Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I've always wondered what was contained in the letter received by Miss Elizabeth Johnston that she refused to divulge for fear it would be taken in the wrong way. I thought I read the answer to that question in a newspaper clipping awhile ago but misplaced it. I have been doing some research into a few things at the moment and stumbled onto this clipping. If the information is correct it is no wonder her friend chose to withhold it.

The Witness Statements page 33-34, from the notes of F.L. Edson:

Fall River September 12, 1892.

I visited Miss Lizzie Johnson at Myrics on Saturday. She refused to make known to me the contents of the letter she received from Lizzie on the day of the Borden murder, until she had consulted Mr. Jennings. I talked with her for two hours, but was unable to change her mind. She met Mr. Jennings Saturday night. I saw her again today, when she informed me that Mr. Jennings told her that she need not tell me the contents of the letter if she did not want to; and she did not want to. I have seen the girls who were at Marion at the time. None of them will talk. I have made all this known to Mr. Knowlton, and that gentleman instructed me to procure all their names, and give them to you, in order that they may be summoned to appear before the grand jury. The names are as follows; Mary J. Holmes, Isabel J. Fraser, Lizzie Johnson, Louis Remington, Mabel H. Remington.

Rebello page 64:

It was Miss Johnston who received a letter from Lizzie the day of the Borden murders. She destroyed th letter because it, "contained reference to something which in the opinion of the young woman [Miss Johnston] ...that might, in light of subsequent events, be miscontrued." Boston Advertiser, August 24, 1893.

The Quincy Journal September 17, 1892:

Thanks for another fascinating post, Allen!
I had assumed that the letter to Miss Johnston probably contained words to the effect of those that were delivered to Alice Russell on the evening of Aug. 3. IOW:
*The general message being: Father has many enemies, so don't be too surprised if something terrible happens [This being a setup for Lizzie to say, "I told you so; I tried to warn others."] Also, if Miss Russell had not been forthcoming in support of Lizzie's warnings, then there would have been this letter from Miss Johnston as written proof of Lizzie's dire forecast.*
But, wow: If that newspaper info about the hatchet is correct, I'm not surprised Miss Johnston freaked and went to Jennings.
Imagine that being admitted at the trial.
Imagine a detective asking Lizzie, "Please show me the very sharp hatchet to which you referred."

Thank you for the original format displayed here, Missy.

Do we think the letter, by Lizzie, was sent on Thursday the 4th, along with, or the same day, as the letter to Emma in Fairhaven?

I don't know how accurate this news item is- I had heard about it but as far as I know the contents were never divulged.

At the preliminary hearing, the murder weapon was thought to be the claw-head hatchet that was found on the chopping block in the cellar- that is the one brought into the courtroom in Fall River and had hair and fibre on it. This item, above, states that the Prelim. did not produce the weapon. So this is a contradiction of testimony.

However, the item seems dated Sept. 17, and the Prelim was over by Sept. 1, 1892. Maybe by the 17th the claw head was no longer being considered? Does anyone know?

Here is the pertinent testimony from the Prelim about the claw-head. Please excuse the length of it- since not many have this document, a longer extract like this might be welcome:

Dr. Dolan
Preliminary Hearing
148
Q. You went down cellar, and you had some instruments handed to you by an officer, after you had washed your hands?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. How many of them?
A. I think I handled two, I would not say positively.
Q. Two what?
A. Two instruments.
Q. What were they?
A. One was a hatchet, and the other an ax.
Q. The hatchet was this hatchet with the blade four or five inches long, with the head on it which had a claw?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Now, in your opinion, did not that hatchet with the claw on it cause the fracture of the skull upon the left side of Mr. Borden’s head?
A. Do you mean the head of it, or the instrument itself?
Q. I said the head, with that claw hammer on it, whether in your opinion that was not the instrument that caused the fracture of the skull over the left ear of Mr. Borden’s head?
A. I think it could.
Q. Could an ax?
A. Yes Sir, an ax head yes sir.
Q. Could a stone?
A. I do not think so.
Q. Why?
A. Because it was too regular in its outline.
Q. What was too regular?
A. The fracture.
Q. What was the outline of the fracture?
A. Almost square; it was not exactly square; I should think it would be about four inches long, and two inches wide.
Q. Rectangular in shape?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. That ax or hatchet has gone to Prof. Wood, has it not?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Do you know where it is now?
A. I have not received it back from him.

Page 149

(Mr. Knowlton) We will have it here Friday or Saturday.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Harrington
Prelim
397
Q. Was that claw headed hatchet we had here this morning the one you found on the chopping block?
A. I cannot say about the one I found; it resembled it.
Q. It looks like the hatchet you found on the chopping block in the afternoon?
A. Yes.

