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 2 Including the McHenry/Trickey Affair!
A continuation of the detailed account of witness statements and police investigations surrounding the Borden murders. Analysis of the interdynamics of the family members of Lizzie Borden and her father and stepmother, John Morse, and maid Bridget Sullivan, and other community members.
Key figures such as Fall River police officer George W. Allen, detail the initial discovery of the bodies, and Lizzie Borden, who provides her conflicting alibi. The podcast also reveals attempts to bribe witnesses and manipulate the press by individuals like McHenry and Trickey, adding a layer of journalistic intrigue and legal maneuvering to the investigation.
Additionally, it chronicles various search efforts at the Borden residence and surrounding areas, the collection of physical evidence, and the questioning of numerous individuals for potential clues, painting a comprehensive picture of the extensive investigation into the infamous double murder of 1892.
Heeyyyy Lovers! The transcripts are now LIVE! I had to correct the spelling of her name from Lizzy to Lizzie and Bordon to Borden by hand over 40 times! YaY! So happy to be the first person to create the trial testimony into a series of podcasts for all of you - SUBSCRIBE so you don't miss the INQUEST of MRS. CHURCHILL and a DEEP DIVE on LIZZIE's INQUEST TESTIMONY coming soon.
The infamous Lizzie Borden murder case is a real enduring mystery
>> Speaker A:Welcome, welcome, welcome, everyone, to the Deep Dive.
>> Speaker B:Great to be here.
>> Speaker A:Today we are diving headfirst into, well, one of history's absolute classics of true crime. A real enduring mystery. The infamous Lizzie Borden murder case.
>> Speaker B:You can't escape it, really.
>> Speaker A:Exactly. And we're not just, you know, retelling the story you think, you know. We've got a stack of original witness statements right here from 1892.
>> Speaker B:Yeah. The actual words spoken just hours and days after the murders. Raw stuff.
>> Speaker A:And we're going to put on our expert, criminal law hats, guide you through this mess. Our mission? Cut through all that historical static, you know, sift through the contradictions.
>> Speaker B:And there are plenty of those.
>> Speaker A:Oh, absolutely. And pull out those little nuggets, those surprising facts that maybe get us a tiny bit closer to understanding what really went down in that house.
>> Speaker B:And our focus is going to be pretty forensic. Today. We're really scrutinizing the key witnesses, like, looking hard at their accounts, their credibility, their demeanor, as reported anyway, and pointing out those, well, those inconsistencies that just keep you guessing. Because what really comes through in a case that's bewildering is just the human element. All the bias, the fear, the instinct to protect yourself. It's all in there.
>> Speaker A:Totally. We're taking you right into the immediate aftermath. The chaos, the confusion seen through the eyes, heard through the words of the people who were right there. And, yeah, maybe with a little bit of a snarky, insight from us.
>> Speaker B:Just a bit.
>> Speaker A:Okay, let's unpack this thing because there is a lot to dig into here. So picture it. August 4, 1892. Fall River, Massachusetts. Hot, humid summer day. Everything's normal until it really, really isn't.
>> Speaker B:Right.
>> Speaker A:The whole thing kicks off with the discovery of Andrew Borden's body. And that immediately sets this tone of just chaos, disbelief. You've got Officer George W. Allen. He's one of the first police officers there. Dr. Bowen, the family doctor, summoned him. Allen rushes into the house and finds Mr. Borden, the patriarch, just lying there on the lounge in the sitting room. And the description is chilling. Several cuts, long and deep on the left side of the face. Just immediate brutal violence.
>> Speaker B:And right there, right at the very beginning, we hit our first, significant red flag. And it comes from Dr. Bowen himself. The doctor, the medical professional, the first one on scene. Officer Allen's report notes Bowen's. While, frankly, astonishingly premature. Your conclusion about Mrs. Borden, Abby Borden, the wife.
>> Speaker A:What did he say again? I was wild.
>> Speaker B:He said and, this is a quote that just makes you stop, I suppose she saw the killing of her husband and run upstairs and died with fright.
>> Speaker A:Died. Died with fright.
>> Speaker B:Died with fright. Now, from a criminal law standpoint, this is. Wow. It's highly problematic. He's making this definitive call about a second victim before anyone's even properly examined her.
>> Speaker A:Yeah. Before they even found her.
>> Speaker B:Exactly. This immediate jump to a conclusion, it just showed you how initial biases, even from professionals, can totally skew an investigation from the get go. You might go down the wrong path, miss crucial details or just dismiss a.
>> Speaker A:Whole murder victim for a bit, pretty much. And that makes the actual discovery of Mrs. Borden even more, well, gruesome and sad, doesn't it?
>> Speaker B:It does.
>> Speaker A:Because John Fleet, another officer, he gets there a bit later, maybe 11.45 noonish, he goes upstairs. And finds Mrs. Borden. His words.
>> Speaker B:Hm.
