trousers

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:35 am

I recently saw somewhere (and now I can't find it) that a ouiji board answered a bunch of questions re the murders, and one of the answers had to do with Lizzie wearing trousers during the murders. This would have made sense because she could have easily straddled Abby's body without all the skirts while she could hack away. This would have also kept her from getting blood on her own clothing. Is it possible that she could have donned some of her father's clothes while doing the deed and then hung them back with the rest of his clothes? The police wouldn't have been focused on finding blood in Andrew's wardrobe because they were concentrating on the female clothing in the house.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:38 pm

Here is the link for this on the LABVM, Angel.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Diversion/PsychicFile.htm

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:49 pm

Thanks.

john · Post by **john** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:40 pm

VERY interesting link Allen. You're pretty sharp.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:03 pm

When we theorize about Lizzie's changing clothes in order to commit murder, we need to consider the very tight timelines within which the murders were committed and the fact that there were others on the premises at least part of the time. I don't know where Andrew kept his clothes, but the likeliest place was probably in the closet of his and Abby's bedroom. That bedroom of course was kept locked. Lizzie would have had to get a key, trot up there, unlock the door, get Andrew's spare britches, remove her skirt, petticoat and perhaps other unders, put on the pants, run back down, dash up the front stairs, murder Abby, dash back down and through the house (possibly dripping gore as she ran), race upstairs, remove and hang up the bloody trousers, replace her nether garments and skirts, smooth her hair, and reappear on the first floor, looking normal. While she was doing all this, she would have needed to avoid Andrew and make sure Bridget didn't need to reenter the house. Somehow I don't find this a realistic scenario. There were of course other possible ways for Lizzie to get Andrew's pants and utilize them as murder gear, but still, it seems a bit far-fetched to me. One of the books about the case (Is it "A Study in Conjecture"?) has Lizzie wearing a fetching window shade for the chore. Maybe that would have been a better choice.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:14 pm

Would Lizzie have fit into Andrew's trousers? Seems to me her hips might have been a tad wider and lower to the ground than dad's. . .

john · Post by **john** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:19 pm

I agree with Edisto. Andrew was gone of course, and otherwise it's implausible. It would be plausable to do that way on Abby though, but why would anyone ever think, including us, as to Lizzie being a killer?
There is not a known case of what could be called a "spurt" killer, that is someone who just kills somebody, with no violent history. Even the cases which are brought up against this notion when examined are found to have animal torture as a child or fecal eating, or some very unusual behavior, and Lizzie apparently had none of that.
So Lizzie really didn't have the background to bump, but I don't think she was stupid, and she may have thought things were going against her that she couldn't deal with otherwise.
To say that she physically killed her Father and appeared correct ten minutes later with nobody ever finding any evidence, though is really the biggest Lizzie joke.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:26 pm

as i remember that ouiji conversation -- it conjures up a pretty kinky picture of lizzie wearing "pa's pants" and nothing else. i also seem to remember it saying these bloody pants ended up in the sink in the cellar and, implying the police were too stupid to realize what they were.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:00 pm

If Lizzie had planned it, shecould have taken a spare pair of his clothing from the laundry or something way before August 4th. The ouiji board said pants only, but it may not have been right. She could be wearing his pants and a shirt to keep herself covered and hid them in her room before the day of the murders.If she changed back into her clothes after Abby's murder, she didn't have to put on all the underwear- no one would know she wasn't wearing underclothes, and she could have changed back later to kill Andrew. It's more plausable than the naked theory, at least.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:19 pm

Interesting comments, I was also thinking because
we were painting my house this weekend using an
extension pole with roller on end, could the murders
(at least Andrews) have been done with an extension type thing so no blood on the killer? A very long AX. Just a thought.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:22 pm

I think the doctors thougt the hatchet handle was 18" to 24" already. They thought so because of leverage.
People usually think tomahawk-sized hatched tho when they hear word "hatchet."

If we want Lizzie in pants she could have taken them from Andrew's old clothes in the sitting room closet? Or she could have arranged to have the elder Borden's bedroom door unlocked passing through into her room during the murders. But she burned a dress. Maybe she burned a dress to hide the burning of trousers.