Page 398

Q. About the same size and weight?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did it have a claw end?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Is that the only claw end hatchet that you saw around the house?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What did you do with it?
A. I took it from where I found it, and brought it back into the laundry, as you call it, the wash room. Marshal Fleet was there, he suggested---- He took the hatchet and we went into a room to the north of that, which contained some boxes and barrels, and he put it on a scaffold at the east of the door as you go in, behind some boxes.
Q. That is in the north east corner of the room that opens out of the laundry?
A. That is right.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Wood
Prelim
373
Q. Did you testimony include the two axes? If it did not, tell us about them. You found nothing on the two axes?
A. Nothing on the two axes.
Q. There was something on the hatchet that had been supposed to be blood, or that was thought to be?
A. Yes Sir. Near the sharp edge of the hatchet on both sides, there was an accumulation of material which looked as though it might be blood, and which under the microscope was seen to be chiefly wood and cotton fiber. There was quite a number of cotton fibres in this patch. There was a little stain that looked as though it might have been from a spatter of blood. It was a long narrow stain on the beveled edge of the hatchet, on the left hand side, about one inch from the upper corner on the blade, on the head of the hatchet, at the sharp edge, and it was evidently made by moisture. It was a spatter of some kind, perhaps a spatter of water, where rust had accumulated there. It was iron rust, and not blood; it looked like blood though. There was another spot on the side of the head of the hatchet very similar to a blood stain. In fact iron rust does resemble blood very much, and it is almost impossible, sometimes, for me to distinguish between the two.

Q. Without a scientific examination?
A. Without testing, yes sir. There were also several stains on the handle, which I examined, with negative result.
Q. What were they; what did they turn out to be?
A. On the handle of the hatchet, and on the handle of the axes, there were some reddish stains, that looked very much like blood, which was either reddish tinted varnish--- There was a pigment on them, which after performing the blood test, appeared to be some mineral pigment that resembled blood.
Q. You only examined one hatchet?
A. That is all.
Q. Have you that hatchet here?

Page 374

A. I have.
Q. Please produce it.
A. I did not bring it here for this purpose; I brought it for another purpose. (Produces it.)
Q. That is the one you have been talking about?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. The other hatchet you have not seen?
A. No Sir.
Q. It has not been put in your hand?
A. No Sir.

Partial quote:

Kat @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:12 am wrote:Do we think the letter, by Lizzie, was sent on Thursday the 4th, along with, or the same day, as the letter to Emma in Fairhaven?

The article says the letter was received at Marion the day following the murder. Judging by how long it took letters in that day it probably was mailed on the previous day, the 4th.

The FR Globe of August 6th has this:

"...The day before the tragedy or on the morning that it occurred she wrote a letter to one of her friends in Marion, in which she said that she would visit that resort next week. It was this letter which Mr. Borden took to the Post Office an hour or two before he was cut to pieces. ..."

Then on Aug. 24th the FR Globe has:

"...Another matter which is commanding attention is the second letter in the case. The first letter was addressed to Mrs. Borden and if Miss Lizzie has been correctly reported she has stated that it was probably burned. The second letter was mailed by Mr. Borden on the morning he was butchered. Miss Lizzie wrote it and it is addressed to one of her friends at Marion. If the police can secure this letter it may throw some light on the prisoner's plans and may be valuable. Its contents have not been made public except in a general way, and nothing has been heard concerning it since the early days of the murder. If the defence has not procured this letter, the government may put it in at the preliminary hearing, though just what use would be made of it if the District Attorney could secure it, is not known of course. ..."

Also on the 24th, in a separate article they have this:

"STRANGE LETTERS.
Why Were They Destroyed So Soon If Written As Stated.

It will transpire at the coming trial of Lizzie Borden that her letter writing will form a feature of the evidence both for the State and the defence. The prisoner has told an intimate friend since her arrest the story of a letter which she wrote to her sister Emma who was at the time visiting in Fairhaven. The letter was mailed two days before and reached its destination one day before the murder. It contained an account of a singular experience which Lizzie had Monday night before the murder. She was on her way to the house (according to the letter) at about 8 o'clock in the evening and upon entering the side gate she saw a suspicious character in the back yard. ..."