>> Speaker A:Dead on the floor between the bed and dressing case, head badly smashed, face downward. M. Just the raw brutality of that. Especially after Bowen's like, oh, she probably just got scared and died. This is such a stark contrast. Mr. Borden's wounds, immediately obvious violence. Mrs. Borden briefly dismissed as something less.
>> Speaker B:That died with fright theory just crumbled. The second Fleet saw her totally. Lizzie Borden's initial statement throws up a million questions
>> Speaker A:Okay, so let's turn to Lizzie Borden herself, the the enigma at the center of all this, the main event, Officer John Fleet. He's one of the to really question her in detail. And her initial story, given under, you know, pretty extreme circumstances, you'd think it's specific, but it also just throws up a million questions right away. She says she was ironing handkerchiefs in the dining room, which I left and went in the barn upstairs and remained there for half an hour.
>> Speaker B:Okay, Ironing, then barn, loft. Got it.
>> Speaker A:Right. Then she says Bridget had gone upstairs and when I came back, I found father dead on the lounge. And then she claimed she knew nothing further. Call Dr. Bowen. That's, it.
>> Speaker B:Nothing more to see here.
>> Speaker A:And she insists not seeing anyone in the house or yard.
>> Speaker B:Right. But even in that very first statement, you get these weird little details. She volunteers, like, why bring this up now?
>> Speaker A:Exactly. She mentions this random incident, totally unconnected, it seems, about a man, about a shop, who had angry talk with her dad two weeks before.
>> Speaker B:Okay, strange tangent.
>> Speaker A:And then she mentions the second caller on the morning of the murders. She says, and this is her quote, I did not see him. heard father shut the door and think the man went away.
>> Speaker B:Wait, wait, she didn't see him?
>> Speaker A:Nope.
>> Speaker B:But she Thinks it's the same guy from two weeks ago. The angry shock guy.
>> Speaker A:That's the implication she seems to be making. Here's where it gets really interesting. Or maybe just deeply suspicious.
>> Speaker B:Yeah. How could she possibly know it was the same man if she never laid eyes on him that morning? That's not just interesting. That's a logical leap into. Well, into nonsense.
>> Speaker A:Right. It makes no sense. It feels like she's throwing out red herrings herself. Deliberately, maybe.
>> Speaker B:It definitely demands scrutiny from investigators. And then there's her reaction when Fleet says he needs to search her room. Standard procedure, Right?
>> Speaker A:You'd think. But she initially resists. Says it would make her sick.
>> Speaker B:Make her sick. Okay.
>> Speaker A:Dramatic.
>> Speaker B:Only when Fleet basically says, look, there's been a double murder. I have to search. It's my duty. Only then does she kind of reluctantly agree. M. And then she adds this weird insistence that it was impossible for anyone to get in or throw anything in her room because she always kept it locked.
>> Speaker A:Always locked. Okay, that detail comes back later, too. But why so resistant to the search initially? From a legal angle, you have to ask.
>> Speaker B:Yeah.
>> Speaker A:What was in that room? What was so private or maybe incriminating that she'd balk at a search after her parents were just murdered?
>> Speaker B:Good question. What was she hiding, if anything? Bridget Sullivan's story immediately clashes with Lizzie's Okay, speaking of crucial details and people in the house, Bridget Sullivan, the maid.
>> Speaker A: Can'T tell the story without Bridget. Maggie, as they called her, her role is absolutely central. Her first account, also to Officer Fleet, gives a timeline, too. Bridget says Mr. Borden came in around 10:40am M. Went straight to the sitting room.
>> Speaker B:Right.
>> Speaker A: She says she went upstairs herself at 10:55am for, quote, 10 minutes, just to fix her room. Okay.
>> Speaker B:10.55 to 11.05. Roughly.
>> Speaker A:Then she says Lizzie calls her down, shouts, maggie, come quick. Father's dead. Somebody came in and killed him. Or words to that effect.
>> Speaker B:And what's really striking here is how Bridget's story immediately clashes with Lizzie's.
>> Speaker A:How so?
>> Speaker B:Well, Bridget is consistent. She saw nobody suspicious coming or going except Mr. Morse, Lizzie's uncle. But he left way earlier.
>> Speaker A:Okay.
>> Speaker B:And crucially, Bridget says she did not hear the door open while she was upstairs or see anyone from her third floor window.
>> Speaker A:But Lizzie said she was in the barn M. For half an hour. Which means.
>> Speaker B:Which means someone, presumably Lizzie, would have had to open and close the door, probably the side screen door, right around the time Bridget was supposedly upstairs.
>> Speaker A:And Bridget says she heard nothing, saw nothing.
>> Speaker B:Nothing. That's a direct contradiction. A fundamental conflict between the Only two people known to be conscious in the house at the critical time. Investigators would jump all over that. Legally, that's huge for credibility.
>> Speaker A:Wow. Okay. Big discrepancy right there. what about the uncle, John Morse? He supposedly stayed the night before.
>> Speaker B: Yep, Lizzie's maternal uncle. His alibi seems pretty detailed on paper. Says he left the Borden House about 8:40am that morning, went to the post office, wrote a letter, then visited relatives the Emorys on Waybossett Street. Says he was there from around 9:30am till 11:20am okay, seems solid then. He claims he got back to the Borden house about or near 12 o'.
