First Instinct

[Yooper]

I would have to look up the name of the woman in Montana, Bridget's friend, who said she went to Bridget when she thought Bridget was near death, but, assuming that story is at least partially true: if Bridget did not lie at any time during the testimony or investigation, perhaps she didn't make her suspicions known, either. This could be what was left undone or unstated by Bridget.

[theebmonique]

Was it Minnie Green ?


Tracy...

[Yooper]

Thanks, Tracy, Minnie Green is the name I was trying to recall! Bridget was the one person who could attest directly to Lizzie's self-contradiction. This put her in a rather unique position.

Others may have reached the same conclusion if Bridget had mentioned what she overheard Lizzie telling Andrew about Abby being out. This may have caused Alice Russell to become suspicious initially, with the dress burning being the final straw. Alice's statement "I wouldn't let anyone see me doing that" implies that Lizzie might be "caught" doing something. It also implies a suspicion on the part of the speaker.

No one came right out and accused Lizzie of lying. If they suspected it, they kept it quiet. The facts were before everyone, the investigators and the prosecution included. Perhaps anyone who suspected Lizzie of lying felt justified by this rationalization, they have the information, let them figure it out.

[Yooper]

If Bridget noticed the flaw in Lizzie's story, then silence over time might tend to implicate her, at least as an accessory after the fact. The continued silence of others who suspected Lizzie might have been more to protect Bridget over a period of time. Lizzie was immune to prosecution for the same crime, but not as an accessory, nor was Bridget immune as an accessory. This might explain any "guilt" Bridget may have felt.

[RayS]

Anyone who works for the rich and powerful knows full well that 'loose lips sink ships'. They have ways of getting even, even if you move across country. IMO
Ever hear of a 'blacklist' or 'references'?

[Yooper]

Anyone who works for the rich and powerful knows full well that 'loose lips sink ships'. They have ways of getting even, even if you move across country. IMO
Ever hear of a 'blacklist' or 'references'?

Emma certainly would have had the means to get even if Lizzie had been convicted. While she may or may not have lacked the intent, it was only necessary that Bridget believe that it could happen to keep her quiet! The same might apply to others.

[Audrey]

Anyone who works for the rich and powerful knows full well that 'loose lips sink ships'. They have ways of getting even, even if you move across country. IMO
Ever hear of a 'blacklist' or 'references'?

IMO this is a matter of perception.

[RayS]

Here is my idea, stated before. Lizzie and Jennings wanted to get Bridget out of the country because she could spill the beans: Lizzie was in the kitchen when Andy came home, the laughter from upstairs was from the Secret Visitor (Unknown Subject). So they lent her money for her trip to Ireland, and it would have to be paid back with interest when Bridget returned to America. This was not a bribe to a witness!!! Even if that was the effect.
Bridget knew which side her bread was buttered. She took the money, went back to Ireland, bought a farm for her parents (dutiful daughter). But the same reasons that sent her away returned. So she took passage to Canada, entrained acroos the country to Butte Montana, and found a new life.

Why Butte? In an America where the sign "no Irish need apply" was often seen, the mines of Montana were owned by a countryman whose sign could have rean "only Irish need apply". That's the way it worked. IMO

[RayS]

Anyone who works for the rich and powerful knows full well that 'loose lips sink ships'. They have ways of getting even, even if you move across country. IMO
Ever hear of a 'blacklist' or 'references'?

IMO this is a matter of perception.

You must never have worked as a wage earner who needed a "clean reference" for another job. I'm not talking about any conviction, just the bitchiness of certain managers who know how to damn a former employee with "praise".

I once heard the manager where I worked 30+ years ago backstab a former employee by saying "he quit because he was leaving the area", in effect saying he's looking for a short term job. One thing I heard even before this is to NEVER ask the former employer for an opinion; you can't trust them. Life is not an ethical game.

[Yooper]

I would like to try to keep things simple. My simple mind tells me that compound probabilities approach zero total probability as the number of probabilities increases. For example, a 50:50 probability for a given event implies a 1/(2n) sequence with n=number of events. This approaches zero for increasing n.