To add to the confusion of what letter Andrew mailed on the 4th, Lizzie testified at the Inquest (p56+):

"Q. Where was your sister Emma that day?
A. What day?
Q. The day your father and Mrs. Borden were killed?
A. She had been in Fairhaven.
Q. Had you written to her?
A. Yes sir.
Q. When was the last time you wrote to her?
A. Thursday morning, and my father mailed the letter for me.
Q. Did she get it at Fairhaven?
A. No sir, it was sent back. She did not get it at Fairhaven, for we telegraphed for her, and she got home here Thursday afternoon, and the letter was sent back to this post office. ..."

It appears there were two letters to Emma, one written several days before the murders which she received and the second written on the 4th which was returned.

Could Andrew have mailed two letters on the 4th, one to Emma and one to Marion, but Lizzie mentioned only one since the letter to Marion may have contained references to her willing to use a hatchet?

I still break up over Lizzie's reply of "What day?"

I have to go along with August 4th as the most likely day for the letter to have been mailed. There may have been very little opportunity to mail the letter on the 3rd. Both Abby and Andrew were ill. John Morse and Lizzie had no contact that day, so for John Morse to have mailed it, the letter would have to go from Lizzie to Andrew to John. Lizzie might not give her father the letter if she knew he wouldn't be going out. I don't recall any testimony indicating anyone mailed a letter on the 3rd. Lizzie might have mailed the letter on the way to Alice's house the evening of the 3rd, or Bridget could have mailed it at some time. If Lizzie had gone to the pharmacy on the 3rd, she would have had an opportunity to mail it. If the letter was to inform Lizzie's friends about her intended arrival the following week it may not have been imperative to mail it any earlier than Thursday, given Harry's estimate of the timing for the mail. This might have negated a specific errand only to mail the letter, it just wasn't that important.

The letter was probably mailed the 4th, but it could have been written any time previous to that. Lizzie told Alice the evening of the 3rd about her plans to visit Marion, so the decision had been reached by then.

The Witness statements contain this in Medley's notes, (page 33+):

"Fall River September 12, 1892. I visited Miss Lizzie Johnson at Myricks on Saturday. She refused to make known to me the contents of the letter she received from Lizzie Borden on the day of the Borden murder, until she had consulted Mr. Jennings. I talked with her for two hours, but was unable to make her change her mind. She met Mr. Jennings Saturday night. I saw her again today, when she informed me that Mr. Jennings told her she need not tell me the contents of the letter if she did not want to; and she did not want to. I have seen the other girls who were at Marion at the time. None of them will talk. I have made all this know[n] to Mr. Knowlton, and that gentleman instructed me to procure all their names, and give them to you, in order that they may be summoned to appear before the Grand Jury."

The reference to "Lizzie Johnson" should actually be Elizabeth Johnston. The mention that she received the letter on the 4th is interesting. Of course Medley could have been mistaken as to the date she said.

On May 29th, Miss Johnston was issued a summons to appear at the trial but never was called upon to testify. (HK183, p185, The Knowlton Papers)

I can understand a reluctance to speak to newspaper reporters about the contents of the letter, but if Lizzie's friends were withholding evidence from the prosecution, there would have been penalties involved. If the letter was knowingly destroyed because the contents might be detrimental to Lizzie's defense, then Elizabeth Johnston was in trouble.

The only way to avoid penalties would be for the complete lack of the supposed incriminating statements in the letter. If there was no mention by Lizzie of a hatchet or anything else incriminating, and if the letter was only to inform as to Lizzie's expected arrival, then there was nothing done amiss. Destroying such a letter at a time when there was no awareness of its possible use as evidence was not a crime. It boiled down to the word of Lizzie's friends against the word of the newspaper reporters. Since nothing further was made of it, I suppose Lizzie's friends prevailed.

My best guess is that there was nothing incriminating in the letter, and it was destroyed as a matter of course and not given a second thought at the time. The only information available as to the contents of the letter is a newspaper article which only implies Lizzie's friends as the source of the information, it does not indicate a specific source. If there were a number of people involved in an attempt to cover up incriminating contents in the letter, chances are someone would have cracked when faced with the penalties involved.

Please note that if Lizzie's friends were resolute in an attempt to cover for Lizzie, they might have pulled it off. The letter MIGHT have contained anything, up to and including a photo of Lizzie with a hatchet in one hand and a headless "Abby" doll in the other! If the letter had been destroyed, there was nothing to verify the contents. The women only needed to portray an air of innocence and be committed to helping Lizzie.

