The Unbelievable & iterative nature of Lizzie's alibi

[camgarsky4]

We all know of the iterative nature of Lizzie's barn alibi story. Started w/ being in back yard, then getting iron from barn, then getting iron to fix a screen and eventually evolving into searching for fishing sinkers. Key headline is that within 30 minutes of killings she was "in back yard" and by later afternoon "back yard" had transformed into being "hunt for fishing equipment."

While the evolving alibi is troubling on its own merit, to me, what gives me even more pauses regarding her story is Lizzie's way of describing where she was when Andrew was killed. Below are her statements to police a very short time after the killings. In both statements, she goes to the barn, but then oddly describes her visit in length of time vs. what she was doing.

Witness Statement - Fleet police notes
“I was ironing handkerchiefs in the Dining room, which I left and went in the barn, up stairs, and
remained there for half an hour. Bridget had gone up stairs, and when I came back I found father dead
on the lounge, and went to the back stairs and called Bridget (servant) down stairs. Told her that some
one had killed father, and told her to get Dr. Bowen.”

Witness Statement - Doherty police notes
Miss Lizzie. “Saw father, when he returned from the P.O. He sat down to read the paper. I
went out to the barn, remained twenty minutes; returned, and found him dead. Saw no one in the yard when going to or returning from the barn. Heard no noise whatever while in the barn.” (To a question.)

I don't think anyone talks that way. It would be natural to say....."went in the barn to get fishing gear".....not..."I went to barn for 20 minutes". Only reason you'd reference time vs. action is if you didn't know what the action was. Why didn't the police ask the very logical next question....what were you doing in the loft for 20/30 minutes? If put on the spot just an hour after the murders, you have to wonder what version of the alibi we'd be debating today? Bet it wouldn't have been wondering if she was really searching for fishing sinkers. Maybe she'd have stuck with the screen repair story that she told Alice. Then the police could have asked to see said broken screen. And if that screen didn't exist......
I don't think the fishing gear hunt aspect of the barn visit was thought of by Lizzie until hours later as she waited in her bedroom and then she shared that evening with dear Uncle Hiram Harrington, who then shared the story with the newspaper. That is the version of the alibi which Lizzie shared the next week at the Inquest.

[Steve88778]

I personally believe Lizzie was good at leading these cops to places and things that have no meaning at all. The hatchet for example. She tells the servant girl to show the police where they kept the hatchet. Didn't the police think that - why would she be so quick to leading us to the murder weapon ? - Oh by the way look here's a hatchet that stands out like a sore thumb. Common officers.... study this handleless hatchet carefully...... focus all your attention on it. You will find nothing, because she made it look like it had meaning, IMO - a clean break on the handle and covered with a material that is not like the others.
I am curious though , did they find any dirt/dust on the bottom of her dress that matches the floor of the upstairs attic ? If not , did women did carry their dresses up a little to avoid dragging ?

[camgarsky4]

Good question about dirt on dress hem from being in the loft.

On a similar note, Alice testified on Lizzie's clean hands.....the defense clearing indicating that no blood on hands = innocent. Problem is, what about dirty hands from rummaging thru an old dusty box in a dusty loft. She came straight in and found Andrew, but didn't mention washing her hands first.

[Steve88778]

She might have washed in the barn - who knows. My main thing is - if she did the deed(s) at least for the father. Why was she so free from any blood - shoes / hair - and her hair was fixed like it always was. Then she calls the servant girl within that very short window of 11 O'clock times. Why did she not wait longer ? she could have - in fact she could have gone out like she said she might do and let the servant girl find the father. This way lizzie could have gone to a store and hung out and have a better alibi than the barn one. That's why I think she didn't do it. I think she was honestly telling the truth. Or ---- she didn't do it but she aided the butcher guy (Davis) or some other helper, brought him upstairs the prior night, when she came in, nobody saw her come it so then- he sleeps in emma's bed or room waiting for the next day. she would have money and could pay well, and maybe did.