The people who were named in that OUIJA story are Tish Thomas, Susy Wilder and Rosalie Butler. The Knowlton Papers, Glossary A says about Tish Thomas:
"a manicurist in Boston, Massachusetts. In 1892, she was said to be employed at Madame Rosilla Butler, Hair Goods on Tremont Street in that city. Attempts to uncover any biographical details have to date been unsuccessful."

The OUIJA brings up the cat incident too but Lizzie was out of the country on her European tour at the time specified.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:41 pm

Hmmm...maybe Lizzie thought hiding the pants inside the dress that had the paint on it would be a good way to get rid of the pants...afterall who would question her burning a dress which was 'unwearable' due to paint stains.

If she did wear pants...which needed to be gotten rid of due to having blood on them, wouldn't she have also more than likely had to get rid of whatever else she was wearing at the time as well (other than underclothes) ?

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:52 pm

Well, as Eugene says, she supposedly wasn't wearing anything else.
Tho there was something about a vest?
I haven't read that OUIJA in a while...

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:57 pm

Oh...so it said she had only pants on ? A partial version of the 'she did it naked' idea ?

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:11 am

Yes I think so. Did you go read it? It's in your Knowlton Papers page starting 339.

john · Post by **john** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:13 am

Don't bother reading it.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:24 am

THANK YOU Kat ! I didn't know it was there. Whew...if what it says is true...it doesn't look good for our girl. Who was involved with this OUIJA thing...who did IT tell this information to ?

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:26 am

I always thought of it as a not-too-subtle advertisement for
"Madame Rosilla Butler, Hair Goods on Tremont Street, Boston."

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:37 am

Yes, it was weird that it mentoned that place in that much detail. I didn't see where it said in the Knowlton Papers that this information came from...did someone just send it it to Knowlton ?

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:48 am

Yes I think it's an unsolicited document.
I see they include a hat!
Pretty provocative!

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:25 pm

It may just be that I'm weird, but I've never taken Ouija boards too seriously...

While we're theorizin', what would have kept Lizzie from simply hitching up her skirts above the waist and fastening them with something like a clothespin (at least as easily obtained as a pair of Andrew's trousers)? Assuming she hadn't donned her drawers when she got up that morning, that would leave her naked below the waist, and she could have hacked away on poor Abby, splattering nothing of her own person save her bare skin. If she had something handy to wipe off with, she could then have let her skirts down and gone on her merry way. No need to borrow Andrew's pants. This could also explain that pinhead-sized dot of blood that was found on her underskirt. I don't envision Andrew's having a lot of spare pairs of pants, and I suspect he had few if any "wash" pants that would find their way to the laundry room. I'm not sure how we would know that Andrew kept old clothes in the sitting-room closet, although I believe he may have had at least a house-jacket there.

Lizzie said Andrew left for downstreet about 10:00. However, Hart and Burrill place him in the bank building earlier than that. (Neither man was positive of the time.) If Lizzie was correct, Andrew might still have been at the house when Abby met her fate. Isn't it odd that Peter Leduc wasn't called to testify as to the time he shaved Andrew? That might have helped fix the hour he arrived downstreet. Ah, well, too late now, I suppose.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:47 pm

I don't take ouiji boards seriously either, but I just brought it up because the pants idea was one I'd never thought of before. You're right- she could have hiked up her skirts, but she was taking a chance that way, not knowing whether or not she might get blood on her clothes. It would have been smart to wear a man's clothes because it would be easier to move and easier to hide them. But I don't see Lizzie as being quite that inventive, considering the feeble alibis she used.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:56 pm

I thought by questioning whether Lizzie would fit in Andrew's pants, I would stir up some posts about their respective sizes, but I didn't. . .

I own a pair of 19th century style men's trousers that I wear on one of my tours. In the late 1800s, men generally still didn't use belts. Trousers were quite fitted. They were worn snug and they had a very high rise--the waist band was at the navel or higher. The fly buttoned. (My pair has five buttons for the fly and a sixth button inside the waist band.) They were held up with suspenders, most of which buttoned on. Most men's trousers were custom made.

Andrew was 5'11" and doesn't look to be too heavy. He certainly doesn't seem to have much in the way of hips.

Lizzie was what? 7 or 8 inches shorter than her father? Do we know her weight? She certainly seems relatively full figured, which was quite the norm then.

It seems to me that Lizzie might have had difficulty getting her father's pants over her hips and buttoned. She also would have had a few inches of cuff to roll up.

