. What else?
A. Nothing.
Q. That is all you did?
A. Yes sir.

Every time I read Lizzie’s testimony, I have always the impression that Lizzie, when she could, answered always as honestly as possible the questions. After looking for whatever she wanted to find, what did she do? “I went to the west window over the hay, to the west window, and the curtain was slanted a little. I pulled it down.” I think that, most probably, she did go to the west window, she even mentioned the hay, and then, she pulled the curtain down, which was slanted a little.

I wonder, is it possible that Lizzie, before Knowlton, mentioned every thing she did at that moment, except her intimate activities (if she did do them)? Is it possible that Lizzie, after looking for something on the second floor of the barn, went to the west window, and then, laid down on the hay (leaving so a human form's imprint on it) and masturbated herself for a certain time? She might have had paid no attention to the curtain that was slanted a little, and she might have not doubted that someone (Mrs. Churchill) could be able to catch a glimpse of her from a certain place (the room in the south west corner in the second floor of the Churchill house), through the west window of the barn, not completely covered by the curtain that was slanted a little? And she pulled the curtain down only afterwards?

(Mrs. Churchill said that there was one thing she saw in the house the day of the murder. I think we should understand the word “house” in its ample meaning: the “house” should include here the house itself, the yard and the barn, so, all the Borden property. If Mrs. Churchill said “in the barn”, she couldn’t cover at all the secret that she wanted to cover, "even if they tore her tongue out": all the eyes would turn immediately to Lizzie.)

2. Mrs. Churchill, Alice and Bridget all testified that Lizzie’s hands and face were very clean that morning, her hair and dress were in order. Some people speculated that probably Lizzie washed her face and hands after having killed her father. If Lizzie masturbated herself in the barn lying on the pile of the hay, before going out of there, she might have dusted carefully her dress (and maybe her hair), and then washed her hands as well.

3. Hyman Lubinsky testified that the woman he saw in the Borden yard a little after 11 o’clock that morning was walking very slowly from the direction of the barn to the direction of the side door. The behavior “walking very slowly” should fit well to a woman who had just experienced the sexual excitement.

Another word: I didn’t propose the incest theory, so I don’t need to prove nothing; I didn’t propose the lesbian affair theory, so I don’t need to prove nothing. But must I prove the possibility that a 32-year-old unmarried woman like Lizzie could masturbate time to time to give herself some sexual satisfaction? We are all adults here. What’s the use of the Puritanism for a really serious discussion about the Borden case?

I am serious. I have no intention to offend anyone with my theory. But if unfortunately this occurred, the problem would not be mine.

[PossumPie]

I was intrigued when you first postulated this theory several months ago, but I've since had some doubts. First, she had a bedroom with a door she could lock. Why go to a hot dusty barn and roll in dusty hay? I grew up around barns, hay isn't 'clean' but has a lot of dust and particles that are impossible to get out of clothes and hair easily. To answer your question about Mrs. Churchill seeing Lizzie, it is virtually impossible at mid-day to see into a window of a structure with no interior light. The light difference between mid-day sun and a dark interior is to great. Cupping your hands on a window would be the only way to see in.
Mrs. Churchill was talking about the gory state of the bodies when she said she saw things she couldn't repeat.
I've re-read all of the testimony about the impression of a 'body' in the hay and it sounds much too small to have been a person who made it except by sitting upright for a moment then getting up without disturbing the small impression.

[Franz]

I was intrigued when you first postulated this theory several months ago, but I've since had some doubts. First, she had a bedroom with a door she could lock. Why go to a hot dusty barn and roll in dusty hay? I grew up around barns, hay isn't 'clean' but has a lot of dust and particles that are impossible to get out of clothes and hair easily. To answer your question about Mrs. Churchill seeing Lizzie, it is virtually impossible at mid-day to see into a window of a structure with no interior light. The light difference between mid-day sun and a dark interior is to great. Cupping your hands on a window would be the only way to see in.
Mrs. Churchill was talking about the gory state of the bodies when she said she saw things she couldn't repeat.
I've re-read all of the testimony about the impression of a 'body' in the hay and it sounds much too small to have been a person who made it except by sitting upright for a moment then getting up without disturbing the small impression.

Thank you for your reply, PossumPie.

Would you like to tell me the source about Mrs. Churchill's talking about the gory state of the bodies? If I recollect well, Mrs. Churchill refused to see Andrew's body, and she saw Abby's body only standing on the front stairs, I doubt that she could see any details of Abby's wounds, because the guest room was pretty dark. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Lizzie probably had no intention to do any intimate activity when she went to the barn, but she might have been caught suddenly by her erotic desir.

For the question if one could see something of the interior part of the barn (second floor) through its west window from the south west corner room on the second floor of the Churchill house, I certainly have no idea at all.

[Franz]

Among the members of the forum, many are experts of the case. Please enlighten me: regardless my theory, I would like to know, at 11 o’clock on a day of August 4th, from the most west window of the south west room on the second floor of the (demolished) Churchill house, could one see (pretty clearly) the face of someone who was (very) near the west window on the second floor of the (demolished) Borden barn? Thank you very much.

[Harry]

Partial quote : For the question if one could see something of the interior part of the barn (second floor) through its west window from the south west corner room on the second floor of the Churchill house, I certainly have no idea at all.

Certainly nothing of the interior but you could see the window itself. This photo shows the Churchill house on the left and the barn in the center. I believe the Churchill window was lower so she would be looking up.

[PossumPie]

Among the members of the forum, many are experts of the case. Please enlighten me: regardless my theory, I would like to know, at 11 o’clock on a day of August 4th, from the most west window of the south west room on the second floor of the (demolished) Churchill house, could one see (pretty clearly) the face of someone who was (very) near the west window on the second floor of the (demolished) Borden barn? Thank you very much.

Do this...On a bright sunny day, about noon, go outside your house, walk about 100ft away, and try to look in your window to the interior of your home. If no lights are on in the house, it is virtually impossible. At night, with a light on, is another matter.

[Franz]

Thank you Harry and PossumPie.

Harry, in another photo it seems that the Churchill house had almost the same height as the Borden's (I don't know how to make a photo attachment).

Even though, I would like to know the distance between the west window and the north-west extremity of the pile of the hay. Lizzie said "the west window over the hay", I imagine that the hay should not be very far from the window.

[Franz]

This is from Lizzie's Inquest testimony:

Q. What did you do?
A. I ate my pears.
Q. Stood there eating the pears, doing nothing?
A. I was looking out of the window.
Q. Stood there looking out of the window, eating the pears?
A. I should think so.