[RayS]

I would like to try to keep things simple. My simple mind tells me that compound probabilities approach zero total probability as the number of probabilities increases. For example, a 50:50 probability for a given event implies a 1/(2n) sequence with n=number of events. This approaches zero for increasing n.

William of Ockham beat you to this about 700 years ago. "Do not multiply causes needlessly", or the simplest explanation is likely the true one.
EG there were no bloodstains on Bridget, Lizzie, or OJ because none of them did the murders. How simple is that?

[Yooper]

I would like to try to keep things simple. My simple mind tells me that compound probabilities approach zero total probability as the number of probabilities increases. For example, a 50:50 probability for a given event implies a 1/(2n) sequence with n=number of events. This approaches zero for increasing n.

William of Ockham beat you to this about 700 years ago. "Do not multiply causes needlessly", or the simplest explanation is likely the true one.
EG there were no bloodstains on Bridget, Lizzie, or OJ because none of them did the murders. How simple is that?

Thank you, William of Ockham, it's nice to have support!

Compare the probability of washing off bloodstains with the compound probability of a murderer both entering and leaving the house unseen by anyone. How simple is that?

[RayS]

Ellan Eagan later claimed she saw (and smelt) an unknown subject.
Lizzie must have also seen him leave, the signal she could return to the house.
Uncle John entered via the back way unseen by people around 1pm.

Logically, if no one saw a secret visitor that is not proof it never happened.
I'm sorry if I can only quote from fictional sources for this.

There must have been a secret path known to only a few.
Sort of like that story about OJ's old house (since torn down).

[RayS]

...
Thank you, William of Ockham, it's nice to have support!

Compare the probability of washing off bloodstains with the compound probability of a murderer both entering and leaving the house unseen by anyone. How simple is that?

What probability have you calculated, and is this based on any textbook or scientific journal?
Yes, its more fun to ask questions than to answer them!

[RayS]

"I'm getting blisters on my fingers" from all this typing.
I do believe I'll need a day off.

[Yooper]

...
Thank you, William of Ockham, it's nice to have support!

Compare the probability of washing off bloodstains with the compound probability of a murderer both entering and leaving the house unseen by anyone. How simple is that?

What probability have you calculated, and is this based on any textbook or scientific journal?
Yes, its more fun to ask questions than to answer them!

If (lack of bloodstains)=(lack of guilt), then the murders were not committed, because everyone lacked bloodstains. Consult any logic or mathematics text. This is the contrapositive of guilt=bloodstains, which is the premise of your argument.

[Kat]

We only know the defense knew that by Tuesday of the murder week Abby had no front door key. We don't know if she got it back and we don't know if the prosecution knew any of this.
If the prosecution knew Abby (let's say) had no key, it seems they would have jumped on the *Thought I heard her come in* bandwagon, and hung the girl. Lizzie would have painted herself into a corner.

Maybe they believed Lizzie never said that- I don't know- but if Abby had no key and Lizzie did not specifically say she heard Abby come in during some tight window of time- then that might be a situation the prosecution would not pursue.
Also, if everyone knew that Abby had a key by Thursday, again it might be too complicated to expose the jury to it- if the question resoved itself in the Prosecution's mind.

[Audrey]

Ellan Eagan later claimed she saw (and smelt) an unknown subject.
Lizzie must have also seen him leave, the signal she could return to the house.
Uncle John entered via the back way unseen by people around 1pm.

Logically, if no one saw a secret visitor that is not proof it never happened.
I'm sorry if I can only quote from fictional sources for this.

There must have been a secret path known to only a few.
Sort of like that story about OJ's old house (since torn down).

Why didn't Mrs Churchill notice the smell? Seems to me if Ellan smelled it outdoors it was strong enough to have lingered... indoors.

[Yooper]

Lizzie says "I thought I heard her come in" repeatedly. First to Mrs. Churchill, then to Bridget, then to all within earshot, which prompted Bridget and Mrs. Churchill to search upstairs.

Abby having a key on Thursday only makes the scenario slightly less complex. It eliminates the need for her to pass through the kitchen, dining, and sitting rooms. It still puts the murderer in the house while everyone is there because Lizzie would need to have heard the door used twice in order for the murderer to leave.

