Fleet’s strange remembrance

[Inspector]

Fleet on the witness stand testified that Lizzie said a man came to the house at 9 AM on the day of the murders talking about a store.
I think he got his stories crossed from what Lizzie said happened two weeks prior.

[camgarsky4]

It seems more likely that Lizzie got her stories crossed. What makes you lean in the direction that it was Fleet?

[Inspector]

Interesting that Fleet found a hatchet that looked as if had been wiped off, and still had blood on the handle.
When shown in court, Fleet says the blood spot was no longer on the handle.

[Inspector]

The reason I lean towards Fleet being mistaken, is because right after that ,he says Oh no—- and recounted the occurrence very similar, that happened two weeks prior .
I haven’t found another occurrence of it being suggested by Lizzie, and it doesn’t fit the timeline at all.

[Inspector]

I mention the hatchet found by Fleet that he said looked like it had been wiped, but still had blood on the handle, and now the blood not there, because of the second trip Lizzie made to the cellar.
It’s not clear , but seems Fleet is saying he put the hatchet back where he found it behind some boxes, while they took two other hatchets, and two axes.
If Fleet left the hatchet behind some boxes, did Lizzie go back that evening and wipe the rest of the blood off the handle?

[Inspector]

See Page 466-467 Fleet’s testimony.

[Inspector]

Apologies, upon reread, the hatchet in question, that had been wiped, and had a spot on the handle then put back behind some boxes, was one of the two hatchets, and two axes.
Fleet says they did not leave the cellar that day.

[camgarsky4]

Inspector -- you might have caught a memory error on Fleet's part that I don't recall anyone else challenging. But there is still some cloudiness if he was accurate or not about the 9a.m. murder morning visitor.

I've compiled some testimonies/statements that might help us sort out the answer.

The testimonies below are listed in chronological order.

Observations:

Fleets witness statement references the two-week ago visit. Not a 9am, day of murder visitor.

Lizzie essentially tells that same story in her inquest testimony the following week. However, Fleet states she said the "2 week ago" visit was the guys second time. She clearly tells Knowlton that this guy only visited once that she is aware of.

At the Preliminary Hearing, Fleet mentions the 9am visitor and further states Lizzie told him the man 'spoke English' and they discussed a store location. Fleet also testified that Lizzie told him about the 'two week ago' visitor. So his prelim testimony included both visits. The day of and the 2-week ago.

At the Trial, Johnathan Clegg testified that he did visit the Borden home and spoke with Andrew on both August 2nd and 3rd to discuss leasing a store. As an additional note, Clegg immigrated to the U.S. as an adult. He likely retained his accent.

So while it seems that Fleet pulled the '9am, English speaking, store inquiry' visitor out of thin air, Clegg's testimony adds some substance to Fleets recollection. It is just an irony that on August 3, an English speaking man visited in the morning to discuss leasing a store?

Sort of a riddle we have on our hands. I might have missed some relevant testimony, so will keep poking around.