I certainly don't know if Lizzie's eating pears was true or not, but it should be possible that Lizzie, at a certain moment, was very near to the window (I was looking out of the window). What she told to Knowlton could be partly true (the place where she was), partly false (what she was doing there). Lizzie must have invented some continuous action to fill up the time, so, eating three pears... (instead of what she was really doing.)

[Franz]

Among the members of the forum, many are experts of the case. Please enlighten me: regardless my theory, I would like to know, at 11 o’clock on a day of August 4th, from the most west window of the south west room on the second floor of the (demolished) Churchill house, could one see (pretty clearly) the face of someone who was (very) near the west window on the second floor of the (demolished) Borden barn? Thank you very much.

Do this...On a bright sunny day, about noon, go outside your house, walk about 100ft away, and try to look in your window to the interior of your home. If no lights are on in the house, it is virtually impossible. At night, with a light on, is another matter.

But if there is a person very near to the (closed) window? Is it possible to see his face or even his facial expression? (Assuming the observor has a good eyesight.)

[Franz]

Assuming that Edwin McHenry’s information was reliable.

“…even if they tore her tongue out." What kind of thing made Mrs. Churchill pronounce such a – I would say – sensational declaration? A scandalous one?

If Lizzie did do any intimate activities, shouldn’t this phrase just be one of hers in her mind? “O my God, when father was being killed, I was doing that thing, I was doing that thing during my period! No, I will never tell. I prefer to be hung, but I will never confess this, even if they tore my tongue out!”

[Franz]

Murder is a horrible crime, masturbation is a common, normal and, according to many sexologists, healthy human sexal behaviour.

I think that, most probably, Lizzie was innocent.

So, if my theroy might offend someone, should I feel more offended by the theory that Lizzie was the murderess of her father and her stepmother?

[Darrowfan]

Hello, all. I'm new to the forum. I don't know what to say about your theory, Franz. A little too much conjecture I think. I have to say that I would place your theory very, very low on the scale of probability. Of course, you and I come at this from different angles. You obviously believe that Lizzie was innocent. I feel that she was guilty, so I don't think she was ever in the barn at all.

[Darrowfan]

Franz, I have been reading your posts, and the replies you have received from other posters, concerning your theory that Lizzie was in the barn engaging in self gratification at the time of the crime. The other posters have made some good points about the difficulty in Mrs. Churchill or anyone else seeing inside the barn while Lizzie was there. But I think your theory fails for a couple of additional reasons. In one of your earlier posts, you wrote:

"... one George Wiley, a clerk in the Troy Mill is the one who is authority for the statement that Mrs. Churchill made that she (Mrs. Churchill) said, that there was one thing she saw in the house the day of the murder, that she would never repeat, even if they tore her tongue out."

While reading for the first time this testimony, my first thought was: is it possible that Mrs. Churchill, accidently, saw Lizzie when the latter was masturbating herself in the barn?

My answer to that would be yes, it's possible. But if, as you suggest, Mrs. Churchill saw Lizzie in the barn, why wouldn't she say so, just to verify Lizzie's account of her whereabouts at the time of the crime? Even if Mrs. Churchill saw Lizzie engaging in the activity you suggest, she would not have to say so. She could simply say, "Yes, Lizzie was in the barn, just as she says, for I saw her there with my own eyes." She would not have to say what she saw Lizzie doing.


But beyond that, you theory is contradicted by your own argument. The quote from Mrs. Churchill in which she uses the phrase "even if they tore (my) tongue out" refers to something she saw "in the house", and yet you claim that she was referring to something she saw in the barn. Also, you wrote, in one of your posts:

If Lizzie did do any intimate activities, shouldn’t this phrase just be one of hers in her mind? “O my God, when father was being killed, I was doing that thing, I was doing that thing during my period! No, I will never tell. I prefer to be hung, but I will never confess this, even if they tore my tongue out!”

You inexplicably transfer the phrase about tearing one's tongue out from Mrs. Churchill to Lizzie. In summary, your theory is mildly interesting, but seems very far-fetched to me.

[PossumPie]

Murder is a horrible crime, masturbation is a common, normal and, according to many sexologists, healthy human sexal behaviour.

I think that, most probably, Lizzie was innocent.

So, if my theroy might offend someone, should I feel more offended by the theory that Lizzie was the murderess of her father and her stepmother?

Your theory merits some consideration, BUT with no hard evidence, and some fairly speculative and groundless leaps of logic, it is only a speculation. For a theory to become a respected possible solution, many facts need to fit from many independent sources. The "Lizzie is guilty" people have pages and pages of testimony, eye witness accounts, photos, etc. that point to her guilt. NOT ENOUGH to prove it, but to be respected, yes. The mountains of evidence point this way. It is a respected theory. Among those who believe men from Mars came to earth in a spaceship and killed Mr. Mrs. Borden, there is much less evidence. They could argue that the Martians wiped everyone's memory clean of their visit, that is why no one remembers. Trouble is there is no collaborative evidence for this. NONE. Your theory about Masturbation sounds plausible, but no one saw her do it, she never says she did, we don't have any historical facts that she ever masturbated before, no psychiatrist's notes about compulsive masturbation, no sister's scandalous interview, no voyeuristic boys watching from the window, no sticky fingers IN FACT, masturbating during menses would have covered her fingers with mucus and blood. She would have wiped them on something, the blood would have been noticed. no...nothing. I could just as easily say she was in the barn conjuring up demons and was embarrassed to tell anyone. To have one's theory respected, at least some circumstantial evidence from several sources must be gathered and verified.

[Franz]

1. Possumpie, according to you, that Lizzie never masturbated until 32 year old is more probably, or the contrary more probable? No one saw her masturbating, is this surprising? (maybe except Mrs. Churchill in that fatal morning.)

2. I doudt that in 1892 if there were any psychiatrists in Fall River to conslut for a woman like Lizzie for masturbation issue.

3. I have speculated, and I think it's probable, that, if Lizzie did masturbate, she should have washed her hands before going out of the barn.

4. I gathered the testimonies of Edwin McHenry, Donnelly, Mrs. Churchill, and Lizzie herself, and I put them together to see if these testimonies were consistent or not. Who am I, a miserable human being as all others, to be able to do much more than this? Up to now I did my best, I hope that I could find something else to support my theory in the futur, but I am not at all optimist.

5. I don't agree the theory that Lizzie was guilty, I think this theory, from many points of view, is questionable. But, believe me, I always respect it. And I resptect, for the moral sense, any other theories, regardless their probability.