I think the point would have been made to the jury, regardless of how complex it was, if it was the most incriminating argument they could offer.

[Harry]

The only book that I recall that has Abby leaving the house that Thursday morning is Masterton's. I am in no way endorsing his theory but did find the book very interesting. You really have to read the whole book and get his reasons on the blood, food digestion, body temperature, etc. It's quite different from most Borden books.

[Yooper]

We still have he problem of Abby dying after Andrew. I have not read Masterton's book, but I'm assuming his expertise had something to do with blood coagulation rates. How much of a discrepancy was he able to suggest between what the doctors said in 1892 and the present? While the doctors at the time of the murders didn't have the advantage of modern instrumentation and knowledge, they were still doctors using the best methods they had. Even Dr. Dedrick, who "didn't want to get into the case" concurred that Abby died first.

October 1, 1892, Harrington, partial, Witness Statements, p.22:

Dr. Albert C. Dedrick. “I was going on a call to Whipple street, when I saw Dr. Dolan drive along Second street like mad, and stop at Mr. Borden’s. When I returned, there was a large crowd there, and I went in. Mr. Borden’s left hand, which rested on his hip, was smeared with blood. I called Dr. Bowen’s attention to it.
I went up stairs, and as I entered, I noticed the basin which was on the wash stand, contained water stained with blood. I called Dr. Bowen’s attention to this, and he said perhaps some of the Doctors washed their hands there. Afterwards I saw Dr. Dolan wash his hands there. I remember this distinctly, for I had put my hands in Mrs. Borden’s wounds, and when I had washed my hands, I took the towel from Dr. Dolan, who had just finished drying his.
I think Mrs. Borden was dead first, for when I took hold of her arm, it was cold, clammy, and very stiff. When I took hold of Mr. Borden’s, to look at the blood on his hand, it bent very easily.
I do not want to get into the case, but I tell you just as I saw and found things.”

[Yooper]

The only book that I recall that has Abby leaving the house that Thursday morning is Masterton's. I am in no way endorsing his theory but did find the book very interesting. You really have to read the whole book and get his reasons on the blood, food digestion, body temperature, etc. It's quite different from most Borden books.

That's a good suggestion Harry, I'll try to scare up a copy of Masterton. He might be able to prove or disprove sequence. I'll confine the reading to the scientific aspects and not get into the approval/disapproval trap because I don't want to minimize a valid contribution.

[Yooper]

Kat
My previous post addressing your arguments seems abrupt, I apologize if it does, I didn't intend it to be so.

My best analysis of the prosecution not using the "Lizzie heard" information is that either they didn't realize it, or they chose to ignore it.

I can't see them ignoring it because it was the best way they had to pin Lizzie's ears back. I noticed that when the subject of "note" comes up at the trial, objections seem to come up, also.

On the other hand, the prosecution may have been so focused and confident of Eli Bence's testimony and Lizzie's inquest testimony that the connection never occurred to them. It may well have after the trial, after all, it was deduced here using existing testimony and statements.

Look at it from the standpoint of the single event of Bridget's assertion that Lizzie said Abby was out, rather than the many times the opposite was stated. It is easier to "lose" it this way.

[Kat]

That's OK. I didn't think you abrupt at all.

Here's Lizzie's answers on where she thought Abby was, from her inquest, pg. 78 (35):

Q. Describe anything else you noticed at that time.
A. I did not notice anything else, I was so frightened and horrified. I ran to the foot of the stairs and called Maggie.
Q. Did you notice that he had been cut?
A. Yes; that is what made me afraid.
Q. Did you notice that he was dead?
A. I did not know whether he was or not.
Q. Did you make any search for your mother?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why not?
A. I thought she was out of the house; I thought she had gone out. I called Maggie to go to Dr. Bowen's. When they came I said, "I don't know where Mrs. Borden is." I thought she had gone out.
Q. Did you tell Maggie you thought your mother had come in?
A. No, sir.
Q. That you thought you heard her come in?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you say to anybody that you thought she was killed up stairs?
A. No, sir.
Q. To anybody?
A. No, sir.
Q. You made no effort to find your mother at all?
A. No, sir.
.......