[camgarsky4]

She might have washed the blood off in the barn.....who knows. I don't think that happened because I don't think she was in the barn, but it certainly is possible.

How would waiting longer have helped with an alibi? So Bridget goes upstairs 10:55ish, Lizzie kills dad and scurries off to downtown to "shop". Either Morse gets home or Bridget comes down and finds Andrews 11:15-11:30ish. When they find Andrew, Bridget would immediately wonder "Where did Lizzie go? She was with Mr. Borden when I talked to her a little while ago."

For the Police this alibi would be no better and maybe worse than the barn story. She was alone with Andrew minutes before he was killed and then she left the property, so she could have dumped the hatchet and bloody clothes anywhere. Frankly a shopping story during that timeline would have been more suspicious than the barn alibi. As bad as the barn story is, it worked, she lived the rest of her life as a wealthy woman on the hill. Which would not have happened if the Borden's hadn't been killed.

Lizzie demonstrated throughout her life that she strongly preferred being in control. She would not have left to chance how and when the bodies would be discovered. She needed to be able to steer folks thoughts and knowledge.

There are half dozen plausible explanations for no blood on Lizzie.

[Steve88778]

The reason I think she would head out would be because she could easily go to a store where people could later testify that she was there at 1115 or a little sooner or later - Nobody knows when the servant would have gotten up but I am assuming before the 12 o'clock dinner meal.
Lizzie already tells the servant that she might go out, she even passes a tip about a sale at Sargent's dry goods store. The only problem would be if someone saw her leave the house. Which I am sure would be a gamble. -Churchill was not home or on her way from the market. Dr. Kelly's wife was at the dentist. Dr. Bowen was not home. So ? it would be a gamble, I dont think she knew who would be out. Personally, I don't think everybody was "eyeballing" that house and looking at timepieces as much as I am led to believe. In fact not that many people had a clock to look at let alone to be able to guess the time. But that's a different story... The barn alibi is possible if she in fact did go in the barn and did not feel that she had to cover up anything. The ice cream peddler story makes me question who he did see - in the barn area.

[camgarsky4]

Lizzie's location for her alibi is sound, no need to create a 'shopping downtown' version.....in the loft of the barn she was away from the house and where it is possible to see and hear nothing. The problem was the rest of her story.

As mentioned in the opening post above, her first few explanations to police all centered around the time she was in the barn...not what she was doing. When asked, "where you were when your dad was being killed", it seems unnatural to answer with "I was in the barn for 20 minutes". Much more likely to answer with "I was out in the barn looking for fishing gear". I believe creating an alibi for that time frame was so urgently top of mind for Lizzie that getting the time spent in the barn firmly established in the minds of the police was priority #1 for Lizzie. What she was doing was secondary.

Regarding that 20-30 minutes she was in the loft, if you believe that Bridget did not commit perjury, then I can't come up with 20 minutes for Lizzie to have been in the barn. Andrew home 10:40-45; at least 5-10 minutes of activity occur; Bridget talked to Lizzie and went upstairs 11:55. Bridget last saw Lizzie walking back into the dining room. Lizzie mentions she helped Andrew lie down which had to happen after Bridget went upstairs. So maybe Lizzie heads to barn 11:55-noon. The ice cream peddler saw "Lizzie" around 11:05-11:10 at the back stairs. Lizzie calls down Bridget 11:10.
20-30 minutes in the loft just don't fit...I estimate she might have spent 10-15 minutes outside the house.

But being a bad time guesser isn't a crime, but there is likely a nefarious reason why Lizzie was compelled to emphasize the time she spent in the barn over all else to the police.

When she was explaining where she was when Andrew was killed to her non-police visitors, the story evolved dramatically. In backyard and then in barn getting iron for a screen. Eventually she told Uncle Hiram that she was looking for lead for fishing sinker. She stuck with that version at the inquest.

