1. "Southern New England weather"
Posted by Doug on Aug-4th-03 at 2:34 PM

During the past two or three days here in southern New England the temperatures have reached the high 70s and low 80s with dewpoints in the low 70s. At night the temperature lows have been in the upper 60s and low 70s. While the temperatures have not been unusually high the moisture in the air makes it feel oppressively 'hot,' especially when the sun comes out. If this is how it was in Fall River on August 4, 1892, I understand why so many people recollected the day as one of the hottest of the year.

Yes!  As I recently posted, I was up in Fall River two years ago, on or about 8/6 or 7, and it was not terribly high temp-wise (82 degrees?), but the humidity and sunshine made it pretty miserable.

Its not the heat, its the humidity.
Twenty-some years ago I visited Lubbock and Amarillo by car. The 90 degree weather w/ 25% humnidity felt like 72 degrees in NY city area.
That's why they have the THI.

The weather has been similar here, but just the nights.
When I take a walk around twilight I get damp inside my clothes.
It feels like it's raining inside my clothes!

(Message last edited Aug-5th-03  1:21 AM.)

The humidity must have been especially miserable when one considers the heavy, all-encompassing Victorian clothing both men and women were required to wear.  That oppressive heat and humidity, which often causes people to snap in frustration even in this day of lighter clothing and air conditioning, may have been the figurative spark that ignited the violent events in the Borden house on August 4.

interesting you should say that because i've always viewed the heat as figuring prominently in the mystique of the case.   heat=anger, passion, rage, hate (axe, perfect weapon).  if the lizzie borden legend is total fiction, it's still one of the best murder stories ever.  it makes so much SENSE  that lizzie borden, hating her stepmother for so long, waiting for the right opportunity, did finally  grab an axe and vent her rage on one fateful feverishly hot morning.  it's hard to resist.

I believe the Southern states all tend to have higher murder and crime rates than the Northern states. If it is ten below zero degrees outside with a 30 mph wind, there is NO street crime in Minneapolis.
Or Fargo ND.

i can't tell the slightest difference in the heat (or summer) in the northeast from the southeast; it's exactly the same except for this -- it does not last as long in the northeast.  the hottest i've been was in manhattan one june (that it's an island i'm sure has a lot to do with it).  south florida has no winter (though a cold front can dip down that far for a few days if northern climate gets extreme).  for some reason it never seems sweltering to me in miami (as opposed to an inland city)-- no matter how high the temp.

I don't think there was a *Snap*.  I think the murders were planned.
I'm also wondering now about some debilitating substance put into the food to make the elder Bordens weakened and therefore easier targets.  Not necessarilly poison..just soap suds could make them sick.  Or something that would not cause *irritation*which Prof. Wood did not find upon his examination.
Maybe a one-time dose of something would not be enough to show redness or swelling of the stomach lining which is what I am assuming *Irritation* looks like.

I'm recalling a post by Edisto (remember her?) where she wondered at a girl being confident enough to use a weapon like a hatchet...that maybe the victim could have fought back...how could Lizzie be certain?

If the elder Borden's were intentionally made sick Tuesday night the age of the people would make it harder to bounce back to regular vigor.  It could rightfully be assumed that they would still be weak by Thursday.  (The better to hatchet you my pretty!)

I thought of this on my walk Thursday evening.  I had eaten some bad food Tuesday night and all day Wednesday I had to stay home near the *necessary*, just like Andrew.  No walk.  No visit with Morse to Swanzy.
By Thursday, I was itching to get out so I took my walk.  I was still dehydrated.  My legs felt like they weighed a ton.  I had muscle aches and pains from dehydration.  I cut short my walk by 1/2.
And it IS August, and it IS humid!  But I am 12 years younger than Abby and about 100 lbs. lighter.  I began to think Abby and Andrew might have been severly debilitated, especially if it was not common household medical knowledge about dehydration.


(Message last edited Aug-23rd-03  12:11 AM.)

I hope yr feeling much better now, Kat!

You're mentioning 1 of my suspicions --

http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=1&topid=1285#9

"I have a lot of doubts re the poisoning theory/prussic acid incident.  Nothing really adds up.  Reading thru the trial (gee, thanks Harry & Stef for making that so available!!), I thought about how Prof Wood found nothing.  All was normal & functioning...both of them kept their food down that AM, & it was all pretty much the same stuff they'd been eating for days. But Bridget was sick that AM...