Since the letter was destroyed, and Elizabeth Johnston refused to divulge the contents, it is quite possible it could've contained any number of statements. There would've been no proof either way. I don't see how she could've been prosecuted if the only proof of an incriminating statement had been destroyed. If it is correct, although coming second hand because no source is named, it isn't any wonder the contents were never shared with the prosecution. Much the same as we will never know what was on the bits of paper Dr. Bowen threw into the fire. If it didn't contain anything incriminating, or that could be construed as incriminating, why go to the lengths of concerning Andrew Jennings in the matter before declining to tell what was in the letter? Further why not just tell what was said?

Another point that strikes me about the article is it states "the words within quotations were thought to be of such importance that nothing was said about the letter until about a week ago. Then it leaked out and police began to investigate." The story is dated September 17, 1892. Edsons report on the matter is dated September 12, which would be about a week before the article appeared.

There are 2 references to the Marion letter in the Knowlton Papers. The first was from Officer Harrington to Knowlton dated Sept 8th (HK065, p73). It reads:

"Dear Sir, -
Not knowing Marshal Hilliard's whereabouts, I forward this to you. The F. R. Daily Globe has another story of a letter sent by Lizzie Borden to her friends at Marion. They claim, that without any introduction to or comment upon, the following sentence appears: "When I come I will chop all the wood, for I have a new sharper ax."
To this I would not pay much attention, but my informant told me he thought the Globe could and would produce the letter.
Tomorrow or in a few days a representative of the F.R. Globe is to call on you and state the facts of the above. Possibly Mr. Thurston or Mr. Porter.
Yours etc.
Officer Phil Harrington"

Then on Sept. 12th, Knowlton writes to Pillsbury. (HK069, p76) This is a portion of his letter:

"... It is doubtless true that Lizzie Borden wrote to her Marion friends the day before the murder that she should be over Monday, and would chop all their wood for them for she had been looking at the axes in the cellar and she had found one as sharp as a razor.
If this is so, it means insanity."

That last line is particularly worth noting. Knowlton does not give the source of Lizzie looking in the cellar. It sounds untrue to me for surely if it was true they would have pressed that line of inquiry.

If Elizabeth Johnston had been the only one to read the letter before destroying it, then she would have been immune from prosecution because the proof had been destroyed. If others had read the letter and would testify that it contained incriminating evidence, then she could have been prosecuted.

Lizzie's friends might well have wanted to talk to Lizzie's attorney, or their own attorney, about where to go with information before doing so, regardless of how innocent the information might seem to them. Their first inclination would probably be to protect Lizzie. It wouldn't have been the first time someone "lawyered up" under the circumstances.

Either something was "leaked", which implies someone who knew something wanted to talk about it, or the newspaper wanted an exclusive story and the source was a fabrication. Since no one seems to have talked about what they knew, and since the newspaper neglects a specific source, a fabrication seems all the more likely.

Harry @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:22 pm wrote:There are 2 references to the Marion letter in the Knowlton Papers. The first was from Officer Harrington to Knowlton dated Sept 8th (HK065, p73). It reads:

"Dear Sir, -
Not knowing Marshal Hilliard's whereabouts, I forward this to you. The F. R. Daily Globe has another story of a letter sent by Lizzie Borden to her friends at Marion. They claim, that without any introduction to or comment upon, the following sentence appears: "When I come I will chop all the wood, for I have a new sharper ax."
To this I would not pay much attention, but my informant told me he thought the Globe could and would produce the letter.
Tomorrow or in a few days a representative of the F.R. Globe is to call on you and state the facts of the above. Possibly Mr. Thurston or Mr. Porter.
Yours etc.
Officer Phil Harrington"

Then on Sept. 12th, Knowlton writes to Pillsbury. (HK069, p76) This is a portion of his letter:

"... It is doubtless true that Lizzie Borden wrote to her Marion friends the day before the murder that she should be over Monday, and would chop all their wood for them for she had been looking at the axes in the cellar and she had found one as sharp as a razor.
If this is so, it means insanity."

That last line is particularly worth noting. Knowlton does not give the source of Lizzie looking in the cellar. It sounds untrue to me for surely if it was true they would have pressed that line of inquiry.

The original source for the information seems to be the Fall River Globe, period. The phrase "doubtless true" makes me wonder if Knowlton was speaking from a position of strength. The term "true" is an absolute, it needs no further qualification such as "doubtless". Truth implies the lack of doubt. How that information logically progresses to insanity is beyond me, you can't get there from here!

Well, I have looked in the documents for what Alice had to say about what Lizzie had to say about Marion, on Wednesday night, Aug. 3.
I find this in the trial on pages 374/i396 +

That Lizzie came over Wednesday night about 7 pm, and she left about 9 or five after 9 pm- "She was there 2 hours."
Alice says Lizzie told her "'I have taken your advice, and I have written to Marion that I will come.'"
"...and I said 'I am glad you are going,' as I urged her to go before."

