if...then

[leitskev]

Because the murder weapon was not found...

If Lizzie is guilty, she had to have an accomplice.

She never left the property after the killings. And yet the weapon was simply not found. The hatchet pointed to in the trial has been pretty much eliminated as the murder weapon. Let's take a look at it and veteran Lizzie-philes please correct me if I make any mistakes.

The hatchet cited as the weapon was found without a handle. The prosecution contended Lizzie somehow broke of the handle because she couldn't wash off the blood. They suggested perhaps she burned it in the oven. Seems more than unlikely she could have had the time to do this. Even if she could break the handle, it would have taken time for something like that to burn. In any case, the police testimony at the trial was contradictory. One cop said there was no handle...while another said it was in the box with the hatchet head.

But it gets worse for the prosecution. This hatchet was covered in ash, and under the ash was found some organic tissue and hair. The prosecution believed she washed it, then covered it in ash to help hide that fact.

Only problem is the organic material turned out to be non-human. So now we have to believe she washed the blood of her victims, somehow managed to not wash off the animal hair, and then covered it in ash for some reason. No way.

But there's more. Abby's skull had the metallic paint residue that would come from a new and unused ax. This was not found on Andrew, which is consistent with the idea that it was a freshly bought ax, and that metallic paint came off on Abby. It's not consistent with an old ax that had been used previously on an animal.

Bottom line: despite exhaustive searches, and with police keeping 24 hour surveillance on the house, the murder weapon was not found.

It only leaves 2 possibilities: Lizzie was innocent...or Lizzie had an accomplice. Possibly the accomplice was after the fact and not part of the killing, but an accomplice nonetheless.

The number of people who could have removed the hatchet for Lizzie is limited: Dr. Bowen, Bridget, Mrs. Churchill, Uncle John, maybe Alice Russel. By the time Emma got home around 5pm, the police had everything under close surveillance.

The more we can eliminate the likelihood of these few people as accomplices, the less likely it is Lizzie is guilty.

Let's start with Bridget. She had the most means to have participated in some way. She was in or around the house the whole time. And after Lizzie called her, she ran to Dr. Bowen's and then to Alice's. Maybe she could have dumped the hatchet somewhere. But she couldn't have gone too far. Where could she have dumped it? There were witnesses that watched her as she first ran to Dr. Bowen's. Her behavior was not suspicious. If she had been a part of it, it seemed that priority one would be getting rid of the weapon...not going for help. It just doesn't make sense(if she was the accomplice; being the killer might be different).

Dr. Bowen? As far as means, he is the most likely. He was on scene early, and left within minutes to send a telegram to Emma. And he took his sweet time getting back to the house, making more stops beforehand. Hard to imagine what his motive could have been, but he did have the means.

Mrs. Churchill? I suppose she had the means. Kinda hard to imagine.

Uncle John? I'm not sure he had the means. He may have. I guess after his brief time in the house, he spent the rest of the afternoon...all afternoon...hanging around the yard. That seems to have given him the means. But he was the early suspect and was watched very closely. Hard to imagine him hanging around the yard with the hatchet tucked under his clothes. He almost would have needed another ally to take the hatchet from him in the yard. That's a lot to conjecture.

Anyone else? One of the early cops on scene? Very speculative and highly unlikely.

So I'm left with this: the only one had really had solid means to dispose of the weapon for Lizzie was Bowen. If one is not inclined to suspect him, then one almost has to conclude Lizzie is innocent. He was perhaps the only way she could have got rid of the murder weapon.

[Darrowfan]

Interesting post, leitskev. I have always been bothered by the fact that the murder weapon was never identified. However, remember that there were 2 axes and 2 hatchets found on the property, if I'm not mistaken. I can rule out both axes, because I think that would have been too unwieldy for the killer to use with such precision. In other words, I think if the killer had used an ax, the Bordens would have suffered wounds to more than just their heads and faces. They would have been struck on the neck, back, possibly arms, etc. and the wounds would have been deeper, I think.

