1. "The Servant's Story"
Posted by Kat on Feb-19th-04 at 8:02 PM

It appears that the Ruby Cameron story and our member 'gramma's' depiction of the crime is from the servant's point of view.  That is a unique angle.

Ruby Cameron was the daughter of John Cameron and Margaret Jonsson (Jonssen), who married December 22, 1892, the year of the murders.
Apparently before the wedding, the couple began building their house in Dartmouth, which very well might have been under construction the days surrounding the killing.
The story seems to be that David Anthony, in a fit of anger at Andrew's denial of his suit to woo Lizzie, killed the Bordens and was spirited out of the house by John, Margaret and Nora Donohue (Donahue) in a meat wagon and sheltered in the Dartmouth house because Margaret & John were employees of Mr. Anthony (who was in the meat-packing business - as in Swift's meats).

David Anthony was supposedly born June 1, 1870, and was 22 years old at the time and living at 368 N. Main.  I must print at this time that the dates and facts were read to me over the phone and are my notes of that conversation.  The articles are being sent to me by The Fall River Historical Society.  Therefore a detail may change once I have the articles in front of me.

Ruby Cameron was apparently born in 1900.  Her story was told to her by Lizbeth the last week of her life, and indirectly by her own mother.  That implies that Ruby's mother did not really discuss the details- so possibly Ruby picked up what she did in bits and pieces.  Lizbeth tells Ruby that Anthony is the killer.  (here's where you start making up your own minds).

The list supplied here by gramma of *people who knew* includes Nora Donohue and she and the Cameron's were Irish immigrants in fear of deportation, according to the newspaper.

One article specifies that Ruby Cameron had a 125,000 word "Memoire" which she thought to publish.  I don't know what happened to this or whether someone helped her with it.

One article did an investigative approach to verify what facts they could and seemed pretty fair about it.

More when I get the articles.

It is so confusing, so this supposed boyfriend was 10 years younger
than Lizzie?  Thanks for all your research Kat.

David Anthony lived to be 55 and died on his motorcycle.  I think Ruby said of David, when people said he was crazy, that he wasn't crazy, just crazy about his motorcycle.  He never married.

Thanks for all of that, Kat.

It's interesting, but it still seems to be so many people involved you'd think there'd be a weak link in the chain somewhere...

thank you for that.  i may have another story in mind -- but i thought it was a nurse who supposedly got that from lizzie.  was ruby a nurse? (i have no source for this, but somewhere i got the idea.)

Thanks, Kat!  Very helpful to have all that info laid out like that.  I'm curious as to why its stated that David Anthony was sheltered at the Dartmouth house?  If all these people knew and didn't rat on him, there would be no reason that he would be a suspect really, why hide him?  Why didn't Lizzie marry him after she got out of prison when she was free to?  She didn't see fit to have him arrested for the murders, there must have been some emotions there.  Curiouser and curiouser. 

Hi Haulover,
Yes, Ruby was a registered nurse, graduated from Massachsuetts General and under the direct tutelage of Dr. Truesdale, for whom the old Truesdale Hospital was named. I was born there.
She did private duty for many famous people. Lizzie was not the only one. It was Dr Truesdale that recommended she "special" Lizzie. She left the job because her mother was extremely upset that she had taken it. Lizzie died only about a week later.

Gramma

Thank you so much, Kat! You have done a magnum job and I think we owe you resounding applause!
My typing skills are terrible and the scanner is not running yet.

Gramma

Hi Kat,
There is one detail that may be a little off and that is the house was in New Bedford. When Ruby broke the story I went and traced the route as best I could from Second Street the way Ruby said they went. It brought us out on Kempton Ave, NB and the place they had bought was the "old" Kempton place. That was close enough for me!

Gramma

Wow! there's something that takes me by surprise! Her memoirs were in rough, I mean really rough draft and I don't think there was that much on paper but they were under her desk in her box she kept with all correspondence. I don't know where they went and that is a doozy!!!
I wonder if the lawyer took them? His name was Lovett as I recall. Of course, Ruby was 84, almost 85 when she died and half blind. Her notes often were typed on an old typewriter and she was beginning to hit wrong keys. Her letters sometimes needed deciphering so I wouldn't doubt her memoirs were in the same state. Now you have me wondering where all that correspondence went.

Gramma

Do you know what might have happened to Ruby's "Memoires" if there was one?

See # 10!!!
Posts are flying too fast around here!
Gramma

I have a couple of questions for you:

Why did Lizzie take the rap?
Did Alice know about the boyfriend?
Why is Dr. Handy listed by you as one who *knew*?

Yes, if you are in any position to inquire about her memoires, that would be a big service to her memory to locate that!

"Why did Lizzie take the rap?"

Because, of all those involved she had the influence and was the least likely to be found guilty. I stongly believe she was in an emotional tug of war within herself. Can you imagine seeing someone you love and want to marry murder your family? Even if she did not like her stepmother I do not believe she wanted her dead. Just out of her life (marriage would have provided that opportunity comfortably). So one moment you are contemplating marriage to the man and the next he has committed this horrendous crime. You don't turn off feelings for someone in a fraction of a second. Once the choices were made that morning there was no turning back for her. The commitment had been made.
I believe the murder of Abby was a crime of passion and then the murder of Andrew became a crime of necessity. Andrew would have left no stone unturned to learn the murderer of his wife and they knew that.

Did Alice know about the boyfriend?
No, I don't think so. The impression I have of Alice is that of the nosey neighbor variety.
Speaking of Alice, has anyone here gotten her Russell line back past her father? Mom and I tried but had no success and I have to admit I did not try very hard at that line of genealogy.

