Lizzie Borden Society Forum

"He's in the sitting room." But she hadn't seen him according to her testimony.

Is that the rest of the title?

"...she hadn't seen him"- do you mean Lizzie -or- Mrs. Churchill hadn't seen Andrew?

Lizzie hasn't. According to her obverse testimony she never even saw her father in the sitting room. Regarding John Douglas, I'd love to know who does his hair.

read Lizzie's testimony about seeing her father. she never even says she saw him.

Technically, Lizzie says she did not see Andrew's face or his wounds. She seems to have seen his form and his blood and his position on the sofa.
She says she didn't enter the room.

Inquest
Lizzie
77
A. Opened the sitting room door, and went into the sitting room, or pushed it open; it was not latched.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I found my father, and rushed to the foot of the stairs.
........
78
Q. When you saw your father where was he?
A. On the sofa.
Q. What was his position?
A. Lying down.
......
Q. Did you notice that he had been cut?
A. Yes; that is what made me afraid.
Q. Did you notice that he was dead?
A. I did not know whether he was or not.
.......
Q. You saw him?
A. Yes sir.
79 (36)
Q. You went into the room?
A. No sir.
Q. Looked in at the door?
A. I opened the door and rushed back.
Q. Saw his face?
A. No, I did not see his face, because he was all covered with blood.
Q. You saw where the face was bleeding?
A. Yes sir.

I stand corrected but I know I just read that she repeatedly testified that she never even saw him. Like I've said I have limited resources now. Between you and me, Kat, some of the writers seem to just make stuff up. There are no sources for what are supposed to be non-fiction books. It's true of other cases too. I read an entire book by a guy on the Lindbergh kidnapping where he claims something and doesn't have an iota of proof - not even a copy of a newspaper clipping.
cheers!

If she didnt see his face, and since the face was so smashed up, how did she know it was him? By the clothes?

wintressanna @ Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:25 pm wrote:If she didnt see his face, and since the face was so smashed up, how did she know it was him? By the clothes?

According to her she left him there..... She would have no reason to think it was anyone else...

Inquest, page 69


Q. When you went out to the barn, where did you leave your father?
A. He had laid down on the sitting room lounge, taken off his shoes, and put on his slippers, and taken off his
coat and put on the reefer. I asked him if he wanted the window left that way.
Q. Where did you leave him?
A. On the sofa.
Q. Was he asleep?
A. No sir.
Q. Was he reading?
A. No sir.
Q. What was the last thing you said to him?
A. I asked him if he wanted the window left that way. Then I went into the kitchen, and from there to the barn.

A question has always been, why did she not rush to her father's side?
To only see his blood but not his face- to only see his form lying down and not enter the room?
Does that show restraint or shock, or an unwllingness to get a speck of blood on her, or she already had cleaned up and her story was she didn't go near him...

I agree...

Have you ever noticed how people react in a "real" emergency?

Their house is ablaze-- the roof is crashing in and they are begging the fireman to "do something" and to get Fifi out....

Onlookers expect lifegaurds or paramedics to revive drowning victims who have been underwater for extended periods of time....

People want to call professionals when it comes to something like this-- and they do expect results. Lizzie's first reaction was to get a doctor.. But-- once he was there she wasn't demanding he "do all he can" to help her father.

hmmm.... interesting thought.

I guess you really never know how an individual will act in an extreme situation. And Lizzie really doesnt seem to have been someone who exactly completely fit in to the conventions of usual for the day, seems very much an individual on her own terms...so how do we really know how she would react?

Also, she did stand to have some complications in her life eliminated through these deaths. She didnt seem to have exactly lived the life of a forever grief stricken woman, not that I think she should have, but uit points out something of her attitude about the deaths by hwo she conducted herself thereafter. BUT JUST BECAUSE someone stands to benefit from the death of someone, and just because they seem to act somewhat disinterested in the absolute means being taken to revive the dead, it does not follow that that person committed murder.

audrey is right. the doctor was for lizzie. "i must have a doctor."

She did say in her statement to the police at first that she hadn't seen her father, but didn't she change her statement after the maid had said that Lizzie called her saying, "Come quick someone has killed father."?

This question and answer with Lizzie has always intrigued me and is a point to ponder in guilt or innocence. I'll work from memory here. Q: Did you notice that your father was dead? A: I did not know if he was or not.

Think about it. If Lizzie was guilty we would assume she "whacked" her father until she thought (knew, believed, felt certain, etc.) that he was dead. After all this is about murder not domestic assault. Whoever got Abby definitely committed murder and made sure she was dead. If she is guilty this is indeed a chilling statement. Did she chop until she thought he was dead but wasn't sure? Did she get into an argument with her father and out of anger, assault him without intent to kill? Could he have hoped he was not dead and Dr. Bowen could save him?

Or was Lizzie innocent thus making this statement true and accurate?