and
83 (40)
Q. Did you say you thought she was up stairs?
A. No sir.
Q. Did you ask them to look up stairs?
A. No sir.
Q. Did you suggest to anybody to search up stairs?
A. I said, "I don't know where Mrs. Borden is;" that is all I said.
Q. You did not suggest that any search be made for her?
A. No sir.
Q. You did not make any yourself?
A. No sir.
Q. I want you to give me all that you did, by way of word or deed, to see whether your mother was dead or not, when you found your father was dead.
A. I did not do anything, except what I said to Mrs. Churchill. I said to her: "I don't know where Mrs. Borden is. I think she is out, but I wish you would look."
Q. You did ask her to look?
A. I said that to Mrs. Churchill.
Q. Where did you intend for her to look?
A. In Mrs. Borden's room.

[Yooper]

The prosecution must have been well aware of the self-contradiction. I don't see how it could be missed when at least two other people, Bridget and Mrs. Churchill, consistently testify in the witness statements, at the inquiry, and at the trial, to the exact opposite. In fact, they say Lizzie said that Abby was in more than once.

If the prosecution overlooked anything here it had to have been Bridget's testimony when Lizzie told her father that Abby was out. They still had her, but Bridget's testimony doesn't seem like much compared to Lizzie's inquest testimony. Bridget's testimony could have been overlooked.

Assuming they were aware of Bridget's testimony about Lizzie's conversation with Andrew, the contradiction becomes Bridget alone. Clearly, she was the only person still alive other than Lizzie who heard the conversation. It is entirely reasonable to assume that a question about Abby's whereabouts would be asked upon Andrew's arrival. If Lizzie had answered Andrew's inquiry with "I don't know where she is", he may well have gone to look for her and found her. The timing of the question and what Lizzie's answer may have prevented is very incriminating when it is contradicted several times. Along with this goes the fact that Lizzie was the only person unconcerned with Abby's whereabouts. Others, specifically Bridget and Mrs. Churchill, when confronted with the same traumatic event, ask "where is Abby" soon after hearing the news. In fact, in Lizzie's mind, Abby's whereabouts take a back seat to the doctor, Mrs. Churchill, Alice Russell, and the undertaker!

Another possibility is that the prosecution developed a defeatist attitude and abandoned any serious effort. Their two largest "hammers" were gone from the toolbox, Bence's testimony and Lizzie's inquest testimony, so they simply gave up. Maybe they assumed at that point that the trial was just for show and their political careers were better served by going along with the program.

[Yooper]

In re-reading Kat's quote, the last three questions have Lizzie running herself over. She wants Mrs. Churchill to look for Abby in Abby's room because Lizzie thinks Abby is out of the house! 'Splain dat one, Lucy!

[theebmonique]

When asked I took that testimony as Lizzie saying she really did think Abby was/had gone out, but that if someone (Mrs. Churchill) were to look for her, that her bedroom would be the most likely place.

The bolding is mine:
A. I did not do anything, except what I said to Mrs. Churchill. I said to her: "I don't know where Mrs. Borden is. I think she is out, but I wish you would look."
Q. You did ask her to look?
A. I said that to Mrs. Churchill.
Q. Where did you intend for her to look?
A. In Mrs. Borden's room.


Tracy...

[Harry]

If you insert the "I thought I heard her come in" line into that portion of Lizzie's inquest then it makes sense. However, the part about Abby going to her own room doesn't make sense as the only way to that room was up the back stairs.

Lizzie had at least 5 days between the murders and her Inquest testimony to go over her earlier statements. No doubt she had the assistance of Jennings and Hanscom to advise her what to avoid.

[Yooper]

That makes more sense, in other words, "Check Abby's room because, while I doubt that she's there, it is possible." But, that isn't what Mrs. Churchill said about the conversation.

Any lack of logic in Lizzie's inquest testimony could be attributed to Dr. Bowen's prescription. This leaves Lizzie an "out" where her testimony is concerned.