[Franz]

...
Your theory about Masturbation sounds plausible, but no one saw her do it, she never says she did, we don't have any historical facts that she ever masturbated before, no psychiatrist's notes about compulsive masturbation, no sister's scandalous interview, no voyeuristic boys watching from the window, no sticky fingers IN FACT, masturbating during menses would have covered her fingers with mucus and blood. She would have wiped them on something, the blood would have been noticed. no...nothing ...

Using almost all your words, I could say (please believe I am very seriously discussing with you and others):

The "Lizzie was guilty" theory sounds plausible, but no one saw her do it, she never says she did, we don't have any historical facts that she ever killed someone before, no psychiatrist's notes about her insanity, no sister's doubt about her money motive, no one watching from the window when Andrew was murdered, no bloody fingers IN FACT, killing her father would have covered her fingers and her hands and her dress blood... no...nothing.

Certainly, Lizzie could have cleaned up after the killing, but she could have, and much more easily, cleaned up as well after intimate activities.

[Darrowfan]

I tend to agree with possumpie's view. I think that Franz' theory is extremely speculative, at best.

[PossumPie]

Bertrand Russell, famous philosopher said it is not the burden of proof on the person to DISPROVE a statement, the burden of proof is on the person trying to PROVE a statement. If I said there was a teapot orbiting the sun, it is MY BURDEN of proof to prove that it is..... NOT the burden of everyone else to prove that I am wrong. You can make a statement. Lizzie was masturbating in the barn. It is NOT my burden to try to disprove this. It is YOUR burden to prove that she was. So far I have heard no proof to your theory.
I can't prove that Lizzie is guilty, BUT I can prove that she had a motive, I can prove that she had the opportunity, and I can prove that she had the means. This gives my theory weight.
You can't prove that Lizzie is innocent, AND you can't prove that she had no motive, you can't prove that she had no opportunity, and you can't prove that she didn't have the means to kill. Your theory is weaker. You make an attempt to prove that she had no opportunity b/c she was in the barn masturbating, BUT without proof that she was, this falls apart. It all comes down to burden of proof. The burden is ALWAYS on the person to prove something happened, NOT on the person trying to prove that it didn't happen.
I know this sounds technical, but to argue one must know the logical elements of argumentation.

[Franz]

Yes PossumPie, I can’t prove that Lizzie was in the barn and did that thing. Maybe you have noticed that when I express my ideas, I have never used the word “prove”, but always “demonstrate”. Let’s return to this topic: I have tried to demonstrate the possibility of my conjecture. That’s all. I don’t ask myself to do something that I am not capable to do.

I try my best. That’s all.

From a neutral point of view, I should say that the theory of Lizzie’s guilt is relatively more probable than others, and, let’s use your term, more logical one. But, unfortunately for me, from a personal point of view, I am not convinced of this theory. I must be sincere with myself. When the logic fails to convince me, why should I be its slave? In this case I have all my right to give more height to my intuition, and my intuition told me that, most probably, the killer was not Lizzie, but an intruder. I certainly can’t prove it, but this is my opinion, that’s all.

If there were no new discoveries in the future, the Borden case would be never solved, but I don’t care. This case fascinates me so much, and I am happy to have found this forum and to be able to discuss and exchange ideas with others. Even though it occurred some unpleasant thing to me here, but generally speaking, my experience is definitely very positive. To whoever has read me, replied me, enlightened me, supportedme, and, tolerated me, thank you!

And I hope that what I have said in the forum up to now is not totally worthless.

[PossumPie]

Yes PossumPie, I can’t prove that Lizzie was in the barn and did that thing. Maybe you have noticed that when I express my ideas, I have never used the word “prove”, but always “demonstrate”. Let’s return to this topic: I have tried to demonstrate the possibility of my conjecture. That’s all. I don’t ask myself to do something that I am not capable to do.

I try my best. That’s all.

From a neutral point of view, I should say that the theory of Lizzie’s guilt is relatively more probable than others, and, let’s use your term, more logical one. But, unfortunately for me, from a personal point of view, I am not convinced of this theory. I must be sincere with myself. When the logic fails to convince me, why should I be its slave? In this case I have all my right to give more height to my intuition, and my intuition told me that, most probably, the killer was not Lizzie, but an intruder. I certainly can’t prove it, but this is my opinion, that’s all.

If there were no new discoveries in the future, the Borden case would be never solved, but I don’t care. This case fascinates me so much, and I am happy to have found this forum and to be able to discuss and exchange ideas with others. Even though it occurred some unpleasant thing to me here, but generally speaking, my experience is definitely very positive. To whoever has read me, replied me, enlightened me, respected me, and, tolerated me, thank you!

And I hope that what I have said in the forum up to now is not totally worthless.

Franz, this is the MOST logical and factual post you have posted so far. I think you are learning...! I certainly respect your opinions IF they are logical and have some reasonable chance of being correct. If you remember way back to the first time you posted your masturbation theory, it was I who told you I liked the idea, that I thought it had some merit. If you want people to consider your theories, begin asking yourself what other 'evidence' you can find to support it. Ask yourself how reasonable is this idea? Try to disprove your OWN ideas, by doing this, you can either strengthen them, or give up and find another idea. You sure add some spice to the forum!

[PattiG157]

Pardon me for asking -- I'm new to the forum. But is the masturbation "theory" have any facts to back it up, besides Mrs. Churchill's statement that she saw something she'd never repeat, or is it just speculation?

I'm just wondering.

[Aamartin]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/this ... rbation-in

[Darrowfan]

Pardon me for asking -- I'm new to the forum. But is the masturbation "theory" have any facts to back it up, besides Mrs. Churchill's statement that she saw something she'd never repeat, or is it just speculation?

I'm just wondering.

Hi, Patti. I'm new as well. I don't think there is any real evidence to back up the theory that Franz is advancing. Seems like very far-fetched conjecture to me. I don't think Lizzie was ever in the barn to start with.

[Franz]

Pardon me for asking -- I'm new to the forum. But is the masturbation "theory" have any facts to back it up, besides Mrs. Churchill's statement that she saw something she'd never repeat, or is it just speculation?

I'm just wondering.

Welcome to the forum. Me too I have my membership very recently.

In my original post I gathered all the testimonies that I could find to support my idea. I hope I could find some other evidence.

[Franz]

Someone rejected my theory by simply arguing that there was any document concerning Lizzie’s sexual life.

Yes, there wasn’t. I would be much more surprised if there were any. If the Borden murder didn’t occur, Lizzie would have been one of many unanimous women of that time, of which we ignore today even their name.

Lizzie never married. But didn’t she never experience any sexual pleasure, even by masturbation?