Why is Dr. Handy listed by you as one who *knew*?
It was Dr. Handy who "sedated" Lizzie after the murders. He allowed no one in the room unless on his say so. In those days (and long after) the Doctor/patient relationship was a sacred trust. Many times the doctor was the confessor rather than the clergy. Doctors spent an hour or two with you on a visit, not the 15 minutes, write a prescription mentality of today. They visited your home, sat and had tea, talked at length aboout what was bothering you, and became a friend. It was that way even when I was growing up. Then the bottom line profit margin set in and the health care Industry was born somewhere in the 60's.

Aside from all that I believe The Boston Daily Globe on October 10, 1892 was closer to the truth than anyone on the defense team wanted them to be. I believe Dr. Handy may have done more than just sedate Lizzie. Even in traumatic times then morphine was a bit over the top for just calming someone down and the length of time he kept her on it was odd.

Gramma

Gramma, I think you mean Dr. Bowen, not Dr. Handy.  It was Bowen who treated Lizzie in her room the day of the murders.

You are absolutely right Harry!:oops: Thank you! So add Dr. Bowen but leave Dr Handy there. He was a friend of the family and also acted as a physician. He would have known he may have to provide the alibi for Emma. Forgive my beany brain, please! I have not tuouched this for about 10 years. However, the fact that Dr. Handy knew still stands in my mind.

question:  WHY did andrew disapprove/disallow this union?  (if you have indicated something about this i missed, sorry, but maybe you won't mind clarifying.)

Andrew and Abby thought David was a little too wild and crazy ( he rode a motorcycle after all!) Maybe they were a little bit psychic, had "gut instinct"? They probably couldn't envision him inheriting anything Borden. I'm sure Abby couldn't!!!

Gramma

Are you implying that Dr Bowen (Whom you erroneously  refer to as Dr Handy) may have aborted a pregnancy for Lizzie?

One question is: after keeping quiet for so long, why would Lizzie suddenly open up with this confession?

I would like to play "Devil's Advocate" AFTER hearing the complete story.

About 4-5 years ago a murder in the next county was solved after 40 years when the sister of the killer finally told all. (To avoid conviction after she tapped into his trust fund!)

And why not? The Reverend Hall married a wealthy heiress who was also ten years (or so) older. "Money makes the old young, and the ugly beautiful" said somebody. Just why did Anna Nicole Smith marry an 80+ year old guy? For his looks?

Good question! But I think you should wait for the whole story.
THEN there can be no changes to meet the questions.

OK, the story from a dying person who wants to unburden their soul. Sounds good to me. This is known in law as a "dying declaration". It assumes the person wants to tell the truth to get into heaven.

This reminds me of AR Brown's story of reading the loose notes of Henry Hawthorne, researching this story, then rearranging them to make more sense.
Its best to take down notes at the time, since afterwards you may write in order of remembrance rather than occurrence.

From what I understand, the Anthony family was a rich one.  Another branch (?) owned The Evening Standard?  Is that right?
Anyway 10 years difference in age and Lizzie almost over the hump, fortunes equal- and David a wild & crazy guy- why would he want Lizzie?

Audrey I just asked that same question after you on another thread.  Just got here and saw yours.  It sounds like it, doesn't it?

It certainly implies it Kat.....

It is a great leap for me to accept that Lizzie, after a lifetime of silence would "confess" to a nurse she knew for one week.


Correct me if I am incorrect in my summation:

Lizzie divulged to a private nurse she met and knew one week (prior to her death) that her father and stepmother had actually been murdered by a motorcycle riding bon vivant 10 years her junior.  David Anthony, a man she was in love with and wished (at the time) to marry.   A young man from a well off family, who enraged when Andrew refused to give his blessing to the union killed Abby and then cooled his heels in the house while Bridget and Lizzie ran about covering up the crime and disposing of the evidence.  Lizzie may, during all this have indeed, been pregnant.  (Were Abby, Andrew and Bridget's vomitting spells actually "sympathy symptoms" for Lizzie's morning sickness?)

Later, David Anthony also killed Andrew for much the same reason that many have speculated Lizzie did-- to keep him from naming or discovering the murderer of Abby.

Afterwards, he was wisked away immediately to hide in the home of some friends, allowing the woman he loved enough to kill for to stand trial for the murder.  Be reviled and gossiped about and thought of as guilty.  Lizie loved him enough to stand this trial-- both legal at the time and by public opinion for the rest of her life. 

At some point, Lizzie and Emma became frightened of david and barred the windows of Maplecroft against his entry and somehow, eventually Emma became so frightened she fled the house, the town and the only family she had-- never to speak to her again.  (Considering their relationship dynamics, this would be the same as running out of your house when it was on fire and leaving your child inside to fend for him or herself.)

She kept her silence all her life, only telling a virtual stranger when she lay dying the true facts of the case......

But when you put it that way you make it sound far-fetched!

And we are reminded that Emma was still alive when Lizbeth supposedly made this declaration.
What impact would Lizbeth see as that having on her sister, do you think?

(Message last edited Feb-20th-04  3:43 PM.)

Questions I have.....

It has been said that Lizzie and Emma used the guest chamber as a sitting room of sorts.

Abby was killed in this room.

IF Abby was indeed killed by David Anthony----- Did she take a meeting there with him?  Did He appear in the room as a suprise to her?  If so, why did not she call out or scream?

I do not believe any woman would have calmly received a man in a room a bed was located in in those times unless she had something on her mind---- And I do not think Abby and David were about to have a tryst.


