Lizzie Borden Audio
Lizzie Borden Audio is a new episodic series that appeals to lovers of the dark and macabre nature of a historical true crime investigation from the famous 1892 case. Told from multiple witnesses utilizing the primary source transcripts with short musical interludes, it is the first podcast made entirely from trial testimony with humorous bits of music to accent the absurd and sometimes comical nature of the crime. All work is nonfiction and comes from the trial, the published works of Borden scholars, and the newspapers of the time.
Lizzie Borden Audio
Witness Statements - Analysis - Part 1 - Lizzie Borden Trial
In this episode, we plunge into the murky waters of the Lizzie Borden murder case, dissecting the chaos and confusion that followed the brutal slayings of Andrew and Abby Borden on that fateful August day in 1892. With original witness statements from the time, we aim to sift through the historical noise and uncover the contradictions that have kept this case alive for over a century.
We scrutinize the accounts of key witnesses, from the first responders, Officer George W. Allen and Dr. Bowen, whose premature conclusions raise serious questions, to Lizzie’s own contradictory statements that leave us guessing. What was she really doing in the barn? And why did she resist a search of her room?
Bridget Sullivan, the maid, provides a crucial timeline that clashes with Lizzie’s narrative, while the mysterious club found under Alice Russell's bed and the suspicious behavior of those involved hint at deeper secrets. We delve into the ethical quagmire of the investigation, exploring allegations of bribery and witness tampering that cast a shadow over the entire legal process.
As we navigate through the testimonies, it becomes clear that the human element—fear, bias, and self-preservation—plays a pivotal role in this tragic saga. Join us as we unravel the threads of this infamous case, still shrouded in mystery and intrigue, leaving us to ponder: what really happened in that house on Second Street?
L
>> Speaker A:Welcome, curious minds to the deep dive. Today, we're not just scratching the surface of true crime history. We are plunging headfirst into one of its most enduring, chilling, and endlessly debated mysteries. The brutal axe murders of Andrew and Abby Borden in Fall River, Massachusetts, back in August of 1892. We're going straight to the raw, immediate, and often contradictory original witness statements taken by the Fall River Police Department in the chaotic, terrifying aftermath of those horrific events on August 4th. And for anyone who is captivated by true crime, fascinated by legal history, or simply intrigued by the messy, very human reality of how information is gathered and shaped in moments of profound crisis, these aren't just dry, dusty reports.
>> Speaker B:No, not at all.
>> Speaker A:They are a unique shortcut to being truly well informed about the Borden case, providing those crucial aha. Moments that highlight the complexities and the very human elements often lost in later retellings or sensationalized accounts. Prepare yourself for some genuinely surprising facts and a much deeper, more nuanced understanding of this unsolved puzzle.
>> Speaker B:What's truly fascinating to me is how these initial, unrefined, statements, often taken from people in shock, under duress, or even maybe in a state of deception, become the foundational bedrock upon which all subsequent narratives, theories, and legal interpretations of the Borden case are built. To truly understand why this case remains so captivating and debated, why there's still a Lizzie Borden industry, a critical and detailed examination of these primary sources is absolutely essential. It's here in the raw data that the seeds of confusion, suspicion and enduring mystery were first sown. The scene that unfolded on August 4, 1892 was one of profound horror
>> Speaker A:Let's begin our journey right at the start, then, with those first chaotic hours on August 4, 1892, the scene that unfolded was one of rapid escalation, profound horror, and immediate disarray.
>> Speaker B: Indeed, the first official notice came from Officer George W. Allen. He recounts that at 15 minutes past 11:00am the marshal, himself, clearly agitated, emerged from his office.
>> Speaker A:Okay.
>> Speaker B:He instructed Allen to go up on Second street, the house next to Mrs. Buffington's above Borden street, and see what the matter is. This was not a routine call. The marshal's demeanor alone indicated something grave had occurred.
>> Speaker A:Allan didn't waste a second. He vividly describes running up Second street, grabbing a Mr. Sawyer on the way to accompany him. When they reached the side door of 92 Second street, the Borden home, they were immediately met by Dr. Bowen. The doctor, who was already on the scene, urgently asked for a police officer. Allen identified himself, and Dr. Bowen simply said, all right, come right in.
>> Speaker B:Just like that.
>> Speaker A:Allen's very first action, even amidst the unfolding horror, was to secure the scene, telling Mr. Sawyer to guard the side door and allow only police officers in. It's a striking detail showing the immediate shift from a quiet morning to a full blown crisis and the first attempt to control a scene that would quickly become, well, a maelstrom of information.
>> Speaker B:And then came the first grim discovery. Dr. Bowen led Alan directly into the sitting room. There on the lounge was Mr. Andrew Borden, face turned upwards.
>> Speaker A:Oh, wow.
>> Speaker B:Allan observed several cuts, long and deep on the left side of the face. His initial almost instinctual thought was that the wounds were inflicted with something like a razor.
>> Speaker A:Like a razor. Interesting initial thought, yeah.
>> Speaker B:The sheer brutality of it was immediately evident. Allen then ran back to the station as fast as he could, reporting that Mr. Borden had been cut in the face with something like a razor and was unmistakably dead. The urgency and the horror must have been palpable.
>> Speaker A:But as you said, the horror was only just beginning, wasn't it? The marshal then dispatched Officer Mullally. Officer Dougherty arrived shortly after them. When these officers went upstairs, Dr. Bowen initially speculated that Mrs. Borden. Abby had simply fainted with fright, which.
>> Speaker B:Seems incredible now, right?
>> Speaker A:But as Mullally and Doherty cautiously turned her over, Doherty exclaimed, my God, her face is all smashed in. This moment is pivotal. It highlights the initial confusion, the rapid, almost desperate assumptions made even by a medical professional.
>> Speaker B:Yeah, totally understandable in the shock, but.
>> Speaker A:Only to be shockingly disproven by the stark, brutal reality of the scene. It speaks to the utter chaos and the overwhelming nature of discovering such violence.
>> Speaker B:It truly does. It paints a picture of investigators and first responders being completely overwhelmed by the grisly reality, making early incorrect deductions that underscore the immediate disarray for investigators. Separating fact from initial perception in such a high stakes moment is. I mean, it's a monumental challenge.