I don’t want to think so. I don’t want to think so because I don’t, I absolutely don’t permit myself to be so Puritan, so hypocrite, so cruel, and above all, so inhuman, to think so.

Other people think as they like. It’s not my affair.

[PossumPie]

Franz, I posted last month that to lay in straw/hay, is a dirty activity. If she were laying in the hay as you speculate, head on the hay, there would be light yellow/white dust in her hair, down her neck, on her clothes, HAY IS DIRTY, DUSTY, and little pieces smaller than your fingernails get everywhere. Without getting graphic, it takes a while to "complete the act" and some movement as well. Lizzie would have NEVER been able to get the straw dust and straw pieces out of her hair, neck petticoats, dress, etc. without removing everything and brushing off, then combing her hair completely.
Masturbatory activity during menses (forgive me, but I am a Nurse) is somewhat messy, mucus mixed with blood would have surely gotten on the straw/hay, her fingers, her petticoats. Combine that with the dust of straw/hay, and it is messier than it is worth.
MUCH easier to lay on a clean bed, in a house where you can lock the door, have access to rags to 'clean up' afterwards, and not have any chance of being disturbed. It is SO implausible that she would do that in a hot, dark, dusty unlocked barn that I would say it was "Highly Unlikely"

[twinsrwe]

I totally agree, PossumPie! It would be impossible for Lizzie to clean herself up after laying in a dirty hay loft. She would have never been able to get all of the dust and dirt out of her clothes simply was brushing them off. She would have to literally wash her clothes in order to get all of the dust and dirt off of them; this is also true for getting all of the dust and dirt off of her skin.

Furthermore, no woman in her right mind is going to choose a hay loft to masturbate in, over a bedroom with a lock on the door! It is a known fact that Bridget was in the process of washing the windows on the outside of the house, and going into the barn for fresh water several times that morning. I do not believe that Lizzie was so stupid as to think she would have more privacy in the hay loft, than her own bedroom.

[Darrowfan]

I totally agree, PossumPie! It would be impossible for Lizzie to clean herself up after laying in a dirty hay loft. She would have never been able to get all of the dust and dirt out of her clothes simply was brushing them off. She would have to literally wash her clothes in order to get all of the dust and dirt off of them; this is also true for getting all of the dust and dirt off of her skin.

Furthermore, no woman in her right mind is going to choose a hay loft to masturbate in, over a bedroom with a lock on the door! It is a known fact that Bridget was in the process of washing the windows on the outside of the house, and going into the barn for fresh water several times that morning. I do not believe that Lizzie was so stupid as to think she would have more privacy in the hay loft, than her own bedroom.

No offense Franz, but I think it's time for you to admit defeat on this one. Per twinsrwe's summary above, your theory just doesn't make any kind of logical sense.

[PossumPie]

Franz, you have a great imagination, how about coming up with another theory? I admire the amount of work you have put into this one, I just think you need to shift your focus to someone else, even you have conceded that there is no known motive for Morse.

[Franz]

I totally agree, PossumPie! It would be impossible for Lizzie to clean herself up after laying in a dirty hay loft. She would have never been able to get all of the dust and dirt out of her clothes simply was brushing them off. She would have to literally wash her clothes in order to get all of the dust and dirt off of them; this is also true for getting all of the dust and dirt off of her skin.

Furthermore, no woman in her right mind is going to choose a hay loft to masturbate in, over a bedroom with a lock on the door! It is a known fact that Bridget was in the process of washing the windows on the outside of the house, and going into the barn for fresh water several times that morning. I do not believe that Lizzie was so stupid as to think she would have more privacy in the hay loft, than her own bedroom.

1. When Lizzie was in the barn (assuming she did go into there), Bridget had finished her washing work. If I remember well, you have said before in another thread what you said here, and I replied the same.

2. I never said that Lizzie went into the barn with the intention to do some intimate activity there. It was not something "projected". I say always that she probably went there to search for something, her erotic desire came up only afterwards.

3. If you "do not believe that Lizzie was so stupid as to think she would have more privacy in the hay loft, than her own bedroom", could you believe that Lizzie, if she did premeditate a so horrible murder, was so stupid as to prepare a so stupid alibi testimony?

[Franz]

I totally agree, PossumPie! It would be impossible for Lizzie to clean herself up after laying in a dirty hay loft. She would have never been able to get all of the dust and dirt out of her clothes simply was brushing them off. She would have to literally wash her clothes in order to get all of the dust and dirt off of them; this is also true for getting all of the dust and dirt off of her skin.

Furthermore, no woman in her right mind is going to choose a hay loft to masturbate in, over a bedroom with a lock on the door! It is a known fact that Bridget was in the process of washing the windows on the outside of the house, and going into the barn for fresh water several times that morning. I do not believe that Lizzie was so stupid as to think she would have more privacy in the hay loft, than her own bedroom.

No offense Franz, but I think it's time for you to admit defeat on this one. Per twinsrwe's summary above, your theory just doesn't make any kind of logical sense.

Darrowfan, for me there is no defeat, nor victory, in this forum. We discuss here toghther to be able to find the truth (if it was possible). Every thread makes its contribution to the Borden case from one point of view or another.

[Darrowfan]

Darrowfan, for me there is no defeat, nor victory, in this forum. We discuss here toghther to be able to find the truth (if it was possible). Every thread makes its contribution to the Borden case from one point of view or another.

I'm sorry, Franz, but I must insist that you admit defeat. I will accept nothing less than your unconditional surrender. You will hand me your sword, and then sign a document stating that you agree that Lizzie is guilty. You will then stand trial for war crimes.

(Just kidding, of course. )

[Allen]

Franz, it's common sense there would be more privacy in your own bedroom behind a locked bedroom door as I stated a long time ago. It's logic. And I highly doubt, as a woman, that there is anything about a hot dusty barn that stinks of used privy that could have brought up 'erotic desire.' Especially at a time when she was supposedly menstruating. Have you thought of all the layers of under clothing and the menstrual rags she was allegedly wearing at the time? Not to put too fine a point on it she would have had to touch some pretty nasty things before she could give herself any pleasure out there. And some pretty nasty things during. I think as a man this might not compute as well for you. And it would have left a mess. Blood. There was a lot more involved in undressing than there is today, especially when one is on their period. And it would have involved clean up. Bloody hands, bloody mess.

