1. "Borden Robbery"
Posted by Kat on Sep-4th-03 at 3:37 AM

I was thinking about the robbery which occurred on or about June 24, 1891, at the Borden home.  I was wondering why fingers always seem to point automatically at Lizzie, when there were 2 others there, and why some still insist only Abby's things were taken, like some personal insult to Abby, when Andrew's desk was the one rifled and he lost a sizeable amount of cash, and car tickets.
I started looking around to get the info to present here so we can determine for ourselves if this story has been slanted over time to point at Lizzie and has been touted as proof Abby was the victim in this robbery.  Personally it seems like an even loss to me.  A pro would take Andrew's cash and Abby's watch, regardless if there was a lock of hair in there that may have had sentimental value.

In Rebello there are news items referring to the incident which cropped up the next year, after the murders.  Apparently these reports impart the *fact* that the robbery was some huge secret, though Officer Desmond states in his report to Knowlton later (Sept., 1892), that he visited  Borden neighbors, "all the adjoining houses, including Mrs. Churchill's house on the north, Dr. Kelly's house on the south, Dr. Gibbs house & Dr. Chagnon's house on the east, and made a thorough search of the neighborhood to find some person who might have seen someone going, or coming from Mr. Borden's house; but I failed to find any trace." (Knowlton Papers, 74-75)
--(Sounds like a foreshadowing of a similar canvas of the neighborhood a bit over 13 months later.  --Where no one again, saw anything... But surely too, all these people then heard about the robbery.  Some secret).

Rebello, 36:
...."It is understood that the fastenings on the desk had been tampered with, although the final entrance may have been effected with a key which fitted the lock, either by accident or intention.
It is coincidence that an officer [Dennis Desmond] was put upon the case who knew the Borden family thoroughly. In fact, it may be said that he had, in a sense, grown up with the daughters.
There had been a series of robberies in Fall River just preceding this, and a young man was finally tripped up with a lot of sized keys in his possession, but there seems to have been something distinctive about this theft that did not indicate an expert.

...It does not appear that anything else was taken from the house at this time, nor were any other of the houses in that neighborhood robbed." Fall River Daily Herald, May 26, 1893: 7.

and

..."The peculiarity was that the only thing disturbed was Mr. Borden's desk where a man might be believed to have kept his private papers was significant."...
New Bedford Daily Mercury, August 10, 1892: 1. (also: Fall River Daily Herald on August 9, 1892: 4.)

Desmond's report states what was taken:
..."I found Mr Borden's desk. It had been broken open. Mr Borden said '$80.00 in money and 25 to 30 dollars in gold, and a large number of H car tickets had been taken. The tickets bore name or signature of Frank Brightman.'
Brightman was a former treasurer of Globe St. railroad co. Mrs. Borden
said 'her gold watch & chain, ladies chain, with slide & tassel attached,
some other small trinkets of jewelry, and a red Russia leather pocket-book
containing a lock of hair had been taken. I prize the watch very much,
and I wish & hope that you can get it; but I have a feeling that you never
will.' Nothing but the property of Mr & Mrs Borden reported as missing."

--Harry can tell us how much money that was in today's dollars.  A newspaper, following the murders, reported *a small sum of money* had been taken in this  theft of 1891. Note also, Mrs. Borden does not specify to whom the red leather pocket-book belongs.

In Rebello, pg. 36-7, it seems the first time Lizzie's name is involved in this robbery is at the grand jury, and it is Hilliard who [allegedly] tells the jurors this and that he had convinced Mr. Borden of it (dead men tell no tales), and also that: 

..."All the articles stolen at that time were the property of Mrs. Borden and included, beside the watch and money, a quantity of free horse tickets." ...
New Bedford Evening Standard, Tuesday, November 22, 1892: 4.

The article goes on to infer that Lizzie took the horse car tickets and gave them away, and those who used them were asked where they got them and were told "Lizzie Borden."

--Now what do you think?

(Message last edited Sep-4th-03  3:54 AM.)

Combining the cash and gold, it would be roughly $2,000 in todays money based on the average rate of inflation. 

I wonder if at about that time anyone suddenly started buying new clothes, or began spending a little more foolishly than they normally would. 

Lizzie's remark to Alice about the horsecar tickets, "nobody would use those", seems to me to indicate she had knowldege that they could be traced if used. Whether she heard that from Andrew we have know way of knowing.

If my memory serves me right Lizzie had about, in round numbers, $2,900 in banks at the time of her arrest, $2,500 which came from the sale back to Andrew of the Ferry St. house.  That still leaves $400 which is almost 2 years worth of allowances.  Lizzie was not known as  being thrifty.  Makes you wonder if the police ever thought of attempting to track the source of her savings.



(Message last edited Sep-4th-03  8:27 AM.)

Great post, Kat.  My thought with Abby's things being taken is that they were personal items, they had sentimental value that can't be replaced.  Why would a thief take a pocket-book that was empty of money, but, contained a lock of hair from a loved one?  Did Desmond check the town's pawn shops for the watch and chain?

I wonder if Andrew was insured for that money, especially if it was not his?  I'm sure Andrew felt the pinch of that loss, but, money is money, you have it or you don't, its impersonal.

Perhaps the money was the target all along, but, then taking Abby's things seems to just point to someone being malicious. 

That's a good point about the tickets, Har.
And where are all these people who claim they got them from Lizzie?

About the pocketbook, it's not known if it was empty of money.  It may have been grabbed, like the watch, as something that had potential monetary value, or assumed it had money in it, and the watch could be sold.
At the least, it seems the crime was against both Mr. and Mrs. Borden, in the words of the investigating officer, Desmond, who returned to the house with Mr. Borden and interviewed him and Abby.
A thief, breaking into a locked desk, is bound to grab any money and objects there, inferring worth because the desk was locked.

It really seems as if a Legend about the robbery built up against Lizzie after the murders, when Hilliard is trying to gather anything against Lizzie that he can.  At that point stories can become more prejudicial to bolster a case.
I am seeking to put this event in perspective, and then from that point of view, evaluating the evidence that's left.

I wonder how this happened in the first place?  Desmond states that Mr. Borden returned to the house with him, and everyone was there.  We're told that the elder Borden's had been away at Swansea when the theft occurred.
So did the theft take place the day they were to return, or were they sent for to return because of a robbery? 

Hmmm, good question, Kat, I don't know?  Either way, what a fun thing to come home to after a relaxing getaway.

Was it the dressmaker that made a comment about a detective or police officer coming to see Lizzie while she was there sewing?  I can't find it at the moment, but, it was something about him having a private conversation with Lizzie alone.  Do you recall that at all? 

Is this that bit in Lincoln that we puzzled over on the forum about a year ago?  Lincoln claims that Mrs. Raymond, the dressmaker, said Detective Bartholomew Shaw came to see Lizzie when Raymond was there and talked to her for a long time in private. Lincoln quotes Raymond as saying "I don't know what they talked about" and cites her source as Trial, Vol.II, Mrs. Raymond. (Lincoln,58)

But if you read Mrs. Raymond's trial testimony, she never says these words.  And if you close-read her testimony it appears that it was Mary Raymond, not Lizzie, who was interviewed by Shaw -- and at Raymond's house -- not at 92 Second Street.

You can reference previous posts about this on the LAB website archives by plugging in the word "raymond".

(Susan, we may have to have a Victoria Lincoln 'de-programmer' come by and work with you at some point.):-)

Yes, Diana is right in her answer.  I recall that conversation. 
Thanks, Diana.
Susan, what do you think about the *Lincoln de-programming*?  (though the syndrome only happens rarely now doesn't it?)
I think that is hilarious! 

Trial
Raymond
1582
Q.  Didn't you tell Mr. Shaw that this faded so as to look something like drab?
A.  I said when I read Dr. Bowen's evidence that I thought he might possibly have taken that for that; I couldn't tell.

RE-DIRECT.

Q.  (By Mr. Jennings.)  You say it didn't look so to you?
A.  It didn't look so to me; no, sir.

Q.  Who is this Mr. Shaw?
A.  Well, I don't know. It is some one that came where I was sewing. I understood him to say it was detective Shaw.

--Since Raymond had been questioned about her dress-making stint at the Borden house the spring a year ago, and this Mr. Shaw showed up after the murders, it was safe to say he met with Raymond at her place where she was sewing:  her house, her business?

I was thinking last night about any corollarys beyween the robbery event and the murder event.
There was the killing of some pigeons a couple of months before the murders. ("last May or June" according to Lizzie at Inquest)
The horse was gotten rid of maybe a couple of months before the robbery?