I'm not sure what determination, if any, was made about the second hatchet. I find it unlikely that any third person, whether Dr. Bowen or someone else, got rid of the weapon for Lizzie. To me, that will always be one of the great mysteries of the case. I'm certain Lizzie committed the crime, but what did she do with the weapon?

[Franz]

Emma, when interviewed, said that she was convinced of Lizzie's innocence, just because that the weapon was never found.

Regardless Lizzie's innocence or guilt, I always think that Emma was sincere while saying so.

And my speculation is a simple one: Lizzie didn't commit the killing; the real killer took the weapon away while escaping.

[leitskev]

Thanks for replying. Hopefully you guys understand that the delay in my response is not due to lack of interest. It takes a few days for posts to be approved.

The murder weapon really is the starting point. I believe the evidence is that it was a hatchet. And I am 99% certain the one submitted at trial was not the weapon, based on the forensics.

Is it possible the other hatchet was the weapon? Or is it possible the hatchet was simply not found in the house during the searches in the initial days?

The police seem to have eliminated the "other" hatchet. Maybe that's because they already had one in hand that had hair and tissue on it. But the other hatchet had its handle. Why not test that for blood? I'm not sure why the police eliminated this hatchet from suspicion, but it seems prudent to trust their judgment. After all, they desperately wanted to find the murder weapon.

And as far as the search, the testimony is that the authorities searched the house high and low for days. And they kept the house under 24 hour surveillance, so they weren't messing around.

It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that the weapon was just not in the house...that it either went out the door with the killer, or someone assisted the killer in removing it not long after the crime.

And Lizzie did not leave the property. She would have been seen by Mrs. Churchill or Mrs. Bowen, and didn't have time to go very far anyway.

If the weapon was not found on the property, either Lizzie did not commit the murders herself, or someone assisted her. It's hard to avoid that logic, no matter how guilty Lizzie might seem because of her strange behavior.

And of course it's very possible someone killed the Bordens and Lizzie was herself an accomplice...someone who got away with the hatchet.

It really leaves only 3 possibilities: 1) someone else committed the crime and Lizzie was innocent; 2) someone else committed the crime and Lizzie was aware or part of it; 3) Lizzie committed the crime and had an accomplice get rid of the weapon.

The more I look at option 3, it seems hard to believe any of those people could have removed the weapon for her. That means either she is innocent or someone else committed the crime with her knowledge and escaped with the hatchet. Getting rid of the hatchet once the alarm had been sounded makes no sense and would have been very difficult to pull off.

[PossumPie]

The weapon not found doesn't bother me IN THE LEAST. Think about your home. You know it intimately. You know every nook and crannie. I guarantee that you could hide a hatchet in your home and I would never find it. Loose floorboards, a piece of paneling, a loose stone in the basement wall, a million places where you could hide it. Nope, doesn't bother me that it wasn't found. When I was a kid I read alot of Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew Mysteries. I'd spend hours searching my grandmother's old home looking for "treasure" I never found any, but I found alot of spots where treasure could have been hidden! Under her corner cabinet, if you reach your hand up there between it and the floor was a thick piece of wood. I could have put a hatchet there, and they could have searched for a year and not found it

[Darrowfan]

The weapon not found doesn't bother me IN THE LEAST. Think about your home. You know it intimately. You know every nook and crannie. I guarantee that you could hide a hatchet in your home and I would never find it. Loose floorboards, a piece of paneling, a loose stone in the basement wall, a million places where you could hide it. Nope, doesn't bother me that it wasn't found. When I was a kid I read alot of Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew Mysteries. I'd spend hours searching my grandmother's old home looking for "treasure" I never found any, but I found alot of spots where treasure could have been hidden! Under her corner cabinet, if you reach your hand up there between it and the floor was a thick piece of wood. I could have put a hatchet there, and they could have searched for a year and not found it

You make a good point, Possumpie. I know that several police officers searched the property, but the search probably was not as thorough as it could have been. I get the impression that the search mainly consisted of things like closets, under the beds, in the cabinets, etc.