Any serious discussion about Lizzie wearing dad's pants must determine if she could physically get into them.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:45 pm

I for one think Lizzie was pretty thin at the time of the murders. That picture of her with the pansy pin makes her look skinny (although I'm not sure when it was taken) and the police, searching through the dress closet, mentioned dresses for slender ladies (Lizzie and Emma) versus dresses for a stout lady (Abby). I suspect Lizzie could have gotten into Andrew's trousers in some fashion, though they might not have fitted well, and I'm sure they would have been too long. I always wonder about any scenario that requires Lizzie to get out of and into more than one set of clothes, because that was no piece of cake in Victorian times. I dress up in 19th century styles periodically, and it's so hard to get into and out of them that I "cheat" by putting invisible zippers in the side seams of my bodices. Then I can do up the back fastenings just once, slip the bodice over my head and zip the side zippers. Voila! --And nobody is the wiser. Lizzie didn't have that option. I doubt that we'll ever know whether she could have worn Andrew's trousers, because I doubt that we'll ever know her waist and hip measurements. She could have left the top button or so undone and turned up the bottoms at any rate.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:46 am

Well, her clothes are in the house. She looked to be about a modern size 6.
I could fit into my dad's boxer shorts (PennState-Yea!) which surprised me. I could also fit well into my oldest brother's suit coat.
He is about 5'7" and our dad was about 5'11".
I am 5'3".
So it doesn't seem to equate...no formula for it.
I would probably fit into my dad's long pants if I rolled them up- but I never tried.
I knew about suspenders.

The pants seem to me to have been as well-or-ill-fitting as that Prince Albert coat on Lizzie.

john · Post by **john** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:23 am

It very doesn't work.
Lets say Lizzie dons Andrew's old clothes and kills Abby. Then she has to secret them someplace with no blood trail from the room or in the area she hides the clothes. Then she has to act normal in regular clothes and as soon as Birdget goes upstairs put on the old suit again to kill Andrew unless she mystically knows about blood spattering and dripping and that it wouldn't involve her. Then she takes the old suit pants and probably hat off, hides them someplace where no one will ever find them, and makes herself presentable in at about the most 12 minutes. So she did all this and claims to have been in the barn at the time, and was seen walking from the barn cutting into the twelve minutes. Some think they've answered why to call Bridget, but also important is why call Mrs. Churchill? Why not send Mrs. Churchill for a Doctor or the police? Seems like Lizzie would only want someone around if she didn't do it.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:09 am

I really haven't a final answer on why it was time to call down Bridget- I am just thinking what I think until someone can talk me out of it or prove otherwise. I'm open to reasonable suggestions.
Lizzie called Mrs. Churchill, didn't she, because she saw Lizzie leaning toward the screen door and asked her what was the matter? If Lizzie hadn't leaned on the screen door Mrs. Churchill might not have asked. It's like she was showing herself, while Bridget was gone. That invites people to notice you, I think. Or some might say Lizzie was torn as to whether to leave because there might still be a murderer in the house and so staying by the screen but still inside, she might be considered as guarding the scene but unwilling to leave the house empty of a live human while awaiting 'help."

john · Post by **john** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:26 am

But why would she want a doctor? You would only want a doctor if someone was not dead. If Lizzie just killed her Father is she subconsciously implying that he's not really dead? Is she saying that she really didn't do it and that she believes he's "hurt," as she actually firstly said? Is she looking for a friend? Is she trying to get rid of Bridget? On calling Mrs. Churchill, and saying in what had to be mere minutes after talking with Bridget, "oh do come over, someone has killed Father," does she think her Father died in those couple minutes?
People are apt to say odd things in stressfull situations, but Lizzie seems quite cool all this time. Most women, probably men too, would be running for the next county, and why should Bridget and Lizzie be any different?

john · Post by **john** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:43 am

And of course, darling Kat, none of us has the final answer about calling Bridget down, or about most of the other issues as well, and you wind up in a lot of cases taking the heat for it. You do a spectacular job Kat, and I'm proud to in my small way have been associated with you.
Sincerely,
ssh
John

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:02 am

"Q. When you saw your father where was he?

A. On the sofa.

Q.What was his position?

