D.A. William Moody's Opening Analysis the Day of the Murders - Step by Step

Send us a text

A new experimental podcast where I try out a new format with no background music or host to educate you as two Lizzie Borden Trial experts analyze Moody's compelling two-hour opening statement in 56 minutes, commercial-free. This was Moody's first murder trial at the age of 40. Mrs. Churchill's Inquest is coming soon. Subscribe so you don't miss it! 

TIMECODES:
00:00    INTRO - MOODYS DEMONSTRATES THE TIMELINE of AUGUST 4, 1892 
00:56    The Horror of the Crime
01:26    Classic Opening
02:00    The Difficulty of Acquiring the Transcripts Going Back to Author Ed Pearson in the 1920s 
02:21    A Roadmap of the Prosecution's theory
03:12    Their First Shot of Persuasion
04:37    Old Common Law Language of the Jury's Duty 
05:10    Moody Describes the Crime as Unthinkable
06:45    Moody Tells the Jury to Focus on the Facts & Not Her Character
07:39    Moody Begins to Describe the Family starting with Andrew Borden
09:02     Describes the Layout of the House on a Busy Street in Broad Daylight
10:10     Describes the 3 Exterior Doors of the House
10:40     Moody Describes the Tension & Unkindly Feeling in The House
10:45     He Prepares the Jury for Circumstantial Evidence
11:10     Moody describes the benefaction of property given by Andrew to a relative of Mrs. Borden
11:30     This caused a giant shift in the house between the sisters and Mrs. Borden 
17:55     Who Was In The House the Day Before the Murders?
18:30     Sudden violent illness in the house
18:59     Moody connects illness to Lizzie's attempt to buy Poison the Day Before the illness
20:00     Lizzie Visits Best Friend Alice Russell Evening Before the Murders predicting Doom
21:00     The Day of The Murders 
22:00     Moody Emphasizes the Locked Doors of the House
22:50     Moody Walks Through the Timeline of the Murders 
23:45     Bridget Vomits Breakfast in Back Yard   
24:04     Mrs. Borden Tells Bridget to Wash the Windows While She Goes Upstairs and  tends to                 Pillowcases in the Spare Bedroom that Uncle John Morse Had Slept In during the night
26:56     Moody ascertains that Andrew Borden Arrived at 10:40 am in Contrast to Neighbor who swore she saw Andrew attempting to Unlock His Own Front Door with a Key at 10:32 am
28:55     Lizzie Begins Ironing Handkerchiefs according to herself
30:40     The General Alarm of the Murders Came at 11:15 am to the FRPD Station
34:30     Impossible to Believe Lizzie Eating Pears in the Upstairs Loft of the Barn looking for lead- No footprints in Dust - While Andrew Borden Was Being Murdered according to Officer Medley
35:19     Lizzie suddenly insists she heard Mrs. Borden Come In after asserting All Morning She Was Out to See a Sick Friend  - then Why Was She Sending Bridget Out on Errands To Look For Her?
36:40     Lizzie Changed Clothes While Upstairs into a Prink Wrapper while alone in her room
37:30     Establishing the Order of Deaths - Abby first -cold & clotted - Andrew warm & dripping blood
38:25     Moody Describes the Stomach Contents of Andrew Borden Indicative of Time of Death
39:00     Abby Borden's Stomach Contents Suggest Prior Death by 60+minutes 
40:10     Lizzie disclosed that she turned her clothing over to the police several days after the murders
40:22     Professor Wood descr

Episode Transcript

Speaker 00 (00:00):
Okay, let's unpack this.
We are stepping back in time,way back to June 6, 1893, New
Bedford, Massachusetts.
And picture this scene.
It's described so vividly inthe source material we're diving
into today.
You've got an old man andwoman, husband and wife,
brutally killed.

Speaker 01 (00:19):
In their own home.

Speaker 00 (00:20):
In their own home, on a busy street, broad
daylight.
Yeah.
And the person accused, theirown daughter.

Speaker 01 (00:28):
It's just shocking.

Speaker 00 (00:29):
Totally.
A woman from a good familyinvolved in her church, her
character, well, completelyunquestioned by the community
until that moment.
The sheer shock, you know, theapparent impossibility of it
happening there like that.
And then the accusation landingon her.
It must have been juststaggering.

Speaker 01 (00:46):
And what's really interesting is how the
prosecutor, William H.
Moody, he uses that exactcontrast.
Right from the get-go.
He does it.
Yeah, he doesn't ease into it.
He hits the jury immediatelywith the horror of the crime,
these vulnerable victims killedat home, and then, bam,
juxtaposes that with who'saccused.
Someone seen as respectable,you know, family.
It's

Speaker 00 (01:02):
a powerful move.

Speaker 01 (01:03):
Oh, absolutely.
Classic opening statementstuff.
Underscore the gravity, thealmost unbelievable nature of it
all.
It forces the jury to reallyconfront any preconceptions they
might have about her characterversus, well, the brutality of
the acts.

Speaker 00 (01:18):
Exactly.
He's basically saying, look, Iknow this sounds crazy.
I know who she seems to be, butlook at the crime and then
listen to the evidence I'm goingto lay out.
And for this deep dive, we'vegot something really special.
Our source today, it's a raredocument, the actual opening
statement, delivered by thatprosecutor, William H.
Moody, in the 1893 trial ofLizzie Andrew Borden.

Speaker 01 (01:42):
And he wasn't just any lawyer.

Speaker 00 (01:43):
No way.
Moody was a big deal.
He later became a Supreme Courtjustice.

Speaker 01 (01:47):
This

Speaker 00 (01:48):
trial, though, this was his first major murder
prosecution.
Even finding these transcripts,you know, people like Edmund
Pearson searching back in the20s.
It's amazing we can access themnow and step right back into
that courtroom.

Speaker 01 (01:58):
And that's the real value, isn't it?
Getting his words exactly asthe jury heard them.
That first address is sopivotal.
It's not a summary, not someoneelse's take.
It's his direct presentation ofthe state's case.
Their roadmap for the evidencecompletely unfiltered.
The narrative he chose tobuild.

Speaker 00 (02:17):
Absolutely.
So our mission today for youlistening and for us here is to
walk you through Moody's openingstatement point by point.

Speaker 01 (02:25):
Yeah, let's dig in.

Speaker 00 (02:26):
We're going to pull out his key arguments, the
evidence he promised he'd show,and the whole story he wove for
that jury.
Think of it like getting adirect download of the
prosecution's theory, just asthey laid it out Right.

Speaker 01 (02:40):
We're looking at his strategy, the details he zeroed
in on, how he tried to convincethose jurors she was guilty
based only on this document,this opening.

Speaker 00 (02:48):
Exactly.
We're not here to retry thecase, not declaring guilt or
innocence.
We're analyzing how theprosecution started their
argument.
how they framed it.

Speaker 01 (02:58):
And understanding that initial framing is just
crucial.
The opening statement, it's theprosecution's chance to set the
stage, define the terms, createthe lens, really, through which
the jury sees everything else.

Speaker 00 (03:08):
It's their first shot of persuasion.

Speaker 01 (03:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 00 (03:10):
Before the defense even gets up.
Okay, so let's set the scene.
New Bedford, Tuesday, June 6th,1893.
Second day of the trial,Superior Court.
The source says, court formallyconvened at nine that morning.

Speaker 01 (03:24):
Pretty formal proceedings back then.

Speaker 00 (03:26):
Very.
Jurors, the prisoner LizzieAndrew Borden, they all answered
when their names were called.
Everyone central was present.

Speaker 01 (03:33):
That formality, you see it in the language of the
documents, too.
Different from how courts mightoperate today.

Speaker 00 (03:38):
Totally different.
So after the roll call, theclerk of the court addresses the
jury.
He reads the indictment aloud.
That's the formal charges,right?

Speaker 01 (03:46):
Yes.
The specific accusations.
Two counts of murder.

Speaker 00 (03:49):
One for Andrew Borden, one for Abby Borden.
And after reading each count,the clerk says Lizzie had
heretofore pleaded and said thatthereof she is not guilty and
for trial puts herself upon hercountry which country you are.
Then you are now sworn to trythe issue.

Speaker 01 (04:04):
That phrase, puts herself upon her country, it's
old common law language.
Powerful stuff.

Speaker 00 (04:09):
It really is.

Speaker 01 (04:10):
It signifies that right to be judged by your
peers.
Reminds those 12 jurors of thehuge responsibility they have.
They're the community'sjudgment in this.