Witness Statements Page 5.
Assistant Marshall Fleet reporting an interview he had with Lizzie day of killings.
Thursday Aug. 4, 1892.
“Have you any reason, no matter how slight, to suspect anybody?” “N-n-no, I have not.” “why
hesitate”? “Well, a few weeks ago father had angry words with a man about something”. “What was it?”
“I did not know at the time, but they were both very angry at the time; and the stranger went away.”
“Did you see him at all?” “No sir they were in another room; but from the tone of their voices, I knew
things were not pleasant between them.” “Did father say anything about him, or his visit?” “No sir.
About two weeks ago he called again. They had a very animated conversation, during which they got
very angry again. I heard father say “no sir, I will not let my store for any such business.” Just before
they separated, I heard father say “well, when you are in town again, come up, and I will let you know
about it.”
-----------------------------------------------------
Lizzie Inquest Testimony. Page 49(6)
Q. Do you know of anybody that your father was on bad terms with?
A. There was a man that came there that he had trouble with, I don't know who the man was.
Q. When?
A. I cannot locate the time exactly. It was within two weeks. That is I don't know the date or day of the month.
Q. Tell all you saw and heard.
A. I did not see anything. I heard the bell ring, and father went to the door and let him in. I did not hear anything for some time, except just the voices; then I heard the man say, "I would like to have that place, I would like to have that store. Father says, "I am not willing to let your business go in there." And the man said, "I thought with your reputation for liking money, you would let your store for anything." Father said, "You are mistaken." Then they talked a while, and then their voices were louder, and I heard father order him out, and went to the front door with him.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said that he had stayed long enough, and he would thank him to go.
Q. Did he say anything about coming again?
A. No sir.
Q. Did your father say anything about coming again, or did he?
A. No sir.
-----------------------------------------------------
John Fleet Preliminary Hearing testimony. Pages 354-355.
Used his preliminary hearing testimony because it was only a couple weeks after his conversation with Lizzie.
.....then she said that she had heard a man at the front door talking to her father about nine o'clock, or thereabouts, nine or a little before nine. I asked her what they were talking about, and she said that she did not know, but she thought he was speaking about some store. I asked her then if she thought that that man would be the one to do him an injury, or to kill him. She said no, she did not know. I asked her if she knew who he was. She said she did not know, she did not see him but heard them talking. She said that he spoke like an Englishman, and thought that he was there after a store, something about a store.
-----------------------------------------------------
Johnathan Clegg trial testimony. Page 174.
Clegg was an immigrant from England and very likely spoke with an accent. He was in the process of securing a store lease with Andrew.

Q. Had you gone to Mr. Borden's house to visit him with reference to this store?
A. ‎Yes, Sir.
Q. When and how many times did you go there?
A. ‎Twice.
Q. Do you remember what days you went there?
A. ‎Yes, Tuesday the first day.
Q. Tues of this same week?
A. ‎Tuesday, on the second.
Q. Tuesday, the 2nd of August, `1892. What day did you next go there?
A. ‎Wednesday.
Q. The following day?
A. ‎Yes, sir.
Q. So that you were there the two days preceding the homicide?
A. ‎Yes, sir.

[Inspector]

On page 489-490 Fleet once again separates the two visits of the stranger by two weeks , and puts the second visit on murder day. The attorneys let it ride again !(strange) .
Page 464 trial is previous mention by Fleet (includes Englishman / angry comment as being on murder day the 4th)
Although there is no doubt based on your research, who this person with the English accent was, we have some problems.

Clegg places both visits during murder week, Tuesday the 2nd, and Wednesday the 3rd. —(this separates him from the crime.)
Fleet and Lizzie both speak of a two week prior visit, and Fleet asserts that Lizzie spoke of a Thursday the 4th visit.
Now, there is the “few weeks “ visit that Lizzie mentioned, which are before the two weeks visit. (seems attributed to Lizzie, originating from Fleet)

Is it possible that Clegg is omitting the “few weeks “ , and the “two weeks” visits for some reason? possible. Is he omitting the murder day visit? doubtful in my opinion.

Or, Is Fleet not willing to admit he is mistaken about the most recent murder day stranger visit, which Lizzie places two weeks prior to the murders .
It’s also possible that Lizzie has made up the
“few weeks” visit to add to the “two weeks “ visit to try and show Andrew had someone after him.

Stranger Visits:

Lizzie: Few weeks prior—two weeks prior

Fleet: August 4th—two weeks prior

Clegg: Aug 2nd—August 3rd

We now have five different stranger visits.

Of coarse there are other possible ways to look at this, as you’ve noted,
Maybe Lizzie did get a bit confused, and misspoke.
However, Fleet was the one asking the question : if there had been anyone around “this morning “ she would suspect of doing the killing. Lizzie responded about hearing the
9 AM Aug 4th visit. (according to Fleet)
Interestingly Mrs. Russell at that point told Lizzie to tell Fleet about the other stranger visit, and Lizzie then tells about the “two weeks” visit.

[Inspector]

I tend to think the few weeks visit is the same as the two weeks visit.
At Lizzie’s inquest she only mentioned the two weeks prior visit, and he sounded like he was from out of town.
This sounds like Clegg, so maybe Lizzie is pushing Clegg’s visit/s out in time because she knows that Clegg will eventually be found out.
Makes her defense not look so obvious, but in doing so, also makes Clegg a lier.