>> Speaker A:Clock? Near noon. Got it. So what's the issue?
>> Speaker B: Well, it's minor, but Mrs. Emery, the relative he visited, she confirms he left her place around 11:20 or thereabouts. Okay, but Moore says he didn't get back to Second street until near 12. That's like a 40 minute gap, for what should have been a pretty standard horse car ride.
>> Speaker A:40m minutes is a bit long for that trip.
>> Speaker B:Maybe it seems a little long. Now, memories can be faulty times approximate, but in a double murder investigation, especially this one, every minute, every little gap, it matters. Or it could matter. Even solid seeming alibis need poking and prodding. Bridget Sullivan was the maid at the house when the murders occurred
>> Speaker A:Okay, let's really get into the weeds now with the core witnesses, starting with Bridget Sullivan, the maid Maggie.
>> Speaker B:Absolutely crucial, like we said, the only other person indefinitely awake and in the house besides Lizzie when the murders likely happen. Her testimony, her actions, her memory, everything was under a microscope from minute one.
>> Speaker A:And that brings us right to one of the most debated, kind of infamous details. The pail of bloody cloths.
>> Speaker B:Oh, yes. This one is just messy, no pun intended. It's one of those pieces of evidence that whichever way you slice it, feels off.
>> Speaker A:So Officer William H. Medley, another investigator, he asked Lizzie about this. He finds his pail in the cellar. Adopting a stern, questioning police voice, Medley says, I inquired about some cloths, which looked to me like small towels. They were covered with blood and in a pail half filled with water and in the wash cellar. She said that was all right. She had told the doctor all about that.
>> Speaker B:Passing the buck to the doctor, maybe.
>> Speaker A:Maybe. But Medley pushes, continuing police voice I, then asked her how long the pail and its contents had been there, and she said three or four days. Returning to normal voice Three or four days, she claimed.
>> Speaker B:Okay, remember that? Three or four days. Because then Bridget Sullivan gives Medley her version and it's completely different. Adopting Bridget's slightly exasperated defensive tone. She said 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. Returning to regular voice.
>> Speaker A:Whoa. Okay. Lizzie says three or four days. Bridget says, nope, wasn't there before today. Today's wash day. I, would seen it. That's not a small difference.
>> Speaker B:It's a direct contradiction. Glaring. Legally speaking, one of them is not telling the truth about how long those bloody cloths were sitting there. Was it menstrual blood, as sometimes suggested, or something else? Either way, the timing discrepancy is huge for credibility. Did Lizzie know about it and lie? Did Bridget miss it, or did it appear that day? Big questions.
>> Speaker A:And you could just feel the pressure Bridget was under. It clearly took a massive toll. She eventually just left Fall river entirely. Complained the papers were saying she was in jail.
>> Speaker B:Yeah, she even got official mail, like witness fee payment addressed to her at New Bedford Jail. Imagine that.
>> Speaker A:The humiliation. She said the stress gave her seven gray hairs. I mean, this poor woman was just dragged through the mud by the whole thing.
>> Speaker B:It really shows the human cost of being caught up in something like this, doesn't it? Especially for someone in her position, a servant. Everything gets twisted. Like Lizzie telling her about a dress sale in New Bedford.
>> Speaker A:Right. The prosecution tried to spin that as Lizzie trying to bribe her to leave.
>> Speaker B:Town, but Bridget denied it was an inducement. She just said Lizzie mentioned the sale. But even that innocent detail gets turned into something suspicious in the whirlwind of the case.
>> Speaker A:And here's another fascinating detail Bridget provides, showing her memory was actually pretty sharp on some things. She remembered very clearly. Seeing Doctors Coughlin and Dolan washing their hands upstairs in the basin in Mrs. Borden's room where the body was.
>> Speaker B:The bloody basin.
>> Speaker A:Yeah. She stated quite firmly, I remembered it well, for I gave him a towel.
>> Speaker B:And that's interesting because it seems Dr. Dolan later couldn't quite recall doing that or was reluctant to admit it.
>> Speaker A:Exactly. Why would a doctor forget washing his hands, potentially contaminating evidence at a murder scene? Was it deliberate omission or just memory lapse under pressure? But Bridget crystal clear memory on that point. Sergeant Philip Harrington says Lizzie Borden's demeanor was remarkable
>> Speaker B:Which brings us nicely to Lizzie Borden's demeanor. How she acted as seen through the eyes of officers like Sergeant Philip Harrington.
>> Speaker A:Oh, yeah, Harrington's observations are something else. Chilling is maybe the word.
>> Speaker B:He described her, remember, as talking in the most calm and collected manner. Her Whole bearing was most remarkable under the circumstances.
>> Speaker A:Remarkable is one word for it.
>> Speaker B:He goes on. There was not the least indication of agitation. 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:Nothing. No tears? No. Oh, my poor father, no. Who could do such a thing? That is exceptionally composed. Unnervingly so. Right after finding your dad hacked to death.