Speaker 00 (04:18):
The clerk then gives them their final charge before
the opening starts.
Basically, find her guilty, sayso.
Not guilty, say so.
And no more.
Then the traditional words.
Good men and true standtogether and hearken to your
evidence.

Speaker 01 (04:34):
A solemn moment.
Focuses them purely on theevidence and the law.
Nothing else.

Speaker 00 (04:39):
And with that, the stage is set.
Mr.
William H.
Moody, Esquire, representingthe Commonwealth, the state he
steps up.

Speaker 01 (04:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 00 (04:46):
Ready to make his opening statement to the judges,
the foreman, the jury.

Speaker 01 (04:49):
And he starts, as you mentioned, by hitting that
solemn importance right away,anchoring it in the crime, the
shocking accusation.

Speaker 00 (04:56):
Yeah, he needs to impress upon them the weight of
it all, but also kind of guidehow they're thinking about it
from the start.

Speaker 02 (05:01):
Exactly.

Speaker 00 (05:02):
So he immediately tackles how difficult, how
shocking this case is.
He describes the crime again,vividly.
Upon the fourth day of Augustof the last year, an old man and
woman, husband and wife, eachwithout a known enemy in the
world.

Speaker 01 (05:15):
In their own home, upon a frequented street, within
the sight and call ofneighbors, under the light of
day.

Speaker 00 (05:20):
And in the midst of its activities were, first one,
then after an interval of anhour, another severally killed
by unlawful human agency.
He really emphasizes thevictim's vulnerability, the
public setting.
How could this happen?

Speaker 01 (05:33):
He's building that initial sense of outrage, horror
even.
Presenting the crime is almostunthinkable in that context,
which then makes the accused'sidentity even more central,
more, well, from his view,compelling.

Speaker 00 (05:45):
And then, pivot.
That stark contrast again.
The accused.
A woman of good socialposition, of hitherto
unquestioned character, a memberof a Christian church and
active in its good works, theown daughter of one of the
victims and the stepdaughter ofthe other.
He explicitly acknowledges theconflict this creates.

Speaker 01 (06:04):
Right, and that's where he addresses the potential
for prejudgment based on herbackground.
He knows people would think,Lizzie Borden, no way.

Speaker 00 (06:11):
Exactly.
He says, for the sake of thesecrimes and for the sake of these
accusations, every man may wellpause...
and carefully searchesunderstanding and conscience for
any vestige of prejudgment and,finding it, casts it aside as
an unclean thing.
He's telling them, put asidewhat you think you know about
her character.
Judge her on the evidence.

Speaker 01 (06:31):
It's a really smart opening move.
He knows the defense willlikely lean heavily on her
character, her standing in thecommunity, so he tries to
neutralize that right away,frames it as something they have
to reject to do their duty.
Focus on the facts.
not who she should be.

Speaker 00 (06:46):
Right.
And he lays out his role rightthen, the purpose of the
opening.
His duty, he says, is to stateto you so much of the history
and so much of the evidence asshall best enable you to
understand the claim of thegovernment and to appreciate the
force and application of thetestimony.

Speaker 01 (07:01):
He's giving them the interpretive key.
Here's our theory.
Here's how the evidence you'reabout to hear fits into that
picture.
It's the framework.

Speaker 00 (07:08):
And he promises to do it in the plainest, simplest,
and most direct manner.
avoiding unnecessary details.
Although, well, as we'll see,his definition of unnecessary
still involved a ton of detail.

Speaker 01 (07:20):
Oh, definitely.
He uses that opportunity topaint a very specific, very
detailed picture designed tolead the jury his way before
witness one even takes thestand.

Speaker 00 (07:30):
Okay, let's dive into that detailed picture,
starting with the Borden family,the household, as Moody
describes them.
Andrew Jackson Borden, thefather, a man of considerable
property.

Speaker 01 (07:42):
How much did Moody say?

Speaker 00 (07:43):
He estimated between $250,000 and $300,000 back
then, which was, you know, a lotof money, maybe $8, $10 million
today.
He notes Borden was retired butstill had the habit of saving,
and the family lived on asomewhat narrow scale,
considering his wealth.

Speaker 01 (07:56):
That contrast is interesting, isn't it?
Wealthy but frugal.
Moody plants that early, maybesubtly hinting at potential
motives related to moneyinheritance, though he doesn't
explicitly say that here, justsets the financial scene.

Speaker 00 (08:07):
Then he details Andrew's marriages.
First wife?
Sarah died maybe 27, 28 yearsbefore him, left two daughters,
Lizzie Andrew Borden, theyoungest, only two or three when
her mother died, and EmmaBorden, about 10 years older
than Lizzie.
Not long after Sarah died,Andrew married Abby Durfee Gray.
This second marriage lastedover 25 years.
No children from this marriage,Moody notes.

Speaker 01 (08:31):
So that sets up the core unit.
Father, two daughters from thefirst marriage, and the
stepmother.
He highlights that steprelationship right away.

Speaker 00 (08:38):
He describes Abby, the stepmother, About six years
younger than Andrew, so around64.
Physically, Andrew was spare,thin, somewhat tall.
Abby described pretty plainlyas a short, fat woman weighing
in the neighborhood of 200pounds.

Speaker 01 (08:53):
Again, seemingly minor details, these
descriptions.
But they helped the juryvisualize the victims.
Maybe later it ties into theinjuries, the physical nature of
the crime.
He doesn't draw the line yet,though.

Speaker 00 (09:02):
Then the house itself, 92 Second Street, Fall
River, lived there 20 years.
He stresses the locationfrequented street near City
Hall, a thoroughfare for peoplein carriages.

Speaker 01 (09:11):
Emphasizing how busy the street was really
reinforces the audacity of thecrime or the careful timing
needed, not some isolated place.
Suggests the killer eitherwasn't worried about being seen

Speaker 00 (09:23):
or...
It was already inside.

Speaker 01 (09:25):
Exactly.

Speaker 00 (09:25):
He gives the geography.
Second street runs north-south,slight incline south, house on
the east side, names theneighbors.
Dr.
Kelly South, Mrs.
Churchill North, Dr.
Chagnon diagonally and back.

Speaker 01 (09:36):
Important to establish neighbors.
They often become keywitnesses, timelines, seeing
people, hearing things.

Speaker 00 (09:41):
Exterior security, picket fence, two gates out
front, in the backyard, by thebarn, a highboard fence with
barbed wire top and bottom.

Speaker 01 (09:50):
Fences, barbed wire, suggests trying to keep people
out, maintain privacy,especially from the rear, might
be relevant later when theydiscuss intruder theories.

Speaker 00 (09:59):
And he's very explicit.
Three exterior doors, threeentrances, and only three
besides windows.
Front door from sidewalk tohall, side door north side
facing Churchill's into anentryway near the kitchen, and a
third door exactly in the rearleading down to the cellar with
a porch.
He doesn't initially list amain floor rear exterior door

(10:20):
here, though Bridget later usesa screen door there.

Speaker 01 (10:23):
Carefully detailing every known entrance.
Crucial for the prosecution.
They're trying to account forhow someone could get in or out,
setting the stage to argue onlysomeone inside could do it
undetected.

Speaker 00 (10:34):
Okay, here's where it gets really interesting.
Moody shifts to the claimedunderlying tension.
The unkindly feeling, as heputs it, between Lizzie and her
stepmother Abby.

Speaker 01 (10:44):
The motive.

Speaker 00 (10:45):
Yeah, and he's upfront about proving the full
extent being hard because,quote, those who know the most
about that feeling except theprisoner are dead.
So they can only offersuggestive glimpses.

Speaker 01 (10:55):
Right.
He's preparing the jury forcircumstantial evidence on this
point, acknowledging thedifficulty but promising these
suggestive glimpses.

Speaker 00 (11:02):
He traces the alleged start of it all to a
property dispute maybe fiveyears earlier.
Claims Andrew Borden gave someproperty or money, a
benefaction, to one of Mrs.
Borden's relatives.
And because of that, thedaughters felt they deserved
something too, an offset tobalance things out financially.

Speaker 01 (11:19):
Ah, so back to the money angle.
Not just vague bad feelings,he's alleging a specific root.
Perceived financial unfairness,maybe resentment over how Mr.
Borden was handling his assets,pitting daughters against
stepmother.