Preliminary Hearing, Aug. 9th, 1892
Bridget
33
Q.  Was there any horse kept there on the premises?
A.  Not for the last year.
Q.  Formerly was?
A.  Yes Sir, there was a horse there once.
Q.  When did they leave off keeping a horse, so far as you know about?
A.  I should think it was a year or two, I cannot exactly tell the time.

Only possessions of Mr. & Mrs. Borden were stolen in the robbery.
Only Mr. & Mrs. Borden were killed on the murder day.

Neighbors were canvassed as to what they may have witnessed about the Borden home on the day of the robbery.
Neighbors were questioned about witnessing anything on the day of the murders.

Morse was living in R.I. when the robbery occured.
Morse was staying at the house the day the murders occurred.

Lizzie claimed the cellar door had been *open* the day of the robbery.
Morse claimed the cellar dor had been *open* the day of the murders.

Anything else you all can think of?

Hopefully there's a "Brown deprogrammer".  Please say yes.

kat:

this is not exactly what you're looking for to judge from your original post.  but this subject did cross my mind last week while i was wandering around the seashore.

regardless of who did it, certainly we can judge that there is a connection between that robbery and the murders.  i envisioned a kind of chart that shows a progression, an escalation.  and included in it are the pigeon murders.  remember how lizzie messed up that part so that as it stands it makes no sense?  what she was avoiding was having to say that their heads were chopped off. they were "twisted off."  what i'd really like to know is exactly how andrew killed those pigeons, because i wonder if that's not the murder weapon.

and this thought (i got this from "fictionalizing" but it opens a door anyway):  that lizzie's attempt to buy prussic acid and her forebodings to alice were NOT actual preparations for murder.  that the secret is in what happened between lizzie and abby that morning that precipated the murder (an event or an argument) -- something lizzie had not counted on.

Thanks, Diana!  Yes, please send over the deprogrammer right away!  I couldn't recall where I read that, but, I know I did and was hoping to find it again.  Basically to see if there was any inkling that maybe Lizzie was indeed suspected of the robbery and the police would stop by occasionally to question her more.

Unfortunately Lincoln was one of my favorite Lizzie books over the years and was read over and over again.  I guess this may be why I ask so many questions, I don't even trust what I remember at times, it could just be Lincolnisms!   

I, too, enjoy Victoria Lincoln's book and often think of her views when questions appear on this site.  In any event, I am thinking of the first post on this thread.  I think the reason I believe that Lizzie was responsible for the theft in the house that day is because she had a history of dishonesty.  She had trouble with the truth following the murders and she was later implicated in a shoplifting incident when living at Maplecroft.  I also find Ms. Lincoln's theories as the what happened (as regards the theft in the house) and her discussion that Andrew also blamed Lizzie for the theft.  As I recall, following the theft, he then locked the master bedroom door and purposely left the key on a mantle and in plain sight of Lizzie--an act of defiance aimed at a dishonest and untrustworthy daughter.  The reality as to what happened is elusive, of course, but Ms. Lincoln's account has a powerful ring of truth.

I did begin to imagine the correlation between getting rid of the horse and the theft as emotional retaliation...and the killing of the pigeons with murder as emotional release & retaliation.
I can see it, but I don't necessarilly believe it.
But there are too many coincidences not to at least consider it...that maybe the robbery was an isolated act in and of itself, or that the robbery could have been like a dry run for murder.
(BTW:  Our brother raised and raced pigeons for 30 years, and he did cull the birds by twisting their necks.  He wasn't ever graphic telling me of this, so I don't know if he twisted the heads all the way off.  I would think it's possible.)

My first post was to set the stage back to even ground where we are not influenced by authors, and have a foundation of fact to build upon and not innuendo.  Then we can rise from there.  Whichever way it goes, as long as it's reasonable...seem's there can be agreement.

Remember the context of the kiling of the pigeons too.
It was right before Andrew had the house & barn & fence painted.
That seems a reasonabe reason to me considering their household and it's idiosyncrasys.

"Only possessions of Mr. & Mrs. Borden were stolen in the robbery."
That implies that the thief could not access the front bedrooms of Lizzie and Emma. Because they were home at that time and occupied those rooms? We've all heard of sneak thieves who rob a back bedroom while the family is in the front room watching TV (or eating in the kitchen)?

Abby & Andy were murdered that day because THEY were the ones who Wm S Borden had a grudge against. Abby must have objected to Andy's gift to him, and Andy must not have given what WSB was led to expect.

That's my common sense solution. What's yours?

Isn't that a fantastic idea? (That's not a compliment.)
Arnold R Brown' book supplied the Ultimate Solution to the crime. It explains what had been a mystery before. It works for me.

An earlier posting last year said that there was a sting operation going on, and used a woman who resembled Lizzie. One reporter said there were a lot of women who resembled Lizzie in looks (Spiering's book). If a mistaken identity, that is one good explanation for rejecting the drug store testimony.

Based on my experiences, and common sense, the reason Andy got rid of the horse was simply that at "three score and ten" it was too much of a hassle.
Do you mow your own lawn? How many men at that age do this?

From what I've read on the internet, theres a few different ways of wringing a bird's neck, the whole idea is to break it.  The two I saw that were possibly used by Andrew was one where the bird's neck is stretched to the point where the neck snaps, but, one must be careful not to overstretch as the head can pop off.  The other way is where the bird's head is grasped in your hand and you take the bird and swing it around in the air, twisting the neck.  Once again, care should be taken, as the head can twist off.

I can see Andrew getting rid of the pigeons prior to painting the house and barn as I can attest for the messes those things make with their droppings!!!  But, the horse? 

Did the animals in the barn go after the robbery or before? 

the weirdness about the bird necks is not only whether they were wrung or chopped -- but whether most had "heads on" or most had "heads off."  this is one of many parts of her testimony i wish made sense.  but clearly, the question disturbed her, didn't it? 

i wonder something else on the pigeon subject.  knowlton got knowledge of this probably from bridget -- but how and why?  did it come about from this sort of question:  "did you at any time observe anyone in the household using an axe?" 

it's hard to resist a pattern.  it's improbable that something within a pattern is isolated from every other part.  there are so few things in this case that you can hold to with any kind of certainty.  not because of any author, but just because of my own way of thinking -- i cannot resist seeing this (for lack of a better term, pattern, or escalation) -- theft, break-in, poison, murder. 

about the poison, for ex., you have not only abby's fears but bence's testimony.  there's a lot of doubt expressed here about bence's veracity or his "accuracy" -- but WHY?  you have an eye-witness to lizzie borden trying to do something.  my questioning is just about the reasoning here -- if we throw out testimony of this nature, what do we have factually-speaking?  as rays refers to above, lizzie was a "common type" in her general physical or even facial makeup.  i don't disregard that.  but that is not how he identifies her -- and i'm trying to think of how he could do so and be lying?  the problem is in understanding why in the world lizzie would try to make the purchase...........and yet, who can explain why lizzie would do any of the things she did?  or say so many of the things she said.  she doesn't seem very rational to me in general, and i suppose that's what makes her so hard to work with.

Sorry to post such a long sequence, but it appears to answer the question as to how Knowlton knew the pigeons had been killed.
Here Lizzie tells him;  but yes, it sounds like a non-answer because she is being asked about a hatchet that she knows of which might have blood on it and Why?
I have not ever felt much emotion emanating from Lizzie over this event.
But maybe it did upset her and maybe Andrew let her pick the house color to be painted to mollify her.

Inquest
Lizzie
82+
Q. Do you know whether there was a hatchet down there before this murder?
A. I don't know.
Q. You are not able to say your father did not own a hatchet?
A. I don't know whether he did or not.
Q. Did you know there was found at the foot of the stairs a hatchet and axe?
A. No sir, I did not.
Q. Assume that is so, can you give me any explanation of how they came there?
A. No sir.
Q. Assume they had blood on them, can you give any occasion for there being blood on them?
A. No sir.
Q. Can you tell of any killing of an animal? or any other operation that would lead to their being cast there, with blood on them?
A. No sir, he killed some pigeons in the barn last May or June.
Q. What with?
A. I don't know, but I thought he wrung their necks.
Q. What made you think so?
A. I think he said so.
Q. Did anything else make you think so?
A. All but three or four had their heads on, that is what made me think so.
Q. Did all of them come into the house?
A. I think so.
Q. Those that came into the house were all headless?
A. Two or three had them on.
Q. Were any with their heads off?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Cut off or twisted off?
A. I don't know which.
Q. How did they look?
A. I don't know, their heads were gone, that is all.
Q. Did you tell anybody they looked as though they were twisted off?
A. I don't remember whether I did or not. The skin I think was very tender, I said why are these heads off? I think I remember of telling somebody that he said they twisted off.
Q. Did they look as if they were cut off?
A. I don't know, I did not look at that particularly.
Q. Is there anything else besides that that would lead, in your opinion so far as you can remember, to the finding of instruments in the cellar with blood on them?
A. I know of nothing else that was done.