A. Lying down.

Q. Describe anything else you noticed at the 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."

From the inquest.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:54 am

Kat, what clothes of Lizzie's were displayed at the B&B when you were there? When I visited in 1998, there was a dress on a dress form in the spare bedroom where I stayed. It had supposedly belonged to Lizzie, although I didn't find out how it was authenticated. It was a pale lavender batiste, as I recall, and the style looked much later than the date of the murders. I was surprised that it looked so small, because I thought Lizzie had gained weight in prison and probably kept it on for the rest of her life. Since the dress was in "our" room, I had a terrible temptation to try it on, but I resisted because I could imagine splitting the seams or getting makeup on it and having to confess my misdeed. You're right, though, it did look no bigger than a size 6. I'm wondering if there are other clothes of Lizzie's on display.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:54 pm

john @ Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:26 am wrote:But why would she want a doctor? You would only want a doctor if someone was not dead. If Lizzie just killed her Father is she subconsciously implying that he's not really dead? Is she saying that she really didn't do it and that she believes he's "hurt," as she actually firstly said? Is she looking for a friend? Is she trying to get rid of Bridget? On calling Mrs. Churchill, and saying in what had to be mere minutes after talking with Bridget, "oh do come over, someone has killed Father," does she think her Father died in those couple minutes?
People are apt to say odd things in stressfull situations, but Lizzie seems quite cool all this time. Most women, probably men too, would be running for the next county, and why should Bridget and Lizzie be any different?

When faced with a situation people can not deal with on their own their first reaction is to summon the professionals..

People can stand outside and watch their house ablaze and beg the fireman to do something-- To get their kitty out or put the fire out at once and save some of their belongings.

Likewise, a person coming upon the scene of a dreadful accident do expect the ambulance crew or doctors to be able to "do something".

People tend to hold on to hope-- in some cases it is all they have.

If Lizzie did NOT kill Andrew-- she very well may have thought a Doctor would be able to help him. If she was certain he was dead-- She still may have sent Bridget for the doctor because she was clever enough to know this was the correct thing to do.

When I think about her telling Bridget to get the doctor and telling Mrs. C. that Andrew was dead-- I wonder if the "someone has killed father" was a slip of her tounge...

IF she thought he was alive why didn't she render some sort of first aid or, at the very least scream his name and call for him to "wake up"?

If she thought/knew he was murdered and was NOT involved in his death why didn't she get out of that house? A reasonably intelligent person might think the killer was lurking somewhere intending harm to the whole family.

More and more what convinces me that she (at the very least) had something to do with or prior knowledge of the killings was this very time span. Between her "discovery" and Andrew's body and help arriving.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:08 am

john @ Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:26 am wrote:But why would she want a doctor? You would only want a doctor if someone was not dead. If Lizzie just killed her Father is she subconsciously implying that he's not really dead? Is she saying that she really didn't do it and that she believes he's "hurt," as she actually firstly said? Is she looking for a friend? Is she trying to get rid of Bridget? On calling Mrs. Churchill, and saying in what had to be mere minutes after talking with Bridget, "oh do come over, someone has killed Father," does she think her Father died in those couple minutes?
People are apt to say odd things in stressfull situations, but Lizzie seems quite cool all this time. Most women, probably men too, would be running for the next county, and why should Bridget and Lizzie be any different?

Well, that's a valid point. It seems as if Mrs. Churchill probably got it right. I was checking a few people to see what they quoted Lizzie as saying first off. I found that they were believable- especially Mrs. Churchill's comment that Lizzie mentioned the cemetery also right away. I tried to find Thomas Bowles statement anywhere other than the trial- but only found him in the trial and he's not asked as to what he believed Mrs. Churchill said about it. (?)
So how can Lizzie need a doctor if she knows her father is dead? And essentially is going to wait quietly for Dr. Bowen and let him pronounce Andrew dead? No woman here thinks to call the cops, as I remarked earlier. I don't know why that is. Maybe they have more to do with doctors than cops, being 19th century women? A doctor was considered a man of authority I would think.
Anyway, here are a few quotes of those who said Lizzie claimed her father was dead:

Inquest
Mrs. Churchill
128(35)
I opened one of the south windows, one had a screen in and the other did not, I says 'what is the matter Lizzie?' She said 'O, Mrs. Churchill, do come over, somebody has killed Father.' "
....
"I went across and called for Thomas Bowles. I says 'somebody has killed Mr. Borden; go and get a Doctor.' I dont know where he went. I went back. Soon after I got back she says “' shall have to go to the Cemetary myself'. 'O, No,' I says, 'Lizzie, the undertaker will attend to all such things as that for you; they generally do.' ”

