reliability of memory

[leitskev]

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/h ... less-minds

"Researchers have known for decades that memories are unreliable. They’re particularly adjustable when actively recalled because at that point they’re pulled out of a stable molecular state. Last spring, scientists published a study performed at the University of Washington in which adult volunteers completed a survey about their eating and drinking habits before age 16. A week later, they were given personalized analyses of their answers that stated—falsely—that they had gotten sick from rum or vodka as a teen. One in five not only didn’t notice the lie, but also recalled false memories about it and rated that beverage as less desirable than they had before."

Human memory is surprisingly unreliable. We observe this time and again in trials that take national prominence, such as George Zimmerman's, or in traumatic events such as the assassination of JFK.

So in a case like Lizzie Borden's, we have to be careful. For example, no doubt Mrs. Churchill's testimony was honest, but was it reliable? By then she had been influenced by the prevailing belief that Lizzie had committed the crimes. Her mind then reinterpreted everything she thought she remembered Lizzie having done or said through the prism of trying to later connect the dots to Lizzie's guilt. Tests have shown over and over that this kind of testimony simply can't be trusted.

Same thing with Alice Russel. I'm not saying Lizzie did not burn evidence, maybe she did. But she did so with a cop right outside in the yard, the door unlocked, and with Emma in the kitchen with her. Does this make sense? Whatever happened, by then Alice was well aware that the public thought Lizzie guilty, and her mind interpreted events accordingly.

Especially unreliable is the testimony of the pharmacists. In cases like this, all kinds of people come out of the woodwork whose testimony is later proven to be impossible. They are not necessarily lying, but with massive publicity surrounding a case like this, people are eager to be a part of it and can easily convince themselves they saw something they didn't. A young woman buying harmless herbs at the pharmacy can easily evolve into the pharmacists remembering that Lizzie herself tried to buy poison. And we have to remember,the story was going around that Mrs. Borden had complained someone was trying to poison them...so the public believed this to be the case. This is likely the seed of where the pharmacists developed the "memory".

And look at the testimony that supports Lizzie: that there was a strange man and carriage outside the house, that Lizzie was in the yard. These testimonies are equally unreliable.

You really have to focus on the hard facts, which unfortunately are not at all conclusive. On the one hand, with Lizzie and Bridgett in and around the house all morning, and the tight security with diligently locked doors, it's hard to imagine a killer getting in, killing Abby, waiting inside the house for an hour and a half, then killing Andrew...all of this going undetected by Lizzie and Bridget.

And on the other hand, the weapon was not found and Lizzie did not leave the premises; Lizzie made no attempt to stage a crime scene; and her actions immediately after the killing are more consistent with someone finding a body than with someone covering up a crime scene.

Witness testimony has value. But we have to be extremely cautious with it. In fact we should give it very little weight given how unreliable such testimony generally is.

[Allen]

Memory does fade over time and can be unreliable. This is why police officers take notes of everything they see and hear. Mrs. Churchill testified in the witness statements the day of the murders to just about the same information that she testified to at trial. Memory can be unreliable and can fade. But I doubt she forgot the events in the space of a few hours. And Lizzie was not yet a suspect. The instances where several of the witnesses independently corroborate each other as to what happened would lead me to believe that information is accurate. The same with Miss Russell. Some of the inconsistencies given in testimony at trial I have put down to memory fading over time. But the memories were very fresh the day of the murders. Everyone except Lizzie's that is. She couldn't remember from second to second. Emma testified to Lizzie burning a dress. Alice testified to Lizzie burning a dress. Lizzie testified to Lizzie burning a dress. For me this indicates Lizzie burned a dress. Was it evidence? I cannot say that certainly. But why risk burning a dress so close to the time of a murder when you know you are a suspect? If it truly was paint on the dress the officers could see that and she had nothing to worry about. By burning it she made herself even more suspicious.

[leitskev]

Mrs. Churchill made statements the day if the murders regarding what she recalled Lizzie saying? That's unusual...especially if Lizzie was not a suspect. I have not read her statements from that day...are they listed somewhere? I suspect the police questioned her about what she saw, but not about Lizzie's words or actions...and it's her later testimony about Lizzie's statements that is so often cited in this forum as evidence of Lizzie's guilt.

There's no question Lizzie burned the dress, the defense even brought in a painter or some other worker, I believe, to testify about the damaged dress. But Alice's statements about Lizzie's reaction is also seen by many as damaging...and that testimony comes through the prism of Alice's memory. If Lizzie was going to burn evidence like that, why not lock the door? Why not wait til Emma was out of the room? She made herself suspicious, but the act itself makes no logical sense.

[Franz]

leitskev, do you mean the witness statments? you can find them here:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/portfolio ... nts?fp=106

[Franz]

Me too I have been thinking for a long time about Mrs. Churchill's testimonies. If we compare what she said about her meeting with Lizzie at the side door that morning and her (different) versions about their conversation at that moment, it would be an interesting topic, I think.

[leitskev]

Thanks, reading through these...fascinating stuff.

[PossumPie]

True, eyewitness testimony is among the poorest gauge of the truth. BUT There is testimony that cannot be chalked up to confusion or bias... Lizzie told Bridget IMMEDIATELY after she found the body that she was in the yard, heard a groan, ran in and found Mr. Borden dead. Then Lizzie changed to out in the barn and heard nothing. You know if you were in a yard or a barn, and if you heard "something" or "nothing" the change there wasn't poor recollection, but changing her story. She also said she was on the stairs and heard Bridget let Mr. Borden in, then changed testimony saying that she never said that, and was NOT upstairs. Bridget heard her laugh on the stairs, and that fits with the first testimony, but mysteriously Lizzie swore that she never said that...

[Allen]

Usually memory fading over time is simply forgetting the little details. And memory doesn't usually fade over such a short period of time as a couple of hours or even days. If it did we'd all be like Drew Barrymore in 50 First Dates. Some people have an unbelievable memory. Memory fading is forgetting things, not adding information you never knew in the first place, or changing your entire story several times in so many hours. I can remember many things from my childhood. Not clearly and in great detail but I do remember them. I remember trips to amusement parks we took when I was five years old. I remember some of the rides we went on. The people who were there with us. Being scared to get on some of the rides. But I don't remember what car we drove there in, or what we ate, what the name of the motel was where we spent the night, what clothes anyone was wearing, how long we stayed at the park, or anyone else that was there but the people I came with. I remember the big things, the things I personally took great notice of, the little things not so much.

[Aamartin]

Usually memory fading over time is simply forgetting the little details. And memory doesn't usually fade over such a short period of time as a couple of hours or even days. If it did we'd all be like Drew Barrymore in 50 First Dates. Some people have an unbelievable memory. Memory fading is forgetting things, not adding information you never knew in the first place, or changing your entire story several times in so many hours. I can remember many things from my childhood. Not clearly and in great detail but I do remember them. I remember trips to amusement parks we took when I was five years old. I remember some of the rides we went on. The people who were there with us. Being scared to get on some of the rides. But I don't remember what car we drove there in, or what we ate, what the name of the motel was where we spent the night, what clothes anyone was wearing, how long we stayed at the park, or anyone else that was there but the people I came with. I remember the big things, the things I personally took great notice of, the little things not so much.

Same here.... Odd things too-- like when we used to make mixed tapes. YEARS later if I heard a song from one of them on the radio or somewhere else I would expect the next song to be the same as on my old mixed tape!!

I might not remember if I took my vitamin, or where I put my glasses-- but I would remember why I went to my garage on a day someone was killed in my house!

[PossumPie]

Usually memory fading over time is simply forgetting the little details. And memory doesn't usually fade over such a short period of time as a couple of hours or even days. If it did we'd all be like Drew Barrymore in 50 First Dates. Some people have an unbelievable memory. Memory fading is forgetting things, not adding information you never knew in the first place, or changing your entire story several times in so many hours. I can remember many things from my childhood. Not clearly and in great detail but I do remember them. I remember trips to amusement parks we took when I was five years old. I remember some of the rides we went on. The people who were there with us. Being scared to get on some of the rides. But I don't remember what car we drove there in, or what we ate, what the name of the motel was where we spent the night, what clothes anyone was wearing, how long we stayed at the park, or anyone else that was there but the people I came with. I remember the big things, the things I personally took great notice of, the little things not so much.