No one ever felt the need to rise up and set things straight for poor Lizzie, especially considering she didn't get anything out of the whole ordeal besides her $$$$ ??  There are a lot of people who we are expected to believe were "in the know" who really had no vested interest in keeping this secret. 

Here is what I would do if this scenario played out as described:

"Ok Maggie.  Forget about those windows.  Get out of here-- go downtown!  Go anywhere you want!  David and I are going to get out of here as soon as he kills father and then alibi one another.  I know I can get Dr Bowen to say he saw you leaving well before the murder of Abby so you will never be suspected.  We are going to go to the Donahue's  We can get them to say we came over to their place and were there all day.  I can always say I left after father did because he did not know about my relationship with David.  This will keep Uncle John out of it since he was already gone!  Here, take these $2.00!  There is a cheap sale of dress goods at Sargents!  .08 cents a yard!-- You should have one!  Again, do not worry!  I have a whole list of people here who will lie through their eye teeth for us!"

NOW SCOOT MAGGIE!

Besides this guy being 10 years younger, wild and crazy, if they
were "in love", where did they meet, where did they go for their
courtship phase, did anyone see them together or know him to be
Lizzie's boyfriend?  I'm just finding it hard to comprehend, have
lots of questions!

 

Gramma -- apparently Ruby told you that, when she was about 8 years old, David Anthony would take her on the back of his motorcycle to Maplecroft while he visited with Lizzie. (Post#7 Gramma & Ruby Cameron thread)

Can you enlighten us as to the relationship between David Anthony and Ruby Cameron?  Why was he taking this particular little girl with him on his visits to Lizzie?

and the remarkable coincidence that she later actually worked one week for Lizzie as a nurse.

Questions are good, njwolfe.
Honestly, I do not know anything of a courtship before. I do not think there would have been any open courtship as Lizzie probably knew what Andrew and Abby's reaction would be. In those days, even in my day, many young people met at church functions and community picnics, etc.
Lizzie was very much an adult woman and would have had some freedom of movement that would have allowed clandestine meetings but I do not know that was so.

Gramma

Audrey,
The circumstances of Ruby nursing Lizzie were that Dr Truesdale came to her and suggested it. At first Ruby refused, saying her mother would not like it at all. But he apparently told her Lizzie did not trust just anyone and there were very few who would take the job. It made Ruby feel like she was the only option Lizzie had. Her working for Lizzie upset her mother so much that Ruby was convinced, to the day she died, that  it was the main cause of her mother taking her own life. Ruby carried visible guilt about that and try as I may I could not seem to ease that pain in her heart.

Gramma

Diana,
It was Ruby's parents who secreted David after the murders. He knew the family well, and although he gradually migrated back to Fall River he spent a good deal of time at Ruby's home in New Bedford. She grew up knowing him as "Uncle" David. When he thought she was old enough to ride on the back of his motorcycle to Fall River Ruby's mother said an absolute no! It was Ruby's father who said let the girl go. Nothing will happen to her. Ruby told me it was a big issue for some time between her parents but she did get to go in the end.

Gramma

Thank you.

Audrey,
Lizzie knew Ruby long before those last weeks. She knew the Camerons (not Donahues) and knew what they had done for David and her at the time.
Ruby was no stranger. She had eaten jellyroll in her kitchen many times as a little girl.

"Lizie loved him enough to stand this trial-- both legal at the time and by public opinion for the rest of her life."
Yes.
I believe this was her first reaction. I also believe she must have had real regrets as her life played out and the realization of what she had commited herself to in those first few hours sunk in. Perhaps that is the coldness people see in her eyes?

David's family was not wealthy. They were "comfortable". It was the banking Anthonys of Fall River who were wealthy. He would not have been working as a butcher on a meat wagon for Anthony and Swift if thay had been really wealthy.

Gramma

"She kept her silence all her life, only telling a virtual stranger when she lay dying the true facts of the case...... "

It was not a stranger she told. She may have assumed Ruby knew most of it already.

"She kept her silence all her life,....
And for that matter so did Ruby. And I think there are others who went to their graves never telling.

Gramma

Kat,
There was not much communication between sisters at that point. I do not think Lizzie cared if it impacted Emma or not. She certainly did not care enough to change her actions to keep Emma from leaving in the first place. I also think she trusted Ruby to keep it to herself at least for a while. It would impact Ruby's family if she didn't.

Gramma

Mea Culpa, Raymond! You are right about that one! I do have notes from Ruby and my mom at the time though, and the newspapers. I can see which things are wrong in them such as Dartmouth vs New Bedford. I almost think Ruby did that one on purpose. She sure knew the route they took out of Fall River.

Gramma

david was riding a motorcycle in 1892?  i know nothing of the history of motorcycles, but i question it.

but more to the point -- and i'm not interested in being confrontational -- it's just that i've developed my own criteria for what is a "believable" as opposed to an unbelievable solution.

please bear with me and consider my rationale:  your answer to my question of WHY andrew would not tolerate this union fails to meet my test. what you're saying is that andrew disagreed with/had some problems with the lifestyle or bearing of the suitor.  so, is this even unusual?  not at all, i say.  most people have disagreements, dislikes, even EXTREME ones -- with inlaws, and yet typically they find a way to be civil and live with it.

the question of why the boyfriend would find it necessary to destroy the bordens in such a way as to be absolutely sure they would never tell about it is still an unanswered question. 

you suggest an "irresistible impulse" in the boyfriend to murder abby.....then as we complete this logic we find that he reasoned it necessary to kill andrew as well whether he actually desired the second murder or not.