"I have written to Marion" might imply pretty much that the letter had been sent already.
This poses problems with Lizzie's alibi for not going out at all on Wednesday, which was her proof against Eli Bence's accusation that she was in the drugstore that morning. Unless Lizzie did mail that letter on the way to Alice's. The post office, I believe, is practically on the way to Alice's place. Maybe she mailed it herself before going to Alice. It was open until 8 pm. Harry looked up the time for me today. (I was on the back porch sunning myself in 80 degree sunshine with balmy breeze.)

Thanks, Kat-- it settles the matter of the letter being posted before the 4th, if Lizzie's telling the truth.
If the letter indeed made reference to a sharp hatchet, then I doubt Lizzie decided (if guilty) to use a sharp hatchet until some point Thursday a.m.
IOW: A letter with a hatchet reference, mailed on Wednesday, would have been incredibly stupid on Lizzie's part, if she had been planning to employ the weapon, or a similar one, at that date.
It follows that something happened between the time Lizzie posted the letter to the time of the murders (if she's the perp), that led her to the desperate act of employing the hatchet, allegedly mentioned in the letter to Miss Johnston.
************************************************************
Now, to return to the basis of Allen's post:
(1) There was a letter to Miss Johnston.
(2) It upset her to the point that she sought out Mr. Jennings.
(3) He read it; I am unclear on exactly what his advice was-- here the facts go cloudy.
Neither the police nor Knowlton saw it, as far as I understand.
I assume it was destroyed.
If so, then whatever Miss Johnston said about it to her and Lizzie's circle of friends would have been inadmissible as hearsay, if any of those friends were called into question.
It is my understanding that Miss Johnston, Jennings, and Lizzie (of course) were the only ones who ever SAW the letter and could therefore be called upon to testify to its content. Jennings, as Lizzie's attorney, would have been privileged in the matter. He would have advised Lizzie to remain silent, if the letter were that damning.
Which leaves Miss Johnston as the sole person who could have been called in at trial. Why she wasn't-- that's a good question.
Of course, a hatchet reference doesn't PROVE anything. It just shows that Lizzie may have been thinking about sharp hatchets, a day before the murders. As such, it LOOKS terrible.

Was Elizabeth Johnston summoned to the trial by the prosecution or by the defense as a witness? That might well indicate what was contained in the letter was or was not incriminating.

If the prosecution summoned her, it was probably incriminating because it would have been foolish for them to contend that the letter contained incriminating statements and have Miss Johnston contradict them. She would have been there to support a contention that the letter contained incriminating statements.

If she was summoned by the defense, then the contents of the letter were probably not incriminating because she would likely have been summoned to answer to a contention by the prosecution that the letter contained incriminating statements. She would then have been there to refute the prosecution's contention of incrimination.

Do you guys have access to the trial on your computers?

And please- what does IOW mean? Thanks!

Kat @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:04 am wrote:And please- what does IOW mean? Thanks!

I address mail there all the time..."Isle of Wight".

Actually, no idea what it means above. Couldn't resist, tho.

Good one, Tina-Kate!

It also means "In other words".

Notice how Harry, being just. . .{ahem}. . .16 years old. . . {cough, cough}. . .knows all this computer jargon.

Okay, okay...you caught me. Well, I was 16 once. A loooonnnggg time ago.

Kat, I don't see Miss Johnston listed as a witness at the trial-- did she ever give a formal statement to the authorities, on any occasion, regarding her letter? My understanding of the matter, however inaccurate it may be, is that she went to Jennings, and thereafter kept her silence about the letter's contents.
Am I correct in assuming that we still do not know what exactly was mentioned in the letter?

Shucks, I thought IOW referred to Lizzie's testimony about Abby's whereabouts; In, Out, WHEREVER!

All these years, I thought it meant, "I'm ovulating Wednesday."

You're welcome, DJ.
I think someone told me Miss Johnston was called at the trial but did not appear?
Anyone know?
You can do a search of the trial for her name- that's why I asked you guys if you have the document on your computers?

There is no reference to a "Johnston" in the trial documents. There are two references to a "Johnson", namely George and Alfred Johnson, no Elizabeth Johnson. That is the reason I asked to begin with, I could find no reference to Elizabeth Johnston as a witness.

Johnston is sometimes misspelled as Johnson.