>> Speaker A:Absolutely. From that point, the police knew they had a double murder on their hands. And they quickly turned their attention to interviewing the core household members to establish immediate narratives and alibis. Lizzie Borden's initial statement sets the stage for later revelations Let's begin with Lizzie Borden's initial statement to Officer John fleet, taken between 11.45am and 12m on August 4. This is her very first official account of that morning. It sets the stage for everything that follows.
>> Speaker B: Okay, so Lizzie told Fleet that her father, Andrew Borden, had returned home between 10:30 and 10:45am she described him as appearing quite feeble and claimed she helped him, advising him to lie down on the lounge, which he did. Uh-huh, her account then placed her ironing handkerchiefs in the dining room. From there, she stated she went to the barn, went upstairs in the barn and remained there for a significant period. Half an hour, she said. This is her alibi for the time of the murders.
>> Speaker A:Half an hour in the barn loft.
>> Speaker B:Okay.
>> Speaker A:and upon her return, she claimed she found her father dead on the lounge. She then went to the back stairs and called Bridget, the family servant downstairs, telling her someone had killed Father, and told her to get Dr. Bowen. This sequence of events is central to her alibi, placing her discovery of her father as the first and most immediate event. When Officer Fleet directly asked, did you see anyone around here? Lizzie's answer was a definitive no, I had not seen anyone in the house or yard. This denial, as we'll see, becomes very, very significant later, particularly in light of subsequent revelations.
>> Speaker B:Yeah, it really does. Lizzie Borden's initial statement is riddled with potential contradictions And one of the most intriguing and frankly, immediately suspicious parts of her initial statement is what's become known as the man about a shop story.
>> Speaker A:yes, this part.
>> Speaker B: Lizzie mentioned a man who had angry words with her father about a shop two weeks prior. She then claimed this same man called again that very morning around 9:00am wanting to hire a store.
>> Speaker A:Okay.
>> Speaker B:Crucially, she insisted she did not see him that morning, only heard father shut the door and thought the man went away. But here's the critical inconsistency. If she didn't see him, how could she possibly be so certain it was that specific man who called the second time just by hearing a door close?
>> Speaker A:Good point. That doesn't quite track, does it?
>> Speaker B:Not really. It's an immediate red flag, suggesting either, you know, a deliberate attempt to deflect suspicion, or maybe just a desperate, fabrication made up on the spot.
>> Speaker A:And then there's her demeanor, as noted by Fleet and her initial resistance to search. Fleet observed that when he wanted to search her room, Lizzie said she did now want to be bothered would make her sick.
>> Speaker B:Which is an interesting reaction, isn't it?
>> Speaker A:But she eventually allowed the search after he insisted on his duty. They reported finding no blood or instruments that had been used for murder. But she did emphasize that her room was always locked, making it impossible for anyone to get in or throw anything in her room.
>> Speaker B:That locked room detail, it always stands out.
>> Speaker A:It does. It suggests a need for control, perhaps, or a pre existing habit that just conveniently served her alibi at that moment. Her last stated sighting of Mrs. Borden was about 9 o' clock when she saw her in the bedroom when she was coming downstairs. This single initial statement from Lizzie is absolutely packed with potential contradictions. From the locked room to her claim of not seeing the man about a shop she mysteriously heard.
>> Speaker B:It's a statement that immediately raises more questions than it answers, which is, you know, the last thing investigators want from a key witness in a double murder. The locked room, her claimed movements, and the vague, unverified man about a shop story all contribute to a narrative that feels maybe carefully constructed rather than spontaneously recalled. Bridget Sullivan was washing windows during the morning of the murders
>> Speaker A:With Lizzie's initial, somewhat perplexing account in hand, the investigators quickly turned their attention to the, only other person known to be in the house during that critical window. Bridget Sullivan, the family servant. Her story, as we'll see, offers a crucial counterpoint to Lizzie's.
>> Speaker B: Yes. Bridget told John Fleet that she saw Mr. Borden enter the house around 10:40am she then gave a very specific detail. She saw him come in the dining room, go to the window and look at some papers which he had in his hands. He then went in the sitting room, sat down in the large chair near the window, and left Lizzie ironing some handkerchiefs in the dining room.
>> Speaker A:Okay, so that places Andrew in the sitting room near where he was found with Lizzie still ironing.
>> Speaker B: Exactly. Bridget then explicitly states her own movements. She went upstairs to fix her room at 10:55am and was upstairs about 10 minutes when Lizzie called her down saying her father was dead and to get.
>> Speaker A:Dr. Bowen only 10 minutes upstairs. That's a tight window.
>> Speaker B:Very tight. Bridget went for the doctor who wasn't in, and then went for Ms. Russell. When asked if she saw anyone, Bridget denied it. She stated she was washing the windows outside and did not see anyone but Mr. Morse that morning. Ah.
>> Speaker A:the window washing.
>> Speaker B:Yes. She was very sure that I was not upstairs more than 10 to 15 minutes. I did not hear the door opened while I was upstairs, nor did I see anyone from my window. This very specific detail about washing windows is her alibi for not observing anything externally, which becomes central to her testimony later on. It's, you know, verifiable and plausible.
>> Speaker A:And then we have John V. Morse, Mr. Borden's brother in law, who is staying at the house. Morse's alibi is quite detailed, designed to place him firmly away from the scene. During the murders. He told Fleet that he had slept in the guest room, the room where Mrs. Borden was found dead on August 3, having arrived from New Bedford the.
>> Speaker B:Previous afternoon, which is quite the coincidence, isn't it? Sleeping in the eventual murder room the night before.
>> Speaker A: It really is on August 4, he got up around 6am had breakfast and left the Borden house around 8:40am Leaving Mr. Borden at the door.
>> Speaker B: His morning movements were remarkably precise. He went to the post office, then visited relatives, the Emorys, at four way Bossett street from 9:30am to approximately 11:20am okay.
>> Speaker A:Specific times there very.
>> Speaker B:He then returned to the Borden House near 12 o', clock, which is when he learned of the murders. He expressed profound surprise that such a crime could occur in the daytime and right in the heart of the city, stating he couldn't see who could do this. Do not know that he has an enemy in the world.