The search of the barn doesn't sound all that extensive either, and was probably a waste of time, since I don't think Lizzie ever went to the barn, either before or after the killings. So you are right that Lizzie could have concealed the weapon somewhere in the house. And just imagine, it could be hidden there to this very day. (Unlikely, but who knows?)

Of course, the broken-handled hatchet could have actually been the murder weapon. As far as I know, it was never conclusively eliminated as a possibility.

[leitskev]

I think even back then, cops knew how to search a house pretty thoroughly. They knew how to search every nook, every loose floorboard. And they desperately wanted to find that weapon. And there was no shortage of manpower, so police would have been crawling over the house...over and over. In fact, as they were suspicious of Lizzie very early on, they would have been obsessed with finding the weapon. If they didn't find it, when did Lizzie get it out? Was in the house all those months? And the prosecutors must have returned to look for evidence. Even if they were overconfident in thinking they already had the weapon, they would have been looking for other evidence such as the dress.

Any cops on the board? Curious what someone with this kind of experience would think.

Darrow, thanks: for the reasons I listed above, the broken hatchet almost certainly is not the one. There was animal tissue on the blade, but no human tissue. That is beyond unlikely, IMO. And the metallic paint they found in Abby's head suggests it was a new hatchet.

They told this story at the tour: in the weeks after the killings, a boy found a hatchet in an alley a few blocks away. He gave it to his father, who brought it to the police...who didn't want anything to do with it! Because they believed they had the weapon in hand. So they did not even take the hatchet from the father. And it disappeared from history. What's more, supposedly that hatchet had the blue metallic paint on it, suggesting it had been recently bought.

No idea if that story can be confirmed, it was told at the tour of the house.

[NancyDrew]

I have to agree. I think the weapon could have and probably was, in the house. Remember that late night visit to the basement water closet by herself that Lizzie made? What was THAT all about I wonder? And the police didn't look underneath the heavy dresses in the back of the upstairs closet. Nor did the look in Lizzie's menstrual um...'bucket.' (What would you call that sort of thing? I shudder to think...) Heck, maybe the weapon is still there!

I'd love to scope that whole yard with a metal detector...

[Darrowfan]

Both leitskev and Nancy make some very good points. What leitskev says about the possibility of an accomplice is logical, but I can't get past the fact that there is no credible evidence of anyone other than Lizzie being involved. I know that some witnesses claimed to have seen people near the Borden property around the time of the crime, but I don't think any 2 of those witnesses claimed to see the same person.

Nancy's point about Lizzie's solo trip to the WC is something to think about indeed.

[Aamartin]

If Alice eventually told about the dress burning-- I think she would have also mentioned the clandestine basement trip -- IF she knew what went on during it!

[Franz]

Thanks for replying. Hopefully you guys understand that the delay in my response is not due to lack of interest. It takes a few days for posts to be approved.

The murder weapon really is the starting point. I believe the evidence is that it was a hatchet. And I am 99% certain the one submitted at trial was not the weapon, based on the forensics.

Is it possible the other hatchet was the weapon? Or is it possible the hatchet was simply not found in the house during the searches in the initial days?

The police seem to have eliminated the "other" hatchet. Maybe that's because they already had one in hand that had hair and tissue on it. But the other hatchet had its handle. Why not test that for blood? I'm not sure why the police eliminated this hatchet from suspicion, but it seems prudent to trust their judgment. After all, they desperately wanted to find the murder weapon.

And as far as the search, the testimony is that the authorities searched the house high and low for days. And they kept the house under 24 hour surveillance, so they weren't messing around.

It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that the weapon was just not in the house...that it either went out the door with the killer, or someone assisted the killer in removing it not long after the crime.

And Lizzie did not leave the property. She would have been seen by Mrs. Churchill or Mrs. Bowen, and didn't have time to go very far anyway.

If the weapon was not found on the property, either Lizzie did not commit the murders herself, or someone assisted her. It's hard to avoid that logic, no matter how guilty Lizzie might seem because of her strange behavior.

