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

[Darrowfan]

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.

Interesting, Harry. I thought that I had read somewhere that at some point, Lizzie claimed to be in the barn for half an hour. It was in the witness statement from which you quoted. Your observation about Lizzie's alibi for Abby's death is spot on as well. I will have to review the transcripts, but I'm thinking that at one point, Lizzie actually concedes that shortly after 9am, she and Abby were both upstairs. And of course, only Lizzie came back down alive.

[Darrowfan]

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.

Nancy, that remark from Bridget, "I'm going to have one", always baffled me to. I always assumed she meant that she was going to take advantage of the sale, i.e, "I'm going to have one (a purchase at the store)". Remember that Bridget was from Ireland, so the way she phrased it may have been common to her homeland. Also, notice that she sometimes used a strange form of the plural personal pronoun. In her testimony, she is asked who did a certain thing, instead of saying "They did it" or "They themselves did it", she answered simply "Themselves did it".

[Allen]

They did have a very different way of speaking in the nineteenth century. A great deal in their manner of speech was more formal than it is today. Some of the words they took for granted in every day speech we may never have heard or ever used ourselves. I'd say that Bridget spoke the language she learned in Ireland. "I'm going to have one." I always assumed that meant she was going to buy some goods at the sale. Bridget's use of plurals such as "themselves did it" is pretty common for Irish people. I've seen a lot of that in my research. Even phrasing such as "Herself did it" instead of saying she was common. Other phrases that are used a lot in testimony such as "I don't know but that I gave it to her", just means it was given to her. It doesn't imply "I don't know, maybe I did."

[Darrowfan]

They did have a very different way of speaking in the nineteenth century. A great deal in their manner of speech was more formal than it is today. Some of the words they took for granted in every day speech we may never have heard or ever used ourselves. I'd say that Bridget spoke the language she learned in Ireland. "I'm going to have one." I always assumed that meant she was going to buy some goods at the sale. Bridget's use of plurals such as "themselves did it" is pretty common for Irish people. I've seen a lot of that in my research. Even phrasing such as "Herself did it" instead of saying she was common. Other phrases that are used a lot in testimony such as "I don't know but that I gave it to her", just means it was given to her. It doesn't imply "I don't know, maybe I did."

Interesting observations, Allen. As you say, people spoke differently back then. Some of the language the newspapers used in those days would seem very strange today. If the Borden case were being reported today, the headline would say, "Couple Found Murdered in Home". But in those days, language was more emotional. Most of the newspapers in 1892 described the Borden crime not as simply a "murder", but as a "fiendish atrocity" or similar language.

These days, attorneys taking testimony usually say to the witness, "Tell me in your own words" or "To the best of your knowledge, what happened". I notice that in the Borden case, Knowlton would often say to a witness, "Give me the best story you can..." It's hard to say if that was just a phrase, or if Knowlton was implying that the person was not going to be honest.

[Franz]

NancyDrew, you have certainly noticed that with my last thread for this topic I have begun to think and invite others to think about other possibilities: smoking a sigar? or others. In other words, if I believe that Lizzie did go into the barn, what was she doing and she could not tell absolutely to Knowlton? As mbhenty said, possibilities should be many.

I am sorry to have irritated you without intention.

[Franz]

Darrowfan and Allen, I agree indeed that if Lizzie's alibi testimony were a total lie, the barn would be a good place. What really worries me is this question: why didn't Lizzie prepare a good version about what she was doing in the barn, and then strik upon this version. My doubt is here, not the barn as the place for her alibi.

[Franz]

...
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.

...

I have a great desire to visit the Borden house, but NancyDrew, maybe you think that I could travel as easily as you?

[Franz]

... 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.
...

1. NancyDrew, if I am not wrong, the theory that Morse organized the murders is almost as old as the Borden case itself. What fame can one gains by repeating it? I thought to submit my essay to a nespaper because I think that the case is still officially open, and there is always an important number of persons like me, who believe that Lizzie was innocent (certainly, much less than those who believe the contrary), and my conjecture about how the intruder could enter into the house seems to be a possible and a new one, never proposed before. If so, this idea might be worth being known to a larger public. And a nespaper of Fall River should be the best choice. That's the story. I would say that if it were someone else who proposed this conjecture here, I would encourage him / her as well to do the same thing (even if I disagreed with him).

2. My first post about this difficult subject (I knew this indeed at the very begining) was submitted May 7th, only after more than 4 months I posted this second one, in Sept. 17th. I could be in errore, but I am not joking, entertaining myself or for other special motives as you might have speculated. I will pay more attention when I decide to post something in the forum, but I will remain free as always in my thinking, I have my right to it.

Thank you to have told me your real thoughts about the issue. In any way your reply is constructive for me.