Witness Statements
Fleet
Page 2 quoting 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. Bridget had gone up stairs, and when I came back I found father dead on the lounge, and went to the back stairs and called Bridget (servant) down stairs. Told her that some one had killed father, and told her to get Dr. Bowen.' ”

Harrington
Page 5 quoting Lizzie:
"Miss Lizzie. '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. ' "

Mrs. Churchill's statement
Page 9:
"Mrs. Churchill No. 90 Second street. 'Eleven o’clock is the nearest I can fix the time. Returned from market, saw Miss Lizzie at rear door. I thought she looked somewhat strange, asked her what was the matter. She replied, father has been killed. Please come over. I immediately complied. ' "

--So how can Lizzie explain that at first she wanted a doctor-that Andrew was "hurt"- and within a very few moments know he was dead? Did she go into the sitting room between the time she sent Bridget off to the time she was at the screen door and during that time then knew for sure he was dead? Interesting question.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:27 am

Edisto @ Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:54 pm wrote:Kat, what clothes of Lizzie's were displayed at the B&B when you were there? When I visited in 1998, there was a dress on a dress form in the spare bedroom where I stayed. It had supposedly belonged to Lizzie, although I didn't find out how it was authenticated. It was a pale lavender batiste, as I recall, and the style looked much later than the date of the murders. I was surprised that it looked so small, because I thought Lizzie had gained weight in prison and probably kept it on for the rest of her life. Since the dress was in "our" room, I had a terrible temptation to try it on, but I resisted because I could imagine splitting the seams or getting makeup on it and having to confess my misdeed. You're right, though, it did look no bigger than a size 6. I'm wondering if there are other clothes of Lizzie's on display.

Clothing reportedly of Lizbeth's from her estate remainder at Maplecroft, given to the Terry family, I believe, and passed down? Either Lizzie never threw out her old clothes or she was still dressing like this in the 1920's? Maybe the family was given the outfits prior to her death? As in re-cycled? But then Lizzie and Emma maintained that they burned their clothing, didn't they? Maybe her clothing was in her will?
Anyway here are the 2 examples. They both were 2 piece outfits.
These pictures were taken while Martha still owned the house.

This second outfit looks single-piece, doesn't it? I can't recall if it was 2 pieces or a full dress, now...

Hmmm

Please click on the picture

diana · Post by **diana** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:45 am

Here's a link to a wonderful site on antique dresses, etc. One of the pictures on this page is similar to the dress in Emma's room and is dated 1910. I still have some things in my closet that are more than twenty years old -- so it wouldn't surprise me if Lizzie did, too.

http://www.antique-fashion.com/

I spent quite a bit of time in here -- there are some beautiful couture dresses in the sold section with a detailed provenance for each.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:22 pm

Thanks for the link!
I got out after only 2 pages! I showed great restraint..
About how much would these clothes cost new in their day? Would it be comparable to these modern prices posted with the item?

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:51 pm

The prices on this site reflect the fact that these are original antique pieces. The prices would have been relatively lower back when this was the common dress of the day and they were new.

However, most clothing in the 19th century was custom made and fitted, so they would have cost more than our mass produced, imported, off-the-rack stuff. People paid somewhat more for clothes, but they had fewer outfits, cared for them well and wore them for more than a season or two.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:03 pm

i just noticed something today. i was watching "Strangers on a Train" -- and after the man strangles the girl in the park and she is discovered, we hear someone say, "she's dead, go find a doctor."

who calls the police or the morgue first?

about how lizzie was in the door, what she was doing after bridget left: i have this image that lizzie was at the door, often opening it to look out, as someone anxious for someone to arrive. maybe this is something that made it obvious to churchill that something was wrong. and there's something from one of bowen's testimonies where he has trouble literally describing "how" lizzie was at the door.

what i'm saying is that the above two factors point toward a perfectly normal reaction on lizzie's part.

that lizzie stays there more or less proves that she was not in fear for her own life.

anyway, instead of the image of lizzie "frozen" behind the screen as in the legend movie -- i'm seeing something more normal, like cracking the door when she thinks she hears an approach, looking out, then shutting it, the expression anxious.