Guilty or innocent to me a reasonable statement would be, he looked dead. Or, with all that blood I assumed he was dead. Or, he wasn't moving so I assumed he was dead.

Was Bridget telling the truth that Lizzie said, "someone came in and killed father"? When Lizzie answers questions with probably truthful answers she seems to need very literal meanings in both questions and answers. I am reminded of the contemporary comment that friends could understand more that she could commit murder than that she would lie about it afterward. She is not the type to give an answer to the above question in the following vein. "With all that blood I naturally assumed he was dead. How can anyone lose that much blood and live? Of course I thought he was dead!"

So if she was guilty, how literal is her answer about not knowing if her father was dead or alive? If she was guilty was this remorse and a wish she could un-do a horrific act? (Or acts in the case of double murder.) Did she lose her temper and wish she could take it back? Was she in some altered mental state?

Then again she may have been innocent.

How to behave, what do you say, when you find the body of a relative in your sittingroom, horribly murdered? It depends on the individual, doesn't it? Some people, I am sure, would take one look and scream their head off! Others would go into deep shock or become ill. Others remain cool in all circumstances.

Some posters have stated that there is no way they would have remained in the house, would have grabbed Bridget and hot-footed out of there as fast as their little high-button boots would have carried them! We don't really know that Bridget's statement as to what exactly Lizzie said in the immediate aftermath of Andrew's murder was absolutely exact in every particular, but she remembered the conversation at around 11:10 am as

"Maggie, come down!"
"What's the matter?"
"Come down quick! Father's dead! Somebody's come in and killed him!"

Some people might question that (according to her testimony) Lizzie had come in the house, heard various things, pushed the sitting room door open, saw her father's form lying cut and bloodied on the couch, and immediately turned and summoned Bridget, without rushing to find out whether he was alive or dead. Some may believe that was extremely cold behaviour. "Would that be natural?", they might say, "I wouldn't do that if I found any member of my family lying bloodied and unmoving."

I wouldn't be among them. These were Yankees. There are several illustrations of unemotional reactions (Emma's return home, for example) in the family. The family members appear private, undemonstrative, self-contained. Although I believe Lizzie to be guilty she doesn't lose marks from me regarding her remarks to Bridget, (we can over-analyse words, expressions, anyway) or failure to embrace Andrew's body and find out if he was alive or dead. If she was innocent, her request for Dr Bowen's presence is understandable.

Of course, I don't believe her innocent with regard to her assertions about hearing groans or being in the barn or hearing a scraping noise or finding the screen door open. I don't believe she was outside. I do believe she was looking at her father's body, from another location entirely! That's another kettle of fish, however!

My experiences with people who just found out a loved one was dead was almost universal disbelief. Even if their loved one is so mangled that it is obvious to anyone, I would hear "Are you sure?" "They can't be dead" and similar things...I have always found Lizzies' statement "Come quick someone has come in and killed father" to be extremely damaging. Of course I'm not saying an innocent person COULDN'T say that, but in 26 years of dealing with shock, disbelief and death, Even if half the victim's skull was missing loved ones demanded paramedics or doctors "do something"

I am NOT a fan of Kubler-Ross's stages of grief. I have never seen anyone go through all the stages, and in correct order, BUT disbelief and non-acceptance almost always was the first thing people experienced in the death of a loved one. Lizzie didn't say "help father" or "father needs medical attention" Nope she said coldly and definitively "Someone has killed father" Didn't even go in the ROOM to see, made a medical judgement of death from across the room seeing a bloody face. Heck, I've seen nose/scalp wounds bleed so much the covered the entire face and the person was nowhere near dead, but Lizzie knew...Hmmm

One thing to consider about Lizzie not rendering aid to her father, people in those days, especially women in Lizzie's social position, wouldn't have known much if anything about first aid or medical matters. Possibly her sending for Dr. Bowen immediately was her way of saying, "Do something. Save him!" Lizzie is always a person of few words. Maybe she did ask Bowen to save her father.

I still think there are some interesting things to ponder if she had murdered Andrew, if she had chopped enough times to assume he was dead, to make him dead. That would go with "someone came in and killed father". It doesn't fit with any statements about not knowing if he was dead. She isn't a good liar and everything in her world is literal.

Kind of as a side note, I don't find it too unusual that she stayed in the house by the back door. Her testimony is when she came back from the barn the screen door was "open" or "wide open". If she was innocent such a finding in a security conscious home like hers, would say a stranger had left the door that way. To me a wide open door says someone went OUT and didn't shut the door. She may also have stayed inside so as not to faint or make a scene in the yard where everyone could see, which might have been against etiquette of the time. She may also have felt an instinctual need to protect her home. How one acts when their private property in invaded can be as odd as how people react to finding their loved ones dead and injured. (I am extremely gentle and non-violent yet the last time I had a creeping/peeping tom on my city property, in the middle of the night, after the police had left I patrolled my yard with a shotgun and my toughest dogs. The gun wasn't loaded since firing in the city would be dangerous and illegal, but I planned to club any aggressive criminal with the stock if necessary. I was sick and tired of being a victim of meth addict burglars and trespassers.) Possibly Lizzie had been trained by Andrew to protect the house so that the contents of his safe wouldn't be taken.