Speaker 00 (11:34):
And he claims this whole discussion caused a big
shift.
From then on, Lizziesubstantially ceased, calling
Abby...
That

Speaker 01 (11:41):
change in address, stopping using mother, Moody
presents that as a clear symbolof the breakdown, an outward
sign of the bad blood.

Speaker 00 (11:49):
And he promises anecdotes from witnesses to back
this up, like the family'scloak maker.
Supposedly about a year beforethe murders, the cloak maker
called Abby mother and Lizziesupposedly snapped back.
Don't call her mother.
She's a mean thing and we hateher.
We have little to do with heras possible.
Wow.
Yeah.
And Lizzie apparently addedthey sometimes ate together but
tried not to, preferred stayingin their rooms.

Speaker 01 (12:10):
That quote, we hate her.
If the jury believes thatwitness, that's incredibly
potent evidence for motive.
Way beyond just dislike.
Paints a picture of realhostility.

Speaker 00 (12:21):
He gives another example, this one after the
murders.
An officer asks Lizzie when shelast saw her mother, bodies,
still in the house.
And she corrects him.
She is not my mother.
She is my stepmother.
My mother is dead.
Moody presents this correction,in that moment, as highly
significant of the feelingbetween them.

Speaker 01 (12:40):
Again, suggesting the depth of the rift.
Even in crisis, her focus is onthat distinction.
Suggests deliberate emotionaldistance, maybe a lingering
resentment.

Speaker 00 (12:48):
And he hammers this division home, saying, based on
how the family lived, althoughthey occupied the same
household, there was built upbetween them by locks and bolts
and bars, almost an impassablewall.
Not just feelings, actualphysical barriers inside the
house.

Speaker 01 (13:01):
That phrase, impassable wall, is strong.
But then he makes it concrete.
Locks and bolts and bars.
Tells the jury the bad feelingsweren't just emotional, they
physically divided the sharedspace.
And he's about to use the houselayout to show exactly what he
means.

Speaker 00 (13:17):
Okay, yeah, the house layout.
Moody spends a lot of time onthis.
Admits it's hard to explainverbally, says the jury will
eventually see it themselves,but insists it's crucial for
understanding the testimony.
He

Speaker 01 (13:30):
knows the physical space is central to his
opportunity argument.
He needs the jury visualizingthis house as a kind of closed
system, restricted movement,makes an outside intruder seem
less likely, points the fingerinside.

Speaker 00 (13:43):
He says it's a common design.
Narrow end of the street,rectangular, no L.
Originally built as a doubletenement, which helps explain
some weird internal divisions.
Upstairs mostly mirrorsdownstairs, but with key
exceptions.

Speaker 01 (13:56):
Right.
Those exceptions and internaldivisions are exactly what he
focuses on.

Speaker 00 (13:59):
Okay.
First floor, main front hallfrom the front door, two doors
off it, parlor, front and Wcorner, and sitting room.
Back of hall, south side underLizzie's room.
Main stairs go up from thishall.

Speaker 01 (14:11):
Okay, simple enough.
Front hall connects to frontrooms and stairs.

Speaker 00 (14:15):
Now moving back, it gets different.
Turn left from the sitting roominto the dining room.
That's on the north side, underEmma's room and a closet
upstairs.
From the dining room, a doorleads to the kitchen at the very
back.

Speaker 01 (14:27):
So downstairs, you can move from front to back.
Hall to sitting room, sittingroom to dining room, dining room
to kitchen.
There's a path, though itrequires specific turns.

Speaker 00 (14:35):
Exactly.
Now, second floor.
Stairs wind up, face north intothe upper hallway.
Three doors off this upperhall.
Large closet, the guest chamberover the parlor where Mrs.
Borden was found, and Lizzie'sbedroom towards the rear over
the sitting room.

Speaker 01 (14:50):
And he points out crucially that from the top of
those winding stairs, you canlook directly into the guest
chamber door.

Speaker 00 (14:55):
Yeah, chilling detail.
Now, Lizzie's bedroom.
According to Moody, it's a hub.
Door to the left as you enterleads to Emma's room.
And importantly, Moody saysEmma's room has no other
entrance.
Only way in is through Lizzie'sroom.

Speaker 01 (15:10):
So Lizzie's room controls access to Emma's.

Speaker 00 (15:12):
And at the rear of Lizzie's room, opposite the
entrance, another door.
This one leads into Mr.
and Mrs.
Borden's room, which is overthe kitchen.

Speaker 01 (15:19):
So her room also connects or potentially connects
to her parents' room.

Speaker 00 (15:23):
Potentially.
Because this is where Moodydetails that impassable wall of
locks.
He seats the door between theguest chamber where Abby died.
And Lizzie's room was a doorwhich always, including the day
of this homicide, was keptlocked on both sides.
says Lizzie even had a deskagainst her side, not a
practicable opening.

Speaker 01 (15:43):
That's huge for the prosecution's argument.
If that door was locked andblocked, no easy way between the
murder room and Lizzie's roomor the main upstairs hall.
You'd have to go a much longerway around, likely downstairs
and back up, or maybe throughother locked rooms if possible.

Speaker 00 (15:57):
Right.
He says clearly, from the frontupper hall, you can only get to
the closet, guest chamber, orLizzie's room.
All access to the other part ofthe house is cut off, not by
the natural construction, but bythe way in which the house was
kept.

Speaker 01 (16:11):
He's hammering that point.
These aren't design flaws.
They're deliberate barriers setup by the family, reinforces
that internal division idea.

Speaker 00 (16:19):
And the locking continues.
The door between Lizzie's roomand Mr.
and Mrs.
Borden's room, at the back,over the kitchen, was always
kept locked on both sides.
Hook lock on Lizzie's side,bolt lock on their side.
Moody promises ample andcomplete proof this door was
locked both ways all morninguntil after the alarm.

Speaker 01 (16:38):
So access between Lizzie and her parents' room
also blocked, locked on bothsides, isolates that rear
upstairs room even more.

Speaker 00 (16:44):
And finally, the door out of Mr.
and Mrs.
Borden's room, their only doorout leading to the upper rear
entryway over the kitchen entrydownstairs.
Moody claims this door was alsolocked all through this day up
to and beyond the time of thehomicide.
Promises clear proof.
Okay, this seems critical,

Speaker 01 (17:01):
if a bit confusing to picture.
If their door to the rear entrywas locked, and their door to
Lizzie's room was locked bothways.
How did they access the rest ofthe house?
Moody seems to be arguing theywere essentially locked into
their own section upstairs,making access to them very
difficult except perhaps viathat rear road, which he implies
was also secured.

(17:21):
The result, a very isolatedrear upstairs.

Speaker 00 (17:25):
He sums up the difference.
Downstairs, free communicationtwo ways, from kitchen to front.
Key point, downstairs,

Speaker 01 (17:40):
movement possible.
Upstairs, internal routesconnecting front, guest room,
middle Lizzie's room, and rear,parents' room, were deliberately
blocked by locks.
That isolation is crucial forhis argument against an outsider
who wouldn't know this complexartificial setup.

Speaker 00 (17:53):
Okay, let's shift to the day before.
Wednesday, August 3rd, who's inthe house?
Mr.
and Mrs.
Borden, Bridget Sullivan, theservant, been there nearly three
years, and Lizzie, Emma's awayin Fairhaven.

Speaker 01 (18:02):
Establishes who was present?
Fundamental for the timeline,opportunity.

Speaker 00 (18:06):
Plus, a visitor staying over.
John V.
Morse.
Andrew Borden's brother-in-lawfrom his first wife.
So, Lizzie and Emma's uncle.
Arrive Wednesday afternoon,stayed for dinner, slept there.

Speaker 01 (18:18):
Another person in the house the night before.
Another potential witness todynamics, events leading up to
Thursday?

Speaker 00 (18:23):
Moody then brings up something significant from
Tuesday night into Wednesdaymorning.
Sudden, violent illness.
Mr.
and Mrs.
Borden get sick, retching andvomiting.
Lizzie, affected to a lesserdegree.
Bridget, not sick at all.
Mrs.
Borden even saw a doctorWednesday morning about it.
Suspected cause?
Baker's bread or milk.

Speaker 01 (18:42):
Hmm.
That sudden illness, hittingsome but not others.
The prosecution presents thatas suspicious.
Suggestive of poisoning, evenif blamed on bad food initially.