Something I seem to keep going back to is perhaps if a substance was added to the food/drink, the intent was to weaken, rather than to cause death.  Death was coming another way...but beforehand, have the residents of the house in a weakened state..."

-- The young & vital Bridget gets her 1st dose to keep her away from the action that AM?

Yea that makes sense, if I believe Bridget that she vomited.
Her vomiting out of sequence of the others could be explained this way!

Recall when we were talking about Lizzie making sure to say she came down to the table and ate with the folks all day Tuesday.  I was thinking that might be because Lizzie wanted it to appear as if she was sick herself Tuesday night as she claimed. 
(I was tring to figure out the importance of Lizzie telling us that...and you've given me the idea)--and she too might have been thought to be too debillitated to wield a hatchet.  ....a strong-man's weapon.

Should anyone be reading history backwards?
Picking and choosing can be unreliable. Remember most of all, the jury got all the facts the lawyers gave them, and decided on "not guilty". Reading the trial transcript to overturn the verdict (except on a point of law) is a wasted effort.

E Radin interpreted Bridget's sickness as a sign she killed Abby. But this didn't happen after Andy was killed! Be careful on what facts you pick and choose if you are not consistent.

The jury had their mind made up before they went in to deliberate.  Regardless of the outcome of their decision they did not follow the laws of man or ethical behavior when they are expected to discuss, ruminate  and look at the evidence.  Since they did not do that they are a bust, as far as I'm concerned.
They are ordered to not make up their minds until all the evidence is in.
They did not do that either.
If they had recalled their visit to the house, if they had studied the photos and plans and sight lines it would have to have given them a different perspective.
We have the luxury of studying the trial, which those jurors did not do.
Please don't hold those men up over me.
They did not do their duty, therefore we can second-guess them all we want.
Besides...I'll bet they did talk about the case every night, in order to so quickly give an unanimous vote!

Exactly like the O.J. jury.

OOO that was a zinger, but I believe you're right.  I hadn't thought of that.

Do you think its possible that Bridget accidently poisoned the family and herself by not rinsing out the milk can thoroughly enough?  From what I've read on different internet sites, milk equipment is usually cleaned by rinsing, then scrubbing with detergent and very hot water, and then a final rinse.  The last thing Bridget had Wednesday night before going to bed was a glass of milk and she woke up feeling sick.  I believe the elder Bordens had milk with breakfast on Tuesday and Wednesday night had toast with milk on it, which might have been Wednesday morning's milk. 

I'm curious if there was any of the Tuesday milk left to sample and test.  Bridget makes a comment in the Witness Statements to the effect that she finished off the milk herself, was it Tuesday's milk?  And was this finished on Tuesday or possibly Wednesday night?

"No, I never, at any time, saw Lizzie put anything in, neither did I throw any milk away.  Whatever milk was left, and that wasn't much, I drank it, for I don't like tea.  That story is not true."   

I had thought the milquetoast was Tuesday night, but It's open to interpretation.  However, they did have toast with the swordfish Tuesday [Prelim54], and Bridget says here whatever night they had the toast was when Mr. Borden had milk on it.

Prelim.
Bridget
66
Q.  When were you taken sick?
A.  I felt kind of sick that morning when I was getting up; I did not notice it, because I was always having headaches.

Q.  Did you touch the milk?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  You did not eat any of the bread?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  They did not eat any of the milk?
A.  I think they had it on the toast.

Q.  When?
A.  Wednesday night.

Q.  They were taken sick Tuesday night, you know.
A.  Whatever night they had the toast, I know Mr. Borden had milk in it.

--I have the opinion that this would have happened more often if Bridget was careless in cleaning the milk can, or even if it got dirty on the way back to the farm.  It's quite a coincidence, unless it was done on purpose...milk-tampering.

--Wasn't Tuesday ("night") with the toast the only time we hear of where a Borden had milk?

From Bridget's Preliminary testimony, she talks about setting the table on Thursday morning and states she had a great many things to put out, including milk and butter.  Thats where I get the impression that milk was a normal breakfast food at the Borden's.