I believe Bridget was asked if she ever used a hatchet and she said something about using one on her shoe.
Other than that, it was admitted that the man from the farm who cut their wood was the one to use the implement.

I've always had a hard time with the Bence/poison incident, as you all know well.
My main problem is the time frame - the close relationship to the other factual events of which we are sure and which don't rest on eye-witness (or ear-witness) testimony, recounted by people who Know Lizzie (which Bence did not).

The illness of the elder Bordens and the talk Lizzie had with Alice Russell are the solid, proven events to which I refer.

Here's the question:
Why would Lizzie, After the elder Bordens had been sick, and Bowen knows this and Bridget knows this, go out Wednesday morning to buy (I take it *More* poison) in the near-neighborhood, And then go talk about poison Wednesday night to Alice if Lizzie had been poisoning, and was going to further poison the elder Bordens?

The inference I received after reading about the horse, was that the horse was gone before the robbery, 1891, and the pigeons were gone a couple of months before the murders, 1892.

I think our brother swung his birds.
Thanks for the info confirming how this can be done (and without a hatchet).
BTW:  Anything found on a weapon on the property was a cow's hair, is that right?  No feathers? No blood, even?
(I'm really asking - because if so, where would a cow hair come from at #92, I've always wondered?)

(Message last edited Sep-6th-03  7:39 PM.)

i understand, and that one side of the matter you have stated well.  in other words, it just doesn't make sense for lizzie to do this.  but was she in a rational frame of mind?  could she have been planning suicide?

i keep coming back to the fact that her testimony is so irrational that i can't count on her even using common sense.  there's no point in going over examples of this -- you well know what i'm referring to.  apply your rationale to her own words -- is she making sense?  are the facts of her testimony less ridiculous than that she did in fact try to buy poison while abby was shouting "poison"?  i'm getting the sense that since lizzie makes so little sense in general we don't get anywhere trying to follow her as though she were a reasonable person.  there is something about her that defies logic.

do you have a theory about bence?  he's just plain wrong or he's lying?  as you know, i put a lot of stock in the fact that he "recognizes" her.  in other words, bence makes sense.  lizzie doesn't. 

let me try to narrow my point this way (and it's not an answer):  what is the difference between lizzie trying to buy poison on wednesday and lizzie burning that dress the way she did -- or lizzie trying to get someone to go upstairs and find abby's body?  granted, you can find a difference.  but given lizzie's KNOWN FACTUAL behavior, just how much of a stretch is it that lizzie would actually make that ridiculously incriminating attempt at the drugstore?  do you see where i'm stuck with it?  would it not be in character for her to do such a thing?  we are trying to be logical, but our subject is not logical. 

and here is where i shift away from you.  that bence makes sense.  (i just laughed, that's such a nice slogan, isn't it?  perhaps a good title for a "theory"?)  question:  was there such a thing as "lizzie borden eyes" or is it a fiction?  if i had to bet on it, i'd say it must be rooted in fact -- there's too much evidence for it.  if bence was aware of lizzie borden eyes and had animus toward her -- what was that all about?  what did bence stand to gain?  for that reason, i cannot discount his observation.

i'm just trying to keep it in mind as we go -- that lizzie borden cannot be understood as someone who would act logically -- simply because, by all the facts, she DID NOT.

as for your original point or question which i ended up skirting -- why does the robbery culprit have to be lizzie?  that brings us back to bridget.  her room was closer to the bordens'.  so she wanted more money.  but IF there is a connection between this and what eventually happened -- how could it be bridget killing her own livelihood?  granted, we don't know enough about her for one thing.  emma?  what's there to connect it or support it?

the other alternative is an unidentified person (the brown theory) -- no, i'm going to start calling it the RAY theory.

i've tried to explain where i am on this particular topic.  that's all.  (i've just quoted lizzie, excuse me, "that is all.") 

isn't the robbery (like the poison, the visit to alice) a deliberate laying of groundwork for a murder which would otherwise seem completely inexplicable and out of the blue? 

the cow's hair.  another oddity.  but even more odd -- in the preliminaries, isn't there a doctor who says it is a hair fitting that of mr. borden's?  (i don't have a printout with me; i'll have to open the adobe file.  i could be wrong.  i will check it before i say anymore about it.)  maybe my brain went soft last week, but i'll put that on my list for tomorrow.

Well, when you put it that way....

Actually, I think quite a few members agree with you about Bence and the poison testimony.  I know Bill does and he has a lot of experience with this case.
I suppose if one were to take and accept the whole package of Lizzie and her irrantional behavior (if we think she did the murders) than it easily follows that she tried to buy poison though everyone had heard the word *poison* by Wednesday. 
This, tho, almost sounds like trying to be caught; or "stop me".
What do you think of that?
As well as the burning of the dress in the open...is she saying try and catch me?
If Lizzie is painted as an irrational person who just doesn't consider the consequences of her actions or what they might look like to someone on the outside looking in, then how could she ever be clever enough to commit a perfect crime?
Idiot Savant?

As to Bence & his cronies, I believe they believed what they were saying.  And that maybe they believed it a bit more strongly the more popular the case became.
I never discount Bence tho, because Lizzie has no alibi for the morning of Wednesday, Aug. 3rd.

Yes, Susan.  You can twist the head off a chicken. I don't know how widely this is practiced today, but when I was a boy one of the events of the day was to visit the Kosher butcher and watch him do just that. I never went on these "field trips" with the gang.

My Dad used to say, "If you don't do such and such, I'll wring your neck! I wonder if he had this in mind? (Nah! he was just bluffing!)

(Message last edited Sep-7th-03  2:03 PM.)

Thanks, William.  I guess the idea of wringing the bird's neck is that if done right, its bloodless.  Whereas chopping off the head with an axe or hatchet is bloody and not to mention dangerous.


I recall we discussed in the past about the pigeons and that there really wasn't any evidence that they were pets of Lizzie's.  I was thinking if they were, it could have possibly been retaliation on Andrew's part to get back at Lizzie for the robbery.  I know, no basis for it whatsoever. 

I will be more clear about what I mean about Lizzie not having an alibi for Wednesday morning.

Prelim.
Mrs. Dr. Bowen
478
Q.  Were you in the house Wednesday at all?  [The Borden's]
A.  I was there Wednesday night soon after six o'clock.
Q.  Did you see Lizzie at all Wednesday?
A.  I saw her go down the street just before I went in there.
Q.  You saw Lizzie go down the street just before you went in there, and that was sometime after six o'clock?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did you have any talk with Mrs. Borden about their being sick?
A.  I did, I asked her how they were feeling. She said she was feeling better. Mr. Borden said he was not feeling very well. I says "I suppose Lizzie is better, for I saw her going out." Mrs. Borden says "yes, she has not been out all day, but she has gone now to see Alice Russell."
Q.  That was after you had seen Lizzie go down street yourself?
A.  Yes Sir, which was soon after I had eaten my supper; we have supper at six o'clock.
.............

Prelim
Morse
247
Q.  Was there anything said by Mr. or Mrs. Borden as to where Lizzie was, or any question asked by you as to where she was?
A.  I asked them, when she was sick that Wednesday; and they said she was up stairs.
......... Q.  Just after you got there, and before you went to Swansea?
A.  Yes Sir.
............

This may sound like Lizzie was there, but because Bridget has no knowledge of Lizzie's whereabouts from breakfast until dinner, and Lizzie claims she was *out* when Morse came there to the house, and because Abby is dead and Morse may be *in cahoots*, I suspend belief as to Lizzie's actual movements on that morning.
This may point to some as a reason to believe Lizzie over Bence.
I mean, there is nice Mrs. Dr. Bowen saying Abby told her Lizzie was at home, sick.
How could Lizzie have gone and returned without Andrew, Abby and Bridget knowing, since they were all home Wednesday?