And of course it's very possible someone killed the Bordens and Lizzie was herself an accomplice...someone who got away with the hatchet.

It really leaves only 3 possibilities: 1) someone else committed the crime and Lizzie was innocent; 2) someone else committed the crime and Lizzie was aware or part of it; 3) Lizzie committed the crime and had an accomplice get rid of the weapon.

The more I look at option 3, it seems hard to believe any of those people could have removed the weapon for her. That means either she is innocent or someone else committed the crime with her knowledge and escaped with the hatchet. Getting rid of the hatchet once the alarm had been sounded makes no sense and would have been very difficult to pull off.

I agree.

Emma knew intimately - even more - the house as Lizzie. And she thought her sister was innocent.

[Franz]

If Alice eventually told about the dress burning-- I think she would have also mentioned the clandestine basement trip -- IF she knew what went on during it!

If I recall correctly, Alice ignored Lizzie's solo trip, right? If so, how to mention it?

[Miranda]

Lizzie was not arrested until aug 11. Considering the "Keystone Cops" aspect, she had plenty of time to get rid of the hatchet (or whatever) I doubt she was under surveillance all that time. She could have easily walked out with it concealed by her skirts, and dumped it anywhere.

[PossumPie]

In defense of the cops, I still contend that with a little imagination you could hide a hatchet in your home and no one could find it. And Nancy Drew is right, NO cop dug around in that bucket of menstrual rags in the basement. Heck my students get embarrassed even today when we get to the chapter on reproduction and I go into great detail as to what your "period" actually is composed of. Back then??? Men politely ignored the subject. It was brought up once at trial b/c a spot of blood the size of a pin head was found on her petticoat, and they attributed it to menses. Plop that hatchet in a bucket of bloody rags, it is safe as Fort Knox. Go back later to "use the facilities" in the basement, and dispose of the hatchet. I am not sure WHY so much time has been wasted on the fact that it wasn't found. That means almost nothing. An accomplice? Perhaps, but NOT b/c the weapon wasn't found.

As an interesting side-note, I saw a clever CSI episode where a guy tied a long elastic cord to a pistol, and to the damper lever in his fireplace. He shot himself, dropped the pistol which went flying up the fireplace flue out of sight. There he sat in a locked room dead of a gunshot, with no gun. Of course the 'clever' CSI figured it out BUT in real life? No way cops are NOT THAT smart!!!

[Aamartin]

If Alice eventually told about the dress burning-- I think she would have also mentioned the clandestine basement trip -- IF she knew what went on during it!

If I recall correctly, Alice ignored Lizzie's solo trip, right? If so, how to mention it?

Q. Are you able to give us any description of the dress she had on that morning?

A. None whatever.

When Lizzie went upstairs, I went upstairs with her-at least, I have always thought so. She had not yet changed her dress. She said, "When it is necessary for an undertaker, I want Winwood." I went downstairs and waited for Dr Bowen. I sent for him, spoke to him, and went up to Lizzie's room again. She was coming out of :Miss Emma's room, tying the ribbons of a wrapper-a pink-and-white striped wrapper. I stayed at the house all that night, having gone home once that day and returned. I did not suggest to :Miss Lizzie that she change her dress; did not hear anyone suggest it. Thursday night, I went down into the cellar with Lizzie; I carried a lamp, she carried a slop pail. Went to the water closet. The clothing taken from the bodies was in the washroom. Miss Lizzie went into the washroom; I did not. She went to the sink there and rinsed out the pail. Then we went upstairs again.

I stayed at the house from the day of the murders till Monday morning. I was there Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. On Thursday and Friday nights, I occupied Mr. and Mrs. Borden's room; Saturday and Sunday nights, Miss Emma Borden's room. On Sunday morning, I got the breakfast. After breakfast, I left the lower part of the house for a while, returning before noon.