Somehow I can't see Abby or Andrew eating anything if they were retching all night on Tuesday.  So, after a night like that I would think they would coddle their stomachs and eat very bland things the next day.  But, you are correct, Bridget doesn't give an exact day.

But, couldn't you see it as being a total accident, Bridget gets distracted by whatever and doesn't rinse the suds out of the milk can as thoroughly as usual and it goes to the dairy and is filled with milk on top of soap residue?  And I do mean that as a total accident, as Bridget seems to enjoy her milk, so, why poison herself? 

I always found it interesting that Bridget had a glass of milk when she came home Wednesday night. (Trial 203)

Q.  Did you go directly to bed?
A.  Yes, sir; I went and took the lamp off of the table and went to the ice chest and took a glass of milk. That was all.
Q.  Just before you went to bed?
A.  Yes, sir; that was all I did; I went upstairs.
Q.  What milk was that you took?
A.  Well, I guess it was the milk we had that day.
Q.  The Wednesday's milk?
A.  Yes, sir.

Since the milk was delivered about 5 in the morning and Bridget came home about 10 it means the milk was at least 17 hours old plus the time it took to get it from Swansea. Bridget doesn't mention any bad taste to it but could it have been on the sour side and caused Bridget to feel sick the following morning?  Also what did Bridget have to eat or drink on her night out? 

  Thats right!  I remember we discussed this in the past that possibly Bridget was out drinking beer with her friends, came home drunk, and thought a glass of milk might help.  Cut to tomorrow morning and Bridget's got one wicked hang-over. 

I do wonder how cold those ice chests kept things, was it a cold, or more of a cool?  I think that would probably be the longest you could keep milk then in an ice chest, a day to be safe.  After that, you might have sour cream or yougart forming. 

Again, that is only YOUR opinion. Ever been on a jury? The first thing they did was to take a straw poll. (In my experience, 8 of 12 said not guilty, the other 4 wanted to discuss it. In less than two hours we decided 'not guilty'.) If the prosecution's case is unbelievable, it happens that fast.

You can compare the Trial of OJ Simpson. 9 for not guilty; they reheard the limo driver's testimony (when he arrived); they all then said 'not guilty'. What is your experiences?

Wasn't milk delivered daily at 5am? Fresh milk daily, then or now.

(Message last edited Aug-26th-03  6:45 PM.)

Doesn't fresh milk last about a day when kept in an ice box?
Isn't that the reason for daily delivery then?

PURE SPECULATION!!! What is the basis for this?

Another thing to consider about the milk was that it was not pasteurized but raw milk.  The pasteurization process is designed not only to kill harmful bacteria but to prolong shelf life.

We don't know how much ice was left at that time of night. It was a warm day and probably little, if any, was left.  I believe ice normally came in 25 or 50 pound blocks.  50 seems kind of large for household the size of the Bordens.

I also noticed that Bridget went straight to bed.  When I was a boy we had an ice box and we always checked to see if the ice pan needed to be emptied. It would seem to me to be part of her job.

That may be very true. But I remember from over 50 years ago that my relatives who owned a farm would boil the milk to eliminate germs etc. Would this also preserve shell life? It did modify the taste; that was not to my liking. Anyone know when this became common practice? Circa 1890?

Yes, Ray, it is speculation, not mine, I don't recall who had posted it, but, we were trying to figure out what Bridget did on her night out with her friends.  Bridget never said who she was with or what she did that night and the next morning she went and vomited in the back yard.  Bridget wasn't a member of the WCTU and as long as she didn't do it in Andrew's house, I don't see why it couldn't be a possibility.  She didn't have to live up to Lizzie's standards, she wasn't a rich man's daughter, she was a working class girl. 

Thats a really good point, Harry!  Bridget never does mention emptying out the drip pan.  I wonder if on her night off it was Andrew's chore?  Bridget did say that it was Andrew's thing to take in the clothes line and make sure the basement door was locked up after wash day, maybe this was something else he took charge of?

Boy, I can see why the Bordens ate those leftovers day after day, trying to use up that food before it went bad!  What a different mind set in those times, get it fresh, use it now. 

Those who went through the War and the Depression have developed the habit of "waste not, want not". From my experience as a youth. Ever know anyone who saved old nails? For reuse, or to sell as scrap.