[Franz]

They did have a very different way of speaking in the nineteenth century. A great deal in their manner of speech was more formal than it is today. Some of the words they took for granted in every day speech we may never have heard or ever used ourselves. I'd say that Bridget spoke the language she learned in Ireland. "I'm going to have one." I always assumed that meant she was going to buy some goods at the sale. Bridget's use of plurals such as "themselves did it" is pretty common for Irish people. I've seen a lot of that in my research. Even phrasing such as "Herself did it" instead of saying she was common. Other phrases that are used a lot in testimony such as "I don't know but that I gave it to her", just means it was given to her. It doesn't imply "I don't know, maybe I did."

I have very much more difficulties while reading the source documents. Thank you Allen and others.

[Franz]

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

Could the behavior of smoking cigar damage badly the reputation of a woman like Lizzie in that time? I don’t know. Allen, I think you can give me some good information about this issue.

I agree with you that, if this behavior could really damage Lizzie’s reputation, this damage should be nothing in comparison with Lizzie’s life. But I think when Lizzie was questioned by Knowlton - even though she had been told that she was suspected – she probably didn’t really realize that she was running the big risk to be accused and all the possible terrible consequences, that’s why, in my opinion, she still tried to cover what she was doing in the barn, for example, smoking cigar (or any other bad behavior). When I read Lizzie’s testimony, I am always surprised by her imprudent frankness. At one point she replied to the face of Knowlton: “I don't know what your name is!”. But I think the most significant example is her answer about the cordiality between Abby and her: “It depends upon one's idea of cordiality perhaps”. If Lizzie did kill Abby (and her father) because she hated her for pecuniary reason, Knowlton’s this question was a crucial one, I hardly believe that a guilty person, before a question concerning directly his / her murder motive, could answer in such a suicide manner. Lizzie could have avoided that phrase very easily, by saying simply: “Yes, I think so”. In my opinion, only an innocent, being certain of his innocence, and meanwhile without realizing the risk of being accused (or even convicted and executed), could be so frank before his prosecutor; a guilty man might have been much more careful in order to avoid any imprudent words. So, for me, it should be not impossible that Lizzie wanted to cover a behavior like smoking cigar when questioned by Knowlton, if she didn’t realize the risk she was running, being certain of her innocence.

[PossumPie]

NancyDrew, I must agree with you. I am a (male)nurse, and I tried as "politely" as possible to explain why Franz's theory is implausible to the point of absurdity. I am not one afraid to discuss ANYTHING if it is done in a scientific, non-childish way. I have explained myself and I throw my hat in with NancyDrew, I refuse to discuss this part of your theory any more. Give me more foundation to the REST OF YOUR THEORY, and I will still consider that. But as for your Lizzie 'embarrassment' piece, I am done.

[Franz]

...
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.

...

NancyDrew, if I bought a house, and if this house had a garden, a barn, a swimming pool and who knows other things, I could tell someone in a very simple manner: "Hey Nancy, I bought a house last month." without giving immediately more detailed information, could I? In this case I think I am using the word "house" in its ample meaning: when I simply say "house", I see in my own mind not only the house itself, but also the garden, the barn, etc. And if you want to know more about my house, you can ask me:"How is it, your house?", then I can tell you:"It's a house with bra bra bra..."

Now let's return to our topic. Assuming that Mrs. Churchill did see something in the barn concerning Lizzie's reputation (we don't discuss here what is the matter), and if she didn't want to tell this secret, I think "house" - not "barn" - should be the unique word she could use, but in its ample meaning, including the main building and barn, yard, etc. But herself, when saying so, saw in her mind only the barn, or more precisely, only the west window of the barn. The people who heard her saying so, thought naturally that the house indicated the main building of the Borden property. Using "house", instead of "barn", Mrs. Churchill told the truth, but meanwhile, her words won't draw attention upon Lizzie, because the latter said she was in the barn. By understanding in this manner Mrs. Churchill's words, I don't think I was manipulating the facts. Certainly, this is only my conjecture and other people, as you, have all their right to understand the word "house" in another manner.

"I know a secret but I won't tell you." It's not rare that we hear something like this.

NancyDrew, please correct me if I am wrong, because English is your native language, not mine.

P.S.: While reading the source documents about the case, we can read many times something like "the Borden house is situated in the Second Street, n° 92". I think in this case "house" means not only the main building, but also the yard, the barn, the well, in other word, all the Borden property as a whole. This is the ample meaning of the word "house", by my understanding.

[Franz]

NancyDrew, I must agree with you. I am a (male)nurse, and I tried as "politely" as possible to explain why Franz's theory is implausible to the point of absurdity. I am not one afraid to discuss ANYTHING if it is done in a scientific, non-childish way. I have explained myself and I throw my hat in with NancyDrew, I refuse to discuss this part of your theory any more. Give me more foundation to the REST OF YOUR THEORY, and I will still consider that. But as for your Lizzie 'embarrassment' piece, I am done.