john · Post by **john** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:58 pm

The only logic here seems to be that she wanted Bridget out of the house until she was sure that her Father was dead, and then called Mrs. Churchill. Why call Bridget anyway, it can only be that just wanted people around because if she did it why call Mrs. Churchill too. Perhaps Mr. Borden would have muttered something that Bridget could have caught.
This certainly implies that Lizzie has just made a discovery, and was not the perpetrator. Also, by wanting Bridget gone, that Lizzie had some involvement, perhaps physically, or by association with the killer, that she couldn't let anyone know of.
This had to have been a very calculated crime, yet sorriely it is mostly approached as some form of whim.
Lizzie is clearly a liar just by her actions at the back door, and certainly by other discrepencies.
Find the liar solve the crime.
Also, how would Dr. Bowen have known how she stood at the back door?
Another liar?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:42 am

I don't think Bowen saw her at the back door. I think he saw her in the back hallway upon entering the house at the screen door.
The odd part of this encounter is that he tells us that she gave him a lot of explanations as he asked questions, before he ever entered the sitting room. At least I always thought of it as odd. Maybe it only took a few seconds, but I would have expected Bowen to rush to his patient who he has been called to see rather than stopping to get details from Lizzie, either solicited or not. It cause delay, IMO.
I read recently about another old axe attack on a man by his wife and he lived! So Bowen doesn't know he can't yet save Andrew, does he?

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:02 am

This is the source for what i was visualizing about lizzie's demeanor/attitude at the door. i had forgot where it was. this is from the inquest. he doesn't say anything like this at the trial--i haven't checked preliminary yet.

__________________________

Bowen, Inquest, pg 121

Q. When you first came, you all came to the side door?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Where was she standing, exactly?
A. I could not say exactly, whether she met me at the end of the entry, or where. I could not say. I have the impression now that she was at the side door, and opened the screen door, and the door was half opened, and ready for me; that is my impression.
Q. Where was Bridget?
A. She was very near. The entry is very short, and she was very near. I could not say exactly.
Q. What was Miss Lizzie's appearance and manner?
A. Well, she was excited, and -- well it is hard to describe it she was somewhat excited; in a hurry for me to come.

john · Post by **john** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:22 am

HMM.
Didn't Lizzie sit down after Mrs. Churchill came, and Mrs. Churchill was fanning her? It doesn't seem like Lizzie would go back to the side door.
So, and perhaps this a something, how would Dr. Bowen know that Lizzie was standing at the side door unless he was there when she was standing at the side door?

john · Post by **john** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:01 am

Re: your earlier post - 7/8 5:09 AM
Why call Bridget - the monster mystery.
She called Bridget to be a witness to her innocence.

john · Post by **john** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:22 am

Free iced tea, a trip to Hawaii for three, and a duckboat at the "Could All The World Have Known This Was Coming Down" site, plus you can have your picture taken with "Toonces," The Cat Who Could Drive.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:09 am

I'm still at a total loss about how anyone (innocent,that is, and Mrs. Churchill was) would see a hacked up body and then not be so horrified and frightened that she would get out of that house as fast as she could and take everyone with her. How could anyone be sure that the killer was not still in that house behind the next door?

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:26 pm

I think most people consider calling a doctor when they find someone "in a bad way," because they subconsciously hope the person is still alive. I don't recall ever hearing of anyone saying, "Call the coroner. This person may be dead." Of course, nowadays we don't choose the type of assistance to call; when we call 911, we hope to get someone who can help with any kind of emergency. My late stepmother was trained as a nurse. She was with my father when he breathed his last at home. She could tell he was dead. What did she do? She called his doctor. The doctor told her to call 911.

I'm never considered it terribly peculiar that Lizzie remained at the screen door (but inside) while Bridget went for help. If the murderer was someone still concealed in the house, Lizzie could easily have fled into the yard if he/she approached her. She may have felt that, by remaining inside the house, she was standing by her father until help came.