>> Speaker A:That last part. No enemy in the world. Knowing what we learn later about family tensions, that feels a bit naive or maybe protective.
>> Speaker B:It could be either, couldn't it? For investigators, a, detailed alibi is a gift. But the very precision can sometimes invite scrutiny. And as we'll hear, even minor inconsistencies can cast a shadow. His quick dismissal of enemies, while maybe understandable in shock, definitely contrasts sharply with what would soon emerge about the Borden household's internal strife.
>> Speaker A:Right. Officer Harrington's observations on Lizzie Borden are incredibly revealing Moving beyond the immediate household members, Officer Harrington's observations from August 4th are incredibly revealing, particularly regarding Lizzie Borden's demeanor. What did he note?
>> Speaker B:Well, Harrington found her most calm and collected. He reported that there was not the least indication of agitation and no sign of sorrow or grief. No lamentation of the heart, no comment on the horror of the crime, and no expression of a wish that the criminal be caught.
>> Speaker A:Wow. No comment on the horror, no wish for the killer to be caught. That's striking.
>> Speaker B:It certainly struck Harrington. And what truly stood out to him, prompting what he called a revolting thought, was that all this, and something that to me is indescribable, gave birth to a thought that was most revolting. I thought at least she knew more than she wished to tell.
>> Speaker A:A gut feeling from the officer on the scene.
>> Speaker B:Exactly. He even noted her attire, almost in forensic detail, describing her as dressed in a striped house wrapper, full waist, and caught on the side by a bright red ribbon which was tied in a bow in front. The stripes were on the pink shade, and between them was a dark figure.
>> Speaker A:That's incredibly specific detail for her clothing.
>> Speaker B:It is. And he contrasted it with Alice Russell, who was also present, describing her as very pale and much agitated, which she showed by short, sharp breathing and wringing her hands. And she spoke not a word.
>> Speaker A:So a stark contrast in demeanor between Lizzie and her friend.
>> Speaker B:Absolutely striking. And for a seasoned investigator like Harrington, while everyone reacts Differently to trauma. Lizzie's composure clearly felt suspicious and unnatural for the circumstances. This immediate gut level suspicion from a trained observer is a crucial early thread in the investigation and undoubtedly influenced how they perceived Lizzie from that point forward. It's the kind of subtle observation that can deeply color an investigation.
>> Speaker A:But Harrington's observations didn't stop at Lizzie's demeanor, did they? He also witnessed some highly controversial and deeply suspicious actions by key figures.
>> Speaker B:That's right. In the kitchen, he observed Dr. Bowen, the family doctor, burning scraps of paper in a stove that had very little fire.
>> Speaker A:Burning paper hours after a murder?
>> Speaker B:Exactly. Dr. Bowen dismissed them, saying, it is nothing. It is something about, I think, my daughter going through somewhere. Harrington recalled they might have been addressed to Emma, Lizzie's sister. Despite the casual dismissal, Harrington distinctly suspected paper had been burned there.
>> Speaker A:That is incredibly suspicious. A key figure, the family doctor, potentially destroying evidence. It's an immediate blow to the integrity of the scene.
>> Speaker B:And then there was the bizarre milk incident. Dr. Dolan, another medical professional on the scene, unusually instructed Harrington to take care of this milk, stating quite cryptically that the family has been sick.
>> Speaker A:The family had been sick. Okay, that's interesting.
>> Speaker B:It is. Officer Fleet then countermanded the order, telling Harrington to go cover Bay street instead, saying he would take care of the milk. This detail hints at a prior illness in the household, raising the chilling possibility of a prior poisoning attempt before the murders themselves.
>> Speaker A:Which would dramatically change the understanding of premeditation in the case.
>> Speaker B:Absolutely. The unusual interest in the milk and the subsequent counter order casts a shadow of suspicion on Dr. Dolan's actions around it. Why was the milk so important? And why did the family feel sick beforehand? This is a question that was sort of left hanging.
>> Speaker A:And then we come to the hatchet, which seems to reveal some truly problematic aspects of the police's immediate conduct.
>> Speaker B:Yeah, this part is troubling. Harrington explicitly states that upon entering the cellar washroom, he found two axes and one hatchet.
>> Speaker A:Okay.
>> Speaker B:He then notes that another hatchet which was then missing, he had previously seen upstairs, I think, in the hand of Dr. Dolan.
>> Speaker A:Seen upstairs in Dr. Dolan's hand?
>> Speaker B:That's what he reported. He went in search of it, found this missing hatchet in the first cellar. And then, controversially, he gave it to Assistant Fleet, suggesting placing it in some place where it could not be readily.
>> Speaker A:Found, suggesting they hide potential evidence.
>> Speaker B:It's, a truly astonishing and deeply concerning act for a police officer. It suggests either gross incompetence in evidence handling, a severe lack of understanding of crime scene preservation. Or far more disturbingly, maybe a deliberate attempt to control or even obscure a crucial piece of evidence in an irregular, almost clandestine manner.
>> Speaker A:And the fact that Dr. Dolan, the family doctor, was seen with it initially Just adds another layer of intrigue, doesn't it? It raises serious questions about his role in the immediate aftermath and his possible complicity in obscuring details.
>> Speaker B:It really does. For those fascinated by the deep mechanics of the Borden case, these subtle actions by those closest to the family and the authorities themselves are as important as any direct testimony. They hint at a pattern of behavior designed to manage the flow of information and evidence from the very first moments. The silence from the outside world supports early theories of an inside job
>> Speaker A:Now, let's turn our attention to the broader neighborhood. What did the immediate neighbors and bystanders observe on that chaotic August 4th?
>> Speaker B:Well, the shocking answer almost uniformly is very little, really.
>> Speaker A:Nothing?
>> Speaker B:Pretty much multiple individuals, including Lucy Collett, John Denny, Patrick McGowan, Mrs. Crapo, employees of the Fall River Ice Counter, Dr. Kelly's Girl Mary, Mrs. Dr. Bowen, Mrs. Churchill, Mrs. John Gonely, and Dennis Sullivan all reported hearing no noise, no cry, and seeing no suspicious characters or no person leave the yard.