PoosumPie, I am hearing you.

[PossumPie]

They did have a very different way of speaking in the nineteenth century. A great deal in their manner of speech was more formal than it is today. Some of the words they took for granted in every day speech we may never have heard or ever used ourselves. I'd say that Bridget spoke the language she learned in Ireland. "I'm going to have one." I always assumed that meant she was going to buy some goods at the sale. Bridget's use of plurals such as "themselves did it" is pretty common for Irish people. I've seen a lot of that in my research. Even phrasing such as "Herself did it" instead of saying she was common. Other phrases that are used a lot in testimony such as "I don't know but that I gave it to her", just means it was given to her. It doesn't imply "I don't know, maybe I did."

On the radio show FIBBER MCGEE AND MOLLY Molly always called her husband "himself" as in "Where's your husband Mrs. McGee?" "Himself went downtown, old timer"

[PossumPie]

NancyDrew, I must agree with you. I am a (male)nurse, and I tried as "politely" as possible to explain why Franz's theory is implausible to the point of absurdity. I am not one afraid to discuss ANYTHING if it is done in a scientific, non-childish way. I have explained myself and I throw my hat in with NancyDrew, I refuse to discuss this part of your theory any more. Give me more foundation to the REST OF YOUR THEORY, and I will still consider that. But as for your Lizzie 'embarrassment' piece, I am done.

PoosumPie, I am hearing you.

Franz, I applaud your ability to follow this case in a language (English) that is obviously not your native language. Understand something. Even people who speak English fluently from birth have difficulty with subtle double-meanings, old fasioned 19th century use of words, etc. What I have been saying all along is DON'T pull one word here, or a sentence there and build a case on it. The words may not carry the same meaning as they did back then, and remember you are translating the literal meaning into your native language (Most people who speak two languages still THINK in their native language.) Above you are quarreling over the use of the word 'house' Even I, a native English speaker can't presume to know what context it was used in 19th century Massachusetts. I often argue with my father over his 'cherry-picking' one word out of the Bible, and building a doctrine behind it. The Bible was written 2000+ years ago in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic and Translated into Old English of 400 years ago. Any one word has been translated, changed, and re-translated so many times you CAN'T build a case for any belief on one word, but must take the context of the WHOLE Book if you want any chance at all in forming a doctrine. For you to pick "House" or "I saw something I can't repeat" or any one word/phrase to build a case on is folly.

[NancyDrew]

Well said, Possum Pie.

[Darrowfan]

Franz, I applaud your ability to follow this case in a language (English) that is obviously not your native language. Understand something. Even people who speak English fluently from birth have difficulty with subtle double-meanings, old fasioned 19th century use of words, etc. What I have been saying all along is DON'T pull one word here, or a sentence there and build a case on it. The words may not carry the same meaning as they did back then, and remember you are translating the literal meaning into your native language (Most people who speak two languages still THINK in their native language.) Above you are quarreling over the use of the word 'house' Even I, a native English speaker can't presume to know what context it was used in 19th century Massachusetts. I often argue with my father over his 'cherry-picking' one word out of the Bible, and building a doctrine behind it. The Bible was written 2000+ years ago in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic and Translated into Old English of 400 years ago. Any one word has been translated, changed, and re-translated so many times you CAN'T build a case for any belief on one word, but must take the context of the WHOLE Book if you want any chance at all in forming a doctrine. For you to pick "House" or "I saw something I can't repeat" or any one word/phrase to build a case on is folly.

Very true, Possum. I think in a homicide investigation the worst thing a person can do is latch onto one small detail, and try to build their case from there. I think Lizzie is guilty not because of any one thing, but because of ALL the evidence, circumstantial as it may be. I just don't see how any other person could have committed the crime, and remain undetected.

True, Lizzie was a Sunday School teacher, with no apparent history of violence, so many people come to the conclusion that she couldn't have committed the crime. In other words, the argument goes, Lizzie was not the type of person who would commit that kind of crime. Actually, I agree. When you look at her background, and her history, she is indeed not the kind of person you would suspect in the killings. But the evidence is the evidence. As strange as this may sound, it doesn't really matter if Lizzie was the kind of person who would kill. The evidence indicates that she did kill, and in the end, that's all that really matters.

[PattiG157]

Regarding Lizzie not having any violence in her past, or after the murders: most profilers will tell you that with many, many domestic (family) crimes, that act of violence is the only violence they take part in during their entire lives. So even though Lizzie had never done anything violent before or after the murders, she still could be the killer.