Irina, it is absolutely terrible that you had such a thing happen to you. I can't imagine having to patrol my property with guns and dogs. Wouldn't a strong man be able to wrestle an unloaded gun from you and use it to bludgeon you?

However, back to the Bordens! As Andrew stopped investigation of the daylight robbery by the police, precisely because, it has been surmised, Lizzie took the contents of the safe, I hardly think that he would have trained her to guard the house/safe or anything else. It was after the daylight robbery that the household began to lock everything.

Lizzie being untrained in first aid or medical matters surely need not have prevented her, had she felt inclined, from going over to her father's body, wiping some of the blood from his face, and seeing whether he was still alive. After all, Bridget was also untrained but her first reaction was a natural one, to go into the room and see whether Mr Borden needed assistance. She was stopped, by Lizzie, but that was her first thought.

Lizzie stayed by the side door, instead of checking to see whether her step-mother had returned. At no time did she feel faint. Indeed, later, when the other women were fussing over her she denied feeling faint. This was her father lying butchered. Even in the much more formal 19th century Lizzie would have been forgiven had she toddled over to Mrs Bowen's and asked to stay with her until her husband returned, or if she had gone over to the Churchills.

I've said in my post that I believe that everyone is different in their reactions to tragedy. However, I suggest that Mrs Churchill, like Bridget, acted in a much more natural way in rushing over to Hall's livery stables in search of her manservant and gabbling to observers about murder. Not terribly efficient, but more natural. Lizzie's coolness was noted by everyone.

She may have been literal but she was indeed a terrible liar. She heard a groan while she was outside, then later discarded that statement. She heard a scraping noise, then again did not repeat that. If Lizzie was so literal, so honest, so eager to help catch her parents' murderer, why not give the police her impressions? It would be natural to do so wouldn't it, especially as such noises would, you would think, be seared into her memory.

irina wrote:One thing to consider about Lizzie not rendering aid to her father, people in those days, especially women in Lizzie's social position, wouldn't have known much if anything about first aid or medical matters. Possibly her sending for Dr. Bowen immediately was her way of saying, "Do something. Save him!" Lizzie is always a person of few words. Maybe she did ask Bowen to save her father.

I still think there are some interesting things to ponder if she had murdered Andrew, if she had chopped enough times to assume he was dead, to make him dead. That would go with "someone came in and killed father". It doesn't fit with any statements about not knowing if he was dead. She isn't a good liar and everything in her world is literal.

Kind of as a side note, I don't find it too unusual that she stayed in the house by the back door. Her testimony is when she came back from the barn the screen door was "open" or "wide open". If she was innocent such a finding in a security conscious home like hers, would say a stranger had left the door that way. To me a wide open door says someone went OUT and didn't shut the door. She may also have stayed inside so as not to faint or make a scene in the yard where everyone could see, which might have been against etiquette of the time. She may also have felt an instinctual need to protect her home. How one acts when their private property in invaded can be as odd as how people react to finding their loved ones dead and injured. (I am extremely gentle and non-violent yet the last time I had a creeping/peeping tom on my city property, in the middle of the night, after the police had left I patrolled my yard with a shotgun and my toughest dogs. The gun wasn't loaded since firing in the city would be dangerous and illegal, but I planned to club any aggressive criminal with the stock if necessary. I was sick and tired of being a victim of meth addict burglars and trespassers.) Possibly Lizzie had been trained by Andrew to protect the house so that the contents of his safe wouldn't be taken.

Irina, please be completely honest with me. Close your eyes and imagine you just walked in your door and found your father hacked up bloody and (possibly) dead. You would stay in your house alone moments after the killing? I am a 49 yr old man trained in firearms, but without my gun, I wouldn't. I would wait outside. Somewhere where I was in broad daylight and had an escape route. You may say you would stay in that house even with the possibility of the killer lurking about, but I must confess that I wouldn't...and I don't think Lizzie would have either unless she was the killer.

The minutes after Andrew's death tell a huge tale about this case....

Lizzie didn't scream out for Bridget to see if she was OK. She said someone had 'killed father'. She sent Bridget out of the house and remained there. She KNEW she was safe at that moment, just like she knew Andrew was dead.

Jump ahead however many minutes-- Oh, I think I heard her come in...

None of this speaks of Victorian delicate manners and the standards of the time. It does however, speak a great deal about Lizzie's character. She didn't live out her life as some cold blooded bitch who could stand anything. She had pets, loved them-- she was kind to her servants-- and couldn't sleep over the chirping of a bird.