>> Speaker B:Well, from a criminal law perspective, demeanor isn't direct proof of guilt. People grieve differently. Shock affects people differently.
>> Speaker A:True, true.
>> Speaker B:But that level of calm or apparent lack of emotion, it would absolutely register with experienced police officers. It often shapes those initial gut feelings, those suspicions, even before there's hard evidence. Harrington himself admitted having a revolting thought that she knew more than she wished to tell.
>> Speaker A:His professional instincts were screaming.
>> Speaker B:It suggests her behavior was just way outside the norm for what he'd expect in such a horrific situation.
>> Speaker A:And Harrington even noted what she was wearing in incredible detail. A striped house wrapper, full waist, and caught on the side by a bright red ribbon, which was tied in a.
>> Speaker B:Bow in front of that red ribbon. Detail always gets me right.
>> Speaker A:It's such a specific, almost jaunty detail for the circumstances. It paints a picture of someone maybe a little too put together. Like, was she performing calmness?
>> Speaker B:And what about her insistence she could give her statement right then and there? Arrington actually tried to caution her, suggested she might be in shock, maybe wait till tomorrow for clarity.
>> Speaker A:Yeah, he said she might not be in the right mental condition. Sensible advice.
>> Speaker B:But Lizzie's response? According to Harrington, she said no. I think I can tell you all I know now just as well as at any other time.
>> Speaker A:Wow. That's confident. Or maybe controlling.
>> Speaker B:That's the question, isn't it? Was it genuine clarity under extreme pressure? Or was it an attempt to lock down her story, control the narrative before anyone else could poke holes in it? It feels more like a strategy than a reaction to trauma.
>> Speaker A:Like, Let me get my version on record asap. And speaking of her version, that barn story, it just keeps getting sketchy.
>> Speaker B:She's your barn alibi? Yeah.
>> Speaker A:She claimed she was upstairs in the loft eating pears. Right. And she told Harrington, I did not hear any noise whatever. Not even the opening or closing of.
>> Speaker B:The screen door, Even though she was supposedly but a short distance away.
>> Speaker A:Come on. An old 1892 house, probably a heavy, creaky screen door. And she heard nothing while her father is being murdered just yards away? That screams. I wasn't really in the barn.
>> Speaker B:Harrington clearly thought so, too. He went straight to the marshal afterwards and basically said, I don't like that girl. Under the circumstances, she does not act in a manner to suit me. It is strange, to say the least.
>> Speaker A:His gut feeling was strong.
>> Speaker B:It shows how quickly she became a suspect in the eyes of experienced officers. Not just dislike, but a professional assessment that her behavior just didn't fit the horrific facts.
>> Speaker A:And even weirder, Harrington mentions how Lizzie described being all solicitous towards her father when he got home earlier, Helping him with his coat, adjusting the shutters, making him comfortable on the sofa. But Harrington, who apparently knew the family dynamics a bit, found this totally out of character for the Lizzie he saw as strong willed.
>> Speaker B:Like she was putting on a show.
>> Speaker A:Exactly. A little performance of the dutiful daughter right before. Well, right before the discovery. A performance Harrington wasn't buying. Alice Russell was Lizzie's best friend and witnessed the murders
>> Speaker B:Okay, now let's switch gears completely to Alice Russell, Lizzie and Emma's best friend.
>> Speaker A:Right, and the contrast is immediate, isn't it?
>> Speaker B:Night and day, Alice is described as very pale and much agitated, which she showed by short, sharp breathing and wringing her hands. She spoke not a word.
>> Speaker A:That sounds more like the reaction you'd expect. Shock, distress, horror. especially finding out your close friend's parents have been murdered.
>> Speaker B:Totally different from Lizzie's reported composure. But Alice, she also has some cryptic stuff going on.
>> Speaker A:Oh, yeah? Like what?
>> Speaker B:Well, there's that weird cellar visit the night before the murders. August 3rd. She and Lizzie went down together. Later, Officer Jaceph Hyde is questioning Alice about it.
>> Speaker A:Okay.
>> Speaker B:Adopting Hyde's probing voice, Hyde says to Alice, Ms. Lizzie came down the cellar alone after that time.
>> Speaker A:Mimicking Alice's agitated denial, Ms. Russell said, that could not be.
>> Speaker B:I'd insisting. I said, oh, yes, she did. It was about 10 or 15 minutes after you. And she went upstairs.
>> Speaker A:Alice scrambling for an excuse. Mrs. Russell said, that must have been while I was taking my bath.
>> Speaker B:See if we connect the dots. Why was Lizzie sneaking back down to the cellar alone after they'd already been down with the, toilet pail? What was she doing? From a legal standpoint, that unexplained solo trip is suspicious. Was she hiding something, getting rid of something, preparing something? We just don't know.
>> Speaker A:Very weird. And then there's the club, right?
>> Speaker B:Alice Russell finds this club, basically a piece of wood, potentially a weapon. Under the bed in the guest room where she, Alice, was sleeping after the murders.