***the preliminaries, isn't there a doctor who says it is a hair fitting that of mr. borden's?***

Wait.  let me hasten to say i'm in error.  i was referring here to the pretty extensive questioning of dolan about the hairs on the axe.  i probably remembered how the questioning is leading him to say that one of those hairs could belong to mr. borden, but now i don't find that he is willing to say that. 

maybe someone somewhere did say they thought so or something -- but it is not fact, as i look now.

this was one of the most interesting parts to me when i finally got the preliminaries though -- because dolan does seem to think he saw blood.

I recall something about a hair of Abby, but not ever a hair of Andrew.
There was a hair which did not make it to forensics also, which was pasted in an envelope but when opened was not there.

What do you think of Lizzie's alibi, by a dead woman?

"Eyewitness testimony isn't reliable" say those who know. Judge Justin Dewey, F Lee Bailey, etc etc. ESPECIALLY when they are strangers to each other. You can look it up. Mark Fuhrman's comments vis a vis his latest book. 'Seeing the same person in three consecutive line-ups convinces the witness that is the criminal.'

Lizzie "hangs tough" and tells her prosecutor nothing. Way to go!

I will answer this from experience and common sense.
Old Man Borden owned a farm. There were cows on it, or nearby. When a cow no longer produces an acceptable amount of milk, it is slaughtered. Farming is a business, not a hobby.
Andy must have picked up a piece of beef, unskinned, then brought home for cutting up.

Does he cut that up himself?  If so, Lizzie didn't say.  She was asked about animals.
If it was not too recently, say, in the past week, (While they were eating mutton), how the heck would a hair stay on an implement all that time?

**What do you think of Lizzie's alibi, by a dead woman?**

that's a good question.  i almost hate to answer because i just see more irony and pattern.

here's the irony:  in different ways, both abby and andrew give lizzie alibis.

andrew is lizzie's alibi for the period when someone would have been murdering abby.  i'm talking about in her own mind -- the way she uses the dead man in her inquest.  i know you see the issue of when andrew left and returned differently -- you see when andrew returned as being particularly important.  but that's a different matter. 

i've always noticed that as lizzie fine-tunes her whereabouts that morning she stretches as much as possible the period of time BEFORE he left, when as she says she was "with him."  this way, she deliberately shortens as much as possible the amount of time she is in the house alone (excepting abby, of course).  whether she's trying to account for herself specifically during the time when she would know abby was murdered or if she is just trying to separate herself from abby in general -- my point is that she is "clinging" to andrew like a loving daughter as much as possible.  after saying she thinks he left about 10, she also adds that "he was not gone a very long time."  you see what i mean?  the dead father (as told by lizzie) is an alibi for abby's murder, after the living abby had given her an alibi about leaving the house the previous day.

it gets confusing concerning lizzie's knowledge of what the authorities would know about the time of abby's murder.  but my only point here is that LIZZIE KNOWS.  even if she is trying to say that they were both killed when she went out to the barn (another really pathetic story but perhaps the best she could do)-- she still knows exactly who was where when, and in her mind, wouldn't she have a hard time just ignoring this?

does this makes any sense?  according to lizzie, that morning she is either one of three things:  with father, ironing, or in the kitchen.  she can't afford to have a real witness.  so it is a dead man, who through lizzie's mind and mouth, is her alibi for that morning.  the only REAL witness (bridget) she claims she did not see.  isn't that awful?

that's my take on it as seen by lizzie herself. 

Yes, I understand about how you see Lizzie as giving herself an alibi for Abby's murder by saying Andrew did not leave until 10.  I don't think she ever changed that story did she?
In her mind, that is what she will stick to, regardless of the evidence.
You're comparing Abby's saying Lizzie was home all day Wednesday as an alibi for the Smith's drugstore incident, and Lizzie's claiming (dead) Andrew was around until 10 on Thursday.

There is still that little bit of a problem where Lizzie says she wasn't there when Morse came Wednesday, and the question as to how she got out and back without Andrew, Abby or Bridget seeing or hearing her?
On the other thread I gave the theory that Lizzie would have to have a key to the connecting bedroom door.  Maybe she might need that on Wednesday as well?

I think if Lizzie was going to sneak out of the house on Wednesday, the front door would be her best bet.  If she tried to sneak through Andrew and Abby's room, she ran a good chance of running into one of them and/or Bridget coming up the stairs.  Unless Lizzie knew for sure that Bridget was up in her room and Andrew and Abby were in the sitting room or dining room, I don't see how she could sneak out the side door.  Not to mention leaving the screen door unlocked, someone would know that someone had gone out that door.  As far as we know, she and Andrew only had keys to the front door.  It was in her domain, the front of the house.  I think her main problem would be nosy neighbors that might happen to see her leave the house and walk up the street, unless she had a carriage waiting for her?

And perhaps this is where Morse comes into the picture as part of Lizzie's scheme, hes a diversion to throw Andrew and Abby off and keep them occupied while Lizzie tries to obtain her poison? 

Yes, you're right, it seems logical that Lizzie would use the front door.
I was thinking of that key as a back up ..in case.
When the search began Lizzie unlocked things or sent keys to the police to open things.  Maybe she made sure she did have all the keys to the house.  For contingency purposes.
I could see that as a secret she'd have from the elders and it would give her a feeling of power and control(which some believe she craved), even if she didn't use them.
I think If she had a chance to get hold of copys, she would.

Do you think Morse would bring her poison if she asked, or just be her decoy (?) or help her somehow to get some herself?

Yes, if we can believe shes a shoplifter and a murderess, whats a few keys copied and secreted away?  A secret little thrill knowing that she can unlock all the private doors in the home if she so chose.

Wasn't Morse in the area before the murders?  Was there a possibility of him meeting up with Lizzie while she was out of town and bringing her something?  If he was to come over and act as a decoy, Lizzie would have to have had some contact with him beforehand. 

that's what i was thinking -- the front door.

that's a good idea about morse giving lizzie the cover she needed to get out of the house -- but if he told the truth, didn't morse get there at 1:00?  and wouldn't lizzie have had to have been at the drugstore between 10 and 11?

wait a minute...what time did abby run across to bowen's?  could that have been lizzie's sneak away time?

i do seem to remember bowen saying he saw whom he assumed to be lizzie going up the front stairs.

I have older relatives who still hunt. But they take their deer to the local butcher who cuts it up professionally, etc. Ever try to handle about 150 lbs of meat on the kitchen table?

They just didn't care about cleaning it off! The germ theory disease was still rather new (Louis Pasteur 1860s).

So how did she get Dear Dad's secret keys? Would he leave them around? You do know about the trouble w/ the safe? Professional from Boston.
...
"Secret" in the sense that Andy would NOT share his private information with his 2nd wife and daughters (I think). Didn't he tutor his Lizzie in business affairs? But I think he would keep certain secrets from his family, like Don Corleone.

(Message last edited Sep-9th-03  7:04 PM.)

Morse was there about 1:30.
*Lizzie* was seen at Smith's somewhere between 10 and 11:30.
(You'd think all those *witnesses* could be more precise?)
But, as Susan mentioned, maybe he was already in town.
That's a good question because for a man who gets up at 6 to mosey into Fall River at 1:30 with still a trip to Swansea anticipated, where was he all that time?
Maybe the plan was to get Andrew to go to Swansea, in a weakened condition, and have a fake accident, or a fake highway robbery where of course Andrew would put up a fight rather than lose his cash.
Also this makes me wonder if anything was planted on Andrew's body after the attack.

...
Ray, we never called the house keys *secret*.  We don't know that they were secret.  Eveyone probably had the ones they needed and maybe Bridget had more than others, or more rooms to access in her work (Like attic rooms and the cellar).  We also never determined if there was at least a master key to the inside doors.
Lizzie claimed there were 2 keys needed to get through Andrew's bedroom door and then into her connecting door.  We don't know that, but even if there were she might very possibly have had them.  (In case of fire?)
Bridget had seen the girls come down the back stairs as if they had cut through, but we determined that didn't prove anything.

Haulover, Dr. Bowen said that Abby came over at 8 o'clock or a little before 8:00 that morning.  And when he went over to the house to check on Andrew he saw whom he thought was Lizzie whisk up the stairs.  Perhaps Lizzie was on her way out for some poison shopping at that time and was stopped by Dr. Bowen coming over?


Kat, heres a new thought that popped into my head along the lines of Morse being in on it with Lizzie; perhaps he was already in town, met up with Lizzie, Lizzie handed off the poison she purchased to him.  The plan was he was to go over and poison the elder Bordens whilst Lizzie was out of the house, giving her an alibi.  Morse arrives too late for lunch, thus the plan is spoiled, he can't slip the poison in their food.  Lizzie comes nonchalantly home only to hear all of their voices.  Abby and Andrew are still alive.  Perhaps thats why she never came down to talk to Morse with them there, she may have been furious!