Speaker 00 (18:52):
And Moody connects this suspicion directly to the
next thing he describes.
He claims that upon the noon ofWednesday, the day before the
murders, Lizzie went to a FallRiver drugstore, asked the clerk
for 10 cents worth of prussicacid for the purpose of cleaning
a seal skin cape.

Speaker 01 (19:05):
Prussic acid?
Wow, that's deadly.

Speaker 00 (19:07):
Exactly.
She was refused, obviously.
Poison needed a prescription.

Speaker 01 (19:11):
That alleged attempt to buy poison the day before
the murders, if proven, that'sincredibly damaging.
Trying to get it under a flimsyexcuse like cleaning a cape
sounds like trying to get poisonwithout raising alarm, shows
interest in a potent toxin.

Speaker 00 (19:23):
Moody is very direct.
Tells the jury, I think,gentlemen, you will be
satisfied.
No question that the person whomade this application was the
prisoner.
Promises proof.
From three drugstore witnesses,two knew her, one recognized
her.

Speaker 01 (19:39):
He's presenting this as powerful evidence of men's
rea guilty mind and intent maybeto get a means of killing.
Placed strategically just hoursbefore the murders.
Suggests preparation even iffinal method wasn't poison.

Speaker 00 (19:52):
Then Wednesday evening, hours before the
murders.
Moody says Lizzie visited herfriend Alice M.
Russell.
Tells the jury, commend to yourcareful attention what occurred
during that interview.
Context seems normal.
Lizzie planning vacationdecided to take Alice's advice
and go.

Speaker 01 (20:07):
But the prosecution clearly sees this conversation
as revealing something importantabout Lizzie's state of mind,
her plans, right beforeeverything happened.

Speaker 00 (20:14):
According to Moody's preview of Alice's testimony,
Lizzie felt depressed.
Had a feeling something isgoing to happen to me.
Mentioned the illness, fearedpoisoning, brought up the
baker's bread or milk idea.
Alice apparently dismissed thebread idea.

Speaker 01 (20:29):
Ambiguous, isn't it?
Could be genuine fear.
Or, from the prosecution view,maybe planting ideas, creating
potential alternativeexplanations for...
Well,

Speaker 00 (20:38):
for disaster.
And she specifically airedfears about her father.
Told Alice, father's beenhaving so much trouble, I'm
afraid that some of them will dosomething to him.
I expect nothing but that thebuilding will be burned down
over our heads.
Then she listed past incidents.
Barn broken into twice.
Alice thought just boys afterpigeons, house broken into in
daylight, saw a man lurkingabout recently, ran off,

(21:01):
fathered a recent angry disputewith a man about a store, turned
him out.

Speaker 01 (21:04):
So Moody presents this as Lizzie predicting doom,
cataloging potential externalenemies, threats to her father.
The prosecution sees this notas genuine fear, but as Lizzie
building a narrative of outsidedanger before the murders
happened, laying groundwork,potential alternative suspects
she could point to later.

Speaker 00 (21:22):
Moody explicitly tells the jury, That, I beg you
to keep in your minds, was withMs.
Russell, Alice M.
Russell.
He wants them locked onto thisconversation when Alice
testifies.

Speaker 01 (21:32):
He's flagging it as key circumstantial evidence,
suggests it reveals her state ofmind, her awareness of threats,
real or maybe fabricated, maybeeven manipulating perceptions
before the crime.
It's a very damning spin fromtheir perspective.

Speaker 00 (21:46):
Okay, now the day itself, Thursday, August 4th,
who's there?
Bridget?
Mr.
and Mrs.
Borden?
Lizzie?
John Moore's left early.

Speaker 01 (21:53):
So the core group plus the servant.

Speaker 00 (21:55):
Moody details the doors again.
Focusing on limited entry.
Front door.
Locked three-way spring latch.
Bolt.
Key lock.
Locked by Lizzie the nightbefore, he says.
Cellar door.
Closed.
Since Tuesday, remain closedall through Wednesday night and
on Thursday morning, includingup to and beyond these
homicides.

(22:15):
Promises ample proof.

Speaker 01 (22:17):
Two main entrances securely fastened from inside.
suggests controlled access.

Speaker 00 (22:22):
The rear door, the back way, locked by Bridget
Wednesday night.
Warning, she unlocked it formilk, locked it again.
Then opened the outer woodendoor for the day, just relying
on the screen door hook insidebecause it was hot.
When she went out later, shejust re-hooked the screen,
didn't re-lock the wooden door.

Speaker 01 (22:37):
So the back door seems less secure, just the
screen hook.
But Moody's overall point seemsto be access was generally
controlled from within, makes arandom intruder less likely
unless they broke a window,which she doesn't mention.

Speaker 00 (22:48):
He walks him through the morning timeline based on
Bridget's expected testimony.
She's up first, a little aftersix, down back way, cellar for
fuel, builds kitchen fire.

Speaker 01 (22:57):
Day starts with the servant's routine, establishes
early movements.

Speaker 00 (23:01):
Goes to rear door, gets milk, unlocks, locks again,
opens outer door, relies onscreen.
Mrs.
Borden down a little beforeseven.
Then Mr.
Borden.
He goes to the yard, empty slotpail, unlocks barn door.
Bridget sees him do this.

Speaker 01 (23:16):
Ordinary tasks, placing people, movements.

Speaker 00 (23:18):
Breakfast, a little after seven.
Mr., Mrs.
Borden, Mr.
Morse eat.
Bridget eats later, separately.
Morse leaves first, quarter ofeight.
Mr.
Borden lets him out the front,locks the screen door after him.

Speaker 01 (23:28):
Morse's departure confirmed.
Remove him from the houseduring the critical times.

Speaker 00 (23:32):
Soon after Mr.
Morse went away, Lizzie comesdown, eats breakfast alone in
the kitchen.
While she's there, Mr.
Borden goes upstairs.
Then, while Borden's upstairsand Lizzie's in the kitchen,
Bridget goes out to the yard,feels sick, needs to vomit.
Gone some moments.

Speaker 01 (23:47):
An important window.
Mr.
Borden upstairs, Lizziedownstairs, servant outside.
Potential opportunitiesdepending on how long everyone
was where.

Speaker 00 (23:54):
When Bridget comes back, Mr.
Borden had apparently gonedowntown.
Lizzie's not in the kitchenanymore.
Mrs.
Borden is in the dining room,dusting.
Mrs.
Borden talks to Bridget aboutwashing windows.
Then, Moody says, Mrs.
Borden told Lizzie that aftermaking the spare room bed, the
guest chamber, she was goingupstairs to put pillowcases on
pillows.
A trifling duty takes less thana minute.

Speaker 01 (24:18):
Accounts for Mrs.
Borden's movements just beforeher death.
Downstairs, discusses chores,mentions going upstairs to the
guest chamber for a quick task.

Speaker 00 (24:27):
Moody makes a critical claim about her timing,
says this was not far from halfpast nine o'clock.
And upon the evidence, you willbe satisfied that she never
left that room alive.
Killed within a very fewmoments after she left the room
because no living person sawMrs.
Borden from that time until herdeath, except the assailant.

Speaker 01 (24:45):
That's the prosecution's proposed time for
Mrs.
Borden's death.
Shortly after 9.30 a.m.,upstairs in the guest chamber.
And crucially, Moody asserts noone else saw her after she went
up, implying only the killerhad access.
Fist with his description oflocked internal doors blocking
that room off.

Speaker 00 (25:01):
He then details Bridget's window washing.
Gets stuff from barn cellar.
At the rear screen door, aboutto go out, Lizzie appears.
Bridget says no need to lock,she's coming right back.
Lizzie said nothing.
Moody thinks the door wasn'tlocked then.

Speaker 01 (25:15):
Small interaction shows Bridget's movements, the
state of the back doorpotentially unlocked while she's
outside.

Speaker 00 (25:21):
Bridget closes windows inside kitchen, dining,
sitting room, finds no oneeither, neither the prisoner nor
Mrs.
Borden, downstairs, then washesoutside windows, sitting room
first, south side, out of sightof screen door, then front
windows, street side, thenparlor and dining room windows,
north side, Churchill side.
During all the time, she sawneither Mrs.
Borden nor the prisoner, That

Speaker 01 (25:42):
sequence, Bridget outside or busy downstairs,
creates a big block of time,roughly 9.30 until Mr.
Borden returns, during which hedoesn't see Abby or Lizzie.
For the prosecution, this isthe key window for Mrs.
Borden's murder.
Abby's upstairs, Bridget'soccupied, and doesn't see Lizzie
downstairs, leaves Lizzie asthe only one unaccounted for
with potential access upstairs,assuming those locked doors are

(26:05):
believed.