[Darrowfan]

I am not sure WHY so much time has been wasted on the fact that it wasn't found. That means almost nothing. An accomplice? Perhaps, but NOT b/c the weapon wasn't found.

Good point. After all, we know that a weapon was used. The fact that it was never identified proves nothing at all.

[NancyDrew]

Thanks for posting that aamartin.

Okay, so Alice Russell wasn't with Lizzie every single second. Was there a time, before Lizzie was taken into custody, when she was ever ALONE in the house? Or was Emma there with her constantly?

That's the thing...if Lizzie wanted to leave the house, she pretty much couldn't...not without someone's aid. There were no cars, she didn't own a horse, and if she wanted to travel anywhere outside of walking distance, she'd have to have a horse and carriage take her there. I can't imagine what that felt like. We take it for granted, in modern times, that we can just jump in our cars and go wherever we want, whenever we want. If I'm alone (my husband works nights, so I often am) and I feel antsy, I can drive down to my local drugstore and look at the lipsticks, ask for prussic acid, you know, anything I want!

I have a further question...no one here seems to give much credit to the Dave Anthony story, but supposing that it were true...Lizzie had a lover, his name was Dave Anthony, and it a fit of rage, he killed her step-parents (well, a fit a rage, followed by a 1-11/2 hour cooling off period, then another fit of rage). What did HE do with the weapon?

[Darrowfan]

I have a further question...no one here seems to give much credit to the Dave Anthony story, but supposing that it were true...Lizzie had a lover, his name was Dave Anthony, and it a fit of rage, he killed her step-parents (well, a fit a rage, followed by a 1-11/2 hour cooling off period, then another fit of rage). What did HE do with the weapon?

Nancy, I admit that I know very little about the "Dave Anthony" issue. Isn't that a character somewhat like "Willie Borden", a person who may or may not have any connection to the case? I vaguely recall having heard about the Dave Anthony issue, but has it ever been established that 1) such a person existed, and 2) Lizzie actually knew this person?

[PossumPie]

I have a further question...no one here seems to give much credit to the Dave Anthony story, but supposing that it were true...Lizzie had a lover, his name was Dave Anthony, and it a fit of rage, he killed her step-parents (well, a fit a rage, followed by a 1-11/2 hour cooling off period, then another fit of rage). What did HE do with the weapon?

Nancy, I admit that I know very little about the "Dave Anthony" issue. Isn't that a character somewhat like "Willie Borden", a person who may or may not have any connection to the case? I vaguely recall having heard about the Dave Anthony issue, but has it ever been established that 1) such a person existed, and 2) Lizzie actually knew this person?

Dave Anthony seems a tenuous lead at best. There was a guy who had that name and died in 1920 of a motorcycle accident, but no proof has ever surfaced that he was a lover of Lizzie.
1. If he loved her so passionately that he killed her parents, why did he not marry her afterwards, or even regularly 'keep company' with her?
2. If Dave Anthony killed Lizzie's parents, after a fight with father about marrying Lizzie, Why didn't anyone turn him in? Geez, your fiance kills your parents in a rage, and you do nothing?

[leitskev]

Great discussion, thanks! A lot of fun.

the bathroom trip: Not only is this not at all suspicious, but it gives you real insight into how closely they were watched by the police. She was the suspect, and every cop was watching her every move, right up to spying on her in the water closet. I've been to the house, and they confirmed the hatchet could not have been disposed that way. But it serves to show what kind of a microscope she was under. The cops left no stone unturned in the search for that ax/hatchet and any other evidence they could find.

I am not one to overestimate the efficacy of police...in fact I think they screw up more often than not. But searching is one thing they do well. They are highly experienced at it, and were back then too, especially in a city like Fall River. If Lizzie had been foolish enough to place the weapon in the blood filled wash bucket, just lifting it would have revealed something heavy inside.

The police testimony was that they searched the house so thoroughly that they did all but peal off the wallpaper. I think it highly unlikely the weapon was in the house.

And give Lizzie some credit: would she have called for help with the weapon still in the house?

