1. "Andrew's Suits"
Posted by gt-master on Mar-13th-04 at 1:57 PM
I've often wondered if the inept Police of Fall River ever checked Andrew's suits during one of their umpteen searches? We've all heard of the numerous frantic hunts for blood on Lizzie's dress or Emma's dress or any dress for that matter but I don't think that I heard of Andrews clothes being searched thouroughly.
It would seem to me that the Keystone Kops would have most likely given any Male clothes a quick glance if that seeing as to how they were intent on finding a DRESS with blood on it. Am I saying that someone could have used one of Andrews suits to shield them from blood? Maybe. Did Lizzie don daddys duds to commit the act? There was many reports of men lurking outside at various times. Perhaps Lizzie dressed as a man checking outside to see where Maggie was?
I'm not sure if this was ever discussed on this forum so I just figured that I would throw it out there. I was read The Knowlton Papers this weekend & one of the letters in his collection made me think of this.
I don't have the citations (Kat would?), but I seriously doubt that the police would omit this search. Didn't they search the whole house?
A proper lady like Lizzie would no more don men's clothes than go around nude chopping up her parents.
Yet she would participate in obstruction of justice and refuse to name the real killer to gain $$???? (Arcording to Brown)
Proper indeed..........
(Message last edited Mar-13th-04 4:47 PM.)
Your comment: " ... going around nude, chopping up her parents," reminded me of this little gem by Pearson:
"The maids of Massachusetts are not accustomed to undress before committing homicide, in fact, so rigid are their notions of propriety that a good many of them do not slaughter their parents at all, even when fully clothed."
I guess what i'm asking is if the police checked AJB's suits as closely as they would have checked the dresses in the house. I think by the 2nd search, they already had their suspect in mind so they put on thier blinders so to speak & went about looking to dig up evidence on that one suspect alone. I'm sure they check Andrews clothing but not as they should have.
I have been thinking about this...
Whenever I am to paint or do something that will soil my clothing greatly... I snitch one of my husbands old sweatshirts......
The Knowlton Papers, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Lizzie A. Borden, 1892- 1893, Fall River Historical Society, 1994, pg. 339- 345, typewritten transcript, #HK329:
O U I J A
Q. What about the Borden case?
A. Axe - Turkey red - vest - suds - stairs.
Q. Was it her father's vest?
A. His vest
Q. What about Turkey red?
A. Paint
Q. What dress did she wear?
A. No dress
Q. Didn't she wear anything?
A. Yes, trousers.
Q. Who wore them?
A. She
Q. Bridget?
A. No; Lizzie
Q. What did she do with the things?
A. Bury
Q. Where?
A. Yard -
Q. What part of the yard?
A. Cellar - furnace - underneath earth
Q. Are they buried there?
A. Yes.
Q. All?
A. No; some burned
Q. Where did she burn them?
A. Kitchen - wet clothes - trousers bury
Q. Did she kill both her father and mother?
A. Undoubtedly
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Diversion/Phychicfile.htm
.....
Earlier burning bloody towels was mentioned and I meant to remark that wet or damp things might not burn. we do, however, have a record of burying...
(Message last edited Mar-13th-04 10:54 PM.)
Actually, this come from the trial. I think Jennings, in reference to the lack of bloodstained clothes, sarcastically (?) asked if the killer was naked?
...
Nude means w/o clothes, naked implies unprotected. Or so they say. But this is current definitions, and people do say naked when they mean nude. Ain't it a shame?
(Message last edited Mar-15th-04 7:12 PM.)
Trial
Closing
"Well, they will go another step yet in their theory, I think likely. I would not wonder if they are going to claim that this woman denuded herself and did not have any dress on at all when she committed either murder. The heart waits to learn what theories they will get up about this woman without evidence. First, create your monster, and then put into him the devil's instincts and purposes, and you have created a character. But start with a woman, with woman's impulses and a daughter's love, and your imaginings are foreign and base."
I think even previous to this, there were letters to Knowlton or Hilliard which proposed such a scenario.
Using Andrew's clothing would be a perfect disguise, and given their dark color and the darkness of the interior of the house, would be less obviously bloodstained. They could have been worn for the first, then sponged and dried between killings. (The Prince Albert coat would provide ample coverage during the second crime.)
--Lyddie
I wasn't there to judge them. But surely even in FR they may have heard and seen "cross-dressers". Even Sherlock Holmes had one case where a villain would dress like a woman? I don't remember the title.
Isn't this just speculation, and baseless?
If you can get fresh blood from an abattoir, just run your experiment at home with an old jacket from Salvation Army.
It is one thing to plan a murder (I'll never believe this from the known facts), something else to cover it up when asked by Uncle John (as I believe happened).