Maybe Lizzie tells him to forget it, or, makes plans for when he comes back to supper the next evening, knowing that he will be invited back, and once Bridget is gone for the day?  Or, maybe Lizzie doesn't speak to him at all and he tries to speak to her and finds her bedroom door locked that evening and she refuses to speak with him.  Perhaps this is where his odd comment comes from,"My God, how did this happen?", i.e. they were supposed to be poisoned, not bludgeoned with a hatchet!??? 

I live in Tennessee & I know what deer hunting season is
all about -- large animals are "deconstructed" while hanging
upside down in a tree or anything that can hold them up. They
are hunted and shot and then you bring them home and hang them
up & then you take them apart. I assume cows are done the same
way - killed & then lifted & then cut up? I don't think the
average person could butcher their own cow. I think it would
require more space than 92 Second Street had. I never could
figure out why they had a hatchet with cow remains on it -- who
uses a hatchet on a roast?

(Message last edited Sep-9th-03  10:51 PM.)

That's an interesting scenario.  It's just complicated enough to sound real.  We don't know any of this but it sure sounds neat.
I think Morse mentioned at one of his testimonies that Lizzie's door was locked Wednesday night.  I might be misremembering the context but I remember thinking why does he know that unless he tried the door?
Is that why Morse went ahead and ate the food Wednesday after there was sickness in the house?  Because he may have known it was safe because HE had the poison in his pocket?
I like this, but I doubt it.
It would make good unproveable padding for a book, tho!

Yes, Wednesday night Morse stated that Lizzie's door was locked.  How would he know that?

Yes, this theory is all hearsay, just investigating all different angles of what could have happened. 

Did Morse say at one point that Lizzie's door was locked? This is his Trial testimony regarding Wednesday night:

"Q.  When you got upstairs did you notice anything with respect to the door leading into the prisoner's room?
A.  It was closed.

Q.  Do you know whether it was locked or not?
A.  I do not."
(Trial,129)

Then a little later he's questioned on the same point:

"Q.  And all you have to say of the other door is that it is the entrance into Miss Borden's room and was closed?
A.  Yes.

Q.  There was nothing in its appearance to distinguish it from the ordinary closed door?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  There was nothing in its appearance to indicate it was locked?
A.  No, sir." (Trial, 145)

Did he say something different at another hearing? -- or in a newspaper interview, maybe? 

Apparently Morse did not know if the door was locked.  He says it was kept so...but that is not enough.  I thought I may be wrong about that.  Sorry Susan, maybe we read something somewhere else?
The problem is, tho, that I cannot find where "Mr. Knowlton asked you [Morse] if there was any way of getting into that spare room from the back hall, and I thought you said something about the doors being locked;"


Preliminary
Morse
249
Q.  Do you recollect whether Miss Lizzie’s door into the hall was shut or not?
A.  It was shut when I went up.

Q.  You do not know whether it was locked or not?
A.  I do not.

Q.  Mr. Knowlton asked you if there was any way of getting into that spare room from the back hall, and I thought you said something about the doors being locked; do you know whether the doors were locked or not?
A.  I do not know whether they were locked that night; they generally keep them locked. I did not try it that night.

Q.  Which doors do you refer to as locked?
A.  This door that goes out of the hall into Lizzie’s room.

Q.  Was that locked or hooked?
A.  I think it bolts.

Thanks Diana and Kat.  Where did we see that?  It sounds like we both read the same thing somewhere?

But, whats this statement all about?: "I did not try it that night."  He didn't try the door to Lizzie's room that night to see if it was locked or not, but, sounds like he did on other occasions, why? 

Maybe you are reading too much into JVM's statement. During visits in the past he may have used that door if it was then unlocked.
"The only constant in this world is change." Perhaps some years back Lizzie (or Emma when it was her room) did not lock it?

I won't admit to anything, but I do know of a family that did not allow their sons to have a house key until they were into their twenties. But that wasn't a century ago.

Hint: their sons knew how to unhook the door from the cellar and enter the house that way. A lot of people have a solid secure front door, but a half-windowed back door that is less secure. Not to mention windows 5 ft off the ground.

I think that comment of JVM merely means that the secret meeting of Andy w/ Wm S Borden went very wrong. Isn't that a simpler explanation, one that does not require a conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence except idle speculation?

Aren't "meat axes" used in butchering large animals? How to separate bony structures by people who don't know anatomy (doctors or butchers).
I once read a true crime book that said knowing how to cut up a person along the joints points to a butcher or doctor.
Ever try to "lift up" a 1100 pound cow? 200 pound deer are easier, especially for those used to manual labor (and a pulley).
I have seen deer hanging in a shed away from sunlight. But this is done to "age" the meat so it is more tender. Game meat is naturally low in fat.
They are lifted to keep dogs and other night animals from chewing them up. A bear would have little trouble, though.

Perhaps JVM had a stronger stomach, or knew that freshly cooked food that didn't smell bad was safe to eat.
What is your experience, if any? I'm pretty sure that fresh meat left out in the summer for a couple of hours can make you sick, even after being cooked.

Very simply and innocently. If he looked into Lizzie's room, he would or could see the hook fastening the door. Maybe he was just told that.

I think Lizzie recalled JVM to help plan the cover-up. JVM arranged for the meeting, he had better damn well clean up his mess.

If this story came from a newspaper, how reliable could it be?
You do know something about journalism then or now?

In one book they tell how 'TIME' created a "photo-illustration" of O J Simpson for their magazine cover. 'Newsweek' had a straight shot. So manipulation goes on even today.
...
The December 1997 issue of Popular Mechanics has a story on photo manipulation. Do read this back issue from your library!

(Message last edited Sep-10th-03  12:53 PM.)

you bring up a good point that bothers or confuses me.  the meat cleaver vs. a hatchet.  isn't there a difference.

on the one hand, why a hatchet (for chopping wood) in the cellar as though used by a butcher?

on the other hand, why not look for a meat cleaver in the kitchen instead of hatches in the cellar?  (this does a lot to satisfy me about lizzie's mere 15 min or so after the last murder.  just wash thoroughly in the sink and put back with other kitchen utensils.)  (just try not to imagine the subsequent preparings of meals in that kitchen.)  but seriously, there must have been such implements in the kitchen.  back to the pigeons:  even if you kill a pigeon or a chicken or whatever by wringing its neck, you still may need something to separate the head.  or whatever meat was being prepared -- the mutton for that matter -- did maggie or whoever actually use an axe kept in the cellar?  i wouldn't think so.

i hate to call it "poetry" but it does makes poetic sense if the implement that cut off pigeon heads and fixed up that mutton was exactly what lizzie borden used on them.  it makes me wonder what lizzie's reaction would have been if questioned about how the mutton was prepared.



 

Yes a cleaver makes sense to use on an animal, whether cutting off pigeon heads or cutting up parts of a cow.  (Somehow that sounds more like the sturdy cook's job rather than 70 year old Andrew).
Anyway, a hatchet was described as the weapon for the main reason that it had a long handle for leverage;  the weight of the hatchet head was also important in the descision that it was a 3 to 5 lb. hatchet. (Rather than a small hatchet or an axe).
A kitchen cleaver would be almost as up-close an attack as using a knife, and the person wielding that weapon might be so close they could be covered in blood.  (There's also the danger to the assailant that the person being killed could defend against a close attack- with the hatchet described, the handle could be 2 feet long.)

As I said, I didn't feel like Lizzie showed much emotion over the pigeons.
Maybe her compassion was more for the horse, as I noted the Animal Shelter Society in Fall River, to which she left so much money, seems to have been started (1913) to protect abused draft horses. 
That makes sense because Lizzie would experience horses all her life, and those were worth saving as they were a boon to society, whereas Pets were a luxury and could be considered  parasites.

aren't pigeons today and always been considered the
scrounge of the bird family, dirty birds and so many
of them.  Why would Lizzie or anyone feel any emotion
toward them? I wouldn't hold that against her.  She
enjoyed the birds and squirrels in her yard as I do, but
pigeons are not pleasing guests in our backyards. 

Notice she reports not having an appetite, so much so that there was a thread way back "When did Lizzie eat?"  She, for one, seems to have had no appetite for mutton in the days surrounding the murders!!