>> Speaker A:Wow. The silence from the outside world For a double murder committed in broad daylight in a residential area.
>> Speaker B:It's one of the most compelling elements supporting early theories of an inside job, isn't it? It makes it incredibly difficult to argue for an external perpetrator who could have slipped in, committed such a violent act, and then escaped unnoticed by anyone in a busy residential street. This lack of external observations Strongly channels suspicion back to those within the household.
>> Speaker A:But amidst this silence, there was one very significant early lead that directly implicated Lizzie. Eli Bentz, the druggist.
>> Speaker B:Ah, yes. The prussic acid incident. This is huge. Ben stated that on Wednesday morning, August 3rd, the day before the murders, A lady came into his store and asked for a prussic acid.
>> Speaker A:Prussic acid? That's serious poison.
>> Speaker B:Extremely lethal. She claimed it was to put on the edge of a seal skin coat. He refused the sale, recognizing the danger crucially, when later placed in a position where he could see and hear Lizzie Borden. Benz was very positive in identification, not only of her face and general appearance, but also of her voice.
>> Speaker A:He positively identified Lizzie as the woman asking for poison the day before.
>> Speaker B:That's what he stated. This is a major and profoundly unsettling piece of early evidence. It directly connects Lizzie to an attempt to acquire a highly lethal poison just the day before the murders.
>> Speaker A:Wow.
>> Speaker B:This detail, more than almost any other in the initial hours, suggests either premeditation for the murders themselves. Or perhaps a prior, maybe failed attempt to harm her family.
>> Speaker A:Which connects back to that strange comment about the family being sick in the milk.
>> Speaker B:Exactly. It resonates eerily with that earlier comment. It immediately cast a very dark cloud of suspicion over Lizzie Borden in the eyes of the police. And for good reason. For anyone studying the case, this detail is just impossible to ignore.
>> Speaker A:As the investigation deepened, more layers of contradiction, family tension and tangled leads began to surface, complicating what was already a deeply disturbing scene. John V. Morse's alibi for Borden murder has numerous inconsistencies Let's revisit John V. Morse's alibi. While his general movements seemed to place him away from the crime scene, Officer Medley's later interview revealed some minor but telling, telling inconsistencies.
>> Speaker B: Right. Mrs. Emery, at 4 Waybossett street, where he visited relatives, stated Morse left their house at 11:20am Not 11:30am as he claimed.
>> Speaker A:A, 10 minute difference, maybe minor, maybe not.
>> Speaker B:Could be just memory. But she also directly contradicted his assertion that he had never seen his nephew niece before, stating that Mr. Morse had not been to their house before in several years.
>> Speaker A:Okay, that's a more direct contradiction about his relationship with the family he visited.
>> Speaker B:Yes. And a reporter for the Daily Globe, Mr. Porter, claimed Morse said he first learned of the murder by telephone. Which directly contradicted Morse's own statement to Fleet that he found out upon returning to the Borden house.
>> Speaker A:So multiple small inconsistencies. What's the takeaway here?
>> Speaker B:Well, while Morse's alibi for the actual murder time seems to largely hold up, these minor discrepancies, particularly about how long he stayed with relatives or how he learned of the murders, begin to chip away at his overall credibility. It raises the why would someone misrepresent such seemingly insignificant details? Was it forgetfulness under duress? Or a subtle attempt to control his narrative for reasons yet unknown? For investigators, even small untruths can erode trust and prompt deeper scrutiny.
>> Speaker A:Makes sense. The police also worked to establish Mr. Borden's last known movements with a real detail, trying to narrow down the window of opportunity for the killer.
>> Speaker B: Yes. Statements from Mr. Hart at the Union Savings Bank, Everett Cook at the First national bank and John T. Burl at the Union National bank confirm Mr. Borden's bank visits between 9:30am M. And 10:00am Multiple witnesses at the banks noted he looked tired and sick.
>> Speaker A:Tired and sick. That echoes Lizzie's description of him being feeble.
>> Speaker B:It does. Edith Francis, a clerk, and Charles C. Cook, his business manager, both saw him walking south on South Main street shortly after 10 o'. Clock.
>> Speaker A:So we have a pretty solid timeline for him heading home around then.
>> Speaker B: Exactly. This detailed timeline is critical. If he was last seen walking home shortly after 10am and Mrs. Borden was likely murdered closer to 10am or slightly before, with Mr. Borden maybe killed around 11:10am Based on Lizzie's initial account, or perhaps earlier based on Dr. Dedrick's findings, it defines the crucial window of time for the killer to act. This kind of precise external corroboration helps investigators build a framework for the crime. Family dynamics and financial strife emerge as potential motive for Borden murders
>> Speaker A:Okay, now let's really unpack the family dynamics and financial strife, which quickly emerged as a very compelling potential motive for the horrific crime. Charles C. Cook, Mr. Borden's business manager, confirmed that Lizzie and Emma jointly owned property on Ferry street, which Lizzie later conveyed back to her father. Cook noted that Lizzie had previously inquired about its value. This highlights a financial entanglement between Lizzie and her father that involved property, a common source of domestic tension.
>> Speaker B:Yeah, money and property are often at the root of family disputes. And even more revealing is the question of Mr. Borden's will. Cook stated that he did not believe Mr. Borden had made a will.
>> Speaker A:No will for a man of property.
>> Speaker B:Apparently not. Cook recalled the conversation where Mr. Borden told him, charles, do you know that is something I have never done yet, but I must attend to it. This absence of a will, meaning Mr. Borden would die intestate without a valid will, would mean his property would be divided according to law, which might not.
>> Speaker A:Align with his daughter's expectations or desires, especially given the strained relationships.
>> Speaker B:Precisely. This lack of a formal will, coupled with the property transfer stuff, presents a very strong potential motive related to inheritance.
>> Speaker A:And the animosity toward their stepmother, Abby Borden, comes through in multiple consistent witness statements, painting a grim picture of domestic discord.
>> Speaker B:Oh, absolutely. Mrs. Perry Gifford, a seamstress for the family, recounted Lizzie saying harsh things, calling her stepmother a horrid old thing, and refusing to dine at the same table. An incident that occurred in April, just a few months prior to the murders.