[Yooper]

Can anyone read Lizzie's inquest testimony and arrive at the conclusion that she is not absolutely contradicting what Bridget and Mrs. Churchill said three times each about the same conversations?

[theebmonique]

I know this is not exactly what you are asking about, but from this part of Mrs. Churchill's Inquest testimony, it seems to me to say that she and Bridget had already gone upstairs to get the sheets to cover Andrew, so they KNEW abby wasn't up in her room, because they had to go through her romm to get to the dressing room where the sheets were...right ?

(Mrs. Churchll)...Dr. Bowen said he would like a sheet to cover up Mr.
Borden. Bridget was to go and get it. Lizzie told her to go up in a small room, adjoining her mother’s room, I
think she called it a dressing room. I went with Bridget, because she did not want to go alone. I stood in the door
way of the little room while she went to the bureau and took out two sheets. She says to me “is two enough”? I
says “I should think a plenty”. We came down stairs, and Dr. Bowen took one, and the other sheet was laid on
the dining room table. I am not sure but she handed me both of the sheets, and I laid one on the dining room
table. Dr. Bowen went in, I presume he covered up Mr. Borden next. Then Lizzie said she wished someone
would go and try to find Mrs. Borden up stairs, so I went with Bridget. I think Bridget went ahead of me. I got
half way up the front stairs, I got just far enough so my head was level with the front entry floor, I turned my
head to the left, and in turning my head to the left, I could see straight across the spare bed room floor, and at
the north side of the bed I saw something that looked like a prostrate form of something. I could distinguish
nothing, the room was not light, it was a little darker, darker than down stairs. It looked more than any mat
would be on the floor. I turned around and went back. I dont know whether I said out loud “that must be her”. I
think Bridget went up stairs, how far she went, I dont know, because I was so shocked. I went down stairs,
went into the dining room, and Alice Russell says, “is there another”? “Yes, she is up there”. When Dr. Bowen
came in again I says “Dr. Bowen, you must go up stairs in the spare bed room”. And he went.


Tracy...

[Yooper]

If we can establish a time reference to Lizzie's inquest testimony, then Tracy's discovery is another contradiction.

I'll go a step further and suggest that the prosecution was completely aware of the self-contradiction and were feeding Lizzie "enough rope". The questions put to Lizzie at the inquest were framed entirely within the context of Bridget's and Mrs. Churchill's statements.

[theebmonique]

Then there is Alice Russell's Inquest testimony which says Lizzie has already asked about finding Abby before they went after the sheets. So, if Lizzie asked about looking for Abby in her room after the sheets were brought down, wouldn't Mrs. and Bridget both have said something about how they had been up there getting the sheets and had not seen her ?

(Alice Russell)...I have a very confused idea of it. I have tried my best to have it clear. I met Lizzie, and I said “sit right down
here Lizzie in the kitchen”; and she sat down. I dont seem to remember what she said or done, except she says
“will somebody find Mrs. Borden”. She seemed to be very much overcome.

Q. Did she tell you anything about where to look for her?

A. No Sir. Then I remember of Maggie and Mrs. Churchill starting, and Maggie says “O, I cant go through that
room”. Dr. Bowen says “get me a sheet, and I will cover Mr. Borden over”. They started and went after that.


Tracy...

[Angel]

You know, we discuss this case in depth and talk about every aspect of it, but, as I was reading the above message, it occurred to me that the actual shock of the whole thing (walking into a sitting room in broad daylight and seeing someone well known chopped to pieces like that, or going upstairs and finding someone lying on the floor in a clotted pile of blood) must have been absolutely horrific to these people. Maybe we have gotten desensitized in a way with all we see on tv, etc. in these more modern days, but I still think if I came across a scene like that I would have post traumatic stress disorder the rest of my life. It must have totally affected these people in ways we'll never know about. How absolutely awful!

[theebmonique]

You are absolutely right Angel..PTSD would have to play into this case. I would imagine that Lizzie hardly knew one minute from the next for the first day or so. Then that confusion would only add up to more confusion as she tried to recount the days goings on under the pressure of an Inquest...and then a trial. Then throw in a little morphine to add to the mental circus in her head...whew.