Speaker 00 (26:05):
Mr.
Borden's return starts the nextcritical phase.
Bridget finishes outside, comesin the back screen door, hooks
it, starts washing insidewindows in the sitting room.
Then somebody was heard at thefront door.
It's Mr.
Borden.

Speaker 01 (26:17):
His arrival sets the stage for his death and the
discovery.

Speaker 00 (26:21):
Moody tries to pin down his arrival time.
Reconstructs his morningdowntown.
Left home 9 to 9.30.
Banks 9.30 after 10.
Clegg's door 10.29 or 10.31.
Moody says Clegg will fix thetime.
Left his own store, short walkhome at 20 minutes of 11.
1040 a.m.

Speaker 01 (26:38):
So the prosecution uses his business stops to put
him back at the house very closeto 1040 a.m.

Speaker 00 (26:44):
He notes a potential conflict with Mrs.
Kelly, the neighbor.
She saw Borden on the sidewalkwith his key around 10.32 or
10.33.
Moody tackles this head on,suggesting Kelly's clock was
unreliable, trusting the 1040store departure time more.

Speaker 01 (26:57):
Smart move.
Preemptively addressesconflicting testimony.
Tells the jury why they shouldtrust his timing evidence over
the neighbor's clock.

Speaker 00 (27:04):
Describes the front door when Mr.
Borden arrives.
Contrary to the usual custom,locked with the key bolted and
the spring lock engaged.
Bordy uses his key, expects toget in, makes noise, but can't.
Bridget has to come let him in,unfastening all those locks.
He supposedly commented on thedifficulty.

Speaker 01 (27:22):
The door being unusually secured from inside,
presented as significant,implies someone inside
deliberately locked it up tight.
Security.
Or maybe trying to prevententry, delay discovery, Bridget
having to undo multiple locksreinforces it.

Speaker 00 (27:35):
And here's another striking detail Moody drops
right here.
The prisoner from the hallabove made some laugh or an
exclamation, Moody addschillingly.
At that time, gentlemen, Mrs.
Borden's body lay within plainview of that hall, dead probably
for more than an hour.

Speaker 01 (27:51):
That alleged reaction, laughter from upstairs
while her father struggles withthe locks, stepmother dead
nearby.
The prosecution presents thatas incredibly odd, cold,
suggestive of guilt or at leasta disturbing lack of appropriate
reaction.

Speaker 00 (28:04):
After getting in, Mr.
Borden goes into the diningroom.
Lizzie comes to him, asks aboutmail, and then, Moody claims,
tells him, Mrs.
Burden has gone out.
She had a note from somebodywho was sick.
Moody calls this, flat out, alie, intended for no purpose
except to stifle inquiry as tothe whereabouts of Mrs.
Borden.

Speaker 01 (28:23):
This is key evidence of Lizzie allegedly lying about
Abby's presence right when herfather gets back.
If the jury believes she saidthis and believes Abby was
already dead upstairs...
It's direct evidence ofdeception, knowledge of the
crime.
The detail about the note addsa plausible but supposedly
fabricated explanation.

Speaker 00 (28:42):
After this, Mr.
Borden takes his key, goesupstairs, comes back down.
Bridget finishes sitting roomwindows, goes to dining room.
While Bridget watches thosewindows, Moody says, The
prisoner again appeared from thefront part of the house, went
to the kitchen, got an ironingboard, and began to iron her
handkerchiefs.
Repeats the note story toBridget while in the kitchen.

Speaker 01 (29:00):
So Lizzie is shown going about ordinary tasks,
ironing right after her father'sreturn, stepmother supposedly
dead upstairs, and repeating thefake note story to Bridget.
Presented as trying to appearnormal, reinforce the false
story, not showing concern oralarm.

Speaker 00 (29:15):
She also asks Bridget about going out later,
tells her to be careful withlocks because Lizzie may go out
myself.
Again, repeats, Mrs.
Borden is out.
Got a note.
Bridget finishes dining roomwindows, puts stuff away, about
to go upstairs.
Lizzie mentions a cheap sale ofgoods downtown, cloth at eight
cents a yard.
Bridget says she might go.
Then Bridget goes upstairs.

Speaker 01 (29:35):
That interaction about going out, the sale,
prosecution could frame that asLizzie subtly encouraging
Bridget to leave.
Clear the house after herfather's return.
Presented as calculated, normalbehavior masking hidden events.

Speaker 00 (29:48):
Moody suggests all this after Mr.
Borden came in happened fast.
less time than perhaps it hastaken me to tell it, tells the
jury to measure time by what wasdone, not just witness
estimates, implying the sequenceof actions is more reliable
than clocks.

Speaker 01 (30:02):
Setting expectations, focus on the
events unlocking, goingupstairs, talking, ironing, not
just potentially shaky timeestimates.

Speaker 00 (30:10):
After Bridget went upstairs, Moody says, nothing
more that happened until thealarm is given to her.
He then describes thepost-alarm sequence to help fix
the time.
Bridget sent for Dr.
Bowen across street, Returns,sent immediately for Ms.
Russell, long distance away.
As Bridget leaves, Mrs.
Churchill, neighbor, comesover.
Lizzie talks to Churchill.
Churchill runs to stable, getsCunningham to phone the marshal.

(30:32):
Officer gets directions, checkswatch.
Quarter past 11, 1115 a.m.

Speaker 01 (30:37):
Establishes when the general alarm reached
authorities, 1115 a.m.
Combined with Mr.
Borden's return around 10.40,10.45, that sets the window for
his murder.
And the discovery, raising thealarm.

Speaker 00 (30:50):
Moody points out, Borden returned around 10.45.
Alarm hit station 11-4-15.
The time between Bridget goingupstairs and the alarm being
raised has to fit in thatwindow, minus time for her
downstairs work and all thepost-alarm actions.
Aaron's, Churchill, phone call.
He leaves it to the jury to fixthe time, but the implication
is, Borden's death and discoveryhappened pretty quickly after
10.45.

Speaker 01 (31:11):
So the prosecution timeline.
Mrs.
Borden killed shortly after9.30 a.m.
Mr.
Borden killed sometime between10.45 and maybe 11.00.
Followed immediately by thealarm around 11.15.
That double window withsignificant time between deaths
is crucial.

Speaker 00 (31:30):
Now, Moody really zooms in on Lizzie's behavior,
her statements right afterfinding her father.
He says the first thing thatinstinctively leaped to the lips
of everyone asking her was,where were you?
Says this happened even beforethought of the suspicion crossed
her head, just because she wasthe last one known to be with
her father.

Speaker 01 (31:46):
Presented as the most natural question, Moody
frames it as innocent inquiry,but uses it to highlight Lizzie
being the only other personknown to be there when her
father died.

Speaker 00 (31:54):
He highlights her initial statements about where
she was, claims they'recontradictory.
To Bridget, upon alarm.
I was out in the backyard.
I heard a groan.
He came in.
Found my father.
Not sure if she said sick,killed, or dead.
To Mrs.
Churchill.
I was out in the barn going fora piece of iron when I heard a
distressed noise.
Came in.
Found my father dead.
To Officer Mully.
I went out into the barn, hearda peculiar noise, something

(32:18):
like a scraping noise, and camein.

Speaker 01 (32:20):
These early accounts all have her outside.
Yard or barn, drawn inside by asound, groan, distress noise,
scraping noise, leading to thediscovery.

Speaker 00 (32:29):
But Moody says as inquiry begins to multiply,
another story comes into view.
She repeats it again and againand finally repeats it under
oath.
After Bridget went upstairs,she went out to the barn and
into the loft of the barn to getlead to make sinkers.

Speaker 01 (32:44):
A significantly different later story.
Specific location barn loft.
Specific mundane purposegetting lead for fishing
sinkers.
Contrasts with being outsidegenerally and drawn in by a
noise.

Speaker 00 (32:55):
He contrasts this detailed later story explicitly.
Later version.
Went to loft.
Opened window, ate pears,looked for lead, came down,
checked kitchen stove fire,found it low, put hat down,
started upstairs to wait forBridget to build noon fire.
And only then, as she wentupstairs, did she accidentally
discover her father.