>> Speaker A:So this wasn't a secret, fleeting dislike. It was open, sustained animosity.
>> Speaker B:Seems that way. Ms. Ida Gray also overheard Lythie say when referring to Mrs. Borden that she was one of the kind that never die.
>> Speaker A:Chilling remark in hindsight, isn't it?
>> Speaker B:What's striking across several of these accounts is that the report notes many of these women, Gifford, gray and later Mrs. George Whitehead, provided this information very reluctantly and not until they were forced quite hard.
>> Speaker A:They didn't want to talk about it?
>> Speaker B:Apparently not. Which suggests they knew more, but were hesitant to speak ill of the family. Indicating the depth of the bad blood was well known, perhaps even gossiped about, but kept somewhat under wraps.
>> Speaker A:Mrs. George Whitehead, who was Mrs. Borden's stepsister, directly stated the girls did not like Mrs. Borden buying her mother's interest in property. She observed that they showed their feeling on the street by not recognizing me. Lizzie did not like Mrs. Borden.
>> Speaker B:Yeah, that paints a picture of open hostility, not just private resentment. The financial disputes were bleeding into social interactions, making the family's dysfunction quite public.
>> Speaker A:And Mrs. M. Silas W. Tripped a schoolmate's wife provided an even more direct link to financial concerns and a clear articulation of Lizzie's resentment.
>> Speaker B:What did she say?
>> Speaker A:Lizzie told her Mrs. Borden was deceitful, being one thing to her face and another to her back. Lizzie also claimed Mrs. Borden must have influence with my father or he never would have given my stepmother's half sister such a very large sum of money. Ah.
>> Speaker B:the property gift again.
>> Speaker A:Exactly. And critically, Lizzie worried. I. I do not know that my sister or I would get anything in the event of my father's death.
>> Speaker B:Wow. That's a very clear, direct articulation of a financial grievance and a fear of disinheritance, providing a powerful and understandable motive for anyone looking to understand the psychological underpinnings of the crime.
>> Speaker A:Finally, Mrs. Jane Gray, Mrs. Borden's stepmother, confirmed that things were not as pleasant at the Borden house. She reported that Mrs. Borden felt she had to furnish house items from her allowance, unlike the girls who received the same amount for their own use, suggesting a perceived inequity in how money was allocated.
>> Speaker B:Right.
>> Speaker A:So across multiple independent accounts, we see consistent testimony confirming deep seated resentment, open hostility and significant financial tension within the board and household, painting a very clear picture of motive for those fascinated by the psychological landscape of the case. This isn't just theory. It's what those close to the family observed firsthand.
>> Speaker B:The sheer consistency of testimony from so many distinct sources regarding the family's fractured relationships and the financial grievances is arguably one of the strong, strongest and most compelling threads in the entire investigation, providing a very plausible motive for the prosecution to later pursue. It lays bare the deep cracks in the Borden family facade.
>> Speaker A:Now, let's delve into the physical evidence trail itself, the collection, the contradictions, and as we'll see, the many missteps that complicate any definitive forensic conclusion. Critical physical evidence was either deliberately obscured or treated with shocking negligence Today, Officer F.L. edson provided a detailed account of the hatchet finding on August 5th, the day after the murders.
>> Speaker B:Okay. Day two.
>> Speaker A: He arrived at the Borden house early at 5:55am and was part of the initial, more thorough search. In the cellar washroom, he found two axes and a single hatchet, along with critically wet towels with blood on the towels.
>> Speaker B:Wet towels with blood suggesting a cleanup seems likely.
>> Speaker A:Edson then noted that Harrington, who was also present, mentioned there was one more hatchet in the cellar. Edson went back down with Harrington and found this missing hatchet on a shelf in the vegetable cellar.
>> Speaker B:The one Harrington had possibly seen upstairs with Dr. Dolan.
>> Speaker A:That seems to be the implication. And Edson then provided a very specific and chilling description of this large hatchet. It was about 17 inches long with a blade about 5 inches broad. Crucially, it had a spot of rust or blood near the handle.
>> Speaker B:Okay.
>> Speaker A:Light colored hair from this spot to the handle and dark spots on handle, which he couldn't definitively determine if they were dirt or blood. The blade also appeared to have been in water, strongly suggesting a deliberate attempt to clean the weapon.
>> Speaker B:Wow. Blood, hair and signs of washing. That sounds like the murder weapon, doesn't it? The presence of light colored hair is a particularly grim and minute detail, possibly from Mrs. Borden.
>> Speaker A:It certainly sounds like a prime candidate. But what happened next with other evidence is even more astonishing and frankly, deeply problematic. Officer Albert E. Chase oversaw the burial of numerous bloodstained items from a washtub in the cellar on August 5th.
>> Speaker B:Burial? They buried evidence.
>> Speaker A:They buried evidence. And this wasn't just a few items. It was a shocking array of household articles.
>> Speaker B:Okay, listen up. This sounds incredible.
>> Speaker A:A sofa pillow, a large piece of Brussels carpet, cotton batting, a sheet cotton cloth, three towels, a napkin, a chemise, a dress, a pair drawers, a skirt, two aprons, and most disturbingly, one hair braid. And several pieces of hair from M. Mrs. Borden's head from 5 to 8 inches long, along with a necktie, a truss and a piece of black silk braid or watch guard.
>> Speaker B:They buried Mrs. Borden's hair and bloody clothes.
>> Speaker A:M and carpet?
>> Speaker B:Yes. He also found, mixed with Mrs. Borden's hair, a piece of bone from her skull which was cut so smooth, which he gave directly to Dr. Dolan.
>> Speaker A:Gave a piece of skull to Dr. Dolan.
>> Speaker B:Okay. And then about the middle of the next week, Dr. Dolan ordered all these articles dug up again. After taking out specific pieces of clothing and carpet, they were ordered buried again, this time all in a box. This is. This is Unbelievable. It's an incredible act of apparent evidence destruction and gross mishandling by authorities. The profound insight here is that from literally day one, critical physical evidence, including human remains, was either deliberately obscured or treated with shocking negligence. this single act casts a permanent shadow, making any definitive forensic conclusion almost impossible for future generations. Why were these items, especially those with human remains and blood, not meticulously preserved for proper forensic examination? It's truly baffling and highly suspicious.