Tracy...

[Yooper]

That's right Angel, there's a large space between us and what happened that day. It's hard to say how removed others might have been from the events. Still, we have the consistency of Bridget and Mrs. Churchill in their statements. While we would expect Lizzie to be greatly agitated or devastated, depending upon her involvement, she apparently doesn't show it immediately after the fact. Lizzie's confusion/contradiction/mental distress doesn't seem apparent before the inquest.

[theebmonique]

I think Lizzie was very distressed. I think her coolness was a way of hiding her feelings. I think her mental distress was habitually covered with a lack of emotional 'show'. Plus, we have heard through the years that she was not a real flamboyant person...at least not before and shortly after the murders. I really think she was in shock and didn't know what the hell to think...to say...or how to react to such a devastating event in her life.


Tracy...

[Angel]

I wasn't thinking of Lizzie exclusively. I was thinking of everyone who was involved that day and how the emotional impact of that horrible scene must have adversely affected everything that happened to them for the rest of their lives.
I personally think Lizzie was guilty, so I think she was reacting to things for a whole different set of reasons.

[Yooper]

There were a few people who had to live the rest of their lives with respect to that day and the degree of their detachment from that would have been determined by their closeness to the event. Everything from Lizzie being ostracized by Fall River to the the reality of what women might be capable of in the social sense affected people. That event was a turning point for a great number of people in at least some way.

[diana]

Impressions of Lizzie's attitude seem to have been polarized from the outset.

Although the police describe Lizzie as cold and unfeeling on the day of the murders, we also have the word of Charles Sawyer, one of the first on the scene, who says Lizzie was "apparently grief-stricken" and "when they came down and reported that her mother had been killed, she apparently went off in some kind of swoon or hysterical fit..." (Sawyer, Inquest)

Mrs. Churchill describes her as "distressed" and Alice Russell found her "dazed" and said, "we intended ... not to leave Lizzie. We knew the state she was in." (Churchill, Russell, Inquest)

Other than Lizzie's own testimony at the inquest and a few handwritten letters, everything we think we know about Lizzie's personality is based on the opinions of others.

And examination of statements by various friends, relatives, neighbors, and even the press show that these contradictory reports on Lizzie's demeanour and deeds continued throughout her lifetime and even after her death.

[Yooper]

Did the Grand Jury have the inquiry testimony before them? If they did, and if they were still sitting on the fence until Alice Russell gave them a push, maybe the contradiction seemed rational for some reason.

Lizzie's confusion or mental distress presumably didn't occur until after she discovered Andrew. Until that point, Abby is, presumably, nowhere to be seen, she is not heard anywhere, and it makes perfect sense that she might be out of the house. Immediately post trauma, Lizzie has reason to believe that Abby is in. Abby is still nowhere to be seen or heard. The causality for that fact changes. Andrew is dead, therefore, Abby must also be dead. Lizzie is in control enough to make that correlation. The only other person in the house with two dead people is Bridget, and Lizzie calls to her in the hope (knowledge?) that she is still alive. Upon finding that Bridget is still alive, a person with enough control to make the correlation: dead+silence(assumed dead)=probable mass event, does not run like hell in the interest of self-preservation, she waits at the bottom of the stairs. I can't get there from here!

[Angel]

Ew! After thinking about this and also just reading the online stuff about Villisca I've got the willies. I'm going home and do something fun like play with my dogs. I need to get away from this for a while.

[Yooper]

If Lizzie is showing two different attitudes, one to the police, and another to anyone not the police, it indicates control rather than the lack of it. Either that, or the police have an "axe to grind". I would look to what was said by Lizzie rather than how she appeared while saying it to determine the rationality level.

[Kat]

Thanks for bringing up Sawyer, Diana.

I re-read him. (It's funny there were no police questioned at the inquest and Officer Allen did not testify openly until the trial).

It seems when Sawyer got there he thought there had been a stabbing of Mr. Borden and says Mrs. Churchill thought Abby was *dying* of fright. He was at the house when Abby was found. Also, he knew about a note from overhearing both Bridget & Mrs. Churchill. He probably thought Abby was out as well.