this is not unlike victoria lincoln's absurd theory that lizzie killed andrew to prevent his knowing even though she loved him; with tears streaming down her face, she bashed andrew's skull as well.  lincoln even went so far as to explain that the difference in the number of blows between the two is in the fact that she was killing, secondarily, out of reluctant necessity -- as opposed to the first murder which was a crime of passionate hatred.  the actual difference here can be found in the testimony about the difference between the two skulls (i can source it but i won't unless it's necessary) -- that abby's skull was in fact thicker than andrews.  and in general, the facial bones are easier to hack through than the back of a skull.  my point here is that the murderer accomplished exactly the same thing in both victims -- irregardless of the "number" of blows.  anyway, i digress.

i recognize the insight behind the notion that anyone can be driven to murder under the right circumstances.  but this fact is more like a distraction from our purpose than it is a clarification. 

The question remains:  why was it necessary for lizzie's boyfriend to commit these crimes?  if this was a matter of love, the boyfriend would not have been interested in killing either abby or andrew.  he would have simply taken lizzie with him out of that house and said to them "F*****k you" but the reality of the murders does not show anyone's affection for lizzie -- it shows a  plan to murder the bordens.

it is possible, but i can't accept the probability that lizzie's lover would judge the situation in this way that made it more important for him to kill the bordens than to have lizzie.

again, i ask you -- is there anything about mr. anthony that made his union with lizzie seemingly impossible other than his "style"?  this does not explain the crimes.  something is missing here.  just like something is missing in all the other theories that dispute the legend.  to this day -- the legend of lizzie borden makes more sense than any of the other theories.  yet i have to acquit her just as the jury did.  and her silence does not help. 

the question remains:  can somebody produce evidence that someone else did it while at the same time providing a believable motive?

I had this same question re motorcycles & found this site --

http://www.ianchadwick.com/motorcycles/triumph/time01.html

Looks like the 1st prototype as we know today was built in 1894, but they didn't start selling to the public until 1898.  Plus, this was in Europe.

So, he wouldn't have been a "biker" in 1892, so that has no bearing on any opinion Andrew may or may not have had about him.

Haulover,
"The question remains:  why was it necessary for lizzie's boyfriend to commit these crimes?  if this was a matter of love, the boyfriend would not have been interested in killing either abby or andrew.  he would have simply taken lizzie with him out of that house and said to them "F*****k you" but the reality of the murders does not show anyone's affection for lizzie -- it shows a  plan to murder the bordens."

You are applying today's mores to a time in which you simply didn't do certain things.  Telling Andrew "F*****k you " was not an option then!
Also, have you ever thought he may have wanted a piece of the Borden pie, as small as that piece may have been?
The way I see it ( and that is the key) the first murder was not planned, the second was.

Gramma

Oops, typo! add "not" to the last line!
"The way I see it ( and that is the key) the first murder was not planned, the second was not."

Gramma

OK, I'm going to bed now! Time for Gramma to go nighty night!
I can't even read straight anymore.
Cancel the not! I had it right in the first place!
I think the Laundrymat did me in today. Don't I hate that place!

Gramma

With all due respect.....

Until you can provide some sort of verifiable information, it does remain your "key".  Anyone interested in the Borden case has an opinion.  Including people with what may be seen by most to be "inside information".  Not all of this information automatically qualifies as factual.  Sometimes it does seem you do not wish to become specific enough to impart any acceptable evidence as to your opinions and thoughts. 

I firmly believe, in a case such as this.  Which still initiates wide spread interest over 100 later-- that if someone had documented, provable evidence pointing to a solution, it would have come out long before now. 

I find your links to Lizzie very interesting and valuable.  I want to know A LOT more about her life after the trial.





(Message last edited Feb-20th-04  10:23 PM.)

***You are applying today's mores to a time in which you simply didn't do certain things.  Telling Andrew "F*****k you " was not an option then!
Also, have you ever thought he may have wanted a piece of the Borden pie, as small as that piece may have been? ***

if he loved and wanted lizzie, i'd like to know exactly what stopped him. 

then you insinuate he was a fortune hunter.  that is yet a different solution. 

one of the above may be true.  both are not.

i'm not talking about social mores but human nature. 

i still want to know what necessitated these crimes.

THAT is the question.

Add to the above, how could the first murder be UNplanned?  First, as already mentioned by nj, the location is all wrong for the Victorian age.  If David stormed up the stairs after Abby, we would have prolonged screaming and defensive wounds. And what kind of weapon would he just happen to have in his hand?  He surely didn't stop by to propose just after having purchased a hatchet from the handy hardware man. Second, if David was from a prominent family and trying to make an honest woman of a girl the Bordens probably wanted married off anyway, I can see no reason for Andrew's objection. Third, if David was trying to get Abby to speak for him, that implies an earlier attempt at courtship--but when? Fourth, why would he not provide Lizzie with an alibi? e.g. take her down to Sargent's and let JVM make the discovery. Fifth, why would Bowen perform an abortion on Lizzie in the middle of a murder investigation, and what on earth did he do about THAT bloody mess.  Lizzie's room is supposed to have been spotless when inspected.  Bowen would have had to wash up himself, Lizzie, and her bedclothes, then smuggle out the water and linens past the Keystone Kops. If the abortion was performed at an earlier date, why and where?