Speaker 01 (33:14):
That shift is presented as crucial.
Early stories.
The sound of the homicidealerts her, brings her running.
Later, sworn story.
No mention of hearing anythingalarming.
Returns coolly, does chores.
Checks fire, puts down hat,accidentally finds father while
just going upstairs for anotherreason.

Speaker 00 (33:32):
Moody calls this vitally different.
Not just words, but how shefound the body.
In the one case, she wasalarmed by the noise of the
homicide.
In the other, she came coolly,deliberately about her business
and accidentally discovered thehomicide.

Speaker 01 (33:46):
For the prosecution, that contradiction screams
consciousness of guilt.
Why change the story?
Why invent being drawn in by asound if that's not what
happened?
They argue the later story wasfabricated to explain why she
didn't react or raise alarmduring her father's murder
because, in their theory, shewas busy committing it.

Speaker 00 (34:01):
He then brings in evidence to undermine the Bar
and Loft story.
Points out August 4th was oneof the very hottest days.
Loft would be almost stifling.
Officer Medley went there soonafter the alarm, heard she
claimed she was up there,observed the loft floor, thickly
covered with dust, put hishands down, drew them across,
saw clear marks, stepped uphimself, counted steps, came
down, saw plainly every footstepwhich he made.

Speaker 01 (34:24):
Circumstantial evidence using the loft's
physical state.
Prosecution argues, if Lizziewas recently up there that long,
eating pears, finding lead, hermovements should have left
visible tracks in that thickdust.
Medley's testimony aims to showhis own recent steps left clear
prints, while allegedly noneattributable to Lizzie were
seen, used to suggest her loftstory was false.

Speaker 00 (34:45):
Moody notes other behavior he finds suspicious.
When Bridget returned fromgetting Dr.
Bowen, Lizzie was agitatedabout the screen door, but
there'd been no scream, no alarmof any kind from Lizzie before
that for either victim.
She then sends Bridget on amuch longer errand to Miss
Russell, the friend shepredicted disaster to.
When Bridget asks logically,should she check for Mrs.

(35:06):
Borden at Mrs.
Whitehead's, Lizzie says, no,Bridget, no.
I am almost sure I heard hercome in.
Moody stresses, no effort tocommunicate with Mrs.
Borden up to then.
Only later, after othersarrive, does Lizzie ask Bridget
to look for her.

Speaker 01 (35:21):
Presented as unnatural, indicative of guilt.
Why no scream?
Why no immediate concern orsearch for her stepmother, who
she claimed was out?
Why send the servant away onerrands then?
Prosecution argues it showsLizzie already knew Abby was
dead, was trying to control thescene, manage information.

Speaker 00 (35:37):
Mrs.
Borden's body was found later.
Bridget and Mrs.
Churchill went up the frontstairs, turned into the upper
hall.
Churchill looked in the guestchamber, saw Mrs.
Borden's dead body as shelooked under the bed.

Speaker 01 (35:47):
Describing the second discovery.

Speaker 00 (35:49):
Mentions Dr.
Bowen, family doctor, friend,was among the first
professionals there.
Notes Bowen initially thoughtMrs.
Borden died of fright suggestthis might affect the accuracy
of his immediate observations.

Speaker 01 (36:01):
Seems like preemptively handling potential
testimony from the doctor, ifhis initial thoughts, say about
time or cause of death, didn'tperfectly match the
prosecution's later evidence.

Speaker 00 (36:11):
Moody highlights more of Lizzie's actions after
people arrived.
Says soon after, Lizzie passedfrom dining room through corner
of sitting room without stoppingto look at her dead father on
the sofa.
Went upstairs, passed the roomwhere her stepmother lay dead
without inquiry.
Went into her own room, laydown.
Soon after, without suggestion,changed her dress to a loose

(36:32):
pink wrapper.

Speaker 01 (36:32):
These actions, not looking at her father, passing
her dead stepmother's roomwithout checking, retreating,
changing clothes, unsolicited,presented as highly abnormal,
suspicious for someoneexperiencing such tragedy,
supposedly having just found onebody.
Changing clothes especiallysuggests hiding something, like
blood.

Speaker 00 (36:49):
And finally, in this immediate aftermath sequence,
while Alice Russell was with herin her bedroom, Lizzie
supposedly said, I think I hadbetter have Wynwood for
Undertaker.

Speaker 01 (37:00):
Presented as another example of detached, maybe
morbidly practical behavior in acrisis.
While maybe practical incontext after avoiding the
bodies, changing clothes,prosecution could frame it as
strangely composed, focused onlogistics over grief.
Unnatural for an innocentperson, they'd argue.

Speaker 00 (37:17):
Okay, let's shift to the physical evidence Moody
plans to use.
He calls the relative time ofthe deaths a crucial point.
Proof will show Mrs.
Borden died sometime before Mr.
Borden.

Speaker 01 (37:27):
Establishing the order of death is absolutely
vital.
If Mrs.
Borden died first, it puts herdeath in that earlier window,
around 9.30 a.m., when Moodyclaims only Lizzie was
unaccounted for upstairs,separate from Bridget downstairs
and Mr.
Borden downtown.

Speaker 00 (37:41):
They'll rely on observations of the bodies by
many witnesses.
Mr.
Borden's body, found later,freshly running blood, warm, not
rigid.
Mrs.
Borden's body, found earlier,blood that was coagulated and
hardened and dry.
Body cold, stiffened in death.
These signs, Moody argues,suggest Abby died significantly
earlier.
Plus, judgments of someprofessional men who saw the

(38:03):
bodies there.

Speaker 01 (38:04):
Postmortem changes, blood coagulation, temperature
rigor mortis indicate time sincedeath.
Moody promises testimony frommultiple sources, including
professionals, that theseobservations clearly pointed to
Mrs.
Borden dying earlier.

Speaker 00 (38:16):
Now the science bit.
Moody introduces evidence fromforensic analysis, specifically
stomach contents.
Professor Edward S.
Wood, Harvard Medical School.
Top forensic chemist then.
Notes both Bordens atebreakfast, same time.
Mrs.
Borden's stomach, 11 ounces offood still digesting, 15 water,
45 food.
Upper intestine had some partlydigested food, lower intestine

(38:38):
empty, Mr.
Borden's stomach.
Only six ounces, mostly water,a little solid food.
Upper intestine empty, lowerintestine contained the
breakfasts that had beendigested.

Speaker 01 (38:46):
That's significant for the time.
Moody presents the comparison.
Moody says experts...

Speaker 00 (39:11):
competent to give an opinion, will state that, upon
those facts alone, Mrs.
Borden must have died at leastan hour before her husband.
He explicitly links thisscientific conclusion to her
going upstairs around 9, town30, and never leaving alive.

Speaker 01 (39:27):
That's the prosecution tying the science
digestion state directly totheir timeline.
If believed, it stronglysupports Abby dying well before
Andrew, specifically in thatwindow when they argue only
Lizzie could have been with herupstairs.

Speaker 00 (39:39):
He also notes the blood spattering in these rooms
would make it probable that oneor more spatters would be upon
the person or the clothing ofthe assailant.

Speaker 01 (39:46):
Right.
Observation about expectedblood spatter sets up the next
crucial point.
Lizzie's clothes.
If the killer was close tothose violent blows, blood on
their clothing seems likely.

Speaker 00 (39:57):
Moody says the clothes Lizzie claims she wore,
August 4th, shoes, stockings,dress, skirt, were produced a
good many days after thehomicide.
Acknowledges most rigidexamination by the most
competent expert, Professor Woodagain, found no marks of blood
upon the dress.
Skirt had one minute spot, buthe dismisses it for now.

Speaker 01 (40:16):
That's a challenge for them, isn't it?
If there was spatter and shewore these clothes, why no
blood?
Moody has to explain thisapparent lack of direct evidence
on the clothes presented.

Speaker 00 (40:24):
He immediately pivots, introduces contradictory
descriptions of the dress shewas wearing, says Lizzie usually
wore a light blue calico cottondress, dark navy blue figure in
the mornings.
But Dr.
Bone described her in a cheapcalico dress, a sort of drab
colored dress.
Mrs.
Churchill says she wore a lightblue ground with white in it,
making it lighter blue, fixednavy blue figure without white.

(40:48):
Crucially, when shown the dressproduced at trial, Churchill
will say, it is not the dressthe prisoner had on upon the
morning of the homicide.

Speaker 01 (40:57):
That discrepancy is key.
Prosecution uses witnesses toargue the dress Lizzie produced
wasn't the dress she wore thatmorning.
Suggests the real dress wasdifferent.
And that difference needsexplaining.