The trial of Lizzie Borden lasted 13 days.
On the last day, the charge to the jury was finished at 3:12 p.m.
At 3:24 p.m. the jury retired.
The counsels agreed as to which exhibits would be sent in to the jury.
The Court thus did not retire from the bench until 3:42 p.m.  THEY at least were still working,
The jury returned at 4:32 p.m.
They only had the exhibits which were to compliment their deliberations, for one hour.
In  ONE hour that jury came back.  That means their minds were made up ahead of time.  Common sense tells us that.  That jury could not have covered all the testimony in recall and look at all the exhibits, and discuss the case thoroughly in that amount of time.  That is not just my opinion.  Those times are fact from the trial record, pg's1927+.
A jury is charged with not even contemplating the case until all evidence is in -   that means until after they retire.  A case as complicated as this could not be decided in an hour, unless the jury failed in it's duty.

i know what you mean.  look at us, for example.  we'll never finish.

but given their instructions, i wonder if it was complicated.  to convict her would have been on circumstantial evidence with many huge questions surrounding it.  to preserve the type of justice system which i think should be preserved, i would have no trouble with NOT GUILTY - even given what i know today.  that doesn't mean that in truth she is innocent.  i know she isn't innocent.

i believe in "innocent until proven guilty" when someone's life hangs in the balance -- but that's not what we are doing here when we are seeking the truth.  i notice in some posts there is confusion about these two different realities.

but back to your point about them taking so little time -- what was there for them to discuss?  that's why i am fixated on the physical evidence problem.  i have a "solution" about the weapon but i want to keep quiet about it because i might use it in a fictionalized account -- plus i need to do some research.

think about this:  you know how lizzie messed up on the questions about the pigeons?  suppose that's a clue.  what andrew used on the pigeons is what lizzie used on him.  wouldn't that fit?  lizzie avoids naming a weapon he used, saying he twisted them off.

Well you asked what was there for them to discuss?
All I'm saying is that they had to discuss the whole trial.
Each witness.  All evidence.
I can spend an hour discussing a two-hour movie, the jury can spend more than an hour discussing a 13 day trial.

Actually, the "deliberation" was even shorter than that. I remember reading that after they reached their verdict they waited an hour out of respect for Knowlton.

No way in the world did they have a serious discussion of any of the evidence. None.

The correct verdict should have been "Not Proven". 

Okay, I recall reading this in one of the authors, so, I don't know how much truth it holds?  But, one of the jurors came up with a vote of guilty and needed to be persuaded to vote "Not Guilty".  Is this made up or is there an validity to the story?    Anyone?

Susan, whenever you ask an 'author' question -- I always head for Lincoln first.  I get the impression that, like me, you absorbed a lot of her dogma the first time round.  This is what she has to say about the jury vote:
"One Boston newspaper received a premature flash reporting that the jury took two votes, on the first of which one juror had voted guilty. This error was promptly corrected in the bar of the nearest hotel; for as soon as the twelve had shaken Lizzie's hand they made a concerted dash for freedom, beer, and spirits, after two weeks of captive abstention." (page 299)

I don't know if this is what you remember? 

The only other bit I can recall about a lone dissenter was the Grand Jury vote on December 1 where they debated for 10 minutes and then voted 20-1 to return the three indictments against Lizzie. (source: Kent, 40 Whacks,74)

While the Trial of OJ Simpson is a well-known example, my 30-year old experience at a criminal trial said the same thing. After hearing ALL the evidence the jury applies its common sense: was the prosecution believable? If not, they make short work of the decision.
(This trial lasted about 5 days.)
WHAT is your own experience?

(Message last edited Aug-28th-03  2:41 PM.)

You must have some sort of idealistic theory about jury service.

WHAT is your experience?

You must have some sort of idealistic theory about jury function.
The jury decides the facts in the case (the dispute).
WHAT is your experience?

Right Rays, whatever you said. 

(Message last edited Aug-28th-03  5:35 PM.)

Thanks, Diana, you are a god/dess send!  The one that I recalled was Kent's tied in with Lincoln, what a muddle!  I wonder what this Boston paper was that Lincoln refers to, why no name?  Urg!  We would at least know where to look then. 

I wouldn't want a jury spending less than an hour deliberating my fate.
I can guess your trial, I mean the trial upon which you served, was not a capital case?
I think any case deserves conscious deliberations, discussion and a review of the evidence.  If you are proud that did not occur in your trial, er, the trial upon which you served, then that is up to you & your conscience.