I don't mean to be unkind or demeaning here. I do believe that Gertie and Ruby and Gramma and quite a few others believed this story.  Because they wanted to believe it. Because it puts a romantic wash over the whole affair.  Because it permits people to continue to like a woman connected with the most heinous of crimes.  I don't see why Ruby's mother would permit her little girl to eat Borden jellyrolls, but oppose the same girl as an adult to ease the same Borden's final hours. I think RUBY felt guilty and afraid that she was doing wrong in nursing Lizzie.  Perhaps Lizzie gave Ruby the story she needed to hear, the one she wanted to believe.  It may have been Lizzie's last act of kindness: easing the poor woman's conscience by making her believe that her mistress was a victim of circumstance.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll change my mind on this unless overwhelming evidence is brought forward.

--Lyddie

I am not pro or con- I am enjoying the ride.  But you all makes some interesting points- one which popped into my head reading you-all is why would Mr. Cameron let his little daughter go roaring off on a motorcycle with a crazy man he knew had slaughtered 2 people?!

Evening Standard, Nov.22, 1892, 4:

Tuesday, November 22, 1892  Page 4

A NEW THEORY.

Cause of the Delay in Finding an
Indictment.

Belief That Lizzie Borden Had an
Accomplice.

Worker on the Farm May Possibly
Have Been Involved.
.....

[This is a different young man]>>

..."In connection with this mysterious hatchet purchaser comes another young man whose movements have been carefully 'piped' by the Fall River police.  He has visited the Borden house several times since the murder, and on every occasion a police officer has quietly tracked his movements.  Who this person is only the shadowing officer and the principal government officials know."

Would Lizzie's beau visit her home while she was in jail?
Or is this a red-herring, deyathink?

I think the Evening Standard was pro-Lizzie. If no name is given, this rumor can't be challenged.
...
Could this have been a visit from a young lawyer or someone like this?

(Message last edited Feb-21st-04  11:12 AM.)

As I heard it decades ago, "money marries money". Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of man?

Please hold off questions until the story is complete.
Asking now can affect this story.

Perhaps as a chaperone for them? Or a cover to provide a plausible reason for the meeting. "I just took that little girl over because Lizzie asked me to."

So this man worked as a butcher. Did he ever slaughter animals with a hatchet? AR Brown says a hatcet was used to dispatch animals. I know this was done with chickens, as my Grandma often did this over 50 years ago.

That scene in "Cold Mountain" where 'Ruby'? wrings the neck of a rooster may be just symbolic of something?

There was a bicycle craze in 1980s America. I'm sure its likely that motorized bicycles existed. Recalling this decades later could be like reading history backwards, and disremembering things.

Note that New England was the center of the bicycle industry. If you knew people, you could get an early pre-production model for testing.
(MY assumption, of course!)

Quote from David Anthony's obituary, 5 Dec 1924:

"Mr. Anthony was an enthusiastic wheelman and for 40 years had travelled awheel in all kinds of weather, summer and winter, having been a familiar figure. He was a lover of outdoor life and the afternoon of the day he received his injuries that resulted in his death, he had been out sailing."

I guess 40 years would take it back before Lizzie! I wonder if "wheelman" included the peddling type?

Gramma

He was a butcher who worked in a meat market. I do not know if he ever actually killed the animals. The rendering plant (where the animals would have been killed) for this company was north of the city. I used to have the address. Have to look for that one.

Gramma

YES. The "League of American Wheelman" may still be around (foot pedalling bicycles).

There are still a few of these around (see "Vivo Pollo" ads). About 50 years ago you could visit a store, pick out your chicken; then he would take it back, slaughter it (dress it for extra $?), and wrap it in paper. Many from Hispanic countries prefer freshly killed to days old frozen birds. If you ever get a chance to try this, you'd know. Just as fresh baked bread is better, so to is freshly killed (or so they say).

Raymond,
There are enough devils in my life without adding another one of his advocates!!! It is not my intention to convert you. Only to open your minds to some of the things you are not seeing. The case was constructed  to blindside everyone and it has held up for a hundred years. Unless someone starts looking behind the walls nothing new will ever be learned.
There is something else I need to add. Ruby told her story because she was sick of hearing Lizzie was guilty. She told about David Anthony so the real murderer would be know at last. But she never got into the part Lizzie actually played. It is MY thoughts that she actually was a part in the coverup from the beginning. Except for telling me that Lizzie listened for the clip clop of the horse hooves fading in the distance before she called for help Ruby never ventured into the realm of Lizzie's involvement.
However, to me her involvement would explain a lot of things, like the appearance of guilt on her part. If someone is not the perpetrator of a crime but helps hide that crime the guilt carried is about the same level.

Gramma

Here is an interesting site advertising a book but it has some great photos on motorcycle history.
http://americanmotorcyclebook.com/html/reviews_and_comments.html

Gramma

I received 5 articles today from the FRHS.  One, with the headline:
"Tracking down the existence of the mysterious lover, killer", by Kate Boylan, Standard Times, New Bedford, tries to verify details given by Ruby Cameron.
I belive this was written after another article by the same author called "Did Lizzie's beau kill Bordens?" dated Jan. 13, 1985 pg. 1.

In this second  article "Tracking down..." she mentions bicycles etc.

"Although 'bicycle' and 'motorcycle' now refer to entirely different things, the term 'power bike' was at one time used to refer to a bicycle with a motor, according to Collier's Encyclopedia."

"Records show that David was 'driving a bicycle' in Somerset on Nov. 25, 1924, and was critically injured after 'being struck by an auto truck.'  That he was 'driving' the bicycle and 'was thrown' suggest the writer was referring to a motorized bicycle."

David Anthony's obit is included.
From what I gather from these items on Anthony is that he rode bikes all over the place for the joy of it and when motors came out he either adapted his bike to motor or got a motorized bike and that when motorcycles came out he probably had one of those too.