It does seem odd that Lizzie told Bridget her father was "hurt" and then told Mrs. Churchill that he was dead. Of course, Lizzie may have been misquoted by Mrs. Churchill. Even if Lizzie had gone back into the sitting room, I'm not sure how she would have known whether Andrew was dead or alive. Did she take his pulse? Use a stethoscope to check his heart? Hold a mirror up to his nostrils? He was still warm when the police arrived, so just touching him wouldn't have told the story. I'm sure his appearance was ghastly, but he could still have had life in him. In her inquest testimony, Lizzie says she didn't know whether he was dead or alive. That sounds plausible to me and might have been true whether she had attacked him or not.

I don't find it odd that Lizzie later said she had found her father dead. By that time, she was pretty sure that he had been dead when she found him, after all. That may also explain why Mrs. Churchill quoted Lizzie as having said her father had been killed.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:32 pm

Haulover @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:02 am wrote:This is the source for what i was visualizing about lizzie's demeanor/attitude at the door. i had forgot where it was. this is from the inquest. he doesn't say anything like this at the trial--i haven't checked preliminary yet.

__________________________

Bowen, Inquest, pg 121

Q. When you first came, you all came to the side door?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Where was she standing, exactly?
A. I could not say exactly, whether she met me at the end of the entry, or where. I could not say. I have the impression now that she was at the side door, and opened the screen door, and the door was half opened, and ready for me; that is my impression.
Q. Where was Bridget?
A. She was very near. The entry is very short, and she was very near. I could not say exactly.
Q. What was Miss Lizzie's appearance and manner?
A. Well, she was excited, and -- well it is hard to describe it she was somewhat excited; in a hurry for me to come.

Thanks Eugene!
This is the preliminary hearing- I should have cited it earlier:

Bowen:
Page 401

A. I went directly across the street into the side gate, the north gate, into the side door, which was the north door, and met Miss Lizzie Borden.

Q. What took place? State everything you saw, and what was said and done.
A. I was excited myself, because I received the message in such a manner that I knew something was wrong. My wife was very much excited indeed, and Mr. Bowles at the same time told me to go across; and I was prepared for something unusual. I said "Lizzie, what is the matter"? She said "father has been killed", or "been stabbed", I would not say which.

Q. What was her appearance? Describe how she stood, and where she stood, and her general appearance.
A. I could not describe her appearance, or what she had on very well, because I did not think nor mind.

Q. Describe her manner, and where she stood, not her clothing, everything that took place, as near as you can recollect.
A. I could not say whether she was in the side hall or in the kitchen, I think in the hall.

Q. What did you do?
A. I asked her where her father was- -- or perhaps I asked her---. She said he had been killed, or stabbed. I says "did you see anybody"? She said she did not see anybody. I asked her if she heard anybody. She said she did not. Then I asked her where her father was. She said he was in the sitting room. I went directly through the dining room to the door of the sitting room, the door from the dining room to the sitting room.

--As for what Lizzie said about Andrew hurt or not, has anyone else a reference to that? I checked what Churchill may have told Bowles which was not included at the trial. Here also is Bowen saying killed.
I still think it's a valid question as to why it changed from hurt to killed in so short a time.
I am in agreement that these women are not calling for police as a natural reaction to a tragedy.

john · Post by **john** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:43 pm

So it's also a valid question as to why was she still at the screen door if Mrs. Churchill was fanning her.
Shhh

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:55 pm

John, I don't think that Mrs. Churchill was fanning Lizzie, as far as I can find, until Alice Russell showed up.

From Mrs. Churchill's Preliminary testimony, page 283:

Q. What were you doing, were you fanning her, or was she doing anything but sitting there?
A. No Sir. I put my hand on her shoulder, or her arm, as I came in.

page. 284:

Q. Did you at any time fan Lizzie while she was sitting in the chair there?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. When was that?
A. After Miss Russell came.

Inquest, Dr. Bowen on the stand, page 122:

Q. Had not fainted?
A. No Sir, not fainted. By the way, I might put in, it does not connect, but I will go back to the time when I came down the second time. I can describe her condition at that time when I came down stairs the second time, after I found the mother was dead. Miss Russell was at her side in a chair, and was working over her at that time; in a minute or two she got her into the dining room on a sofa or lounge, on the end of that. She was lying down, and she was fanning her, and had wet cloths put on her head, and they were working over her in that way.

I assume the "they" included Mrs. Churchill at that point.

john · Post by **john** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:19 pm

So she was sitting, but not back at the screen door.
The point is she was not at the screen door when Dr. Bowen came. Yet Dr. Bowen said she was.