Lizzie Borden Society Forum

If Lizzie did kill Abby or knew who did then I agree she wants the body found, she wants to get up to her room, of course she brings more attention to herself in the involvement to Abby's death by insisting that she thought she heard her come in and someone should go look, maybe she could not trust herself to act "Shocked" by being the one to discover Abby if she went upstairs first, she might have realised that she couldn't pull it off in a convincing way, no one witnessed her reaction to discovering Andrew, she calls Bridgett down after she has discovered the body, so if she is guilty then she has somebody else do her dirty work for her by discovering Abby, she may have looked guilty as sin by remarking that she thought she had heard Abby come in and insisting that someone go look, but she probably would have blown her cover by going up those stairs before hand, if only Lizzie had met Nance a few years earlier she could have given her some "how to look " acting skills!

I totally agree with that. Nobody did see her reaction on discovering Andrew.It was getting to her that Abby had not been discovered,
because she was more or less in the public eye with all those people around and she knew all her reactions were being recorded by them. She probably knew her actions would be under scrutiny later,and realized as you said she could never pull off discovering Abby convincingly. on the part about Nance.

Jimmy S. Windeskog @ Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:22 pm wrote:Well, I guess this take us back to Lincon again,and the man or woman she said saw the front door open and close as a stange man stod out side the door... Damn Lincon, she seams alone to have this information.

I recall, thru my haze of cough medicine and tylenol and runny nose, that an author placed Leontine Lincoln at the Borden's front door that Thursday A.M., and the door was shut in his face. He had brouight a young man to court a Borden daughter.

Now who wrote that?
(I'm thinking Masterton, but that can' be?...)

I don't think you were clouding the issue, Susan, by quoting from Robinson's argument. As long as we remember, like Kat says, that it is not evidence - that the attorney(s) can say anything they want and usually do.

Oh, what a stroke of luck for you to have this precious photo, Aaron. It looks like there is a lot of character coming thru on her face. She is almost smiling, and that's rare in old photos. Is there a name of a studio on it? That could help. Offhand it looks like late 1800's/early 1900's.

Earlier on the forum, we talked about people in old photos not showing their teeth. I was looking at a photo from the 1920's in Reminisce
magazine yesterday. They had all these young women in pajamas having a slumber party. And most of them had their teeth showing. And they shouldn't have! Yikes!

I never thought of Lizzie slowly moving toward the upstairs. It's true! Amazing putting that together, Kat. Wow, she really knew what she was doing, didn't she. Very cagey 'girl'. It sure looks like she was doing that on purpose, now that you brought it to light.

I had always thought that Lizzie was wanting Abby's body discovered to get the show on the road - to get this day moving and done with. But what a way to do it. "I think I heard her come in." You wouldn't get away with that nowadays. "Why did you think you heard her come in? When did you think you heard her? What door did you hear her use? Did she speak?", etc., etc. Did no one ask Lizzie anything like that? I can't recall anyone picking up on that glaringly important statement of hers.

Yes, I agree with was it Eugene or Fairhaven Guy, who said she had no or little reaction to Andrew's death. Some, tho, that were there that morning said they saw her crying and pale and she was upset. I think she could feel like that whether she was the murderer or the innocent finder of him. And, yes, she sure did have enough presence of mind to answer questions and stuff.

So some ladies said they never saw her cry that morning, and someone said they did.