Lizzie would have been watched closely right up until her arrest. It's highly unlikely the weapon was still in the house after the police searches, but even if it somehow was, it would be all but impossible for Lizzie to remove it without help.

I agree that most of the evidence points to Lizzie. However, it's very circumstantial stuff. It mostly falls under the category of "who else could it be?"...and that's not strong evidence.

1) the prussic acid? Should be discounted. Dr. Bowen's poison story was circulating in the hours after the murders, which likely fueled the imaginations of the drug store owners. This kind of thing always happens, even recently in the Boston Marathon bombing, where convincing but false evidence circulated rapidly.

2) Lizzie's worries with Alice the night before? Could be her trying to set up a crime scene...or could be she was really worried. Nothing can be gleamed from that.

3) motive: yeah, she had the motive of her inheritance, but so does anyone who has rich parents. Which means she has possible motive...but not motive. We have no reason to suppose she wanted her parents dead. No evidence of that at all. The fact that there was some animosity and tension shows nothing...that's typical of most homes.

4) means: both she and Bridget had means. And while it's difficult to imagine someone else killing both Bordens an hour and a half apart and being undetected, it's not impossible. In fact, most people assume Bridget is innocent...so they assume Bridget did not hear the killings. If so, it seems equally plausible that Lizzie didn't hear them either. Then all we have to do is consider that someone got in and out unseen by either.'

5) lies: Lizzie said things that were either untrue or unsubstantiated. Many of these things can be chalked up to confusion, especially as she was given morphine. It's also possible she lied about some things for innocent reasons. If she was out in the barn having sex with with the mayor, she might not want people to know that.

The most difficult lie to get past is the claim of a note and a messenger. This one is hard to explain away. But not impossible. What if the note was from Mrs. Bowen, perhaps summoning Abby and mentioning something that was embarrassing to Dr. Bowen...who subsequently found that note on Abby and burned it in the stove? Abby might have told Lizzy she was going out to take care of a sick friend. I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm merely trying to suggest there might be explanations. Because in the end, it's a lot easier to dispose of a note than it is a hatchet.

Am I saying Lizzis is innocent? No. I'm just trying to use probability and logic. I find it highly, highly improbable that Lizzie hid that weapon in the house and the police search did not find it. And as Lizzie had no opportunity to leave the house, that leads me to conclude she either had an accomplice get rid of the weapon, or she is innocent...or someone else killed the Bordens and she protected him. It's difficult to go down that last road because it's completely speculative. But the more I look at the possibility of an accomplice being able to help her, the less likely that seems. And as her behavior does not suggest innocence, it does point toward the likelihood of someone else performing the act with Lizzie as accomplice.

[Darrowfan]

Dave Anthony seems a tenuous lead at best. There was a guy who had that name and died in 1920 of a motorcycle accident, but no proof has ever surfaced that he was a lover of Lizzie.
1. If he loved her so passionately that he killed her parents, why did he not marry her afterwards, or even regularly 'keep company' with her?
2. If Dave Anthony killed Lizzie's parents, after a fight with father about marrying Lizzie, Why didn't anyone turn him in? Geez, your fiance kills your parents in a rage, and you do nothing?

Your points are concise and logical as usual, Possumpie.

[leitskev]

http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x2734446 ... ase?zc_p=0

This article related to Jennings journal has probably been discussed here. Jennings believed that Lizzie's relationship with her father was close, and with Abby was cool but not hostile, based on interview witnesses.

And the crime scene was much disturbed. The man charged with watching Abby's corpse said the body was a foot under the bed and that yard stick was on the floor. What happened to that? Why was it removed? Jennings thinks Abby was trying to get away from her attacker. Of course, he had incentive to think that way, but it is interesting.

He speculates the yard stick was used to smooth the freshly made bed over. I myself wondered if Abby was using it to look for something. Something which might suggest Lizzie had spent the night there with John.

The fact that a man was immediately deputized with watching the corpse of Abby also shows how seriously the police took the crime scene. Though the yard stick did disappear. But I think it does show how they immediately sealed that place up. It would have been almost impossible for Lizzie to remove a hatchet once the cops had arrived.