>> Speaker A:And Dr. Dolan's direct involvement, again, ordering them buried, then dug up, then reburied.
>> Speaker B:It raises incredibly serious questions about his role in judgment. Or worse.
>> Speaker A:Baffling indeed. And it gets worse, with direct contradictions from key witnesses regarding other potential evidence. Officer Medley questioned Lizzie about bloody cloths or towels in a pail in the wash cellar.
>> Speaker B:Okay, what did she say?
>> Speaker A:Lizzie simply dismissed it, saying, all right, she had told the doctor all about that and claimed the pail and its contents had been there three or four days.
>> Speaker B:Three or four days.
>> Speaker A:But Bridget, however, directly contradicted this. She stated she had not noticed the pail until that day, and it could not have been there two days before, or she would have seen it and put the contents in the wash, as that was the day she had done the washing.
>> Speaker B:Ah. A direct contradiction between the two people most likely to know about laundry or cleaning within the household. That immediately creates a significant doubt about Lizzie's truthfulness and strongly suggests a potential cover up or cleanup effort. Someone is lying. And it points directly to an attempt to conceal evidence.
>> Speaker A:Exactly. Adding to this, Officer Joseph Hyde observed Ms. Russell and Lizzie Borden going into the cellar on the evening of August 4, just hours after the murders.
>> Speaker B:What did he see?
>> Speaker A:Lizzie was seen emptying something that sounded to me like water into the sink. Later, Lizzie returned alone to the cellar and stooped near the sink again. These observations, following the discovery of potentially cleaned weapons and buried evidence, strongly suggest suspicious activities in the cellar related to disposal or cleaning after the murders.
>> Speaker B:It all starts to paint a picture of activity after the fact.
>> Speaker A:And days later, on August 8th, Alice Russell, a close family friend, made another curious discovery that further complicated the evidence picture. She led Officer Hyde to the southeast bedroom and showed him a club about 20 inches long under the bed.
>> Speaker B:Another potential weapon days later.
>> Speaker A:Yes, expressing surprise she missed it earlier as she had slept there. Then, crucially, she begged me to tell no one, but the marshal begged for.
>> Speaker B:Secrecy about finding a potential weapon days later. That definitely muddies the waters. It suggests either extreme negligence in the initial search or a deliberate effort to introduce or hide an object and raises questions about Alice Russell's own involvement or knowledge of potential evidence.
>> Speaker A:It certainly adds another layer of intrigue and distrust to the early stages of the investigation. Meanwhile, the police were also chasing down numerous red herring leads, which I guess is common in high profile cases.
>> Speaker B:Oh yeah, absolutely. Peleg Brightman, for example, reported seeing a blood covered ax at a Portuguese family's home, the Silvius, near Gardner's Neck. Police investigated, but found an old, dull and much worn axe with no blood. Sylvia explained children's nosebleeds might have stained it. Police concluded it was not the murder weapon due to its condition and distance from the scene.
>> Speaker A:So a dead end, but one they had to follow.
>> Speaker B:Exactly. This particular instance shows the difficulty of filtering genuinely useful information from the noise and speculation that follows a brutal crime.
>> Speaker A:One of the most significant medical observations, and one that directly challenged Lizzie's initial narrative, came from Dr. Albert C. Bedrick. What did he find?
>> Speaker B:Well, he observed Mr. Borden's hand smeared with blood. More critically, he noted water stained with blood in a basin upstairs and saw Dr. Dolan wash his hands there.
>> Speaker A:Dr. Dolan again washing bloody hands upstairs. Dr. Dedrick determined Mrs. Borden was dead an hour earlier
>> Speaker B:Yes. But his most crucial determination was about the time of death for the two victims. Dr. Dedrick determined Mrs. Borden was dead sometime, noting her arm was cold, clammy and very stiff.
>> Speaker A:Okay. Signs of rigor mortis setting in.
>> Speaker B:Precisely. In contrast, Mr. Borden's arm bent very easily. Based on this, Dedrick concluded Mrs. Borden must have been dead an hour before.
>> Speaker A:Mr. Borden an hour earlier. That's huge.
>> Speaker B:It is. This is a critical forensic observation. A true aha moment in the case. It directly contradicts Lizzie's initial narrative of finding her father first, implying that Mrs. Borden was murdered. Murdered significantly earlier than Andrew. Which means this single piece of medical evidence, if accurate, entirely reshapes the timeline of events Lizzie provided and opens up a much longer window during which Lizzie was the only other person known to be in the house with Abby Borden. It's a very powerful piece of evidence that the prosecution would later seize upon.
>> Speaker A:Beyond the core details, the police also spent considerable time on various red herrings and unsubstantiated leads, which is typical of any large scale investigation trying to cover all bases. It sounds like a detective's nightmare, trying to untangle that web of half truths and well meaning but often inaccurate observations.
>> Speaker B:Oh, absolutely. It highlights the immense pressure and the sheer volume of misinformation Police have to contend with each of these while ultimately unhelpful consume precious resources and time, demonstrating just how difficult it is to filter truly useful intelligence from the deluge of rumors and coincidences that follow a high profile crime.
>> Speaker A:Like what kind of leads?
>> Speaker B:Well, for instance, there were detailed descriptions of a suspicious Frenchman attempting to hire a ride to New Bedford shortly after the murders, offering extra money, acting strangely despite police efforts, he was never located.
>> Speaker A:Piss vanished?
>> Speaker B:Seems so. And then there was George Bentley's report of an Italian man leaving a trunk and box with suspicious contents, including an old carpet bag, the inside of which was stained with what looked like blood or iron rust.
>> Speaker A:Police could not trace these items.
>> Speaker B:Morded, Ends.
>> Speaker A:Lots of them.
>> Speaker B:They also spent three days searching for a man named Sam Rubinski based on a letter, only to conclude it was a fake, pure and simple. And a man with a history of insanity, Charles B. Peckham, confessed to the murder, but was proven to have been homesick.