(Message last edited Feb-21st-04  11:11 PM.)

I want to get this stuff on here.
I'll do some Sunday.

Kat,
In the Providence Journal David is pictured standing with his motorcycle. Big picture! Date is January 13, 1985. One of the better pictures of Ruby is also there.

Gramma

Here is another good "first" motorcycle page. I think I remember someone saying the bike in th epicture with David was an Indian but I could not swear to it.
http://www.vf750fd.com/blurbs/first.html

Gramma

Very interesting photos!

I want one!

But I wonder-- Just where on the back of one of those "piglets" did Ruby ride?

Good question Audrey.

Stef came over and set me up with her old (new) computer and I didn't have a chance to do the synopsis of the articles, sorry.
I will soon.
We're not done transferring data.

You're right, Audrey!  None of those bikes before 1915 seem to have any room behind, and I can't see where he could have rigged anything up for a passenger.

--Lyddie

Put me in the back of Lizzie's Lincoln (instead) any day!

After struggling with a dead scanner and then moving my husband's scanner onto my computer, I have been trying to get this picture on for you. You can see there is a place for Ruby to ride on the back. This is THE David Anthony with his motorcycle circa 1913.
Picture taken from:
Providence Journal, January 13, 1985, Section C page C-1

Thanks a bunch!
I have Providence Journal-Bulletin starting from C-2, by Bernie Sullivan.

(Message last edited Feb-24th-04  10:01 PM.)

thank you.

I'm sorry, Gramma, I thought she was supposed to have ridden on an older model at a much earlier date.  We're getting so many new characters and dates, that I for one get pretty confused.  Thank you for the photo!

--Lyddie

Hi Lyddie,
Ruby was born in 1900. The time period she was visiting Maplecroft with David would have been 1908-1914. She said they did it for years but was not very specific other than it began when she was about 8 or 10. If there was a back fender at all people used to attach things so others could ride. Remember there was a lot of "do-it-yourself" in those days.

Gramma

Hi Kat,
Page C-1 of the Providence Journal January 13, 1985 has lovely pictures of Lizzie, David and Ruby all on the same page, as well as the bulk of the article by Bernie Sullivan. He does the comparison of Ruby's story to the facts as he found them on C-1.

Gramma

That helps, Gramma.  I was thinking 1905 at the latest.

--Lyddie

That looks like a box (attache case), not a seat. Unless it is in back of that person.

There are 3 pages of C-2. The second page has a picture of Lizzie and Ruby. Do you have your articles in front of you? I might be only missing Mr. Anthony? Here is page 2 of C-2 What do you think?

Kat,

That is page C-1. It is the front page of the Massachusetts section for January 13, 1985. You are missing the top half of the page which is the header, MASSACHUSETTS, a table of contents box, then David's picture with "A new twist on an old mystery" above it (you can see part of that in my scan).
There is a caption under the picture and then
"Tracking the truth about Lizzie Borden"
"Maine woman tells why she thinks she knows the real killer"
There is a column to the left of your attachment by Bernie Sullivan as well as the one in your attachment, then on page C-2 the article you show is continued under  "Lizzie" "continued from Page C-1"
What don't you have? I'll try to fill in.

Gramma

On the Bernie Sullivan story in the Providence Journal-Bulletin dated January 13, 1985, I have 3 pages.
The first page is headlined:
"Tracking the truth about Lizzie Borden, intersperced with "Maine woman tells why she thinks she knows the real killer".

So that it Looks Like:

Tracking the truth

Maine woman tells why she

about Lizzie Borden

thinks she knows the real killer

There is Sullivan's picture in the lower left, below a short column beginning "I took care of Lizzie for one week" and that column ends with
"Cameron, an 84-year-old retired nurse,".....

There are 2 more columns on my first page, the middle beginning:
"was instantly catapulted from the"...

ending at:
"1873, it was the last sailing vessel built in
Fall River."

The third col. begins:
"But it is David Jr., son of D.M., who,"..

and ends:
" *David Anthony lived in New Bedford" ...

Then the page 2 I showed you, then the third page is 2 six-inch columns ending with:
"I knew the story would incriminate my parents, but the story had to get told,"

I have one page:
Sunday Standard-Times, New Bedford, Mass., January 13, 1985:
"I knew the whole story from an innocent woman"
(which is listed on page 139 of Rebello, as pg. 11 )
__________

"Tracking down the existence of the mysterious lover, killer", by Kate Boylan, Standard-Times Staff Writer.
(Probably dated January 13, 1985, according to Rebello's headlines, pg. 139)
3 pages- combined with a 4th page with Headline "Discrepancies don't totally discredit case"
(listed in Rebello as page 10)
and a final page with this set:
"Obscure David Anthony led a carefree life", By Kate Boylan, Sunday Standard-Times New Bedford, January 13, 198_,
which includes "Here is what was written about Anthony in his obituary of Dec. 5, 1924"

=5 pages
______

"Did Lizzie's beau kill Bordens?"
"New Bedford native says her parents sheltered Fall River ax murderer"
By Kate Boylan, The Standard-Times, New Bedford, Mass., January 13, 1985.
(according to Rebello, this title is page 1- see R139)
There is a picture of Lizzie and on the right a picture of Ruby in her hat.
___________

"She named suitor as the killer, friend says", The Boston Herald, Sunday, January 27, 1985, pg. 119, by Marjorie Howard.
3 pages, with the wrong guy as Andrew on the first page.  That's the guy Jeffery thought might be William Davis.
Also there is a photo of the "Murder Scene", which is #92 Second Street with the Leary Press attached.
2nd page has Ruby 'backlit' and the same old Lizzie picture on the 3rd page.