[Franz]

Franz, it's common sense there would be more privacy in your own bedroom behind a locked bedroom door as I stated a long time ago. It's logic. And I highly doubt, as a woman, that there is anything about a hot dusty barn that stinks of used privy that could have brought up 'erotic desire.' Especially at a time when she was supposedly menstruating. Have you thought of all the layers of under clothing and the menstrual rags she was allegedly wearing at the time? Not to put too fine a point on it she would have had to touch some pretty nasty things before she could give herself any pleasure out there. And some pretty nasty things during. I think as a man this might not compute as well for you. And it would have left a mess. Blood. There was a lot more involved in undressing than there is today, especially when one is on their period. And it would have involved clean up. Bloody hands, bloody mess.

Allen, I think a sexologist is very much more competent than me to answer your questions.

I remember to have read somewhere that at that fatal day, Lizzie's period had just finished. I didn't mention this before, because I am not certain at all what was the truth. Maybe you can give me some more reliable information. Thanks.

For this issue I will post another thread, Allen.

[Aamartin]

I agree with Allen. It's certainly possible but not plausible. Things would be have to be 'hiked up' and 'pulled down'...... And, and I am sorry for this-- how often did Lizzie bathe?

I think there would have had to have been some evidence of this.

[Harry]

Franz, I can see some of your points on Morse but when it comes to your suppositions on Lizzie in the barn pleasuring herself I'm at a loss. There is not one scintilla of evidence that even hints at that.

As for Mrs. Churchill catching Lizzie what was Mrs. Churchill doing in the Borden barn in the first place? And the hay was in the loft not the ground floor. She would have to climb those narrow stairs. For what reason?

I appreciate your enthusiasm but this point has no basis.

[Franz]

Thank you, Aamartin and Harry.

Since many things make me think that most probably Lizzie was innocent, I must face this question: if so, where was she and what was she doing when her father was killed?

Lizzie herself testified that she was in the barn, I think most probably she was telling the truth while saying so - we have Lubinsky's testimony to support this hypothesis. Lizzie said always that she went in the barn, the contradictions concerned only what she was doing there: looking for iron(s), or lead. I think most probably she did go there with the intention to find something, but she spent only very few minutes to look for that object she needed. She used the rest of the time to do something else, but I think when she said she ate three pears before the west window of the barn in the loft, she was (at least partly) lying, she was trying to cover what she actually did there.

What's that thing that Lizzie couldn't confess, then? Masturbation is only one of many possibilities. The discussion is open: if she was smoking a sigar there, was this scandalous for a woman of her social status of that time? If Mrs. Churchill did see the smoking scene, would she never say this, "even if they tore her tongue out"? I don't know, just an idea (mbhenty mentioned this possibility in one of his threads).

And above all, if Lizzie premeditated this horrible double murder, knowing perfectly the risk she would run, how could she prepare a so stupid alibi testimony? she contradicted herself even at the very first minutes!!! It seems to me that she didn't prepare any alibi at all. For me the contradictions of her testimony were not an indication of her guilt, but on the contrary, they make me think that Lizzie was most probably innocent. My essential point is here, Harry. And the question that remains to me is this one: if so, what was she actually doing in the barn?

(Harry, thank you for your encouraging observations on what I wrote about Morse.)

[Darrowfan]

Lizzie herself testified that she was in the barn, I think most probably she was telling the truth while saying so - we have Lubinsky's testimony to support this hypothesis. Lizzie said always that she went in the barn, the contradictions concerned only what she was doing there: looking for iron(s), or lead. I think most probably she did go there with the intention to find something, but she spent only very few minutes to look for that object she needed. She used the rest of the time to do something else, but I think when she said she ate three pears before the west window of the barn in the loft, she was (at least partly) lying, she was trying to cover what she actually did there.


And above all, if Lizzie premeditated this horrible double murder, knowing perfectly the risk she would run, how could she prepare a so stupid alibi testimony? she contradicted herself even at the very first minutes!!! It seems to me that she didn't prepare any alibi at all.

Franz, I think the basic issue is whether or not Lizzie was actually in the barn. You think she was. I disagree, and here is why. One of the police officers pointed out that the barn was very hot, and he found it very unlikely that any girl would spend 20 minutes to a half hour inside the barn. He made this observation on the afternoon of the murder, when the investigation was just getting started, but I think the officer's instinct was correct.

You ask why Lizzie would prepare such a stupid alibi. Well, she was working with the material available to her. The barn was a place away from the house, and also a place where, as Mr. Knowlton pointed out, she could not be expected to see anyone enter the house. In other words, Lizzie reasoned that the barn was the place that would put her out of sound and sight of the murder.

On an unrelated note, you mention in your post about Lizzie's claim that she ate pears in the barn. That leads me to this question: What was it with the Borden family and pears? Bridget testified that on the morning of the murders, Andrew when out to the yard and picked a basket of pears, and brought them into the house. Lizzie claimed to be eating pears in the barn. And when Morse returned to the crime scene, he says he stopped in the yard to pick up a pear and eat it. It almost makes me want to shout, "Enough with the pears, already!"

[Allen]

Darrowfan I agree. Lizzie was working with with the best alibi she could come up with even if it was terrible. I've said that many times myself. All she could do was place herself as far away from Andrew at the time of the murders as possible. She could not say she was anywhere else. Not at a store shopping or visiting a friend. This would have been immediately refuted by asking the friend or the people who were at the store that morning. It would have been refuted by Bridget who saw her at home. Since I believe Abby and Andrew were both targets that means Lizzie could not leave the house after Abby was killed to establish an alibi. Because that left it wide open for Abby to be discovered before she could kill Andrew. And I believe that Andrew would have suspected Lizzie. He could have disinherited her and left her with nothing. That would have been perfectly within his rights. So she was stuck with coming up with the note story to keep Andrew from finding Abby's body after he got home, and to explain why she did not go looking for Abby herself. Leaving the house after Andrew's murder to establish an alibi would have done little good. She could not establish something that is not true. Nobody could have testified that they had seen her during the time of either murder because nobody did see her. There was no alibi to establish. All the prosecution had to do was just start asking around at the places Lizzie might have claimed she had been. Then first ask, "Did you see her there?". Then, "Around what time did you see her there?". If nobody could state that they had seen her during the time of the murders that does not establish an alibi at all. For an alibi to work it has to have corroboration. Someone or something outside of Lizzie has to support it. Her word alone would mean nothing. Lizzie's alibi was ridiculous. She kept changing her story. But it's all she had. The FBI profiler Candice Delong has said that most murderers get tripped up because they do not think any further than committing the actual crime itself. So much planning goes into most murders going off without a hitch but very little after thought about an alibi. This is how many murderers are caught.

And Franz, do you really think a woman would have taken a murder rap to cover up smoking a cigar?