The Lizzie who loved her dogs and books and luxuries-- would have fled that house like the hounds of hell were nipping at her heels. The killer on the other hand, would have known he/she was safe. This wasn't a double murder suicide!

irina wrote:... I still think there are some interesting things to ponder if she had murdered Andrew, if she had chopped enough times to assume he was dead, to make him dead. That would go with "someone came in and killed father". It doesn't fit with any statements about not knowing if he was dead. She isn't a good liar and everything in her world is literal. ...

Lizzie didn’t assume her father was dead, she was sure he was dead. Her statement of “Maggie, come quick, someone has come in and killed father”, is an assured statement. She did not say, ‘ I think father is dead’, which would have then made it an assumed statement.

Assured: having or showing a mind free from doubt.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/assured

Assumed: appearing to be true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be confirmed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/assumed

twinsrwe: Yet when she was questioned in court she said she didn't know whether he was alive or dead. With her sense of literalism I don't see her deviating from some form of he was dead. If she did it she knew or fully intended him to be dead. Thus in her form of unskilled lying I would think if she did the killing her replies to such questions would always be in the vein of knowing, believing, assuming, thinking, etc., that he was dead. There would be no question about it.

Possum: Invasion of my home makes me aggressive but I am an independent widow, used to living alone. If I came back to my house and a door I had left shut, was wide open and I went in and found a body, my immediate thought would be the perpetrator went out the wide open door. Then the paranoia would set in and I would wonder if there was a murderer under every bed, in every closet. Every natural crack or pop in the house would affect me for weeks to come. That's my honest answer.

I also feel very protective of my premises and I think Lizzie was too. Was the hyper security at 92 Second because Andrew had a lot of valuables in his safe? Did the whole family feel they needed to defend what was theirs?

Apparently the idea of calling the police first thing, was not the way things were done in 1892. Nobody ever criticized Lizzie for not immediately calling the police. What was the mindset at that time? In this day it would be reasonable to say a homeowner would go outside and wait for the police to come.

Considering again what would be my own response in such a situation, I also have medical training and would feel the need to do all that I could for the victim. I probably would not accept that the victim was dead until medical personnel had made the determination. Thus I would feel the need to stay with the patient. Lizzie didn't have medical training that we know of and she apparently did nothing for her father, but could she have instinctively been protecting him if she was innocent?

If we consider innocence then her statement that someone "came in" and killed father could mean to her that a killer entered, killed and ran. This was before the day of publicized crimes where killers went all through houses looking for multiple victims. (It had obviously happened but it wasn't publicized like it is today.) I would think the logic of the time would say killers had reasons to kill and they ran away after killing because if they got caught they got hanged. It is only recently that law enforcement has fully accepted the concept of motiveless crimes. I don't find it outlandish that Lizzie's first thoughts may have been that Andrew was the intended victim, for a reason (motive), and that the killer was log gone and running for his life.

Surely, if Lizzie were instinctively protecting a loved one, she wouldn't take a peek at his body and then walk off! How is standing by the side door being protective?

Sorry Irina, but if I saw an open door in my property that shouldn't be, and I had been out, (outside) I wouldn't automatically assume an intruder had left but that probably someone had got in and maybe was still inside!

I know a fair bit about 19th century British crime and the police were sent for immediately a body was found, in the majority of cases. (There were one or two in very remote areas that weren't). In the US it may have been different, but on the East Coast anyway, I don't think so. The women (Lizzie, Mrs Churchill,) may have wished for a doctor first, to examine Andrew, pronounce him dead and then contact the police for them. However, I don't think they, or Bridget,
were thinking logically!

It's odd, isn't it? Where you see an essentially honest, literal thinker in Lizzie, I see an evasive liar who couldn't keep her story straight and often fudged her answers/replies! That's the beauty of this Forum!

irina wrote:twinsrwe: Yet when she was questioned in court she said she didn't know whether he was alive or dead. With her sense of literalism I don't see her deviating from some form of he was dead. If she did it she knew or fully intended him to be dead. Thus in her form of unskilled lying I would think if she did the killing her replies to such questions would always be in the vein of knowing, believing, assuming, thinking, etc., that he was dead. There would be no question about it. …

I’m sorry, irina, but I have to disagree with you. I stand by the contents of my previous post. At the time Lizzie called for Maggie, she knew, without a doubt, that her father was dead.

Curryong wrote:... It's odd, isn't it? Where you see an essentially honest, literal thinker in Lizzie, I see an evasive liar who couldn't keep her story straight and often fudged her answers/replies! That's the beauty of this Forum!

I also see Lizzie as an evasive liar. She was pretty evasive in answering a lot of the questions posed to her in court. She was also a liar when, for example: she said that she thought she heard Abby come in. Well, obviously, she did not heard Abby come in, because Abby was dead.