Speaker 00 (41:08):
Which leads directly to maybe the most infamous
evidence, the burnt dressincident.
Moody sets the scene.
Sunday morning, three daysafter murders.
Saturday night, MayorCoughlin told Lizzie she was
suspected.
Bridget had left.
Emma was back home.
Alice Russell staying there

Speaker 01 (41:23):
Timing is crucial.
Happens after Lizzie knowsshe's suspected, after the
servant witness leaves.
Happens with sister and friendpresent.

Speaker 00 (41:30):
Sunday morning, Alice Russell enters kitchen.
Officers outside watching.
Lizzie's there, dress skirt onher arm, waist on a shelf.
Moody describes this dress.
Cotton dress, purchased in thespring.
A light blue dress with a fixednavy blue spot on it.
Points out this matchesChurchill's description, the
typical morning dress, likelyworn Thursday.

Speaker 01 (41:53):
So the dress being burned matches the description
of the dress witnesses claimedshe wore that morning, the one
allegedly not produced at trial.

Speaker 00 (42:00):
According to Moody, Emma sees her.
Asks Lizzie, what are you goingto do?
Lizzie, I'm going to burn thisdress.
It's all covered with paint.
Alice Russell turns away, comesback, finds Lizzie tearing the
waist.
Alice, maybe sensing theimplication, says, Lizzie, I
would not do that where peoplecan see you.
Lizzie just moves slightly outof sight to keep burning it.

Speaker 01 (42:17):
Presented as clear destruction of evidence,
prosecution argues the paintexcuse was flimsy.
Real reason.
Destroy potential bloodevidence.
Doing it even after Aliceexpressed concern warned her
about being seen.
Makes it look even moredeliberate.

Speaker 00 (42:31):
Alice's concern continued.
Monday, after talking to aPinkerton detective, Alice told
Lizzie, Lizzie, I'm afraid theburning of that dress was the
worst thing that you could havedone.
Lizzie's response, per Moody,Oh, why did you let me do it
then?

Speaker 01 (42:46):
That response, prosecution would frame that as
almost an admission, suggestsshe understood it was
problematic, maybe regretted it,not because it was innocent,
but because it looked bad.

Speaker 00 (42:56):
Moody ties it back to police searches.
Officers search for clothes.
No clothing unconcealed coveredwith paint could have escaped
their observation if it wasn'tburned.
Implication.
Burned because it was coveredwith something incriminating,
not just paint.
Deliberate concealment fromsearching authorities.

Speaker 01 (43:12):
Incredibly powerful circumstantial evidence.
If the jury believes the burntdress was the dress from that
morning, burned because it hadevidence?
Very tough for the defense.

Speaker 00 (43:22):
Now the weapons.
Indictment says sharp cuttinginstrument.
Description unknown.
Moody says government mustpresent info on potential
weapons found on site.

Speaker 01 (43:30):
have to address the weapon, even if they can't
pinpoint the exact one.
Showing potential weapons wereavailable in the house is part
of arguing an insider did it.

Speaker 00 (43:38):
Two hatchets, two axes found.
Moody dismisses the axes rightaway.
So far out of the question,need not waste any time,
presumably wrong size or typefor the wounds.

Speaker 01 (43:49):
Rules out the obvious non-starters.
Focuses attention.

Speaker 00 (43:52):
Initial focus on one hatchet.
Had spots, thought to be blood.
Moody admits visual ID is hard,even for Professor Wood.
But most rigid examinationfound not the slightest evidence
of bloodstain on either ofthose first hatchets.
Apparent blood was somethingelse.

Speaker 01 (44:08):
Interesting.
He's upfront about evidencethat looked promising but didn't
hold up scientifically?
Might build credibility when hepresents science that does
support his case?
Shows thorough investigation.

Speaker 00 (44:18):
Notes ragged bits near handle blade and on handle
of this innocent hatchet.
Professor Wood will testifythese hatchets could not in all
probability have been used andhave been washed.
without blood catching on thoseragged bits.
His view.
These are entirely innocent.

Speaker 01 (44:32):
So expert evidence not just that they lacked blood,
but that given their state,effective cleaning was
impossible.
Therefore, lack of blood plusstructure, likely not the
weapon.

Speaker 00 (44:42):
But then, the handless hatchet, Moody says
another weapon part, found dayof homicide, attracted little
attention initially found afterwhat was thought to be a bloody
hatchet had been discovered.
Officers saw it, left it.

Speaker 01 (44:55):
Introduces another possibility.
Less obvious potential weapon.
Maybe significance missed atfirst?

Speaker 00 (45:00):
Condition when found.
Handle fragment still in head.
Covered with adhesion of ashes.
Coarse dust.
Not fine floating dust.
Taken away Monday morning.
Custody traced.
Both hatchets rusty, buthandleless ones rust.
Uniform upon both sides and allparts, like from wet grass or
dew.
Suggests consistent moistureexposure.

Speaker 01 (45:18):
Ash and uniform rust.
Presented as potentiallysignificant.
Ash.
Hidden in fireplace bin.
uniform rust, maybe washed thenleft somewhere damp to rust
evenly, make it look unused,uncleaned recently.

Speaker 00 (45:29):
Professor Wood saw it soon after discovery.
Moody says Wood will testify.
While ragged bits on otherhatchets would hold blood,
ragged bits near blade entry onthis one would detain absolutely
no indications, implying thisone was smoother, shaped so
blood could be readily,effectually, and completely
removed by washing soon after.

Speaker 01 (45:49):
Prosecution's argument for why this hatchet,
despite being clean, could bethe weapon suggests deliberate
washing, structure allowed easycleaning, unlike others,
counters the no blood on anyhatchet means hatchet wasn't
used or killer took hisargument.

Speaker 00 (46:02):
And critically, Professor Wood will say the
break where the handle wasmissing, color changed by acid
tests, was a new break, a freshbreak, perhaps a day or might
have been a month old, but notan old break.

Speaker 01 (46:13):
Handle break being recent is important.
suggests handle deliberatelyremoved or broken off near time
of murders.
Make weapon less identifiable,easier to hide, dispose of
bloody handle separately.

Speaker 00 (46:24):
Moody then presents evidence linking this type of
weapon to injuries.
Refers to preserve parts ofvictim's skulls.
Wounds show, unmistakably, theweapon was sharp.
And strikingly, Mr.
Borden's skull shows chippingblows where the blade was
exactly 312 inches, no more, noless.
Moody proclaims, That is theexact measurement of the blade

(46:46):
of that hatchet.
The handless one.

Speaker 01 (46:48):
Powerful physical evidence, Link.
Claiming weapon width fromskull wounds exactly matches
blade width of the handlesshatchet found there.
Strong, tangible connection.
Even if not definitive proof,it was the weapon.

Speaker 00 (47:00):
But Moody's careful.
Qualifies it immediately.
The government does not insistthat these homicides were
committed by this handlesshatchet.
It may have been the weapon.
It may well have been theweapon.

Speaker 01 (47:09):
Smart legal move.
Presents strong circumstantialevidence it could be the weapon.
Easy, clean, fresh break, bladematch.
But doesn't hang the whole caseon proving this specific object
was used.
The bigger point is whathappened to the bloody weapon.

Speaker 00 (47:21):
Which brings him to the one significant fact,
emphasized.
The bloody weapon was notfound.
Not by victims, not onpremises, not nearby.

Speaker 01 (47:29):
The absence of the bloody weapon is itself evidence
requires explanation whathappened to it.

Speaker 00 (47:34):
Moody contrasts two possibilities for the jury based
on this missing weapon.
An intruder flying from hiscrimes with the bloody weapon
through the streets of FallRiver at noonday or the acts of
an inmate familiar with itsresources for destruction,
obliteration and concealment.

Speaker 01 (47:49):
core of their argument on weapon and
opportunity intruder fleeingbusy street midday with bloody
weapon less likely to escapedispose of it effectively nearby
inmate familiar with houselayout hiding spots like ash bin
where handleless hatchet may befound much better position to
hide destroy weapon quicklyeffectively explains why bloody
weapon never found missingweapon points inwards

Speaker 00 (48:12):
he also points out lack of other motives no signs
of struggle Not a thing,disturbed, no property taken, no
drawers ransacked, Mr.
Borden had money, watch, chain,rules out robbery.
Also, nothing to indicate amotive of that sort, like sexual
assault, though notes age is noprotection, considered and
ruled out.