Same here.... Odd things too-- like when we used to make mixed tapes. YEARS later if I heard a song from one of them on the radio or somewhere else I would expect the next song to be the same as on my old mixed tape!!

I might not remember if I took my vitamin, or where I put my glasses-- but I would remember why I went to my garage on a day someone was killed in my house!

The key, I believe, is whether significance was placed on an event or not at the time. If I saw 7 people walk pass my house, then an hour later the police asked me to describe them, I couldn't reliably do so...I attached no significance at the time. If I saw my neighbor return home, or if I saw someone lurking outside my neighbors house, I could remember those because I place some significance to them. I couldn't perhaps give a specific time, but I'd remember. You know if you went to the barn, or just out in the yard. There was no problem with Lizzie remembering that, she chose to alter her answers for some reason. I went through the testimony again, and Lizzie clearly says to Bridget less than 1 minute after finding Mr. Borden dead,
" She said she was out in the back yard. She heard a groan, and she came in, and the screen door was wide open. "
Lizzie told Mrs. Churchill "I was out in the barn. I was going for a piece of iron when I heard a distress noise, came in and found the door open, and found my father dead."
she told Officer Mullaly that she went out into the barn, and upon being asked whether she heard anything or not, she said she heard a peculiar noise, something like a scraping noise, and came in and found the door open...

Now, She would know exactly where she was the moment before she found her father...These are not 'mis-rememberings' but changing the story.

[leitskev]

Thanks guys. Happy Thanksgiving.

Only have time for a quick post.

This is not about "fading" memories. Human memory is much more problematic than that, which is the point of the article I linked. People's memories are HEAVILY influenced by suggestion, something which is usually very innocent but can be dramatically harmful.

I'll try to get back with more later. But this is not at all about fading memories.

[Allen]

I read the article. The memories they were using as an example as being unreliable were recalled memories, such as memories of what you were doing when you were 16 years old. The article claimed memories are 'adjustable' when actively recalled. The power of suggestion for recalled memories. Which is why there is still such controversy over recalled memories, or repressed memories, of childhood sexual abuse. It's argued that the patient may have been given those memories under the power of suggestion. Either by a psychiatrist they are seeing or whoever else. But On the day of the murders the police spoke to all of the key witnesses, such as Mrs. Churchill, within an hour of the crime. They had no time to be influenced by newspapers, or the fact that Lizzie was a suspect, or the power of suggestion. Because Lizzie was not yet a suspect, there were no newspaper stories, and their stories were fresh. They had not yet heard the stories of the other witnesses. When Mrs. Churchill gave her statement about the things Lizzie said to her it was that day within about an hour of her having heard it from Lizzie. It's the same with most of the key witnesses who were at the trial. And in most instances the witnesses still corroborate each other on many of the key points. And most of their stories remained consistent through out the witness statements, the inquest, preliminary hearing, and the trial. The only changes I saw in testimony is by the time of the trial they were not able to recall things as clearly as they had a year before. Even at the inquest nobody could remember what dress Lizzie had on. Because nobody was concerned with what she was wearing to remember. But I didn't see any embellishments to their stories, only things that were forgotten. Take one witness, such as Mrs. Churchill, or Alice Russell, read their story from the witness statements up until the trial. It pretty much remains consistent.

[leitskev]

Good points, Allen, and well taken.

I'm about half way through the witness statements...thanks for the link! Fascinating stuff.

Some quick observations:

- these statements were taken over days and weeks. No doubt the more central characters were talked to sooner rather than later. But were they taken that day? I can't tell from this online document. For example:

Mrs. Mary Wyatt, No. 91 Second street. This woman lives over Dr. Bowen. It is she who first told
Mr. M. Chace, L. Winslow, and several others who were standing in front of Wade’s, about the crime.
She dodged us for a week or more; and when finally seen, positively refused to be interviewed.

So the police investigation was ongoing. It seems likely that with key witnesses statements were taken that day, but I'm not sure it's clear.

- it's evident that the police suspected Lizzie from the early moments. If nothing else they were shocked and suspicious by her lack of emotional response. Did this color peoples memories? Hard to say. This kind of prejudice would not affect memory of something like a dress color, but it might affect other things, such as memories of what Lizzie said or when she said it. That's a more delicate thing for the mind to order properly.

- the police conducted a rigorous search for evidence even in the hours right after the killing. Not saying they couldn't miss something in those early searches, but they were not slacking.

- certainly some curious and odd things, for example with Dr. Bowen. Two witnesses mentioned his saying Abby had fainted, the second saying she had fainted and died in shock from seeing her husband dead. Very odd. He made no attempt to examine her when he found her? I don't really understand that. Also, in the days later he was said to be nervously inquiring about some new evidence that had emerged. And of course there is his usual burning of letters. I'm not suggesting anything, just that these are odd things.

Finally, it was not my suggestion that there were embellishments in the witness statements. Rather I would consider that the human mind has to reprocess events at a later time after them, and it can be influenced in this re-processing.

Happy holidays!

[Allen]

Actually the search of the house the day of the murders was not very rigorous. They didn't make a full search of the house until a few days later. There are also dates listed by each officer for each interview of the witnesses. The dates start on August 4, 1892 on move forward. The dates are clearly marked in the witness statements, especially if you look at the table of contents. Many of the witnesses were interviewed or questioned by more than one officer and over a few days. There really was no evidence that Lizzie was a suspect until a few days later. There are indications in a few of the notes taken by the officers that they found her behavior suspicious. But we can't tell from their hand written notes whether or not this was expressed to any of the witnesses at the time. Saying she was a suspect doesn't even mean she was the main suspect. The police were chasing down other leads also. Like Dr. Handy's strange man. There were also a few crack pots who confessed to the murders who had nothing to do with it. A few officers even went out in a boat to search the bottom of a pond for a murder weapon.

[PossumPie]

Good points, Allen, and well taken.

I'm about half way through the witness statements...thanks for the link! Fascinating stuff.

Some quick observations:

- these statements were taken over days and weeks. No doubt the more central characters were talked to sooner rather than later. But were they taken that day? I can't tell from this online document. For example:

Mrs. Mary Wyatt, No. 91 Second street. This woman lives over Dr. Bowen. It is she who first told
Mr. M. Chace, L. Winslow, and several others who were standing in front of Wade’s, about the crime.
She dodged us for a week or more; and when finally seen, positively refused to be interviewed.

So the police investigation was ongoing. It seems likely that with key witnesses statements were taken that day, but I'm not sure it's clear.

- it's evident that the police suspected Lizzie from the early moments. If nothing else they were shocked and suspicious by her lack of emotional response. Did this color peoples memories? Hard to say. This kind of prejudice would not affect memory of something like a dress color, but it might affect other things, such as memories of what Lizzie said or when she said it. That's a more delicate thing for the mind to order properly.

- the police conducted a rigorous search for evidence even in the hours right after the killing. Not saying they couldn't miss something in those early searches, but they were not slacking.

- certainly some curious and odd things, for example with Dr. Bowen. Two witnesses mentioned his saying Abby had fainted, the second saying she had fainted and died in shock from seeing her husband dead. Very odd. He made no attempt to examine her when he found her? I don't really understand that. Also, in the days later he was said to be nervously inquiring about some new evidence that had emerged. And of course there is his usual burning of letters. I'm not suggesting anything, just that these are odd things.

Finally, it was not my suggestion that there were embellishments in the witness statements. Rather I would consider that the human mind has to reprocess events at a later time after them, and it can be influenced in this re-processing.

Happy holidays!

Some witness statements were prejudicial, and CANNOT be taken alone to prove or disprove guilt. Some were clouded by time. Taken as a WHOLE, they are circumstantially significant but you are correct, alone, they may be mis-rememberances. Having said that, SOME statements were lies and fabrications. Lizzie told Bridget within seconds of discovering the body that she had been in the yard and heard a moan. Later she said she had been coming from the barn and heard a scraping sound, later she said that she was in the barn the whole time and heard nothing. These are not clouded by time or prejudice, they are outright changing your story. She said she had been upstairs on the steps when Mr. Borden returned. This meshed with Bridget hearing her laugh. Then she swore to the police that not only wasn't she upstairs, that she NEVER told them that she had been. This was clearly a lie, b/c the day before she testified that she was upstairs.