This appeared in the Evening Standard (from the Associated Press) on November 17, 1892 during the sitting of the Grand Jury:

Taunton, Nov. 17. --- The grand jury sitting on the Lizzie Borden case came in at 9:30 this morning at the court-house in this city. Owing to the bad ventilation and poor heat in the grand jury room adjournment was made to the First District Court room, across the street, where the examination of witnesses proceeded. The full grand jury was present and the facts of testimony were collected and presented by District Attorney Knowlton and Attorney-General Pillsbury. A little knot of interested and expectant newspaper men gathered around the entrance, but were debarred the satisfaction of seeing the witnesses. City Marshal Hilliard of Fall River had them steadfastly guarded in the clerk's room, with the doors closed tight as a drum and the only inklings of proceedings obtainable were gleaned from garrulous witnesses as they came out. It is learned that nothing particularly new or startling in the line of evidence was produced, most of the witnesses having testified in the lower court at the preliminary trial, and facts developed were not of as interesting a nature as those of yesterday. Among the witnesses examined were Officers Connors, Mullaley, Chase, Hyde and Edson of Fall River; Police Matron Reagan, who told of Lizzie's conduct in the police station and the interview between the sisters; Frank H. Kilroy, a Harvard medical student, who happened to be in Smith's drug store when it is alleged Lizzie Borden tried to buy hydrocyanic acid; Eli Bense and Fred Hart, drug clerk there; Thomas Brown, who worked for the ice company on Third street opposite the Borden house; Thomas Boulds, Charles Sawyer and Harry Peirce, who were called in on the discovery of the murder; Dr. Bowen and his wife and Mrs. Churchill, the intimate neighbors of the Bordens; Mrs. Kirby, an old lady on Third street, back of the Borden house, who heard noises the night preceding the murder; Miss Johnson, a schoolteacher; Mark Chase, and express driver; ..."

The listing continues on and on. It would have been easier to list who wasn't called. Must have been a busy hearing.

If she wasn't willing to divulge the content of the letter then the only thing should could testify to was that Lizzie was part of the fishing party and was to go to Marion.

If Elizabeth Johnston was the only one of Lizzie's group of friends to be called by the grand jury, then she may well have been the only one to read the letter. Anyone else, either as a witness or as a source for the newspaper article would only be able to testify to hearsay. If the only suspicion the authorities had of incriminating statements in the letter was based upon a newspaper article listing no specific source, or a source based upon hearsay, then maybe Elizabeth would not be compelled to reveal the contents of the letter.

Elizabeth Johnston did not need a reason to keep the letter contents secret. We can not imply from this that there were incriminating statements made simply because she refused to make the contents known. If the source for the suspicion was less than reliable, and if she was not compelled by law to make the letter public, then it was her decision to not acquiesce to idle curiosity.

Thanks, Harry, for The Big Dig--
I suppose Jennings told Miss Johnston/Johnson that she was not compelled to divulge the contents of the letter, if it did not relate in some germane, direct way to the proceedings of the investigation.
If, indeed, Lizzie was commenting upon bringing a sharp hatchet to Marion-- well, it proves nothing, as I've said.
However, it looks terrible. Really, really terrible. Because it would demonstrate that Lizzie had no aversion to taking up a sharp hatchet and chopping wood. It creates a distasteful image of her ladylike demeanor, if you will. I think part of the "reasonable doubt" cast upon Lizzie was her image as a fine young lady, a Sunday school teacher, who had probably never even grasped a hatchet in her lovely fingers.
One can almost picture Robinson leaping from his chair to raise an objection the moment Miss J was called to the witness stand, had she been called. What a relief to the defense.
If Miss J clammed up before the Grand Jury and gave no indication of ever being forthcoming in the matter, then it would have been useless for the prosecution to have called her to the trial. Indeed, it would have made Knowlton and Co. look like badgers for pestering Miss J. Had she broken down in tears, that would have scored yet another triumph for the defense.
I suppose one could call Miss J "The Anti-Alice Russell."

*************************************************************
Going back to the newspaper story: It has the ring of truth, and it would have been only natural for Miss J to have spilled the beans to the "Marion Gang," and for those beans to have spilled out even farther, and thus made it into the newspaper.
Bottom line: There was something worrisome enough in the letter to send Miss J running to Jennings.

A concern for the violation of her private correspondence might also have induced Elizabeth to run to Jennings or any attorney. Speaking to an attorney does not imply wrongdoing, nor does it imply anything with respect to the contents of the letter.

Harry posted this on the earlier page of this topic and reminded me of it today:

On May 29th, Miss Johnston was issued a summons to appear at the trial but never was called upon to testify. (HK183, p185, The Knowlton Papers)

--Harry

OK, lets try to muddle through this. Elizabeth Johnston was summoned by either the defense or the prosecution to testify in the Borden trial.