I see manipulation. Lizzie starts with Alice Russell by foretelling mayhem for the family. Perhaps she had a hand in convincing Abby that poison was involved regardless of the true source of their stomach ailments. There's no evidence to support this but I do wonder given Abby's bizarre concerns about bread and milk. Then Lizzie tells Bridget that someone came in and killed father after which she attributes the deaths to someone angry over their business dealings with Andrew. Lizzie chose what she viewed as the most likely reason someone would murder Andrew - money! And she was right. Except the murderer was not an outsider, but she did her best to manipulate everyone's thinking in that direction.

I think most of the people who stand by the idea that Lizzie was innocent accept the fact that Lizzie outright lied about several things that day. I've seen them try to justify/explain the lies in creative ways, but much of her testimony cannot be chalked-up to 'confusion of the moment'. Lizzie immediately after shouting for Bridget said she had been just outside the back door, heard a thump, and went to investigate. Then she said she had been in the barn, heard a scraping sound and went in. Then she said she had been in the barn and swore she heard nothing. This is VERY telling. A person can get confused about where they were, or what they were doing BUT to go from saying that she heard a thump (a unique specific sound) then changing it to a scrape (another specific sound) then no sound shows intent NOT mis-remembering. I believe much of her contradictions can be explained away by saying she mis-remembered. She contradicted which magazine she was reading...anybody could, this is a trivial event that wouldn't have stuck in her mind. BUT a novel strange sound is NOT trivial. It would stick in her mind. Yet she changed the sound until she finally said she heard NO sound. This is obviously a lie. Now you can explain it away like Franz, who says she was doing something embarrassing and didn't want to be truthful, but you cannot explain it away by saying Lizzie mis-remembered. The morning of 9/11 is seared in my brain forever. For years I distinctly remembered Katie Couric the newscaster saying "There must be some air-traffic control problem" to explain how two planes flew into a building. I remember thinking that was the stupidest thing I heard that day, it was crystal clear and even if air traffic control told a pilot to fly right at a building, he wouldn't. Years later I found the actual newscast I had been watching. The words I remembered were identical to what was said BUT Katie had not said them, a guest on the phone talking to her had said it. My memory was flawed, but only attributing who said what NOT what was said (a novel and ridiculous statement) I know it seems subtle, but some things are forever seared into your memory during trauma.

The minutes after Andrew's death do seem to point to it not being premeditated. I don't believe the deaths were planned that particular day. I believe Lizzie plotted to kill them-- but not in the manner she ended up using. Something happened to make her act on that day. I have some ideas of whether or not Andrew was even an intended victim all along-- but once things were into play, there was no choice.

I think Lizzie was shrewd, manipulative and smart. But she didn't think well on her feet.

Aamartin wrote:The minutes after Andrew's death do seem to point to it not being premeditated. I don't believe the deaths were planned that particular day. I believe Lizzie plotted to kill them-- but not in the manner she ended up using. Something happened to make her act on that day. I have some ideas of whether or not Andrew was even an intended victim all along-- but once things were into play, there was no choice.

I think Lizzie was shrewd, manipulative and smart. But she didn't think well on her feet.

I agree that something changed her plans...although perhaps only moving the timeframe up to before lunch. And yes, she didn't think well on her feet. I think of her excuses and wonder how well they would've played had the bodies been discovered late in day when Lizzie and Bridget returned from shopping.

I do think that Uncle John coming home for lunch was a very nasty revelation to Lizzie. I suppose it would depend on how well she established her alibi if the bodies were found later. Some of her lies were just sheer stupidity.

Somewhere it was said, and I can probably find it in the witness statements, that Lizzie spoke of the noise, both scrape and thump but that others had dissuaded her from saying this because they pointed out Andrew could not have made a sound. I really need to dig that up later. It's little things like that that influence my take on the case. We just have bits and pieces in short sentences. I can't believe that what everyone said at that time could actually be boiled down to short sentences in reports. If Lizzie said she heard a scrape and thump and said for example that she thought Andrew had made those sounds, but other people, perhaps Dr. Bowen said Andrew could not have made a sound, might she have disbelieved herself and subsequently changed her story?

With her sense of being literal I think Lizzie's brain might have worked in such a way that she equated certain sounds with her father so when she was told he couldn't have made the sounds she accepted she didn't hear the sounds. How I would value a transcript of follow-up questions. Where did you think the sounds came from? Did both sounds come at the same time? Describe a "scraping" sound. Was it like a door or window opening? What did the thud sound like? Show us exactly where you were standing.~~~~If she couldn't answer any of those questions then there would indeed be a big problem. Since there seems not to be any such questioning we, and Lizzie's defense team (not to mention the prosecution) were all at greater disadvantage.

I am very frustrated that there isn't more on the police investigation. A good video recorded interview with Lizzie and others would tell us a lot.