So why didn't she have a better alibi.....in my opinion it is because she killed Andrew sooner than planned (early afternoon) and her intended alibi (shopping downtown after she got Bridget out of the house) had to be ditched when Andrew got home a bit early and she learned that Morse was coming for lunch. Lizzie had to act before John got there and she lost total control of the situation. Since she had already killed Abby, there was no going back...she had already put things in motion that couldn't be stopped. So the barn alibi was literally invented on the spot out of necessity.

I also believe that Lizzie had a strong compulsion to control her environment when she could. The idea of Morse or Bridget discovering the bodies without her present to 'traffic control' what people were being told was not something her psyche would allow. She prepped Alice the night before, she made sure Alice was one of the first on-site. For some reason she wanted Abby discovered, so she 'heard her come in'. Lizzie was likely a spoiled daddy's girl, used to getting her way quite often, but that wasn't enough to satisfy her grand wishes and dreams.

Lizzie was a determined and focused person.

[jcurrie]

She might have washed in the barn - who knows. My main thing is - if she did the deed(s) at least for the father. Why was she so free from any blood - shoes / hair - and her hair was fixed like it always was. Then she calls the servant girl within that very short window of 11 O'clock times. Why did she not wait longer ? she could have - in fact she could have gone out like she said she might do and let the servant girl find the father. This way lizzie could have gone to a store and hung out and have a better alibi than the barn one. That's why I think she didn't do it. I think she was honestly telling the truth. Or ---- she didn't do it but she aided the butcher guy (Davis) or some other helper, brought him upstairs the prior night, when she came in, nobody saw her come it so then- he sleeps in emma's bed or room waiting for the next day. she would have money and could pay well, and maybe did.

Steve, I've just read a book called "Inadmissible" by Kimbra Eberly, in which she suggests that Lizzie could have worn her father's coat (maybe back to front?) when she killed him. This way, she could have avoided any blood spatters. Andrew Borden was a very meticulous man and would never have used his precious Prince Albert coat as a headrest. I think I read somewhere that John Morse had buried the bloody clothes in the back yard. The police dug them up but what happened to the coat I don't know. I must say that in all the books I've read on the case it never occurred to me that Lizzie could have used the coat in such a way. It does explain how Lizzie was so clean when her neighbours and police interviewed her.

[Steve88778]

That's a possibility just like in Victoria Lincoln's book she suggests that same thing. My issue with that is she had to take off that coat and fold it or put it away in some fashion. And to do that blood would have gotten all over her hand/arms - esp dress. IDK - but it's a good thought. Personally she could have done it and got cleaned up -but the time constraints were too narrow. But you have a good point.

[camgarsky4]

JCurrie -- you, Kimbra and Victoria may all be correct that the coat was used as a blood shield. Just a few blood splatters were found between the sofa arm and the parlor door....where the killer likely stood. Dr. Dolan was actually able to count the # of blood spots, that is how finite the blood that flew around. There were not blood pools or gushers except that which ran into the sofa arm and floor.

I find it interesting that so many folks make an issue that the killer would have been covered in blood....the blood evidence tells a completely different story. I believe Lizzie was the sole killer, but since I believe the killer got very little blood on their clothing, that actually helps make a case for an intruder to have run from the house without anyone noticing bloody clothes.

As Bridget testified, the coat was kept in the dining room closet which was mere feet from the opening into the sitting room and likely where the killer stood when they struck Borden. Andrew went into the dining room immediately upon returning home, which is where he would go to hang up his coat. The coat was in the perfect location for the killer to grab it, put on and strike.

Since a few splatters at most would have gotten on the coat, not sure why it would have been a challenge to remove the coat carefully and avoid getting blood on anything. If some got on her hands, she very likely washed her hands, face and the hatchet in kitchen sink. Unless she was clumsy, not sure why blood would have "especially" gotten on her dress?

Dr. Dolan testified....."The head was resting on a sofa cushion that had a little white tidy on it. The cushion, I think, rested on his coat, which had been doubled up and put under there. And the coat, in turn, rested on an afghan or sofa cover."