Speaker 01 (48:29):
Eliminating other common motives, robbery,
assault, narrows possibilitiesfor why.
Implicitly strengthens theirfocus on the stated motive.
Alleged animosity, financialtension, valuables left
untouched strongly suggestsmotive wasn't theft.

Speaker 00 (48:43):
Crucially, Moody stresses, not the slightest
evidence of the struggle.
Assailant, able to approacheach victim in broad daylight
and without a struggle andwithout a murmur to lay them
low.
Mrs.
Borden found between bureau andbed, head hacked.
Mr.
Borden on sofa, quote,Apparently he had passed from
life to death without a struggleor a movement.
Similar head wounds.

Speaker 01 (49:03):
Lack of struggle suggests victims caught unaware,
instantly incapacitated, ormaybe didn't see attacker as
threat.
Combined with broad daylight,busy house, points away from
stranger attacked, pouredsomeone who could approach
without alarm or resistance.
Someone known, comfortable.

Speaker 00 (49:19):
Regarding opportunity, Moody says it will
appear no one was seen toescape.
nor to enter that house on themorning of August 4th, calls
this confirmatory evidence ofthe conclusive evidence of the
opportunity in the house.

Speaker 01 (49:31):
No witnesses seeing anyone suspicious entering or
leaving.
Further supports the insidertheory.
Combined with locked doorssealed off internal areas,
argues killer was alreadyinside, didn't need to enter or
make visible escape.

Speaker 00 (49:44):
So what does it all add up to?
Moody wraps his opening bysummarizing the key pillars of
the Commonwealth's case, pullingall those details together.

Speaker 01 (49:52):
His final chance in the opening to consolidate the
narrative leave the jury withthe main takeaways from their
perspective.

Speaker 00 (49:59):
Says they'll prove the unkindly feeling, the
motive.
Reiterates Wednesday, Lizzie,dwelling upon murder, preparing
with prussic acid request, thatevening predicting disaster and
cataloging defenses with AliceRussell, suggests premeditation
or deliberate false narrativecreation.

Speaker 01 (50:16):
Presents motive and alleged preparation first.
Links day before to the crimes.

Speaker 00 (50:20):
Stresses timing and isolation.
From Mrs.
Borden going upstairs untilLizzie came down an hour later
from hall, leading only to herroom and guest room, no other
human being except the prisonerpresent.
repeats this based on layout,locked doors, argues opportunity
for Abby's murder lay solelywith Lizzie.
Similar point for Andrew'sdeath timeframe.

Speaker 01 (50:41):
Directly addresses opportunity for both murders,
especially Abby's earlier one,places Lizzie as the only one
with presence and access duringcritical windows.

Speaker 00 (50:49):
Says these were acts of a human being, acts of
someone with familiar knowledgeof the interior, whereabouts and
habits of occupants.
Argues this knowledge used topick time and place when victims
were isolated, vulnerable.

Speaker 01 (51:01):
Explicitly rules out unfamiliar intruder lacking
specific household knowledge.
Reinforces insider argument.

Speaker 00 (51:08):
Reiterates they'll prove Lizzie made contradictory
statements about her whereaboutsand crucially gave a vitally
different statement about themanner in which she discovered
these homicides under oathversus initial accounts.
And will prove beyond allreasonable doubt that the death
of Mrs.
Borden was a prior death.

Speaker 01 (51:24):
Alleged lies.
Contradictory discovery story,scientific proof of death order,
highlighted as major evidencepointing to defendant.

Speaker 00 (51:32):
Concludes summary, posing the central question, the
challenge in a circumstantialcase.
We'll ask jury, if say you can,whether any other reasonable
hypothesis except that of theguilt of this prisoner can
account for the sad occurrences.

Speaker 01 (51:47):
Standard legal test for circumstantial evidence.
Prosecution must convince jurytheir guilt theory is the only
reasonable explanation fittingall evidence.
If jury finds any otherreasonable explanation, must
acquit.

Speaker 00 (51:59):
Finally, Moody addresses jury directly,
including remarks.
Solemn instruction.
Tell them, time for idle rumor,partial insufficient
information, hasty and inexactreasoning is passed.
Guidance must come by the lawand the evidence only.
Put aside outside influences.

Speaker 01 (52:14):
Crucial instruction.
Decision based only oncourtroom evidence, not public
opinion, newspapers,speculation.

Speaker 00 (52:19):
Implores them.
Keep minds open and receptive,as sworn, to the end.
Says, if the evidence fails,God forbid that you should step
one step against the law or beon the evidence to the injury of
this prisoner.

Speaker 01 (52:30):
Formal acknowledgement of presumption
of innocence, high standard ofproof, presents himself as
advocating justice based solelyon evidence, even while laying
out strong guilt case.
If evidence doesn't meetstandard, obligated to acquit.

Speaker 00 (52:42):
But immediately follows.
If your mind's Considering allthese circumstances are led
irresistibly to the conclusionof her guilt, we ask you, in
your verdict, to declare thetruth.
And by so doing, shall you maketrue deliverance of the great
issue.

Speaker 01 (52:58):
Powerful closing.
If evidence overwhelminglyconvinces them of guilt, their
duty is a guilty verdict.
Frames conviction not aspunishment, but declaring truth,
fulfilling theirresponsibility.

Speaker 00 (53:09):
And with that, 1055 AM, Moody finishes opening for
the Commonwealth.
Court recessed.
Jury returned after 11 to starthearing evidence.

Speaker 01 (53:17):
Gives us a really comprehensive look at the
narrative, arguments, specificevidence points the prosecution
planned to use, all delivered inthat crucial first address.

Speaker 00 (53:25):
So let's quickly recap Moody's argument.
Built on pillars, motive,animosity, financial tension
with stepmother, opportunity,locked house, internal barriers
restricting movement, onlyinsider could do it, legit
preparation, prussic acidrequest, Alice Russell
conversation, physical evidence,Order of deaths via body,
state, stomach contents,handless hatchet analysis could

(53:46):
be weapon, easily cleaned, bladewidth match, burnt dress,
suggesting destroyed evidence,and Lizzie's own alleged
contradictory behaviorstatements, varying whereabouts,
shifted discovery story versusbarndust, odd actions after
discovery like changing clothes,undertake her comment.

Speaker 01 (54:01):
He skillfully wove all those threads, created a
detailed narrative aiming topoint jury inevitably towards
Lizzie's guilt based entirely oncircumstance, timeline,
physical evidenceinterpretation, her alleged
actions and words.
Masterclass in constructing acircumstantial case opening.

Speaker 00 (54:17):
The power of an opening like this.
Huge.
State's first best shot todefine the story, frame the
facts, create the lens for thejury.
Moody's presentation, even justreading this, feels incredibly
detailed, comprehensive,promising specific witnesses,
forensic evidence for eachclaim.

Speaker 01 (54:31):
It's careful legal strategy.
Anticipates defenses like anintruder tries to counter them
up front.
Lock doors.
No forced entry.
No robbery.
Insider knowledge needed.
Guiding perception beforeevidence is formally presented.

Speaker 00 (54:44):
And remember, listening, this was just one
side.
Powerful presentation of theprosecution's theory.
Meticulously built from theirevidence, their interpretation.
We saw how carefully he usedhouse details, timeline,
forensics, Lizzie's reportedwords actions to build his case
for guilt.

Speaker 01 (54:59):
Understanding this initial prosecution case is
fundamental to understanding thetrial dynamics that followed.
The defense then faced the hugetask of challenging every
point, every piece of evidence.

Speaker 00 (55:10):
Which leaves us with a final thought, something to
ponder from this source.
Moody presents this seeminglyairtight case, web of
circumstance, motive,opportunity, contradiction,
builds with such confidence,promises support.
Thinking only about thisopening, how does a defense
lawyer even start unravelingthat?
Such a detailed, multifacetedargument.

(55:31):
What points do you attackfirst?
And even with all Moody'sdetails, house, times, actions,
science, what questions does hisopening not answer?
What aspects, even as he tellsit, feel incomplete, leave room
for doubt?

Speaker 01 (55:44):
Highlights the immense challenge for the
defense, right?
Not just refuting bits ofevidence, but dismantling the
whole cohesive guilt narrativethe prosecution built right at
the start.

Speaker 00 (55:51):
Indeed.
Something to think about as wewrap this deep dive into the
prosecution's opening in thehistoric trial, Lizzie Andrew
Borden.