Interesting, your mention of 9/11, Possum. I'm old enough to remember the Kennedy assassination. (I'm in my late fifties, so was a kid in school then.) Everyone around my age uses Kennedy as a point of reference to illustrate a point as you have done. For younger folks it will be 9/11. I was hunting and listening to the radio when 9/11 happened about 6:10 Pacific time. I was sleeping on the ground with a sick dog and let the radio play all night. I woke up my companion and told him about it. Then another plane hit and the newscaster was saying it was a horrible accident. I told my companion I thought it was a terrorist attack but it took the news a long time to catch up. Now when something big happens all of us who are lesser working journalists get online and start mining data to see what we can dig up. Sometimes some of us who aren't famous can find interesting things the major news people miss. Such is journalism in the internet age.

irina, I'm afraid I can remember the Kennedy assassination too, though I was a young teenager and about to go out with my friends so I probably didn't make as much of it as I would if I'd been older. It was very early evening in England. The 9/11 tragedy came on the TV very late at night in Australia and continued through until the early morning. My son and I watched it unfold. Diana, princess of Wales's death was another big event. The news of that came on in the early afternoon in Australia, so you see, different times to you in the U.S..

I'd be interested if you could dig out the witness statements which speak of Lizzie being persuaded to change her recollections as I haven't read that before. It would have been Mrs Churchill, Dr Bowen or Alice Russell I suppose, possibly Mrs Phoebe Bowen, or later, Emma.

After pulling weeds for a couple hours I spent the rest of the afternoon looking for the information. I did not find that specifically in any testimony. I took some notes and hope I have the sources right.

Testimony by Doherty, think it's the trial, stating what Lizzie had told him, p.595: I heard a peculiar noise. I think it was something like a scraping, scraping sound. (scraping is written twice)

Bridget also testified about Lizzie saying "scraping" sound and that Lizzie told her she was, "...in the backyard, heard a groan...came in" and "the door was wide open". (I found this interesting because the door is noted as open AFTER Lizzie comes in. So it could be wondered which door? It probably just came out this way and means nothing.)

Pearson, page 30, I assume this is an opening or closing statement by the prosecution. I got here via google search with key words and it was miles of writing in either direction from where I was. The prosecutor detailed who Lizzie told about the noise. To Mrs. Churchill she said "distressing noise. To Doherty, "noise like scraping". To Mullaly, "scraping". To Bridget, "groan".

p. 71 (must have had an interruption here because I'm not sure who's speaking but think it's still the prosecutor in his statement repeating something Lizzie said): I was out in the back yard, I heard a groan, came in and found the door open.

p. 74: ...when she was outside she heard an alarming noise...

At www.thelizziebordencollection.com this is addressed this way: Eventually after repeating her story for an hour or two, Lizzie settled on something less dramatic.

If we go back to the prosecutor's statement, probably about page 30, it looks like he detailed the noises Lizzie claimed to have heard and then said there was no distress, he (Andrew) died with the first blow.

I have read somewhere, and it could be an author's addition though I thought it was contemporary, that Lizzie insisted she had heard scraping or a groan or thud or something, until it was explained to her that Andrew could not have made a sound.

At the inquest Lizzie did not say anything about this. She speaks of coming into the house, placing her hat in the dining room, etc. then finding her father's body incidental to going to her room upstairs.

Doherty is blunt in saying she changed her story. He's the one who didn't like her. The way he says she changed her story makes her sound like a deliberate liar which I am sure was his intention.

Masterton suggests she could have heard any number of sounds from the street and believed they came from within the house.

SO...if Lizzie is guilty none of this matters because it would all be lies. If she is not guilty and since I champion this idea, perhaps that's why I remember that she was talked out of believing she heard a sound or sounds. The turning point in her story is when it was explained to her that Andrew could not have made a sound. My understanding of Lizzie hearing anything, from my first reading of the story at age 12 until now on the internet, is that as she entered the house or was on the steps at the open screen door, she heard whatever. I never remember reading anything about Lizzie attributing these sounds to Andrew but I always remember her dropping that part of the story when it was known or when she was told, etc. that Andrew could not have made a sound.

Since I think she is innocent or at least didn't physically commit the murders, my theory is that the sounds could have been the intruder/killer leaving. Through a window he opened (scraping)? A thud when he hit the ground? (I never found the word thud in my search today but thought that was mentioned somewhere.) Could the killer have seen her come in and made a slight vocal noise, perhaps even a groan? Could he have groaned after hitting the ground?

Since NOBODY seems to have followed through with pertinent questions to Lizzie we don't even know the context of what she said, be it lie or truth. What does it add to the story? From the lie perspective it strengthens her story that she was outside and came inside to find the body. It adds urgency to the story.

From the truth perspective, whether or not the sound(s) came from the house, yard or street, did Lizzie believe her father groaned and she could have helped him? Was she coming to his aid? Was this her way of saying, "I don't believe he is truly dead, I heard him call out"? Was that the importance of the sounds and is that why she dropped that part of the tale when she understood absolutely that Andrew died "with the first blow" and could not call out? Lizzie isn't very imaginative. She's not likely to say, well then who DID make the noises? Perhaps she tried in vain to make people believe her and they misunderstood or the police tho seemed to despise her told her she was lying, so she started to doubt herself. I know the feeling when you have an odd story that is almost unbelievable and you need someone to believe it. Eventually you pull inside of yourself and hope the truth will come out. Possibly it wasn't worth it to Lizzie to try to make others understand or they thought she was in shock and didn't know the truth. Again, good questioning could have shed light on her perspective or reason for telling about "noises".