I think I see what you mean.
Maybe Lizzie was better off a vegetarian if she liked animals so much was my first thought.  Then I recalled Lizzie saying that Mrs. Borden asked her Thursday morning what meat she wanted for dinner and Lizzie said she wanted no meat.
hmmm...are you talking poison in the food, or a non-meat eater?
nj, our brother was sentimental about his racing pigeons but culling was a fact of life so if you're getting at what I think you are, the killing of the pigeons might be even more practical for the Borden family then as now?
I could never get into birds myself because to me they are lizards with feathers.

I was just thinking, in case Lizzie used some kitchen implement to kill Abby and Andrew, she might not be interested in eating something from that kitchen which may have been cut by the same instrument!!

okay.  i understand your point about the axe.  it does make sense. 

sometimes i find myself trying to "help lizzie expedite" that second murder.  i had this "lizzie fantasy" where, that morning, after bitter words with abby, when she leaves the kitchen to go up front, lizzie remembers that meat cleaver maggie used on the birds.  and how easy later to just take it out of the drawer and use it again.  perhaps she tied the iron to it for leverage?  (just kidding.)

if that's not odd enough, i had another fantasy that "THE BUTCHER DID IT."  goes like this:  abby had an affair with the butcher where she regularly bought the meat.  abby cut it off.  butcher was more psychotic than abby could have imagined (in over her head in more ways than one).  and guess what?  there really was a "note" from the butcher's messenger, but abby slammed the door in his face.  the mad butcher decided if he couldn't have her -- no one would.  you get the rest.  except there is more.  lizzie had known of the affair and was blackmailing abby.  lizzie heard the commotion upstairs and got an axe of her own, confronting the butcher as he tried to make his escape.  suddenly she had a vision of huge money in her future.  deal:  either you hide in the parlor until i give you signal to off father or i'll blow the whistle on you (i'll scream for maggie and you'll never get away with it).  psychotic butcher cools down enough to see reason.  and the rest is history.

that just goes to show you what a week of shameless hedonism in south florida can do to your brain.

on the other hand, the funny thing is -- if you went about it just right, you could make it more plausible than the brown theory -- and hey, IT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING.

come to think of it, brown lived in florida, didn't he?  i forget exactly where.  but liking florida as much as i do, i don't want to blame it on florida. oh, the ironies.



 

Sex angle again: Abby "bought the meat" and then "cut it off" Somebody needs to slap me.

I too had the meat cleaver idea, several months ago.  I researched Victorian meat cleavers.  Aside from the leverage angle as explained by Kat, the blades on those simply weren't strong enough to shatter skulls in the manner of the Bordens'; they're meant to cut thru muscle.

PS Kimberly -- You must mean Mrs Bobbitt! 

(Message last edited Sep-10th-03  10:06 PM.)

Some website had what they insisted was "Lizzie Borden's Meat Cleaver"
it was from the Swansea farm, I think. It looked too small to chop
anything up as well as Andy & Abby were -- I'm sure it would hurt,
and you could probably cut someone enough to kill them with it --
but a knife would work better. It looks like an axe or a hatchet
except it didn't look like it could crush a skull.

i never doubt your presence on this subject, kimberly.  i would "slap" you ever so gently that it would surely "caress."  (i'm sorry, i'm just kidding with you, sweet lady.)

 

tina:

creative minds think alike.  i too looked for victorian meat cleavers.

i wonder what the victorians would have done with mrs. bobbitt?  i digress, but i heard a local radio interview with MR bobbitt -- and that was one of the DUMBEST men i have ever heard speak.  he talked about it like it was just one of those -- you know -- odd funny things that happen sometimes.  as though being a eunuch would be an "interesting" possibility.  that's just how stupid that man is, i guess.

i'm not sure how we ever got the idea that the pigeons were her pets.  there is that scene in the movie.  i remember an episode of COPS where a guy was protesting what he thought was an inhumane treatment of a pigeon.

BTW, there is still the question of gilt found in Abby's wound.
Once that enters the picture a second weapon theory usually follows.

(PS:  My A/C is broken and it's very hot in here and the new fan motor is coming at 8 a.m. so I am staying up.)

I found the citation where Morse says Lizzie's door was locked Wednesday night!  I word-searched the Preliminary under Morse's testimony with the word *door* of all things!

Preliminary
Morse
238
Q.  Did you hear her that night?
A.  Yes, I heard her come in, or what I supposed to be her.
Q.  You heard somebody come in?
A.  Yes, and shut the door, and go up the front stairs.
Q.  What time of night was that?
A.  Somewhere about quarter past nine, or 20 minutes.
Q.  Where was her room?
A.  Over the sitting room at the head of the stairs as you go up the front stairs.
Q.  Which room did you occupy?
A.  The front chamber where Mrs. Borden was murdered.
Q.  The same one she was killed in?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  That is the spare chamber, or guest chamber?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did you happen to know, in the arrangement of the house, as it was then, whether the spare chamber room was accessible to be back stairs?
A.  That night, no sir it was not.
Q.  Why not?
A.  Because Miss Lizzie’s door was locked.
Q.  Which?
A.  Miss Lizzie’s.
Q.  That leads into the front hall?
A.  Yes Sir.

Foul, JVM!

Q.  Did you happen to know, in the arrangement of the house, as it was then, whether the spare chamber room was accessible to be back stairs?
A.  That night, no sir it was not.
Q.  Why not?
A.  Because Miss Lizzie’s door was locked.
Q.  Which?
A.  Miss Lizzie’s.
Q.  That leads into the front hall?
A.  Yes Sir.

This is one of those infuriating bits of questioning & testimony where it's unclear what the questioner is really asking & the answer is unsatisfactory.

There are TWO ways to get from the guest room to the back stairs, other than going down thru the house & up --  There is the door beside the bed (where Lizzie's desk is situated on the opposite side) & the "official" door to Lizzie's room from the hallway. 

How did JVM know Lizzie's door was locked unless he actually tried it or heard her say it was locked (in which case it's hearsay).

I also wonder if JVM knows the door between Lizzie's room & the elder Bordens' also had locks.

I'm sorry Kat, I don't have the Prelim.  Does the questioner get in to any more detail (like how JVM knows this), or is it simply left as it is?



(Message last edited Sep-11th-03  7:58 AM.)

Thanks, Kat!  I knew I had read it somewhere.  Yes, very confusing testimony, sounds like they are talking about the door from the guest room into Lizzie's and then it becomes the door leading from Lizzie's into the hall. 

Probably JVM was shown around the house earlier, or afterwards. Or mayber he just heard that from someone in the house.
Are we making too much of this testimony?

Excellent find, Kat!  So we might infer from that testimony that John did have knowledge Lizzie's door was locked that night, although he denied this at trial.

That Prelim. testimony is confusing because they ask about a way to get from the back hall to the guest room. And the most direct route would be the door between Lizzie's room and the guest room.  But in fact, someone coming from the back stairs could still get into the guest room using Lizzie's door leading to the front hall. (John did testify that he slept with his door open on Wednesday night, after all.[trial,129]) 

Perhaps John knew the door between the two rooms was virtually unusable because the desk was always blocking it -- and he just assumed that they meant the only door that could be used for access, i.e. Lizzie's door to the front hall.

BTW haulover -- getting back to your question about the pigeons -- the idea that they were Lizzie's pets may have come from the following:

... "she was passionately fond of birds and animals. She kept pigeons in the barn loft, and after the horse was sold boys twice broke into the barn to steal a few. Andrew decided to put temptation out of their way, which he did by decapitating them with a hatchet." (Lincoln,p.56)


"No one ever questioned Lizzie's love of animals, and as far as we know, these pigeons were her pets and the only pets she had ..." (Brown,p.43)

i don't get anything from what morse says about her door being locked -- there are several doors and locks.  and as was pointed out earlier, when she questioner is not clear enough, it's hard to understand the answer -- if it means anything or not.  i'm confused about what this would lead to.

about the pigeons:  in the movie, the line is something like, "all those beautiful birds.  why, papa, why?"

what has interested me about the pigeons is the way she responds to the subject:

Q. Can you tell of any killing of an animal? or any other operation that would lead to their being cast there, with blood on them?
A. No sir, he killed some pigeons in the barn last May or June.

without going any further, and there is half a page after about it -- does this Q & A make sense? 

Ya know, Susan & I actually tossed around the idea of Andy & Abby
being swingers & being into S&M. It was hard to believe though.
Maybe it was a crime of passion -- a murder-suicide. People have
slit their own throats or disemboweled themselves -- who is to say
a person couldn't smash their own face in with an axe????? Never
underestimate the power of cheese. Isn't that the old saying?