Sawyer
Inquest
138
A. No, I did not hear Miss Lizzie say but very little, I dont know that I heard her say anything that I could really repeat. She did speak to some of the ladies there.
Q. Were you there when Mrs. Borden was found?
A. Yes Sir I was. She was found sometime after I had been there.
Q. Do you know how she happened to be found?
A. Somebody had said, although I was out in the entry at the time, I understood it there was some inquiry made where Mrs. Borden was. Who made that inquiry, I dont know.
Q. What reply was made to the inquiry?
A. I did not hear that. After that inquiry had been made, I stood in the kitchen, just inside of the door, and Mrs. Churchill came up to me, apparently had come from some other part of the house, she says “Mrs. Borden is dying”. She seemed to be quite excited. She says “Mrs. Borden is dying, I think from the shock”. Where she got her information, I dont know, whether she went up to see or not.

...
137
Q. Did you hear the servant girl say anything?
A. Yes, I heard her montion something about that note that had been sent.
Q. What was that she said?
A. I heard her say something about Mrs. Borden saying that she had received a note, but I cant seem to recollect just how she put it, whether she said Mrs. Borden told her, or somebodyelse told her. I also heard Mrs. Churchill mention that fact.
Q. What did she say?
A. I think she said that Mrs. Borden had received a note calling her out. At that time I was not actually sure that Mr. Borden was killed I understood he had been stabbed.

_______

Also, we don't have Bridget's inquest testimony and I bet the grand jury did not have it either. As for Lizzie's inquest testimony- that's a good question. I bet they had that. But why not call Lizzie herself?

Anyway, Bridget's missing inquest testimony might resolve the question as to whether she stressed the point that Lizzie had said *she thought she heard Abby come in.* Bridget may have said something along those lines, at the inquest, but got locked into repeating it by the prosecution at the preliminary.

Bridget
Prelim
198 (29)
A. We were talking, I said I would like to know where Mrs. Borden was. I said I would go over to Mrs. Whitehead's. She said she would like us to search for Mrs. Borden, she told us to go and search for her. I said I would go over there, if I knew where the house was. She said she was positive she heard her coming in, and would not we go up stairs and see.
Q. Who said that?
A. Miss Lizzie Borden. I said I would not go up stairs; and Mrs. Churchill said she was willing to go with me; so me and Mrs. Churchill went up the front stairs. There we found Mrs. Borden.
______

To confuse us more, here is an excerpt from Bridget's preliminary testimony. I only add it because not many have the Preliminary.

Q. Tell me again what you said yesterday about what Lizzie said about receiving a note, about her mother receiving a note.
(Mr. Adams) He has already had it; he is not entitled to it again.
(Mr. Knowlton) I do not know whether she said yesterday what I am trying to get at or not.
(Court) You are entitled to understand the testimony.
(Mr. Adams) He does not say that he does not understand it.
(Court) The question may be asked.
Q. Tell that again, what Lizzie said to you about her mother's note.
A. Lizzie Borden asked me that day if I was going out that afternoon. I said I did not know, I might, and I might not. She said “if you go out, be sure and have the doors fastened, I might go out too, and Mrs. Borden may be gone out too. She had a note this morning, a sick call.” I said “who is sick?” She said “she had a note, so it must be in town.”
Q. At any time did you have any talk with Lizzie more than what you stated?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you have any talk about her seeing or hearing Mrs. Borden?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you ask her any questions as to whether she heard anything?
A. No Sir.
Q. Or did she say anything?
A. No Sir.
Q. Calling your attention; whether you had any talk with her, in which she said anything about hearing her groan?
(34)
(Objected to.)
(Mr. Knowlton) I have exhausted the witness' recollection, and now direct her attention.
Page 203 (34)
(Court) If it is for the purpose of refreshing her recollection of something which you are confident is within her knowledge, the question may be put in that form.
Q. Yes. Miss Lizzie said she was out in the yard, and she heard a groan.
(Mr. Adams) Heard a groan, or heard her groan?
A. Heard her father groan I should think.
Q. What did you say to her before that?
A. I asked her where she was. She said she was out in the back yard. She heard a groan, and she came in, and the screen door was wide open.