>> Speaker A:Under her bed? How did it get there?
>> Speaker B:Good question. And she was clearly agitated finding it. She tells Officer Hyde about it, but begs him, tell no one but the marshal.
>> Speaker A:Why the secrecy? Why hide a potential weapon or at least a really suspicious object from the other investigators? That smells fishy.
>> Speaker B:It absolutely does. That impulse to conceal, even from a best friend, it suggests she knew something or feared something deeply incriminating. Makes you wonder what else Alice knew or saw.
>> Speaker A:Seriously. Okay, what about the Next door neighbor, Mrs. Churchill?
>> Speaker B:Adelaide Churchill, Another crucial witness. And someone who seemed genuinely torn about getting involved.
>> Speaker A:She was one of the first people Lizzie called over right after finding her father.
>> Speaker B:Yep. Mrs. Churchill said she heard Lizzie cry out and immediately complied. Went right over, adopting Mrs. Churchill's slightly flustered, shocked tone. When I reached her, I said, oh, Lizzie, Lizzie, where is your mother? She said, I don't know.
>> Speaker A:Same evasive answer Lizzie gave others. I don't know. And Mrs. Churchill also confirmed the rumors about family friction, right?
>> Speaker B:She did. She said the relations between Lizzie and the stepmother were not very friendly. So I hear. She admits it's mostly hearsay, but adds, yes, I have heard they do not at all times eat from the same table.
>> Speaker A:Ouch. Eating separately. That speaks volumes about the tension in that house. Yeah, definitely adds weight to a potential motive based on resentment.
>> Speaker B:But what's really compelling is Mrs. Churchill's initial reluctance to talk to the investigators fully. She was clearly struggling. Adopting a hesitant, vague, burdened, Mrs. Churchill voice. Must I? Am I obliged to tell you all? I do not like to tell anything of my neighbor, but this is as it is. Oh, I wish I had not to do this.
>> Speaker A:You can feel her anguish. Torn between loyalty and, well, the horror of what happened.
>> Speaker B:It's a very human reaction. But she did eventually give details. Searching for sheets with Bridget, Lizzie asking for a key to Mrs. Borden's room, which Dr. Bowen gets for them. And then Mrs. Churchill goes upstairs with Bridget and finds Mrs. Borden's body.
>> Speaker A:Imagine being the neighbor called over in a panic, and then you're the one finding the second victim. Just horrific trauma.
>> Speaker B:Absolutely. Mrs. Churchill claims she saw something on day of Abby Borden's murder But here's the real kicker with Mrs. Churchill. The ultimate tantalizing clue revealed later by Mrs. Oliver Gray, who was Abby Borden's stepmother.
>> Speaker A:Okay, what is it?
>> Speaker B:Mrs. Gray said that Mrs. Churchill, or Mrs. Case, as she sometimes called her, was the woman above all others that was needed to let light in on Lizzie's actions. Okay, strong statement. Yeah. But then Mrs. Gray relays something Mrs. Churchill apparently said herself. That Mrs. Churchill said that there was one thing she saw in the house the day of the murder that she would never repeat, even if they tore her tongue. Out.
>> Speaker A:Whoa. Hold on. She saw something?
>> Speaker B:Yeah.
>> Speaker A:Something specific that she refused to ever tell, even if tortured.
>> Speaker B:That's the claim. If it's true, what could it possibly have been? It suggests she witnessed something so incredibly critical, so incriminating, perhaps about Lizzie's actions or the scene itself, that she was literally too terrified to speak. Points to a buried secret that could potentially solve the whole case.
>> Speaker A:My God. What did she see? That is. That's the ultimate aha moment. Or maybe the ultimate frustration of this case. The secrets people took to their graves. Dr. Bowen burning paper at crime scene raises questions about impartiality
>> Speaker B:Which brings Back to Dr. Bowen, the family doctor. First medical guy on scene.
>> Speaker A:Yeah, Mr. Dinosre. What else did he get up to? Because his actions seem questionable at best.
>> Speaker B:Beyond that initial, flawed diagnosis. Officer Harrington observed him doing something incredibly suspicious right there in the kitchen, burning scraps of paper in the stove.
>> Speaker A:Burning paper?
>> Speaker B:Yeah.
>> Speaker A:And a murder scene.
>> Speaker B:Seriously? Seriously. Harrington asked him about it. Bowen brushed it off, said it was nothing. It is something about, I think, my daughter going through somewhere. Harrington thought the paper looked like a note addressed to Emma, Lizzie's sister.
>> Speaker A:So he's burning potential evidence, possibly a note between the Borden sisters right after the murders, and just dismisses it. That's not just sketchy, that's borderline obstruction.
>> Speaker B:From a legal standpoint, it's a massive red flag. Either shocking ignorance of how to behave at a crime scene or a deliberate attempt to destroy something. What was on that paper?
>> Speaker A:We'll never know. And didn't Mrs. Gray, the step grandmother, also have something to say about Dr. Bowen's relationship with Lizzie? Hinting at bias?