But I have never read of her reaction when they found Abby. I've never even read anything she said after she was found. No, "Oh my!" Or, "Shucks," even. Now that's cold.

augusta @ Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:40 pm wrote:Oh, what a stroke of luck for you to have this precious photo, Aaron. It looks like there is a lot of character coming thru on her face. She is almost smiling, and that's rare in old photos. Is there a name of a studio on it? That could help. Offhand it looks like late 1800's/early 1900's.

augusta, yes i'm so glad I got most of the old family photos (from my mother's side), and i'm so glad I sat down with my nan when I did and made her tell me who they were, so I could write on the back in pencil the details, still with that there are many more that not even she knew. I'm in the process of making cd-roms of all the old photos to send to members of the family for christmas I just wish i'd asked more questions and wrote it all down, now all my grandparents are dead and no one really knows anything about the family. The original pic that I use is in storage so I can't see if there is a studio name on the back, but i'm moving next week so will have a look then-Cheers Aaron

It seems the greatest show of emotion from Lizzie was after she was arrested. Could this be a reaction from someone who was sure they would get away with it? Or was scared everyone would finally find out what she did? "Oh no, now everyone will know what I did" ? Why save up such a great show of emotion until after one is arrested? Even if it was true that she was not usually given to showing emotion.Even a hardened criminal can have an emotional reaction when he is caught.This is from Edwin H. Porters book pg. 65-66.

"Lizzie A. Borden was accused of the murder of her father, Andrew J. Borden. The warrant made no reference to the killing of Abbie D. Borden. That night the prisoner was overcome by the great mental strain to which she had been subjected for nearly a week and when all had departed, except the kindly matron, the burden proved heavier than she could bear. She gave way to her feelings and sobbed as if her heart would break. Then she gave up to a violent fit of vomiting and the efforts of the matron to stop it were unavailing. Dr. Bowen was sent for and he succeeded in relieving her physical sufferings. The prisoner was not confined in a cell room of the lock- up downstairs."

I know most believe we should be careful when using information from an authors book, because its based mostly on the theory the author has about the case and how they can use the evidence to support it.But I
dont feel that way about Porters book. It was written during that period, he was a reporter following the case, and as such would've been privy to information the general public did not have. I can see how the media covers a trial for myself today. Like Scott Peterson, I think if I would've had to hear his name one more time I would've screamed. On magazine after magazine, on the news, in newspapers...total saturation.Reporters all scrambling to one up each other with "new breaking information" and "this just in".

I think this break-down was also in the newspapers.
Lizzie may have held up well in public until the arrest which probably shocked her.
Or she may have started withdrawl from her morphine, hence calling Dr. Bowen to supply her?
Like anyone, Porter doesn't always get things right, and did have an agenda, supposedly. Defense Attorney Phillips didn't like him.
Makes one wonder why- like maybe more info which you supposed?

She was held overnight until Friday and then arraigned and sent to Taunton jail.

Talking of emotional displays, it's hard not to recall one - well, it's almost the sort we might wish to have seen for ourselves. Wasn't it Porter who told the tale of Pat Doherty, assigned to escort Bridget Sullivan to some proceeding (the inquest I believe) only to have Bridget flip her proverbial bonnet right there on the street, convinced they'd come to haul her off and put her under the jail?? (It is in Porter, at pg. 54.)

"Officer Doherty was sent to the Borden house to bring Bridget Sullivan to the police station to appear as the first witness at the inquest. He had some difficulty at the house because the impression had gone forth that he intended to arrest the servant girl. For a time there were tears and lamentation, but finally the officer made it understood that the only intention was to have the young woman talk to the District Attorney."

(Actually, it's a scene we can envision, since we have photographs of both.) Myself I find it more fun to picture an older Captain Doherty dealing with the hysterical Bridget - his eyes seem more expressive in later years.
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/NewRe ... oherty.htm

I've often wondered whether Doherty & Harrington might have flipped a coin that day, to see who'd go after her.

Kat, i think it was lincoln herself who put her grandfather in the buggy outside the house that morning. i remember because i wanted to refer to it in that article but when the time came i could not find it, and tina found it and told me the page number.

maybe another author took it as the truth and used it as well? i don't know.

I also agree the police did not think it all through.

I can't help but wonder in looking at how advanced the technology of todays law enforcement is, if this crime would have been solved

IMO this case would've been solved in the first few days if they had the technology available to law enforcement today, and used the procedures for securing a crime scene that are used by todays law enforcement.