[Yooper]

I don't have the preliminary testimony so I wasn't aware of the conflict in Bridget's testimony. She supports her original statement (here) in the trial testimony and again in the witness statements. So, we can either accept the three "Abby's in" statements from Bridget, or we can question their validity based upon an apparent contradiction. What do we do about Mrs. Churchill's testimony which supports the "Abby's in" contention?

[Kat]

Oh you would be the perfect person to read and digest the Preliminary Hearing!
http://www.lulu.com/PearTreePress

Something I've noticed tho- this case is not reasonable or logical.

[Yooper]

It is very odd that Bridget would contradict what she testified to just the day before. It's possible that her answers subsequent to the statement about what Lizzie told her about Abby receiving the note could be in the context of that incident, which happened before the murder. That was a separate occurrance from the one testified to the day before about what Lizzie said when Bridget offered to look for Abby which happened after the murder.

I don't want to put words in Bridget's mouth or thoughts in her head, we have to take the testimony at face value.

[Yooper]

Concerning the testimony about the groan Lizzie heard, am I reading it correctly if I assume that the groan caused Lizzie to hasten to the house?

I am assuming that the groan is cause for concern and not the obligatory "groan of submission" required of all inhabitants of "Fortress Borden", and issued in order to reinforce and encourage Andrew in his miserly habits.

[Yooper]

According to Bridget, Lizzie, from the back yard, heard a "groan" which caused Lizzie to enter the house and discover the source of the groan, at which time she discovered Andrew. The screen door was left "wide open", not a Borden trait. Clearly, both Andrew and Bridget are in the house at this point. We'll put the murderer in the house also without ascribing a time to that.

a) Abby arrives by the side door, unnoticed by anyone, leaving the door wide open, allows Andrew his nap because he isn't feeling well, and goes to the guest room. The murderer kills Andrew first. Andrew does not groan because; 1) Abby would probably have heard it from the house if Lizzie heard it from the yard, and 2) Lizzie would have arrived during Abby's murder. The murderer kills Abby in the guest room and Abby groans loudly enough to be heard by Lizzie in the back yard and quietly enough to be missed by Bridget on the floor above. Abby wafts silently to the floor, as though borne on a zephyr, to avoid detection of a "thud" by Bridget. Abby's groan causes Lizzie to enter the house and discover Andrew, then Lizzie summons Bridget (who has miraculously recovered her hearing).

Lizzie absolutely must hear the murderer leave by the front door, and mistake that as Abby's arrival, because she "hears" some door/arrival activity which leads her to the conclusion that Abby has arrived when, in reality, Abby is dead. Because Lizzie believes it to be the sound of Abby arriving, it means Abby is alive with the murderer in the house and Lizzie is present for Abby's silent (no groan) murder and the murderer's silent and otherwise unnoticed exit.


b) The murderer kills Abby first, again noiselessly and unheard by Andrew and Bridget, then proceeds to the sitting room and kills Andrew, who groans causing Lizzie, but again, not Bridget, alarm. The murderer exits by the front door, which Lizzie mistakes for Abby's arrival.

Lizzie presumes that Abby would completely miss Andrew lying dead on the sofa. Lizzie does not go to the front door to elicit Abby's assistance in determining the source of the groan upon "Abby's arrival". Lizzie does not attempt to tell Abby, who has "just arrived", of Andrew's murder.

c) Lizzie heard the murderer groan.

[RayS]

As I said years ago, I think the "groan" was from the spring on top of the screen door used to keep it shut. If opened 180 degree, the stretched spring made a "groan".
Abby never left the house that morning. When she went to the guest bedroom the second time, she discovered the Secret Visitor; an exchange of words set off the angry madman.
Once that was done the Secret Visitor had nothing to lose.

My surmise from reading the books. You won't get this from the Trial Transcrip, will you?
How many here have read Edmund Pearson's "Trial of Lizzie Borden"?