>> Speaker B:She did. She brought up this incident from four years earlier. The Bordens were away for the summer, but Lizzie stayed home, adopting Mrs. Gray's slightly gossipy tone. One Sunday evening during this time, she and Dr. Bowen came to church together and sat in the Borden seat. I myself saw them this evening at the time. And since there was much comment on this act, perhaps she has very acceptable company.
>> Speaker A:Ooh, scandalous. A respectable married doctor and young, unmarried Lizzie alone together at church while the family's away in 1892. Tongues must have wagged big time.
>> Speaker B:It definitely suggests a closer relationship than just doctor patient raises questions about his impartiality at the crime scene. Was he trying to protect Lizzie from the start?
>> Speaker A:Seems plausible, given his actions. And this just feeds into the general sense of carelessness at the scene.
>> Speaker B:Right?
>> Speaker A:like other doctors washing their hands.
>> Speaker B:Exactly. Dr. Dedrick, another physician, saw Dr. Dolan washing his hands in that bloody basin upstairs. Dedrick himself Admitted he had put my hands in Mrs. Borden's wounds. Why were they so seemingly careless? Washing hands in bloody water, potentially destroying trace evidence. It points to a real lack of standardized forensic procedures back then. Any evidence collected was likely contaminated by today's standards. It really highlights the challenges of investigating crimes in that era. There are hints of corruption in 1890s police investigation involving murder weapons
>> Speaker A:Okay, this is where things start to feel even murkier. We dive deeper, and it's not just contradictions and weird clues, but hints of actual corruption. Starting with the hunt for the murder weapons.
>> Speaker B:Yeah, the axe or hatchet. The initial search was messy. Officers reported finding two axes in one hatchet in the cellar washroom. Standard stuff. but Officer Harrington noticed another hatchet was missing. One he thought he'd seen earlier. Maybe in the hand of Dr. Dolan. He then says he found this missing hatchet later, down in the first cellar.
>> Speaker A:Okay, so he found it. Good. Keys closed?
>> Speaker B:Not quite. Because then Harrington does something completely bizarre. He gives this hatchet to Assistant Marshal Fleet and tells him to basically hide it. Put it where it could not be readily found.
>> Speaker A:He told him to hide facial evidence. Why on earth would he do that?
>> Speaker B:We don't know. Was he trying to protect someone? Was he trying to preserve it in some weird, misguided way? Was it simple incompetence? Whatever the reason, from a legal perspective, it's astonishing. Deliberately concealing evidence, even temporarily, by the police themselves. It casts serious doubt on the integrity of how evidence was handled.
>> Speaker A:Unbelievable. What about the hatchet they did examine properly?
>> Speaker B:Well, the one F.L. edson looked at, a larger one was described as in good condition and very sharp. And crucially, Edson noted a spot of rust or blood and a, ah, light colored hair on the blade.
>> Speaker A:A hair. That's huge. Did they match it?
>> Speaker B:That's the frustrating part. The records don't clearly state if that hair was ever properly analyzed or compared to the victims or Lizzie. A potentially vital piece of physical evidence may be lost to, the limitations of 1890s forensics.
>> Speaker A:Ugh. and don't forget the club Alice Russell found under her bed.
>> Speaker B:Right. Why was it there? How did it get there? And why the Alice want it kept secret? Only telling the Marshall it's not just a weird detail. It's a huge red flag about Alice's potential knowledge or even involvement in the cleanup or cover up.
>> Speaker A:Seriously questions her credibility. And, then there's the handling of the stuff from the washtub. The buried evidence.
>> Speaker B:Oh, don't get me started. This is almost comical if it weren't so serious. The stuff buried in the Yard, a sofa, pillow, carpet pieces, bloody clothes, hair from Mrs. Borden's head, and even a.
>> Speaker A:Piece of her skull bone. Yeah, described as cut, so smooth. Chilling.
>> Speaker B:Yeah, but the handling. First it's buried. Then about A week later, Dr. Dolan has it dug up. Take some parts. Then they rebury what's left in a box this time.
>> Speaker A:Wait, they dug it up and then buried it again?
>> Speaker B:Yep. From a modern forensics view, it's just disastrous. Total contamination. Chain of custody completely broken. It's amazing they thought they could get any reliable evidence from that mess. It severely undermines any physical evidence presented.
>> Speaker A:Screams amateur hour. Or worse. Lizzie Borden allegedly requested poison the day before the murders Okay, let's shift to the poison story and all the other shady characters floating around.
>> Speaker B:Eli Bentz, the druggist. His testimony is pretty damning. He positively ID'd Lizzie Borden. Said she came into his shop on August 3, the day before the murders, and asked for prussic acid cyanide. Highly lethal poison.
>> Speaker A:Wow. Why does she say she wanted it?
>> Speaker B:Her excuse to put on the edge of a seal skin coat for a coat.
>> Speaker A:Cyanide. Does that even make sense?