[Aamartin]

I believe Lizzie had an alibi plan and had to scrap it for some reason....... She was on the hot seat since she already killed Abby.

[NancyDrew]

To FRANZ:

I've been a supporter of you, while others have said some very unkind things. But this masturbation theory has to stop, and stop NOW. I'm beginning to wonder if you don't get some sort of bizarre sexual pleasure out of posting about it. There is NOTHING to support your theory...zero, zilch, nyet, rien, nada, not an iotia of evidence.

I'm sick of reading about it. Not only is it disgusting to think about (hay, mucous, blood, rags, etc) but it is a waste of time and energy.

1. You are NOT a woman and you have no idea what you're talking about concerning female masturbation. Several women here, myself included, have tried to tell you but you simply ignore our comments. I'm losing my patience with you. For the last time, NO WOMAN would choose a dirty, hot, uncomfortable hay loft over a clean, private, locked bedroom in which to engage in intimate activities.

2. You have never been to the Borden house or barn, while many of us on are here HAVE and therefore we have a better perspective regarding certain aspects of the case. You managed to get an article printed in the newspaper regarding your theory that John Morse orchestrated the Borden murders. So there, you've had your 15 minutes of fame. Was that the real motivation for your participation in this forum? If you are really that "fascinated" (your own words) by this case, then by God, get on a plane, and COME HERE! Go to the house, take the tour, visit the barn, talk to the people who live with Lizzie's memory 24/7.

3. Many, many people have posted credible articles and opinions that support the implausibility of your theory that Lizzie went to the barn to masturbate.

You have repeatedly made reference to Mrs. Churchhill's statement that she saw something in the house, the nature and substance of which she would never repeat. She said "house," not BARN. In regards to this, you wrote:

"Mrs. Churchill said that there was one thing she saw in the house the day of the murder. I think we should understand the word “house” in its ample meaning: the “house” should include here the house itself, the yard and the barn, so, all the Borden property."

Franz, what the heck are you talking about? "We should understand the word "house" in its ample meaning". "Ample meaning?" What the heck does "Ample Meaning" mean? You are simply trying to bend the facts to fit your theory. Mrs. Churhchill was talking about the house, period. I don't have to "understand" the facts in any other way than how they are simply and truthfully stated.

I've been patient, kind, understanding and polite. But I've reached my limit. Stop this "masturbation" theory nonsense, because that is EXACTLY what it is, NONSENSE.

I'm a born and bred New Englander, and Lizzie Borden is part of my cultural history. I'm angry, insulted, and frankly, DISGUSTED with your attempt to manipulate the facts to fit your prurient speculations.

I will not comment on or respond to any more of your posts in which you continue to further this debased, unspported theory.

You are seriously straining the boundaries of my good manners, sir.

[Harry]

I agree Darrowfan that Lizzie was probably never in the barn.

First, Lubinski said he saw a woman coming from the direction of the barn not from the barn itself. Coming from the back yard fits that description as well as the barn.

And for the life of me I have never been able to figure how Lizzie's 20 minute stay fits into the time frame.

Bridget says Lizzie was in the house when she went up to her room a few minutes to 11. Let's say that was at 10:57. If Lizzie went to the barn immediately after Bridget left and spent 20 minutes that brings us up to 11:17. That can't be so since Hilliard received the call from Cunningham at 11:15.

The time frame narrows considerably more when you factor in Lizzie coming back in, discovering her father's body, summoning Bridget, sending her to Dr. Bowen's and then calling over to Mrs. Churchill. It was only then that Cunningham made his call to Hilliard. So where does the 20 minute visit fit in?

[Darrowfan]

I agree Darrowfan that Lizzie was probably never in the barn.

First, Lubinski said he saw a woman coming from the direction of the barn not from the barn itself. Coming from the back yard fits that description as well as the barn.

And for the life of me I have never been able to figure how Lizzie's 20 minute stay fits into the time frame.

Bridget says Lizzie was in the house when she went up to her room a few minutes to 11. Let's say that was at 10:57. If Lizzie went to the barn immediately after Bridget left and spent 20 minutes that brings us up to 11:17. That can't be so since Hilliard received the call from Cunningham at 11:15.

The time frame narrows considerably more when you factor in Lizzie coming back in, discovering her father's body, summoning Bridget, sending her to Dr. Bowen's and then calling over to Mrs. Churchill. It was only then that Cunningham made his call to Hilliard. So where does the 20 minute visit fit in?

Harry, you have struck upon something that has always bothered me too. That "20 minutes" business just makes no sense. Especially when you consider the fact that Andrew apparently came home around 10:40 or 10:45. (I think that is correct). I don't know what Lizzie was thinking when she claimed to be in the barn for 20 minutes. I think the latest, and I mean the very latest, that Lizzie could have shouted up the stairs to Bridget would be 11:05. In other words, Lizzie shouted for Bridget about 20 to 25 minutes after Andrew came home. And those 20 to 25 minutes would include the time it took Andrew to go into the sitting room, have the brief discussion with Lizzie about the mail, and make himself comfortable on the couch.

And I am being generous with the time sequence, considering, as you correctly point out, that the police were notified at 11:15.

[Darrowfan]

To FRANZ:

I've been a supporter of you, while others have said some very unkind things. But this masturbation theory has to stop, and stop NOW. I'm beginning to wonder if you don't get some sort of bizarre sexual pleasure out of posting about it. There is NOTHING to support your theory...zero, zilch, nyet, rien, nada, not an iotia of evidence.

I'm sick of reading about it. Not only is it disgusting to think about (hay, mucous, blood, rags, etc) but it is a waste of time and energy.

1. You are NOT a woman and you have no idea what you're talking about concerning female masturbation. Several women here, myself included, have tried to tell you but you simply ignore our comments. I'm losing my patience with you. For the last time, NO WOMAN would choose a dirty, hot, uncomfortable hay loft over a clean, private, locked bedroom in which to engage in intimate activities.

2. You have never been to the Borden house or barn, while many of us on are here HAVE and therefore we have a better perspective regarding certain aspects of the case. You managed to get an article printed in the newspaper regarding your theory that John Morse orchestrated the Borden murders. So there, you've had your 15 minutes of fame. Was that the real motivation for your participation in this forum? If you are really that "fascinated" (your own words) by this case, then by God, get on a plane, and COME HERE! Go to the house, take the tour, visit the barn, talk to the people who live with Lizzie's memory 24/7.

3. Many, many people have posted credible articles and opinions that support the implausibility of your theory that Lizzie went to the barn to masturbate.