[twinsrwe]

Dave Anthony seems a tenuous lead at best. There was a guy who had that name and died in 1920 of a motorcycle accident, but no proof has ever surfaced that he was a lover of Lizzie.
1. If he loved her so passionately that he killed her parents, why did he not marry her afterwards, or even regularly 'keep company' with her?
2. If Dave Anthony killed Lizzie's parents, after a fight with father about marrying Lizzie, Why didn't anyone turn him in? Geez, your fiance kills your parents in a rage, and you do nothing?

Yes, PossumPie, David loved Lizzie so deeply that he sat back and allowed her to be arrested, sit in jail until she stood trial, and although she was acquitted she was ostracized the rest of her life, for something HE was guilty of doing! Yep, that is, for sure, true love!!!

[Aamartin]

If Alice eventually told about the dress burning-- I think she would have also mentioned the clandestine basement trip -- IF she knew what went on during it!

If I recall correctly, Alice ignored Lizzie's solo trip, right? If so, how to mention it?

Q. Are you able to give us any description of the dress she had on that morning?

A. None whatever.

When Lizzie went upstairs, I went upstairs with her-at least, I have always thought so. She had not yet changed her dress. She said, "When it is necessary for an undertaker, I want Winwood." I went downstairs and waited for Dr Bowen. I sent for him, spoke to him, and went up to Lizzie's room again. She was coming out of :Miss Emma's room, tying the ribbons of a wrapper-a pink-and-white striped wrapper. I stayed at the house all that night, having gone home once that day and returned. I did not suggest to :Miss Lizzie that she change her dress; did not hear anyone suggest it. Thursday night, I went down into the cellar with Lizzie; I carried a lamp, she carried a slop pail. Went to the water closet. The clothing taken from the bodies was in the washroom. Miss Lizzie went into the washroom; I did not. She went to the sink there and rinsed out the pail. Then we went upstairs again.

I stayed at the house from the day of the murders till Monday morning. I was there Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. On Thursday and Friday nights, I occupied Mr. and Mrs. Borden's room; Saturday and Sunday nights, Miss Emma Borden's room. On Sunday morning, I got the breakfast. After breakfast, I left the lower part of the house for a while, returning before noon.

Left the lower part of the house? Does this mean she went upstairs? A nap?

Did Emma move into the master bedroom?

[Aamartin]

If Alice eventually told about the dress burning-- I think she would have also mentioned the clandestine basement trip -- IF she knew what went on during it!

If I recall correctly, Alice ignored Lizzie's solo trip, right? If so, how to mention it?

Q. Are you able to give us any description of the dress she had on that morning?

A. None whatever.

When Lizzie went upstairs, I went upstairs with her-at least, I have always thought so. She had not yet changed her dress. She said, "When it is necessary for an undertaker, I want Winwood." I went downstairs and waited for Dr Bowen. I sent for him, spoke to him, and went up to Lizzie's room again. She was coming out of :Miss Emma's room, tying the ribbons of a wrapper-a pink-and-white striped wrapper. I stayed at the house all that night, having gone home once that day and returned. I did not suggest to :Miss Lizzie that she change her dress; did not hear anyone suggest it. Thursday night, I went down into the cellar with Lizzie; I carried a lamp, she carried a slop pail. Went to the water closet. The clothing taken from the bodies was in the washroom. Miss Lizzie went into the washroom; I did not. She went to the sink there and rinsed out the pail. Then we went upstairs again.

I stayed at the house from the day of the murders till Monday morning. I was there Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. On Thursday and Friday nights, I occupied Mr. and Mrs. Borden's room; Saturday and Sunday nights, Miss Emma Borden's room. On Sunday morning, I got the breakfast. After breakfast, I left the lower part of the house for a while, returning before noon.

Left the lower part of the house? Does this mean she went upstairs? A nap?

Did Emma move into the master bedroom?