If she was summoned by the prosecution, the glaring question is; why wasn't she called? It makes no sense for them to summon her if there was nothing incriminating in the letter. It only makes sense for them to summon her if there were incriminating statements made, so why summon her and not call her to the stand? If the prosecution rested in chief after Bence's testimony was squelched, then they may have simply given up, the handwriting was on the wall. This is a bit of a reach and it smacks of mal-dis-non-feasance, whichever applies.

If Elizabeth was summoned as a defense witness, it makes no sense for her to be called if there were incriminating statements made in the letter. If there was nothing incriminating in the letter, then she would have been called to testify in the event the prosecution claimed there were incriminating statements, and she could refute the claim. This makes more sense, the prosecution never made the claim so refutation was not necessary, and she was not called to the stand.

We have to be very careful with implications. Seeking the advise of an attorney does not imply wrongdoing, it does not make anyone guilty by association. We can presume nothing at all about the contents of the letter based upon a visit by Elizabeth to Jennings. In fact, if a visit to Jennings was the determining factor for guilt or wrongdoing, then Lizzie was guilty without question! The jury would be justified with the attitude "She's here, right? Hang her!". The suspicion for Lizzie's guilt was a lot more concrete than a newspaper article!

At the Grand Jury proceedings, wouldn't the burden of proof have been on The Commonwealth, so wouldn't all the witnesses have been summoned by The Commonwealth?
If so-- and someone please correct the above if it's wrong-- it would seem that Miss J would have been summoned as a witness at the trial for the prosecution, because the Commonwealth would not have called her before the G.J. unless she could have *helped their case, not the defense's.*
Also, at trial, the Defense called so few witnesses, that-- if Miss J were a friendly witness who in any way could have helped Lizzie's cause-- it seems as if Miss J could have dispelled any rumors about the letter, then she would have been called to the stand by the defense.
*************************************************************
As aforestated in another post, I'm betting The Commonwealth had little luck with Miss J at the Grand Jury proceedings, but were hoping she would thaw out by the trial.
***Perhaps they were thinking she would be their next Alice Russell. After all, look how long it took for her to be forthcoming. Perhaps they were hoping for some serious insomnia on the part of Miss J.***
However, as also aforestated, they could have looked very bad indeed by badgering her for information on the witness stand, so they may have thought the better of it between May and the end of June.

The grand jury is assembled to hear the evidence from the prosecution, to determine if it is sufficient to go to trial. In this case however, Knowlton allowed Jennings to present the defense's evidence to the grand jury, something unheard of before. I tend to believe that if the prosecution could have benefited by what Elizabeth Johnston had to say, she would have been called as a witness. Since she was not, then her testimony probably would not benefit the prosecution.

If Jennings was really allowed, or asked, to give evidence at the grand jury, did he, though?

As to the defense at the grand jury this appeared in the Evening Standard of December 5th. It quotes an interview with a member of the grand jury, whose name was not listed:

"... It has been said that we have yet to hear from defense," said the juror, "but as a matter of fact we have heard the story of defense. The attorney general, and the district attorney in particular, were so much worked up over the abuse and vilification to which they were subjected that they sent for Andrew J. Jennings to put in the evidence for defence, and he did so. Mr. Knowlton sat back and took no part in the matter, and left it to the jurors to ask questions. No one, as a matter of fact knew how he stood as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. My gracious! I wish you could have been there. The government witnesses were reluctant and acted as if they wanted to believe Lizzie A. Borden innocent. The witnesses for defence came in and testified freely and handled the truth carelessly, to say the least. At the eleventh hour the friends of Lizzie A. Borden came up penitent and conscience-stricken and told that which clinched the case in the minds of the jurors. ..."

There are references in the Knowlton papers by Pillsbury to "leaked" stories coming from sources at the Grand Jury. On Nov. 23rd, he writes Knowlton about a story in the Boston Herald and again on Nov. 29th about one in the Fall River Globe.

He attributes the "leak" in the 23rd letter to the police and suggests the officer should be made an example of. The 29th letter suggests a juror was the source and credits the reporter's persistence.

I think there might have been more than a few "loose lips". Luckily no ships were sunk.

Thanks for the quote, Harry!

If there were other leaks from the grand jury, then there is no reason to think this story is not authentic. The tone of what was said and the mood were described rather than the subject matter specifically. It has the sound of someone describing the events in general, and the language is not overly correct or flamboyant. So it was accurate, or the work of an incredibly astute reporter.