You have repeatedly made reference to Mrs. Churchhill's statement that she saw something in the house, the nature and substance of which she would never repeat. She said "house," not BARN. In regards to this, you wrote:

"Mrs. Churchill said that there was one thing she saw in the house the day of the murder. I think we should understand the word “house” in its ample meaning: the “house” should include here the house itself, the yard and the barn, so, all the Borden property."

Franz, what the heck are you talking about? "We should understand the word "house" in its ample meaning". "Ample meaning?" What the heck does "Ample Meaning" mean? You are simply trying to bend the facts to fit your theory. Mrs. Churhchill was talking about the house, period. I don't have to "understand" the facts in any other way than how they are simply and truthfully stated.

I've been patient, kind, understanding and polite. But I've reached my limit. Stop this "masturbation" theory nonsense, because that is EXACTLY what it is, NONSENSE.

I'm a born and bred New Englander, and Lizzie Borden is part of my cultural history. I'm angry, insulted, and frankly, DISGUSTED with your attempt to manipulate the facts to fit your prurient speculations.

I will not comment on or respond to any more of your posts in which you continue to further this debased, unspported theory.

You are seriously straining the boundaries of my good manners, sir.

Well, Nancy, I have to admit that I found Franz' theory bizarre and I admit I also wondered if he weren't postulating it to achieve some sort of "cheap thrill". I actually wondered how long it would take for one of the female posters on here to explode in frustration. You held out much longer than I expected.

Uh, Franz, can we please move on now to a more reasonable theory? Like, say, Lizzie, Grover Cleveland, and Bigfoot holding a Satanic Mass in the barn?

[Allen]

I agree Darrowfan that Lizzie was probably never in the barn.

First, Lubinski said he saw a woman coming from the direction of the barn not from the barn itself. Coming from the back yard fits that description as well as the barn.

And for the life of me I have never been able to figure how Lizzie's 20 minute stay fits into the time frame.

Bridget says Lizzie was in the house when she went up to her room a few minutes to 11. Let's say that was at 10:57. If Lizzie went to the barn immediately after Bridget left and spent 20 minutes that brings us up to 11:17. That can't be so since Hilliard received the call from Cunningham at 11:15.

The time frame narrows considerably more when you factor in Lizzie coming back in, discovering her father's body, summoning Bridget, sending her to Dr. Bowen's and then calling over to Mrs. Churchill. It was only then that Cunningham made his call to Hilliard. So where does the 20 minute visit fit in?

In my opinion, in Lizzie's mind, she was trying to distance herself from Andrew almost as soon as he arrived home. Bridget claimed that Lizzie had just started to iron when Andrew got home. That she saw her taking out the ironing board and setting it up. Lizzie claims she had already been ironing before that and her flats would not get hot. That is the reason she gave for going to the barn to look for the sinkers/iron/lead/eating pears. I think Lizzie was preparing the only alibi she could come up with in her mind. Being in the barn while Andrew was killed. She set up the ironing board only after Andrew got home according to Bridget. This to me speaks of preparing her ridiculous alibi.

Inquest testimony Lizzie Borden:

Q. When your father went away, you were ironing then?
A. I had not commenced, but I was getting the little ironing board and the flannel.

Q. Are you sure you were in the kitchen when your father returned?
A. I am not sure whether I was there or in the dining room.

Q. Did you go back to your room before your father returned?
A. I think I did carry up some clean clothes.

Q. Did you stay there?
A. No sir.

Q. Did you spend any time up the front stairs before your father returned?
A. No, sir.

Q. Or after he returned?
A. No, sir. I did stay in my room long enough when I went up to sew a little piece of tape on a
garment.

------------------------------------------

Q.Will you give me the best story you can, so far as your recollection serves you, of your time while he was gone?
A. I sprinkled my handkerchiefs, and got my ironing board and took them in the dining room. I took the ironing board in the dining room and left the handkerchiefs in the kitchen on the table and whether I ate any cookies or not I don't remember. Then I sat down looking at the magazine, waiting for the flats to heat. Then I went in the sitting room and got the Providence Journal, and took that into the kitchen. I don't recollect of doing anything else.

Trial testimony of Bridget Sullivan page 237:

Q. What is the next thing that you did?
A. Well, as Mr. Borden come down stairs, I was completed in the sitting room, and taking my water and taking the hand basin and step ladder into the dining room. As I got in there he pulled a rocking chair and sat down in the rocking chair near the window and let down the window, as I left it up when I got through.

Q. Sat in a rocking chair in which room?
A. The sitting room.

Q. As he sat down in the sitting room, what did you begin to do?
A. I began to wash the dining room windows.

Q. At the time that he came down and you were passing from the sitting room to the dining room, was Miss Lizzie Borden there then?
A. I don't remember to see her.

Q. You began washing your two windows in the dining room, did you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. While you were washing those windows did any one appear in the dining room?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who was it?
A. Miss Lizzie.

Q. From what room did she appear? Through what door did she appear?
A. She came in from the sitting room into the dining room.

Q. Will you state what she did after she came in?
A. She came into the dining room, went out in the kitchen and took an ironing board and placed it on the dining room table and commenced to iron.

[Allen]

To FRANZ:

I've been a supporter of you, while others have said some very unkind things. But this masturbation theory has to stop, and stop NOW. I'm beginning to wonder if you don't get some sort of bizarre sexual pleasure out of posting about it. There is NOTHING to support your theory...zero, zilch, nyet, rien, nada, not an iotia of evidence.

I'm sick of reading about it. Not only is it disgusting to think about (hay, mucous, blood, rags, etc) but it is a waste of time and energy.

1. You are NOT a woman and you have no idea what you're talking about concerning female masturbation. Several women here, myself included, have tried to tell you but you simply ignore our comments. I'm losing my patience with you. For the last time, NO WOMAN would choose a dirty, hot, uncomfortable hay loft over a clean, private, locked bedroom in which to engage in intimate activities.

2. You have never been to the Borden house or barn, while many of us on are here HAVE and therefore we have a better perspective regarding certain aspects of the case. You managed to get an article printed in the newspaper regarding your theory that John Morse orchestrated the Borden murders. So there, you've had your 15 minutes of fame. Was that the real motivation for your participation in this forum? If you are really that "fascinated" (your own words) by this case, then by God, get on a plane, and COME HERE! Go to the house, take the tour, visit the barn, talk to the people who live with Lizzie's memory 24/7.

3. Many, many people have posted credible articles and opinions that support the implausibility of your theory that Lizzie went to the barn to masturbate.