The "fainting Mrs. Borden" has confused many newbies, Exhaustive review of all of the evidence shows some confusion. The doctor said that as he came upstairs, he saw her prone body and believed that she had fainted. Upon going in and examining her, it was apparent that she was murdered. Somehow people twisted this to say he was in on the murder b/c how could anyone not see she was hacked up.

The police did NOT conduct anything more than a very quick search for clues the first day, and in fact it was not until the following Monday that having decided Lizzie was a suspect, they did a thorough search. The day of the murder, all blood found except that around the bodies was "delicately" explained by Lizzie's menses, and not given a thorough examination.

A few were suspicious of Lizzie right away, mainly b/c she didn't cry, or look upset. Of course this is no evidence of guilt at all, but it drew people's attention.

[leitskev]

The witness statements I was referring to regarding Dr. Bowen were not statements FROM Bowen. They were statements from 2 other people(cops I think) that said the doctor claimed Abby had fainted.

Now, if this is going to be chalked up to the confusion of the scene...fine. But let's be consistent. These were 2 separate witnesses who heard the doctor say basically the same thing: that Abby had fainted. And the second witness added to this by relating that it was after Dr. Bowen's saying this that someone went up(the other doctor I believe, or possibly one of the cops, I forget), and examined Abby more closely and found the wounds on her face. His statement was clear that Bowen did not discover that she was murdered.

So we have odd statements...corroborated by multiple witnesses.

The same as with Lizzie.

I'm not actually suggesting Bowen is guilty of anything. I'm merely pointing out how easy it is for these witness statements to become confused and misleading.

As for Lizzie's statements, some lead to clear suspicion, but others not. You mention the stairs, but as Lizzie was moving around the house, it's not so surprising that she would not remember exactly where she was when her father came in. And it's not surprising she would change her position on this...even if she wasn't under the influence of morphine...which she was. If her father's entrance was a meaningless event, her mind would be less likely to process exactly what she was doing or where she was.

It's harder to explain her statements on hearing something from the yard. Certainly the impression is of someone who is trying to explain events that didn't really happen, so she is changing her story. But can it be said with certainty that she didn't hear "something" that aroused her suspicion, and later couldn't be sure what it was?

I'm not defending Lizzie so much as playing devil's advocate. The way everything was locked up in that house, it's difficult to believe anyone but Lizzie could have committed the crime.

I am, however, skeptical of using these various witness statements to form conclusive opinions.

[Allen]

Lizzie's apparent "inability" to remember where she was and what she was doing started long before she was even prescribed the morphine. I'm not sure why everyone keeps insisting Lizzie was under the influence of morphine at the time that she testified at the inquest. First, we do not have any proof she actually took the morphine. Only that it was prescribed by the doctor to be taken at bedtime to help her sleep. No one actually witnessed her taking the medicine. And because it was also prescribed to be taken at bed time to help her sleep I am not so sure, if she did take it as prescribed at bedtime, she would still have been under the effect of the morphine at the time she testified at the inquest the next day. She was given bromo caffeine that day. But that is the victorian equivalent of aspirin.

I do think that Bowen saying Abby fainted can be chalked up to confusion, on his part and the part of the people present. But does this confusion seem suspicious behavior? No. Do Lizzie's inconsistencies seem suspicious. Yes. We have several witnesses who testify to the many stories Lizzie told after the murders. If it was some sort of suggestion of her guilt that colored their memories, by an officer or another witness, I would think the witnesses would tend to match up a little more. "Oh yeah, maybe she did say she was out in the yard."

[Allen]

I also think it's one thing to say you were coming down the stairs to the front door, where you would see your father being let in by Bridget, and saying you were maybe in the kitchen where you would not see him come in. Or maybe upstairs in your room. Did she see her father walk through the door to come inside or did she not? Within five minutes she is talking to Andrew wanting to know if there was any mail and telling him Abby got a note to go out. How do you not remember if you saw someone come through the front door or not, and from what room you came from to speak directly with them, or if you heard the maid utter an expletive you found humorous? And her story about the sound she heard didn't just change from a groan to hearing a scraping sound. She finally settled on saying she heard no sound at all. And in my opinion it makes perfect sense that Lizzie would burn a dress with Mrs. Russell and Emma there, and the police outside. Because Emma was always going to be there. She lived there. Miss Russell stayed at the house for several days. The police were continuously watching the house. There was no time to burn it when they weren't there. So either she risked burning a blood stained dress, and play it off as innocently burning a paint stained dress, or risk letting them find it in the house as evidence. If you are caught burning a dress at 2 am in the morning it's going to look even more suspicious.

[PossumPie]

Lizzie's apparent "inability" to remember where she was and what she was doing started long before she was even prescribed the morphine. I'm not sure why everyone keeps insisting Lizzie was under the influence of morphine at the time that she testified at the inquest. First, we do not have any proof she actually took the morphine. Only that it was prescribed by the doctor to be taken at bedtime to help her sleep. No one actually witnessed her taking the medicine. And because it was also prescribed to be taken at bed time to help her sleep I am not so sure, if she did take it as prescribed at bedtime, she would still have been under the effect of the morphine at the time she testified at the inquest the next day. She was given bromo caffeine that day. But that is the victorian equivalent of aspirin.

I do think that Bowen saying Abby fainted can be chalked up to confusion, on his part and the part of the people present. But does this confusion seem suspicious behavior? No. Do Lizzie's inconsistencies seem suspicious. Yes. We have several witnesses who testify to the many stories Lizzie told after the murders. If it was some sort of suggestion of her guilt that colored their memories, by an officer or another witness, I would think the witnesses would tend to match up a little more. "Oh yeah, maybe she did say she was out in the yard."

My point with the stairs is that she cannot have been confused. Bridget fooled with the lock, couldn't open it. Said some kind of expletive, Lizzie heard and laughed. She would remember the convergence of the stairs, Father coming in, and the expletive/laugh. I don't believe at all that she was confused about that. I do believe other things like what she was reading when he was in the parlor are trivial enough to confuse her, but there was enough going on at the door opening that she was aware exactly where she was. As for Morphine, It isn't LSD, Heck, it will put you to sleep before it will confuse your mental capacities. I have had mega doses in the past and while you feel numb, relaxed, and tired, you don't hallucinate. I don't believe it played any part in her remembering or forgetting. I do believe much of what she said that day could be caused by confusion of trivial details but Where she was right before her father was discovered, and where she was when father was let in were ingrained in her mind.

[Allen]

If you believe that Lizzie killed her parents, which everyone knows that I do believe she did it, her father coming home would not have been a trivial detail at all. Neither was where she was when he was killed. Witnesses who have their memories influenced by other's tend to blend their stories with whoever is influencing them. But we have one person saying she went for lead to make sinkers, one to get iron to fix a screen, another to get a piece of tin. One said she heard a groan, another a scraping sound, and then she heard no sound at all. She was in the barn. She was in the yard. As a matter of fact, she was not confused about what she was reading that day. She was able to give the name of the magazine she sat reading at the table as she waited for her flats to get hot. But she can't remember where she was when her father came home? And most people say that memory is unreliable. Yes, it can be. But it's not so unreliable that we forget everything that happened within an hour. At least my memory is not that horrible, I can't say about anyone else's.

[leitskev]

on morphine: everything I've read suggests she was given something to calm her in the hours after the killings, administered upstairs in her room; and before the inquest. But it really doesn't matter. The events were traumatic enough to explain a degree of changing story.

on Dr. Bowen: I want to be clear, to repeat: I am NOT talking about Dr. Bowen's witness statement. NOT. There are statements by 2 other witnesses that claim to have heard Dr. Bowen say Abby fainted. The second witness also said that Dr. Bowen said she must have fainted and died from shock at having seen her husband. It's in the witness statements.