Now Lizzie is a lousy liar and I would be a fool to try to say she never lied. However I would expect even Lizzie to be able to tell a coherent, slightly dramatic story to enhance her innocence if such was needed. "I heard Father groan and I rushed in." "I am sure I heard Father call to me; I cannot believe he is dead." Even she could do that. The noises so far as I know were never linked to Andrew in Lizzie's telling or in the regurgitations of others quoting her. So what the heck does "distressing" or "alarming" noise mean? What's the point? She was outside. She had to come back in sometime. So she did. Big deal. She put away her hat and headed to her bedroom and... OK. Where do the noises fit into that if she didn't actually hear something she didn't understand?

Since Lizzie never testified about the noises we simply have no idea. When she was talking about the noises she may also have said she couldn't believe her father was dead or that she called the doctor to save his life. The police who despised her wouldn't put all that together. Or her friends failed to relay the whole context. Or they thought it was an error resulting from shock and grief. One thing of interest to me is that the prosecutor did not mention any of this in his inquest questions. If Lizzie was perceived to be lying, why not hammer her with this to harm her credibility?

Interesting, Irina.
I really wish that Lizzie had taken the stand at her trial. We would have some answers then, wouldn't we, from the horse's mouth?
On Page 4 of the Threads there is one, 'Reliability of Memory,' which I am sure you will find of interest,(or alternatively it can be accessed through Advanced Search). Can't post the link, I'm afraid. I'm out and my computer's playing up for some reason! However, Allen in this thread posts a riposte to Lizzie's memory of various noises heard on her way back to the house. If Lizzie heard a groan and was going 'to the aid of her father' why didn't she aid him, not just look at him from the kitchen?

I thought Officer Harrington (the fashion expert) was the policeman who took against Lizzie from almost the first moment, not Doherty?

Curryong wrote:... On Page 4 of the Threads there is one, 'Reliability of Memory,' which I am sure you will find of interest,(or alternatively it can be accessed through Advanced Search). Can't post the link, I'm afraid. I'm out and my computer's playing up for some reason! ...

Is this the link you are referring to? viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5259

Twinsrwe, you are a lifesaver!!

Oh, I was just trying to help out a forum friend; I'm just glad it was the right link!

Lizzie has no imagination Irina? I don't know, she spun quite a imaginative story to the neighbor the night before saying that she thought people were going to break into her home, kill her father, and set the whole place on fire...that takes some imagination!!

Makes me wonder if Bridget had opted for the fabric sale if the house would've gone up in flames. Would they have had the forensic ability to determine Abby and Andrew had been killed prior to the fire if the house were completely consumed? Maybe this is why Lizzie didn't have a coherent story...she planned to explain a fire instead. Just think: if Lizzie truly had intentions to burn the house then she was willing to place the lives of all her neighbors in danger, too. Fire departments back then were not highly effective.

It's an intriguing thought isn't it? It might have worked if No 92 had been in a more remote location I think. However, as it was, it was on a busy road with neighbouring houses quite near. A wisp of smoke and you'd get someone telephoning for the fire brigade and helpful male onlookers rushing over from Hall's stables with buckets. The fire would probably be out before it reached the upper stories.

I can't help wondering why Lizzie didn't set fire to the place (at night) when she returned from Europe. It would at least have solved the problem of the domestic facilities. Andrew would have had to move his family into a more modern home, or rebuilt with a bathroom and WC upstairs. Hey, it could have saved a lot of trouble!

There are at least two ways to understand Lizzie's ramblings to Alice Russell. One is complete fabrication, i.e. lies. Or it is the product of real or imagined fear, real or pathological depression, etc. We have Lizzie saying her father and possibly the family is in danger. After the murders everyone, including Lizzie says Andrew never had an enemy in the world. Tells me nobody wanted to air dirty laundry in a public forum. Andrew wasn't a saint and he wasn't a monster. I'm sure he had people who hated him. It goes with the territory, with his business and banking interests. Again nobody really asked Lizzie about what she had told Russell, or asked her to clarify and define it. Without proper interviews with Lizzie we are left with the reportage of others. It is fairly clear from Alice Russell's testimony that a great deal was discussed that night which Alice never revealed. Perhaps there were specifics about people or events.

That Lizzie said she feared the house would be burned down over their heads, I do not find to be creative. To me it is a way that Lizzie defined her depressed mood. Taken literally Lizzie is saying things are bad, REALLY bad. Alice tries to talk her out of the mood which causes Lizzie to emphasize what she said. Thus the house might burn down over everyone's heads.