You have repeatedly made reference to Mrs. Churchhill's statement that she saw something in the house, the nature and substance of which she would never repeat. She said "house," not BARN. In regards to this, you wrote:

"Mrs. Churchill said that there was one thing she saw in the house the day of the murder. I think we should understand the word “house” in its ample meaning: the “house” should include here the house itself, the yard and the barn, so, all the Borden property."

Franz, what the heck are you talking about? "We should understand the word "house" in its ample meaning". "Ample meaning?" What the heck does "Ample Meaning" mean? You are simply trying to bend the facts to fit your theory. Mrs. Churhchill was talking about the house, period. I don't have to "understand" the facts in any other way than how they are simply and truthfully stated.

I've been patient, kind, understanding and polite. But I've reached my limit. Stop this "masturbation" theory nonsense, because that is EXACTLY what it is, NONSENSE.

I'm a born and bred New Englander, and Lizzie Borden is part of my cultural history. I'm angry, insulted, and frankly, DISGUSTED with your attempt to manipulate the facts to fit your prurient speculations.

I will not comment on or respond to any more of your posts in which you continue to further this debased, unspported theory.

You are seriously straining the boundaries of my good manners, sir.

Well, Nancy, I have to admit that I found Franz' theory bizarre and I admit I also wondered if he weren't postulating it to achieve some sort of "cheap thrill". I actually wondered how long it would take for one of the female posters on here to explode in frustration. You held out much longer than I expected.

Uh, Franz, can we please move on now to a more reasonable theory? Like, say, Lizzie, Grover Cleveland, and Bigfoot holding a Satanic Mass in the barn?

Don't be silly Darrowfan. Everybody knows that Bigfoot is a republican. He would never have a satanic mass with Grover Cleveland.

[Darrowfan]

Don't be silly Darrowfan. Everybody knows that Bigfoot is a republican. He would never have a satanic mass with Grover Cleveland.

Allen, you owe me a new keyboard, as your post made me laugh just as I took a drink of coffee.

[Harry]

Andrew appears to have arrived home about 10:45 based on several testimonies,

Here's Bridget in the witness statements (Fleet, Aug 4)

"...Went up stairs at 10.55 to fix my room. After I had been in the room about ten minutes, Lizzie called me down stairs, saying that her father was dead, some one had killed him, go and get Dr. Bowen. ..."

In the Preliminary (p20) Bridget testified referring to Andrew's arrival:

"Q. Did you see her [Lizzie] then?
A. No Sir.
Q. How soon did you see her?
A. It might be five or ten minutes after, she came down stairs; she came through the front hall, I dont know whether she came from up stairs. She came through the sitting room, I was in the sitting room."

Later in the Prelim (p24):

"Q. What did you do then?
A. Hung up my cloth I had to wash with, and threw away the water, and went up stairs in my room.
Q. Where was Miss Lizzie?
A. She came out in the kitchen as I was starting to go up stairs.
Q. What for, if you saw?
A. She came out, and she told me there was a sale in Sargeants that afternoon of dress goods for eight cents a yard. I told her I would have one.
Q. Did she say anythingelse to you?
A. No Sir, that was all.
Q. That was before you went up stairs?
A. Yes Sir, just as I was starting."

So Bridget testified Lizzie was in the house when she went upstairs. Even if Lizzie left immediately after Bridget went (10:55) the 20 minute barn trip would bring the time to 11:15. That leaves no time for finding the body, calling Bridget, etc. You can't squeeze 20 minutes out of those times.

Even the 20 minutes may be in doubt. In Fleet's witness notes he writes [questioning Lizzie]:

...“I was ironing handkerchiefs in the Dining room, which I left and went in the barn, up stairs, and remained there for half an hour. ..."

Then in Harrington's notes:

“Saw father, when he returned from the P.O. He sat down to read the paper. I went out to the barn, remained twenty minutes; returned, and found him dead."

As bad as her alibi is for Andrew her alibi for Abby is even worse. She was in the kitchen having coffee and cookies reading a magazine.

[Darrowfan]

Inquest testimony Lizzie Borden:

Q. When your father went away, you were ironing then?
A. I had not commenced, but I was getting the little ironing board and the flannel.

Q. Are you sure you were in the kitchen when your father returned?
A. I am not sure whether I was there or in the dining room.

Q. Did you go back to your room before your father returned?
A. I think I did carry up some clean clothes.

Q. Did you stay there?
A. No sir.

Q. Did you spend any time up the front stairs before your father returned?
A. No, sir.

Q. Or after he returned?
A. No, sir. I did stay in my room long enough when I went up to sew a little piece of tape on a
garment.

------------------------------------------

Q.Will you give me the best story you can, so far as your recollection serves you, of your time while he was gone?
A. I sprinkled my handkerchiefs, and got my ironing board and took them in the dining room. I took the ironing board in the dining room and left the handkerchiefs in the kitchen on the table and whether I ate any cookies or not I don't remember. Then I sat down looking at the magazine, waiting for the flats to heat. Then I went in the sitting room and got the Providence Journal, and took that into the kitchen. I don't recollect of doing anything else.

Trial testimony of Bridget Sullivan page 237:

Q. What is the next thing that you did?
A. Well, as Mr. Borden come down stairs, I was completed in the sitting room, and taking my water and taking the hand basin and step ladder into the dining room. As I got in there he pulled a rocking chair and sat down in the rocking chair near the window and let down the window, as I left it up when I got through.

Q. Sat in a rocking chair in which room?
A. The sitting room.

Q. As he sat down in the sitting room, what did you begin to do?
A. I began to wash the dining room windows.

Q. At the time that he came down and you were passing from the sitting room to the dining room, was Miss Lizzie Borden there then?
A. I don't remember to see her.

Q. You began washing your two windows in the dining room, did you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. While you were washing those windows did any one appear in the dining room?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who was it?
A. Miss Lizzie.

Q. From what room did she appear? Through what door did she appear?
A. She came in from the sitting room into the dining room.

Q. Will you state what she did after she came in?
A. She came into the dining room, went out in the kitchen and took an ironing board and placed it on the dining room table and commenced to iron.

Thank you, Allen. It was good to be reminded that Lizzie said she took out the ironing board before her father returned, which is contradicted by Bridget's testimony that Lizzie took out the ironing board after her father returned. Very interesting.

[NancyDrew]

I sometimes have trouble with the vernacular of the 1800's. When Lizzie told Brigette that there as a sale as Sargeants and she replied "I'm going to have one." What did that mean? That she was going to have one of those sales at the store? That she was gong to have a nap?

That sentence has always puzzled me.

Thank you, Allen, Harry, Darrowfan, for nailing down the timeline for Lizzie...it proves that she was LYING and is, imo, further proof of her guilt.