To view the coat as an innocent piece in the killing, that would mean Andrew acted out of character and didn't hang his coat even though the closet was an arms length away when he went into the dining room. Then when he decided to lie down, he felt he needed more than the sofa cushion and afghan to rest his head upon, so he folded up his 'going to work' coat as another pillow. Remember there was another lounge in the dining room, likely with a pillow of its own. And then ironically, the killer stood directly in the middle of where the coat was kept and where the coat was found (1 foot in either direction). Lastly, no bloody murder clothes were found. If someone views the coat as a blood shield that would be a perfectly fair deduction.

Was ~10 minutes sufficient time to put on a coat, strike 10 times, take coat off, walk to kitchen sink, wash hands, face and hatchet, go outside, throw hatchet onto Crowe barn roof and slowly walk back inside and call down the maid.....yes it was. Grab a stopwatch and give it a go. It is very, very doable. You'll be amazed how little time it actually takes.

I concede that this same rough time line would work for someone besides Lizzie. My point is that the timing was very possible and bloody murder clothes were not necessary result and that the coat could very well have been used.

[Beowulf]

The dresses back then were very long. Had lizzie gone into the barn attic to look around for a piece of iron or sinkers it would not be footprints in the dust it would be the marks of the dress dragging on the floor and her dress would also have a dusty hem, no?

Usually you do not devour every inch of a pear, I wonder if the police could’ve made a search of the back barn or yard for a discarded part of a pear, newly discarded.

I think the idea she wore the coat back side over her clothes a good one, then tucked it under his head after. The blood would only match him.

[Steve88778]

I was thinking of the same thing - and that's a good observation. That dress would have been dusty. But watching enough TV I see ladies wearing those Victorian era dresses and as they are walking they lift them up slightly so as not to drag them on the ground. They knew what would happen if they wore the dresses and not took precautionary measures to "save" the bottom of the material. You have to remember that Lizzie was not as heavy as the policemen or as focused as a finger dragging along the floorboard. I personally believe in my heart of hearts that whole business of looking for footprints on the floor of the upstairs barn is far fetched and is an example of some fine detective work . I think they lied to make themselves look good. Which seems inconsistent with the rest of the investigation. It was almost as if some members were as keen in their detective work as the FBI and others were just as talented as a basic school crossing guard. I tend to go with the latter. Especially when you have Brownie and Me up there poking around.

As for pear eating - it seems that day pears were popular - First AJ brings them in from the back yard - then Lizzie eats some - then Uncle John eats some. I am not sure of the size of the pear but if they were small she could have eaten 3 with no problem. That's another thing the Fall River wanted to make a case out of or at least comment on.

I think of the coat theory and yes that is a possibility - Victoria Lincoln's book does mention that. My problem is AFTER that head was hacked to bits who knows what the physical structure of the skull would have been by lifting it and holding it up while you stick a folded up blood soaked coat under the head. How would you fold something like that and not get blood all over the floor in not only drops but big smears ? Not to mention all over someones hands / arms and dress...Especially the dress as they made a point to find a tiny pinpoint droplet of blood on some obscure place on her slip. Which in my mind if she folded the coat there would be blood all over the place. Try folding a rain soaked raincoat and not getting water on your clothes.

[Beowulf]

Well the thing is she might've lifted the dress to move around but it would take two hands to keep the hem off the floor. You can't climb stairs holding up a hem, you can't search in the box she said she searched in for sinkers and hold up the dress. She also said she looked for lead on the work bench and also she said she went to the west window over the hay, to the west window, and the curtain was slanted a little. I pulled it down. She could not have done all this holding up her dress with one or two hands.