>> Speaker B:Sounds completely flimsy, right? The legal significance is huge. Requesting deadly poison the day before the murders. It screams premeditation. Was she maybe considering poison first before resorting to the axe? It's a really chilling possibility.
>> Speaker A:Definitely points towards planning. What about that man? About the shop Lizzie mentioned? The potential alternative suspect?
>> Speaker B:Yeah, the man who wished to hire the store. Police tried to Follow up. Sent Dr. William Handy to Boston to look at a photo of a potential suspect. and Dr. Handy's reaction was. Well, suspicious. Lack of interest. The officer noted Handy barely even looked at the photo before he had it rightly in his hand. Pronounced him not the person.
>> Speaker A:Didn't even give it a proper look. Why?
>> Speaker B:While Handy was apparently pretty close socially to Lizzie, she was even supposed to vacation at his cottage. Was he protecting her? Covering for someone? Or just completely disinterested in helping the police? Hard to say, but it looks bad.
>> Speaker A:Definitely smells off. And were there other reports of suspicious men?
>> Speaker B:Oh, yeah, loads. A guy wanting a ride, an Italian, a man with a black face, someone grinding his teeth in the woods. The statements are full of them, but they're often contradictory, vague, led nowhere. It just shows how much noise and misdirection can happen in a big case like this. Lots of red herrings. Police say they overheard a conversation about bribery involving journalists and prosecutors
>> Speaker A:Okay, listeners, prepare yourselves because this next bit is honestly, it's a bombshell. It's not just about the crime, it's about the investigation itself being rotten.
>> Speaker B:The McHenry Tricky conversation.
>> Speaker A:Yes. Officers golden and Harrington actually overheard this conversation between E.P. mcHenry, a journalist, and Henry G. Trickey from the Boston Daily Globe. what they heard, wow.
>> Speaker B:It's deeply disturbing. From a legal ethics view, it's appalling. McHenry basically tells tricky there's a thousand dollars to be had for the prosecution's case. From Adams. Andrew Jennings Adams, Lizzie's lawyer, to buy evidence.
>> Speaker A:The bribe. Lizzie's own lawyer trying to buy evidence.
>> Speaker B:That's the allegation overheard by police. A blatant attempt to compromise the whole legal process, manipulate the press. It just taints everything suggesting evidence could be bought or sold.
>> Speaker A:And it gets worse. Tricky apparently quotes Adams wife as saying she was ashamed to think that my husband has interested himself in the defense of this woman when you know she is guilty.
>> Speaker B:So the defense lawyer's own wife thinks Lucy's guilty, but he's allegedly trying to buy evidence for her defense. Grim picture of ethics, right? Profit and sensationalism over justice.
>> Speaker A:Totally. And they talk about getting rid of witnesses.
>> Speaker B:Explicitly. McHenry suggests Bridget ought to be sent out of the country.
>> Speaker A:Send Bridget away? Why?
>> Speaker B:Think about it. Bridget, the maid, the only other person in the house. Her testimony is critical. Getting her out of the country at, That's a clear attempt to obstruct justice, manipulate the trial outcome, keep potentially damaging testimony away from the jury.
>> Speaker A:Unbelievable. And they casually talk about bribing cops, too.
>> Speaker B:Yep. Tricky calls Officer Medley cheap, adopting a dismissive tone. I got him anytime for a couple beers. He's the cheapest chump of them all. And brags about getting info from the mayor.
>> Speaker A:So it's not just the defense plane. Dirty. It implies cops, maybe even city officials are compromised. The whole system looks dirty.
>> Speaker B:And then there's the most bizarre claim of all. McHenry says he got information by literally hiding under the bed while Adams and Lizzie were talking.
>> Speaker A:Under the bed? Are you serious?
>> Speaker B:And apparently, his wife was also under there, taking short hand notes.
>> Speaker A:Get out of here. That's insane. Like something out of a bad spy novel.
>> Speaker B:It sounds completely nuts, but the officers reported overhearing him brag about it. It shows the absolute lengths people would go to. Maybe for money, maybe for the story. Forget reporting. This is espionage.
>> Speaker A:I just can't picture it. Okay, Henny, grab your notepad. We're going under the bed. And Tricky's reaction is just pure tabloid glee. Adopting a gleeful tone. What a story it will make. We will have a large picture of you and your wife and the room with bed And a person under it.
>> Speaker B:It's all about the sensation, the sales, not the truth. The whole conversation eventually falls apart over money and timing and trache. Even admits all the statements are crooked because the paper rushed things.
>> Speaker A:Crooked statements, great.
>> Speaker B:It just reveals this disturbing lack of integrity. Defense, prosecution, press, all potentially twisting things. It's a huge caution for us. Looking back, even these direct statements we're analyzing might been influenced or manipulated by these behind the scenes deals. Makes finding the real truth incredibly hard. Lizzie Borden's money situation keeps coming up as a possible motive
>> Speaker A:So even after digging through all these statements, all the weirdness, the corruption, the Lizzie Borden case just refuses to give up all its secrets, doesn't it? So many lingering questions.