Here is the OBIT I extracted from the article,  SundayStandard-Times



(Message last edited Feb-26th-04  1:45 PM.)

The most important think about this 1985 story is that it was known when Arnold R Brown began writing his solution to this case. And it was known to Bernie Sullivan and the others in Fall River whose help was acknowledged in Brown's book.

I wish "Gramma" luck in developing this story for publication.

Hi Kat,
Don't know what you got but it is not the same as this and I have the original cut and sent to me by my mother in 1985. I am attaching the part that was continued on C-2. It is the only Lizzie stuff on C-2. All the rest is on the front page of the Massachusetts section, C-1.

Gramma

Boy, that is a really lousy image. Sorry about that!

Gramma

I see what was done when this was copied.
The first page is missing the very top, as you point out.  Then part of the second page is copied on the front so the second page would not be too wide.
I wondered when I first saw these copies at how cleanly they were done.  Newspapers were huge and the last time someone copied one for me they did it in sections which I had to put together like a puzzle!
This is much better looking and more coherent, but the pages are not strictly adhereing to the original form.

Sunday Standard Times, Fall River edition, January 13, 1985

Only 3 pages here!
Page 1
Headlined "Did Lizzie's beau kill Bordens?"
ends with:
"According to Miss Cameron, her mother "turned on the gas" and committed suicide. (Please turn to Page 10)

Page 10 is a full six column spread with the continuation of the Ruby/Lizzie article and Headlined "Beau, not Lizzie, axed parents, family friend says".
That article ends mid-page with:
"....and a doctorate in biochemistry." (Please turn to Page 11)
The rest of Page 10 is the article about David Anthony, "Obscure David Anthony led a carefree life" and a two column article,"Tracking down the existence of the mysterious lover, killer" that closes the page.

Page 11
Begins with
Headline "Discrepancies don't totally discredit case" and also has a box to the right headlined "I knew the whole story from an innocent woman"

Gramma

The Boston Herald  Sunday, January 27, 1985
3 pages

Pages 16-17
Full two page spread.
Split headline, half on pg 16, half on pg 17
"LIZZIE BORDEN CASE / TAKES BIZARRE TURN"
Page ends with
"...evidence is not on her side"  "Turn to next page"

Page 18
Headline at top: "Ruby Cameron: She speaks her mind"
Continuation of page 17:
Headlined "Lizzie Borden: The Murders, the trial, and the aftermath"

There are pictures interspersed

Gramma

That is pretty much what was sent me.
Mine are in 2 sections, but all 7 pages are by Kate Boylan.

BTW:  Yesterday as I was writing the name Kate Boylan, that name "Boylan" came on the local news.
I had posted the "kleptomaniac, drunk" letter also and right after, the news, doing a story on local gangs of shoplifters, had a secuirty guard on to give a sound byte and he mentioned "an old lady kleptomaniac who stole fishing lures."
He had let her go with a warning.
I thought, "This is weird.  I don't come across kleptomaniacs very often and now I am inundated!"

Sounds like a local cross between Lizzie and Margaret.
(Lizzie would want those fishing lures) 

This doesn't seem to be one I have.  Mine starts bold, "She named suitor as the killer, friend says."  p119, 121 and last page not numbered- same date, 3 pages, and the phoney Andrew picture, the house, a snaggley back-lit Ruby and ye 'ole pic of Lizzie

well, you know she was an enthusiastic angler!

Please check the Privy for the 1971 Boston Globe spin on the Borden case and the Trickey-McHenry fiasco.
http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=8&topid=51&ut=1010548337

What you have is a subhead.
The page numbers are 16, 17, and 18. Now, page 119 is attached to 18 but is the Automotive section. Backside of that is 120 and is car classifieds.That meets against 121, car ads, but that is backed by 122, more car ads, and tht is attached to page 15, the backside of 16 and we are back to the beginning again! Confused? Must have been a whole lot of pages in there between!

Gramma

See Pearson, Trial of Lizzie Borden, pg. 45+

"At the first news of the Borden murders, a private detective of Providence, named Edwin D. McHenry, who was at the time in New York, rushed to Fall River and began to make investigations. He was retained by nobody, but was moved purely by professional enthusiasm. The day of his arrival, so  he said, he was engaged by City Marshal Hilliard to continue his studies, and to "take care of a Pinkerton man" who was in the city.

Mr McHenry had an old friend, associate and occasional enemy, in the person of a reporter for the Boston Globe, with the incredibly apt name of Trickey. Together they had investigated other notorious murder case's and made two stories grow for
the newspapers, where no one else could find even one.

During the dull weeks that now elapsed between the hearing in the District Court and the meeting of the Grand jury, newspapers and their readers were voracious for news, or, failing that, for gossip. Especially had many of the writers moaned and wrung their hands over the f act that there seemed to be so little in this crime to attract the sixteen-year-old reader, to whose taste and intelligence sensational journalism is directed. There was nothing amorous in the case, and this was a shocking state of affairs. It did not penetrate the minds of these folk that the crime passionel is sometimes a stupid, bungling affair, totally lacking in mystery and in the niceties of light and shade which make a murder interesting. Many of the best murders are committed, not for the hot passion of love, but for the colder one of avarice. In the 1890's, people did not use the word 'sex' as an all-embracing term, but they knew what 'love interest' was---and panted for it.*

During September Mr Trickey and Detective McHenry brought out their colors and began to paint the lily. The exact share of blame to be assigned to each, in the affair which followed, can never be determined. When it came to an end, they abused each other like fishwives. The detective's own description of "the stuff I sold Mr Trickey", and its preparation, leaves him far from unspotted, but Mr Trickey has usually been considered the greater liar of the two.