I think they might have more evidence to consider had they followed the procedures of today....

They would have secured the crime scene and they would have kept crucial witnesses segregated and of course the entire "maiden" aspect would have been moot...

However, modern forensics may have made it more difficult for the police to zero in on one and only one suspect so quickly. As we now know-- digestion and time of death are much less exact than was believed in 1892. The sheer volume of forensic evidence and it's collection and examination would have taken more time and those investigating and prosecuting the case would have played things a bit closer to their vests!

Thanks Eugene. I'm still thinking it was reflected by another author because it's been so long since I read Lincoln. Now I'm thinking Muriel Arnold? But I don't have her book.

Profiler John Douglas would have planted stories in the paper, got Lizzie to think he was sympathetic (Good Lizzie would never do such a thing, but what about bad Lizzie?) and she would hopefully confess.

I found this on court tv's web site Crime Library, its a review for William L. Mastertons book. I have the book myself, and I felt this summed up
what I wanted to say.


http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_m ... tml?sect=7

"Masterton demonstrates in some detail that if Lizzie's trial were held today with the benefits of modern forensic technology that the evidence presented would not determine that Abby Borden died 1-2 hours before Andrew died."

I think they should have grilled Bridget that day, when she lost it when the cop came to escort her to the hearing. I think she would have broke. It is very frustrating to know that they didn't do it.

It is fun to imagine it happening, tho. In the first issue of The Hatchet I did a piece that gives a little scene of the cops trying to break her called "Badgering Bridget". It was a comedy piece, but it seems so dumb that they didn't do it.

It was like, a cop comes into the Borden house and says, "Did you do it, Miss Sullivan?" And she says, "No." And the cop says, "Okay," and turns around. "Did you do it, Miss Lizzie?" And Lizzie says, "No." And the cop says, "Okay," and turns around. The End.

Tho Porter's opinion seeps thru, I would think his book the neatest. I don't know if he twisted anything to his way of thinking. But he was actually there. He wasn't just sitting in the courtroom or copying articles from other papers. He would physically go to the jail and try to see what was going on. The people on Lizzie's side knew who he was because he was like that.

Your relatives are gonna love that CD, Aaron.

I agree some of the medical findings would be debunked if they had access to today's technology.But, I do not believe the crime would take that much longer to solve using todays techniques and procedures. I am familiar with most procedures used during investigation and for securing a crime scene, though so far only in theory not in practice.I will become more familiar with how things work when I graduate and become employed in the field. The theory of how things should work, and how they actually work in the field, can often be two different things.Lizzie and Bridget would be considered prime suspects from the start.Uncle John Morse would also be suspect until his whereabouts at the time were established.Then Bridget and Lizzie would be the focus of the investigation until they could either be excluded as suspects, or proven to be involved. The theory we are being taught is working from the inside out of a crime. Just as a womans husband or children are investigated when she is murdered, if only to exclude them as suspects. With the scene secured and witnesses rounded up into one secure location until the search is complete, there is less chance of evidence being destroyed. Police are much less inclined to be delicate when rifling through a woman's things today.Police are not hindered by any victorian taboos, and nothing is taken for granted, not even a witness statement.Most witnesses, after all, are highly emotional at the time of the crime which can affect their ability to recall certain details.Forgive me for rambling. I am a chatterbox when it comes to my fav subjects ...as my husband and anyone in a 50 mile radius could tell you Only because I find this field fascinating. I hope I always do,my goal to to become what we see on tv in our favorite crime shows, the crime scene investigator. But on a scale of 1-10 of where I want to be, and where I am, I am only a 2 right now . All of the cases I get to explore are only on paper in the classroom .

Allen @ Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:00 am wrote:I found this on court tv's web site Crime Library, its a review for William L. Mastertons book. I have the book myself, and I felt this summed up
what I wanted to say.


http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_m ... tml?sect=7

"Masterton demonstrates in some detail that if Lizzie's trial were held today with the benefits of modern forensic technology that the evidence presented would not determine that Abby Borden died 1-2 hours before Andrew died."