>> Speaker B:Absolutely. It remains frustratingly ambiguous.
>> Speaker A:Let's look at Lizzie's money situation. That keeps coming up as a possible motive. Mrs. Whitehead testified Lizzie did not like Mrs. Borden, partly because Abby bought out her mother's share in some property the sisters didn't want sold.
>> Speaker B:Right. Hints of resentment over property and maybe feeling sidelined financially by the stepmother.
>> Speaker A:And Lizzie herself basically confirmed she's worried about inheritance. She told Mrs. Tripp, I do not know that my sister or I would get anything in the event of my father's death.
>> Speaker B:That's a pretty clear statement of financial anxiety, isn't it? Whether it was objectively true or just her perception. The fear of being cut off, especially for an unmarried woman back then, with limited options, that could be a powerful motive, perceived or real.
>> Speaker A:And Mr. Borden's own business manager, Charles Cook, kind of backs this up. He said Mr. Borden hadn't made a will yet, but knew he must attend to it.
>> Speaker B:Suggesting Lizzie's fears might have been well founded. If he died without a will. Or made one unfavorable to her.
>> Speaker A:Exactly. And Cook also mentions Lizzie coming to him to ask about property values. And this little detail that Lizzie had boasted of the strength she possessed from going to the gymnasium.
>> Speaker B:That's interesting. Often overlooked. It counters the image of her as this frail Victorian lady suggests she might have had the physical strength needed for such a brutal, violent attack. Challenges the she couldn't have done it physically argument.
>> Speaker A:Good point. What about the house itself, the locked doors?
>> Speaker B:Officer Chase was adamant about that. He testified the board and front door was always locked. He'd tried it a great many times. If no one could just walk in off the street, then it almost had.
>> Speaker A:To be an inside job. Right. It really narrows the field of suspects down to who was already inside that locked house.
>> Speaker B:It certainly points strongly in that direction. And then there's the mystery of the letter. The uncooperative Ms. Lizzie Johnson.
>> Speaker A:Oh, yeah, what was that about?
>> Speaker B:Lizzie Borden sent Ms. M. Johnson a letter on the day of the murders. But when questioned M. Ms. Johnson flat out refused to say what was in it. Even with her lawyer, Mr. Jennings, who was also becoming Lizzie's lawyer, present, she wouldn't budge.
>> Speaker A:What could have been in that letter sent on the actual day? And why was Ms. Johnson, and presumably her lawyer, so determined to keep it secret?
>> Speaker B:Exactly. It's another one of those infuriating loose ends. Potentially crucial information sent hours after the murders just vanished. Hidden. What did Lizzie write?
>> Speaker A:So frustrating. There are conflicting accounts in the McHenry true crime case Okay, so wrapping this all up, after wading through all these statements, what have we got? We've got Lizzie cool as a cucumber while her best friend Alice is falling apart.
>> Speaker B:We've got the clashing stories about the bloody pale. Lizzie says, days, Bridget says, today, someone's wrong.
>> Speaker A:Conflicting timelines. Lizzie in the barn hearing nothing while Bridget hears no door. The weird unseen man about the shop.
>> Speaker B:The attempt to buy deadly poison the day before.
>> Speaker A:And the absolute circus of the McHenry trick he takes. Bribery, witness tampering, media manipulation, just jaw dropping corruption.
>> Speaker B:It really underscores how messy truth finding is. The source is meant to give clarity. Witness statements, police reports also reveal this tangled web of self interest, bias, incompetence, and outright deception from everyone involved. It seems. Accused family, police, doctors, press.
>> Speaker A:Makes getting a definitive answer almost impossible, even with all this firsthand material.
>> Speaker B:And that's the challenge in so many historical true crime cases, isn't it? Not just finding clues, but figuring out who to believe. When accounts clash and motives are hidden. It's profoundly human and profoundly difficult.
>> Speaker A:Hashtag tag tag tag tag outro. So the Lizzie Borden case, it just keeps fascinating us
>> Speaker B:So the Lizzie Borden case, it just keeps fascinating us, doesn't it? 130 plus years later, and we're still debating, still questioning.
>> Speaker A:Because the ambiguity is baked right in.
>> Speaker B:We're left wondering, what did Mrs. Churchill see that day? The thing she'd never repeat.
>> Speaker A:What was in that letter Lizzie sent to Ms. Johnson right after the murders?
>> Speaker B:What was Lizzie really doing alone in the cellar the night before? What about that club under Alice's bed?
>> Speaker A:The legal system acquitted her. Not guilty. But public opinion, that verdict has always been much, much more divided.
>> Speaker B:And maybe that's the final takeaway here. When the evidence itself contradicts, when memories fail or are, maybe deliberately altered, when the investigation itself seems compromised. How do you, listening to this, decide what's true?
>> Speaker A:And what does that mean for our idea of justice? Back then and even today? It's a tough question with no easy answers. Definitely something to chew on. Keep questioning, Keep digging deeper into the stories you hear. Thank you so much for joining, us on this deep dive.
>> Speaker B:Thanks for listening.