It sounds to me like Lizzie is responding to the latter part of his questioning with her "No, sir" and then she answers the first part of the question with the pigeons being killed in the barn.

The part with that whole exchange that I've always wondered about was Lizzie's statement: "The skin I think was very tender, I said why are these heads off?"

What does she mean by that?  Did she actually touch the birds and the skin was very soft to the touch?  Which, BTW, it is, I used to have a parrot and his skin was very soft under his feathers.

The dictionary definition that I read said: Having a soft texture; easily broken, chewed, or cut.  Did she mean that the skin looked very fragile and weak as it was so chewed up looking where the heads were twisted off? 

i doubt andy and abby had enough imagination for it.  but your imagination is something else again. 

i know.  she says "no" and then she brings up the bird-killing.  many of her answers have to do with what she thinks bridget might have said?  i mention it out of bafflement.  see if you can figure out whether she thinks most had their heads on or off.  i can't. 

the other point you mention is even more difficult, because after saying what she does about how they looked, she ends up saying she didn't really notice. ??

(this makes her look really bad; she uses the same tactic when asked about seeing her father's face.)

victoria lincoln sort of made a point about this.  (one thing about victoria lincoln i appreciate is that she really did study lizzie's inquest.)  she seems to think lizzie is "uptight" about "beheading."

i guess we have to start with "why is knowlton asking her this?" and it's usually info from bridget?  is this correct?

-Susan: " Or, maybe Lizzie doesn't speak to him at all and he tries to speak to her and finds her bedroom door locked that evening and she refuses to speak with him. "

-Then I made the comment that Morse had maybe tried Lizzie's door Wednesday night because he testified it was locked.

I posted Prelim from after the correct corresponding testimony of Morse, several pages later, then found the proper reference.

Here are the references:

238+
Q.  Did you see the defendant, Miss Lizzie Borden when you got home that night about quarter of nine?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Did you see her at all?
A.  I did not see her from the time I came until the time of the tragedy.
Q.  You did not see her at all until after they were killed?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Did you hear her that night?
A.  Yes, I heard her come in, or what I supposed to be her.
Q.  You heard somebody come in?
A.  Yes, and shut the door, and go up the front stairs.
Q.  What time of night was that?
A.  Somewhere about quarter past nine, or 20 minutes.
Q.  Where was her room?
A.  Over the sitting room at the head of the stairs as you go up the front stairs.
Q.  Which room did you occupy?
A.  The front chamber where Mrs. Borden was murdered.
Q.  The same one she was killed in?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  That is the spare chamber, or guest chamber?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did you happen to know, in the arrangement of the house, as it was then, whether the spare chamber room was accessible to be back stairs?
A.  That night, no sir it was not.
Q.  Why not?
A.  Because Miss Lizzie’s door was locked.
Q.  Which?
A.  Miss Lizzie’s.
Q.  That leads into the front hall?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Where did Mr. and Mrs. Borden sleep?
A.  In the east room on the second floor next to Miss Lizzie Borden.
Q.  Up the back stairs?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Where was Miss Emma’s room when she was at home?
A.  Off Miss Lizzie’s, right north; go into Lizzie’s room, and go north into Emma’s room.
Q.  Right back of the spare room then?
A.  Right east of the spare room.
Q.  Does Miss Emma’s room communicate with the spare room?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  What does the spare room communicate with?
A.  With Lizzie’s room, not with Emma’s.
Q.  There are doors leading to what from the spare room?
A.  Into Miss Lizzie’s room from the front.
Q.  Also into the front hall?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Not into Emma’s room?
A.  No.
Q.  Do you happen to know whether the door between Miss Lizzie’s room and yourself was locked, or not?
A.  I do not know.
....................

249+
Q.  You and Mr. Borden sat there after that until about ten?
A.  About ten I think.
Q.  When you went up stairs to go to bed did you have a lamp?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Does the door of Miss Lizzie’s room open into the front hall?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  The door opening into the front hall from Miss Lizzie’s room is in the north east corner of the front hall, is it, up stairs?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  The door that opened into the room which you went into, you face directly as you get to the top of the stairs, do you, looking toward the north?
A.  Yes Sir, a little diagonal, this way, you know.
Q.  That door of the spare room is right between the door of Miss Lizzie’s room, and the door of this large clothes press on the front of the house?
A.  Yes Sir,
Q.  Do you recollect whether Miss Lizzie’s door into the hall was shut or not?
A.  It was shut when I went up.
Q.  You do not know whether it was locked or not?
A.  I do not.
Q.  Mr. Knowlton asked you if there was any way of getting into that spare room from the back hall, and I thought you said something about the doors being locked; do you know whether the doors were locked or not?
A.  I do not know whether they were locked that night; they generally keep them locked. I did not try it that night.       HUH?-kk
Q.  Which doors do you refer to as locked?
A.  This door that goes out of the hall into Lizzie’s room.
Q.  Was that locked or hooked?
A.  I think it bolts.
Q.  How was the other door between her room and her father’s room generally fastened?
A.  I do not know; there is a hook on it on the side opposite from her, on the east room.
Q.  Was the hook on her father’s side, or on her side?
A.  On her father’s side.
Q.  Sure about that?
A.  I think I am correct about it.
Q.  There was a hook there at any rate?
A.  Yes.
Q.  That was the way it was generally fastened?
A.  I do not know how it was fastened. I know there was a hook there.
Q.  Did you ever notice whether it was hooked or not generally? I suppose you had occasion to go through there.
A.  No Sir.
Q.  There is a door that opens from Lizzie’s room into this spare room?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Is that door fastened, do you know, or kept fastened?
A.  I do not know.
Q.  Do you know whether Lizzie kept her desk standing directly in front of that door?
A.  She kept her desk in front of that door that goes from her room into the spare room.
Q.  Right up against the door?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  A large or small desk.
A.  Just about large enough to fill up the door. I do not know about the height or the width of it.
Q.  It filled up the whole width of the door?
A.  I think so.
Q.  How high should you think the desk stood, the top of it?
A.  O, I cant tell; it might be five feet; I cant say for that.
Q.  It was quite a large desk?
A.  It was quite a desk.

--Tina Kate had requested more Prelim. info on the doors and locks.
--Here is the info on what Morse knew about the interior locks between Lizzie's room and the elder Borden's.  Somebody asked about that.
--Here now I find that Morse WAS asked earlier in his statement about getting through from the back stairs to the spare room.  (At the first I posted I couldn't find the reference. That turns out to be pg. 238)
--Another Morse contradiction.
--Maybe he did try to communicate with Lizzie Wednesday night.  Couldn't that be Why he was There?

(Message last edited Sep-12th-03  1:48 AM.)

It sounds to me like Knowlton is on a fishing expedition, like that question he asked Dr. Bowen about if there was any Bismuth powders found in Andrew's stomach, did he know how they got there.  The question he put to Lizzie was about the axes and hatchets in the basement and assuming they were found at the foot of the stairs and assuming they had blood on them, how could it have happened.

Its like hes trying to pick her brain and trip her up at the same time to get whatever he can get from her, which is basically not much.

The sentence should probably read more like this with added punctuation: "All, but three or four, had their heads on, that is what made me think so."

To me it sounds like there were 3 or 4 birds with their heads off.  Lizzie goes on to say that 2 or 3 had their heads on, so, total 7 pigeons came into the house, or 6, or 5.  Not many birds.

If I recall correctly Bridget only makes one mention of ever seeing Lizzie go out to the barn for the pigeons or the horse?  This particular line of questioning I believe comes from Lizzie's answers. She can probably be as truthful as she wants to be, I don't know if she felt compelled to say these things because Bridget may have given answers to these already or she was just stating simple facts? 

Thanks for posting all that, Kat.  Yes, your HUH is in the same place mine is, he didn't try it that night?  Sounds like he tried Lizzie's bedroom door on a regular basis.  Do you think Morse let something crucial slip with this?  He and Lizzie actually visited in secret when he was there? 

ANYONE who has lived on a farm know that the purpose of animals is for food or trade or other use (guard dog, mouser). Don't be naive.

Surely a cat or dog would be more of a pet? They do not need to be caged.

I grew up on a farm and my grandfather bought a large number of ducks simply for us to enjoy them when we were at the lake on our property.
  I also think it's possible for pigeons to have been pets. The Borden yard wasn't all that large and a caged pet like a bird would be easier to care for and less worry about it running off or getting hit by a streetcar. 