The other thing is that she claimed to start after getting upstairs in the barn, to eating 3 pears. In order to do that she'd have to let go of the hem of her dress if she ever held that. She claimed to eat three pears but pears have a part inside with the seeds, like an apple, and one does not eat these. Therefore she'd have to either carry outside the parts she did not eat and dispose of them in the back yard or drop them, more likely, up on the floor of the barn. That should've been looked for, or, if possible, any water dropplets from eating the pears that might've been a bit moist, on the floor of the barn, which would've dried but left an obvious dried droplet in the dusty floor.

[Steve88778]

Yep - she could have not done any of those things with one hand - If you look at the back yard you will notice the grass was tall so finding a pear core with teeth marks that matched lizzie's would not be in the thinking of the 1890s Fall River police. Why would she stick her neck out and say she went upstairs of the barn ? She could easily have gone in the barn and ate the pears or stood on her head for all we know. It's funny how may times she might have fabricated something, like her stepmother receiving a note. As it was pointed out in Justice's Dewey's charge to the jury. Why would she make up something that can easily be found to be a lie or not proven ? She could simply say that Abby went out...She elaborated her stories for some reason maybe to steer the cops in one direction. Such as telling the maid to show the police where the hatchets were." Oh and BTW nevermind the one without the handle that is covered with a different colored dust. That can't be the murder weapon. So don't focus on that" - lol....

[Beowulf]

Actually I wasn't thinking of finding teeth marks, lol! Just the fact there would be pears tossed about to prove it at all. 'where abouts did you throw those pears when you were done with them?' over there, gee that's funny, no pears over here...Liars often don't always make good lies but she did make sure to point out to the police how long she was up there, 'murder must've taken place while I was out of sight and earshot in that doggone barn'! Eg of her poor on the fly lie she kept changing her story from looking for an iron to fix something to a piece of tin to sinkers. I notice they pointed out that when she went fishing from the farm there were most likely sinkers there, there was fishing line there and so presumably poles and sinkers but suddenly with no plans to go fishing on the hottest day of the year she trapes up to the hottest place the second floor of a barn and looks about for sinkers, and is sure to mention how long she was up there. Yes, very manipulative.

Yes, the grass WAS high back there! Wonder who cut their grass? Another example of Mr. Borden's slow to spend ways?

[Steve88778]

I am not sure exactly when that was taken but the the lawn was pretty high. I have seen a picture looking at the high board fence with the woodpile and the lawn looked pretty wild back then too. Prob after the murders else why would people be taking pictures of the backyard ?

[camgarsky4]

Few random inputs:
1) Knowlton mentioned the Prince Albert coat's odd location in his closing argument. So Victoria nor any of the rest of us 'invented' that possibility.
2) Absolutely no reason to think the killers clothes would have been drenched in blood; coat or no coat. Please read the splatter evidence for confirmation. Also, it is highly likely that the killer was partially behind the dining room door frame and the sofa arm blocked the entire lower section of the killer.
3) Placing coat under Andrews head not an issue regardless of skull condition. A sofa pillow was between Andrews head and the coat. So killer quarter folds the coat and pushes under pillow.
Dr. Dolan Trial testimony:
"The body of Mr. Borden was lying on the sofa. Sofa was against the north wall of the room, running east and west, with the head towards the parlor and the feet towards the kitchen, that is, towards the east. The sofa was against the jamb of the dining-room door. The body was covered with a sheet. Dr Bowen was with me. I found that Mr. Borden's hand was warm; the blood was oozing from his wounds and was bright red in color. The head was resting on a sofa cushion that had a little white tidy on it. The cushion, I think, rested on his coat, which had been doubled up and put under there. And the coat, in turn, rested on an afghan or sofa cover."
4) I think Lizzie should have been less 'lily white clean' by her visit to the barn loft than slaughtering her dad wearing the Prince Albert coat. A simple removal of the coat and washing hands, face and hatchet in the kitchen sink and good to go. Being in the hot, filthy attic for 20 minutes would have resulted in being very dirty and sweaty. Yet Lizzie's hands, face and hair were good as new. That should have been an indication of guilt vs innocence.

[Steve88778]