Have YOU ever heard of something wrong after the fact and kept quiet because it involved a relative. (Besides it was only gossip.)
Andrew Jennings words still have the ring of truth.
I'll never believe she did it, but can believe Uncle John convinced her to say nothing (the lesser evil).
Doesn't the law equate conspiracy and aiding and abetting before and after the fact, as the same crime which involved a death?
>It is one thing to plan a murder (I'll never believe this
>from the known facts), something else to cover it up when
>asked by Uncle John (as I believe happened).
>Have YOU ever heard of something wrong after the fact and
>kept quiet because it involved a relative. (Besides it was
>only gossip.)
While I would probably not turn Cousin Bubba in for driving his pick up home from the hoe down after having too many Budweisers, I think I would speak up if my illegitimate half brother murdered my (even hated) stepmother and my father.
I would hardly follow the advice of a man I had refused to receive the evening before, especially after continuing the snub by hiding out in my bedroom the very morning of the crime, only emerging moments after he had left.
Call me zany!
This is another good part of that OUIJA session -- fun to visualize.
Q. What time did Lizzie murder her mother?
A. 9:30
Q. What did she do afterwards?
A. Worked
Q. What time did she murder her father?
A. 10:45
Q. What did she do afterwards?
A. Put trousers that she wore in tub in cellar sink
Q. Why weren't they found?
A. Stupid
Q. What did she do after putting the trousers in the cellar sink?
A. Then dressed and called
Q. What about barn?
A. No barn
Q. What else did she wear besides trousers?
A. Hat
Q. What color hat?
A. Dark
Q. Any gloves?
A. No gloves
Q. Anything on chest and waist?
A. Nothing but trousers and hat
YES, Definitely. I can't argue against this. But real life does not follow the law books.
In 1999 I read of a 41-year old murder that was solved when the sister of the killer finally spoke out. It was kept secret that long!
This case is also an argument for life in prison, because if her brother was executed instead of getting life, she would never have spoken out after keeping quiet 30 years.
...
This was just about the time I discovered the 'dark rose'? site and renewed my interest in this puzzling case.
(Message last edited Mar-17th-04 6:44 PM.)
Obviously you accept Arnold R Brown's theory. I don't disagree with you, but I wasn't there either.
Ever hear of "the lesser evil" (first formulated by Niccolo M.?)
It says people choose what seems to be less of a problem; there is seldom one right solution when faced with competing interests, etc.
First, if Bubba could drive home after "a few beers" it makes no difference. I've read of many such cases where the driver "went off the road into the trees while driving home at 2am". You know what this means.
As to a murder, I doubt if this would be ever shared with an innocent person. No one has ever claimed that WSB confessed to Lizzie as he was leaving; she was not an eye-witness (or maybe then the 3rd victim?).
Is your last paragraph a reference to John V Morse? My observation is this "indifference" was a way to imply they never spoke at all at that time; I don't believe it since Lizzie seems to have sent Dr Bowen to recall JVM. IMO
I have heard bragging about under-age drinking and speeding (not at the same time). But who can tell bragging from a confession. "Let me tell you about the time I picked up these two girls and went back to my apartment ...."
Actually, I do not accept Brown's theory.
BUT, at this point I accept no theory as gospel.
A 'theory' is a way to explain facts where nobody could witness them.
The theory of evolution, of phlogiston, etc. A rational attempt to explain the unknown. William of Occam's advice is usually true here.
Raymond,
Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is the best, is one very good argument against the Brown scenario. Like most similar conspiracy theories, which you sometimes reference, the entire Brown theory is a lot more complex and requires more people to be involved than the very simple conclusion that a single person known to be at home at the time did it.
A smelly, wild-eyed creature near the Borden house could have been an alien, too, Ray. Swooped in from another planet, inflicted the damage and vanished again without a trace.
See, Brown could have introduced ANYBODY new to the scene: maybe it was Mayor Coughlin, maybe it was the Freemasons, maybe it was the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, maybe the CIA. . .
There is, however, no evidence that anyone but Lizzie, Andrew, Abby, Bridget and John Morse were inside the house on the morning of August 4, 1892 before Mrs. Churchill came over from next door.
(Message last edited Mar-22nd-04 11:24 AM.)
I'm not going to waste time on this. AR Brown's book came from the writings of Henry Hathaway (Brown was not a professional writer like so many of the others). THAT is one fact in his favor, for me.
...
"If the impossible is ruled out, then what remains, however improbable, is the truth." Wasn't Arthur Conan Doyle correct in this?
We can and do argue over these words.
(Message last edited Mar-22nd-04 5:54 PM.)
The story is also derivitive of a letter in the Knowlton Papers, which was probably being edited at the FRHS, during Brown's time referrencing there, pre- 1991.