So did YOU ever serve on a criminal trial? Ever?
In an earlier generation, this would have been a capital case.

Not to waste time speaking to those who won't listen, but:
There was NO physical evidence to support the charges. NONE!!!
The victim first picked out another man from the mug shots.
Her physical description of height was also off by 4 inches ("about an inch taller than my boy friend").
Her description of the vehicle was also incorrect.

Can you believe a teenager making up a story?

So did YOU ever sit on a criminal case? EVER?
Or any trial?

Yes

Care to tell about it? How long did it take for a verdict? Or other particulars about the case?
Would you agree that the majority ruled in your cases?

No, I'm here to discuss the Borden case.  I'll simply say all juries that I were on went more than the extra mile to be fair. All were unanimous verdicts.

The other juries were civil cases. Ended by the lawyers soon after they began.
In one other criminal case the prosecutor reached a deal after his chief witness told a third story on the third day.

(Message last edited Sep-2nd-03  6:59 PM.)

I guess we're lucky there was no eyewitness in the Borden case!  Just think how complicated the case would be then.
Or if Andrew had survived and could not pick Lizzie out of a line-up because of a cracked skull and only 1/2 an eyeball.

Did they have line-ups in those days? Not until the 20th century?
Do you know of the problem with line-ups? If a witness is shown mug shots before, then they may pick out the person whose picture they saw earlier.

IF Andy survived, and IF Lizzie did it, then she would be conficed to Taunton for the rest of her life. No public trial needed.
But what if it was William S Borden? What kind of scandal would follow? Unless they could keep it quiet, like the (fictional) confinement in Raymond Chandler's "murder my sweet" (unsure of title).

That doesn't mean anything. Juries must be unanimous or its a hung jury. The question was: is two hours enought time for a fair verdict?
THAT depends on the case and the evidence presented. Agree?

Are you speculating that Lizzie would be confined to Taunton (I suppose you mean the asylum?) if Andrew had survived?

Of course NOT!!! Anyone who tried to kill her Dad would have been "put away" with a court order (to keep it out of the papers).
Isn't this how one of Raymond Chandler's novels ends? "Sent to the Doctors in Europe."

Over 20 years ago a young man tried to kill his parents with a edged instrument. Diagnosed as schizophrenic, he was committed to an asylum. Not too different from that other case on another thread.

You don't know this, you are implying that you know this.
There is no rule of law, you are just speculating based on your ideas and theories.  It can be confusing.

Kat, I do know this, and you are wrong again!!!

You can refer to the (ficional) "Miracle on 34th Street" for an example of judicial committment w/o a trial (until a defense lawyer shows up). There are other example in fiction. In real life they are usually kept hushed up, as in the Raymond Chandler novel. A mark of the times: she is sent away to Europe, where they have the specialists. (I'll bet that cost a pretty penny.)

I also heard, years ago, where a distant relative by marriage was committed on the word of her mother, even tho she was married at the time (the husband didn't object, and it made it more objective).

Come on now Ray.  I'm not committed to proving you wrong.  I am committed to reading confusing, and therefore sometimes misleading posts and cleaning them up a bit so an audience doesn't get a wrong amount of info.
You know this is your opinion.
Your opinion is OK, just state it as such.
We can't know how Andrew would react if he had lived.
If he lived, and knew Lizzie had killed Abby, maybe he would have her committed but maybe the state would have their day in court once again, for murder.  Why shouldn't they?  Lizzie didn't really break publically under pressure while under suspicion of a double murder, why should she demonstate an insane quality which would get her committed?
I think you are using your conspiracy brain and the "old-boy-network" way of doing things and assuming Andrew would rather Lizzie committed.
You don't know this for fact.  There is no law about it.
Andrew may not have a choice.  It depends upon who is bringing charges.
I'm trying to be clear about this and responsible in reportage.

Again, its about common sense, experience, and "the way things work".
Since Andy kept knowledge of his illegitimate son hidden (like most would), you can be sure he would also keep Lizzie's "problem" a secret (out of the newspapers he had influence over). Yes, the murder of Abby would be public knowledge. Few murders can be concealed.
People would still gossip about "the apple not falling far from the tree", like they do today. How can you answer gossip?