I think it's possible for pigeons to be pets but useful also.  Trained birds are useful as racers or as homing birds.
But another of the reasons why I don't think they were pets comes from Lizzie's Inquest testimony, 88:
Q. How long were you under the pear tree?
A. I think I was under there very nearly four or five minutes. I stood looking around. I looked up at the pigeon house that they have closed up. It was no more than five minutes, perhaps not as long. I can't say sure.

They closed the pigeon house.  I believe it's possible that that was done because the pigeons had become a nuisance.  There were probably several generations living and breeding there, and making a mess of the property.
They were killed or removed, before Andrew had the estate painted.
I think Lizzie was of an age to prefer a clean, and newly painted home, rather some useless pigeons.  She might even had a say in the matter.  She did get to help choose the color the estate was to be painted.
Also there is rumor that these pigeons were a reason Andrew thought the barn had been broken into.
I think most family members would agree to get rid of the birds rather than put up with all these drawbacks.
If it was a dog or cat that was a nuisance, that could be removed to the farm, but not birds.

It was not uncommon when I was a boy in NY that some buildings had pigeon coops on the roofs of tenements.  There was one in my neighborhood where the owner of the birds used to let them fly almost daily.  20 to 30 birds would fly in great circles in the sky and then return to the coop.

While not exactly pets in the accepted sense they were a hobby for many.

In the TV series NYPD Blue one of the former detectives on the show (played by Jimmy Smits) had a rooftop coop overlooking the Brooklyn bridge.  And wasn't there one in the movie "On the Waterfront"?

I doubt if the sanitation laws in most cities would allow them today .

Living in the south I know of people having chickens as pets.
Chickens also eat all the bugs in your yard (house? ha) -- I myself
had quail as a child. I hatched them with a little lightbulb thing
and raised them on my dresser. I was 7. Having quail as pets really
sucks. They try to peck each other to death & they also attract
snakes. Snakes can get in the house but not in a birdcage. The
quail eventually found a new home with the man who ran the
pet store. He ate them. I'm still working thru those feelings. 

I wasn't raised on a farm. I'm pretty sure their pets (like rabbits) went into the pot when grown. Chickens mostly provide eggs for food. But when they stop laying, into the pot. (I'm being diplomatic.)
Did anyone see that cartoon film about the chicken escape?

Did you know that if one chicken gets in the road & gets run
over the other chickens will go out to that one & eat the bugs
that are on it & then get run over too???

YES!  It was called "Chicken Run" and was hysterical.  My best friend's mother & aunt as kids spent summers on a chicken farm and they almost wet themselves laughing during that movie. 

Is that the one about I don't want to be a pie?





(Message last edited Sep-14th-03  11:42 PM.)

Yes, it is, Kimberly.  I've seen that movie, very cute! 

I just watched Matlock.  They had sodium cyanide as the murder weapon.  The man died instantly.  The bottle which had held the poison looked like a prescription bottle, maybe for pills?  It didn't look like it had held liquid, and they were not clear on the matter.
It turned out the cyanide was injected into the eggs!  The lady cook, on her show, made a meal and her ex was who tasted it and died.

The court stenographer looked at Matlock when he spoke and folowed him with his eyes as much as he could, as he typed, trying to watch his face and lips.  When the witness spoke, the stenographer watched that person closely.

I suppose the poisoner could have used a pill form and suspended it in a liquid to use as a medium to inject the eggs.  Pretty interesting, as it has some of our ingredients.

We started out discussing whether or not the robbery of the Borden home, June, 1891, was done by Lizzie.
I submit that it could just as easily have been done by Emma or Bridget, or an outsider, and that the rumor didn't go about that Lizzie was the culprit until Hilliard gave the grand jury his opinion of that crime, fingering Lizzie.
I think if he is trying to get an indictment for murder, he might throw in some *exaggerated info*, which no one can disprove, to show prior tendency toward felonious behavior.

This whole thread was good.  Thanks everybody for input of all kinds.

If it's not too intrusive, could you all say yea or nay as your personal opinion, as to whether Lizzie, herself, committed that robbery?

Wasn't Lizzie found guilty of shoplifting at McWhirr's department store and such?  If that is so, I don't think its too far off the mark for her to do a little lifting at home.  So, my answer would be yes. 

I'm going to say no -- primarily because reports casting suspicion on Lizzie only surfaced after the murders. 

Apparently there was a series of robberies in Fall river just prior to the one at the Borden home.  I think the rumours that Lizzie stole from her parents may be just a product of the "she did it" mentality prevalent at the time. 

I'm sorry, I don't know to what you refer?
Can you send me somewhere to find this out, or tell me how to double-check this? I'm willing to look.  Thanks.

I've been looking for the McWhirr's reference, too.  It rings a faint bell but I can't remember from where.

I did find the bit where the former FRHS curator, Mrs. Gifford, claims Lizzie stole from her husband's shop. That's in deMille's Dance of Death -- but don't know what the name of the shop is. 

Here's an excerpt from a poem written 20 years ago, though.  And obviously the poet had heard the McWhirr's tale, too.

"Christmas wreaths turn black
In the downtown of phantoms.
You lead into the boarded-up
McWhirrs department store
Where you shoplift undetectably.
Tonight an atomizer
Of Black Widow spider balm.
The salesgirls were told to add
Missing goods to your father’s account,
O perfect criminal!"

The full poem by Stephen Ronan -- called Our Lady of Fall River is at this website:
http://www.thepoetspress.org/reaper/ronan.htm

Thanks, Diana, very cool poem.  If I remember correctly, it was something that was posted on this forum awhile ago. 

what i've gathered is that some commentators seem sure that she was a known shoplifter.  and that they sent bills to her father, which he paid.  i've heard the opinion backed up this way -- that women of that time considered it a sort of "entitlement" to do some shoplifting.

i must say this does play well into the "guilty lizzie" theory of "entitlement."  if it did anything for her, it would encourage her to believe that she could get away with such a murder.  which gets into how her "time" plays both a role in her act of murder AND into her acquittal.

but as to kat's question -- i don't know of any theft charge against her except that one much later on from where she got those paintings.

it is very much in the lizzie lore among those who know little about the actual case.  shoplifting and parricide seem to go hand in hand with her.  i don't know why. 

I agree that the shoplifting charge to Lizzie's mind was
nothing, she was above that sort of thing.  I think we had
a celebrity lately with the same thing.  She felt that she
could have whatever she wanted, so haughty. Did Lizzie have
this mindset before the murders even?  She was above the law
and everybody?   Lizzie thought that she should have whatever
she wanted.  ?

That was good Diana.  Thanks.

Yes I thought of the Tilden-Thurber affair as well, as something almost but not quite proved.  That is still a mystery to me.  Maybe it was the suggestion that Lizzie was  *found guilty* of shoplifting at McWhirr's.  She was not ever arrested for shoplifting, and none was ever proven.  These are rumors.
I admit I think that if Lizzie did these murders there would probably be aberrant behavior preceeding that capital crime.  She might then be guilty of the whole ball of wax...killing cats, shoplifting, stealing a corpse's underwear, having no conscience

(Message last edited Sep-17th-03  12:49 AM.)

Yes, perhaps my wording wasn't right with "found guilty", what I meant was just that it was known that she did it and Andrew paid, so really, no crime was committed in the long run.  If that was the case, its almost like she forced Andrew into paying for those things, can't you just see her, I want this, and this, and this and then just walk out of the store.  They know who she is and who her father is, he can't let the family name be dragged through the dirt, so, he has to pay for these items so that there is no scandal. 

That's an interesting take on the idea of shoplifting.
So in essence you might be implying that Lizzie was actually stealing from Andrew by forcing him to pay for thefts.
That does seem to go along with your idea that Lizzie committed the house robbery as well.  All this is stealing from Andrew and Abby personally.

It does make sense to put it like that.  I am just not there yet but it's a good explanation , psychologically, for those who believe Lizzie did these things.

I need to check up on the robbery info, but weren't some things that were specifically of value to Abby stolen as well?  Maybe Emma took stuff to aggravate Abby and simply took some of Andrew's stuff to make it look more like a general theft?  Wasn't it really Emma who disliked Abby? Petty theft? Petty revenge?

If someone is taking things; I think it's a way to make up for something they believe they lack.  There's a hole inside them they're trying to fill.

It's an effective way of getting attention.  If it's true, Lizzie continued to do this even tho Andrew knew about it.  Negative attention is still attention.

For more thorough info, please see page one of this thread, or as much of it as you want.