(Highlited words are originally underlined in the letter)
(After adding the highlite tags, the format went screwy-sorry)
"HOTEL KENMORE
Albany N.Y. Aug 12 1892
District Atty. Knowlton
Fall River, Mass.
Dear Sir:-
Feeling quite safe from all possible arrest, I write you This information
regarding the Fall River Mystery. The Killing[of old man Bordon and his wife was not perportrated by any immediate member of his family as is generally supposed. But They were put out of the way By an illgitimate Son whom Bordon refused to recognize after the Mother of his off-spring died a number of years ago in a certain Mass. Insane Asylum of a Broken heart. That son is now twenty five years of age. He was not known to any member of the family save the old man and woman. When that sons Mother was sent to the asylum through Bordon, the Son was put in a New York Orphan Asylum. When he was subsequently bound out to a farmer. When he reached his age he left the farmer and went to Bordon and demanded recognition and some sort of an understanding. We mutually agreed to a certain contract part orally & part written. What the contract was does not matter here more than to say - He was to be educated at his, Bordons expense. Allowed a certain sum of money a year and when completed course preparatory to College was to be paid a final sum of $5,000 to commence life with and then they were quits. Through the influence of his Wife who disliked the said son because he once insulted her when she made a stinging remark regarding that sons mother in his presence was persuaded to renounce his obligations & promises after he had partly filled them. The son repeatedly thereafter tried to induce Bordon to
carry out his agreement as he was abundently able to do so. He wouldn't
listen. So to make a long story short the son Brooded over his and his
mothers past troubles and resolved upon Vengeance, with the result
known to all. One point More Lizzie Bordon my half sister may have
heard of me and it is to shield her fathers infamy and good name that she
is taking the course she has so nobly with stood. The girl is entirely inno-
cent and it is only that justice may be done her that I write this otherwise I
would not have written this for I fairly hate the Bordon name.
The instrument the deed was done with was a Lathers Hatchet and was
droped over board from a Fall River steamer at the Dock. Entrance to the
House was gained by a front window afterwards fastened egress by side
window. The time of Revenge about 11:45 I think.
And the illigitimate who took the revenge is the Writer of this confes-
sion. No use to track me for it will be an utter impossibilty to do so. At the
hour this letter is mailed I shall take a train for hundreds of miles away.
Yours Truly
Phillip Gordon Reed"
(Message last edited Mar-22nd-04 7:02 PM.)
Ahhh, another name thrown into the mix of suspects. Is there any basis or fact that there ever was a Philip Gordon Reed?
Who, Phillip Gordon Bordon?
Sounds familiar tho, doesn't it?
(Message last edited Mar-22nd-04 11:24 PM.)
But Arnold R Brown did not base his book on an anonymous letter; one that seemed to know too much (assuming an illegitmate son).
The sending from Albany suggests Jos Carpenter, who was looking to clear Lizzie by telling enough but keekping him out of it. The latter letter "found" in Troy NY sent to Jos Carpenter sounds like a way of getting even.
You can assign whatever weight to this you want; but not that an identical letter was also sent to the Mayor (as if he didn't trust either 100%).
I did find something on a W. Gordon Reed.
Allen and Reed, Inc. began in 1902 as a wholesale corporation of industrial supplies, especially pipe, valves, fittings, heating equipment, and pumps. Under the management of Philip Allen (1869-1951) and W. Gordon Reed, the corporation installed sprinkler systems, heating systems, process piping systems and oil lines throughout Rhode Island, southeastern Massachusetts and Connecticut.
From this site: http://www.rihs.org/mssinv/Mss095.htm
Philip Gordon Bordon? Isn't he the Gordon's fisherman, that guy that sells fishsticks?
Congratulations on your most cryptic post ever.
I doubt anyone knows what you are talking about. It's some kind of shorthand?
Why didn't Mr. Brown base his book on this letter?
Any of the Knowlton Letters would make a good book!
And any one could be argued to be the remaining impossible! The problem with the A. R. Brown theory is that it is far from the last remaining answer. Many possibilities remain. Some seem unlikely, but might have just happened to go undetected by dumb luck rather than by brilliant planning. The case seems far from closed.
--Lyddie
The thing about TWO letters is that the writer wanted to be sure it got through. THAT shows some planning, doesn't it? None of the others sent duplicates. One way to avoid your message being "lost".
I won't spend time on what you can read in the first few pages of AR Brown's book, where he explains how he got started. He wasn't a professional writer like the others (Porter, Pearson, Radin, Lincoln, Sullivan, Spiering, Masterton, etc.) Do you agree?
This sounds like a search for truth, not another money-maker.
...
Weren't the Knowlton letters private and unavailable to others at that point in time (mid-1990s)?
(Message last edited Mar-24th-04 6:44 PM.)