It's very strange for Dr. Bowen to find Abby and not examine her. To not see the puddles of blood and the horrible wounds. Beyond strange, really. And as 2 witnesses heard it, there is corroboration.

And other strangeness can be found with the doctor. First, there is the burning of the papers in the stove. Also, his claims regarding the nature of those papers is contradicted by the officer, who describes seeing the name Emma on them.

Also, Dr. Bowen did not return immediately after sending the telegraph. In fact, even the very fact that he was sent to dispatch the telegraph is a little odd...why wouldn't he find an errand boy?

And of course there is the story in one of the newspapers at the time that Bowen visited the same house that Morse did. Newspaper sources should not be considered reliable, especially if there is no supporting evidence, but it still needs to be mentioned since there is a pattern of unexpected behavior.

I'm not saying Bowen is guilty of anything. Though the missing murder weapon is troubling, and Bowen seems to be the one most in a position to help Lizzie get rid of it that afternoon. That's speculative, of course, and I am making no claim.

on Lizzie's memories: if Lizzie was innocent, her father coming home would be a trivial event. So she would be less likely to remember where she was or what she was doing. In fact, if she was concocting a false story, that kind of thing is easier to remember and stick to. And I don't see any advantage in lying about where she was when Andrew came home. Upstairs, on the stairs, in the hall, in the kitchen...what would it matter?

It only matters for one thing: corroborating Bridget's testimony.

According to Lizzie's version of events, she took laundry to her room, spent some minutes there, then came down to go to the kitchen and finish her ironing. She spoke with her father in the dining room, and then in the sitting room. She could have been in her room when her father jiggled the lock, on the stairs as Bridget let him in, and in the kitchen by the time he entered. If that were the case, she would hardly remember the precise location. Especially if she were innocent.

As far as the dress burning...come on. Wouldn't she at least lock the door? I mean that would not arouse suspicion...they tended to lock all rooms anyway. And wouldn't it have been wise to tear up the dress into pieces before burning it...in which case Emma would not have known it was a dress? I mean it almost suggests Lizzie WANTED to arouse suspicion. Maybe she wanted attention, who knows. Or maybe it was just an innocent act, and she was burning a different dress, as was confirmed in the trial by the contractor who testified seeing the dress in the closet.

I don't think where she was when Andrew got home is important, nor are her changing statements on that. And the burning dress seems no odder than Bowen's actions. Hard to conclude anything.

What mostly condemns Lizzie are the simple indisputable truths: two murders, an hour and a half apart, and neither Bridget or Lizzie see or hear anything; a very security conscious home, with most doors kept locked, even those inside; a very narrow window for Andrew's murder; and a densely inhabited neighborhood where no one(or no one credible) saw anyone running away through the yards or up the streets.

Without a magical transport device, it's hard to imagine how an intruder could have got into the house, committed 2 murders an hour an a half apart, and escaped into the city without someone seeing something.

However, that's not enough to draw a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. In the George Zimmerman case, we saw misconduct by the DA's office in withholding evidence that did not support their case. Those kinds of things happen and can never be ruled out. In the Borden case, there was re-positioned bodies; contradictory statements by police about the hatchet; and contradictory statements by police about the loft in the barn.

[Allen]

She was given the bromo caffeine on Thursday. Which is what I stated before. Bromo caffeine is the Victorian equivalent of taking an aspirin. She wasn't given any morphine until Friday, to be taken at bedtime, and even then nobody saw her take it. And as I said it was prescribed to be taken at bed time.

Trial testimony of Dr. Bowen: page 327

Q. I understand you to say on Friday you directed that the bromo caffeine be taken?
A. No, sir, Thursday.

Q. Not on Friday. You prescribed a second dose and took over from your office a bottle of it with directions how to be taken. I wish to know if, after that, you had occasion to prescribe for her on account of this mental distress and nervous excitement?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. When was it?
A. Friday.

Q. The next day?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was the prescription or medicine the same as the other?
A. It was different.

Q. What was it?
A. Sulfate of morphine.

Q. Well, what is commonly called morphine?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You directed morphine to be taken?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. In what doses?
A. One eighth of a grain.

Q. When?
A. Friday night, at bed-time.

Q. The next day you changed the medicine?
A. I did not change the medicine, but doubled the dose.

Q. That was on Saturday?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you continue the dose on Sunday?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you continue the dose on Monday?
A. Yes, sir.

I also understood that you said two other witnesses corroborated that Dr. Bowen said that Abby fainted. But did the confusion not arise from Dr. Bowen in the first place? Dr. Bowen was confused about Abby fainting, and this caused the confusion in the other witnesses who you keep saying corroborating that he said it. He said it, they heard it. I understood that part. But any confusion comes from Dr. Bowen himself. If he hadn't thought she fainted none of the other witnesses would have thought Dr. Bowen thought she fainted. The confusion arises from him.

There were many people who didn't return immediately. Mrs. Churchill hung around Hall's stable talking to the men there when she was supposed to be getting a doctor. Other's called the newspapers. Odd behaviors. But I am not sure how anyone should act when they walk into the scene of a double murder.

It was said that Dr. Bowen showed up at the house where John Morse was. His niece was ill. Every also corroborates that. I didn't see anything suspicious in a doctor visiting someone who is ill.

I've written a story about Dr. Bowen taking the hatchet away in his doctors bag. But I don't believe it's possible. First, Lizzie had no chance to give any weapon to doctor Bowen without being seen. The house was full of people. They were not in her room until after he went to send the telegram. And since Dr. Bowen had a horse and buggy, and everybody else there was on foot, he might have been sent because he had the faster means of travel. Alice Russell, Mrs. Churchill, the police, those were the other options. All on foot.

Where she was when Andrew came home means a lot. If she was upstairs she was in a position to have possibly seen Abby's body. She was upstairs with the dead body. I think she tried to distance herself from the body after she realized that fact. Just as she tried to distance herself from Andrew's murder by putting herself in the barn.

Emma knew what dress she was burning. According to Emma she is the one who told Lizzie she should burn the dress because it was paint stained anyway. And lock what door? The doors to come inside the house were all locked. They were all kept habitually locked. What contractor testified to seeing what dress in the closet? I believe the only one who testified to knowing it was in the closet was Emma. The dress maker testified to that she made the dress for Lizzie at around the time the house was being painted, and that it was indeed paint stained. The painter testified that yes he painted the house. And everybody testified that Lizzie continued to wear the dress even after it had paint on it. And Emma testified that she had told Lizzie to burn the dress. But because it was paint stained doesn't mean it couldn't have been stained with blood as well. She had been wearing it since May. It was not so badly stained that she stopped wearing it for two or three months she had it.

[PossumPie]

On Sept. 11th 2001 events occurred that were burned into my mind forever. I know exactly where I was, what I was doing, and the thoughts that went through my mind. BUT I did mis-remember some things. For years afterwards, I swore that I heard Katie Couric say "I wonder if it is some kind of air traffic control problem" When the second plane hit. I had been watching "The Today Show" when it happened. I could see in my mind Katie saying that, and thought at the time what a stupid theory, like two pilots couldn't see the buildings even with air traffic control telling them to fly into them! Years later I re-watched the events, and a witness on the telephone named Elliot Walker was the one who actually said it, NOT Katie Couric. This really caused a confusion for me b/c I KNEW I heard Katie say it. This shows how memory of small things can be tricked. HOWEVER, much of the other things I saw/heard matched exactly with what happened.

Lizzie would KNOW if she was standing on the stairs, heard the door jiggle, heard Bridget curse, and heard herself laugh. That is a combination of being somewhere, hearing something, and making a laugh. This is a complex memory. There is too much there to accidentally think you were there then remember you never were. Other things she seemed genuinely confused b/c they were trivial. Did she pick up a magazine first or a book? did she eat a banana or not? These things held no importance at the time, and were forgotten.

[leitskev]

Possum, all I can do is suggest some research into memory. I began this with a link above. Memory is unreliable and prone to suggestion. I have no idea why, if...if...Lizzie were innocent she should remember precisely where she was when an everyday occurrence happened(Andrew coming home). If no murder had taken place, and someone later asked her where she was when Andrew arrived, would she necessarily remember? I can see no reason to insist she would. So if she did not know that Andrew was about to be killed, I can think of no reason why these events would have meaning for her.

Allen, are you suggesting Bowen actually believed Abby had fainted? I mean, if Bowen examined Abby's body, saw the blood, saw the wounds, saw the blood splattered all over the bed...how would the word 'faint' ever have found its way into his dialogue? As I said, it's simply odd. And since 2 people heard him say it, he must have said something similar. Does this mean he's guilty of anything? No, but it serves to show how recollections of what people said are very unreliable and can seem very odd. If that can happen with Bowen, it's easy to imagine how it can happen with Lizzie, who was more central to the unfolding drama, and who from the early moments was under growing suspicion, if nothing else for her cool reaction. People expected her to be eyes aflutter and hyperventilating...standard Victorian style. That she was not made her suspicious. In reality, she may have been in shock.

As far as Bowen taken the hatchet...yes...it's a good theory, and I've considered it myself. And Lizzie WAS alone with Bowen in her room for some time. As he was her doctor, this was not seen as unusual at the time.

[Allen]

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have studied the reliability of the memory specifically as it applies to witnesses in a crime. I have a degree in criminal justice. Everyone is different and so every person's memory is different. Witness testimony can be unreliable. Memories can be unreliable. A witness may even identify the wrong person in a line up. But this is not the rule of thumb to live by with every statement and every witness in every case. And with anybody who changes their story constantly any member of law enforcement will tell you this is a definite red flag. Anyone who is innocent, and has trouble remembering what happened at a specific time is more likely to just say I don't know. Not create an elaborate ever changing story. The innocent have nothing at stake. Anyone who thinks they have something to hide will try to come up with those details. Even if it's constantly changing. I go by what I could remember about my day even if no murder had occurred. What I can remember about the past using my own memory. How good is it? Could I expect anyone else's memory to be better or worse? As for coming up with a murder plot and a terrible alibi, FBI profiler Candice Delong has pointed out that the down fall of many murderers is that they never think further than planning the actual crime. The majority of the planning goes into the murder itself and the alibi becomes an after thought.

[PossumPie]

leitskev, I too have studied memory extensively. I have a Master's Degree in Counseling Psychology, and specialized in PTSD and Trauma. I counseled school shooting victims, and found wild memory disparity. BUT, in some things they were certain. "I was sitting in the cafeteria talking with Joe when I heard gunshots"
Positional memory with regards to the moments leading up to a trauma are usually accurate. Lizzie may not remember what order she did some things that day, but there is enough associated with her position when her father came home (On the stairs, heard Bridget fooling with the lock, heard her say "Pshaw" Laughed out loud, Then continuing testimony the very next morning she started by saying "I never told you I was upstairs when he came home, I was in the kitchen." She was then told that she indeed did say that she was upstairs, but she stuck by the new story that she was in the kitchen. NOT "I am not sure, maybe I was upstairs" NOT "I don't remember" no, Lizzie swore that she never was upstairs, never laughed, and never said that she had. I am convinced that she realized that to admit to being up on the stairs was to put herself beside the room where the body lay.

[leitskev]

What would be the purpose of Lizzie changing her story on where she was when Andrew got home? It would be one thing if she changed her story to say she was never upstairs in the time after Abby's murder. But she never did. She always admitted being up there bringing laundry and mending a dress.

Look, I have been in the house, and I can't imagine someone walking up those stairs and not seeing Abby under the bed. Unless the door was closed. More on that in a moment.

The discussion at hand is about Lizzie changing her location from being on the stairs to in the kitchen. What does she gain from that? What am I missing?

We certainly understand why she would want to change her story about hearing something outside. It sounded made up, and she would have realized that later.

But what does it matter whether she was on the stairs or in the kitchen or somewhere in between? Someone has to explain that to me. It's not enough to say she changed her story, so she must be guilty. If there is no reason or advantage to changing a story, then it actually tends to support innocence rather than the other way around.

Unless I am wrong, even after she made the change, she still admitted to going upstairs to put away her clothes. If I am wrong, please tell me.

Is there anyway Lizzie could have gone up those stairs and somehow not seen Abby? Only if the door was closed. Let's say the killer remained in the room with Abby waiting for Andrew. He would have kept the door closed. And after he left to kill Andrew, he would have left it open, which was how it was found.

The only other possibly explanation would be if Lizzie's hands were so full of laundry that she just didn't look into the room. And it was said to be dark in there.

And yes, I think Lizzie did commit the crime. So I'm playing a little devil's advocate. But I do also have some legitimate doubts, too. The lack of a murder weapon is troubling, as it is in any murder case.

[Allen]

She has placed herself away from the body. I have explained my reason for why I think she changed her story and that was it. And I never said just because she changed her story it means she is guilty. But it is a definite red flag. Lizzie's version of events also contradicts just about every other witness who testified on just about every point. Changing it several times over several hours, and so drastically, that's not fading memory or being confused. You either heard a sound or you didn't. It was a groan or it was a scraping noise. A scraping noise sounds nothing like a human groan. It's the dramatic changes in her story. You either saw your father come in the door or you didn't. You heard Bridget utter an expletive or you didn't. You heard her fumbling with the locks or you didn't. These are not trivial happenings. You were up in the hot dusty loft for thirty minutes or twenty. Both times by the way are totally impossible in the timeline. You wanted lead for sinkers or were you fixing a screen? Or was it tin you wanted? That's not confusion. That's making things up on the fly. That's not fading memory. And there were no drugs administered. Bridget stated she heard Lizzie laugh from up on the landing at the top of the stairs. Which would indicate Lizzie was standing there listening. Standing right outside a room with a dead body in it. I have been to the house as well. I would concede it would be possible to walk up those stairs and not look over and see Abby. If you were carrying something, deep in thought, a number of reasons. But the more Lizzie admitted to going up and down those stairs the less likely it becomes she would not have seen the body at some point. Going up once and not seeing it maybe. But several times? Standing at the top of the stairs? Standing at the top of the stairs for any amount of time, even long enough to hear Bridget utter her exclamation and laugh, also stretches the imagination that she would not have seen Abby laying there. As for the laundry, in her inquest testimony Lizzie said she had gone upstairs to take some clean clothes up and basted a loop on the sleeve of a dress, and was coming down the stairs from her room after taking the clothes up when her father came in. The only person who said the guestroom door was closed at any time during that day was Lizzie. This would have been to her benefit. Everyone else found it open. It was somewhat dark in there. But it didn't stop the other witnesses from seeing the body in the same amount of light.

[Allen]

She also says Andrew rang the door bell to get in. Which he did not ring the door bell. She is also embellishing.

Q. Where were you when the bell rang?
A. I think in my room upstairs.
Q. Then you were upstairs when your father came home?
A. I don't know sure, but I think I was.
Q. What were you doing?
A. As I say I took up these clean clothes, and stopped and basted a little piece of tape on a garment.
Q. Did you come down before your father was let in?
A. I was on the stairs coming down when she let him in.
Q. Then you were upstairs when your father came to the house on his return?
A. I think I was.

[PossumPie]

I agree with Allen. Lizzie didn't realize the importance of the questioning at first..."Where were you when the bell rang?" "On the stairs coming down" BOOM...then it hit her. This guy is trying to say I was right beside the body! Crap, I shouldn't have said I was upstairs.

You must realize. EVERYONE who visits that house and ascends/descends the stairs looks into that room. There was a murder there. On an average day, with no reason to, wouldn't you just watch were you were going (up or down the stairs?) I don't think her seeing or not seeing into the room means guilt or innocence. I get frustrated when people say "I was at the house" you can see into the room!" So what...only if you are looking. And the bed mostly hid the body.

It's like an optical illusion...once you see the illusion, you can't 'un-see' it. Once you know about the guest room, going up and down the stairs you look in there. My step-daughter's room is at the top of my stairs...I certainly don't turn and look in there every single time I go up or down the stairs. I think all the fuss about open doors, closed doors, seeing in the room is a non-issue. I think Lizzie slowly understanding that the police made it an issue caused her to angrily deny she ever said it. Better to just say "I was on the stairs and never glanced over to my right and into the room. Sounds much more believable.

[Franz]

If I recall correctly, Lizzie always testified that when she went up and down passing by there, the door of the guest room was closed.

[leitskev]

the door: until people went looking for Abby, no one but Lizzie would have been up there to see whether the door was closed. If Lizzie was innocent, then the killer must have still been in the house, and likely was in the guest room with Abby's corpse. He would have had the door closed. And when he left to kill Andrew, he would have left it open, there being no reason to close it.

If Lizzie was guilty, logic suggests she would be likely to close the door. Instinct is to cover the crime. With the door open, just a few steps up the stairs and the body was visible.

Would someone see the body if they were not looking for one? Who can say. But 2 people did: Mrs. Churchill and Bridget. True, they were looking for Abby...but not necessarily for a body. So it's hard to say. IMO, the stairs wind toward the room, almost leaving you facing the door, and it would be hard to miss.

where she was when Andrew came home: if Lizzie was coming from her room to go downstairs, her back would be to the guest room. She would not see the body, she was hardly right beside it. The only time she could have seen the body would have been going up the stairs, and that part of her story did not change: she went up to her room. The only part of her story related to Andrew's arriving that changed was when she came down from her room. Maybe she was in her room and heard the door...maybe she was on the stairs on her way down...maybe she passed Bridget as she was opening the door. How does it matter? In any version of events, she admits going up the stairs and walking by the guest room on the way to her room. I don't see how it benefits her to change the story from she was in her room to she had just come down from her room. She could have stood on that landing for 10 minutes and she would never have seen the body unless she turned around. And even then...she would not have seen it! It was hidden by the bed, which you could only see under if you were on the stairs. In fact, the only way one could ever see Abby was on the stairs, going up, and only for a few stairs were you were at just the right level to see under the be. And as far as I know, her testimony that she went up once never changed.

As for her saying she was in the loft for 20 minutes, yes, it was impossible. At most it could have been 10 or 15 minutes. But time is difficult to calculate, especially in that non-digital age. Why lie if the lie is not going to make sense?

What was she doing in the loft? Her story changes...but even this is hard to make sense of. I mean let's grant that she never went into the barn and made that up. How hard is it to make up one story and stick with it? I mean isn't this the same conniver that killed her her mother in law, cleaned up and dealt with Bridget and Andrew as though nothing happened, then killed Andrew, then cleaned up and hid the weapon and appeared calm? How come someone like that can't keep a simple story straight?

Before people keep getting upset, this is just a discussion. I'm not even saying she is innocent. It's fun speculation. I find things odd. Bowen's actions, Morses...very odd. And Lizzie's. Her actions don't make sense to me whether I view her as innocent or guilty. If she is guilty, the confused version of events she relates seems strange to me. She ought to have been capable of coming up with a simple story and sticking to it. She ought to have made some attempt at staging a crime scene. In fact, there there is evidence that hints at some scheming before the crime: her conversation with Alice the night before suggests someone trying to create a scenario where someone might be after the Bordens; and she seemed to be trying to get Bridgett out of the house.

I'm just saying that no version of events seems to neatly add up. That's why the case intrigues.

[Allen]

I am not upset about anything. I am just giving my side of the discussion. You give your points, I give mine. Because I disagree with you does not mean that I am upset. It just means I disagree with you.

The alibi and making a story and sticking to it: If, as FBI profiler Delong stated, most murderers do not think of the alibi part of the plan until after the murder that could explain why the story keeps changing. She's making it up as she goes along. She's realizing her mistakes as she goes along. I was out in the yard and heard a groan. No I heard a scraping sound. (Wait, if I was out in the yard and heard a sound someone else should have heard the same sound. Nobody did. Revise.) I was up in the barn looking for iron to fix my screen. ( Did her screen need fixed? Was there iron in the barn?) I was looking for tin. (For what?) I was looking for lead to make sinkers. (AH I WAS PLANNING TO GO FISHING.) I was up in my room when father came home. (Wait that's close to the body. The door was open. ) No, maybe I was coming down the stairs from taking up some clothes. (Still puts me upstairs with the body. If you're a killer with a guilty conscience you don't want to put yourself anywhere near your crime.) No, maybe I was in the kitchen. And etc.

[leitskev]

But doesn't the conversation the night before suggest she was planning her alibi? And after she killed Abby, didn't she have an hour and a half to think of her alibi? After all, the presumption is she was cool enough to clean herself up, change her clothing and hide the weapon in minutes.

Who would have heard a noise in the yard? Bridget on the third floor? Mrs. Churchill in her house? I do think this change in story is troubling, though, because she was probably told that Andrew's death would have been instant. Though if she killed him, I guess she knew that. So I'm not sure why she changed it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she tell Mrs. Churchill that Andrew had been stabbed? If so, was she being clever here? And if she was being clever, why wasn't she clever enough to stick to a simple story?

There was a box of scrap iron in the loft. Is it possible she was looking for scrap for both things? Don't get me wrong, this part of her changing story is very suspicious. But so is Morse's careful alibi and strange behavior. And so is Bowen's burning of notes. And they are unlikely to all be guilty of something.

[Allen]

But doesn't the conversation the night before suggest she was planning her alibi? And after she killed Abby, didn't she have an hour and a half to think of her alibi? After all, the presumption is she was cool enough to clean herself up, change her clothing and hide the weapon in minutes.

Who would have heard a noise in the yard? Bridget on the third floor? Mrs. Churchill in her house? I do think this change in story is troubling, though, because she was probably told that Andrew's death would have been instant. Though if she killed him, I guess she knew that. So I'm not sure why she changed it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she tell Mrs. Churchill that Andrew had been stabbed? If so, was she being clever here? And if she was being clever, why wasn't she clever enough to stick to a simple story?

There was a box of scrap iron in the loft. Is it possible she was looking for scrap for both things? Don't get me wrong, this part of her changing story is very suspicious. But so is Morse's careful alibi and strange behavior. And so is Bowen's burning of notes. And they are unlikely to all be guilty of something.

Not really. It doesn't suggest any type of alibi. It suggests someone wants to harm the Borden's. If she had said something about going out somewhere the next day to Alice Russell, and then went out, that would have been planning an alibi. Nothing in that conversation suggests alibi. As it stands for me all she had in mind was murder. Most of the planning goes into the murder.

If Lizzie was out in the yard and heard a noise inside the house, anyone passing by could have heard a noise as well? The windows were open in many of the houses around the Borden home. Anyone within the same range could hear it?

There were many things in the loft. The trouble with her going there to get lead/iron/tin is that she spent all that time up in the hot dusty loft looking for this and that and came back with...nothing.

[Franz]

the door: until people went looking for Abby, no one but Lizzie would have been up there to see whether the door was closed. If Lizzie was innocent, then the killer must have still been in the house, and likely was in the guest room with Abby's corpse. He would have had the door closed. And when he left to kill Andrew, he would have left it open, there being no reason to close it.

If Lizzie was guilty, logic suggests she would be likely to close the door. Instinct is to cover the crime. With the door open, just a few steps up the stairs and the body was visible.

Would someone see the body if they were not looking for one? Who can say. But 2 people did: Mrs. Churchill and Bridget. True, they were looking for Abby...but not necessarily for a body. So it's hard to say. IMO, the stairs wind toward the room, almost leaving you facing the door, and it would be hard to miss.

where she was when Andrew came home: if Lizzie was coming from her room to go downstairs, her back would be to the guest room. She would not see the body, she was hardly right beside it. The only time she could have seen the body would have been going up the stairs, and that part of her story did not change: she went up to her room. The only part of her story related to Andrew's arriving that changed was when she came down from her room. Maybe she was in her room and heard the door...maybe she was on the stairs on her way down...maybe she passed Bridget as she was opening the door. How does it matter? In any version of events, she admits going up the stairs and walking by the guest room on the way to her room. I don't see how it benefits her to change the story from she was in her room to she had just come down from her room. She could have stood on that landing for 10 minutes and she would never have seen the body unless she turned around. And even then...she would not have seen it! It was hidden by the bed, which you could only see under if you were on the stairs. In fact, the only way one could ever see Abby was on the stairs, going up, and only for a few stairs were you were at just the right level to see under the be. And as far as I know, her testimony that she went up once never changed.

As for her saying she was in the loft for 20 minutes, yes, it was impossible. At most it could have been 10 or 15 minutes. But time is difficult to calculate, especially in that non-digital age. Why lie if the lie is not going to make sense?

What was she doing in the loft? Her story changes...but even this is hard to make sense of. I mean let's grant that she never went into the barn and made that up. How hard is it to make up one story and stick with it? I mean isn't this the same conniver that killed her her mother in law, cleaned up and dealt with Bridget and Andrew as though nothing happened, then killed Andrew, then cleaned up and hid the weapon and appeared calm? How come someone like that can't keep a simple story straight?

Before people keep getting upset, this is just a discussion. I'm not even saying she is innocent. It's fun speculation. I find things odd. Bowen's actions, Morses...very odd. And Lizzie's. Her actions don't make sense to me whether I view her as innocent or guilty. If she is guilty, the confused version of events she relates seems strange to me. She ought to have been capable of coming up with a simple story and sticking to it. She ought to have made some attempt at staging a crime scene. In fact, there there is evidence that hints at some scheming before the crime: her conversation with Alice the night before suggests someone trying to create a scenario where someone might be after the Bordens; and she seemed to be trying to get Bridgett out of the house.

I'm just saying that no version of events seems to neatly add up. That's why the case intrigues.

Leitskev, I agree with you in many points. And you explaned them much better than me. Thank you.

[PossumPie]

But doesn't the conversation the night before suggest she was planning her alibi? And after she killed Abby, didn't she have an hour and a half to think of her alibi? After all, the presumption is she was cool enough to clean herself up, change her clothing and hide the weapon in minutes.

Who would have heard a noise in the yard? Bridget on the third floor? Mrs. Churchill in her house? I do think this change in story is troubling, though, because she was probably told that Andrew's death would have been instant. Though if she killed him, I guess she knew that. So I'm not sure why she changed it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she tell Mrs. Churchill that Andrew had been stabbed? If so, was she being clever here? And if she was being clever, why wasn't she clever enough to stick to a simple story?

There was a box of scrap iron in the loft. Is it possible she was looking for scrap for both things? Don't get me wrong, this part of her changing story is very suspicious. But so is Morse's careful alibi and strange behavior. And so is Bowen's burning of notes. And they are unlikely to all be guilty of something.

Be careful that your personal "filters" through which you see the case are not getting clouded by the overwhelming idea that people's memories are not perfect. I agree that they are not, but you cannot allow yourself to brush off every contradiction and strange thing Lizzie said, or did, and chalk it up to poor memory. She absolutely got some things confused...they were grilling her hard. BUT she also purposely changed her story and fabricated parts as well.

To be clear, walking down 2 or 3 steps to the landing your back is to the guest room but you then must turn to the right to descend the rest of the stairs, and immediately to your right is a bannister and the door to the guest room. It doesn't matter if the door were open or closed. What matters is Lizzie clearly remembered being on the stairs then quickly denied what she had said, and insisted that she was downstairs when he came home. Never once did she show any confusion and say, "I think" or "I might have been," or "I forget..." she realized how close to the murder that first statement put her, so she insisted that she never was up there.

A person can try to formulate an alibi, but things happen unforeseen. So they start making things up on the fly...then they contradict themselves, then they lie to cover the lie...

[Allen]

Let me just ask a simple question. If an hour from now I asked you what all you had done in the last hour, would it really be that hard for you to remember? Is anyone's memory really that poor? If their memory is that poor I have doubts about how well they can function on their own.

In the last hour I woke up because it was cold in my house and the heat needed to be turned up. Then I couldn't go back to sleep. I got something to drink and sat flipping through the channels to see there was nothing on at this hour but infomercials and reruns I'd seen a hundred times. So I came to the computer. I watched a few videos on youtube. I logged into Facebook and checked my messages because I had sent a message to my son and I wanted to see if he answered me. Then I went to the bathroom. I even had to put on a new roll of toilet paper. I put my husbands dirty clothes in the hamper because he never does. I searched out my slippers because my feet were cold. Then I logged into the forum and read the new posts. And now I am replying. If I can remember what I did in the last hour why is it inconceivable that anyone else could? Or am I trying to come up with an alibi for a murder that's why I remember what I just did so well.

[Allen]

One more thought. John Morse remembering the number of the street car he took home can be taken in the same context as we have to know when we go to the subway which train we're going to take home. When we are at the bus stop we have to know what bus to get on to go home. It's the same thing. Morse had to know which street car to take. Why would you not remember the number of the street car that brings you home. Would you not know which subway train you had to ride?

[PossumPie]

I agree, Allen. I will go so far as to say that 5 days ago, Thanksgiving, I know what I did. It is a bit harder to remember the details of the ORDER in which they were done, but I remember. Some things stand out sharply- I remember that about 10:30 I carried the turkey out to the grill. I had turned it on to pre-heat earlier, and decided I was going to grill it for a few hours, put the electronic thermometer in it, and bring it into the oven inside to finish. There was no great significance to this, I know where I was standing when I decided it. My mother-in-law got me a corny Baltimore Ravens apron, which was sweet of her, and I wanted her to see me wearing it. BUT I don't remember exactly when I put it on, before or after the Turkey was brought in. My point, like Allen's, is unless you are severely mentally retarded, you remember the framework of your day. Perhaps you get some details switched around, but some PAIRING of events stick with you. I was at the counter in the kitchen mixing up some baked corn when the doorbell rang and my mother-in-law came in. I quickly stopped what I was doing, wiped my hands, and hurried to the door. Her hands were full of packages and I was afraid she'd trip. She had had knee replacement surgery a year ago, and she had difficulty stepping up to get in our door. That is as clear as crystal to me. I wouldn't say I was coming down the stairs when the doorbell rang, I KNOW I wasn't.

[Aamartin]

One more thought. John Morse remembering the number of the street car he took home can be taken in the same context as we have to know when we go to the subway which train we're going to take home. When we are at the bus stop we have to know what bus to get on to go home. It's the same thing. Morse had to know which street car to take. Why would you not remember the number of the street car that brings you home. Would you not know which subway train you had to ride?

exactly! Anyone who relies on public transportation is well versed on such things.

[NancyDrew]

Allen, you remembered what you did in the past hour, but then again, you were comfortable and safe in your nice warm home. Lizzie had just bludgeoned 2 people to death. Her adrenaline HAD to be pumping out hard. Could this have affected her ability to remember? (PossumPie you coudl probably answer this one since you have questioned trauma witnesses.)

Which brings me to a point that bothers me. Why wasn't she shaking? Who kills someone--their own father--and doens't have a physiological reaction to it? How can she have acted so cooly--either way? If she DID kill her parents, she had to be the coldest, meanest, most uncompassionate person alive, a sociopath, to be able to act with such calmness.

But then I look at it the other way...if she didn't kill her parents, then she came within inches of death herself, having been in the house with a crazed killer. That would have really upset me. I don't understand Lizzie at all, can't get inside her head. She is a very peculiar person...I think I too, would have been scared of her if I lived on that street and came into contact with her after the acquittal (I've always secretly wondered if Emma left because she was afraid of Lizzie...but that is a different topic.)

But to bring it back 'round again, I think the changes in her memory have been explained very well here. I was watching a movie this morning in which Edward G. Robinson plays a criminologist and he states "the killer spends a great deal of time planning the crime itself, but not what they will do afterwards."

[Franz]

...
A person can try to formulate an alibi, but things happen unforeseen. So they start making things up on the fly...then they contradict themselves, then they lie to cover the lie...

It is generally believed that if Lizzie was guilty, she should have premeditated the murder. Assuming that this is true. And I take two littile details as examples: 1) Lizzie testified that she asked to her father in the sitting room if he wanted the window to be left as it was. This could have happened as she said, nor not. In any case, the interpretation should be that Lizzie wanted to demonstrate to the police her kindness to her father (it was obviously a false kindness, since she killed her father a few minutes later); 2) she asked Dr. Bowen to manage his words to say to Emma in the telegraph, in order not to terrifiy that old woman with her. These words, pronounced by a barbaric murderess as Lizzie, I can only consider them as a false kindness either.

Now, my question: Lizzie premeditated the double murder, Ok. But if she had thought these two (very) little things (in order to give to the police a positive impression about her (false) kindness), but two things by far much less important in comparaison with her alibi testimony, I hardly believe that she didn't prepare a good alibi story and then, as Leitskeiv said, stick on it. Lizzie should have known as every one of us that her alibi story was one of the most important and crucial things that she must prepare with a great attention. Could I believe that she didn't take care about this, but, instead, she prepared two little things (above mentioned), which had almost no importance at all to save her life?

Even if Lizzie decided to kill Abby in a moment of angry (some people think so), and then, decided to kill Andrew as well, in other words, the double murder was not (totally) premeditated. Ok, Lizzie's alibi concerned especially to Andrew's murder. In this case, I hardly believe as well that Lizzie, during that one hour and a half between the two murders, didn't prepare a good alibi story. And I hardly believe that Lizzie, after having killed Abby, acted as if nothing happened, and didn't worry about nothing at all, and then, when her father returned, she decided only in that moment to kill him (therefore she didn't prepare well her alibi story). No, this is something of inimaginable for me.

Allen said that we all have different opinions about the same fact. Yes, Lizzie's changing her alibi story, if this is for you a circumstancial evidence against Lizzie, I think, on the contrary, that this could be - I am not saying "this is" - something in favor of her innocence.

[PossumPie]

Franz, the thing you are not understanding is that you cannot predict who will come in, what they will say, what will happen AFTER you commit murder. You can plan the murder and your alibi very carefully, but if a police officer asks you a question that you didn't anticipate, you will have to make up a lie right then and there, then remember the lie you made up. Telling the truth has one huge advantage. You don't have to remember which lie you just told. You talk about an alibi like it is one statement you make to the people around you, and they have no chance to ask follow up questions. I don't care if she planned the murder for 5 years, she couldn't anticipate every question someone would ask her. IF she were telling the truth, she would have told nearly the same story each time, and she would have said, "I'm not sure" about small details. Because she kept changing her story, and almost never said "I don't know" in her statements, that suggests to me that she was making up at least part of her testimony.

[Aamartin]

Franz, the thing you are not understanding is that you cannot predict who will come in, what they will say, what will happen AFTER you commit murder. You can plan the murder and your alibi very carefully, but if a police officer asks you a question that you didn't anticipate, you will have to make up a lie right then and there, then remember the lie you made up. Telling the truth has one huge advantage. You don't have to remember which lie you just told. You talk about an alibi like it is one statement you make to the people around you, and they have no chance to ask follow up questions. I don't care if she planned the murder for 5 years, she couldn't anticipate every question someone would ask her. IF she were telling the truth, she would have told nearly the same story each time, and she would have said, "I'm not sure" about small details. Because she kept changing her story, and almost never said "I don't know" in her statements, that suggests to me that she was making up at least part of her testimony.

This is a VERY good post-- and a VERY good point.

[Franz]

Franz, the thing you are not understanding is that you cannot predict who will come in, what they will say, what will happen AFTER you commit murder. You can plan the murder and your alibi very carefully, but if a police officer asks you a question that you didn't anticipate, you will have to make up a lie right then and there, then remember the lie you made up. Telling the truth has one huge advantage. You don't have to remember which lie you just told. You talk about an alibi like it is one statement you make to the people around you, and they have no chance to ask follow up questions. I don't care if she planned the murder for 5 years, she couldn't anticipate every question someone would ask her. IF she were telling the truth, she would have told nearly the same story each time, and she would have said, "I'm not sure" about small details. Because she kept changing her story, and almost never said "I don't know" in her statements, that suggests to me that she was making up at least part of her testimony.

I think I can see what you mean, PossumPie, but concerning what she was doing in the barn, Lizzie, if guilty, could, and should indeed, have made a solid version. This, in my opinion, doesn't depend of "who will come in, what they will say, what will happen AFTER you commit murder". I would be more convinced of Lizzie's guilt if she could have resisted for a certain time with an apparently perfect alibi testimony, but since a lie is always a lie, some other little details (Lizzie, if guilty, could not have foreseen every detail of her murder plan)come out to contradict her alibi version - I hope I explan well what I want to say -. But she began to state different versions about what she was doing in the barn from the very first moments, this always seems to me that Lizzie most probably didn't prepare at all her alibi.

I agree with you when you say: "Because she kept changing her story, and almost never said "I don't know" in her statements, that suggests to me that she was making up at least part of her testimony." Me too I think that Lizzie "was making up at least part of her testimony". This could indicate that she was trying to cover her murder crime, but this could indicate as well that she was trying to cover something else, which had nothing to do with the murder. Since I think that if she had a murder crime to cover, she should have prepared a good alibi version but indeed she hadn't, I prefer to think that her changing her alibi version could be a sign of innocence; she didn't prepare any alibi story, because she didn't premeidtate to murder anyone. Only after the discovery of her father's body, she realised suddenly that she must explan where she was and what she was doing at that moment, so she (partly) fabricated quickly her alibi testimony, she changed it more than one time in order to find a more convincing version.

[Franz]

... I don't care if she planned the murder for 5 years, she couldn't anticipate every question someone would ask her. IF she were telling the truth, she would have told nearly the same story each time...

I reply a second time for two more specific points:

1. Yes, if Lizzie was guilty, she could not anticipate every question someone would ask her. But, "Lizzie, what were you doing (in the barn)?" was always the same and one question. I couldn't understand why she changed her version if she, being guilty, had prepared a ready one.

2. "If she were telling the truth, she would have told nearly the same story each time". Right, but if she wanted to tell a false story, she could have told the same story as well. The homogeneity of the story couldn't prove the story itself was true or false. (In other words, if Lizzie did give us a same story, would you believe automatically that she was telling the truth?)

It is obvious that she Lizzie was not telling the truth (at least not totally). But must this indicate that the truth she wanted to cover was that she was killing her father? Couldn't we think an alternative answer? Is it forbidden to think an alternative answer?

[Allen]

Franz, what could Lizzie be covering up that she was willing to risk going to trial for murder than tell? Smoking a cigar? That's just ridiculous. Drinking? Again, ridiculous. There is nothing you could say she was doing in the barn that would be so awful she would rather go to trial for murder than admit to it. Smoking and drinking would be way less detrimental to her social standing than murder. I doubt the town of Fall River would have shunned her for smoking a cigar or drinking a little alcohol. But they did in the end for the murders.

[Franz]

Franz, what could Lizzie be covering up that she was willing to risk going to trial for murder than tell? Smoking a cigar? That's just ridiculous. Drinking? Again, ridiculous. There is nothing you could say she was doing in the barn that would be so awful she would rather go to trial for murder than admit to it. Smoking and drinking would be way less detrimental to her social standing than murder. I doubt the town of Fall River would have shunned her for smoking a cigar or drinking a little alcohol. But they did in the end for the murders.

Allen, I see what you mean. But,

1. Smoking or drinking has been considered seriously by, among others, NancyDrew for the reason that the two sisters definitively separated. Lizzie could have been left by her own sister Emma probably because of smoking or drinking. If this could happen to Emma, imagine how the people of Fall River would react, more than 10 years earlier.

2. I repeat, if at that moment, Lizzie, being innocent and being, certainly, sure of her innocence, didn't really realise the risk she was running (facing a trial, even conviction, etc...), she could have tried to cover her (so considered at that time) scandalous behaviour. Especially immediately after the discovery of her father's body, she couldn't foresee at all that she would be suspected, so, when asked by Dr. Bowen, Mrs. Churchill, instead of confessing: "Oh, Mrs. Churchill, at that moment I was in the barn and was smoking a cigar", she lied: "I was searching this." (Oh this lie was not a good one), "I was searching that." Because she had told these lies, when questioned by Kownlton, she had to continue, without realising yet the big risk.

[Allen]

Good Health 1898 Volume 33 Good Health Publishing Company, 1898 page 313