>> Speaker A:So false confession, too. And the unreliability of some witnesses was also evident, even within families. Right?
>> Speaker B:Definitely. Lucy G. Collett, despite multiple interviews, maintained her statement that no one came through the yard, nor could such be done. Without my knowing it, I heard no noise or cry. But more glaring were the conflicting statements from the Marshalls.
>> Speaker A:What'd they say?
>> Speaker B:Mrs. John Marshall claimed she saw a man by a buggy near Dr. Shagnan's, not in a hurry, with no blood or anything on his clothing, while her daughter in law, Mrs. Robert Marshall, directly contradicted this, stating there was absolutely nothing at all, and she cannot agree with her mother in law.
>> Speaker A:Wow. A direct contradiction from family members about the same potential sighting. That's a vivid example of how difficult it is to get consistent testimony, even from people who should have shared observations.
>> Speaker B:Indeed, the investigation also faced outright non cooperation. A, challenge for any Law Enforcement Agency. Mrs. Mary Wyatt, for instance, who lived over Dr. Bowen and was one of the first to tell people about the crime, dodged us for a week or more. And when finally seen positively, refused to be interviewed.
>> Speaker A:Just refused to talk.
>> Speaker B:Flat out refused. Similarly, Elizabeth M. Johnson refused to reveal the contents of a letter she received from Lizzie Borden on the day of the murders, acting notably on advice from Mr. Jennings, Lizzie's lawyer.
>> Speaker A:Ah, the lawyer getting involved early to control information.
>> Speaker B:Seems so. Other girls at Marion also refused to talk. This demonstrates that Lizzie's legal team was already advising witnesses on what information to withhold, directly impacting the police investigation and the integrity of the overall inquiry.
>> Speaker A:There was even an investigation into an alleged lover, Curtis the First.
>> Speaker B:Peace. Yeah. A rumor circulated that he was Lizzie Borden's old lover. Peace denied it, stating he hadn't seen her in over four years or written in two. The source includes his letter to Lizzie in jail and Mr. Jennings Stern reply telling him to cease correspondence mentioning Lizzie's previous conduct.
>> Speaker A:Interesting glimpse into her personal life and the lawyer's control. So this all paints a picture of an extremely challenging, chaotic investigation trying to discern truth amidst a flood of rumors, false leads and deliberate obfuscation even from within Lizzie's own camp.
>> Speaker B:It truly shows the immense complexity of the early investigation where police had to contend with a deluge of information. Some credible, much of it, not all, while navigating the complexities of family secrets, social pressures and very deliberate legal maneuvering designed to control the narrative. Explicit allegations of widespread conspiracy and corruption emerge weeks after the murders
>> Speaker A:This deep dive into the witness statements would be incomplete and frankly inaccurate. Without delving into what are arguably the most sensational and explosive revelations. Explicit allegations of widespread conspiracy and corruption that emerged in late September and October, weeks after the murders.
>> Speaker B:Yes, this part is quite something.
>> Speaker A:This comes from a truly extraordinary set of overheard conversations between Henry G. Trickey of the Boston daily globe and EP McHenry, who was described as an informant or police insider. These transcripts are absolutely jaw dropping.
>> Speaker B:They truly are explosive. On September 29, the overheard conversation reveals an alleged deal for the prosecution's evidence. McHenry stated to Tricky that there was $1,000 to be had for the prosecution's case.
>> Speaker A:A thousand dollars for the prosecution's case?
>> Speaker B:Yes. Tricky immediately confirmed that Mel Adams, Lizzie's defense Counsel, has the $1,000 ready to pay over it the minute the evidence of the prosecution was obtained by him. Tricky then added rather candidly, there will be $500 for you and $500 for me.
>> Speaker A:They were planning to buy the prosecution's evidence and split the money. That's. That's bribery. A scheme to rig the case.
>> Speaker B:It's a direct and astounding allegation of a scheme to buy off crucial prosecution evidence, essentially rigging the game for personal profit.
>> Speaker A:And the claim is that Lizzie herself assented to this.
>> Speaker B:That's what Tricky stated. He said that Jennings, Lizzie's lawyer, went and saw Lizzie and she assented to it. And Jennings wrote Adams it was alright.
>> Speaker A:So Lizzie knew and agreed to buy the evidence against her. If true, that implies a desperate, calculated effort to escape justice. It's a shocking claim.
>> Speaker B:It really is. If proven, it would shatter any remaining illusions of a clean investigation. And perhaps even more stunning is the personal detail regarding Adams own wife.
>> Speaker A:What about her?
>> Speaker B:Tricky recounts Adams showing him a Letter from his wife, which read, and I quote, I am ashamed to think that my husband has interested himself in the defense of this woman. When you know she is guilty, you had no business to have anything to do with her case.
>> Speaker A:His own wife believed Lizzie was guilty and was ashamed he took the case.
>> Speaker B:Wow.
>> Speaker A:that's a truly profound moment of insight, suggesting that even within the defense counsel's immediate family, there was a deeply held belief in Lizzie's guilt.
>> Speaker B:Yeah. It offers a glimpse behind the professional facade. And the allegations of bribing police and manipulating media leaks are rampant in these conversations.
>> Speaker A:How so?
>> Speaker B:Tricky openly admitted getting information indirectly from Harrington and Doherty through a policeman on the inside to whom he explicitly gave $25.
>> Speaker A:25 bucks for inside police info.
>> Speaker B:He dismisses Officer Medley as cheap, saying he could get him anytime for a couple of beers. He even claims the mayor was one of my best friends and gave him lots of good news.
>> Speaker A:So allegations against multiple officers, even the mayor. This paints a truly disturbing picture of widespread corruption, media manipulation, and highly unethical conduct, compromising the entire justice system.
>> Speaker B:These conversations paint a truly disturbing, almost noir like picture of the investigative environment. Furthermore, McHenry explicitly alleged witness tampering or suppression.
>> Speaker A:Tampering with witnesses, too.
>> Speaker B:He stated there were three or four very important witnesses who should be kept out of the state and are, ah, under my control. And in a direct reference to the crucial household servant, he also said that Bridget Sullivan ought to be sent out of the country.