I do think forensically the prior murder by hatchet of Andrew and Abby would have been detected after a fire if anybody had bothered to look.

irina wrote:There are at least two ways to understand Lizzie's ramblings to Alice Russell. One is complete fabrication, i.e. lies. Or it is the product of real or imagined fear, real or pathological depression, etc. We have Lizzie saying her father and possibly the family is in danger.

A third way to think about this is listed by John Douglas in the Crime Classification Manual under common forensic findings of a staged domestic homicide:"Postoffense interviews of close friends or family members often reveal that the victim had expressed concerns or fears regarding the victim's safety or even a sense of foreboding."

Douglas, John; Burgess, Ann W.; Burgess, Allen G.; Ressler, Robert K. Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crime.

That's interesting, debbie. The hidden enemy within. Didn't Lizzie express thoughts that 'something' was hanging over her, when she was at Marion? It's extraordinary, really. Father has enemies, family may be being poisoned, a feeling of foreboding-- and then, lo and behold, murders.

While the fear of her family being killed can be brushed off as 'paranoid fear' the TIMING of these revelations to the neighbor is key. The very night before the killings, 12 hours before, Lizzie announced that she feared someone coming in and killing her family then BOOM- someone comes in and kills her family the next day.....Of course Lizzie could have had a supernatural premonition, aliens could have invaded her head, it could be a huge coincidence, BUT given all things being equal, the simplest solution is usually correct. She talked about her family being dead b/c she had foreknowledge that they would be dead.

I believe the murders were pre-meditated. However, I don't believe they were originally planned to occur when they did, but in the near future. I think Lizzie's conversation with Alice may have been her way of manipulating Alice into backing her up, when the time came for the murders to occur. If the murders had occurred within a couple of weeks after this conversation took place, then Alice would have believed that Lizzie's uneasy feelings were justified. Since the murders occurred the very next morning, Alice may have believed Lizzie was right in saying that her father had enemies, but was wondering as everyone else did, how an intruder could have accomplished the murders without any evidence to prove an outsider was even in the house. As it was, Alice probably leaned toward Lizzie' innocence until the dress burning incident.

Yes, I agree, twinsrwe. I think the dress-burning incident shocked Alice to the core.

Me three...:-)

I think Lizzie planned to kill them, perhaps that very afternoon or sometime soon and then burn down the house around their remains. But Uncle John's presence moved up her plans either because he was coming home for lunch or because of something she overheard the night before. Or (in reference to BOBO's recent posts) maybe she and Emma saw their inheritance being used to pay off pregnant maids and an irate step-mother.

I haven't decided whether Lizzie had help from beyond the household or whether Bridget was complicit if not actively involved.
Seemingly Lizzie's intent was to lure Bridget out of the house for a fabric sale but they might have conspired to use this as an alibi. I'm finding it more and more difficult to believe Lizzie acted entirely alone, and Uncle John being an accomplice makes no sense. He had nothing to gain. Emma had a lot to gain but her alibi seems airtight. So it's either a mysterious stranger (like David Anthony or Billy Borden) or Bridget or no one.

I'd love to know whether there's a pattern of the Borden maids returning to Ireland for an extended period of time shortly after their employment ended. Or whether Dr. Bowen was willing to take the hatchet out in his medical bag to keep from performing yet another abortion.

Yes, I know. There's nothing to support this...at least not that we have access to. However, the more I think about motive the more I see hurrying up the inheritance or even sharing it with Abby as not being "enough" to set a plan like this into action. The damage done to both of them looks like punishment...perhaps enraged retribution rather than money alone.

I agree, Curryong. The dress burning incident was apparently a real eye-opener for Alice. I think Lizzie's action of burning that dress 3 days after Andrew and Abby were killed, nagged at Alice until she decided she must report the incident to the district attorney.

Chronicle dated June 10, 1893:

Debbie, you bring up some good points! I don't agree with everything you posted, but there are several things I do agree with. I especially like your statement of: The damage done to both of them looks like punishment...perhaps enraged retribution rather than money alone. Very interesting!!!

twinsrwe wrote:Debbie, you bring up some good points! I don't agree with everything you posted, but there are several things I do agree with. I especially like your statement of: The damage done to both of them looks like punishment...perhaps enraged retribution rather than money alone. Very interesting!!!

Lol... I might not agree with everything I post either...I enjoy tossing out ideas and then giving the responses careful consideration. Going around in circles over the same printed word seems to go nowhere for me. I do, however, think the killer, most likely Lizzie, was enraged. The damage done to both bodies points to overkill and depersonalization, especially Andrew whose face was obliterated.

"Depersonalization is one form of postmortem mutilation used to obscure the personal identity of the victim. Depersonalization can be as subtle as covering up the victims face with a towel or bedspread, or it can involve brutally slashing the victims face beyond recognition." – Macalester University criminolgy website