Assuming the story was accurate, then it sounds like the prosecution needed all the help they could get. Remember, the grand jury was undecided until Alice Russell came forth with the dress burning information. If Elizabeth Johnston's testimony would further their cause, then they would have used it before the grand jury, and before the trial jury. They did not call Elizabeth Johnston as a witness before the trial jury.

If Miss Johnston clammed up and refused to verify what was in the letter then the prosecution really could not press her to testify. If the letter was destroyed they really had no concrete proof it ever existed other than hearsay. Without clear evidence that the letter did contain incriminating comments, which could only come in the form of the letter itself or Miss Johnstons statements confirming what it said, they couldn't really get any use out of her as a witness. What would she have testified to? It would've been a waste of the states time to call her foreward.

That's exactly right, it would be a waste of time for the prosecution to call Elizabeth Johnston as a witness, and a waste of time for them to subpoena her. Her testimony would do them no good, apparently. Either the defense or the prosecution thought her testimony would be of some use and had her in court, so...

Since Alice Russell had testified that Lizzie told her she had written to Marion, the defense might have thought it necessary to provide testimony addressing that issue. They read the newspapers, too. For all they knew, the prosecution might have come up with a source for the allegations other than the newspaper.

She might have been there physically in order to deter any reference to incriminating statements in the letter by the prosecution. If the prosecution knew she was there as a defense witness, they would know what her testimony was going to be, and that would probably keep them from making any unsubstantiated references to the letter. They made none, so Miss Johnston's testimony wasn't necessary.

If there were incriminating statements in the letter, and if the defense called her to court, they would need faith that she both could and would lie effectively in court. If there was a source for the rumor allegedly leaked by Lizzie's friends, it would have to be someone who actually read the letter. Otherwise it was hearsay and would not stand up in court. I'm sure the defense would have covered that by asking her who else had read the letter.

What Harry posted speaks of Lizzie's friends turning against her, one by one. In the plural. Who else, besides Alice Russell?
Miss J was there. Was she one of the friends who turned, too?
The fact remains that she was summoned to the trial. I'm sure the defense would have put her on the stand, had they called her. They needed all the help they could get, and, if she had anything positive to say on Lizzie's behalf, so much the better.
However, if she did relent at the GJ proceedings, it makes sense that the Commonwealth summoned her. However, I can see Knowlton "giving up" after Robinson got Eli Bence's testimony excluded. There would have been very little to stop Robinson from having the contents of the letter excluded, too, so it would have been pointless to put Miss J on the stand, even though she was summoned, after Knowlton saw which way the winds were blowing in the New Bedford courthouse.
This matter just makes one wish all the more for Jennings' papers. He read the letter, and I'm sure Robinson was ready to fire with both guns if Miss J had been put on stand at the trial, where the odds were decidedly stacked against Knowlton, in a way they certainly were not at the GJ proceedings.
BTW: Joyeux Noel, toute la monde!

This is all fascinating. I wonder who, of the Marion group, spilled the beans. Someone did, and it doesn't make sense it'd have been Elizabeth Johnston. Either Elizabeth told one or more of the others, read the letter aloud to them, or passed the letter around to one or more to read it themselves. Or the author of the article was filling in blanks.

I can see her being summoned by either the prosecution or the defense. I could make an argument for both.

I don't think her going to see Jennings (which she did right away) implies any wrongdoing on her part, but it does tell me there was something in that letter she thought was potentially incriminating to Lizzie, or she'd have merely given the letter over. No doubt she was worried about potentially withholding what could be considered evidence, and Jennings assured her that she wouldn't be, so to do as she wished.

If that is what Lizzie wrote, we know she wasn't referring to any of the hatchets at the Borden home. Possibly she did buy (or shoplift) a new, gilt-edged hatchet on her way home, and that's what she was referring to. Perhaps that's why she bought (or took) it, knowing there were no sharp hatchets in Marion, and soon she was to return and be in charge of the wood-chopping.

If that's true, then if Lizzie was the murderer, then she didn't plan the murders very far in advance, or she'd have never written that.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

I always loved this little building. It belongs to the fall river animal rescue league. (Known as Faxon Animal Rescue League these days.) A good reason why it has survived was through the graces and generosity of Lizzie and Emma.

I remember this building back in the 60s when it looked pretty much the way it did when it was built. Now it is just one big plastic box. Ugh!

The story below is a ghost story. This fellow lived in the house and swore that it was haunted and that the ghost folded his socks, etc. Haven't heard any new ghost stories since. (Which probably speaks to the fact that people are haunted not places.(?) Interesting article. Not sure if you can read it. Lousy printing.

article: