Who let Morse in?

[camgarsky4]

On the website Stefani calls out some examples of testimony contradictions. The one I find most perplexing is "Who let Morse in?". I've pasted the testimonies that Stefani provided below.

She got me thinking and reading. If you read Churchill and Morse testimonies below, they are very similar except that Churchill quotes herself and John quotes Bridget. What Churchill and Bridget say about "somebody has kill both Mr. & Mrs Borden" as their primary content is almost identical. So my take is that John confused Churchill for Bridget. If you read the testimonies with that in mind, that could reconcile things and its not unreasonable.

However, I'm coming up zero's on what could explain the Sawyer testimony. Not only is Sawyer taking a speaking role in his version (which Morse specifically doesn't mention), but Morse's approach to the side door (coming from front gate) is polar opposite of Morse/Churchill testimony. So that might suggest that Sawyer doesn't know who John is (mistaken identify). However, that doesn't fly was you read Sawyer quote John mentioning being offered dinner. That is something only John would mention. So Sawyer didn't mistake someone else for John.

Does anyone have potential explanations for the Sawyer vs Morse testimony?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefani writes.....In the Inquest testimony, there are three different versions, by three different people, as to who let Morse into the house upon his return after the murders and whether there was a crowd outside at that time or not.

Mrs. Churchill (p. 130-131) says

lots of people outside
Morse came in steps from yard not from street side
doesn’t mention Sawyer by the door
says she let Morse in and spoke to him first.
“I says ‘Mr. Morse, something terrible has happened, somebody has killed both Mr. and Mrs. Borden.’ He says ‘what’, and hollered ‘Lizzie’, as loud as he could holler, and rushed into the dining room. Alice Russell heard him and I think let him in [to the dining room], and he went into the sitting room and the door was closed between the sitting room and the kitchen”

SAWYER (p. 138-139)

Morse came in from gate [at front of house]
says there was quite a crowd there
says Morse was not eating a pear
Q: What did he do when you told him?
A: ‘My God,” he says, “what kind of God have we got that will permit a deed like this to be done?” Something like that.
Q: What did he do then?
A: He stood there a few minutes and finally went inside of the door.
Q: Whether he had been in before or not, you don’t know?
A: No sir, he had not been in at that door before; that was the first time I had seen him.
Q: You had been near the door all the time?
A: Yes sir, from the time I went there with Officer Allen, I should judge that might have been a little after eleven.

MORSE (p. 104-105)

says no people or crowd “to attract his attention” in the street
no mention of Churchill at all, says he saw Sawyer “by the door”
Q: When was the first you heard that Mr. Borden was killed?
A: When I went into the door. I went around, before I went into the house, to a pear tree to get a couple of pears. When I came back, the servant girl met me at the door, and asked if I had heard the news. I said no. She said Mr. and Mrs. Borden were both murdered. A man named Sawyer stood there at the time.

So who is lying and who is telling the truth and who is merely mistaken for whatever reason?

Who Let Morse In? © 2001 Stefani Koorey

[Franz]

For me "let" means "to invite / to give permission to / to suggest to, somebody to do something". If my understanding is correct, I think nobody let Morse in --- Morse went into the house (by the side door) by himself, freely, without asking the permission to nobody, without being invited or suggested by nobody to do so.
I always think that :
1, Morse met Bridget in the yard;
2, Morse then met Mr. Sawyer by the door;
3, Morse stood by the door "a few minutes" before going into the house (Mr. Sawyer SAW Morse enter, not "let Morse in");
4, Mrs. Churchill, who was being IN the house, came first to MEET Morse and SPOKE to him (not "let Morse in").
Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Rolie Polie]

You're correct about the definition of "let". It does mean that, but it has a double usage. I think that "Let", in the case of letting someone in the house, is a colloquialism for just opening the door for someone who is about to enter. You'd even say it for the dog, "let the dog in; let the dog out." The dog belongs there, he just wants to get in. Andrew had a key and couldn't get in that day. Bridget let him in.

Anyway, I have read much that the testimony regarding this particular event was contradictory. I wonder why he would be eating pears if he was going to lunch in the next 20 minutes...

[Franz]

I think that "Let", in the case of letting someone in the house, is a colloquialism for just opening the door for someone who is about to enter.

I agree. However, in this case, when Morse went into the house, Mr. Sawyer was the person nearest to the side door (from the outside of the house); Mrs. Churchill was the first person to meet Morse when he had entered the house. Did Mr. Sawyer or Mrs. Churchill open the door to Morse? By my understanding of their testimony, my answer is no. None of them opened the door to Morse; Morse opened it himself.

[Franz]

I wonder why he would be eating pears if he was going to lunch in the next 20 minutes...

I can eat anything before a meal.
What seems to me more strange is Morse's standing by the door "a few minutes" before going into the house. For you English-speaking people how long at least "a few minutes" should mean? At least two? At least one and a half? What was he thinking about in those "few minutes"? Just strange (for the least) to me…

[camgarsky4]

Franz -- hi! Thrilled to have you back on the forum....I enjoyed all the banter you used to have with the other posters.

Above you listed some of your understandings.......
#4, I've provided a correction that Churchill did "let Morse in".
4, Mrs. Churchill, who was being IN the house, came first to MEET Morse and SPOKE to him (not "let Morse in").
Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think you'll find Churchill's inquest testimony informative:
Churchill Inquest Testimony
Q. Did you see Mr. Morse before you went home?
A. Yes sir, he came before I went home.
Q About what time in the order of events did he come?
A. Both Mr. and Mrs. Borden had been found when he came. I think I was
the first one that let him in. I says "Mr. Morse, something terrible has happened,
somebody has killed both Mr. and Mrs. Borden."

Also, Morse 'thought' that Bridget was the person that greeted him at the door.....as Churchill testified, it was actually her that 'let' him in the house and told him about the murders. Bridget never testifies that she saw Morse when he arrived at the house. Each time Morse is asked if it was Bridget who greeted him at the door, he says "I think" it was Bridget. I believe that Morse's recollection mistook Bridget for Churchill which can be readily understood in the context of the extreme confusion, tension and shock of that moment.

By the way, he did not see or talk to Bridget in the yard as he approached the steps upon his return to the Bordens.

Hope this helps.

[MaryM]

I can eat anything before a meal.
What seems to me more strange is Morse's standing by the door "a few minutes" before going into the house. For you English-speaking people how long at least "a few minutes" should mean? At least two? At least one and a half? What was he thinking about in those "few minutes"? Just strange (for the least) to me…

Morse eating the pears doesn’t seem odd to me. My Girl Scout troop used to go hiking and our troop leader taught us to bring a piece of fruit to eat when we would turn to hike back, the natural sugars in the apple or pear would keep us from being thirsty again too soon. I can imagine someone who had been walking, waiting for the trolley, etc on a hot day would feel a bit parched and a nice pear would quench their thirst.

[camgarsky4]

Agree

[PossumPie]

The most unreliable component of discovering truth is eyewitness testimony, yet we place it at the top of the pile in a court trial. On September 11th 2001 I was watching the "Today Show" with Matt Lauer and Katie Couric when the first plane hit. It shocked them (and me) and the following events were etched in our memory. I distinctly remember Couric saying "I wonder if there are air traffic control problems." and thinking No pilot is that dumb that they would allow air traffic control to put them on a path through a building. For years I believed Katie had said that remark until I happened on the actual television archive footage that morning. It wasn't Katie Couric at all, but an NBC producer named Elliot Walker who was being interviewed during the event. My recollection had been wrong. But I could SEE Katie saying it! That event more than anything proved to me how horrible eyewitness testimony is if I was that wrong about who said what.

Multiple people in multiple states of fear and sorrow remember events out of order, wrong people, wrong places. All of the minute details about when Morse came to the door, did he eat pears or not? Did the officer let him in, or a neighbor, or did he let himself in...It is a jumbled mess in everyone's mind. Just like the false but generally accepted idea about it being "The hottest day on record" (It was actually low to mid 80s per the actual meteorological data for that date) The legend says the streets were swelling with thousands of people talking about the murders. HOWEVER, many directly testified that at the time Morse returned there was no one around except the two we know of at the side door. The crowds were concocted to sell newspapers although by evening there had been more people congregating.