I liked Masterton's book until he decided he had to offer alternative suspects! For me, it lowered his overall credibiity-- and he had built up quite a bit of it with me!

augusta @ Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:08 am wrote:I think they should have grilled Bridget that day, when she lost it when the cop came to escort her to the hearing. I think she would have broke. It is very frustrating to know that they didn't do it.

I have thought a lot about Bridget and this exact point...

Either they didn't put the thumbscrews to her at all or she really didn't know much!

Hmmm...some interesting thoughts. I too am thinking that had Bridget been grilled...she would have spewed out all kinds of critical information.


Tracy...

I don't think you were clouding the issue, Susan, by quoting from Robinson's argument. As long as we remember, like Kat says, that it is not evidence - that the attorney(s) can say anything they want and usually do.

Thanks, Augusta. When Kat had stated that, I thought, uh oh, I may be confusing some of the new people who don't have a grasp of all the facts yet and didn't want to be posting things where they might take Robinson's word as law. I personally find it interesting the particular points that he focused on, such as the locked front door, that he needed to change in the jurors' minds before they came to their verdict. Robinson realized what was in their heads from the all the testimony that had come before, the final outcome, and needed to twist some things for his case to work. A very slick man indeed!


Yes, its amazing that the police didn't press their advantage with Bridget. Thinking that she may be jailed for the crimes at that point, she may have sung like a stool pigeon to get herself off the hook. Who knows what other interesting tidbits or insights we may have today if Bridget spilled the beans?

There are alot of really good theories expressed in this forum about why Lizzie may have reacted the way she did after the murders. You all have raised some interesting thoughts to consider and I enjoy reading them.I wonder if any of you have any theories on Emma's actions before and after the murders. Do you believe she knew more than she was telling? Maybe if not before the murders, then maybe after? Did she cover for Lizzie?

Boy am I late on posting this reply....oh well I alway was a little slow? But I ran across this list of links while looking for examples of victorian mourning attire.It is a list of links for help with dating old photos. I dont know how helpful it will be jamfaws, but thought I would post it so you could maybe have a look at it.

http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/100page ... dating.htm


I wanted a better picture in my head of what the mourning dresses might have looked like. I posted some of the links I found for mourning attire in the Life in Victorian America Forum.

In Emma's *Interview* of 1913, it sounds like they talked about the crime a bit and Lizzie always pled not guilty.
Emma said she believed her because she thought Lizzie never could have hidden the weapon where the police could not find it! Sounds like Emma always wondered, herself?

After reading that last post Kat , I wanted to read the whole statement made by Emma to see if this was put in the proper context of what she might have meant at the time. I found it in the Lizzie Borden Source Book on page 342, I'm not sure where this article was originally posted?

"Often it has occured to me how strange is the fact that no one save Lizzie was ever brought to trial for the killing of our father and his wife,"
Miss Borden said in April 1918, when she broke a long silence in regard to the homicide.

"Some others have stated that for years they considered that Lizzie acted decidely queer.But if she did act queerly, don't we all do something
peculiar at some time or another?"

"Queer? Yes, Lizzie is queer, but as for her being guilty, I say 'no' and
decidely 'no'. Here is the strongest thing that has impressed me of Lizzie's
innocence: The authorities never found the axe or the implement, or
whatever it was taht ( originial spelling) figured in the killing. If Lizzie had
done that deed she could never have hidden the instrument of death so
police could never find it."

"The happenings in French street that caused me to leave I must refuse
to talk about. I did not go until conditions became absolutely unbearable."

Yes it would seem to me that Emma had some doubts herself.Seems
maybe the only thing that kept her believing in her sisters innocence was
the missing murder weapon. Interesting also how Abby is only refered to
as " his wife. "my father and his wife." Seems rather cold to me. But then
there never was any love lost between Emma and Abby.