[Inspector]

Page 562-563 trial . Officer Harrington testifies that Lizzie spoke of two different stranger visits .
A “few weeks” and a nearer to the crime “two weeks” visit.
Very peculiar that Mr.Clegg admits two visits. but clearly not the same time frame.

Something of note, if Lizzie did overhear the two visits of Clegg since he probably rang the bell, and they did occur on the 2nd and 3rd of August, it was the 3rd that she decided to go and tell Mrs. Russell her version of the actual Clegg visits.

[Inspector]

I would love to hear your thoughts on this matter, I’m thinking that all the confusion is probably a concoction, and slip in strategy by Lizzie herself.

[camgarsky4]

I agree that if there is anyone intentionally spinning a tale, it is Lizzie.

Andrew probably had a dozen business visitors over the prior two weeks. I presume Lizzie is just recalling the one's she overheard anger in the conversation. That said, since I think Lizzie is the culprit or co-culprit, I think she invented the story of the angry visits.

Clegg was an established, known businessman in Fall River and I believe his testimony is true to his memory. Since on Thursday, carpenters Mather and Shortsleeves are working on the new store location for Clegg, it is clear that the lease had been successfully settled on the Tuesday & Wednesday visits. Odds are that the Wednesday morning visit was brief due to Andrew's illness. So maybe just picking up keys or a copy of the lease or something not complex.

Fleet would have no motive for fabricating the 9am murder morning story. He thought Lizzie guilty and an angry visitor on the day of the killings might create an alternative suspect. I imagine either Lizzie did tell him the morning call occurred, but he didn't put in his report or he got his days and facts cloudy. Not sure why he didn't just reference his notes. Really quite a little enigma.

[Inspector]

I think those are valid points . Thanks for the additional information on Clegg. It gives a good original source for the Alice Russell visit from Lizzie., and on the same day.
The English speaking man certainly is a connection.

I thought about how it must have been a quick visit on Wednesday for Clegg also due to their sickness, but must have been the day Lizzie put the story all together in her mind.

I believe Miss. Russell said that Lizzie was there for two hours, yet after the murders it was Miss. Russell who had to urge Lizzie to tell the stranger visit proper to Fleet.

One thing about Lizzie, she could stand right in front of someone, and still be illusive.

[camgarsky4]

A related post Kat made back in 2002 that I've saved.

1. "Andrew  and Clegg"
Posted by Kat on May-10th-02 at 2:58 PM
In the Trial, pg. 171, we find out Jonathan Clegg is Hard of Hearing, in his own admission.
It's possible that Andrew was also hard a bit of hearing, as Bridget descibes Lizzie talking to him in a SLOW voice.
Thus, we have a man coming about a store, and Lizzie OVERHEARS loud talking which she construes as an argument (?).
Clegg says he came to Second street on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd & 3rd. (pg. 174)
Can you imagine the Loud-Voiced Racket 2 hard-of-hearing men would make simply dicussing business?
(Also:  Clegg says he waited for a sight of Andrew in the town Thursday in order to talk to him.  Of course the court doesn't want to know what they talked about!)

[Inspector]

This certainly explains the loud speaking, and with the same general information contained in Lizzie’s conversation to Miss Russell, it’s certain that she overheard her dad speaking to Clegg.

Sadly,
many things we could have learned if the attorneys
didn’t stop them from speaking about actual conversation.
Interesting how they spoke back then, some of their expressions would be considered rude today.
One example is how they’d tell the witness, “ I don’t care about that” as the witnesses would start to tell .

[camgarsky4]

I was just reading and listening to some online information about varying Irish dialects. As part of that study, I saw how some sentences were formed back in the day and it would sound pretty weird today. Have you ever seen True Grit? The girl talks very formally and I always figured it was a case of over doing it, but I think folks back in the 1800's did speak a more structured version of english, but then layered in a good dose of regional slang.

[Inspector]

I haven’t seen it, I should watch it sometime. I hear some Irish nuances throughout all these proceedings too.
I’m enjoying reading the full trial as much as any of the books.
Really gives one the feeling they are back in time.

[Inspector]

I feel the case could be solved using modern, or future forensic procedures, but there are plenty who don’t want it to be.