Over the signature of Henry G. Trickey, the Boston Globe, October 10, 1892, printed 'Lizzie Borden's Secret', an article beginning with three columns on the front page, and with ten more columns in the inside of the paper. Mr Trickey gilded the refined gold of the Borden case with a tale of which it would be rash to assert that it contained six lines of truth.

Beginning with the outrageous statement that the Government had twenty-five new witnesses, in addition to those examined before Judge Blaisdell, the reporter led
_______________________________________________________________________
(22) Some of the more preposterous Borden legends were invented at this time excursions into imaginary regions of psychapathia sexualis. The chronicler of murders soon learns to view with suspicion the person who possesses information It which never came out", "inside stuff", "the straight dope" about a case. Not nine times, but ten times out of ten this proves to be sexual scandal of the most doubtful authenticity, and, whether true or not, utterly without any bearing upon the case.
____________________

out a procession of affidavit makers called 'John H. Murphy', 'Mrs Gustave F. Ronald', 'Peter Mahany', 'Mr and Mrs Frederick Chace', 'Mrs Abigail Manchester', 'Mr G. Romaine Pittson' and others. Mr Trickey had something of Defoe's ingenuity in inventing names---for all of these persons were fictitious. They had- plausible addresses: '89 Eight Rod Way'; or '14 Dey Street, New York, residing at 108 East 126th St., in that city'; or 'the second Queen Anne cottage on the street below Rhodes' pavilion on the right hand side of Broad St., Pawtuxet, Rhode Island.'

The imaginary Murphy was to tell of seeing Miss Lizzie, at the time of her father's return, peering cautiously through the blinds in the room where Mrs Borden lay dead. Mrs Ronald, who dwelt in the Queen Anne cottage in Pawtuxet, had wheeled her baby's carriage through Second Street, in time to hear a dreadful groan and see Miss Borden in the guestchamber, her hair covered with a rubber cap. 'Peter Mahany' sauntered along at a moment which enabled him to corroborate Mrs Ronald up to the hilt. Probably 'Mr and Mrs Frederick Chace' had the best luck of all, for while they missed joining the group who all but witnessed the murders., it was their happy chance to call upon the Bordens the evening before. Here they overheard a loud quarrel between Mr Borden and his younger daughter, during which the old gentleman exclaimed:

'I will know the name of the man who got you into trouble !'

Here at last was something for the newspapers to set their teeth in. Here was the emergence of 'Lizzie's lover'---that desirable being, whose failure to exist was making a thousand editors and reporters bite their nails in bitter despair.

Recriminations, threats and counter threats followed. With Miss Borden's lawyer,  Mr Jennings, was now associated an attorney of Boston, Melvin O. Adams, Esq.  He is said to have visited the office of the Globe, rumbling ominously of suits for gigantic damages. A prosecution for libel, however, would have been inconvenient for everybody, and General Taylor, of the Globe, pointed out reasons why an apology and retraction might be found satisfactory. The slice of humble pie on which the Globe breakfasted, October 12, took the form of an abject apology in the most conspicuous place in the paper. The Globe, it said, had been 'grievously misled.' Its 'heartfelt apology' was extended to Miss Borden and to her uncle. (Mr Morse had been implicated, as an accessory engaged in the suppression of evidence.)

Trickey had also been busily tampering with a Government witness-he tried to induce Bridget Sullivan to leave the country. He was indicted by a Grand Jury and fled to Canada, where, soon afterwards, he was killed by a railway train. It may be imagined that the Reverend Messrs Buck and Jubb exchanged solemn nods of comprehension at this, and quoted appropriate texts to the effect that the judgments of the Lord are righteous altogether.

The name of Detective McHenry was conspicuous through-out Mr Trickey's novelette. While Mrs McHenry, clad in black as guarantee of respectability, was going up and down the earth, ferreting out information, Mr McHenry was engaged, in Fall River, in the most active snoopery. He said that he managed to crawl under the couch or bed in Miss Lizzie's room at the police station, and, while rather cramped for space, nevertheless overheard conversations which repaid him for his trouble. He seems to have been easily repaid, for all he heard were a few unctuous utterances from the lady's spiritual comforters, and her request to her sister to take back two biscuits left from luncheon and have them warmed over for supper.

In this year, 1892, the fame of Mr Sherlock Holmes was beginning to resound throughout the world. To the youthful readers of the Boston Globe, the piffling discoveries of Detective McHenry, smothering his sneezes under Miss Borden's bed, must have contrasted painfully with the exploits of the mighty Sherlock, during the creepy adventure of the Speckled Band, or while forestalling the schemes of the Red-headed League.

The exploit of the reporter and the detective was shameful, but, rather than working any harm to Miss Borden, my surmise is that it strengthened her cause. If such tales as these were false, many people may have argued, might not everything said against her be equally false?

The reference of mythical Mrs Ronald to the rubber cap worn by the woman at her deadly work in the upper room, was an offshoot of the theory that the murderer of the Bordens had the foresight to wear a waterproof garment, or 'gossamer ', as a protection against the shower of drops of blood which were supposed to have fallen at every swing of the hatchet. About three thousand persons conceived the idea of the 'gossamer', or waterproof cloak, and nearly all of them wrote a letter about it to the District Attorney. "