>> Speaker A:Send Bridget out of the country. Keep witnesses out of state. This is a direct, shocking allegation of efforts to obstruct justice by removing inconvenient testimony. By literally making witnesses disappear to clear the path for the defense.
>> Speaker B:Exactly.
>> Speaker A:And their publication strategy for the acquired information was chillingly manipul.
>> Speaker B:How so?
>> Speaker A:Tricky openly planned to publish the evidence a few days before the grand jury meets specifically to give Adams a chance to work things. He intended to spend time in Fall river among the people and near Jennings's office to obscure the source of the.
>> Speaker B:Story, making it look like grassroots info. Not a leak.
>> Speaker A:Exactly. Clearly a tactic to make it appear as if the information was naturally circulating rather than being orchestrated by a dubious backroom deal. It's PR manipulation, pure and simple, long before PR was even a formal field. McHenry claims he hid under Lizzie's bed and listened to conversations
>> Speaker B:But the most sensational, almost unbelievable claim from McHenry is what's become known as the under the bed confession. Under the bed. What McHenry shockingly claimed, and I quote, once while Adams and Lizzie were talking, I was under the bed and heard every Word. This was unintentional. Why? There was someone in that room nearly all the time. And all the conversation between Lizzie and her friends was overheard.
>> Speaker A:He hid under Lizzie's bed and listened to her talk to her lawyer.
>> Speaker B:That's the claim. He even claimed his wife took shorthand notes while under the bed and that her evidence will be very interesting.
>> Speaker A:This is. This is almost too wild to believe. If this is true, it implies Lizzie made incriminating statements or even confessed and that truly disturbing, unethical surveillance was taking place. It highlights the extreme, almost absurd, and certainly questionable ethical lengths involved in information gathering. It's hard to imagine something more brazen.
>> Speaker B:It really is. The October 10th conversation reveals the inevitable breakdown in trust between these two alleged conspirators. Tricky. Published information prematurely leading McHenry to accuse him of not dealing squarely.
>> Speaker A:Ah. The deal started falling apart.
>> Speaker B:Yes, names and addresses given were wrong, leading to more accusations and threats of roasting McHenry in the paper. They argued over money shared between them, revealing the deeply self serving and exploitative nature of this alleged deal. Both parties were trying to exploit the situation for personal gain, even at the cost of accuracy or the veracity of the evidence itself.
>> Speaker A:It's a masterclass in how self interest can unravel a, clandestine operation amidst.
>> Speaker B:These truly sensational and disturbing claims of corruption. Bridget Sullivan, the family's maid, provided a later statement on October 1st. Her account reflects the immense toll the case took on witnesses.
>> Speaker A:What did she say then?
>> Speaker B:She confirmed she left New Bedford due to intense bad press, including a postal card addressed to New Bedford jail for witness fees.
>> Speaker A:Wow. Adjust to the jail. That's harsh.
>> Speaker B:Right? Stating she was tired of the whole thing and didn't want to see anyone related to the case. This is a powerful reminder of the human cost of being caught in the vortex of a high profile murder mystery.
>> Speaker A:Absolutely. Did she address any specific rumors?
>> Speaker B:She did. She directly denied the infamous milk story. The rumor that she threw milk away, stating whatever milk was left, I drank it. She confirmed Dr. Coughlin and Dr. Dolan washed their hands in the kitchen, but denied knowing who emptied the basin upstairs. And she also claimed she only used a hatchet once to take the heels off of my shoes. Addressing another specific rumor.
>> Speaker A:So Bridget's specific denials and confirmations, especially about the milk and the hatchet, address key rumors and add to our understanding of the household dynamics and the pressures on those involved. Her ultimate refusal to cooperate, further due to the stress and public scrutiny, underscores how incredibly difficult it was for investigators to get Clear, consistent and willing testimony amidst the circus that this case quickly became.
>> Speaker B:Yeah, it truly shows the immense personal cost of being involved in such a high profile case where witness statements were not just pieces of evidence, but sources of public and personal torment. It's clear that the human element, with all its flaws and pressures, profoundly shaped the evidence available to the investigators.
>> Speaker A:So as we wrap up this deep dive, we've journeyed through the immediate aftermath of the Borden murders, sifting through the chaotic initial reports, the telling inconsistencies and alibis, the chilling details of the physical evidence, the persistent family tensions, and the truly jaw dropping allegations of corruption and media manipulation that permeated the investigation from its earliest days. These raw, unfiltered witness statements provide unique insight into Borden case
>> Speaker B:These raw, unfiltered witness statements, despite their inherent biases, errors and the undeniable human element, are truly the closest we can get to the unfolding events of that fateful day. They demonstrate the incredible pressure on investigators and the complex, often messy reality of a high profile criminal inquiry. They reveal that truth in a crisis is rarely clean or straightforward.
>> Speaker A:And for you, the learner, these documents leave us with so many lingering questions and enduring mysteries. The unexplained man about a shop. The suspicious burning papers, the inexplicably buried bloodstained evidence. The chilling pressic acid purchase. The sensational alleged under the bed confession. The pervasive allegations of police bribery and witness tampering. Each detail we've uncovered invites more questions than it provides definitive answers.
>> Speaker B:For the lovers of the Lizzie Borden trial, these primary documents are not just historical artifacts. They are the very fabric of the Borden mystery. They are the foundation upon which all theories, debates and endless fascination are built. Understanding them in depth offers a unique lens into why this case remains so captivating and debated to this day. It's why it continues to capture our imagination, because the answers were so elusive from the very beginning. If the very first accounts and the methods of investigation were fraught with inconsistencies
>> Speaker A:And it leaves us with this final, provocative. If the very first accounts and the methods of investigation were so thoroughly fraught with inconsistencies, potential evidence destruction and alleged backroom deals, how much confidence can we truly place in any subsequent official narrative or legal conclusion drawn from this famous case?
>> Speaker B:Right.
>> Speaker A:What does this deep dive into the raw primary data teach us about discerning truth in a world of information overload both then and now? What stories are we missing because of corrupted evidence, then and even today?
>> Speaker B:A question that resonates far beyond 1892.
>> Speaker A:Indeed. We'll be back soon with another deep dive.